ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC

299 EAST RIVER ROAD, OSWEGO, NY 13126 (315) 342-3166
Non profit - Corporation 200 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#563 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: April 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

St. Luke Residential Health Care Facility has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #563 out of 594 nursing homes in New York, placing it in the bottom half of facilities, and #4 out of 4 in Oswego County, meaning only one other local option is worse. Although the facility shows a trend of improvement, reducing issues from 8 to 7 in the last two years, the staffing situation is concerning with a low rating of 1/5 stars and a turnover rate of 61%, significantly higher than the state average. While the absence of fines is a positive aspect, there are serious incidents documented, including a resident eloping through an unsecured window and a failure to provide proper treatment for residents with critical health needs, which raises alarms about safety and care quality. Overall, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In New York
#563/594
Bottom 6%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New York. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 8 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 61%

14pts above New York avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Staff turnover is elevated (61%)

13 points above New York average of 48%

The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Mar 2025 7 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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 observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification, abbreviated (NY00359628), and extended surveys ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification, abbreviated (NY00359628), and extended surveys conducted 3/4/2025 - 3/14/2025, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident #85) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #85 was cognitively impaired, was at risk for elopement, and did not have a care plan in place addressing their elopement risk. Subsequently, Resident #85 eloped from the facility on 11/5/2024 through an unsecured window and was located at a skilled nursing facility approximately 1/4 mile away and across the street from a river. This resulted in the likelihood of serious harm, serious injury, serious impairment, or death that is Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care to Resident #85 and 2 additional residents (Residents #73 and #131) residing on the A and B units identified as risk for elopement. Findings include: The facility policy, Elopement Assessment, revised 8/28/2024, documented elopement occurred when a resident successfully left the facility undetected and unsupervised and entered into harm's way. The elopement assessment was completed within 24 hours of admission, readmission, quarterly, with a significant change, and as needed. Based on the results of the elopement assessment, and if the resident was at risk, an individualized plan of care was developed based on the resident's behavior. If the resident was deemed an elopement risk, a wander device was placed on the resident's person or their wheelchair if they were non-ambulatory. Once a resident's wander device was placed, nursing placed an order in the medication administration record for the resident's wander device, and included the location of placement, the expiration date, and the tag number. Resident #85 had diagnoses including dementia, schizophrenia, and delusional disorder. The 6/23/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment (an assessment tool) documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, was independent with walking and stairs, did not exhibit wandering behaviors, used a wander/elopement alarm daily, and received antipsychotics on a routine basis. The Comprehensive Care Plan documented: - on 6/17/2024 the resident had dementia which impaired decision-making abilities, memory/recall, participation in the Brief Interview for Mental Status assessment (an assessment of cognitive function), and participation in activities of daily living. Interventions included the resident would engage in conversation meaningful to them; resident areas were free of hazards; exit seeking behaviors were monitored such as wandering into unsafe areas and entering other resident rooms; and if the resident showed signs of distress, staff attempted to calm the resident. The 6/17/2024 and 9/11/2024 elopement assessments documented the resident was at risk for elopement and a care plan was initiated. The assessments documented the resident was cognitively impaired and had made statements of wanting to leave the facility. There was no documented evidence of an individualized care plan addressing the resident's risk for elopement. Nursing progress notes documented: - on 11/1/2024 by Licensed Practical Nurse #21 the resident was started on risperidone (an antipsychotic) for increased anxiety. - on 11/3/2024 by Licensed Practical Nurse #21 the resident kept stating they feared the touchy feely man and that they were not looking for a new spouse. - on 11/3/2024 by Licensed Practical Nurse #23 on the evening shift the resident was looking to go home. The 11/4/2024 Nurse Practitioner #45 documented the resident was seen due to increased anxiety and multiple anxious episodes where their anxiety was higher. The resident also had fearfulness of a male resident they did not interact with anymore. The resident required supportive care and reassurance. The resident had long standing dementia that alters their memory, executive functioning, and long-term decision making. The 11/5/2024 facility investigation completed by Registered Nurse #66 documented: - at 4:30 PM, the facility received a call from a nearby skilled nursing facility informing them that Resident #85 was in their lobby. The resident was stating their facility was holding them hostage. - staff statements documented no staff were aware the resident had left the facility. The last time the resident was seen by staff was at 2:30 PM on 11/5/2024 by Licensed Practical Nurse #22 and Certified Nurse Aide #11. - a staff statement by Licensed Practical Nurse #22 documented around 2:30 PM, they spoke with the resident in their room about the resident's anxiousness regarding their family leaving. - it was determined the resident left the facility through their unsecured room window. The resident pushed out their screen and crawled through the window. - the resident was returned to the facility by Registered Nurse Supervisor #12 and a police escort. - the resident was assessed when they returned to the facility. The resident had small bruises to their left flank, right hip, and lower back, and had a large bruise extending the length of their left posterior (back) calf. - the resident had a wander alert device placed on 11/5/2024 after they returned to the facility. The investigator signature was blank. The Administrator signed the investigation on 11/7/2024. During an observation on 3/4/2025 at 11:25 AM, the windows in the room Resident #85 eloped from had screws in the frame of the window to stop the window from opening more than a few inches. The screen to the narrow window was not fully fitted to the window frame and had visible spacing with some tears in it. Resident #85 was observed and interviewed: - on 3/4/2025 at 2:43 PM, in their room and stated they were having a bad day. They stated they did not remember attempting to exit the facility. - on 3/7/2025 at 3:21 PM, sitting in the stationary chair in their room. They stated it was not a good day and their nerves were shot. Their speech was jumbled, and they stated the facility was going to let them live there and give them food, but they were not on the list anymore. They spoke in circles and was worried about remaining at the facility. - on 3/11/2025 at 3:56 PM, they stated they wanted to go home. During an interview on 03/10/2025 at 3:35 PM Certified Nurse Aide #11 stated they checked the resident care record if the resident had behaviors or wandering. The behaviors would be listed on the resident care record and the interventions. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 11:14 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #17 stated prior to the resident's elopement on 11/5/2024, there were no limiters (devices to keep the window from opening too far) on the windows on the A and B units and the windows opened all the way. The resident was not on increased monitoring prior to their elopement and was just monitored as needed for their behaviors. There was nothing care planned, or interventions implemented for the resident's increased behaviors because there was no pattern or specific trigger. If the resident was upset, staff gave them more redirection away from the current cause of the upset or attempted to distract them. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 11:38 AM, Maintenance Worker #3 stated they only checked the windows when a resident moved out of the room to get it ready for a new resident. They stated a previous maintenance worker put L-shaped brackets in place on half the unit. They ran out of brackets on 11/6/2024, after the elopement, so they put screws in the window frame The maintenance department put L-shaped brackets on the rest of the windows on B unit on 3/5/2025 because the screws that were placed were not in the correct spot and with force, the windows opened all the way. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 12:00 PM, Administrative Assistant #4 stated the facility, and surveyors were simultaneously checking windows on the windows on B unit on 3/4/2025. Administrative Assistant #4 stated they found a window that was able to be opened all the way which prompted the maintenance department to check the windows on the unit and the rest of the L-shaped brackets were placed. They informed Registered Nurse Unit Manager #17. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 11:03 AM, Cook/Former Facilities Worker #5 stated when Resident #85 eloped in 11/2024 the windows in the resident rooms on the A and B units did not have limiters. They were called back to the facility on [DATE] after the elopement to find a way to secure the resident's window. They put dry wall screws in the resident's window frame to limit the window from opening. The following day on 11/6/2024, they secured the remainder of the windows on the A and B units so they could not open past 4 inches. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 11:00 AM, Maintenance Worker #13 stated they put limiters on the windows after the elopement occurred to stop the windows from opening all the way. On 3/4/2025, they were made aware one of the windows opened past where the limiter would have been and when they checked that window there was a screw in place to limit it. They reinforced the window with the L-shaped brackets. The screws were found in the windows of at least half of the B unit windows, so they replaced all the screws with the L-shaped brackets. At the time the windows were limited, they had run out of L-shaped brackets and some of the windows only had screws placed. It was not a priority to replace the screws as they seemed to be working. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 1:12 PM, the Administrator stated the elopement assessment determined if residents were at risk. If a resident was deemed to be an elopement risk, they had a wander device placed, had a care plan initiated, and the Health Information Manager was updated so the resident could be added to the wander device book that listed what residents were wander risks with their picture. Resident #85 was deemed a risk for elopement upon admission on [DATE]. They did not have an elopement care plan until 11/5/2024 after their elopement and should have had one when they were identified as an elopement risk. A resident who eloped from the facility was at risk for harm due to the surrounding area that had a main road, hills, and a river. During a telephone phone interview on 3/11/2025 at 2:00 PM, the Medical Director stated residents who were elopement risks should be on elopement precautions and have a care plan in place. They stated they knew Resident #85 well as they had followed them as their primary care doctor prior to the facility admission. The resident had paranoid behaviors with strange men and male caregivers. The facility was located on a main road with a river across the street. A resident who eloped from the facility was at risk for accidents and the geographic location could pose safety risks. 10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)(2) ___________________________________________________ An Immediate Jeopardy in F-689 was issued to the Administrator and Corporate Administrator on 3/11/2025 at 5:00 PM. The facility performed the following steps to lift the Immediate Jeopardy in F-689, issued 3/11/2025 at 5:00 PM: - As of 3/11/2025 at 6:50 PM the facility's immediate plan was reviewed and accepted. - As of 3/12/2025 at 4:16 PM 100% of all staff currently working have been educated on elopement risk and window securement. -As of 3/13/2025 at 7:45 AM, 85% of staff had been educated on elopement risk and window securement. -The remaining staff will be educated prior to the start of their next shift or upon return from their leave. -Staff education was verified onsite during interviews on 3/13/2025. Multiple staff including nursing, maintenance, housekeeping, and activities were interviewed. -Staff were able to report content of education, confirmed the day they received the education, and the facility staff who presented the education
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00330552) surveys conducted 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00330552) surveys conducted 3/4/2025 - 3/14/2025, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #136) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #136: - physician's order for gastrostomy (a tube placed in the stomach) tube feeding was not administered as ordered and when administered was the incorrect volume; - had an order to receive nothing by mouth and medications were ordered to be given orally; - was improperly positioned prior to having a tube feeding administered; - had an indwelling catheter collection bag in a permeable pillowcase laying on the floor; - did not receive their weekly shower or hair washing; - was left in their room with the door closed, their call bell on the floor and out of reach, and the resident was unable to use a traditional call bell and no alternative was given - did not have preferred activities provided for sensory stimulation; - was not provided with timely activities of daily living care; - was visible from the hallway wearing only a brief with their gastrostomy tube insertion site in plain view; - was observed in bed for consecutive days without being dressed. This resulted in physical and psychosocial harm to Resident #136 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. Findings include: The facility policy Activities of Daily Living, revised 9/2024, documented care and services would be provided for transfers, ambulation, bathing, dressing, and grooming; residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living would receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, personal and oral hygiene; and a resident's abilities and activities of daily living would not deteriorate unless deterioration was unavoidable. The facility policy Bathing Techniques-Tub Bath or Shower, revised10/2024, documented all residents were bathed as often as necessary to maintain cleanliness, refresh and stimulate circulation, and residents would be assisted with showering hair and rest of body as needed, moving from head to toe. The facility policy Fall Prevention, revised 10/2024, documented general safety precaution and fall prevention measures that applied to all residents that included easy access to call light, increased observation and surveillance, and observation during walking or safety rounds. The facility policy Resident Care Record, last reviewed 2/21/202, documented the Unit Manager initiated the resident care record on all residents by checking which areas applied to the resident; staff were responsible to do all care as indicated by check marks in each category of care; if care was not given as indicated on the resident care record, the certified nurse aide would notify the charge nurse of what care was not given and why; the charge nurse would intervene with the resident and document the outcome; and at the completion of each shift, the certified nurse aide would initial on the back of the resident care record for the appropriate date and shift indicating care was given. The facility policy, Tube Feeding-Gastrostomy, Percutaneous Gastrostomy (PEG) or Jejunostomy Tube Feeding with Use of Pump, revised 5/2024, documented obtain physician order for type and amount of formula, and frequency of administration. Place resident in semi-Fowler's position (sitting at 45-degree angle) to avoid aspiration (inhaling contents into lungs). The facility policy Call Bell Accessibility, reviewed 9/2024, documented the facility would be adequately equipped with a call light at each residents' bedside, toilet, and bathing facility to allow residents to call for assistance; each resident would be evaluated for unique needs and preferences to determine any special accommodations that may be needed in order for the resident to utilize the call system; special accommodations would be identified on the resident's person-centered plan of care, and provided accordingly (examples include touch pads, larger buttons, bright colors, etc.); and staff would ensure the call light was within reach of the resident and secured, as needed. The facility policy, Purpose, Goals, and Methods of Programs, revised 3/24/2024, documented the facility would identify each resident's interests and needs and involve the resident in an on-going program of activities that were designed to appeal to their interests and to enhance their highest practicable level of physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Resident #136 had diagnoses including depression, obstructive uropathy (obstructed urine flow), cerebral infarction (stroke) with left hemiplegia (inability to move the left side of the body), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 1/30/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment (an assessment tool) documented the resident had intact cognition, had unclear speech, was sometimes able to express ideas and wants, was dependent for most activities of daily living, had an indwelling urinary catheter, was always incontinent of bowel, had a feeding tube, received 51% or more of total calories through a tube feeding, and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The 11/7/2024 Annual Minimum Data Set assessment (an assessment tool) documented the resident felt it was very important to choose what clothes to wear, it was somewhat important to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath, listen to music they liked, do things with groups of people, do favorite activities, and participate in religious services or practices. Gastrostomy Tube Feedings and Oral Medications: The comprehensive care plan, initiated 11/4/2024 and revised 3/1/2025, documented a nutritional and hydration risk related to dysphagia and nothing by mouth status. Interventions included diet and tube feeding as ordered, head of bed to always be at 45 degrees, and nothing by mouth. The 12/26/2024 speech language pathology discharge summary documented the resident should be in upright position during and after tube feedings to decrease the risk of aspiration. Physician orders documented the following: -on 11/1/2024 aspirin 81 milligrams by mouth once a day; fluoxetine (an anti-depressant) 20 milligrams by mouth once a day; and senna (a stool softener) two 8.6 milligram tablets by mouth at bedtime. -on 12/19/2024 nothing by mouth, bolus tube feeding by gastrostomy tube. -on 1/22/2025 1.2 calorie high fiber tube feeding formula give 280 milliliters bolus (formula delivered by gravity or syringe) every 4 hours to equal 1680 milliliters and give 50 milliliters water before and after each feeding every 4 hours, give 30 milliliters water before and after medications four times a day The December 2024, January 2025, February 2025, and March 2025 Medication Administration Records documented: - aspirin 81 milligrams chewable tablet 1 tablet orally at 6:00 AM. - fluoxetine 20 milligrams 1 tablet orally at 6:00 AM - senna 8.6 milligrams 2 tablets orally at 9:00 PM The medications were signed as administered daily from 12/19/2024 - 3/14/2025. The March 2025 Medication Administration Record documented - on 3/7/2025 the 10:00 PM 1.2 calorie high fiber tube feeding formula, and water flush was not administered - on 3/8/2025 the 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM 1.2 calorie high fiber tube feeding formula, and water flush were not administered. On 3/6/2025 from 8:20 AM through 2:16 PM a continuous observation of Resident #136 was made. No one entered the resident's room from 10:32 AM to 2:16 PM. Licensed Practical Nurse #36 was not observed administering the resident's tube feeding from 8:46 AM-2:16 PM. At 11:36 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #36 signed for 10:00 AM tube feeding and water flush. At 12:24 PM the resident's mouth was very dry, and their lips were dry and flaking. At 2:16 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #36 entered the resident's room. The resident was in bed with the head of the bed at approximately 20 degrees. Licensed Practical Nurse #36 flushed the feeding tube with 50 milliliters of water, mixed medications with 20 milliliters of water and administered via the tube, instilled one 237 milliliter carton of 1.2 calorie high fiber tube feeding formula into the tube using a syringe (physician order was for 280 milliliters), then flushed with 50 milliliters of water. Licensed Practical Nurse #36 stated the angle of the head of the bed was maybe 20 degrees and they boosted the resident up in bed. On 3/7/2025 from 8:42 AM through 12:55 PM, a continuous observation of Resident #136 was made. No nursing staff entered the resident's room since 8:42 AM. At 11:03 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #36 passed the resident's room and placed the medication cart at the nursing station. At 11:57 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #36 opened the resident's door, peeked in, shut the door and walked away. At 1:35 PM the tube-feeding formula and water were not signed for on the medication administration record. Licensed Practical Nurse #36 was not observed administering the resident's tube feeding from 9:14 AM-1:44 PM. At 1:44 PM Certified Nurse Aide #22 and Licensed Practical Nurse #36 entered the resident's room. Licensed Practical Nurse #36 elevated the resident's head of bed to about 45 degrees, flushed the resident's tube with 50 milliliters of water, mixed medications with 30 milliliters of water, administered medications, poured one 237 milliliters carton of tube-feeding formula 1.2 into the tube using a syringe (physician order was for 280 milliliters), then flushed with 50 milliliters of water. At 1:57 PM both the 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM tube-feeding formula feedings and water flushes were signed as administered by Licensed Practical Nurse #36 on the medication administration record. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 3:02 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #36 stated if something was signed for in the medication administration record then it was given. Any missed treatments or medications should be reported to the physician and documented. Resident #136 could not have anything by mouth and relied on tube-feeding formula and water flushes via their gastrostomy tube to sustain them. The tube-feeding formula and water flushes should be signed for right after they were administered. They stated they did not know who was responsible for the 10:00 AM administration. The Registered Nurse Unit Manager #36 took over for the night nurse at 8:45 AM and then they took over for the Registered Nurse Unit Manager #36. After reviewing the medication administration record, they stated they had signed for the tube-feeding formula and water, but they should have checked not given. The resident did not receive that, and they did not call anyone to get an order to make up for that missed dose. They were not sure who administered the tube-feeding formula and water flushes on 3/6/2025 at 10:00 AM, and thought they did. They signed for it and if they did not give it, it was probably because they had two floors, and it was hard to keep track of everything. After reviewing the medication administration record, they stated they documented it was not administered and the water flush was documented as administered late but they should have clicked not administered. They stated they should have reported it because they did not do anything to make up for that lost feeding. They stated the resident should receive one whole bottle of tube-feeding formula for the feedings and that was how they were shown and how other nurses did it. After reviewing the order, they stated a bottle was 8 ounces or 237 milliliters and the resident was supposed to get 280 milliliters. The resident did not receive the ordered amount. It was important the resident received what was ordered because they depended on the feeding and could become malnourished. During an interview on 3/12/2025 at 2:02 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #22 stated Resident #136 had an order for nothing by mouth and relied entirely on their tube feedings for nutrition. It was important they received the feedings as ordered or they could lose weight. If the tube feeding was not administered within an hour of the scheduled time, they should contact the Unit Manager or the provider for directives. When administering medications, the nurse should check to make sure it was administered by the right route (by mouth, by tube) the right route and if there was any confusion they would clarify before administering. After referring to their orders, they stated the resident had some medications that were ordered to be given by mouth. The orders should have been clarified, as it was possible someone might try to give them by mouth, which could result in aspiration. They stated when they administered the resident's tube feeding, they flushed with 60 milliliters of water, then administered one carton of tube-feeding. After looking at the order and the carton they stated that they had been giving the wrong amount and should have had a carton plus another 40 milliliters. Elevating the head of the bed to 45 degrees was important to prevent reflux and aspiration. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 9:31 AM, Physician #8 stated they did not recall being informed by nursing that Resident #136 missed any recent tube feedings. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 11:05 AM, Registered Nurse Manager #12 stated nurses should check the route in which medications were ordered. If a resident had an order to get nothing by mouth and there were orders for medications to be given by mouth, it needed to be addressed. It was possible someone might give those medications orally and cause the resident to choke. Bolus feedings (tube feeding formula is delivered quickly using a syringe) given at should be given as ordered. If a resident did not receive their feeding within the time scheduled, they expected it be reported to them so they could call the doctor and see if the feeding could still be given, or the next feeding could be bumped out. Nurses should not sign for something they did not give. They administered Resident #136's tube feeding in the past and the resident received one carton of tube-feeding formula 1.2. After referring to the order and the registered dietitian's note they stated the resident should receive more than one carton of tube-feeding formula. The resident was being monitored because they had a couple pound weight loss and Registered Nurse Manager #12 thought that giving the wrong amount may have contributed to that. