CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00269612 and NY00272726)...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00269612 and NY00272726) conducted on 6/1/21- 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #93 and #141) reviewed.
Specifically,
- Resident #93, who had intact cognition and a diagnosis of quadriplegia (paralysis), sustained burns from food/beverages on multiple occasions. On 1/2/21, the resident microwaved soup and spilled it on their leg causing a 9.5 by 5.5 centimeter second-degree burn, which is currently a non-healing wound. On 1/9/21, Resident #93 microwaved a beverage and spilled it, sustaining a cluster of blisters on their abdomen. On 4/27/21, staff microwaved soup and provided it to Resident #93, who was lying in bed; the resident spilled the soup on their abdomen, sustaining a 12 by 26 centimeter second-degree burn. The facility did not have a policy addressing safely re-heating foods. Staff interviewed were not able to state a policy for ensuring food was re-heated to safe temperatures. Two staff members were observed microwaving foods/beverages for residents. Thermometers are not available on the units for staff to monitor the temperatures of the food. The provider's failure to prevent burns caused by foods and drinks microwaved to unsafe temperatures placing 144 residents at immediate risk to their health and safety. This resulted in actual harm that was Immediate Jeopardy/Substandard Quality of Care to resident Health and Safety for Resident #93 and Immediate Jeopardy to the facility's other 144 resident (including Resident #141).
Findings include:
The facility's Microwave Oven - Operational Procedures (undated) documented a procedure for operating a microwave and documented microwaves could be used by both residents and staff. The policy did not address temperatures that food should be heated to or how long to microwave food/beverages.
1) Resident #93 had diagnoses including quadriplegia due to C6-C7 spinal fracture (paralysis). The 1/16/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, required extensive assistance from 1 person for most activities of daily living (ADL), required supervision and physical assistance from one person for eating, had no functional limitation in range of motion in either upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand), had functional limitation in range of motion in both lower extremities and used a wheelchair.
The comprehensive care plan (CCP), initiated 2/22/19 and revised on 5/7/19, documented the resident had nutrition/hydration problems and an ADL self-care deficit related to quadriplegia. Interventions included occupational therapy (OT) to screen and provide adaptive equipment for feeding as needed. The CCP did not include specific recommendations for adaptive eating equipment. The resident required the assistance of 1 person for personal hygiene and oral care and the resident's eating ability was not addressed in the CCP.
The resident was hospitalized [DATE]-[DATE] with a diagnosis of a closed left hip fracture.
The 12/23/20 Admission/re-admission assessment documented the resident returned from the hospital at 4 PM and the following skin findings/conditions were noted: a healing burn to the chest that measured 2.5 centimeters (cm) X 0.6 cm, and a healing burn to the abdomen measuring 4 cm x 2.8 cm.
The OT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment with a start of care date of 12/24/20 documented the resident required set-up assistance with feeding. The resident's range of motion in both upper extremities was impaired due to quadriplegia. The resident had impairments in fine and gross motor coordination resulting in limitations and/or participation restrictions in the area of self-care, mobility and general tasks and demands. Due to physical impairments and associated functional deficits, the resident was at risk for further decline in function and increased dependency upon caregivers. There was no documentation of the resident's requirement for adaptive feeding equipment.
The 12/30/20 [NAME] (care instruction) documented staff were to inspect the resident's skin weekly, the resident needed set-up by staff for meals, received a regular diet, and used a lipped plate and sip cup.
The 1/2/21 at 9:29 PM, RN #25's progress note documented they were called to the resident's room to evaluate the resident's left ankle because it looked burned. The resident stated they spilled their soup they had heated in the microwave. The plan was to have the skin team evaluate the resident. There was no documented evidence of a skin assessment completed by the RN.
The 1/2/21 Accident and Incident report documented while staff were providing care to the resident, they noticed a large intact blister to the inner left ankle. The resident stated they spilled soup on their pant leg and due to lack of sensation they were not aware of the burn. The resident was to be evaluated by OT for microwave safety, dietary was to provide lidded cups, and the resident was educated about requesting assistance from staff for all microwave use.
OT #23's progress note dated 1/6/21 did not address the resident's ability to safely use a microwave.
The 1/9/21 at 10:02 PM RN #25's progress note documented the RN was asked to go the resident's room. Upon entering the resident was at the sink and asked the nurse to look at their stomach and mid-abdomen, there was a burn mark with peeling skin. The resident stated the spout to their teacup spilled. The resident noted their shirt was wet but did not think anything happened. The DON (Director of Nursing) was made aware and medical and family were notified.
OT #23's progress note dated 1/13/21 documented the resident was educated on the risks of carrying hot liquids and ways to improve safety with task and was encouraged to wear clothing protectors provided by staff and ask for assistance to transport hot mugs to prevent burns.
There was no documentation the resident's CCP was revised to include lidded cups or microwave use.
There was no documented evidence the CCP was reviewed or revised with a plan of care to prevent further burns following the identification of the burn on 1/9/21.
The 4/6/21 Braden Scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk documented the resident's sensory perception was slightly limited which limited the resident's ability to feel pain or discomfort. The resident was at high risk for pressure ulcers.
The 4/27/21 Accident/Incident Investigation and Root Cause- Injury of Unknown Origin and Initial Wound Assessment documented the resident sustained a burn that was a cluster of blisters and redness on the chest and abdomen measuring 26 cm x 12 cm. The physician was notified and ordered bacitracin (antibiotic ointment) and dry dressing cover twice daily to the wound. The resident stated they were eating soup while lying down. Interventions included to encourage the resident to wear a clothing protector while eating, position upright when eating, and provide lidded tops to all hot beverages and foods.
The 4/29/21 OT progress note documented the OT was asked to discuss the resident's recent burn from spilling hot soup. The resident used a plastic microwavable mug with lock lid. Staff microwaved for the resident according to directions. The resident was agreeable to have staff microwave the food for less time so that soup was still hot but not scalding. The resident was not able to lift the mug with the lid to drink due to poor grip and decreased dexterity. The resident was to utilize clothing protectors and staff were to microwave for less time to prevent burns.
There was no documented evidence the CCP was revised to include the OT recommendations from 4/29/21.
On 5/21/21, the CCP was revised to include the resident may not use the microwave.
The 5/22/21 at 9:45 PM licensed practical nurse (LPN) #37 nursing progress note documented the resident asked staff to warm up soup in the microwave. Resident #93 then proceeded to remove the hot liquid from the microwave without waiting for staff to assist. The resident was educated on the importance of waiting for assistance.
During an interview on 6/1/21 at 10:30 AM, Resident #93 stated they sustained a burn to the chest and upper abdomen from tomato soup. They stated the burn happened because of a late return to the facility from an appointment. The resident returned after dinner and was hungry, so they asked the CNA to warm up some soup. The resident refused the clothing protector because they were eager to eat. They explained they were a quadriplegic and very shaky at times. When they put the soup up to their mouth, the hot soup dripped on their abdomen.
During an interview on 6/2/21 at 11:40 AM, while observing lunch tray pass, CNA#34 stated staff were not trained in reheating food. CNA #34 stated they microwave food 30 seconds to one minute. There were no probe thermometers available for use.
The [NAME], dated 6/3/21, documented the resident required set-up only to eat and received a regular diet with thin liquids and a lipped plate. There was no documentation the resident required any adaptive feeding equipment (cup or bowl) or assistance with the microwave.
During an interview on 6/3/21 at 9:15 AM, CNA #27 stated they were usually assigned to the resident in the evening and they recalled the resident went to the hospital for a test or procedure in 4/2021 and when the resident returned, they were hungry. The resident had a lot of canned food in their room. CNA #27 heated up a can of soup for the resident in a container that clicked locked on both sides. CNA #27 stated it was the resident's personal container which was a cup with a handle on the side. CNA #27 followed the heating instructions on the soup can and warmed it for about 2-3 minutes. CNA #27 stated they were not trained on how to heat food to safe temperatures. That night, the resident ate in their room sitting up in bed. The resident had a shirt on but refused a clothing protector. CNA #27 stated they often microwaved food for residents when it arrived cold from the kitchen.
During an interview on 6/03/21 at 9:45 AM, with CNA #28, they stated food was warmed in the microwave all the time and they were not sure how to tell if the temperature was safe. The CNA stated they could not recall warming up food for any residents, but there were microwaves available on all units.
During an interview on 6/03/21 at 11:37 AM with RN Manager #22 they stated they thought the burns the resident sustained to the abdomen in 12/2020 were from spilling hot tea on themselves. On 1/2/21, the resident sustained a burn to the left ankle and thought it was from soup or tea. RN Manager #22 stated the resident had been using the microwave independently. The resident refused clothing protectors, would not allow staff to apply lids to soup containers and/or hot drinks and the resident would remove the lids.
The 6/3/21 lunch meal ticket for Resident #93 documented a Lip Plate and a regular diet. There was no documentation that the resident required covered mugs, or covered soup bowls or any adaptive feeding equipment.