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 11:30 AM, Registered Dietitian #49 stated Resident #136 received enteral (through a tube) feedings. The resident should receive tube-feeding formula 1.2 280 milliliters 6 times a day for a total of 1680 milliliters. They should be made aware if the feeding or the water flushes were not provided as ordered as the resident was a high nutrition risk. If the resident was not receiving their feeding as ordered it could lead to weight loss. They were not aware the resident's feeding was not provided or not administered as ordered. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 1:36 PM, the Director of Nursing stated they expected feeding orders were followed, and the physician was notified of any missed feedings. A bolus should not be skipped or signed for if not given. Missed feedings could cause harmful effects such as weight loss, a pressure ulcer and not feeling well. Resident #136's weights were discussed, and they waxed and waned, which made it even more important the resident received the right amount of formula. The resident was to receive nothing by mouth and their medications and tube-feeding formula should not say give orally. They expected contradictory information to be clarified, as it was possible it could have been given by mouth, which could lead to aspiration. Activities of Daily Living/Dignity/Urinary Catheter/Activities The undated resident care instructions documented the resident required assistance with positioning and turning; total assistance for dressing, grooming, and bathing; bathing was scheduled for Thursdays during the 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift; mechanical lift for transfers; assist of two for bed mobility; use of a reclining chair and tilt back wheelchair; and call bell-does not use. The Comprehensive Care Plan documented: - initiated 11/1/2024, the resident was at risk for pain related to increased muscle strengthening and mobility during rehabilitation. Interventions included assist in positioning for comfort. - initiated 11/18/2024, the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers due to friction and shear. Interventions included two (2) or more to lift resident while in bed, consider postural alignment, weight distribution, and pressure relief when position in chair or wheelchair. - initiated 11/1/2024, at risk for infection secondary to urinary catheter. Interventions included provide privacy bag for urine collection bag. - initiated 11/1/2024, at risk for falls. Interventions included increased staff supervision with intensity based on resident need; provide individualized incontinence care based on needs/patterns; and encourage daily activity. - initiated 11/1/2024, at risk for constipation related to decreased mobility. Interventions included encourage to get out of bed daily with exercise and activities as tolerated. Restlessness and confusion due to stroke. Interventions included provide and encourage participation in meaningful activities while awake, provide regular periods of exercise and attempt to reduce daytime napping. The Comprehensive Care Plan did not include activities of daily living requirements. The following observations of Resident #136 were made: - on 3/4/2025 at 10:43 AM, lying in bed with only a brief on, their hair was greasy and flaky, and their gastrostomy tube, including the insertion site, was visible from the hall. - on 3/5/2025 at 12:05 PM, the door to the resident's room was closed. The resident was lying in bed wearing only a brief, their hair was unkempt with flakes, their gastrostomy tube was exposed, and their catheter bag was in a permeable pillowcase resting directly on the floor. The resident was awake and making grunting, indiscernible noises. - on 3/5/2025 at 2:00 PM, lying on their back in bed, their catheter bag was in a permeable pillowcase resting directly on the floor The 3/6/2025 Master Assignment Sheet documented Licensed Practical Nurse #36 and Certified Nurse Aide #44 were assigned to the resident, and the resident was scheduled for a shower that day Resident #136 was observed continuously on 3/6/2025 from 8:20 AM - 2:16 PM: - at 8:20 AM, the resident was lying flat on their back in bed with flaky, unkempt hair. - at 8:37 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #44 briefly entered the resident's room then left, shutting the door behind them. The resident was lying on their back wearing only a brief; their catheter bag was in a permeable pillowcase resting directly on the floor. - at 10:32 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #44 and Licensed Practical Nurse #36 entered the resident's room. The resident had a large amount of dried stool on their buttocks; their skin was red and superficially peeling where the stool was. Certified Nurse Aide #44 cleansed the buttocks and applied skin protectant to the resident's buttocks while Licensed Practical Nurse #36 held the resident on their side. The resident was placed on their back, both staff exited the room and shut the door behind them. There was no television or music provided for stimulation. - no additional care or activities were observed from 10:32 AM - 2:16 PM. There was no documented evidence the resident received their weekly shower during the 6:00 AM- 2:00 PM shift as scheduled. During an interview and observation on 3/7/2025 at 8:42 AM, Resident #136 stated yes when asked if they wanted to get out of bed and dressed; yes when asked if they got bored being in their room all the time; and no when asked if anyone from activities came to see them. They also stated they preferred wearing a light shirt and shorts. The resident's dresser and closet had many articles of clean clothing. Resident #136 was observed continuously on 3/7/2025 from 8:42 AM - 12:55 PM: - at 8:42 AM, the door to the resident's room was closed, the resident was lying flat on their back, not dressed, their hair was unkempt with flakes, their catheter bag was in a permeable pillowcase resting directly on the floor - from 11:32 AM - 1:35 PM, the resident's door was cracked open, the resident was lying on their back in bed, and their catheter bag was in a permeable pillowcase resting directly on the floor. No one entered the resident's room to perform care from 8:42 AM - 1:44 PM. - at 1:44 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #36 and Certified Nurse Aide #44 entered the resident's room and boosted the resident up in bed. No other care or repositioning was provided. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 2:02 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #44 stated residents should be turned and repositioned every two hours; showers were listed on the assignment sheets and included hair washing; and if the resident care record did not say what kind of bathing to give, they gave a shower. If giving a bed bath, the resident's hair should be washed with the use of a basin and a cup. Resident #136 was dependent for showers and repositioning and should be repositioned every couple of hours if they could get to it. The resident was at risk for skin breakdown and infection. The resident used to get up to a chair, but now laid in bed all day every day and they were unsure why. The resident was scheduled for a shower that day but was given a partial bed bath and they did not wash the resident's hair because they were very busy. They did not report the shower was not given. They did not reposition the resident but did peek in at them to make sure they were safe. They did not dress the resident as they were told the resident did not like to get dressed but recalled the resident used to get up, got dressed, and liked to wear a tee shirt. During an interview on 3/12/2025 at 12:52 PM Certified Nurse Aide #33 stated catheter bags should be in a privacy bag and not on the floor. If it was on the floor, bacteria could contaminate the tubing and enter the resident, causing an infection. Every resident should be dressed in some capacity each day as it was a privacy and dignity issue, especially if parts of their body were exposed. Doors should be shut only if a resident preferred. Residents at risk for falling should not have their door shut, as they could be unknowingly on the floor or up and walking around. A shut door could also make the resident feel trapped. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 3:02 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #36 stated turning and repositioning should be done every 2 hours, and weekly showers should be provided. If a certified nurse aide could not complete a shower, they expected it to be reported at that time and not at the end of the shift. Showers and repositioning were important because it was a resident's right. Lack of showers could make them feel undignified, and lack of repositioning could lead to bed sores. Resident #136 was dependent for repositioning, showers, and dressing. The resident did not get dressed but they had never asked why. They stated Certified Nurse Aide #44 told them at 2:00 PM on 3/6/2025 that the resident did not get their shower. They noticed the resident's hair was flaky. During an interview on 3/12/2025 at 2:02 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #22 stated catheter collection bags should be hung from a chair or bed, not lying on the floor. Catheter bags on the floor was an infection control issue. Doors could be shut if a resident preferred, but if a resident was a fall risk it should be open to better monitor. If a resident was unable to speak, unable to use their call bell, and was a fall risk, their door should not be shut. All residents should be up and dressed each day. Getting out of bed was important for skin integrity, for stimulation provided by activities, and to experience a change of environment. Resident #136 did not really speak; remained in bed the last few times they had worked that unit; their door was shut quite a bit; they were never dressed; and they liked to crawl out of bed. They were not aware of any reason the resident could not get up, get dressed, or have their door open. They thought their door should be open because they tried to crawl out of bed. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 11:05 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #12 stated they expected residents to be up and dressed in regular clothing unless they refused. Showers should be done and include shampooing on the assigned days. Turning and repositioning should occur every two hours; catheter bags should not be on the floor; and it was unsafe to have doors shut. If a resident missed their shower, they tried to fit them in on another day and/or time, otherwise that resident would go another week without that shower. It was important residents got out of bed to prevent respiratory and skin issues. Catheter bags should not be on the floor as the floors were dirty and could result in an infection. The resident should be turned and repositioned every two (2) hours to prevent skin breakdown. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 12:52 PM, the Infection Control Nurse stated catheter bags should be hung on the bed, the chair, or the walker, and not on the floor. That was an infection control issue because the floors were dirty and exposed the outlet tube to whatever germ was on the floor. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 1:04 PM, the Director of Nurses stated they wanted residents up and about and dressed each day. They expected residents were turned and repositioned every 2 - 4 hours; weekly showers be given; and catheter bags in an impermeable dignity bag and hung from the bed or the chair and not lying on the floor. Call Bell: The following observations of Resident #136's call bell were made: - on 3/4/2025 at 10:43 AM and 12:36 PM on the nightstand out of reach. - on 3/6/2025 at 8:37 AM tucked under the pillow their head was resting on, out of reach. - on 3/7/2025 at 8:42 AM and 1:35 PM on the floor out of reach. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 2:02 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #44 stated all residents should always have their call bell in reach even if they were unable to use it. The facility had hand bells and tap bells for those who could not use push button bells. They stated Resident #136 had a push button call bell, but they did not think the resident could use it. During an interview on 3/12/2025 at 2:02 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #22 stated the facility had circular touch bells for those who could not use a regular push button bell. They had never seen Resident #136 use their push button call bell and had never seen an alternative bell tried. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 11:05 AM, Registered Nurse Manager #36 stated everyone should have a call bell. If a resident could not use the regular push button call bell they should be evaluated for an alternative. The facility had flat touch bells and hand bells as alternatives to the push button. Having a call bell was important so that a resident could get the staff's attention, otherwise they could fall. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 1:36 PM, the Director of Nursing stated if a resident was unable to use a regular call bell, they should have an alternative like a tap or hand bell. If they did have a call bell, it should not be on the floor. It was important residents had a call bell so they could let staff know if they needed assistance. They thought call bell use assessments were completed, but after referencing the electronic medical record they could not see that one was performed for Resident #136. Activities/Psychosocial Stimulation: The Comprehensive Care Plan documented: - initiated 11/1/2024, the resident needed assistance and reminders to participate in activities. The resident enjoyed playing the drums, watching sports and game shows on TV, going outside, gardening, and talking with others. Interventions were to include the resident in one to one activities on unit; provide activities calendar; provide materials as needed for independent leisure pursuits, i.e., books, magazines, newspaper and puzzles. Remind of programs and encourage involvement; - initiated 11/1/2024, was at risk for miscommunication related to dysphasia (difficulty speaking). Interventions included attempt to anticipate needs; use simple phrases and words; and the resident was able to nod yes or no. - revised 1/30/2025, the resident enjoyed game shows, Catholic services, drums, sports, outside, gardening, and talking with others. Interventions included invite to mass, be sure they had a picture board, provide materials for independent pursuits, include in one-to-one activities such as games, exercise and trivia; transport to events; and use pictures to communicate. The March 2025 activities calendar listed the following categories of activities that were documented as being important to the resident: -on 3/4/2025 visits with Pastor [NAME] -on 3/5/2025 mass and distribution of ashes and rosary -on 3/6/2025 bingo -on 3/7/2025 bible study and theater production of Cinderella -on 3/10/2025 communion and musical melodies -on 3/11/2025 visits with Pastor [NAME] -on 3/12/2025 mass and rosary -on 3/13/2025 bingo -on 3/14/2025 bible study, [NAME] orchestra and moving from the music The undated activities attendance report documented the resident attended the following activities from 3/1/2025-3/14/2025: - on 3/3/2025 1:1 sensory visit, calendar delivery, traveling performer, and trivia. - on 3/5/2025 television - on 3/7/2025 1:1 visit to reminisce - on 3/10/2025 traveling performer - on 3/11/2025 a family visit The 1/31/2025 Social Worker #42's progress note documented the resident sometimes felt lonely and isolated. The following observations were made of Resident #136 in their room: - on 3/4/2025 at 10:43 AM and 12:36 PM: staring at the ceiling with no television or music playing. - on 3/5/2025 at 12:05 PM: in their room in bed with the door closed. At 2:00 PM, awake and lying in bed makes grunting and indiscernible noises with no television or music playing. - on 3/6/2025 at 8:37 AM: Certified Nurse Aide #44 entered the resident's room, left the room a moment later shutting the door behind them. The television was off, and no music was playing. At 10:32 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #44 entered the resident's room to empty the catheter bag and shut the door when leaving. The resident was lying in bed with no television or music provided. - on 3/7/2025 at 8:42 AM: in their room with the door closed. At 9:15 AM, an unidentified activities staff stopped in the resident's room, told them the date and the weather, turned on the television, talked about current events, and exited the room two minutes later at 9:17 AM, shutting the door behind them. At 11:12 AM, they were in bed with the door closed. - on 3/7/2025 at 1:35 PM: lying in bed looking at the wall and ceiling. The television was off, and the door was closed. - on 3/12/2025 at 12:49 PM: in bed with their legs partially over the side of the bed, the television was off, and the door was closed. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 8:42 AM, Resident #136 stated yes when asked if they wanted to get out of bed and dressed; yes when asked if they got bored being in their room all the time; and no when asked if anyone from activities had come to see them. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 2:02 PM, Certified Nurse Aide # 44 stated they had not seen activities staff spend much time with Resident #136. Their door should not be shut, as it could make the resident feel isolated which could make them depressed. During an interview on 3/12/2025 at 12:49 PM, Resident #136 stated no wh[TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observations, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00332457) surveys conducted 3/4/2025 - 3/14/2025, the facility failed to ensure a resident with press...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00332457) surveys conducted 3/4/2025 - 3/14/2025, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for three (3) of four (4) residents (Residents #60, #67, and #113) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #60 developed a stage 4 (full-thickness skin loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle) pressure ulcer to their right hip. Care plan interventions were not consistently followed to prevent pressure ulcers from developing and when the pressure ulcer developed it was not adequately treated to prevent infection. Resident #67 developed a stage 4 pressure ulcer to their left heel while in the facility and there was no evidence the pressure ulcer was treated for 11 days after it was discovered. When the pressure ulcer was assessed by the wound physician consultant there was no evidence the facility evaluated and implemented their recommendations to promote healing. Additionally, on multiple days during survey the resident was observed not wearing their pressure relief booties as planned. Resident #113 had a stage 3 (full-thickness skin loss extending into fatty tissue) pressure ulcer to their right heel and was observed without a dressing on their wound. This resulted in actual harm to Residents #60 and #67 that was not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: The facility policy, Standards of Care - Pressure Injury (Ulcers), dated 12/11/2014, documented the registered nurse should regularly inspect skin for changes, such as redness and discoloration and palpate the skin for changes in temperature (warmth), edema (swelling), or hardness. The assessment documentation should be done on admission, quarterly and with a significant change in resident condition. Pressure prevention recommendations included assess skin regularly, protect high-risk areas such as elbows, heels, sacrum, and back of head from friction injury, and reposition schedules individualized based on the resident's condition. The facility policy, Consults, last reviewed 11/2024, did not document how consultant recommendations were followed up and ordered. The facility policy, Wound and Skin Care, revised 2020, documented the treatment plan would be tailored to meet individual needs. For any applicable treatment, a physician's order would be written. The policy did not address outside wound care consultants. 1) Resident #60 had diagnosis including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and stroke with left sided weakness and paralysis. The 2/2/2025 Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, did not reject care, and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living including toileting and bed mobility. The resident was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident had a stage 3 and stage 4 pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcer care included a pressure reducing device for their bed, nutritional and hydration support, nonsurgical dressings, and applications of ointments/medications. The 8/10/2022 Comprehensive Care Plan documented the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to urinary incontinence and left-sided weakness and paralysis. Interventions included to instruct the resident to reposition self every two (2) to four (4) hours when in bed, keep linens and skin clean and dry, and report any signs of skin breakdown. On 3/4/2025, the care plan was reviewed and updated to include resident's skin to remain intact. No new interventions related to skin break down were documented. The undated Resident Care Record (certified nurse aide care instructions) documented the resident was at risk for skin breakdown and required assistance with turning every two (2) hours. Use one (1) - two (2) person assist for bed mobility and two (2) person assist for transfers. The activity of daily living care documentation revealed there was no documented evidence the resident was turned and repositioned on all shifts for 12/15/2024, 12/26/24, and 12/27/24, during the night shift on 12/28/2024, and on both day and night shifts on 12/29/2024. The handwritten 24-hour report on 1/3/2025 by Licensed Practical Nurse #32 documented the Unit Manager and Assistant Director of Nursing saw the resident for an area on right buttock. There were no progress notes, assessments, or treatment orders associated with the area on the right buttock. On 1/6/2025 at 3:12 PM, Nurse Practitioner #45 documented the resident was seen for increased pain. The resident had a wound on their right hip measuring 4.4 x 2.6 centimeters. There was no further description of the wound documented or a treatment plan. On 1/7/2025 Physician Wound Consultant #30 documented the resident was seen for a seven (7) day old pressure ulcer on the right hip. The pressure ulcer measured 3.5 x 2.5 x 0.2 centimeters, and the wound bed contained 100% of necrotic (dead) tissue. The wound was debrided (removal of dead tissue). The treatment plan was to apply alginate honey (wound dressing containing honey and calcium alginate) to the pressure ulcer, cover with gauze and island border dressing daily, off-load the wound, reposition, and use an alternating pressure mattress. On 1/8/2025 at 2:34 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing documented the resident was seen on 1/7/2025 for weekly wound rounds. The resident had an unstageable wound on the right hip. The wound physician recommendations were to apply alginate honey , off load the wound, reposition the resident as able and add an alternate pressure mattress. There was no documented evidence the wound physician's recommendations were discussed or ordered by a provider. There was no documented evidence of any treatment being done to the resident's pressure ulcer. The 24-hour report on 01/12/2025 documented the wound was foul smelling with a large amount of drainage, and pain medication was given. On 1/13/2025 at 4:20 PM, Nurse Practitioner #45 documented the resident was seen for a wound to the buttocks. It was extremely foul smelling with drainage and the Wound Physician Consultant was following the resident. The resident complained of pain regardless of positioning. The resident's right hip wound measured 4.4 x 2.6 centimeters. The Nurse Practitioner did not document any further description of the wound or what the treatment plan was, other than the resident was being followed by the Wound Physician. On 1/14/2025 Physician Wound Consultant #30 documented the right hip pressure ulcer measured 3 x 3 x 0.2 centimeters, and the wound bed contained 100% necrotic tissue. The physician recommended to cleanse the pressure ulcer with wound cleanser at time of dressing change; off-load and reposition and utilize an alternate pressure mattress. This plan was discussed with nursing staff. There was no documented evidence the wound physician's recommendations were discussed or ordered by a facility provider. There was no documented evidence of any treatment being done to the resident's pressure ulcer. On 1/21/2025 Physician Wound Consultant #30 documented the wound to the resident's right hip was a stage 4 pressure ulcer. The wound measured 3 x 2.5 x 0.7 centimeters, and the wound bed contained 60% thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue with 40% slough. The physician surgically excised 3.75 centimeters of devitalized tissue that extended into the muscle. The plan of care was discussed with nursing staff. There was no documented evidence the wound physician's recommendations were discussed or ordered by a facility provider. There was no documented evidence of any treatment being done to the resident's pressure ulcer. On 1/22/2025 at 11:48 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #31 documented they received a call from the resident's family, who were with the resident at a doctor's appointment. The family asked Registered Nurse Unit Manager #31 questions related to the wound on the resident's right hip. They told the family the resident was seen on 1/7/2025 and wound care was done by the wound physician. At 3:45 PM, the resident's family called back to report the resident was being admitted to the hospital for further work-up and possible infection. The progress note did not document what the further work-up or infection was in relation to. The 1/22/2025-1/27/2025 hospital records documented Resident #60 was admitted to the hospital. The resident was found to have a necrotic (dead tissue) pressure ulcer on the right hip, with exposed bone and foul-smelling drainage. Wound cultures were positive for infectious bacteria requiring treatment with intravenous antibiotics. The hospital social worker documented a discussion with the family regarding their concerns for resident neglect at the nursing facility. During observations on 3/6/2025 at 9:16 AM and 12:45 PM Resident #60 was observed lying in bed on their back. During interviews on 3/6/2025 at 9:20 AM and 03/07/2025 at 10:38 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #52 stated the resident would only get up for a short time and then was put back to bed. The resident was always incontinent, and they should have been repositioned frequently. They tried to reposition the resident every two hours, but the resident did not stay in the position off their wound. The resident was paralyzed on the left side and would lean to their right side. The resident had contractures (shortening of muscle/tendon), so it was difficulty to reposition them. They were not sure how long the resident had a wound, but stated they went to an appointment and was admitted to the hospital because of the wound. During an observation and interview on 3/7/2025 at 1:43 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse #32 and Resident #60, the Licensed Practical Nurse gathered the supplies for the resident's wound care to the right hip. They stated the wound was on the right hip and was a stage 4 pressure ulcer. The resident was laying on their right side. The current treatment was enzymatic debriding ointment and dry dressing. Once the resident was positioned on their left side to change the dressing, there was no old dressing in place to remove. The pressure ulcer on the right hip was round surrounded by pink intact skin. The Licensed Practical Nurse packed the gauze in the undermining and tunnelling of the wound. They stated the resident sometimes pulled the dressing off and would put their fingers and hands on the wound. They thought the pressure ulcer on the hip started sometime in January 2025, when they reported the area to Registered Nurse Unit Manager #31. They did not always have time to follow up with the registered nurse because they were busy with two floors, they would document on the 24-hour report for the staff to review. Licensed Practical Nurse #32 reviewed the electronic medical record and stated there was no treatment order for the pressure ulcer until 1/27/2025, when the resident returned from the hospital. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 3:39 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #31 stated the resident was high risk for skin breakdown. The skin assessment should have been completed every three (3) months and whenever they returned from hospital admission. They stated they thought the resident had a stage 2 pressure ulcer to the right hip in the beginning of January. When asked if there was a treatment for the stage 2 pressure ulcer on the right hip, they referred to the resident record. They reviewed the electronic record for notes and specifics. They stated there was nothing, no treatment, no nursing note, and they were responsible to document when there was a new wound area and an assessment of the area. The resident currently had a healing stage 4 pressure ulcer. They stated a stage 4 wound was preventable, but they did not have a turning and positioning schedule documented. They really do not know when the resident was repositioned, or if they refused. They had all the nutrition interventions in place, it was just turning and positioning and getting them out of bed that was missing. The resident was care planned for potential skin break down related to their hemiplegia. During a telephone interview on 3/12/2025 at 2:16 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #6 stated the resident had a pressure ulcer to the right hip and had been there for a couple of months. Prevention for pressure ulcers was important for this resident because they were contracted, and unable to reposition themselves. They were supposed to reposition and change the resident every two (2) hours and repositioning and protein were important interventions to prevent wounds. During an interview on 3/13/2025 at 12:56 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated they completed wound rounds on Tuesday with the wound consultant. The registered nurse Unit Manager should be seeing their residents weekly for their skin assessment and making notes about change in condition of their skin. Resident #60 was at risk for skin break down and pressure ulcer because they were thin and not eating well. The resident currently had a facility acquired Stage 4 pressure ulcer which was originally unstageable on 1/7/2025. They were informed about the wound on 1/3/2025 and at that time the wound was on the right hip and was 4.4 x 2.6 centimeters and the resident was not seen until 1/7/2025 by the wound doctor. They stated prior to 1/7/2025 there were no recommendations or interventions in place to prevent pressure ulcers. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated, the wound had grown large fast and felt the hospital was dramatic with their documentation and reaction. The licensed practical nurses were responsible for completing the dressing changes. The Assistant Director of Nursing reviewed the record and stated they did not see a treatment order for the pressure ulcer prior to the hospitalization, and staff had not been repositioning the resident. During a telephone interview on 3/13/2025 at 1:54 PM, Physician Wound Consultant #30 stated the resident had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer on the right hip. The resident was at risk for pressure ulcers because they were contracted, and thin. Prior to the wound the resident was on every two (2) hours reposition and using a standard mattress. After their evaluation they added the alternating pressure mattress. The resident was at risk for pressure due to contractures, challenges with nutrition and the need to be assisted with turning and position. They stated an unstageable pressure ulcer could have developed very quickly. They were unaware the facility was not implementing their wound care treatments as recommended. During a telephone interview on 3/14/2025 at 10:20 AM, Registered Dietitian #49 stated they were made aware of skin issues on the 24-hour report and during weekly wound reports from the doctor. They stated they were seeing the resident in October 2024 because they had impaired skin to the left buttock and the resident was at risk for skin breakdown. The resident was receiving additional nutritional supplement and then with the right hip wound they added the prescribed protein supplement with the medication administration. It was important to supplement the protein for the wound healing. 2) Resident #67 was admitted with diagnoses including stage 4 pressure ulcer to their left heel, osteoarthritis, and physical debility. The 12/22/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition; did not reject care; had impairments to both sides of their lower extremities; required maximum assist with dressing and personal hygiene; was at risk for developing pressure ulcers, had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries, and had a stage 4 pressure ulcer. The 8/20/2024 physician orders documented to apply skin prep (protective barrier) to the right heel 3 times daily. The revised 11/21/2024 Comprehensive Care Plan documented the resident exhibited signs and symptoms of a pressure ulcer on the left heel. Interventions included to apply treatment per provider order. No further interventions regarding the left heel were documented. On 2/8/2025 at 11:06 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing documented the resident was seen on wound rounds on 2/4/2025. They had a stage 4 wound to the left heel. Progress was exacerbated due to generalized decline in the resident, and resident noncompliance with offloading wound. The ordered treatment for skin prep would continue. Recommendations included reposition as often as resident allowed, offload wound, and use of pressure off-loading boot. Nursing would continue to monitor resident's skin integrity. On 2/11/2025 Physician Wound Consultant #30 documented the resident had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to their left heel that measured 2 x 2.5 x 0.1 centimeters. There was moderate serous exudate (wound drainage), and the wound had improved by evidence in decreased surface size. Recommendations included to apply calcium alginate (a soft wound dressing) once daily and apply gauze once daily. Recommendations also included reposition the resident per facility protocol, off-load wound, turn side to side in bed every 1-2 hours if able, and pressure off-loading boot. There was no documented evidence the wound physician's recommendations were discussed or ordered by a provider until 2/21/2025. On 2/21/2025, the Assistant Director of Nursing documented a late progress note for 2/11/2025. The resident was seen on 2/11/2025 for weekly wound rounds. Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to their left heel. There was moderate drainage and had 100% devitalized necrotic (dead) tissue. The treatment plan included to apply calcium alginate covering with dressing, wrap with gauze. On 02/21/2025, a physician order was placed for calcium alginate to left heel, cover with dressing, date, initial, and wrap dressing/ankle with gauze, secure with tape and change daily. On 2/25/2025, Physician Wound Consultant #30 documented the stage 4 pressure ulcer on the left heel measured 3 x 2 x 0.1 centimeters, moderate drainage and 100% necrotic (dead) tissue. The wound was debrided of devitalized and necrotic tissue. The treatment plan was to apply calcium alginate and leptospermum honey, apply sterile gauze and skin prep daily. Additional recommendations included to reposition per facility protocol, off-load wound, turn side to side in bed every 1 to 2 hours if able, pressure off-loading boot. There was no documented evidence the wound physician's recommendations were discussed or ordered by a provider. On 3/1/2025, The Assistant Director of Nursing documented the resident was seen on 2/25/2025 for weekly wound rounds for their stage 4 pressure ulcer to the left heel. The wound had moderate drainage with 100% necrotic tissue. The treatment plan had changed to apply calcium alginate with honey (an absorbent dressing used to remove dead tissue and promote a moist wound environment), cover with gauze sponge and wrapping with gauze daily. The undated resident care record documented the resident needed assistance with turning every 2- 4 hours, was at risk for skin breakdown, and had an off-loading pressure boot for left foot. On 3/5/2025 at 1:48 PM, the resident was observed in the common area in their recliner chair. Their left heel was directly against the footrest. The resident did not have an off-loading pressure boot on. On 3/7/2025 at 9:10 AM, 9:44 AM, and 3:17 PM, the resident was observed without an off-loading pressure boot while seated in their recliner chair. On 3/13/2025 at 12:15 PM, the resident was observed lying in bed with no off-loading pressure boot on. During a wound care observation on 3/13/2025 at 12:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #36 brought the wound care supplies into the resident's room and left the room to get a towel. When they entered the resident's room they did not sanitize or wash their hands prior to putting on their gloves. After removing the resident's old dressing and placing their heel on the towel they went to the bathroom and washed their hands. When they came back to the resident, they raised the head of the bed with the bed remote, touched the resident's bedside table, and did not sanitize or wash their hands prior to putting on new gloves to apply the resident's dressing. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 9:10 AM with Registered Nurse Unit Manager #17, they stated the Wound Care Consultant Physician's treatment recommendations were entered by their themselves or the Assistant Director of Nursing. Generally, the Assistant Director of Nursing obtained the order from the medical providers. They stated the resident was seen on 2/11/2025 by the Wound Care Consultant Physician and it appeared no wound care treatments were entered to be completed until 2/21/2025, but they were certain staff were completing wound treatments during that time. It also appeared the Wound Care Consultant Physician treatment recommendations made on 2/25/2025 were not entered to be completed as well. The resident had behavior issues and would take off their off-loading boot. If staff observed the resident without their off-loading boot on, they should attempt to apply the boot or let a nurse know about the resident's refusals. During a telephone interview with Consultant Wound Physician #30 on 3/13/2025 at 1:53 PM, they stated they were at the facility weekly and as far as they were aware their treatment recommendations were put into place. They stated the resident's wound had a decline and they changed their treatment. They were unaware the facility was not implementing their wound care treatments as recommended. 3) Resident #113 was admitted with diagnosis including stage 3 pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin loss extending into fatty tissue) to their right heel and protein-calorie malnutrition. The 2/18/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition; did not reject care; required partial/maximal assistance with most of their activities of daily living including putting on/taking off their footwear; and the resident used a manual wheelchair. They were at risk for pressure ulcers, had one (1) stage 4 pressure ulcer that was not present on admission and one (1) unstageable pressure ulcer that was not present on admission. They received nutrition/hydration interventions to manage skin problems and received applications of ointments/medication. The 8/15/2024 physician orders documented to attempt to keep blue booties on to off-load heels while in bed. The revised 2/27/2025 Comprehensive Care Plan documented the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers. Interventions included to encourage resident to remain off right foot and monitor as resident frequently removed dressing and walked barefoot. On 03/04/2025, Physician Wound Consultant #30 documented the resident had a pressure ulcer on right heel and right lateral foot. The right heel was a healing stage 4, measuring 0.7 x 0.6 x 0.2 centimeters, moderate serous drainage, and wound bed covered with 100% slough (moist, dead tissue). Treatment was leptospermum honey and cover with gauze island dressing daily. The right lateral foot was a healing unstageable pressure ulcer, measuring 0.3 x 0.3 centimeters in diameter. Treatment was to apply skin prep daily. The undated resident care record (certified nurse aide care instructions) documented the resident was at risk for skin breakdown and used anti-slip socks/shoes. There was no documentation related to the resident removing dressing and walking barefoot. The following 3/6/2025 observations of Resident #113 were made: -At 12:36 PM, the resident was observed in the television lounge on the unit. They did not have their nonslip socks on, there was no bandage on their right foot, and their bare foot was on the carpet. -At 1:02 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #37 walked past the resident down the hallway and did not acknowledge the resident's foot was bare and on the carpet. -At 1:04 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #31 walked past the resident and asked the resident What were you doing with your socks?, but they did not stop and put the resident's socks on. -At 1:18 PM, and 1:33 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #37 walked past the resident down the hallway and did not acknowledge the resident's foot was bare and on the carpet. - At 1:45 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #37 was observed talking to another resident near Resident #113 and did not acknowledge the resident's foot was bare and on the carpet. - At 2:33 PM, the resident was observed with no socks, no bandage on their right foot, and their bare foot was on the carpet in the television lounge area. During an interview on 03/06/2025 at 4:25 PM Certified Nurse Aide #56 stated they put socks on the resident as they noticed they were not wearing any. The resident would frequently take their socks off. The Certified Nurse Aide did not see any dressing on the resident's foot and did not tell anyone that there was no dressing in place. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 10:23 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #31 stated if a resident's wound dressing was observed not to be in place, staff should have let the nurse know so the dressing could have been replaced. They had worked the day shift and part of the evening shift on 3/6/2025. They were not aware Resident #113's wound dressing was not on. This was something they would expect staff to tell them as it could lead to the wound worsening or a potential for infection. During a treatment observation with Resident #113 and Licensed Practical Nurse #32, the resident had a small wound on the bottom of the right heel. The wound bed contained dark tissue, and the surrounding skin was white and macerated(wrinkly skin due to prolonged moisture). The Licensed Practical Nurse placed leptospermum honey on the wound and covered with a dry dressing. The wound on the right lateral foot was small with a scabbed area and the surrounding skin was intact. Skin Prep was applied to the wound. During an interview with Registered Nurse Unit Manager #31 on 3/7/2024 at 11:09 AM, they stated if a resident did not have their wound dressing on their foot the resident could develop a possible infection, their wound could worsen or be slow to heal. They stated Resident #113 did take their footwear, socks, and dressings off at times and they observed Resident #113 on 3/6/2025 without socks on, but did not address it or tell anyone. During a telephone interview with Physician Wound Consultant #30 on 3/14/2025 at 2:15 PM, they stated if a resident had an order for a wound dressing it should have been in place and if it came off nursing staff should have replaced it. 10NYCRR 415.12(c)(1)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/4/2024-3/14/2025, the facility did not ensure each resident had the right to a dignified existence fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/4/2024-3/14/2025, the facility did not ensure each resident had the right to a dignified existence for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #508) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #508's bedside commode was not emptied, and urine and feces were malodorous and visible in plain sight. Findings include: The facility policy, Resident Rights, revised 7/5/2024 documented the resident had the right to receive services with reasonable accommodation of needs and a safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment. Resident #508 had diagnoses including fracture of right tibia (broken leg) and need for assistance with personal care. The 2/26/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, had lower extremity impairment on one side, and required partial to moderate assistance with toileting. The Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 3/6/2025 documented the resident was at risk for falls related to a tibia fracture. Interventions included increased staff assistance with intensity based on resident need and individualized toileting interventions were provided based on needs/ patterns. There was a documentation of the use of a commode. The undated resident care record (care instructions) did not document use of a commode. The following observations of Resident #508 were made: - on 3/4/2025 at 10:53 AM, sitting up on the side of their bed with a bedside commode next to the bed that contained urine and toilet tissue. The resident stated the commode smelled all the time because there were not enough staff to empty it. At 12:42 PM, sitting up on the side of the bed eating their lunch with a visitor sitting next to the bed. The bedside commode was directly next to the bed and contained urine and toilet tissue that filled approximately one third of the bucket receptacle. - on 3/6/2025 at 9:06 AM, lying in bed. The bedside commode was directly next to the bed and was approximately half full of urine, feces, and toilet tissue. The commode was visible to anyone who entered the room. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 9:36 AM, Resident #502 stated they often smelled the contents of their commode. They put their call bell on after a bowel movement, but they could not expect the commode to be emptied every time they used it because there was not enough staff. The staff that delivered their meal trays were not allowed to empty their commode. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 12:01 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #16 stated Resident #508 had a bedside commode because they could not bear weight on their leg. The resident rang for assistance because they needed help transferring on and off the commode. When they came in for their shift, the commode usually had contents in it because it was not emptied by the overnight shift. It was not appropriate the commode was not emptied and had waste in it, especially when the resident was eating. There was no cover to the commode and urine and feces had an odor. The resident had frequent visitors, and it was not dignified that the visitors saw and smelled the contents of the commode. They worked on 3/4/2025 and 3/6/2025 but it was hectic, they were too busy, and they could not keep up with emptying the commode. The commode should be emptied after each use. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 2:59 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #15 stated the bedside commodes were not always emptied. They often saw commodes with waste contents in them. They recalled a time when the toilet was clogged because a large volume of contents from the commode was flushed. Resident #502 usually asked to have the commode emptied. It was busy so it did not get emptied every time. If it was not emptied, this was unsanitary they had to eat meals next to a soiled commode. There had been times the resident's family had asked to have the commode emptied and it was embarrassing to the resident their family saw the contents of their commode. During an interview on 3/13/2025 at 10:36 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #14 stated Resident #508 had a bedside commode. They expected the commode to be emptied after each use. If the commode was one third or half full, it was not being emptied after each use. The commode should be emptied for cleanliness and infection control. There could be an odor, it was a dignity issue and was humiliating to the resident their visitors saw and smelled the contents of their commode. When eating, the resident should have enjoyed the smell of their food, not the commode and it simply should not have happened. 10NYCRR 415.5(b)(1-3)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/4/2025- 3/14/2025, the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-ba...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/4/2025- 3/14/2025, the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident for 2 of 2 meals observed. Specifically, Resident #25's lunch meal was not served at a palatable, flavorful, and at an appetizing temperature, and the 6th floor breakfast meal was delivered to the unit 30 minutes after the scheduled time with the last meal tray was passed at 9:07 AM, resulting in unappetizing food temperatures. Additionally, during the initial main kitchen tour multiple food items were not dated when opened; 1 cooler was not in working order, did not have signage to indicate it was not to be used, contained 1 oral nutrition supplement, and the temperature gauge read 57 degrees Fahrenheit. Findings include: The facility's revised 2/2024 Temperature/ Taste Test policy documented to take the temperature and taste all foods prior to service to ensure palatability and acceptable temperatures for service. Twenty minutes prior to service, the cook serving the meal was responsible to take the temperature of all food being served from the steam line or stove for that meal. Any potentially hazardous food not meeting the acceptable temperatures of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below for cold food, and 160 degrees Fahrenheit or above for hot food must be cooled or re-heated before service. The facility's 6/2021 Tray Cart Schedule Log documented the following times for Breakfast: -4th Floor 7:10 AM. -7th Floor 7:20 AM. -Unit A-3 7:30 AM. -Unit A-2 7:35 AM. -Unit B and Gardenview 7:45 AM. -3rd Floor 7:55 AM. -5Th Floor 8:05 AM. -6Th Floor 8:15 AM. TEST TRAYS: During an interview with Resident #25 on 3/4/2025 at 11:48 AM, they stated the mealtimes were not consistent, the food was cold, and hard. When they requested an alternative meal sometimes those items were cold as well. On 3/6/2025 at 12:28 PM, Resident #25's lunch meal was tested for taste and temperature in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse #15. The following temperatures were obtained: - Cheeseburger measured 124.3 degrees Fahrenheit. - Onion rings measured 104.2 degrees Fahrenheit. - Macaroni salad measured 55.2 degrees Fahrenheit, - Mandarin oranges measured 59.4 degrees Fahrenheit. - Water measured 48.7 degrees Fahrenheit. - Milk measured 47.5 degrees Fahrenheit. The cheeseburger was hard and difficult to chew, the onion rings were soggy and greasy, and the macaroni salad had a very strong dill flavor. During an observation in the main kitchen on 3/7/2025 at 8:02 AM, Head cook #69 was observed to take the temperatures of food items on the tray line. The following temperatures were documented: - Hashbrowns measured 140 degrees Fahrenheit. - Scrambled eggs measured 146 degrees Fahrenheit. - Oatmeal measured 176 degrees Fahrenheit. On 3/7/2025 at 8:27 AM, the 6th Floor meal trays started to be plated and going down the tray line and 8:44 AM, the last meal tray was placed on the delivery cart and arrived on the 6th floor at 8:45 AM. The last meal tray was passed at 9:07 AM and was tested for taste and temperature in the presence of the Food Service Director using a facility thermometer. The following temperatures were obtained: - Cream of wheat measured 137 degrees Fahrenheit. - Scrambled eggs measured 119.3 degrees Fahrenheit. - Toast measured 117.4 degrees Fahrenheit. - 1% milk measured 53.1 degrees Fahrenheit and 2nd carton of 1% measured 52.2 degrees Fahrenheit. - Orange Juice measured 58.8 degrees Fahrenheit and cranberry juice measured 57.1 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview with the Food Service Director on 3/7/2025 at 9:14 AM, they stated all hot items should be served at 130 degrees Fahrenheit or more and cold items should be served below 42 degrees Fahrenheit for palatability. They stated the 6th floor meal trays were late due to a staff member in the kitchen dropping a tray of drinks. The unit was made aware the meal was going to be late. During a follow up interview with the Food Service Director on 3/7/2025 at 3:30 PM, they stated it was important for food items to be served at palatable and appetizing temperatures. FOOD STORAGE: During the initial main kitchen tour on 3/7/2025 at 9:55 AM, in the presence of the Food Service Director the walk-in cooler contained 1 plastic container of 2 cups of liquids eggs without a date on it. The sandwich cooler contained 2 pounds of sliced provolone cheese in plastic wrap undated, 1 and ¼ pounds of sliced Swiss cheese wrapped in plastic wrap undated, 3 pounds of sliced American cheese in plastic wrap undated, 1 pound of sliced deli turkey meat in plastic wrap undated, and 1.5 pounds of sliced deli ham in plastic wrap undated. During an interview with the Food Service Director on 3/4/25 at 10:18 AM, they stated it was important for all food items to be labeled and dated once they were open or removed from the original package for food safety reason. Items were only good for 3 days unless they were in the original packs with a best used by date on the packaging. EQUIPMENT: During the initial main kitchen tour on 3/7/2025 at 9:55 AM, in the presence of the Food Service Director, 1 cooler was not in working order, did not have signage to indicate it was not to be used, contained 1 oral nutrition supplement, and the temperature gauge read 57 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview with the Food Service Director on 3/7/2025 at 8:13 AM, they stated if equipment was not in working order, a sign should be placed on the item to indicate it should not be used to ensure food safety. The cooler stopped working on 3/3/2025 and they placed an out of order sign on it. They were unsure where the sign went. They had let the facility's Administrator know the cooler was not working and work order was placed for it to be repaired. On 3/14/2025 at 9:14 AM, the facility's Administrator provided an electronic message from the Food Service Director dated 3/3/2025 at 1:43 PM, alerting them to the issue. 10NYCRR 415.14