During an interview on 6/03/21 at 12:59 PM, Resident #93 stated the night they burned their chest (4/29/21) they were not wearing a shirt because they asked to be helped into bed after their outside appointment. The resident stated at the time the facility dishwasher was broken and they were given a plastic spoon which did not work well with their palm assistant because the plastic spoon was too short. The resident stated the soup must have dripped on their stomach. The resident explained they also warmed up tea in the microwave and when placing the hot tea on the wheelchair footrest, it spilled, and they burned themself. On 06/03/21 at 7:17 PM Resident #93 was observed with an empty green soup cup/mug on their lap. They stated this was not the mug they used all the time. They explained the cover on the mug was really clamped down and used for soup because it had a vent in it, and they had ordered it online. They stated they could use the facility mug. They stated when they used the mug for soup, they did not use the lid and they sustained the burns when using the soup mug without a lid. They were not wearing a shirt or clothing protector and the soup dripped off the spoon when using the facility mug and they were burned.
During an interview on 6/03/21 at 2:57 PM with OT #23, they stated the resident used to use the wheelchair footrest to carry things between their feet when going back and forth to the microwave. OT #23 stated in 12/20, the resident had a blue cup and would put it on their la or rest it on the footrest and the cup tipped and spilled. The interdisciplinary team determined the resident was unable to safely manage use of the microwave therefore staff were going to heat foods up for the resident. Routinely, staff would heat the food up for the resident. The resident bought their own large mug with a handle and locked top containers for soup and drinks. OT #23 stated they thought the resident was using these. The OT recalled it was recommended the staff not heat foods up to burning hot. They stated they had not recommended any adaptive equipment, as the resident already uses the universal cuff (gives persons with limited grip or dexterity controlled use of items such as eating utensils and writing tools). The OT did recommend the resident not transport the hot food items and should be at a table or sitting up in a chair because the resident had a poor grip. The OT stated they recommend a clothing protector if eating in bed and to wear a shirt because the resident was prone to spilling what they were consuming. The resident bought the bowl and the cup, the OT did not recommend them, but stated they thought the items were safe. The OT stated it was safe for the resident to eat in their room alone. The resident was cognitively intact but needed to be in the best position and use adaptive equipment such as the blue mug for hot tea at night. The OT stated they were asked to do a microwave safety assessment for the resident in April 2021, and recommended the resident not warm up foods independently because of the lack of sensation and lack of grip. The OT stated the resident's current meal ticket did not document anything about the bowl or mug. There was no documentation for the nursing staff to know how to transfer the hot liquids into the large handled mug with the lid, or the shallow bowl with the lock top. The resident had cans of soup in their room that they had staff warm the soup up at night. The OT stated the care plan should be updated with OT recommendations. When these details are on the care plan, the aides will see it on the [NAME] and would need to check that task off as part of their care. The OT stated the resident care plan should have documented no use of the microwave by the resident.
During an interview on 6/03/21 at 3:55 PM RN Manager #22 stated the resident came back from the hospital on [DATE]. When the readmission assessment was completed it was noted the resident had burns to the abdomen and chest. There was no documentation the burns had been previously reported. RN Manager #22 and the DON were not aware the resident had burns prior to the hospitalization because there was no documentation about the burns on the abdomen and chest. They recalled an incident on 1/2/21 when the resident burned their left foot with hot soup. The resident warmed up soup in the microwave in the kitchenette at around 9:00 PM and spilled the soup on themself when getting the soup out of the microwave. The resident had their own personal cup with a lid and had a big handle mug they would pour the can of soup into and warm up. An incident report was completed on 1/2/21 and it was immediately decided the resident needed to be educated about not using the microwave without supervision. The RN stated the microwave was still on the unit. On 1/9/21, the resident burned their abdomen heating up a drink in the microwave after being told not do so without assistance. On 4/29/21 the resident sustained a burn to the chest and abdomen from hot soup that a staff member microwaved for the resident in the unit dining room/ kitchen area. The RN Manager #22 confirmed the resident's care plan did not include the resident's personal dishes and/or personal food and it should have. They stated the care plan updates the [NAME] for the care and tasks to be completed by the CNA. Food that needs to be warmed up should be sent to the kitchen. The RN Manager #22 stated the CNAs did not have a way to check temperatures of microwaved items. The resident currently had a locked lid shallow bowl and a blue big handle mug. The RN Manager #22 stated the resident was able to remove the lids and did not use the bowl and mug in a safe or appropriate manner.
During a telephone interview on 6/03/21 at 5:59 PM, attending physician #26 stated they were not familiar with the resident, as they started as their provider in the beginning of 4/21. After review of the burn incident, they stated it seemed as if the resident was not doing well with the hot liquids and may need to be reevaluated to ensure that the resident is safe Physician #26 stated the resident did not appear to be capable of feeding themself safely. Staff needed to know how to check food temperatures for safety with hot food.
During an interview on 6/3/21 at 6:30 PM, RN Manager #22 stated they talk to the resident in the past about their safety concerns, but the resident refused to use a clothing protector. The resident did not feel the burns were significant. The care plan documented their noncompliance but did not include the resident's need for adaptive dishes and assistance with microwaving foods.
During an interview with the DON on 6/3/21 at 4:10 PM they stated the resident had spilled coffee and soup on themself and all incidents had been investigated. They offered clothing protectors and heat resistant pads and the resident refused those items. They stated safety lids and containers were also attempted but the resident had taken the lids off. The resident received extensive education on different occasions about food preparation safety. The resident purchased their own type of lids because they preferred the way the lid went on and came off. Assistive devices should be listed under the dietary care plan. The microwave was removed temporarily when the resident had first spilled hot liquid, but other residents also used it, so it was returned, and the resident had not been using it when it was returned.
The 6/4/21 electronic communication from the facility Administrator documented there was no investigation related to the burn observed in December 2020 when the resident returned from the hospital.
2) Resident #141 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), oxygen dependence, and anxiety. The 2/5/21 Minimum Data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and independent with activities of daily living (ADL). The resident required set-up assistance for eating.
The 6/4/19 physician's order documented a regular diet, regular texture, thin liquids.
The 2/26/18 comprehensive care plan (CCP) updated 3/5/21 documented the resident had potential/actual skin impairment to left third finger related to a self-inflicted burn from a hot microwave meal. Interventions included identify cause of skin impairment and eliminate, follow facility protocols for treatment of injury, monitor size, location, document, notify the physician of failure to heal, signs and symptoms of infection, resident agrees to ask for assistance when heating food in the microwave, verbalizes complete understanding (safety), Silvadene treatment until healed.
The 4/14/20 [NAME] (care instructions) documented the resident required set-up help for eating.
The 3/4/21 at 1:06 AM, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #42's progress note documented they were told by the resident at 12:55 AM, the resident had a fluid filled blister on their left third finger. The blister measured 3.6 centimeters (cm) X 1.0 cm. The resident reported they had a CNA (not identified) heat up noodles in a Styrofoam cup in the microwave. When the resident grabbed the cup, some of the water got on their finger. The resident put cold water on it right away. The Supervisor was notified. Skin prep (a clear protective liquid film) was applied.
The 3/4/21 Accident and Incident report completed at 1:14 AM by LPN #42, documented the resident sustained a 3.6 cm x 1.0 cm burn to their third left finger. Skin prep was applied. The CCP documented staff would heat items in the microwave. The resident accidentally spilled hot water on their finger and was educated to wait to let the food cool. The probable cause of the accident was identified as accidental, education provided to allow items to cool. The CNA assigned was CNA #43.
The 3/5/21 at 12:32 PM registered nurse (RN) Manager #40's progress note documented that per nurse practitioner (NP) #12, start treatment with Silvadene cream and monitor until healed, care plan involved staff heating food in microwave to avoid injury, resident agrees. The progress note did not document what was to be treated with Silvadene cream.
The CCP initiated 3/5/21 documented the resident had impairment in skin integrity of the left hand 3rd finger related to a burn from a hot microwave meal accidentally self-inflicted. The CCP was updated on 3/9/21 to include the resident agreed to ask for assistance when heating up items in the microwave.
The wound assessment, effective 3/9/21, documented the resident had a self-inflicted burn on the left third finger measuring 3.6 x 1 x 0 cm, no odor, slight inflammation. The wound was discovered on 3/4/21 and the provider and family were notified on 3/5/21. Treatment was for Silvadene cream with dry sterile dressing (DSD); wound team to see, care plan updated to ask for help with microwave.
The 3/9/21 at 3:41 PM RN Manager #40 progress note documented the resident's wound was healed, Silvadene treatment discontinued.
The 3/9/21 Director of Nursing (DON) accident summary (for the 3/4/21 incident) documented the resident was independent once in their electric wheelchair and made their own decisions. The resident went to the kitchenette in their wheelchair and heated up a container of noodles. When they returned to their room, they opened the lid and drops of water spilled onto their finger. The resident immediately ran cold water on it. Initially there was nothing there, then at 12:00 AM, the resident noticed the blister and notified the LPN. The resident had no prior known concerns with the microwave. The resident was educated to let the staff microwave and open the food items to prevent reoccurrence and the resident understood.