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00330552 and NY00359628) conducted 3/4/2025- 3/10/2025, and the recertification extended surve...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00330552 and NY00359628) conducted 3/4/2025- 3/10/2025, and the recertification extended survey conducted 3/10/2025-3/14/2025, the facility did not ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, administration failed to ensure that residents received appropriate quality of care by allowing the following deficient practices to exist, placing residents at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death, F 689 Accident Hazards; failed to ensure policies and procedures were properly identified, communicated, and consistently implemented. Administration failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff to ensure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being F725, leading to several deficient practices in the areas of F684 Quality of Care, F686 Treatment and Services to Prevent Pressure Ulcers, and F692 Nutrition/Hydration Status Maintenance. Findings include: The facility job description, Administrator/CEO, dated 8/10/2004, documented the Administrator reported to the Board of Directors and responsible for all phases of the facility services. They direct all department heads/directors in their responsibilities of duties and supervises and executes duties and responsibilities. The facility Quality Assurance Plan, dated 3/2/2025, documented the committee plan, function and purpose was to anticipate compliance and quality problems; to take meaningful action, and evaluate the effectiveness of the action plan. The committee incorporates the process of all disciplines to perform ongoing assessments and audits to detect both positive and negative outcomes. The goal was to continuously improve resident, staff and service outcomes. Deficient Practice Information: Resident's Free from Accident, Refer to the citation text under F689. The facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards for 1 of 6 residents reviewed. Quality of Care, Refer to the citation text under F684 The facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents. Treatment/Services to Prevent/Heal Pressure Ulcer, Refer to the citation text under F686 The facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 3 of 4 residents. Nutrition/Hydration Status Maintenance, Refer to the citation under F692 The facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 2 of 3 residents. Sufficient Nursing Staff, Refer to the citation under F725 The facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff to ensure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for 12 of 12 anonymous residents. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 1:12 PM, the Administrator stated upon admission residents were assessed for elopement risk and this was done each quarter as well. Resident #85 was determined to be an elopement risk on admission 6/17/2024 and at that time a wander prevention device was place on the resident. The resident had removed the wander guard the evening they eloped. Prior to becoming Administrator at the facility, there were no orders placed in the residents record to check that wander prevention devices were in place and working on the resident each shift. During an interview of the Administrator on 3/13/2025 at 1:50 PM, they stated they have an average census between 140-145 residents, unit 2 remains closed and there is a registered nurse on all three shifts. The minimum staffing for A and B wing is 2 certified nurse aides on each side and 1 licensed practical nurse; the high-rise staffing for each unit is one licensed practical nurse covers unit 4 and 5 and one licensed practical nurse covers 6 and 7, and there is one certified nurse aide on each unit. They stated to a certain extent staffing can affect the quality-of-care residents receive. It was challenging to give good quality of care if the facility was short staffed. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 1:54 PM, the Administrator stated they decided what issues needed a performance improvement plan based on their audit trends and whatever was discussed in the quality assurance meetings as reported in their quality measure reports. They were working on staffing and scheduling continuously. They were running weekly reports on their pressure ulcers and those reports were brought to the quality assurance team. They did not have any audits in place for residents with weight loss, or activity of daily living or quality of care issues. 10 NYCRR 483.70(i)
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews during the recertification survey and abbreviated (NY00330552) surveys con...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews during the recertification survey and abbreviated (NY00330552) surveys conducted 3/4/2025- 3/14/2025, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff to ensure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for all 149 residents in the facility. Specifically, during a confidential resident group meeting residents stated staffing was not sufficient, and call bells were not answered timely especially during the night shift. Deficiencies related to staffing levels were identified in the areas of Activities of Daily Living (F677), Quality of Care (F684), Treatment/Services to Prevent and Heal Pressure Ulcer (F686), and Nutrition/Hydration Status Maintenance (F692). Findings include: The Facility assessment dated [DATE] documented the facility was licensed for 200 beds with an average daily census of 136. Residents of the facility had both chronic illness and post-acute conditions. The residents of the short-term transitional care unit typically entered the facility with dependence in activity of daily living care and mobility. The residents living in the long-term care units typically had several chronic diseases, 96% of these residents' required assistance with mobility, and 99% of the resident's required assistance with bathing, dressing, and grooming. Most residents (40%) could eat after staff set -up their meals. The staffing plan for nursing and nutrition services were evaluated at the beginning of each shift and adjusted as needed to meet the needs and acuity of the resident population. The facility policy, Staffing Plan, revised 9/5/2024, documented consideration was given to residents need when the composition of nursing staff was determined. Sufficient personnel were assigned to assure safe, effective nursing care; and a staffing pattern was developed that considered the needs of the resident population. The facility's 3/7/2025 list of resident's requiring assistance of two documented: - A-Wing - 4 residents required assistance of two for personal care and toileting. - B-Wing - 16 residents required assistance of two for toileting, bed positioning and transfers. - Unit 3- 1 resident required assistance of two for transfers. - Unit 4- 10 residents required assistance of two for personal care, toileting, and transfers. - Unit 5- 6 residents required assistance of two for personal care, and transfers. - Unit 6- 7 residents required assistance of two for transfers, toileting and personal care. - Unit 7- 8 residents required assistance of two for transfers, toileting and personal care. During the entrance conference interview on 3/4/2025 at 10:07 AM, the Administrator stated the facility's census was 149, with one 40 bed unit closed (Unit 2). The facility posted staffing from 3/4/2025 through 3/13/2025 documented a census of 140- 149 residents. Actual staffing on the units documented: Tuesday 3/4/2025, day shift staffing: - A wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and one unit helper for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager (who also covered Unit 6 and 7), 1 licensed practical nurse, and 1 certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides and 1 unit helper for 35 residents. Tuesday 3/4/2025, evening shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor. - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Tuesday 3/4/2025, night shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor. - A Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse until 4:30 AM, registered nurse House Supervisor from 4:30 AM- 7:00 AM, 3 certified nurse aides (2 working from 2:00 AM - 6:00 AM) for 23 residents - B Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 3 certified nurse aides (1 working 2:00 AM- 7:00 AM) for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse, 0 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Wednesday 3/5/2024 day shift: - A wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 3 certified nurse aides (one aide working until 10:15 AM), and one unit helper for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 3 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager (who covered Unit 6 and 7), 1 licensed practical nurse, and 1 certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Wednesday 3/5/2025, evening shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor (also worked day shift). - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Wednesday 3/5/2025, night shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor (also covered medication administration on Unit 3), 1 certified nurse aide to float from 10:00 PM- 2:00 AM. - A Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 23 residents - B Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Thursday 3/6/2025 day shift: - A wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 3 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager (also covered Units 6 and 7) passing 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM medications, 1 licensed practical nurse 11 AM- 3 PM, and 1 certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Thursday 3/6/2025, evening shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor (also worked day shift working until 7:45 PM) 1 licensed practical nurse house supervisor 7:45 PM- 11:00 PM. - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides (one working 2:00 PM- 6:00 PM) for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse until meds are done, 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Thursday 3/6/2025, night shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor (also covered medication pass on Unit 3 -A Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aides for 23 residents -B Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides (one working 10:00 PM- 2:00 AM) for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse house supervisor to pass medication, 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Friday 3/7/2025 day shift: - A wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides (one working 10 AM - 2 PM), and 1 unit helper for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager (also covered Unit 6 and 7), 1 licensed practical nurse, and 1 certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Friday 3/7/2025 evening shift staffing: -1 registered nurse House Supervisor (also worked day shift working until 7:45 PM) and 1 licensed practical nurse house supervisor who worked 7:45 PM- 11:00 PM. - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides (one working 2:00 PM - 6:00 PM) for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse until meds are done and 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Friday 3/7/2025 night shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor and 1 registered nurse Infection Preventionist to complete first medication pass on unit 3. - A Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aides for 23 residents - B Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse infection preventionist to complete first medication pass and 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and 5: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and 7: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Saturday 3/8/2025 day shift: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor. - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 37 residents. - Unit 3:1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7:1 licensed practical nurse and 3 certified nurse aides (one working 6:00 AM- 10:30 AM) for 35 residents. Saturday 3/8/2025 evening shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor (also schedule to work night shift) and 1 licensed practical nurse house supervisor 7:45 PM- 11:00 PM. - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aides for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse and 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 licensed practical nurse, and 3 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Saturday 3/8/2025 night shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor. - A Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aide at 2:00 AM for 23 residents. - B Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aides for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse until 3 AM, 1 licensed practical nurse at 3:00 AM- 7:00 AM, and no certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and 5: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and 7: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Sunday 3/9/2025 day shift: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor scheduled until 7:00 PM. - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 1 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 37 residents. - Unit 3:1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides (one not in until 10 AM), and 1 unit helper for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7:1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Sunday 3/9/2025 evening shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aides for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides (one aide to float between A & B from 2:00 PM- 6:00 PM) for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Sunday 3/9/2025 night shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse house supervisor. - A Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides (one from 2:00 AM- 6:00 AM) for 23 residents - B Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides (one from 2:00 AM- 6:00 AM) for 37 residents - Unit 3: 1 registered nurse, 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and 7: 1 registered nurse House Supervisor (11:00 PM- 3:00 AM),1 licensed practical nurse (3:00 AM- 7:00 AM), 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Monday 3/10/2025 day shift: - A wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 3 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 registered nurse Unit Manager, 1 licensed practical nurse, 3 certified nurse aides (one working 10 AM- 2 PM), and 2-unit helpers (one orienting) for 37 residents. - Unit 3:1 registered nurse Unit Manager (covering medications on unit 3 and covering units 6 and 7), and 1 certified nurse aides for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides, and 1 unit helper for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7:1 licensed practical nurse, 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Monday 3/10/2025 evening shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor - A wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aides for 23 residents. - B wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and Unit 5: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and Unit 7: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Monday 3/10/2025 night shift staffing: - 1 registered nurse House Supervisor - A Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 23 residents. - B Wing: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 37 residents. - Unit 3: 1 licensed practical nurse and 1 certified nurse aide for 18 residents. - Unit 4 and 5: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 39 residents. - Unit 6 and 7: 1 licensed practical nurse and 2 certified nurse aides for 35 residents. Activities of Daily Living (refer to F677) Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for Residents #41, #65, and #87. There was no documented evidence Resident #41 received showers as care planned; Resident #65 did not receive assistance at meals as care planned; Resident #87 was not toileted in a timely manner and did not receive toileting assistance as care planned; and Resident #87 missed an activity due to staff not getting them up. Quality of Care (refer to F684) Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for Resident #136. Resident #136 was not treated with dignity, was not assisted with activity of daily care, was isolated in their room without activities/stimulation, and their tube feeding was not administered as ordered. Treatment/Services to Prevent/Heal Pressure (refer to F686) Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for Residents #60, #67, and #113.Specifically, Resident #60 developed a Stage 4 (full-thickness skin loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle) pressure ulcer to their right hip and care planned interventions were not consistently followed to prevent pressure ulcers from developing and when the pressure ulcer developed it was not adequately treated to prevent infection; Resident #67 developed a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to their left heel while in the facility and there was no documented wound care for 11 days, the wound care physician recommendations were not followed for 2 weeks, the resident was observed without their pressure relieving boots on, and the nurse did not perform hand hygiene during a dressing change; Resident #113 had a Stage 3 (full-thickness skin loss extending into fatty tissue) pressure ulcer to their right heel and was observed without a dressing on their wound. Nutrition/Hydration Status Maintenance (refer to F692) Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for Residents #67 and #134. Residents #67 and #134 had significant weight changes, medical was not made aware of significant weight changes, and they did not receive their nutritional supplements as ordered. Resident #67 did not receive their ordered adaptive equipment or supervision at multiple meals during survey. GENERAL STAFFING During an interview on 3/4/2025 at 10:53 AM, Resident #508 stated on 2/20/2025, their first night at the facility, they waited 2 hours for their call bell to be answered. They almost called 911 because they thought their call bell did not work. It happened again last night, and they ended up soiling themself because they waited too long. They were embarrassed that Certified Nurse Aide #20 had to clean them up. There was usually only one certified nurse aide working on the overnight shift. During an interview on 3/4/2025 at 3:52 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #33 stated they floated to all the units. Currently they were the only staff on Unit 5, the licensed practical nurse was on the 4th floor. There were 17 residents on the unit, and this was how staffing was during the day. They stated most of the residents required assistance of two. During an interview on 3/4/2025 at 4:06 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #6 stated they were scheduled to cover Units 4 and 5. They were working the evening and night shift and was the only nurse for the two units. During an interview on 3/5/2025 at 11:53 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #32 stated they covered units 4 and 5 and there was one certified nurse aide on each floor. That was the typical staffing pattern. After they finished their medication pass, they had to assist the certified nurse aide with getting residents toileted and up for meals. During an interview on 3/5/2025 at 1:50 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #19 who was assigned to unit 3, stated they were upset because they were mandated to work the evening shift again. They were mandated to work overtime an average of three times per week. It was always the same few certified nurse aides that were mandated because there was no staff. When they came in for their shift in the morning there were call lights going off at the same time. There was no one to help. Sometimes the nurse helped with the residents that required assistance of two to get out of bed. It was important to have enough staff to ensure the residents got the care they deserve. The resident's safety was put at risk when there was not enough staff. They reported their concerns to the Supervisor or the Nurse Manager, but nothing changed. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 8:44 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #36 stated they were overwhelmed working both Units 6 and 7. They stated they must be on the unit when residents were in the dining room but if something happened on the other unit, that became a problem of having to find another staff person to cover the dining room. They stated they were behind on their medication pass. Sometimes short cuts were taken, and things were not always done as they should be. They stated they felt it was dangerous sometimes when they rushed all the time. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 10:51 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #35 stated low staffing was a problem especially if they had a resident with behavior issues, which sometime could take 2 staff to intervene to calm the resident. They must wait for someone to come to help with care when the residents required 2 staff, and this delayed resident care which was frustrating for the staff and the resident. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 12:22 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #34 stated they were the only aide working Unit 4 today, and there was floating staff to help. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 3:37 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #31 stated they were responsible to manage Units 4 and 5. They stated 16 - 24 staff members were let go 2 weeks ago and that included the unit helpers for the evening shift. They stated they were not always able to complete admission assessments and weekly skin checks because it was expected they were on the unit to assist the nurse aides with getting residents up and helping with personal care needs. They stated it was hard to keep track of all the residents, their assessments, care plans when they covered 2 units, and assisted with care of the residents. They said between Units 4 and 5 they had 16 residents who required mechanical lifts and assistance of 2 staff. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 9:07 AM, Resident #699's family member stated there was never staff on the floor (unit 6). There were times they kept ringing the call bell and nobody came. They stated Resident #699 wanted to call 911 and they called the front desk and told the front desk receptionist if they did not get someone to Resident #699's room they would call 911. There was not enough help for all the residents on this floor. During an interview on 3/13/2025 at 12:31 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing/Interim Staffing Coordinator stated the previous staffing coordinator recently resigned, and they currently were doing the scheduling with the assistance of the Director of Nursing. They stated they would like to have a licensed practical nurse and one certified nurse aide on each floor. In the high rise (units 3-7), there was one aide for 20 residents. If there were residents that need two staff for assistance, they would utilize the nurse on the unit or call someone from another unit. The A wing was the rehabilitation floor, and there were always 2 certified nurse aides, one licensed practical nurse, and a registered nurse Unit Manager because that unit had more acute residents. They also had unit helpers to assist with making beds, passing water, but they could not do hands on care. Weekend staffing was a big challenge, the current goal was to just fill in the staffing holes. On the weekends, the on call registered nurse may have to come in to assist with the medication administration. They stated they were the House supervisor in the evenings sometimes. They recently they had to pass medication on the A wing, while supervising all the units, and there were a few falls that evening. During a telephone interview on 3/13/2025 at 1:31 PM, former Staffing Coordinator #23 stated staffing ratios were always a challenge at the facility. They maintained the minimum staffing for each shift, but evenings, nights, weekends, and Mondays were hard to staff adequately. They would staff 1 licensed practical nurse per 40 residents on the A and B wings;1 licensed practical nurse for two units (40 residents) in the high rise (units 3-7); and 1 certified nurse aide per 20 residents. If staff called in then the previous shift staff person was mandated to stay, or they would reach out to staffing agency to fill in the holes. During an interview with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing on 3/13/2025 at 1:50 PM, they stated they had an average census between 140-145 residents, Unit 2 remained closed and there was a registered nurse on all three shifts. The minimum staffing for A and B wings was 2 certified nurse aides on each side and 1 licensed practical nurse; the high rise (Units 3-7) staffing for each unit was one licensed practical nurse who covered units 4 and 5 and one licensed practical nurse who covered 6 and 7, and there was one certified nurse aide on each unit. They stated to a certain extent staffing can affect the quality of care residents received. It was challenging to give good quality of care if the facility was short staffed. During an interview on 3/14/2025 at 9:32 AM, the Medical Director stated staffing is a challenge. The staffing could be better. Currently, the units have one aide for 20 residents, and 1 licensed practical nurse for 40 residents. The registered nurses helped with medication administration and were resident centered. The staffing morale was low, and this could affect staffing. The lack of adequate staff could affect the care of the residents. 10 NYCRR 415.13(a)(1)(i-iii)
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00330259), the facility did not ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means (tube fed) received the appropriate treatment and s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00330259), the facility did not ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means (tube fed) received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feed including but not limited to aspiration (inhalation of food/fluids into the lungs) pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, and metabolic abnormalities for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 experienced symptoms related to their tube feeding and the physician's orders to decrease the tube feeding rate and water flushes was not implemented timely. Findings include: The 2/2016 Medication Orders policy documented: - the nursing department will implement orders for medications according to a procedure that promotes accuracy. - The nurse will clarify any questions by consulting the Supervisor, nurse practitioner, or physician. - The 11 PM- 7 AM charge nurse will check all the charts on their unit nightly for all new orders. After comparing the physician's order with the electronic record, the licensed nurse can approve the order. - For reference, a communication book that contains copies of the orders that were faxed to the pharmacy is available on the unit. Resident #1 had diagnoses including anxiety disorder, reflux disease, and anorexia. The 11/22/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, required substantial assistance with their activities of daily living, and received more than 51% of their daily caloric needs through a feeding tube. The 11/16/2023 admission progress note by the Assistant Director of Nursing documented the resident had a tube feeding via pump, it ran from 4:00 PM to 10:00 AM, and the resident may also have oral liquids. The 11/16/2023 physician orders documented: - Jevity 1.2 (tube feeding), 80 milliliters per hour for 18 hours for a total of 1440 milliliters per day, starting at 4:00 PM. If vomiting occurred, hold the tube feed and notify the medical provider. - Flush the tube with 150 milliliters of water prior to starting the feeding at 4:00 PM and after the feeding was completed at 10:00 AM. The 11/18/2023 registered dietitian #11's progress note documented the resident received Jevity 1.2 per order, was tolerating the tube feedings, and was to be monitored. Nursing progress notes documented: - on 11/19/2023 at 2:37 PM, by licensed practical nurse #9, after 1050 milliliters of feeding infused, the resident complained of feeling full and had a small amount of vomiting. The tube feeding was stopped, and the Supervisor was notified. - On 11/19/2023 at 7:08 PM, by licensed practical nurse #13, the tube feeding was started an hour late due to the resident's stomach being too full at 4:00 PM. The feeding was started at 5:00 PM. - On 11/21/2023 at 3:42 PM, by licensed practical nurse #7, the resident had vomiting during breakfast and the tube feeding was stopped with 120 milliliters remaining. - On 11/25/2023 at 5:57 AM, by licensed practical nurse #10, the resident had an episode of vomiting. - On 11/26/2023 at 10:00 AM, by licensed practical nurse #14, the resident had a residual (amount of fluid remaining in the stomach) of over 600 milliliters as reported by the previous shift and the tube feeding was held. - On 11/27/2023 at 6:02 AM, by licensed practical nurse #15, the resident's residual was greater than 180 milliliters at 12:00 AM, 2:00 AM, 4:00 AM, and 6:00 AM and the tube feeding was held. - On 11/29/2023 at 1:07 AM, by licensed practical nurse #10, the resident complained of feeling too full and did not wish to have their tube feeding. On 11/29/2023, registered dietitian #11's progress note documented they followed up on the resident's tube feeding tolerance. The resident was noted with some increased residuals and occasional vomiting which required the feedings to be held. The resident had a 7-pound weight increase, likely some of it was fluid gain. The registered dietitian recommended decreasing the tube feeding to 60 milliliters per hour for 18 hours, for a total volume of 1080 milliliters. The water flush should also be decreased to 100 milliliters four times per day and continue to monitor tolerance. The physician's order, signed by physician #12 on 12/1/2023, documented Jevity 1.2 at 60 milliliters per hour for 18 hours, with total volume of 1080 milliliters over 24 hours and decrease water) flushes from 150 milliliters to 100 milliliters. The order had unidentifiable initials and the date 12/4/2023 at the top of the document. There was no documented evidence the tube feeding orders were changed following the registered dietitian's recommendations or the 12/1/2023 signed physician order. Nursing progress notes documented: - on 12/2/2023 at 1:26 AM, by the Assistant Director of Nursing, the resident complained of feeling overfull and their abdomen was distended. The feeding was paused as of 1:20 AM. - On 12/3/2023 at 2:30 PM, by licensed practical nurse #9, the tube feeding was stopped with 100 milliliters remaining due to the resident complaints of feeling full. - On 12/4/2023 at 12:16 PM, by registered nurse #6, the resident was observed sitting by the nursing desk, visibly pale and with quick, shallow breathing. Vital signs were obtained and revealed hypoxia (not enough oxygen) and low blood pressure. The medical provider was notified the resident was to be transferred to the hospital. - On 12/4/2023 at 1:35 PM, by licensed practical nurse #7, the resident had vomiting at 8:00 AM, the tube feeding was stopped. The resident had increased anxiety due to difficulty breathing and shortness of breath and was transferred to the hospital for evaluation. During an interview with licensed practical nurse #7 on 12/26/2023 at 1:12 PM, they stated they often stopped the resident's tube feeding before it was complete due to the resident's complaints of feeling too full or vomiting. During an interview with licensed practical nurse #10 on 12/26/2023 at 2:58 PM, they stated Resident #1 complained of feeling full and had episodes of vomiting during their tube feedings. Typically, order changes were documented, approved by the medical provider, and implemented within 24 hours. During an interview with registered dietitian #11 on 12/27/2023 at 12:38 PM, they stated they were following Resident #1 closely for tube feeding tolerance. On 11/29/2023, the resident was having residuals, episodes of vomiting, and complaints of fullness. They recommended to reduce the rate and total amount of feeding as the resident was not always tolerating the tube feedings and nursing staff often had to stop it early or delay the start time. When they communicated the need for the feeding changes, they were unable to reach the nurse covering the unit. The following day, they were concerned the change had not been made and they emailed registered nurse #16. The registered dietitian had not received any questions back from nursing and was unaware the order change was not implemented. During an interview with physician #12 on 12/28/2023 at 9:36 AM, they stated they were not aware the order to change the tube feeding was not implemented. During an interview with registered nurse #16 on 12/28/2023 at 1:46 PM, they stated they received the email from registered dietitian #11 on 12/1/2023. The email was sent the day before, and they were unable to access it. Registered nurse #16 had attending physician #12 approve and sign the order on 12/1/2023 to reduce the tube feeding rate and flushes. The order change was to address the resident's difficulty tolerating the tube feedings. The attending physician signed the order on the evening shift, and it should have been faxed to the pharmacy in order to generate the change in the electronic record. Typically, the health information staff member was responsible for collecting order changes and faxing them to the pharmacy. If it was after hours or on a weekend, the Supervisor or registered nurse making the change should fax the order change. Registered nurse #16 did not fax the order to the pharmacy on 12/1/2023 and it was not noted on the 24-hour nursing report. They stated it was likely an oversight as it was their responsibility to have completed that order change. The order change was not addressed until 12/4/2023 when the health information staff returned to work. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 12/28/2023 at 2:35 PM, they stated when a new medical order was approved and signed by the attending physician, the order had to be faxed to the pharmacy to implement the change in the electronic record. The night shift (11 PM-7 AM) nurse was responsible to check for order changes and verify completion. The expected time to complete an order change was 24 hours. When the physician signed the order for the tube feeding change on 12/1/2023, it should have been faxed to the pharmacy that day. New orders received after hours and on weekends were to be sent by the Supervisor, as the health information staff were not available. A secondary check should have been completed by the nurse on the night shift and it was not done. The order change was not sent to the pharmacy until 12/4/2023, and this was not timely. 10 NYCRR 415.12 (g)(2)
Jun 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review during the abbreviated survey (NY00277230), the facility did not ensure the resident's representative was notified when there was a need to alter treatment signifi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review during the abbreviated survey (NY00277230), the facility did not ensure the resident's representative was notified when there was a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #4) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #4 developed a deep tissue injury (DTI, purple/maroon area of discolored intact skin due to soft tissue damage) to their bilateral heels and there was no documentation the resident's representative was notified. Findings include: The facility policy Notification of Change, revised 12/2020, documented the facility must inform the resident's family member or legal representative when there was a change, which included a new treatment. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including vascular dementia and Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disease). The 4/22/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, no unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries, was at risk for pressure ulcer/injuries, had a pressure relieving device for their chair and bed, and had applications of ointments/medications to areas other than their feet. The 5/12/21 registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #5's progress note documented the RN completed a skin assessment and identified areas of concern including on the right ankle, an area that was deep red in color and measured 1 centimeters (cm) x 0.5 cm and on the left ankle, an area that was deep red to purple in color and measured 1.5 cm x 1 cm. Neither area was open, and skin prep (a protective barrier) was applied. The RN notified the resident's representative of the areas to the bilateral ankles. The RN noted the resident's representative stated the resident had vascular ulcers (from impaired blood flow) in the past. The 5/13/21 Wound Care RN #6's progress note documented the resident had DTIs on the right and left lateral malleolus (outside ankle bone) and the right and left heels. All wounds were new and the RN recommended skin prep as a treatment to all areas. There was no documentation the resident's representative was notified of the DTI on the heels identified by Wound Care RN #6. The 5/18/21 licensed practical nurse (LPN) #13's progress note documented staff noted the resident's left heel was bleeding and the skin was peeling. A&D (a skin protectant containing vitamins A and D) was applied with a dry sterile dressing and wrapped with rolled gauze. The right outer ankle and heel were red. The 5/19/21 physician order documented to cleanse the left heel with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply Tegaderm heel (transparent dressing which fits the heel), change Tuesday, Friday, and as needed. Apply skin prep to right heel once daily. The 5/21/21 Wound RN #6 progress note documented the resident's left heel was assessed that day and had epidermis (the top layer of skin) separation of the left heel. The skin was reapproximated (the wound edges placed together), a silicone heel (a pad worn on the heel) was applied and secured with silicone tape. There was no documentation the resident's representative was notified of the treatment to the resident's heels. The 5/21/21 physician order documented to cleanse the left heel DTI with wound cleanse, apply silicone foam dressing with border heel to left heel; change every Monday and Thursday. The 5/24/21 Wound Care Team progress note by RN #22 and Wound RN #6 documented the resident's right lateral malleolus DTI and left heel DTI had worsened. The treatments remained the same. There was no documentation the resident's representative was notified the resident's left lateral malleolus wound and left heel wound had worsened. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 2:47 PM, Wound Care RN #6 stated the Unit Managers were responsible for notifying the family of new or worsening wounds. The RN would speak with the responsible party prior to any debridement (removal of dead tissue) and had spoken to the resident's family member when they debrided a previous callous, but they did not notify the family of the resident's heel wounds. The RN stated they would expect documentation regarding the notification of the family. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 9:56 AM, RN Unit Manager #5 stated the Unit Manager would notify the family of any new pressure areas if it was on their shift. The RN could not recall if they notified the resident's representative of the new heel wound; they had been new to the unit and had been out of work sometime in 5/2021. 10NYCRR 415.3(e)(2)(ii)(c)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review during an abbreviated survey (NY00277230 and NY00311657), the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, con...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review during an abbreviated survey (NY00277230 and NY00311657), the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from forming for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #2 and 4) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #4 did not have a recommended treatment ordered for deep tissue injuries (DTI, purple/maroon area of discolored intact skin due to soft tissue damage) of the heels, the left heel worsened, and the care plan was not updated. Resident #2 had pressure injuries to the left heel and gluteal cleft (groove between the buttocks) identified by a family member, the heel ulcer was not assessed timely, and the care plan was not updated to include treatments or interventions for either area. Findings include: The facility policy, titled Wound and Skin Care, revised on 4/25/18, documented the following: - A skin risk assessment would be completed upon evaluation of a newly found pressure ulcer. An overall assessment should be conducted to determine if the resident currently had other types of wounds. - The appropriate Wound Care Protocol would be initially reviewed by the Unit RN (registered nurse), Shift Supervisor, or designee. The nurse practitioner (NP) would be notified, and a non-verbal communication form sent to the Wound Care Team - The treatment plan would be tailored to the meet the individual needs of the resident. The treatment on the electronic medication administration record would be instituted. For any applicable treatment, a physician order would be written and would show in the electronic medical administration record. - Any information needed by the CNAs (certified nurse aides) for bedside care should be noted on the Resident Care Record. - The area of involvement should be noted on the 24 Hour Report for follow up. - If a wound developed, the appropriate treatment would be implemented by the supervising nurse, either the unit RN or Shift Supervisor. 1) Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including vascular dementia and Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disorder). The 4/22/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, required extensive assistance for all activities of daily living (ADL) except eating, had no unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries, was at risk for pressure ulcer/injuries, had pressure relieving devices for their chair and bed, and had applications of ointments/medications to areas other than their feet. The 3/15/20 revised comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident was at high risk for skin breakdown. Interventions included a specialty mattress, wedge cushions, and a gel foam cushion. The undated care card (care instructions) documented to apply protective cream twice a day with care, a gel foam cushion, wedge cushion, calf board for leg rests, and heel protectors. Certified nurse aides (CNA) were to put skin prep (a protective film barrier) on all the resident's toes on both feet. The 5/12/21 registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #5's progress note documented they completed a skin assessment after the licensed practical nurse (LPN) reported the resident had a skin tear to their arm. The RN documented the right ankle was deep red in color and measured 1centimeter (cm) x 0.5 cm and was non-blanchable (skin does not turn white when pressed). The left ankle was deep red to purple in color, and measured 1.5 cm x 1 cm. Neither area was open, skin prep was applied, and a non-verbal communication form was sent for a wound evaluation. An alternating pressure mattress (a mattress that inflates to keep alternating pressure points) was ordered. The resident's family was notified of the skin tear with bruising and of the areas to the bilateral ankles. The family member stated the resident had vascular ulcers (from impaired blood flow) in the past and likely bumped their arm on the wall causing the skin tear. The 5/13/21 Wound Care RN #6 progress note documented the resident had the following pressure areas: - Right lateral malleolus (ankle bone) deep tissue injury (DTI) measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. - Left heel DTI measuring 4.5 cm x 9 cm. - Right heel DTI measuring 2.7 x by 3 cm. - Left lateral malleolus DTI measuring 1 cm x 0.6 cm. - All wounds were new, and the recommended treatment was skin prep. - An alternating pressure mattress and offloading boots (keeps heels from direct pressure on mattress) were requested. The resident would be followed on wound rounds. The 5/2021 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented skin prep to bilateral outer ankles twice daily starting on 5/13/21. There was no documented order for Wound Care RN #6's recommendation for skin prep treatment to the bilateral heel DTIs. There was no documented update to the CCP. The 5/17/21 Wound Care Team Note documented the following pressure areas: - Right lateral malleolus DTI measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm; the wound status was the same. - Left heel DTI measuring 5 cm x 9 cm; the wound status was the same. - Right heel DTI measuring 3.5 cm x 3.5 cm; the wound status was the same. - Left lateral malleolus DTI measuring 0.7 cm x 0.4 cm; the wound status was the same. The 5/18/21 LPN #13 progress note documented staff noted the resident's left heel was bleeding and the skin was peeling. A&D (a skin protectant containing vitamins A and D) ointment was applied with a DSD (dry sterile dressing) and wrapped with rolled gauze. The right outer ankle and heel were red. The 5/19/21 physician order documented to cleanse the left heel with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply Tegaderm heel (transparent dressing which fits the heel), change Tuesday, Friday, and as needed. Skin prep to right heel once daily. The 5/2021 treatment administration record (TAR) documented the following starting on 5/20/21: - Cleanse the left heel wound with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply Tegaderm to heel; change every Tuesday and Friday. - Skin prep to right heel once daily The 5/21/21 Wound RN #6 progress note documented the resident's left heel was assessed that day and had epidermis (outer layer of skin) separation of the left heel. Skin was reapproximated (the wound edges placed together), a silicone heel (a pad worn on the heel) was applied and secured with silicone tape. The 5/21/21 physician order documented to cleanse the left heel DTI with wound cleanser, apply silicone foam dressing with border heel to left heel; change every Monday and Thursday. The skin prep order was changed from bilateral outer ankles to the right ankle. The 5/24/21 Wound Care Team Note by RN #22 and Wound RN #6 documented: - Right lateral malleolus measured 1 cm x 0.5 cm and had worsened. The wound base had purple discoloration. The treatment was to continue skin prep daily, - Left heel DTI measured 6.5 cm x 10.5 cm, which was worse. The wound base was purple with epidermal separation. The treatment was to cleanse the area, apply silicone foam dressing with border heels; change every Monday and Thursday. - Right heel DTI measured 2.5 cm x 3.5 cm and was the same. The treatment was to continue skin prep daily. - Left lateral malleolus had healed; continue skin prep daily. The 5/28/21 nursing progress note documented the resident had increased shortness of breath, increased cough, and coarse breath sounds. The resident was transferred to the hospital at 8:09 AM due to worsening condition. The 5/28/21 Hospital RN admission Skin Assessment documented the resident had: - a Stage 3 (full thickness tissue loss) to the right ankle measuring 1.5 cm x 1 cm by 0.1 cm; Allevyn (a foam dressing) and protective booties were applied. - DTI to left heel measuring 3 cm x 2 cm. - DTI to right heel measuring 2 cm x 3 cm. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 9:47 AM, LPN #16 stated they did not complete wound checks; the Unit Manager did wound rounds or skin rounds. The CNAs would report any skin changes to the LPN which they would then report to the Unit Manager and would let Wound RN #6 know. Skin prep required an order if it was being used for more than prophylaxis. The TAR should document the order, so it was clear where the treatment was; any order that was unclear required clarification. The resident had a decline and developed wounds on their feet and ankles with an area which darkened. As the resident became more bedridden, their heels broke down. The LPN stated the treatment order from around 5/12/21 should have said both areas of heel and ankle. If the heel area was found after the ankles, another order for skin prep to the heels should have been written. The LPN stated they would see the resident and if they saw darkened areas on the heels, they would put skin prep on both the ankle and the heel, but not all LPNs would do that. They stated some LPNs may only put the treatment on the area documented by the order, the order should have been clear. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 2:47 PM, Wound RN #6 stated new pressure areas were communicated to them via a non-verbal communication form or verbally from staff when they were on the unit. The facility no longer had a wound care team and the RN rounded on their own throughout the week. The RN would make treatment order recommendations which would be signed off by the provider. They stated they would sometimes write on report if there was an order change or communicate it verbally to the Unit Manager if it was a significant change. Treatment orders should document the application location and each wound should have a separate order on the TAR or Medication Administration Record (MAR) to ensure there was documentation for each wound. Once an area had developed, the Unit Manager was responsible for updating the care plan. The RN reviewed their notes from 5/13/21 and the orders active on 5/12/21 and stated there should have been an additional order for skin prep to the heels as they had recommended. The nurses should not be completing treatments without an order. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 9:43 AM, RN Unit Manager #5 stated they would complete a skin assessment for a resident after they were notified of a new area by a CNA or LPN. The CCP used to be updated as a team with Wound Care RN #6 and nutrition staff. They stopped rounding on wounds as a team during the pandemic and the RN stated whoever rounded weekly would update the care plan which was usually Wound RN #6. The RN recalled the resident developed wounds at the end of their stay and thought they had something on their feet. Wound RN #6 would recommend a treatment which would be approved by nurse practitioner (NP) #19. If the RN found the areas, they would get an order for a treatment. The order should specify the area that needed to be treated and the LPN should follow the order. The RN stated they expected staff to ask for clarification if the order did not match what they were seeing. They did not update the care plan and expected Wound RN #6 to update the care plan. During a telephone interview on 6/9/23 at 10:51 AM, NP #19 stated the resident had an overall decline at the end of their stay, which included the development of skin issues. The resident should have had treatment orders for both the heels and the ankles. If skin prep was being applied to one area and not the other, the area not treated could potentially break down. Mobility, offloading, and nutrition all impacted the resident's skin condition, which had been declining with the resident's overall status. 