When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 2:41 PM, RN Manager #40 stated they recalled the resident's burn. They treated the burn with Silvadene cream, and it healed within a week. At that time, the resident was alert. They warmed up something in the microwave and it was common for the resident to go in the kitchen and heat up food. The microwave sat on the counter at the height of the resident's chest. Prior to the burn, there had been no second thoughts regarding the resident using the microwave. The resident was then care planned to ask for assistance when heating food in the microwave and verbalized understanding.
When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 8:56 AM, LPN #42 stated Resident #141 was alert and had no difficulty using their hands or manipulating their wheelchair. The resident used the kitchenette often and LPN #42 never questioned their ability to use the microwave. The resident notified staff if they needed help but would take hot foods back to their room. The resident placed their cup of noodles in a bowl and held the bowl with one hand on the outer part of the armrest and used their other hand to drive their electric wheelchair. They stated the resident did not tell LPN #42 if the burn happened in the kitchenette or in their room, or if a CNA had cooked the noodles for them. The blister was fluid filled but the skin was intact. LPN #42 was not sure if the facility went over any staff training about hot foods. Dietary used to check the temperature of the hot coffee, but LPN #42 had not seen them do that recently. LPN #42 stated there used to be a thermometer on the unit but did not know what happened to it.
When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 9:16 AM, CNA #43 stated the resident was self-sufficient and would ring if they needed anything. CNA #43 stated it was not common for the resident to use the microwave themself. The resident kept food in their room and asked if they needed something warmed up but had never asked the CNA to heat anything. CNA #43 stated, they did not recall the resident getting burned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/4/21 based upon the following:
- All microwaves were removed from each units and staff breakrooms. The ability to warm food up was prohibited until dietary staff arrive in the AM. There was not hot food available from 9:00 PM until 5:00 AM.
- Eighty percent of staff were educated regarding the removal of microwaves and all food would be heated up by food service staff only until all nursing staff and dietary employees have been educated on safe food heating methods.
10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #84) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #84 had a change in condition including a swollen tongue and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) that was not addressed timely.
Findings include:
The 4/2007 Change in a Resident's Condition or Status facility policy documented the facility will notify the resident, the attending physician, and the representative of changes in the resident's mental/medical condition and/or status. A significant change of condition is a decline or improvement in the resident's status that will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease related clinical interventions.
Resident #84 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, restricted breathing), dialysis dependent kidney disease, and erosive arthritis (inflammation of joints of the hand). The 4/28/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance of one or two staff for activities of daily living (ADLs), received scheduled pain medications and had no complaints of difficulty or pain with swallowing.
The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 10/22/20 documented the resident had risk for pain related to their disease processes. Interventions included anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaint of pain. Notify the physician if interventions are unsuccessful or if current complaint is a significant change from the resident's experience of pain.
The 5/8/21 at 11:03 AM registered nurse supervisor (RNS) #24 progress note documented the resident complained of severe pain in their mouth, gums, tongue, and throat. Their tongue was red and very enlarged, and the resident was having some dysphagia (difficult swallowing) and difficulty speaking. Vital signs (VS) were checked, their temperature was 101.1 Fahrenheit (F); the resident requested Norco (opioid pain reliever) which was given with 500 milligrams (mg) of Tylenol for the elevated temp. The resident complained of dyspnea (difficult breathing) as well. The temperature was rechecked at 10:30 AM and was 100.1 F. The on-call provider was called, and they did not speak with a nurse practitioner (NP). There was no return call at that time. RNS #24 would continue to monitor for any increased signs of dyspnea and dysphagia. The resident's tongue looked larger than it did an hour ago. They spoke with the resident regarding transfer to an acute facility and the resident requested to go to a local hospital.
The 5/2021 medication administration record (MAR) documented the resident was given 1000 milligrams (mg) of Tylenol at 8:54 AM on 5/8/21 by RNS #24 for a temperature of 101.1 F.
The 5/8/21 at 3:51 PM RNS #25 progress note documented they were told the resident's tongue and throat were swollen. The NP was called, and had a video conference with the resident; a new order was received to send to the local hospital the resident chose.
The 5/8/21 Resident Notice of Transfer documented the resident was transferred on 5/8/21 at 3:57 PM to a local hospital.
There was no physician or NP telehealth note, dictation, or scanned document in the record for the video visit on 5/8/21 referenced by the RNS #25's 5/8/21 progress note. A copy was requested on 6/8/21 at 2:03 PM by email and again on 6/9/21. At the time of survey exit the form was not available.
On 6/9/21 at 8:55 AM, a call was made to the on-call provider service requesting a return call; none was received prior to survey exit.
The 5/9/21 hospital history and physical (H&P) documented the resident was transferred from another local hospital for an Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) evaluation. The resident began having pain in their gums, tongue and anterior (front) part of the neck on the morning of 5/8/21 and noticed some tongue swelling which was sudden in onset and progressively worsening and the resident had a fever of 101 F. The resident was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).
The 5/14/21 hospital discharge (DC) summary documented the resident was diagnosed with sialadenitis (inflammation and enlargement of one or more salivary glands.) associated with pain, tenderness, and gradual localized swelling of the area.
When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 3:16 PM, Resident #84 stated their tongue began to swell and they felt like there was something under their tongue. They had been watching their television (TV) the night of 5/7/21 when they noticed a difference in their tongue but never told anyone at that time. They told the first nurse that came in their room on the morning of 5/8/21. The resident was not seen by the NP on the TV thing. The resident stated the tongue itself was swollen, not painful but there was a sore under the tongue that was very painful. The resident was not aware that they had a high temperature.
When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 4:02 PM, RNS #25 stated they work both as a supervisor and on a medication cart when they worked on the weekends. On weekends, they had a telehealth on-call provider service and they were able to call the service at any time. They stated if they were not able to reach the provider, they would call their administration and just send the resident to the hospital for an evaluation without waiting. At the time of the resident's tongue swelling RNS #25 was given a shift report from RNS #24 for the 3:00 PM shift. RNS #25 immediately went to see the resident, called the on-call provider, and completed a telehealth visit. The resident's tongue was swollen but the resident could talk and was breathing ok. They were not sure what was going on or if the resident was having an allergic reaction of some kind. The decision was made to transfer the resident to the hospital.
When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 10:12 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility had the ability to do a telehealth session 24 hours a day/7 days a week and had on-call provider coverage by phone or telehealth on the weekends. If there was any question regarding the resident's condition, the nurse was to call or call emergency medical services (911) if the situation was urgent. RNS #24 had notified them that they were waiting for the on-call service to call back. The DON was notified by RNS #24 of the resident's change in condition in the afternoon on 5/8/21 and did not believe this was timely. The DON stated there was a definite need to have the resident evaluated for a swollen tongue. The DON expected the supervisor to have the resident evaluated right away. RNS #25 later notified the DON the resident was transferred to the hospital in the afternoon of 5/8/21.
10NYCRR 415.12
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review during a recertification survey conducted from 6/1/2021 to 6/9/2021, the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review during a recertification survey conducted from 6/1/2021 to 6/9/2021, the facility did not ensure that residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #52 and #80) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #52 and #80 had significant weight loss and were not reassessed timely by clinical nutrition staff and there was no documented evidence the medical provider was made aware of the weight loss when it occurred.
Findings include:
The undated facility policy Weight Assessment and Intervention documents any weight change of 5% or more since the last weight assessment will be taken again the next day for confirmation. If the weight is verified, nursing staff will immediately notify the Dietitian in writing. Verbal communication must be confirmed in writing. The Dietitian will respond within 24 hours (hrs) of receipt of written notification. The Dietitian will review the unit Weight Record by the 15th of the month to follow individual weight trends over time. Negative trends will be evaluated by the treatment team whether or not the criteria for significant weight change has been met. The threshold for significant unplanned and undesirable weight loss is:
- At 1 month a 5% loss is significant and, greater than 5% loss is severe.
- A 3 months a 7.5% loss is significant and, greater than 7.5% is severe.
- At 6 months a 10% loss is significant and, greater than 10% is severe.
The assessment information shall be analyzed by the multidisciplinary team. The Physician and multidisciplinary team will identify conditions and medications that maybe causing anorexia, weight loss, or increasing the risk of weight loss. The Dietitian will discuss undesirable weight loss with resident or family.
The undated facility policy Nutritional Assessment documents the dietitian, in conjunction with nursing staff and healthcare practitioner, will conduct a nutritional assessment for each resident upon admission and as indicated by a change in condition that places the resident at risk for impaired nutrition.
The undated facility policy Physician Services documents the medical care of each resident is under the supervision of a licensed physician. The resident's attending physician participates in the resident's assessment and care planning, monitoring changes in resident's medical status, and providing consultation or treatment when called by the facility.