2) Resident #2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia and multiple sclerosis (MS, a progressive nervous system disease). The 1/18/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, required extensive assistance for most activities of daily living, and had no pressure ulcers. The 12/20/22 reviewed and revised comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers due to friction and shearing, decreased activity, impaired sensory perception, and moisture. Interventions included skin assessment and inspection every shift with close attention to heels, gel foam cushion in chairs, instruct the resident to reposition every 30 minutes when in the chair, check incontinence pads every 2-3 hours, and consider toileting after meals. The undated care card (care instructions) documented the resident was at risk for skin breakdown and was to have a gel foam cushion. Supportive care documented pillows and positioning as needed. The 1/18/23 Skin Assessment by registered nurse (RN) #23 documented the resident's Braden scale (determines risk for developing pressure injury) score was 14 or moderate risk. Skin and ulcer treatments were pressure reducing device for chair and bed, and application of ointments/medications to area other than feet. The resident had a specialty mattress, gel foam cushion in their wheelchair, and pillows for positioning. The resident was assisted with turning and positioning every 3 to 4 hours, protective cream to buttocks, groin, and inner thighs twice a day and with each episode of incontinence. During a telephone interview on 5/12/23 at 1:08 PM, the resident's family member stated the following: - On Friday 2/17/23, the family member found a pressure sore on the resident's buttock when they removed the resident's incontinence brief and an area on their left heel. They reported the areas to RN #18 and licensed practical nurse (LPN) #7. The family member saw the resident's heel wound when trying to find new shoes for them. They had a hard time finding shoes which fit as the resident's left foot was more swollen than before. - On 2/18/23, the resident had cream on top of the toilet tank in their bathroom which was to be used on their buttocks. The resident's wound still had not been seen by anyone on Sunday 2/19/23. - On Monday 2/20/23, the resident's heel wound appeared worse, and the family member asked for someone to immediately see the resident. RN #18 was not available until noon, so nurse practitioner (NP) #20 came to the room to look at the resident's heel. NP #20 saw the wound on the resident's buttock, was concerned it was infected, and thought the resident should be evaluated in the hospital. - The family member provided photographs of the resident's skin impairments. The 2/17/23 photos showed a dark purple area on the resident's left heel; the area had white callous-appearing tissue surrounding it and was red around the rest of the heel up towards the ankle. The 2/18/23 photo showed the resident's ankle appearing more swollen; there was a dark purple area on the heel with the callous and a reddened area around it. The 2/19/23 photo showed the red area surrounding the dark purple area was brighter red and the ankle was swollen with the lower leg/calf extending over the ankle. The 2/20/23 photo showed the ankle was larger in size and the dark purple area of the heel had grown and extended up. The entire foot appeared red and swollen. There was no documented evidence in the medical record or on the 24-hour report on 2/17/23 or 2/18/23 of skin impairments on the buttock or heels, or that the resident's family member reported concerns about the resident's skin. The 2/19/23 at 3:06 PM licensed practical nurse (LPN) #7 progress note documented the resident's family member reported a blister like area on the resident's left heel. The resident had no complaints of pain from the area. The 2/20/23 RN #18 progress note documented on 2/17/23 at 1:30 PM, the resident's [family member] reported to the certified nurse aide (CNA) they assisted the resident to the bathroom and may have caused a slight abrasion. They reported an open area to the RN and asked what they were going to do about it. The RN told the [family member] they would assess the area. The RN observed a 0.8 centimeter (cm) abrasion to the intergluteal cleft (area that separates the buttock cheeks), and protective ointment was applied. There was no peri redness or induration (thickened skin) noted at that time. There was no documentation the resident's family member reported to RN #18 the resident had a blister on their left heel or that the left heel had been assessed. The 2/20/23 at 11:46 AM RN #18 progress note documented the resident's [family member] was at the resident's bedside and reported a wound on the resident's left foot and buttocks. The [family member] vocalized to multiple staff that both areas had been reported and they were concerned about what was being done. The NP assessed the resident areas and recommended evaluation at the hospital. The family was notified, and EMS (Emergency Medical Services) was called to transport the resident to the hospital. An intact blister was noted on the left heel and the RN did not see the intergluteal fold at that time. The NP reported they suspected an abscess (body area not identified) with evaluation of possible incision and drainage needed. The 2/20/23 Hospital History and Physical documented the resident presented to the hospital with sacral and heel ulcers. The family member was at the bedside and reported they noticed the heel ulcer in the last 4 days when they were trying to put shoes on the resident, and a sacral ulceration. The resident received antibiotics in the emergency room and a Doppler (procedure to find clots in the body) of the lower extremity showed deep vein thrombosis (DVT, clot in the lower extremity), and the resident was started on Eliquis (anticoagulant). The family, who was the HCP (Health Care Proxy, appointed to make health care decisions) reported they noticed the wounds on 2/17/23. The assessment and plan documented the resident had a Stage 1 (intact skin with non-blanchable redness) sacral pressure injury. The plan was for wound care, protective ointment, and a high protein diet. The resident had a left heel pressure injury from immobility. The plan was for non-weight bearing and offloading of the heels. The physician floated their heels in the emergency room. The resident was receiving antibiotics. The 2/24/23 at 3:26 PM RN #18 progress note documented the resident returned to the facility with sepsis (system wide infection) secondary to cellulitis (skin infection) of the left heel pressure wound. The resident was transitioned to comfort care. The resident had a large denuded (loss of top skin layer) area with ecchymosis (bruising) to their sacrum with the remainder of skin free of redness, bruising or skin tears. The 2/25/23 NP #20 progress note documented a late entry for 2/24/23. The resident returned to the facility after a hospital stay from 2/20/23 to 2/24/23. The resident was evaluated at the hospital and an ultrasound revealed a DVT of the left lower extremity and the resident had sepsis secondary to cellulitis suspected from the left heel wound. The resident had a white blood cell count of 22 (high, indicative of infection) and was treated with antibiotics. The left heel pressure ulcer was unstageable (unable to visualize the wound bed). The sacral wound was suspected, through visualization, an abscess versus a Stage 1 pressure ulcer. The family opted for comfort measures only and the resident was readmitted to the facility. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 1:08 PM, CNA #9 stated they notified the nurse of any skin issues with the resident. The resident developed an area on their buttocks and went to the hospital for it. The CNA stated they did not see the area on the buttocks. The resident's family member reported a concern with the resident's heel and asked if anyone had checked the resident. The CNA told the family member they were not sure if anyone had checked. When the CNA looked at the resident's heel, they saw dry skin and reported the concern to the nurse. The CNA never put skin prep on the resident, and they always ensured the resident was offloading their heels. All residents who were incontinent had barrier cream applied. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 1:25 PM, CNA #8 stated they were working on 2/17/23 when the resident's family member reported concerns with a spot on the resident's bottom. The CNA recalled seeing a red mark as though it was pressing on something and was still blanchable but there was no open area. The CNA put barrier cream on the area and notified the nurse. The CNA was not sure if anyone followed up on the buttock area. The family member did not bring any concerns regarding the resident's heels to them, and they could not recall any issues with the resident's heels. During a telephone interview on 6/5/23 at 1:39 PM, LPN #7 stated they could not recall the resident's family member reporting any skin issues to them. They would notify a RN of any skin concerns and the 24 hour report was a way of communicating between shifts. The Unit Manager reviewed the reports from the weekend on Monday. The LPN would notify the registered nurse supervisor (RNS) only if there was a big gaping wound; if it was not, they would document on the report for the Unit Manager to review on Monday and would tell the staff to offload the heels. The LPN could not recall if they looked at the resident's feet when they documented the progress note and on the 24 hour report on 2/19/23. The resident's lower leg and feet had swelling, and their ankles were darker which was present the entire time the LPN worked with the resident. During a telephone interview on 6/6/23 at 12:51 PM, RN #18 stated the following: - When they were notified of a skin concern, the RN would look at the area, make a plan of care, and try to determine the source. If it was a pressure area or if they were unsure the cause, they would follow up with Wound Care RN #6. They would alert the NP in writing, write a treatment order, document on report, and educate the LPN or CNA depending on the intervention. Barrier cream was used with all morning, evening, and incontinence care with residents. - The RN would document what they saw and any intervention. - If an unopened blister was identified on a resident, skin prep could be used, but offloading and relieving pressure were more important. - If there was any blister or darkening of the skin, the RN expected staff to notify them or a nurse; they had offloading equipment readily available in their office which could be accessible on the weekend. - The resident's family member approached them on a Friday and asked the RN to look at the resident's bottom. The RN was responding to a different resident with a fall which took priority over the skin issue; the family member left the facility before the RN went to see the resident. The resident had a skin tear on the gluteal cleft; it appeared as though their bottom was scraped when the brief was being pulled on or off. The RN recommended barrier cream. - The RN documented the 2/17/23 progress note late on 2/20/23. The following Monday, the resident went out to the hospital at the request of the family. The area on the intergluteal cleft had abscessed, which the RN did not anticipate happening but was possible with a warm wet area. - There was no documentation regarding the resident's wound on their backside and there was nothing on report that stood out when they looked on Monday. No staff had reported the resident's wound on the intergluteal cleft had worsened. - The RN was not aware the resident had any areas of concern on their heels. If a new concern with the resident's heel occurred on the weekend, they would expect staff to offload the area and elevate the resident's legs. The RN would expect documentation as to what interventions were put into place. - The RN reviewed LPN #7's progress note, which did not document if any interventions were put into place or if the LPN looked at the area. If the area was purple or darkened, the LPN should have alerted the supervisor, documented who they alerted, and initiated offloading. During a telephone interview on 6/9/23 at 12:37 PM, NP #20 stated they evaluated the resident on Monday 2/20/23. The family member had been in the building requesting to see the RN Unit Manager who was busy, and the NP volunteered to go. The family member had been upset about the condition of the resident's heel and intergluteal cleft and was requesting a hospital transfer. The NP agreed to the transfer as the resident had a change in the baseline status. There had been no communication regarding the resident's skin change in report from the weekend on-call providers. The NP would expect the on-call provider be notified for any changes in skin condition, including an abrasion, redness, discoloration of the heel, or an increase in swelling. Staff should not wait until Monday to notify the provider of a change. The NP stated there were interventions for the resident they could have trialed for the deep purple heel or abrasion/red area on the intergluteal cleft. The on-call provider could have discussed a plan with the resident's HCP over the weekend. 10NYCRR 415.12(c)(2)
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interviews during the abbreviated survey (NY00285241, NY00288533), the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to use and retain personal possessions ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interviews during the abbreviated survey (NY00285241, NY00288533), the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to use and retain personal possessions unless it would infringe upon the health and safety of other residents for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #72) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #72 had their personal cell phone removed by staff and was not able to communicate with their family or other entities outside of the facility. Findings include: The facility policy, Resident Personal Belongings revised 6/2022 documented the facility will support the resident's right to retain and use personal possessions to promote a homelike environment and maintain their independence. The facility policy, Resident Right to Privacy Communication revised 8/2022 documented the facility will provide residents with reasonable access to the use of a telephone where calls can be made without being overheard. Reasonable access should include retaining and use of a cellular phone at the resident's own expense. Resident #72 had diagnoses including anxiety disorder, age-related physical disability, and cerebral vascular accident (CVA, stroke). The 11/18/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and had no delirium or disorganized thinking patterns. The comprehensive care plan (CCP), revised 8/5/21, documented the resident made excessive calls to the front desk and Supervisor for non-emergent needs. Interventions were to discuss with Resident #72 reasons to call front desk and Supervisor; provide list of reasons to call; discuss reasons to leave phone lines open for emergent reasons; resident will have phone taken away for 2 weeks at incidence of next non-emergent phone call and resident will be allowed to utilize phone at the nurse's station. A 9/9/21 Interdisciplinary Team Meeting (IDT) progress note by Social Worker (SW) # 6 documented Resident #72 called a Supervisor twice prior to having a fall and according to their CCP, they were to have their cell phone taken away if they used it improperly which included calling the Supervisor for non-emergent needs. The CCP, revised 9/9/21, documented Resident #72's phone was taken away due to excessive phone calls to the Supervisor. The intervention was to re-evaluate in 2 weeks. A 9/9/21 at 11:01 PM, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1's progress note documented the resident was upset due to their cell phone being taken away. A 9/16/21 SW # 6's progress note documented an IDT meeting was held to discuss Resident #72's phone being taken away for inappropriate use and would be re-evaluated next week. A 9/18/21 at 9:45 PM, LPN #1's progress note documented Resident #72 asked a certified nurse aide (CNA) to use their personal cell phone to call their sister and was denied. A 9/23/21 IDT progress note by SW #2 documented the resident attended the meeting, was given a list of reasons to make phone calls , the team decided to return the resident's cell phone and if Resident #72 used their cell phone inappropriately, it would be taken away again. A 10/21/21 at 10:25 AM, registered nurse (RN) #3's progress note documented Resident #72's cell phone was taken away for calling the Supervisor the previous evening. A 10/28/21 IDT progress note by SW #2 documented the resident was asking the staff to use their personal cell phones to make phone calls. An 11/11/21 SW # 2's progress note documented the resident had been making multiple calls to various disciplines from their cell phone for non-emergent needs, the team agreed to remove their cell phone for two weeks for inappropriate use. SW) #2 documented the phone was removed and the resient re-educated on appropriate protocol for contacting staff. Resident #72 argued with the writer and was re-directed. An 11/18/21 at 4:17 PM, Resident Mood Interview (PHQ-9) observation by SW #2 documented Resident #72 had little pleasure in doing things, felt down and depressed nearly every day and had a score of 21. The PHQ-9 documented a score of 5 or more items indicated Major Depressive Disorder. The CCP, updated 11/23/21, documented inappropriate use of cell phone. Interventions included cell phone removed for 2 weeks per incidence of non-emergent phone calls to supervisor and 911; discuss with resident reasons to call front desk and Supervisor; provide list of reasons to call front desk and Supervisor; discuss importance of leaving phone lines open for emergent situations; resident will be allowed to utilize the phone at the nurse's station and will re-evaluate in 2 weeks when phone is taken away due to inappropriate use. A 12/16/21 IDT progress note by SW # 2 documented the resident had not been using nurse's station phone appropriately, would have its use taken away, and their personal cell phone would be given back the following week pending appropriate behaviors. A 12/23/21 IDT progress note by SW #7 documented the resident used a staff member's personal cell phone to make a phone call, would not be getting their personal cell phone back until the first of the year and would be re-evaluated in 2 weeks. A 12/23/2021 SW # 2's progress note documented they and RN # 3 met with resident, discussed appropriate use of phone and CCP guidelines to use their cell phone again, reviewed protocol for use of call bell for assistance, and firm, strict education was provided regarding use of staff time, compliance with transfers and civil requests made towards staff. SW #2 documented team was to re-evaluate the use of phone in 2 weeks. A 12/23/2021 SW #2's progress note documented they called Resident #72's sister to relay a message that the resident wanted them to call on the upcoming holiday after lunch. The resident's sister needed a reminder as to why Resident #72's phone was taken away and the sister stated that the resident had always had behaviors and was not going to change. The CCP, revised 12/23/21, documented the resident may use the desk phone for holidays. Social work and/or activities to assist with desk phone to give opportunities to communicate/visit with family. A 12/29/2021 SW # 2's progress note documented Resident #72 requested to see them and they also discussed resident's cell phone may be given back tomorrow if their behaviors improve. A 1/13/22 IDT meeting progress note by SW #7 documented Resident #72 had their cell phone taken away again for inappropriate use and activities would work with the resident on some phone use. A 1/20/22 IDT meeting progress note by SW #2 documented Resident #72 was bribing staff members to use their personal cell phones. A 3/3/22 IDT meeting progress note by SW #6 documented Resident #72 had their cell phone removed, would be re-evaluated on 3/16/22 for return, and was able to use the nurse's station phone at 10 AM, 1PM and 7 PM. The CCP, revised 6/13/22, documented the resident will have use of the facility phone one time daily when they did not have their phone and resident's phone will be removed when they use it inappropriately. A cell phone guideline initiated 7/2022 documented reasons Resident #72 could call the switchboard or a Supervisor would be if they were hurt and, on the floor, another resident was hurting them, the ceiling was leaking, they were acutely ill, or there were fire or flooding. The resident did not sign the document. On 5/3/23 at 10:00 AM, Resident #72 was observed sitting in a wheelchair across from the nurse's station. Resident #72 had delayed speech and slow responses when asked about their cell phone. The resident stated they had their cell phone, thought it was broken, stated they were unsure of how to use it, and asked a family member to replace it. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 10:22 AM with the resident's family member, they stated Resident #72 informed them their cell phone was taken away, the facility informed them the cell phone was removed but did not say why; Resident #72 was upset when their phone was taken away, the cell phone was removed for up to 3 weeks at a time and when the resident's cell phone was removed, they were not able to communicate with the resident. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 10:43 AM with a second family member, they stated Resident #72 would call the front desk for assistance or the Supervisor for assistance to get up from the floor after a fall and the staff would take their phone away. The family member stated they received phone calls from an unidentified staff member that Resident #72's phone was removed, were not told why, and when the cell phone was removed, they were unable to communicate with the resident. They stated they would call the facility to try and communicate with Resident #72 and were told the resident was sleeping or unavailable. Family member #2 stated Resident #72 did not agree to having their cell phone removed. During a telephone interview on 5/3/23 at 11:30 AM, with LPN #1, they stated they documented Resident #72's cell phone was taken away, they had nothing to do with it, SW #2, and RN Manager #3 had removed the phone and stated Resident #72 was aware because they knew the rules of their CCP stating it would be removed for inappropriate use. During a telephone interview on 5/3/23 at 11:47 AM SW #2 stated they could not recall if Resident #72's cell phone was removed, stated they had documented several times Resident #72 had their phone removed; could not recall who removed their phone and thought it was appropriate to remove a resident's personal cell phone if it were being used inappropriately. During a telephone interview on 5/3/23 at 12:47 PM, RN #3 stated Resident #72 was manipulative and needy, stated they would call 911 on their cell phone, use their call bell numerous times throughout the day and stated they had their cell phone taken away. RN #3 stated Resident #72's personal cell phone was removed punitively for calling 911, was removed by themselves and SW #2, could not recall if the resident signed an agreement form and stated it would be in their medical chart if they did. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 1:15PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) they stated that staff were expected to make rounds on Resident #72 to ensure their needs were met, it would be discussed at team meetings the resident's personal property should be removed; Resident #72 had their cell phone removed for inappropriate use, they thought an agreement form was signed at the meetings and thought it was appropriate to remove a cell phone if the use impacted other residents. The DON stated they did not participate in the IDT meetings and could not recall if Resident #72 attended them. During a telephone interview on 5/3/23 at 1:43 PM with physician #5, they stated Resident #72 was transferred to their care in April of 2021, had anxiety and depression and had a CVA. Physician #5 stated Resident #72 had their cell phone taken away for repeatedly calling 911, was care planned for it, there were several meetings to discuss taking the resident's phone away and it could affect a depressed person's psycho-social well-being depending on how it were presented to them. Physician #5 stated taking the resident's cell phone away was a counseling approach. 10 NYCRR 415.5 (e)(2)
Apr 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23 the facility failed to ensure a resident who displayed or was diagnosed with dementia, rec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23 the facility failed to ensure a resident who displayed or was diagnosed with dementia, received the appropriate treatment and services to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #137) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #137 did not have an individualized care plan with interventions in place that included the resident's customary routines, interests, preferences, and choices to enhance their well-being and to guide staff in managing the resident's care. Findings include: The undated facility policy Dementia documented the facility would assess, develop, and implement person-centered care plans through an interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach that included the resident, their family, and resident representative. The care plan goals would be achievable, and the facility would provide resources necessary for the resident to be successful in meeting their goals. The care plan interventions would be related to each residents' individual symptoms and rate of dementia progression. Individualized, non-pharmacologic approaches to care would be utilized to included meaningful activities aimed at enhancing the resident's well-being. Resident #137 had diagnoses including Lewy body dementia (a progressive type of dementia) and Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disease). The 3/28/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, did not exhibit behavioral symptoms, required extensive assistance to total dependence for most activities of daily living (ADLs), and received an anti-psychotic and an anti-depressant daily. The 3/8/23 nursing progress note by registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #16 documented the resident was admitted from the hospital with severely impaired cognition and had diagnoses of Parkinson's disease and Lewy body dementia. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 3/8/23 did not include person-centered plans that supported the resident's dementia care needs. The 3/9/23 progress note by nurse practitioner (NP) #17 documented the resident was being seen for their initial admission assessment. The resident was admitted from the hospital after an admission for failure to thrive (overall decline) and hypokalemia (low blood potassium). The resident had a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease and Lewy body dementia. The plan of care for the dementia diagnosis was to continue with supportive care, reassurance, and redirection; increase activity and socialization as tolerated; continue to monitor for any worsening sign or symptoms; and adjust care plan and treatment accordingly. The 3/12/23 progress note by NP #20 documented the resident was seen for being uncooperative, combative, and accusatory during care. During the evaluation the resident was pleasantly confused, alert and oriented to self only. The plan of care to manage the agitated behavior, specifically dementia with psychosis, included staff should continue with supportive care, reassurance, and redirection, continue the use of the olanzapine (antipsychotic), and monitor for any untoward effects, and adjust accordingly. The 3/14/23 progress note by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #18 documented the resident was uncooperative, combative, resistive, and accusatory during care. There was no documentation about nursing interventions to manage the behaviors. The 3/14/23 progress note by physician #19 documented the resident was seen for a History and Physical. The assessment and plan for the dementia diagnosis included increased socialization and activity as tolerated; continue supportive care and monitor for worsening signs or symptoms and adjust care plan accordingly. The resident's family requested to continue the olanzapine as the resident had failed a gradual dose reduction in the past. The use of the medication had more benefits than possible adverse effects. The resident was not able to understand the discussion and plan of care and lacked decision making capacity. The resident care record instructions documented the resident had Lewy body dementia. There were no specific interventions or care instructions to manage the resident's dementia or additional tasks and interventions for supportive dementia care. The 3/24/23 progress note by LPN #21 documented the resident refused all their morning medications. On 4/10/23 at 12:14 PM, the resident was observed sitting up in bed with a family member at the bedside. The family member stated they would assist the resident with their meal. On 4/11/23 at 10:14 AM, the resident was observed sitting in a high back recliner chair near the nursing station with their eyes closed. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #29 walked back and forth to other resident's rooms without interacting with the resident. During an interview on 4/11/23 at 1:52 PM, LPN #21 stated the resident was admitted approximately a month ago. They stated they were not aware the resident had a diagnosis of dementia, and the resident care record (care instructions) did have Lewy Body dementia listed as a diagnosis. There were no additional interventions or care plans for dementia. The resident was on olanzapine and Remeron (antidepressant) for dementia. They stated the resident had been sleeping a lot and lying in bed since they were admitted . The resident yelled and hollered out with care and sometimes grabbed staff without purpose. They stated they would take a break and reapproach the resident when they exhibited behaviors. During an interview on 4/11/23 at 2:29 PM, RN Unit Manager #16 stated the resident was admitted with history of falls, Lewy Body dementia, and failure to thrive. They stated the resident took an antipsychotic. The resident's care plan did not reflect dementia care and the use of antipsychotic medication. They stated they started the resident's admission assessment and most likely got pulled away and was not able to complete the care plan. The resident should have dementia care area and antipsychotic (AP) use on their care plan. That would include the use of AP medication, family involvement, and psychiatry appointments. The resident's family informed the staff to better manage the resident's outbursts, they should keep music playing when in their room. This intervention should have been included if there was a dementia care plan. They stated it was important to have an updated care plan that reflected the resident's needs to provide the best quality of life for the resident. During an interview on 4/13/23 at 8:39 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the baseline care plan should be completed within 48 hours and the individualized care plan should be completed within the first 5-10 days after admission and updated as needed. A resident with dementia who had an ordered antipsychotic medication should have an individualized care plan so the staff could provide the most appropriate care for the resident. 10NYCRR 415.12
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00278069) surveys conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00278069) surveys conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 5 of 5 occupied resident floors (1st floor, 4th floor, 5th floor, 6th floor, and 7th floor) reviewed. Specifically, the 6th and 7th floor medication rooms had nonfunctional sinks; the 4th and 6th floor dining rooms had damaged walls; the 6th floor tub room had a damaged wall; the 1st and 5th floor shower rooms had damaged walls; resident room B112 had a damaged ceiling; and the 1st floor women's staff locker room had a dangling overhead ceiling light. Findings include: There was no documented facility policy addressing the work order process for maintenance and repair of damaged or non-working items. 7th Floor: During an observation on 4/6/23 at 11:03 AM, the 7th floor medication room sink faucet was wrapped with gauze and tape and was non-functional. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #27 stated the faucet had been wrapped with gauze and tape for years. 6th Floor: During an observation on 4/6/23 at 11:18 AM, the 6th floor medication room sink faucet was wrapped with gauze and tape and was non-functional. LPN #28 stated that the sink faucet had been wrapped with gauze and tape for the past year. During an observation on 4/6/23 at 11:25 AM, the 6th floor dining room had two damaged walls including the wall with a PTAC (heating/cooling system) unit and a wall with the electrical room access door. During an observation on 4/6/23 at 11:30 AM, the 6th floor tub room walls had multiple small, damaged areas under the soap dispenser and under the towel bar area. 5th Floor: During an observation on 4/6/23 at 11:50 AM, the 5th floor shower room wall where the hand wash sink was installed had a 12 inch x 4 inch hole. 4th Floor: During an observation on 4/6/23 at 12:00 PM, the 4th floor dining room had two damaged walls including the wall with a PTAC unit and a wall with the electrical room access door. 1st Floor: During an observation on 4/6/23 at 1:50 PM, resident room B112 had a 3 foot x 1 foot strip of textured ceiling material that was peeling from the solid ceiling. A section of ceiling material was on top of the resident's clothing on the top compartment of the closet. Ceiling material dust and debris was on the floor near the closet area. During an observation on 4/6/23 at 2:15 PM, the 1st floor A side shower room tub area had a wall with an unsealed 2 inch hole around a water pipe behind the toilet. During an observation on 4/6/23 at 2:44 PM, the 1st floor women's staff locker room had a light fixture in the solid ceiling that that was loose and dangling. During interviews on 4/6/23 at 11:18 AM and 4/11/23 at 12:39 PM, the Maintenance Director stated they were not aware that the sinks in the 6th and 7th floor medication rooms were covered with gauze and were inoperable. They stated that maintenance staff would not enter medication rooms during their daily rounding of the facility, and that they would only enter those rooms if a work order was made. The Maintenance Director stated that the facility had plans to paint the remaining dining rooms and had already painted the 2nd and 3rd floor dining rooms. The Maintenance Director stated that 6th floor tub room and the 5th floor shower room walls had been damaged by either the garbage can or other equipment scraping against the wall. They stated that there had been prior repairs to the ceiling in resident room B112 and it had been fixed and repaired multiple times due to roof valley water leaks. The ceiling was now dry, and they were not sure how long the ceiling had been damaged. The damage could be seen from outside the room in the hallway. The Maintenance Director stated that they could not find any work orders for any of the findings. They stated all staff had been trained on how to place work orders through the facility computer work order system. During an interview on 4/11/23 at 1:06 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated they were not aware that the sink faucets in the 6th and 7th floor medication rooms were covered with gauze and inoperable. If there were leaky faucets work order should have been submitted. The DON stated they did weekly rounds of the facility, and the facility safety committee toured the facility monthly. They stated they would inspect the facility tub rooms and shower rooms and random resident rooms. The DON stated they had not observed the findings in the 6th floor tub room or the 5th floor shower room. They stated that any staff could submit a work order via a work computer at the nursing station. They could also tell someone else such as a supervisor, Nurse Manager, or maintenance worker who could submit a work order. 10 NYCRR 415.29(j)(1)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00297818, NY00286515, NY00306767, NY00313104, and NY00313529) surveys conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23, the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00297818, NY00286515, NY00306767, NY00313104, and NY00313529) surveys conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 4 of 7 residents (Residents #81, 84 and 95 and 110) reviewed. Specifically: - Resident #110 had ongoing wandering and aggressive behaviors and was not provided adequate supervision resulting in multiple physical altercations with other residents including Residents #81, 84 and 95. - Resident #81 had an impulse disorder and was not provided adequate supervision resulting in physical and verbal altercations with other residents including Residents #110. Findings include: The undated facility policy Quality Assurance Incident documented an adverse incident may be described as, but was not limited to, a fall with or without injury, an unexplained injury, and a resident altercation. All resident adverse incidents were to be reported immediately using the facility incident report form. The Nurse Manager would complete an investigation and write a conclusion of their investigation including any possible contributing factors and any corrective actions taken. The undated facility policy Dementia documented the facility would provide the appropriate treatment and services to every resident who displayed signs of, or was diagnosed with dementia, to meet their highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial-being. The care plan goals and interventions would be monitored on an ongoing basis for effectiveness and would be reviewed and revised as necessary. 1) Resident #110 had diagnoses including Lewy body dementia (a type of progressive dementia), delusional disorder, and unspecified psychosis. The 2/24/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required limited assistance of one to walk in their room and in the corridor. The resident was not steady but could stabilize without staff assistance when walking and did not require mobility devices. The resident had symptoms of being short- tempered, easily annoyed, and trouble falling asleep or staying asleep nearly every day over the last 14 days; exhibited physical behavior symptoms directed towards others; and wandered daily. A facility reported incident to the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) documented on 11/16/21, Resident #84 hit Resident #110 in the face and scratched them. Resident #110 retaliated by scratching Resident #84. Resident #110's comprehensive care plan (CCP), initiated 11/16/21, documented the resident had cognitive loss/dementia. The resident wandered in and out of other resident rooms, would get in other residents' beds or chairs, would wear other residents' personal belongings, and had history of physical altercations with other residents and staff. The goals included resident safety daily, no intrusion on other's personal spaces, and not engaging in physical altercations towards others. Interventions included redirect the resident to their room, psychiatric services as needed, observe the resident's whereabouts, monitor the need for rest and encourage rest, report all unsafe behaviors promptly, separate the resident from others who may instigate a fight, use a calm, firm approach. Facility reported incidents to the NYS DOH documented: - on 12/1/21 Resident #110 went into another resident's room and attempted to hit them with a closed fist. - on 12/28/21 Resident #110 took Resident #81's coffee cup from their tray and Resident #81 slapped Resident #110. There was no documented evidence interventions were added to Resident #110's CCP to ensure adequate supervision and to prevent reoccurrence of altercations. The CCP was updated on 2/2/22 and documented to make a call to the resident's family when the resident was observed wandering in and out of residents' rooms prior to 9:00 PM and the family would come in and monitor the resident. There was no documented evidence increased supervision by facility staff was planned. A facility reported incident to the NYS DOH documented on 3/13/22 Residents #110 and 84 were striking each other with their hands while sitting next to one another. On 3/14/22, the CCP was updated and documented to encourage activity participation, frequent visual checks, keep family informed, offer snacks, and social work visits for four weeks. Facility reported incidents to the NYS DOH documented: - on 7/31/22, Resident #95 stated Resident #110 hit them. - on 8/15/22, Resident #84 was heard yelling in their room. Resident #110 was observed in the corner of the bathroom and Resident #84 was in front of Resident #110 yelling at them. The residents were separated, and Resident #110 was brought back to their room. Resident #110 had blood on their left cheek and ear lobe. Resident #84 stated they hit Resident #110 with the TV remote. There was no documented evidence interventions were reviewed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent further incidents. The 11/20/22 interdisciplinary team (IDT) care conference report documented the resident's behaviors had increased and the resident had been more vocal. The resident wandered in and out of other residents' rooms. A meeting with the family was to be set up within the next couple of weeks. The 12/1/22 IDT care conference report documented a meeting was held with the resident's family. The family wanted medications discontinued and to trial essential oils on cotton balls. This was previously trialed, and the resident tried to eat the cotton balls. The family also suggested chamomile tea. These interventions would be put in place. There was no documented evidence these interventions were included on the care plan or the resident care instructions. A facility reported incident to NYS DOH documented on 12/5/22 Resident #110 entered Resident #81's room and was sitting in Resident #81's chair and would not leave. Resident #81 became frustrated Resident #110 would not leave, so they hit Resident #110 with their reacher (a piece of equipment used for assistance with daily mobility). The 12/6/22 IDT conference report documented; the special team discussed the resident's recent physical altercation. On 12/1/22, medication changes were made, labs were ordered, the resident would be removed from situations by offering a snack, spray lavender essential oil on the residents clothing, social work to monitor the resident weekly for 4 weeks, and the IDT was to discuss the resident weekly and adjust the plan of care as needed. A facility reported incident to the NYS DOH documented on 12/9/22 Resident #110 was pinned up against the wall between the television and puzzle table with Resident #84 striking Resident #110. Resident #110 was hitting back. Resident #110 sustained an abrasion to the forehead and laceration to the left ring finger. Resident #84 was moved to another unit, and they would be revaluated in the morning. The 12/12/22 IDT care conference report documented special teams' discussion regarding a recent incident. The resident had removed the stop sign and wandered into the resident's room, and the other resident was upset and began hitting Resident #110. Interventions included frequent checks, encourage socialization in common areas, social work to visit weekly for 4 week, and IDT to discuss weekly and adjust plan of care as needed. A facility reported incident submitted to the NYS DOH on 2/11/23 documented Resident #110 started taking food off Resident #81's tray and Resident #81 slapped Resident #110 with an open hand. The 2/14/23, IDT conference report documented interventions included to remove Resident #110 from areas of confrontation, frequent checks, offer frequent snacks on the go, and do not sit Resident #110 near residents who been involved in a previous altercation. The interventions listed were unchanged and included: remove resident from areas of confrontation, frequent checks, offer snacks, do not sit resident near resident that they had conflicts with. A facility reported incident submitted to the NYS DOH on 3/17/23 documented Residents #110 and Resident #81 had a physical altercation in the hallway by the elevators. Resident #110 hit Resident #81 in the head several times with their closed fist knocking off Resident #81's glasses. The 3/21/23 IDT care conference report documented there was special team meeting to discuss the incident with Resident #81 that occurred on 3/17/23. The IDT decided to encourage the resident's spouse to visit and sit and walk with the resident, attempt to set up a neurology appointment via Telehealth, schedule Telehealth psychiatry visit, and encourage volunteer visits. The 4/6/23, IDT care conference report documented behaviors had begun to increase again, the resident had been trying to hit and raising their fists at staff. They documented a medication (Buspar, a medication for anxiety) had been increased. The undated resident care record instructions documented the resident had verbal disruptions, physical aggression, was socially inappropriate, wandered, and was independent with stand by assistance for walking. There were no additional care needs or instructions for supervision to keep the resident safe daily and prevent physical altercations. During an interview on 4/6/23 at 12:20 PM, Resident #81 stated Resident #110 had hit them on the head, and they went to the hospital to make sure they were okay. They stated they tried to avoid Resident #110. The following observations of Resident #110 were made: - on 4/6/23 at 12:33 PM walking unsupervised up and down the hallway on Unit 5. - on 4/07/23 at 10:46 AM walking unsupervised, back, and forth and up and down the hallway on Unit 5. - on 4/10/23 at 10:45 AM, sitting in a straight back chair by the nursing station, slumped to the right, with their eyes closed. At 10:51 AM, awake and sitting upright in the same straight back chair. The resident stood up and sat right back down. At 11:37 AM, standing the in hallway by the nursing station. The resident was brought to the unit dining room by staff and sat in a straight back chair. At 12:59 PM, the resident walked unsupervised back to their room and got into their bed. During an interview on 4/10/23 at 1:54 PM, certified nurse aide (CNA) #22 stated they usually worked the 2:00 AM-2:00 PM shift and was currently assigned to care for Resident #110. The resident's mood could switch up quick. They stated the resident needed to be checked on more frequently than others because of their aggressive behaviors. They tried to keep a close watch on Resident #110 because they went into other residents' room. They did not think this was documented anywhere and staff just knew the resident. Staff should make sure all the residents were safe including Resident #110. During an interview on 4/10/23 at 1:57 PM, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #8 stated the resident was behavioral and was easily redirected. The resident would have short term periods of agitation and from time to time was aggressive. They were not aware of any specific directive or care plan, but all staff tried to check on Resident #110. The resident would stay up all night at times. They did have stop signs up on several resident rooms to prevent Resident #110 from entering. During an interview on 4/10/23 at 3:48 PM, LPN #23 stated Resident #110 did not have any behavior care plans. The resident wandered the unit all night long, was not redirectable, and did not understand staff when they tried to redirect the resident. Resident #110 would go to another resident and would slap them on the back. They stated Resident #110 would benefit from having a 1:1 sitter to walk with them all night. They stated it was impossible to keep an eye on Resident #110 with one nurse and one aide working nights. Resident #110 had the potential to have altercations with any of the residents on the unit. There was no specific plan of care for the resident to prevent altercations, other than to check on the resident frequently and redirect them. During an interview on 4/11/23 at 2:14 PM, registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #16 stated Resident #110 had Lewy Body Dementia and to keep the resident safe they had created behavior modifications for other residents on the unit, such as stop signs on door and frequent visual checks. The stops signs were on the doors of the residents' room that Resident #110 would frequently go into, but the signs did not really help because the resident would go through them or remove them. There had been many behavioral altercations and incidents with Resident #110. Most of the incidents occurred on the evening and night shifts. The evening and night shift had a RN supervisor, and the unit had a LPN and one CNA. The resident was awake all night and would frequently sleep all day. On 3/21/23 they had a special meeting to discuss the incident that occurred on 3/17/23 and the interdisciplinary team decided to continue with the interventions of monitoring the resident's whereabouts, redirect the resident as needed, provide medications as ordered, and staff were to intervene as needed. They stated it would be ideal to have the resident on 1:1 supervision but there was not enough staff. During an interview on 4/12/23 at 2:14 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated they attended a recent meeting for a reportable incident involving the resident in March of 2023. The resident was on weekly special meetings. The resident had another incident on the evening of 4/11/23 involving another resident and this was reported to DOH. The interventions on evening and night shift were to redirect the resident and reapproach. Resident #110 would benefit from 1:1 supervision, but the facility did not have sufficient staff for that. During an interview on 4/13/23 at 9:22 AM, physician #19 stated the resident had Lewy body dementia and behaviors that were challenging and difficult to manage. They stated they were aware of the altercations the resident had been involved in and they have been meeting twice a week to discuss the resident's behaviors. They had the resident on medication for behaviors, but the health care proxy insisted they stop the medication and there were no current pharmacological management for the resident's behaviors. The physician stated the care plan mentioned the resident had behaviors at night. The resident pleasantly wandered the unit, and the staff could walk with the resident, get them a snack, and sit with the resident when there were increased behaviors. 2) Resident #81 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including impulse disorder, anxiety, and status post brain injury. The 12/13/22 MDS documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, inattention, disorganized thinking, physical behavior directed at others, was independent with most activities of daily living (ADLs), they did not walk, and used a wheelchair. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated on 2/11/22 and last updated on 12/7/22 documented the resident had a problem with psychosocial well-being, The resident was bothered by other residents that entered in their perceived space. The resident would notify staff if other residents were bothering them. Interventions included 1:1 as needed, encourage the resident to return to their room if they were bothered in common areas, and encourage the resident to voice their thoughts. The 10/12/22 psychiatry consult document the resident had predatory behaviors, tended to have control behaviors, tended to wander into peers' room, their spouse visited 1-2 times weekly, and staff were able to redirect the resident. A facility reported incident to the NYS DOH documented on 2/11/23, Resident #81 was involved in an altercation with Resident #110 in the hall in front of the elevators. Resident #81 slapped Resident #110 with an open hand when Resident #110 touched their dinner tray. The care plan was updated to encourage the resident to return to their room if bothered by another resident, educate the resident how to respond to other residents appropriately, and a 1:1 as needed. The 2/15/23 nurse practitioner (NP) #17 progress note documented the resident was seen for aggression, when another resident took food from their tray. The resident struck the other resident with an open hand and there were no overt injuries. The resident had poor judgment and was advised to ask staff next time for assistance if there was an issue. A facility submitted incident to the NYS DOH documented on 3/17/23 Resident #81 was eating their dinner in the hallway near the elevators when Resident #110 walked up to the resident and grabbed their coffee mug and put the straw up to their mouth. Resident #81 grabbed the cup from Resident #110 and Resident #110 punched Resident #81 in the head several times. There were no updated interventions added to the care plan. A progress note dated 3/17/23 at 7:30 PM by registered nurse (RN) supervisor #3 documented Resident #81 was sitting at a table near the window. Resident #110 took Resident #81's coffee mug and was putting the straw to their mouth. Resident #81 grabbed the mug back and Resident #110 started to strike Resident #81 on the head several times knocking their glasses off. The residents were separated, and Resident #81 was assessed, there was no bruising, swelling or redness noted to their head. The resident's emergency contact and physician were made aware. A progress note dated 3/17/23 at 10:07 PM by RN Supervisor documented a phone call was received from the resident's family requesting Resident #81 go to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation of a brain bleed from the earlier incident. The physician did not feel Resident #81 needed to go to the hospital as it was not medically warranted or needed. The resident's emergency contact insisted Resident #81 be sent to the ER. Resident #81's family called the facility to have Resident #110 arrested. The facility assured the family that a resident to resident incident would not happen again. The family agreed to head injury protocol being instituted and to hold off on a hospital transfer. A progress note dated 3/20/23 by NP #17 documented the resident was involved in an altercation when another resident grabbed their coffee mug, and the other resident hit them in the head with a closed fist when they grabbed the cup out of the other resident's hand. There were no overt injuries. A progress note dated 3/20/23 by RN Unit Manager #16 documented a call to the resident's emergency contact about a follow up meeting to discuss potential actions to prevent another reoccurrence. The contact wanted to know what would be done and stated moving Resident #81's room was not an option. There was no documentation of interventions put in place to prevent another altercation. A progress note dated 3/28/23 by physician #19 documented the resident had aggressive behaviors toward another resident last week and was counseled with no reoccurrence. The interdisciplinary team met, and the care plan was adjusted accordingly. The aggression was most likely due to lack of inhibition and impulse control disorder that remained fairly controlled on current medications. A progress note dated 4/9/23 by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #27 documented the resident's emergency contact had been called and stated Resident #110 had hit Resident #81. Resident #81's explanation had inconsistencies and the supervisor was made aware. A progress note dated 4/10/23 by RN Unit Manager #16 documented the alleged incident on 4/9/23 was unfounded as there were numerous inconsistencies with multiple staff member interviews completed. During an interview on 4/6/23 at 1:20 PM, Resident #81 stated they had an issue with Resident #110. They were sitting drinking their coffee and watching TV when Resident #110 came up and grabbed their coffee without saying a word and drank their coffee. Resident #110 made a fist and pulled their arm back and a staff member saw them and intervened by separating them from Resident #110. They stated Resident #110 hit them on the head 2-3 times, using their fist like a hammer. The following observations of Resident #81 were made: - on 4/7/23 at 10:04 AM, sitting up in a wheelchair in their room with the door 3/4 closed. There was no stop sign on door. - on 4/10/23 at 10:45 AM, sitting in a wheelchair in the hallway outside of their room. At 11:37 AM, Resident #81 was sitting in wheelchair near the television by the nursing station with Resident #110 was about 15 feet away from Resident #81. During an interview on 4/10/23 at 2:10 PM, certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 stated they were usually staffed with 1 CNA and the LPN was assigned to 2 floors. They did not see the incident on 3/17/23 as they were busy and the only CNA on duty. Resident #110 went into Resident #81's room a lot and Resident #81 would yell at Resident #110. They stated they could not keep an eye on all the residents all the time as they were the only CNA on the unit. They were not able to do 1:1 supervision. The resident specific care was documented in care instructions and did not include 1:1 supervision. During an interview on 4/10/23 at 4:05 PM, LPN #4 stated normally on Unit 5 there was 1 nurse for 2 floors and 1 CNA. There were residents with behaviors in the building but Resident #81 had not had any behaviors with other residents. They thought they recalled a time when Resident #81 struck Resident #110's hand and Resident #110 struck them on the back somewhere. The interventions would be on the CCP, and they were not sure if there were any specific interventions for Resident #81. During an interview on 4/11/23 1:42 PM, RN Supervisor #3 stated it was normal to have 1 LPN cover two floors in the towers (Unit, 4, 5, 6 and 7) and 1 CNA for each unit. They did not see the incident with Resident #81 and Resident #110. They completed the incident report for the 3/17/23 incident, assessed the residents, and there was no pain or injuries noted. The intervention placed for prevention included to separate and monitor residents. Resident #81 usually ate their meal and go back to their room. Resident #110 wandered the unit a lot on evenings and nights and wandered into other resident rooms. Most of the resident doors were kept closed and had stop signs on them. Resident #81's room did not have a stop sign on their door. During an interview on 4/12/23 at 11:04 AM, RN Unit Manager #16 stated Resident #81 was having a meeting with family, resident, and team about behavioral interventions. The resident had a total brain injury and had intact cognition with good short-term memory. The resident's physician deemed they had capacity to make their own decisions. Resident #81 had been instigating Resident #110 within the last week. Staff had reeducated Resident #81 on calling for staff assistance. They had placed a motion alarm on Resident #81's door in the past, but Resident #81 had taken the alarm apart or would turn it off. Resident #81 was seen by Telehealth psychiatry services with the last visit in 11/2022. Resident #81 was on frequent visual checks by staff. Staffing for the unit was usually 1 CNA per floor and 1 LPN covering 2 floors. During an interview on 4/12/23 at 11:47 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated when a resident-to-resident incident occurred, staff should intervene immediately and make sure both residents were safe. The RN assessment should be completed, and accident and incident investigation should be started, witness statements obtained, and family and medical should be notified. They would have a team conference to look at other potential interventions. Accidents and Incidents were reviewed by the Administrator and the DON. New interventions should be placed in the CCP by either social work or nursing based on the intervention and there should be a progress note in the resident record. Resident #81 did not have any impulse control issues due to the brain injury. Resident #81 was offered a room change but declined. The usual staffing for nights was 1 CNA per floor and 1 LPN for 2 floors. Resident specific care was in resident care record (RCR) in a binder at the nurse's station that staff can refer to if needed. Each department could add to the care instructions based on the type of intervention added. 10NYCRR 415.12 (h)