1) Resident #80 was admitted with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side, anorexia (loss of appetite) and COVID-19 in February 2021. The 4/26/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, required supervision and set-up at meals, and had a significant unplanned weight loss of 5% or greater at one month or 10% or greater at six months.
The June 2021 physician orders documented the resident was to receive a regular consistency, no concentrated sweet (NCS) diet.
The undated certified nurse aide (CNA) [NAME] (care instructions) documented the resident was independent after set-up for meals and was on a regular consistency NCS diet.
The comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident was at nutritional risk as evidenced by diagnoses of cerebral infarction, anorexia, and poor intake at meals, both solids and fluids. Interventions included encourage fluids at meals and in-between meals, cut up food, provide and serve diet as ordered, provide and serve supplements as ordered: sugar free shakes at all meals, and weigh per policy.
The weight record documented the resident's weights;
-11/6/20 204.5 pounds (lbs);
-12/20 no weight recorded;
-1/2/21 202 lbs (2.5 lbs weight loss or 1.2% loss over 2 months);
-2/4/20 198 lbs (4 lbs weight loss or 1.9% loss over 1 month);
-3/8/21 165.3 lbs (32.7 lbs weight loss or 16.5% loss over 1 month);
-3/16/21 161.1 lbs (4.2 lbs weight loss or 2.5% loss for 8 days);
-3/17/21 161 lbs (no change);
-4/6/21 163 lbs (2 lbs weight gain or 1.2% weight gain for 1 month); and
-5/7/21 152 lbs (11 lbs weight loss or 6.75% over 1 month and 52.5 lbs weight loss or 25.6% weight loss over 6 months).
The 1/30/21 nutritional assessment documented the resident's current weight was 202 lbs, was COVID-19 positive, food intake met less than 25% of estimated needs, and their intake was down from usual. The plan was to add a sugar free shakes three times a day with meals and recommend weekly weights.
There was no documentation the resident was weighed weekly
Nursing progress notes documented:
-from 2/17/21 thru 2/18/21 the resident refused 4 meals and was only eating ice cream.
-2/19/21 the resident was recently diagnosed with COVID-19, the resident had a decline per staff, and their appetite was poor.
-2/20/21 and 2/22/21 the resident continued with poor appetite.
-2/25/21 the resident refused breakfast, ate 25% at lunch, and had 2 ice creams.
There was no documentation the RD or medical provider were notified of the resident's poor appetite.
There were no nutrition progress notes addressing the resident's poor intake in 2/2021.
The 3/12/21, RD #38 progress note documented the resident's current diet was high in protein and the resident is eating well. A supplement was given at all meals and at HS (bedtime). The March weight recorded as 165.3 was believed to be an error and a reweigh was requested.
The 3/16/21 RD #38 progress note documented the resident's weight was 164 lbs (reweigh). Their February 2021 weight was 198 lbs. The resident was only eating ice cream and other treats over the last month. The resident continued on Lasix (diuretic medication), which may have contributed to weight loss. The resident had diagnoses of anorexia, received an antidepressant which was increased February 2021. Current Intakes were 25%. The resident was receiving supplements at all meals and between meals. The resident was overweight and weight loss appeared to help with treatment of their diabetes, but weight loss was unplanned and occurred quickly. The plan included to continue to offer meals and supplements.
The 4/25/21 nutrition assessment completed by diet technician #44, documented the resident had a significant weight loss of 19.3% and was down 39 lbs in 2 months. The resident's diet order remained appropriate. Intakes at meals were 25% solids and fluids were 1800 mls (milliliters) meeting 73% of their fluid needs. The resident was able to feed themselves with no difficulty after setup. The resident's weight had stabilized in the 161-165 lbs weight range. The current plan of care remained appropriate.
There was no documentation the physician or NP were made aware of the resident's 32.7 lbs or 16.5% weight loss since March 2021.
The 5/13/21, medical provider note documented the resident's weight was 152 lbs. There was no documentation regarding the resident's 11 lbs or 6.75% weight loss in one month and 52.5 lbs weight loss or 25.6% weight loss over 6 months.
Resident #80 was observed on the following days:
-on 6/2/21 at 8:41 AM. The resident had eaten approximately 25% of their meal, the supplement was unopened.
-on 6/3/21 at 9:11 AM the resident had two 8 ounce unopened supplements on their tray. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) Unit Manager #5 asked the resident if they were done and removed the tray.
-on 6/3/21 at 1:24 PM the meal tray contained 2 unopened supplements, an untouched chicken patty and broccoli and partially consumed pears.
During an interview with RD #38 on 6/8/21 at 2:26 PM, they stated monthly weights were due by the 7th of the month and re- weights were due by the 9th of the month. The facility had a weekly weight meeting to discuss all weekly and monthly weights. The Unit Managers, the RD, the Administrator, and the DON attended the meetings. The medical providers had not attended in the past. During the weekly weight meeting any resident with a weight change of 5-10% or greater was discussed. The DT did not come to the facility and worked remotely, and it was expected if the DT noticed an issue that they would contact the RD. The RD stated they notified the physician of any weight loss, but the physicians did not always include significant weight changes in their medical notes. Resident #80 had an unplanned weight loss which could have been partially related to their prescribed Lasix medication, but that would not account for such a large weight loss. The RD was unaware Resident #80 had a significant weight loss of 11 lbs or 6.75% in one month and a 52.5 lbs weight loss or 25.6% weight loss over six months.
CNA #16 was interviewed on 6/8/21 at 3:20 PM and stated they had told the RD and the Food Service Director about the resident's food preferences. They stated the RD use to come up on the units more but they do not see them anymore, so they send emails to let them know what the resident was asking for. The resident received shakes and we are supposed to open them for the resident. They could tell the resident had lost weight.
On 6/9/21 at 10:30 AM, The Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated resident weights were monitored via weight rounds. If a resident had weight loss, they were notified by the Unit Managers. If they were notified of a weight loss the resident would be assessed to figure why their intakes had decreased. They would also request nursing staff to obtain labs to determine if the resident was dehydrated. They would consider adding an appetite stimulant and put the resident on weekly weights. The NP stated Resident #80 had been having some behavioral issues and they had recently ordered a urinalysis culture and sensitivity. The NP expected to be notified of any significant weight loss, but this did not happen consistently.
2) Resident #52 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, major depression with psychotic features and anxiety. The 5/17/20 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and independent with set up assistance for most activities of daily living (ADLs) including eating. The resident had no weight loss or gain of 5% in one month, or 10% in 6 months and was not on a prescribed weight loss regimen.
The 4/8/19 comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident had a potential nutrition/hydration problem related to dementia, irregular heartbeat, and lung disease. The goal was to maintain weight within 2-3 pounds per quarter and the resident would comply with the recommended weight stabilization. Interventions included regular diet, regular solids, thin liquids; provide and serve diet as ordered, monitor intake and record, weigh monthly, registered dietitian (RD) to evaluate and make diet change recommendations. The care plan was updated 7/11/20 to include encourage fluids between meals and diet soda three times daily between meals.
The 6/9/21 electronic record weights summary documented the following weights:
-6/2/20 179 lbs
-7/1/20 184.6 lbs
-9/2/20 168.2 lbs; 6% weight loss in 3 months.
-12/4/20 158.6 lbs; 11% weight loss in 6 months from the 6/2/20 measurement.
-1/11/21 170.4 lbs
-3/1/21 172.3 lbs
-6/2/21 183.4 lbs
RD #38 progress notes documented the following
-7/9/20 the resident had a 5.6 lb weight gain in the last month. All extras had been discontinued by dietary and the resident was receiving normal portions, no doubles. The resident's body mass index (BMI) classified the resident as obese. The plan was to monitor weights and intakes and/or any extras eaten.
-7/24/20 to stabilize the resident's weight, juice that was offered between meals was to be changed to diet soda.
-There were no RD progress notes between 7/24/20 and 10/9/20.
-10/9/20 the resident had a 6% weight loss in the last month and a 15 lb weight loss since 5/2020 and weight loss was the goal. The BMI was 28.7, still considered overweight. No changes to diet were made.
-10/21/20 quarterly assessment progress note documented the resident's weight had decreased since 7/2020 and was not totally undesirable. The resident no longer ate take-out foods, and no changes were made to the diet.
-12/18/20 the resident was diagnosed with bronchitis and was prescribed antibiotics. Extra fluids were to be given and encouraged with the medication pass. The resident's 11% weight loss was not mentioned.
-1/20/21 the quarterly assessment documented the resident's current weight was 170.4 lbs. The resident took food from others and hoarded it in their room. Intake was good, no problem with meals. Goal- was to gain 2-3 lbs per day, the resident would comply with recommended diet for weight gain, continue with current plan of care, no extra supplements were ordered.
-There were no RD progress notes from 1/20/21 through 6/7/21.
-6/7/21 the resident weighed 183.4 lbs, a gain since 8/2020. The resident had a weight loss in 7/2020 related to a COVID-19 diagnosis, and their weight was now at the pre-COVID weight. The plan was to try for stabilization at this time.
The was no documented evidence the CCP was revised to include a goal of weight loss referenced in the 10/9/20 progress note.
The 4/13/21 MDS assessment documented the resident was severely impaired cognitively and had no weight gain or loss.
The physician and NP progress notes documented;
-9/2/20-The resident had COVID in 7/2020, had been without complaints, lost greater than 10 lbs throughout the illness, appetite had since improved.
-10/16/20-the resident was tolerating oral foods, appetite satisfactory, no significant weight change.
-11/4/20-the resident was tolerating oral intake
-12/11/20-the resident had a harsh cough, weight was not mentioned.
-12/16/20- the resident was tolerating oral intake without difficulty.
-1/4/21-continue current diet
-2/2/21-no mention of any weight changes
-3/18/21-denies weight loss or gain.
The resident was observed on 6/8/21 at 12;12 PM and had consumed 100% of their meal.
During an interview with RD #38 on 6/8/21 at 2:26 PM, they stated monthly weights were due by the 7th of the month and re- weights were due by the 9th of the month. The facility had a weekly weight meeting to discuss all weekly and monthly weights. The Unit Managers, the RD, the Administrator, and the DON attended the meetings. The medical providers had not attended in the past. During the weekly weight meeting any resident with a weight change of 5-10% or greater was discussed. The DT did not come to the facility and worked remotely, and it was expected if the DT noticed an issue that they would contact the RD. The RD stated they notified the physician of any weight loss, but the physicians did not always include significant weight changes in their medical notes.
During an interview with RN Unit Manager #40 on 6/9/21 at 8:56 AM they stated they had weight loss meetings weekly and would discuss residents. The RD would have a preprinted list of weight trends. The physician would be notified if there was a large weight loss. Resident #52 had lost weight around the time they had COVID and now was starting to regain the weight.
When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 10:30 AM, NP #12 stated the nurses did weight rounds and if a resident had weight loss the nurse managers notified them. Then NP #12 would speak to the nurse manager to find out why the resident had decreased oral intake. Sometimes they would be notified of weight loss by the RD, but not consistently. They were notified that Resident #52 had weight loss after testing positive for COVID-19 and it had affected the resident's appetite, but this was slowly returning. NP #12 stated they would expect the RD to notify them of the weight loss.
10NYCRR415.12(i)1
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with curr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards, and the expiration date when applicable for 2 of 4 medication rooms (Units 3 and 4) and 2 of 4 medication carts (Units 3 and 5) reviewed. Specifically, on Unit 3 the medication cart had an opened expired stock medication bottle and the medication room refrigerator had an opened expired biological vial. The Unit 4 medication room had 2 expired unopened stock medications and the Unit 5 medication cart had 2 expired opened stock medications.
Findings include:
The facility policy Medication Administration revised 7/2019 documented to check the expiration date of injections, all deceased and expired medications must be removed from the medication cart, only medications with a current order may be stored in the medication cart, all expired medications were to be removed from the medication room, and all deceased and expired medications must be removed from the refrigerator.
The following observations were made in the Unit 4 medication room on 6/3/21 at 9:09 AM with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #8:
- 1 unopened bottle of guaifenesin (decongestant, expectorant) extended release (ER) 600 milligrams (mg) with a manufacturer expiration date of 2/2021; and
- 1 unopened bottle of cetirizine hydrochloride (antihistamine) 10 mg with a manufacturer expiration date of 2/2021.
The LPN stated both medications were expired. They stated every medication nurse was responsible to check the expiration dates prior to administering them and was unsure if any specific shift was responsible for routine stock medication checks.
The following observations were made during a Unit 3 medication cart and medication room review on 6/3/21 at 9:32 AM with LPN #7:
- 1 opened vial of Tuberculin 5 tuberculin units (TU)/0.1 milliliters (ml) with a manufacturer expiration 2/22 in the medication room refrigerator. The vial was opened and had a handwritten opened date 4/30/21 on the vial and box. The LPN stated the vial was only good for 28 days once opened and was considered expired on 5/30/21; and
- 1 opened bottle of milk of magnesia (laxative) 16 fluid ounces with a manufacturer expiration date of 3/20 in the medication cart. The LPN verified the expiration date and stated it was expired.
The following observations were made during a Unit 5 medication cart review on 6/3/21 at 9:45 AM with LPN #6,
- 1 opened bottle of Thera-M multivitamin with a manufacturer expiration date 4/21 and a handwritten opened date of 9/12 on the bottom of bottle; and
- 1 opened bottle of cetirizine 10 mg with a manufacturer expiration date of 4/2021 and handwritten opened date 12/15 on the bottom of bottle.
The LPN stated they had not given either of those 2 medications to a resident, verified the expiration dates and both were expired. The LPN did not think any current resident took the medications and personally checked all the stock medications in the cart for expiration dates. They did not know how they missed these. They stated there were no routine nurses on the other 2 shifts, so they assumed responsibility for checking medication expiration date checks.
When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 10:00 AM, registered nurse (RN) Manager #4 stated all unit nurses should check stock medications in the cart and med room at least weekly. All expired medications were to be discarded. They stated since the pandemic began, the pharmacy did not audit often for expired medications. There was no specific shift assigned to check and document for expired medications in the carts and medication room. They stated no current resident was ordered the expired medications. Staff should have noticed the meds were expired if the medication checks were done routinely. The 2 medications should not cause significant harm if given expired.
When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 10:35 AM, LPN Manager #5 stated all nurses were responsible for checking expired stock medications prior to putting them in the medication cart and prior to administering each medication. Stock medications were to be labeled with the opened date by the nurse opening the bottle. There was no specific shift assigned to check for expired medications. LPN #5 and LPN #7 stated they checked the cart yesterday but the medication room and refrigerator on 6/1/21. The milk of magnesia was not in the medication cart yesterday and they were unsure who put it there. LPN #5 stated no resident received the milk of magnesia recently.
When interviewed on 6/7/21 at 3:05 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the night nurse should audit all medication carts and rooms nightly for expiration dates. All medication nurses should check the expiration dates prior to administering the medication to a resident. Biologicals expired 28 days once opened and the nurse opening the vial was supposed to put the opened date on the vial.
10NYCRR 415.18(d)(e)(1-4)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey ending 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey ending 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #62 and138) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #138 did not like tuna fish and was served tuna fish sandwiches at multiple meals and Resident #62 was not provided their choice of salad dressing.
Findings include:
The 4/23/19 Diet policy documented all residents will receive a diet as ordered by their physician that meets their nutritional needs while providing the least restrictive and liberalized diet available at the facility. The purpose of nutrition in older adults is to improve or maintain health and quality of life.
1) Resident #138 had diagnoses including end stage renal disease and diabetes. The 5/29/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, able to make their own decisions and was independent with eating.
The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 6/29/20 documented the resident had a potential nutrition problem related to diagnosis of osteomyelitis, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. The CCP was updated on 6/4/21 and included interventions: provide and serve diet as ordered; no concentrated sweets (NCS), renal, and low potassium diet; provide and serve supplements as ordered; yogurt/cottage cheese, mashed potatoes and gravy and soup at lunch and supper, and a sandwich at supper and bedtime (HS).
Registered dietitian (RD) #38's progress notes documented the following:
- On 2/9/21, the resident was doing a selective menu so that acceptance and appetite were better.
- On 2/26/21, the resident was doing a selective menu for acceptance.
- On 3/26/21, the resident was a fussy eater, would only eat what they decided to and nothing more. The resident's appetite was fair, they refused some foods, and alternates were provided.
- On 4/30/21, the resident's wishes were respected.
During an interview on 6/2/21 at 8:43 AM, Resident #138 stated they filled out menus and received items they did not request. They had told the kitchen they did not like tuna, and they continued to receive tuna sandwiches despite requests. On 6/2/21 at 11:54 AM, the resident stated they had received 23 tuna sandwiches in 10 days.
During an observation on 6/3/21 at 11:58 AM, the resident received their lunch tray. The resident appeared upset and stated, Another tuna fish sandwich!. The resident threw the tuna sandwich in the trash can. The resident stated they never received any of the choices written on their menu.
During an interview on 6/8/21 at 2:39 PM, RD #38 stated resident food preferences were honored. The resident had been vocal in their food preferences. The RD was not aware the resident had been requesting no tuna sandwiches.
During an interview on 6/8/21 at 2:59 PM, Food Service Supervisor #20 stated the resident had a select menu, meaning they filled out their menu every week. A printed menu was provided to the resident, the resident circled or wrote in items they wished to receive. The supervisor provided the resident's completed select menu from 6/3/21. The menu documented the resident had selected a turkey salad sandwich with a handwritten note stating, no tuna or egg. The Food Service Supervisor stated the resident had a tuna sandwich locked in as a preference from 2/2021 which overrode the resident's selection. To select a different item, the supervisor had to unselect the pre-selected tuna sandwich and they stated they must have forgotten to do so.
2) Resident #62 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diabetes. The 5/1/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and was independent for most activities of daily living.
The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 5/7/20 documented the resident had a nutrition/hydration problem; meals were to be provided and served as ordered-NCS, regular solids and thin liquids.
On 6/8/21 at 12:10 PM, the resident was observed with their lunch. The resident had a tossed salad which was untouched; the resident's tray ticket documented Thousand Island dressing and the resident was served Italian dressing. The resident stated they didn't like Italian dressing and they would not eat their salad with that dressing
On 6/8/21 at 12:12 PM, certified nurse aide (CNA) #39 checked the unit for extra Thousand Island dressing packets. At the same time, social worker #41 called the kitchen for Thousand Island Dressing and none was available. The CNA stated that Thousand Island dressing was hard to come by at the facility.
During an interview on 6/9/21 at 10:48 AM, the Food Service Director stated resident preferences were obtained on admission and updated throughout a resident's stay. If an item was not available, an acceptable substitution was offered, and it was noted on the tray ticket. Acceptable substitutions for Thousand Island dressing were Ranch, Italian, and French. Salad dressing on tray tickets were written as any dressing unless the resident had a specific preference. The Food Service Director stated they were not aware of any complaints about missing Thousand Island dressing; it was ordered on the next supply order and was due to arrive on 6/10/21 or 6/11/21. If the Food Service Director had been aware of running out of Thousand Island dressing, they would be able to increase the amount ordered.
10NYCRR 415.14(c)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide special eating equipment for residents who need them and appropriate...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide special eating equipment for residents who need them and appropriate assistance to ensure that the resident can use the assistive devices when consuming meals and snacks for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #77) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #77 was not provided a Dycem mat (a non-slip material used to stabilize items) when eating as ordered.
Findings include:
The undated Adaptive Feeding Equipment Policy documented occupational therapy will evaluate a resident's ability to feed themselves and make any recommendations deemed appropriate. Once appropriate adaptive equipment is determined, the occupational therapist (OT) will email the unit manager and dietary group of the recommendations. Dietary will put the adaptive equipment on the meal ticket and ensure items are on trays for all meals.
Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia. The 4/27/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, required extensive assistance for most activities of daily living, and was independent for eating.
The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 6/21/2017 and revised 7/25/19 documented the resident had a nutrition/hydration problem related to diagnoses. Interventions included adaptive equipment included lipped plate and Dycem placemat.
The 7/20/20 occupational therapist (OT) #23 Occupational Therapy Discharge Summary documented the resident was provided with a Dycem mat at meals to prevent sliding. Staff were educated on the use of the Dycem mat.
The 5/3/21 registered dietitian (RD) #38 progress note documented the resident required a Dycem mat at meals.
The certified nurse aide (CNA) Care Card active on 6/2/21 documented the resident was to have a Dycem mat for eating.
The resident was observed without a Dycem mat at their meal on:
- 6/1/21 at 12:13 PM- the meal ticket listed to use a Dycem mat.
- 6/3/21 at 12:09 PM through 12:28 PM, the resident was observed struggling to get the ice cream out of the container.
- 6/6/21 at 12:25 PM. The resident was served and set up by the Activities Director
- 6/7/21 at 7:58 AM.
- 6/8/21 at 12:08 PM
The resident consumed approximately 50% of the meals observed
During an interview on 6/7/21 at 1:29 PM, CNA #39 stated resident's adaptive devices were documented on the CNA Care Card and a list of resident's devices was available at the nursing station desk. Dycem mats were provided by the kitchen, the tray ticket documented the resident's adaptive devices, and the CNA had never seen a Dycem brought up by the kitchen for the resident.
During an interview on 6/7/21 at 1:40 PM, the Activities Director stated they were a certified occupational therapist assistant (COTA) and they assisted at meals. When passing trays, the Activities Director checked the tray ticket to make sure the adaptive devices were available to the resident. The Activities Director had not noticed the resident's tray ticket documented a Dycem mat.
During an interview on 6/8/21 at 2:26 PM, registered dietitian (RD) #38 stated adaptive devices such as lip plates and specialty silverware were documented on the tray ticket and provided by the kitchen. Dycem mats were not used very often and the RD checked with the Food Service Director who stated Dycem mats were managed by nursing on the units.
During an interview 6/9/21 at 8:56 AM, registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #40 stated they were notified if residents needed assistive devices at meals by OT via email. Dycem mats were provided by therapy. The RN was not aware the resident had not been provided a Dycem mat and the RN expected the CNAs to notify them if a Dycem mat was not available so they could get one.
During an interview on 6/9/21 at 9:38 AM, occupational therapist (OT) #23 stated they evaluated residents for adaptive equipment and emailed the dietary group and the Unit Managers their recommendations. The kitchen provided most of the adaptive equipment. Dycem mats were not often utilized, it was provided by the therapy department, and it was used to keep plates from slipping while the residents ate. The resident had been recommended for a Dycem mat a while ago and the OT had not been notified that Dycem was not available. The OT had not received any evaluation requests to assess if the Dycem mat was no longer needed.
10NYCRR 415.14(g)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0836
(Tag F0836)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey ending [DATE], the facility did not ensure services were ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey ending [DATE], the facility did not ensure services were provided in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #99) reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not follow requirements for completing Resident #99's Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST).
Findings include:
The MOLST Legal Requirements Checklist for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities documented use of this checklist is required for individuals with DD who lack the capacity to make their own health care decisions and do not have a health care proxy (HCP). Medical decisions which involve the withholding or withdrawing of life sustaining treatment (LST) for individuals with DD who lack capacity and do not have a health care proxy must comply with the process set forth in the Health Care Decisions Act for persons with MR (mental retardation) (HCDA [SCPA 1750-b (4)]. Effective [DATE], this includes the issuance of DNR orders. Actual orders should be placed on the MOLST form with the completed checklist attached. The Checklist included 5 steps that needed to be followed prior to implementing the MOLST:
Step 1-identification of appropriate surrogate from Prioritized list
Step 2- surrogate has a conversation with the treating physician regarding possible treatment options and goals for care.
Step 3- Confirm individual's lack of capacity to make health care decisions. Either the attending physician
or the concurring physician or licensed psychologist must: (a) be employed by a DDSO; or (b) have been
employed for at least 2 years in a facility or program operated, licensed, or authorized by OPWDD; or (c)
have been approved by the commissioner of OPWDD as either possessing specialized training or have 3
years' experience in providing services to individuals with DD.
Step 4-Determination of Necessary Medical Criteria
Step 5- Notifications
The undated Advance Directives policy documented the health care proxy is a person designated and authorized by an advance directive or by State law to make a treatment decision for another person in the event the other person becomes unable to make necessary health care decisions. The policy did not address the type of documentation required for determination of lack of decision-making capacity.
Resident #99 was admitted to the facility and had diagnoses including unspecified intellectual disabilities. The [DATE] admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was considered by the state Level II PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability and other conditions, had severe cognitive deficits, did not have Advance Directives and did not have a Health Care Proxy (HCP),
The [DATE] PASRR Level II documented the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) established eligibility.
The [DATE] social services progress note documented the resident was admitted with an incomplete MOLST and staff were awaiting direction from the OPWDD to proceed with health care decisions. The resident was not able to make decisions for themself and this would be deferred to OPWDD unless otherwise specified.
The [DATE] social services progress note documented the social worker spoke with the resident's family member on that date and completed a new MOLST, which stated wishes for DNR/DNI (do not resuscitate/do not intubate), send to hospital, no feeding tube, trial of intravenous (IV) fluids, and use of antibiotics. Wishes would continue to be honored. The resident required assistance with healthcare decisions and healthcare decisions were deferred to a family member.
The [DATE] MOLST form documented the advance directive was DNR, DNI, limited medical interventions, and no feeding tube. The document was verbally signed by the resident's family member and witnessed by social worker #29, social worker #32, and physician #31.
The [DATE] Family Health Care Decisions Act 2 (FHCDA-2) /Adult Patient without Capacity/Enabling a Surrogate to Consent to Treatment form was completed by the attending physician and documented the resident lacked capacity to make healthcare decisions and the cause of the incapacity was intellectual disability. The determination of incapacity by a Health or Social services provider documented concurring determination of incapacity due to cognitive impairment and diagnosis of intellectual disability. The resident's family member was identified as the resident's surrogate. The concurring determination did not include identification of the person who concurred.
There was no documented evidence the attending or concurring professional were employed by a DDSO; or (b) have been employed for at least 2 years in a facility or program operated, licensed, or authorized by OPWDD; or (c)
have been approved by the commissioner of OPWDD as either possessing specialized training or have 3
years' experience in providing services to individuals with DD.
The [DATE] comprehensive care plan (CCP) revised on [DATE] documented the resident had an advance directive and a MOLST form indicating they had orders for DNR and DNI. Interventions included ensuring all necessary paperwork goes with the resident upon transfer to the hospital or home, and the resident and/or family will be re-approached about Advance Directives every quarter and as needed or requested by resident/family.
The [DATE] social services progress note documented the resident was readmitted to the facility from the hospital with cognitive impairment. The MOLST form was reviewed with the resident's family member who wished to continue with DNR, DNI, send to hospital, no feeding tube and trial of IV fluids.
A [DATE] DNR order was signed by physician #35.
During an interview on [DATE] at 1:53 PM, social worker #29 stated if a resident was admitted without a MOLST, they completed a MOLST if the resident had capacity. If the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score was less than 13 (indicating cognitive impairment), they referred to the HCP or next of kin. If someone did not have capacity depending on the BIMS score, the social worker filled out a capacity determination form and this was signed by the provider. If the resident had no HCP, a surrogate was assigned. Resident #99's decision-maker was their family member. The resident was a ward of the state through OPWDD and received services through them. The social worker stated when they checked with the resident's former group home, they were informed that the resident's family member assisted with making health care decisions. The social worker stated they were aware that when a resident was admitted who was connected with OPWDD, they had to complete the surrogate 1750-b form. However, they were informed the family member was making the decisions, so the form was not completed. They stated the group home told them the family member could complete the MOLST. Social Worker #29 was aware of the ethics, but they were informed that the family member was the decision-maker. Social Worker #29 stated the usual process was to complete form 1750-b and go through the ethics committee.
During a phone interview on [DATE] at 3:39 PM, RN #33 from the OPWDD office stated when Resident #99 was with them, they did not have a MOLST. The resident's record had a note from the facility's social worker on [DATE]. At that time the resident was a full code (perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR, in the event the heart stopped). RN #33 stated they could not find any paperwork confirming completion of form 1705-b. They stated they would have no checklist unless the facility sent one to them. It would be the facility's responsibility to do this. The OPWDD office would not have that information since the resident hadn't been with them since [DATE].
During a phone interview on [DATE] at 11:44 AM, social worker #32 stated the supervisor took charge of Resident #99's case. They stated they knew there was a guardianship issue and OPWDD was to make the determination. They stated the normal protocol for a resident not active with the OPWDD was if the resident was not cognitively able to make their own healthcare decisions, they would go to the next of kin or surrogate. Social Worker #32 stated they believed there was paperwork that needed to be submitted.
10NYCRR 400.2
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to en...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to ensure the health and safety of residents and to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 for 12 residents (Residents #20, 29, 35, 43, 44, 60, 88, 108, 109, 123, 125, and 136) observed during a meal service. Specifically, a certified nurse aide (CNA) was observed serving residents their beverages during the lunch meal at a distance closer than 6 feet with their surgical mask not covering their nose and mouth.
Findings include:
The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Revised Health Advisory entitled COVID-19 Cases in Nursing Homes and Adult Care Facilities, dated 3/13/20 and updated 7/10/20, documented all healthcare personnel (HCP) and other facility staff shall wear a facemask while within 6 feet of residents. Extended wear of facemasks is allowed; facemasks should be changed when soiled or wet and when HCP go on breaks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance titled Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings, dated 2/23/2021, recommended the following additional strategies to minimize chances for exposure to COVID-19: Hand Hygiene: HCP [healthcare personnel] should perform hand hygiene before and after all patient contact, contact with potentially infectious material, and before putting on and after removing PPE, including gloves. Hand hygiene after removing PPE is particularly important to remove any pathogens that might have been transferred to bare hands during the removal process.
The 3/29/21 CDC guidance, titled Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Spread in Nursing Homes, directs nursing homes to implement source control measures. Per such guidance, source control means the use of well-fitting cloth masks, facemasks, or respirators to cover a person's mouth and nose to prevent spread of respiratory secretions when they are breathing, talking, sneezing, or coughing. In addition to providing source control, these devices also offer varying levels of protection against exposure to infectious droplets and particles produced by infected people. Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, source control measures are recommended for everyone in a healthcare facility, even if they do not have symptoms of COVID-19.
The facility's 9/2020 Annex E: Infectious Disease/Pandemic Emergency, annexed to the facility Emergency Preparedness policy, documented staff will have re-education and have competency on the donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) of personal protective equipment (PPE).
During a lunch observation on 6/6/21 on the 4th floor, the following was observed:
-at 1:05 PM, meal trays and beverages were delivered to the unit. CNA #17 was observed wearing a surgical mask and gloves.
-at 1:11 PM, CNA #17 passed beverages to a table where Residents #20, 29, 43, 35, and 108 were seated. The CNA then delivered beverages to a table where Residents #60, 123, 125, and 136 were seated. As the CNA moved from resident to resident and table to table, the CNA's surgical mask slid down and exposed their nose. CNA #17 reached up and repositioned the mask, touching the outer surface of the mask multiple times.
-at 1:13 PM, CNA #17's mask slid down exposing the nose and part of the mouth. CNA #17 corrected the position of the mask, and it continued to slide down out of place exposing their nose and mouth.
-at 1:14 PM, CNA #17 went to the table where Residents #44, #88, and #109 were seated. The CNA leaned in to talk with the residents, and the mask slid down and exposed the CNA's nose while talking.
When interviewed on 6/6/21 at 1:23 PM, CNA #17 stated staff were to wear a mask above the nose and below the chin to cover the mouth. CNA #17 stated their mask came down and exposed their nose when talking. CNA #17 had tried to fit the mask over their nose, but it kept slipping down. CNA #17 then took both hands and pressed on the top edge of the mask and formed it to the nose and the mask remained in place.
When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 2:01 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the DON covered the infection control responsibilities during the day shifts and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) covered the infection control responsibilities on the off-shifts. This allowed them to have someone covering infection control at all times. The DON stated staff were expected to have their masks on at all times and the mask should cover the nose and mouth. This had been reviewed with staff on numerous occasions. The DON also expected the licensed practical nurses (LPNs) who were in charge to oversee staff and correct them if they saw masks worn incorrectly. The DON stated wearing masks correctly was important for the protection and safety of the residents and staff.
10NYCRR 415.19(a)(1); 400.2
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00250434) ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide food and drink that was palatable, att...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00250434) ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 4 of 4 meal trays tested. Specifically, food was not served at palatable and safe temperatures.
Findings include:
The undated Food Temperature Policy documented once food was placed in the steam table staff would take and record the temperature of the items on the Temperature Log Sheet.
The undated Temperature Log Sheet documented the following acceptable temperatures:
- Entrees 160 degrees Fahrenheit (F); and
- All cold foods should be 45 degrees F or below.
During an interview with Resident #89 on 6/1/21 at 11:49 AM, the resident stated the food did not taste good and their son brought in snacks to them.
The following was observed during the lunch meal on 6/2/21:
- At 10:39 AM, lunch meal items were in the steam table being loaded onto open carts for each nursing floor and the temperatures were measured. The meal consisted of manicotti with sauce (158 degrees F), mashed potatoes (155 degrees F), a tossed salad (45 degrees F) and pineapple chunks (41 degrees F). The facility used heated and insulated bases with tops to deliver food on trays in open carts to the units.
- At 11:00 AM, the carts for the first floor left the kitchen and were delivered to the first floor in front of the nursing station.
- At 11:30 AM, nursing staff started to serve trays to resident rooms one at a time.
- At 11:32 AM, a lunch tray was brought to Resident #22's room. The resident's tray was tested, and a replacement tray was provided. The food temperatures on the meal tray were as follows:
- manicotti with sauce 119 degrees F;
- pineapple chunks 62 degrees F;
- tossed salad 69 degrees F; and
- supplement shake 61 degrees F.
The meal was cool to the touch and needed to be reheated to test for palatability. The food tasted under seasoned and bland.
During an observation on 6/2/21 at 11:54 AM, a lunch tray was delivered to an anonymous resident's room. The resident's tray was tested, and a replacement tray was provided. The food temperatures on the meal test tray were as follows:
- manicotti with sauce 119 degrees F;
- pineapple chunks 68 degrees F.
- tossed salad 69 degrees F; and
- chicken salad sandwich 70 degrees F.
The meal was cool to the touch and needed to be reheated to test for palatability. The food was under seasoned and bland. The chicken salad was not eaten due to the high temperature.
During an observation on 6/7/21 at 6:23 PM the meal and beverage carts were delivered to the 4th floor in front of the nursing station. At 6:43 PM, CNA #36 provided Resident #89 with their dinner tray. The tray was tested, and a replacement tray was provided. The food temperatures of the meal tray were as follows:
- fried chicken patty on a bun 100 degrees F;
- potato bites 92 degrees F;
- coleslaw 66.3 degrees F; and
- gelatin with whipped topping 65 degrees F.
The meal was cool to the touch and the potato bites were soggy.
When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 12:11 PM, the Food Service Director stated the chicken salad sandwich was meant to be served cold (refrigerated). They stated the chicken was cooked the night before and placed in the refrigerator to cool and they prepared the sandwiches the following day. The sandwiches were removed from the prep refrigerator and loaded on the trays.
During an interview on 6/9/21 at 10:48 AM, the Food Service Director stated the facility was currently using tray line assembly for meal service. After each unit's meal trays were assembled the uninsulated meal carts were delivered to the units, nursing was made aware the meal carts were delivered, and nursing would pass trays. The Food Service Director stated the facility had an ideal delivery time to each unit, but that did not always happen. If the meal service was running behind the food service department called the affected units to let them know the meal would be late. Food temperatures were taken at the start of the tray line and were not taken again until the completion of the tray line. The Food Service Director stated acceptable hot food and beverage holding temperatures were 130-140 degrees F and cold food and beverages acceptable holding temperatures were below 50 degrees F. The Food service Director stated it was important to serve food and beverages at proper temperatures for safety and palatability. If meal trays were not passed within 15 minutes of the cart delivery time the residents should be provided a new meal tray because food would be out of the acceptable temperature range and be unpalatable.
10NYCRR 415.14(d)(1)(2)
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00250434) surveys completed on 6/9/21, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and se...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00250434) surveys completed on 6/9/21, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 1 commercial dishwasher and for 1 of 8 meals (6/6/21 lunch meal) observed Specifically, the commercial dishwasher was not functioning as designed and needed to be used as a low temperature machine versus a high temperature machine. The sanitizer was not being pumped into the machine to complete the sanitization step for the dishes and utensils used in the facility. Additionally, the 4th floor lunch meal on Sunday 6/6/21 was served 45 minutes late due to insufficient staffing.
Findings include:
COMMERCIAL DISHWASHER
The daily dishwasher temperature logs documented on 5/23/21 rinse cycle temperatures started to fall below acceptable limits (170 degrees Fahrenheit, F).
During an observation with the Food Service Director on 6/2/21 at 10:52 AM, the commercial dishwasher was not functioning as designed. The dishwasher would normally operate as a high temperature machine (150 degrees F for the wash cycle and 180 F for the rinse cycle). The machine was being used as a low temperature machine with a 1 gallon bottle of chlorine being used to complete the sanitization step in place of the high temperature. There was no chlorine observed being drawn out of the bottle into the machine by the pump of the dishwasher.
During an observation on 6/2/21 at 12:56 PM, staff lined up at the 3 bay sink to wash dishes and utensils.
During an observation on 6/2/21 at 1:10 PM, the chlorine test strips from the local pool store could not measure the proper and acceptable ranges of chlorine being used in the dishwasher. The machine was left off and not used until the vendor could come to the facility.
During an observation on 6/3/21 at 2:35 PM the dishwasher was verified to be using the chlorine properly for sanitization and the level of chlorine was measured within acceptable limits (50 ppm).
When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 10:40 AM, the Food Service Director stated the dishwasher was not achieving high enough temperatures and they needed to use chlorine to sanitize. The dishwasher was not hitting proper temperatures last week (5/24-5/28/21) and there was a lot of calcium build up in the machine. They had switched to using paper and disposable products last week. The third party vendor told them they could use chlorine with the machine until they were able to fix it. They did not have chlorine test strips and were not tracking the sanitizer being used in the machine. The Food Service Director stated they had not noticed the machine was not pulling the chlorine out of the bottle into the machine for sanitization.
When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 12:56 PM, the Food Service Director stated they could use the 3 bay sink to wash dishes and utensils until the vendor could come and look at the machine. The Food Service Director stated they were able to get chlorine strips from a local pool store and they were looking for information on the acceptable range of chlorine used in the dishwasher for sanitization.
When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 2:04 PM, the Administrator stated the facility was using disposable products through the weekend until Monday 5/31/21. They did not notify the Department of Health (DOH) about the dish machine being out of service and using disposable products for the week.
When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 9:32 AM, the Food Service Director stated the third party vendor came in earlier that morning to look at the machine and determined the booster was not functioning to get high enough temperatures. They also noted the pump was not working and needed to be replaced. The vendor left the facility the proper chlorine test strips and information on the acceptable ranges of chlorine for the use of sanitization (50-100 ppm). The chlorine was originally hooked up on 5/27/21. They did not check or document the amount of chlorine being used by the machine at that time.
When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 2:35 PM, the Food Service Director stated the dishwasher was working properly and they were able to test for the appropriate acceptable range of chlorine.
The third party dishwasher reports dated 6/3/21, documented the dish machine was using the appropriate dilution of sanitizer. There was no documentation available for review of sanitization levels the machine was using for the previous week.
MEAL SERVICE
The 4/2007 revised facility Staffing policy documents support services including dietary are adequately staffed to ensure that resident needs are met.
The undated facility Mealtimes listing documented the 4th floor was schedule to be served lunch at 12:15 PM.
During an observation on 6/6/21 lunch trays were delivered to the 4th floor at 1:05 PM.
During an interview on 6/6/21 at 3:16 PM, Food Service Supervisor #20 stated staffing was bad on that date; there were typically 9-10 staff working on the day shift on the weekends, the shift started with 6 people, and another staff member had to leave early. The 4th floor was served at 1:00 PM; the lunch meal service was typically completed at 12:00-12:15 PM.
During an interview on 6/6/21 at 3:26 PM, the Food Service Director stated the staffing was a concern on that date. Lunch was served on the 4th floor at 1:00 PM which was considered late.
During an interview on 6/9/21 at 11:20 PM, CNA #16 stated late meal delivery impacted the residents; they had to wait in the dining room which lead to an increase in behaviors; some residents became combative and would ask where their meal was.
10NYCRR 415.29 (j)(1)
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not inform each resident before, or at the time of admission, and periodically during the resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not inform each resident before, or at the time of admission, and periodically during the resident's stay, of services available in the facility and of charges for those services, including any charges for services not covered under Medicare for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #56 and 60) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #56 and 60 did not receive CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Form 10055 (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary notice of Non-coverage, SNF-ABN) at the end of their Medicare A stay.
This is evidenced by:
The 9/2020 Form CMS-10055 documents the resident's care may not be covered by Medicare and they may have to pay out of pocket for care. The following options are listed:
1) I want the care listed above. I want Medicare to be billed for an official decision on payment, which will be sent to me on a Medicare Summary Notice (MSN). I understand that if Medicare doesn't pay, I'm responsible for paying, but I can appeal to Medicare by following the directions on the MSN.
2) I want the care listed above, but don't bill Medicare. I understand that I may be billed now because I am responsible for payment of the care. I cannot appeal because Medicare won't be billed.
3) I don ' t want the care listed above. I understand that I ' m not responsible for paying, and I can ' t appeal to see if Medicare would pay.
The undated facility Medicare Part A Policy (Traditional Medicare) documents a Universal Letter will be presented to the resident/responsible party two days prior to the last day of coverage and will be notified of the appeal process per CMS regulations for all residents who will be staying for long term care.
The undated facility policy SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) Determination on Continued Stay documented the resident could request for Medicare Intermediary Review with the following options:
A) I want my bill for services I continue to receive to be submitted to the intermediary review for a Medicare decision. You will be informed when the bill is submitted. If you do not receive a formal Notice of Medicare Determination within 90 days of this request, you should contact Medicare Part A with an address listed.
B) I do not want my bill for services I continue to need to be submitted to the intermediary review for a Medicare decision. I understand that I do not have Medicare appeal rights if a bill is not submitted.
1) Resident #60 had diagnoses including multiple sclerosis. The 3/3/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition. The 3/9/21 MDS documented it was an SNF PPS (skilled nursing facility prospective payment system) Part A discharge (end of stay) assessment and the resident had a Medicare-covered stay since the most recent entry on 2/24/21.
The Beneficiary Protection Notification Review documented the resident had Medicare Part A Skilled Services starting on 2/26/21 and ending on 3/3/21. The form documented the resident received a universal Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) or SNF Determination on Continued Stay. There was no documented evidence CMS Form 10055 was provided to the resident.
2) Resident #56 had diagnoses including the need for assistance with personal care. The 3/28/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition. The 4/16/21 MDS documented it was an SNF PPS (skilled nursing facility prospective payment system) Part A discharge (end of stay) assessment and the resident had a Medicare-covered stay since the most recent entry on 3/26/21.
The Beneficiary Protection Notification Review documented the resident had Medicare Part A Skilled Services starting on 3/26/21 and ending on 4/16/21. The form documented the resident received a universal Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN). There was no documented evidence CMS Form 10055 was provided to the resident.
During an interview on 6/9/21 at 8:24 AM, MDS licensed practical nurse (LPN) #18 stated residents received the universal SNF ABN at the end of their Medicare A stay. The form was provided to the resident by the MDS Coordinator.
During an interview on 6/9/21 at 9:17 AM, MDS Coordinator #19 stated the universal SNF ABN was used when the resident was being cut from Medicare A and the resident would remain in the facility to let them know they will be liable for payment of uncovered services after that date. The form was created by a consulting company and it was the only form the facility used at the end of Medicare A stays. MDS Coordinator #19 stated the facility did not use CMS Form 10055 and only provided the universal form.
10NYCRR 415.3(g)(2)(iii)