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 4/6/23-4/13/23, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, including Legionella (a type of bacteria usually found in water which causes Legionnaires' disease). Specifically, the facility did not have a policy and procedure to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella in the building water system; and Legionella culture sampling and analysis of the facility's potable water system was not conducted annually as required. Findings include: The New York State Department of Health's Survey and Certification Memo S & C 17-30-All, dated 6/2/17 (revised 6/9/17) documented Medicare-certified facilities were expected to have water management policies and procedures to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water systems. As per 10 NYCRR Sub-part 4-2, Protection Against Legionella, all covered Article 28 facilities must: a) perform an environmental assessment of the facility using form provided or approved by the department and b) update their assessment annually. All covered facilities shall also adopt and implement a Legionella culture sampling and management plan for their potable water systems. There was no documented evidence of Legionella policies and procedures or Legionella testing. During an interview on 4/11/23 at 11:46 AM, the Maintenance Director stated the previous Administrator must have been involved with the Legionella testing directly, as they had never been included in the Legionella sampling at the facility. They could not find any Legionella testing results for 2021 or 2022 and could not locate a Legionella testing policy. They were having the water tested annually for bacteria and assumed Legionella was being tested by the third party vendor. They were never involved in creating or updating a Legionella testing policy within the facility. During an interview on 4/11/23 at 12:52 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated they were not aware of any Legionella in the facility. Whenever there was any kind of outbreak or infection control concern, they would contact the regional epidemiologist with the New York State Department of Health. They stated the epidemiologist had mentioned the facility should do some testing for Legionella, but they had not had any suspicious outbreaks. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) met monthly to discuss infection control at the quality assurance (QA) meetings. They were not aware of the updated regulations for Legionella. During an interview on 4/11/23 at 1:53 PM, the Administrator stated when they began working at the facility in January 2021 there was no discussion regarding Legionella in the facility. They thought the annual testing that was done by the third party vendor included testing for Legionella. They could not find a Legionella testing policy. They stated they were under the impression the facility was correctly testing Legionella in the facility. 10 NYCRR 415.19(a)
Apr 2021 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the facility made prompt efforts to resolve resident grievances for 1 of 2 residents (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the facility made prompt efforts to resolve resident grievances for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #118) reviewed. Specifically, there was no documented evidence the facility was actively working towards a resolution after Resident #118 reported missing property. Findings include: The facility policy Investigating Lost/ Missing Items Allegation of Theft and Misappropriation of Resident Property Policy revised 9/2011 documented all reports of lost or missing property, theft or misappropriation of property will be promptly and thoroughly investigated. The Administrator or designee will notify the resident or the resident's representative (sponsor) of the results of the investigation and corrective action will be taken within 10 days of the completion of the investigation. Resident #118 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diabetes and end-stage renal disease. The 12/11/20 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact. A nursing progress note documented on 12/29/20 at 9:22 AM the resident reported two game cartridges were missing. The resident was unsure when the games were last seen in their room, either on 12/23/20 or 12/24/20. The resident was instructed to keep items in a locked drawer in the bed side stand. Several staff members were interviewed, and no staff members recalled if they saw the cartridges in the resident's room. The 12/29/20 Resident Incident form documented the resident was missing game cartridges from their room. Several staff members were interviewed, and none had knowledge of game cartridges or had seen any in the resident's room. The resident was educated to keep valuables in a locked drawer in their bed side stand. There was no documentation the facility made efforts to resolve the grievance or kept the resident appropriately apprised. During an interview on 4/6/21 at 2:50 PM, Resident #118 stated they had games cartridges taken a few months ago. The cartridges were reported missing and the resident had not heard anything back on the matter since reporting the items missing. During an interview on 4/9/21 at 10:12 AM, registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #14 stated she was not aware that the resident was missing any personal items. During an interview on 4/9/21 at 10:09 AM, social worker #14 stated she had not been working on the resident's unit at the time the items went missing. She was told last week by the Director of Social Services to reach out to the family and offer to reimburse them for the missing items. The social worker stated the family and resident should have been reimbursed sooner. During an interview on 4/9/21 at 1:48 PM, the Director of Social Services stated she was aware of the missing games cartridges as she was covering the resident's unit for several months. Last week she instructed social worker #14 to call the family and have them buy the two missing game cartridges and the facility would reimburse them for the cost. She stated the facility did not call the family until last week, and they should have been updated sooner. 10NYCRR 415.3(c)(1)(i)
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, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 2 of 4 (Units 5 and 6) medication carts observed. Specifically, Units 5 and 6 medication carts contained insulin pens that had been opened and were not dated. Findings include: The 2/2017 Medication Administration policy documented that any drug is to be examined by the nurse, checking for such factors as discoloration, expiration date, unusual odor, unusual precipitation, etc. any concern was to be clarified prior to the administration of the medication. When pouring liquid medications, shake before if directed and pour with label side up to prevent damaging label. The policy did not include procedures for storage and labeling of insulin pens or vials. Resident #75 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of Lewy body dementia and diabetes mellitus. A physician order dated 5/13/20 documented Lantus Solostar 100 U/ML (units per milliliter), inject 34 units (U) subcutaneously (sq) daily for diabetes mellitus-discard and replace 28 days after opening. During an observation of the Unit 5 medication cart on 4/7/21 at 9:47 AM with LPN # 11, a Lantus Kwik (Solostar) pen for Resident #75 had no documented date when the medication was opened. LPN #11 stated this was a med given on the night shift and the pen should be dated when opened. Insulin was only supposed to be kept 28 days. LPN #11 disposed of the insulin pen in the sharp's container. Resident #86 was admitted with diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and diabetes mellitus. The 3/16/21 physician orders documented insulin lispro (Humalog) Kwikpen 100 Units/ml inject 2 units subcutaneously 3 times a day with meals and with sliding scale as follows: -Inject 2 U sq if BS reading was 150 -200 mg/dl -Inject 4 U sq if BS reading was 201-250 mg/dl -Inject 6 U sq if BS reading was 301-350 mg/dl -Inject 10 U sq if BS reading was 351-400 mg/dl -Inject 12 U sq if BS reading was greater than 400 mg/dl and notify physician. During an observation of the Unit 6 medication cart on 4/7/21 at 1:51 PM with LPN #12, Resident #86's Humalog Insulin pen (lispro pen) did not have a documented date when it was opened. LPN#12 confirmed the insulin pen was used that morning. LPN #12 said she would ask the nursing supervisor where to dispose of the unlabeled insulin pen. The 4/21 medication administration record (MAR) documented on 4/7/21 at 8:00 AM Resident #86 received 2 units and an additional 12 units of insulin lispro KwikPen 100/ML per sliding scale instructions. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/09/21 at 11:33 AM she stated she was not sure what the policy for insulin said, but it should be the standard practice for all nurses when they open a medication like insulin or eye drops, they should date and time the medication. During an interview on 4/8/21 at 11:43 AM, RN Unit Manager #10 stated insulin pens should be labeled as soon as they were opened and were good for 28 days. 10NYCRR 415.18(d)(e)(1-4)
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 7 of 7 nursing units (Units 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) reviewed. Specifically, resident areas including bedrooms, shower rooms, and common areas were found with loose handrails, stained ceiling tiles, discolored ice machines, missing wall tiles, unclean light fixtures, peeling paint, unfinished window framing and holes in the ceiling. Findings include: The 1/2012 Environmental Safety Round procedure documents the facility staff conducting environmental rounds/tours were to ensure resident rooms were maintained and resident units were in good repair. SHOWER ROOMS The following shower room observations were made: -on 4/6/21 at 11:58 AM, the Unit 5 shower room had a 2 foot x 6 inch section of peeling paint on the ceiling near the toilet; -on 4/6/21, between 2:10 PM and 2:45 PM, the Unit 3 shower room had a 3 foot x 6 inch section of peeling paint on the ceiling near the toilet and 1 ceiling light fixture was stained and discolored; -on 4/7/21, between 9:00 AM and 9:50 AM, the Unit 2 central bath had a 2 foot x 2 inch damaged section of ceiling and 2 damaged wall tiles; -on 4/7/21, between 9:00 AM and 9:50 AM, the Unit 2 shower room had a loose handrail; -on 4/7/21 at 2:20 PM, the Unit 1B central bath had four missing wall tiles; and -on 4/7/21, between 3:10 PM and 3:20 PM, the ceiling near the Unit 7 central bath had an area of peeling and measured approximately 1 foot x 2 inches in size. RESIDENT ROOMS The following observations were made in resident rooms: -on 4/6/21 at 11:10 AM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had an area around a window that was not finished/rough with unsealed gaps in the window frame; -on 4/6/21 at 1:35 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a shelf drawer that was missing the top shelf; -on 4/6/21, between 1:35 PM and 2:05 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a small section of peeling paint on the ceiling near a resident bed; -on 4/6/21, between 1:35 PM and 2:05 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a 1 inch circular indentation in the floor; and -on 4/6/21, between 2:10 PM and 2:45 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a small stain in the solid ceiling. ICE MACHINES The following observations of ice machines were made: -on 4/7/21 at 10:00 AM, the Unit 2 ice machine tray was discolored/stained, and part of the ice machine had visible hard water stains on it; and -on 4/7/21 at 2:40 PM, the Unit 1B ice machine tray was discolored/stained, and part of the ice machine had visible hard water stains on it. RESIDENT COMMON AREAS The following observations were made in resident common areas: -on 4/7/21 at 2:25 PM, the Unit 1B restroom had a 2 inch long x 1 inch wide hole over a wall light; and -on 4/7/21 at 3:35 PM, a three foot long section of the handrail near the Unit 7 nourishment room was loose and had exposed screws. During an interview on 4/6/21 at 11:10 AM, the Director of Maintenance stated that the window in resident room [ROOM NUMBER], was one of the 16 new windows that was installed in the facility in the last year, and the window final touchups had not yet been completed. During an interview on 4/9/21 at 9:45 AM, the Director of Maintenance was not aware of any of the observed issues. He stated those observed issues should have been identified and immediately corrected during previous facility rounds. 10NYCRR 415.29(j)(1)
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident received food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident received food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 3 of 3 meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) reviewed. Specifically, meal temperatures were not maintained at acceptable parameters when tested during 3 meals. Findings include: The undated Tray Assessment Form documented the following appropriate palatable temperature ranges: - Hot foods were to be 130-155 degrees Fahrenheit (F) - Salad, fruit, and deserts were to be 41-50 degrees F - Milk/Dairy and cold beverages were to be 41-45 degrees F During an observation on 4/7/21 at 12:12 PM, the lunch trays were delivered to Unit 3. At 12:30 PM, the last tray from the cart was used for testing and the resident received a replacement. At 12:33 PM, the pulled pork was 107 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and the fried green beans were 91 degrees F. The pulled pork and fried green beans were lukewarm to taste. During an interview on 4/8/21 at 3:00 PM the Food Service Director stated he expected trays to be served to the residents within 15 minutes of arriving to the unit. Hot food should be 140 F or higher when served to the residents. During an observation on 4/8/21 at 6:12 PM, the dinner trays arrived to Unit 6 at 6:20 PM. Resident #108 was served dinner. The resident's tray was tested, and a replacement was provided. At 6:21 PM, the grilled cheese sandwich was 105 degrees F, cottage cheese was 50 F, pudding was 45 F, and milk was 48 F. The grilled cheese tasted lukewarm. On 4/8/21 at 6:26 PM, Food Service Supervisor #1 verified food temperatures with a facility thermometer: - Milk: Facility thermometer - 48 F, surveyor thermometer - 49 F. - Cottage Cheese: Facility thermometer - 48 F, surveyor thermometer - 50 F. - Grilled Cheese: Facility thermometer - 89 F, surveyor thermometer - 83 F. During an observation on 4/9/21 at 7:31 AM, the breakfast trays arrived to Unit 7. At 7:38 AM, the room trays were removed from the hot box and placed on a metal cart. At 7:43 AM, Resident #126 was served breakfast. The resident's tray was tested, and a replacement ordered. At 7:44 AM, the following food temperatures were observed. - One of the two oatmeals was 129 degrees F - Orange juice was 51 degrees F - Toasted and buttered bagel was 92 degrees F - Breakfast hash brown was 98.7 degrees F and did not taste warm. - Cream cheese which was labeled Keep Refrigerated was 57 degrees and was not cold to the touch. During an interview on 4/9/21 at 9:52 AM with Food Service Supervisor #1, she stated food temperatures were expected to be 140 degrees F or more when first served. The Supervisor provided the Test Tray Assessment form, which documented hot foods were expected to be 130-155 degrees F; salad, fruit, and desserts were to be 41-50 degrees F; and dairy and cold beverages were to be 41-45 degrees F when served. She was aware the fried green beans and pork had been out of an acceptable temperature range from the 4/8/21 lunch tray. The meal was served on Styrofoam/paper which made it difficult to maintain hot food temperatures. The 4/8/21 milk and cottage cheese temperatures were not where we want them to be. The oatmeal which was 129 degrees F was a little lower than the expected range, the orange juice should not have been 51 degrees F, and the cream cheese at 57 degrees F was not good. The temperatures were not palatable. The cold beverages were put in the cooler the night before service. Due to the pandemic, the facility was doing a tray line with all foods plated on the tray in the kitchen and sent up to the units. The items from the coolers went onto the tray first and the hot foods went on last to keep the hot temperatures in an acceptable range. The cold items such as the beverages and cream cheese went on the tray and placed in the hot box when sent up the units which was likely increasing the temperatures of those items outside of an acceptable range. 10NYCRR 415.14(d)(2)
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 5 of 7 soiled utility rooms (Units 1B, 2, 3, 4 and 6) observed. Specifically, soiled utility room sinks were observed with the water nozzle located inside the hopper, under unclean water, necessitating staff to reach in the water to retrieve the nozzle. Findings include: On 4/7/21, between 9:50 AM and 10:00 AM, the Unit 2 soiled utility room's hopper sink (used to rinse soiled resident items) was observed with the water nozzle submerged in unclean water within the basin. During an interview on 4/7/21 at 10:00 AM, the Housekeeping Supervisor stated that this sink was used to dump and rinse bed pans. On 4/7/21 at 10:30 AM, the Unit 1B soiled utility room's hopper sink was observed with the water nozzle submerged in soiled gray water in the basin. On 4/7/21 at 11:35 AM, the Unit 3 soiled utility room's hopper sink was observed with the water nozzle submerged in unclean water in the basin. On 4/7/21 at 11:37 AM, the Unit 4 soiled utility room's hopper sink was observed with the water nozzle submerged in unclean water in the basin. On 4/7/21 at 12:00 PM, the Unit 6 soiled utility room's hopper sink was observed with the water nozzle submerged in unclean water in the basin. During an interview on 4/7/21 at 2:18 PM, the Maintenance Director provided documentation to demonstrate that the small silver aperture above the hopper sink was a vacuum breaker (back flow prevention device). He stated without the vacuum breaker there could be a possible cross connection (a connection between a potable water source and wastewater). He and the Housekeeping Supervisor stated the hose should not rest in the basin as this was a possible infection control issue because it could contain human waste. During an interview on 4/9/21 at 9:45 AM, the Maintenance Director stated he was not aware of the identified water nozzle issue. This should have been identified and immediately corrected during previous facility rounds. The hose handles should have been inside the hopper's built in handle holder clips. 10NYCRR 415.19(a)(1)
Jan 2019 4 deficiencies
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure 1 of 1 resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident #29) reviewed for skin conditions, received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, Resident #29 sustained a skin tear to her leg and there were no ordered treatments or care planned interventions to promote healing. Findings include: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, osteoarthritis and history of falls. The 1/8/19 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment, no wounds or skin problems, had a pressure reducing device for chair and bed and received application of ointments/medications for skin treatments. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 1/13/17 and reviewed on 10/15/18, documented the resident was at high risk for skin breakdown and did not have any skin impairments. Interventions included an air mattress and a gel foam cushion to the resident's wheelchair. A nursing progress note documented on 12/04/18, the resident had a skin tear, with scant blood, to the left lower leg measuring 1.0 centimeter (cm) x 0.7 cm. The wound was cleansed and silicone tape was applied. There were no corresponding physician orders addressing the skin tear treatment to the resident's left lower leg. Weekly nursing skin assessments by RN #19 dated 12/28/18 and 1/4/19 documented the resident's skin was clean, dry and intact with no redness or open areas. The nurse drew a line through the area before her signature. Both dates had scab to LLE healing written in on the line before the signature and were not present during the initial record review on 1/16/19. A weekly nursing skin assessment by RN #19 dated 1/15/19 documented the resident's skin was clean, dry and intact, there was no redness or open areas. The nurse drew a line through the area before her signature. Below the line and signature was written scab to LLE healing which was not present during initial record review on 1/16/19. The resident was observed: - On 01/15/19 at 02:08 PM with a black scabbed indentation on the left outer leg above the ankle. - On 01/16/19 at 08:55 AM with swelling and redness around the scabbed area of the left leg. - On 01/16/19 at 03:17 PM with a soaked bandage hanging off the left leg wound. The left leg remained swollen and red. - On 01/17/19 at 04:43 PM with a bandage/dressing on the left leg. During a wound observation and interview on 1/16/19 at 9:10 AM with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #10, the resident had a scabbed area on her left lower lateral leg measuring 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm with pitting edema (indentation when pushed in) and redness around the scabbed area. The area was tender to touch and the resident recoiled and cried out when the LPN pressed on her skin. The LPN stated the resident had sustained a skin tear on 12/04/18 and had a history of swollen lower extremities. The LPN stated she did not know the resident's wound was not healing and there had been no treatment. During an interview with LPN #20 on 1/17/19 at 12:11 PM, she stated she was aware the resident had a scab on her left lower leg, but she thought it was healing. She stated the resident would often bang her legs on the furniture or on her wheelchair but they did not have anything in place on the care plan except for the pad on the wheelchair. She stated that she did not know the resident's wound was not healing, or was so swollen. She stated they had no wound/skin care orders in place before 1/16/18 and it was not in the care plan. During an interview on 1/17/19 at 11:08 AM, registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #19 stated the resident had a scab on her leg for some time, and she often had edema. She stated she did not notice any redness or increasing swelling and she did not know the resident had any pain in her left leg. She stated the last time the skin care plan was updated was on 10/15/18. She stated that it should have been updated 12/04/18 after the resident got injured. She stated the resident's legs could have been elevated and since she has been scooting herself in her wheelchair, a referral for physical therapy (PT) may have been useful. She added that she should have called the nurse practitioner or physician for a wound consult since the wound was not healing. When asked if she had added scab to LLE healing after she had written her notes on 12/28/18, 1/4 and 1/15/19 she did not answer. During an interview on 1/17/19 at 12:37 PM, CNA #22 stated skin observations were done during AM care daily and during toileting and showers. She stated she noticed the resident's left leg edema and swelling last week and stated she reported it to the LPN but she did not document it. She stated she did not elevate the resident's legs because it did not say to do so on the resident's care instructions. 10NYCRR 415.2
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 10NYCRR 415.12(e)(2) Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey the facility did not en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 10NYCRR 415.12(e)(2) Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure 1 of 6 residents (Resident #106) reviewed for range of motion (ROM), received appropriate services and equipment to maintain or improve mobility. Specifically, Resident #106 was not provided with assistive devices for hand contractures (stiffness in the connective tissues) as care planned. Findings include: Resident #106 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including senile dementia and advanced multiple sclerosis with spastic quadriplegia (muscle stiffness of all four limbs). The 11/26/18 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, was totally dependent for all activities of daily living (ADLs), and had impaired range of motion on bilateral (both sides) upper extremities. The 1/13/14 comprehensive care plan documented the resident had bilateral hand contractures. The undated revision documented the resident was to have bilateral carrot hand splints applied after morning care for 4 hours, removed for lunch, reapplied at 2:00 PM for four hours, then removed. The 6/26/18 Occupational Therapy (OT) Evaluation and Plan of Treatment documented the resident had contractures to the left and right hands. The resident was evaluated by OT for assessment of splints and a wearing schedule for the most appropriate splints. The evaluation documented the following: - The resident had contractures to both hands which needed splints; - The resident required reassurance and gentle joint range of motion while applying the splits; - Carrot splints fit in both hands; - Staff would have to take time to apply the splints gently and reassure the resident during application; and - Splints were to be applied for four hours twice a day. The 6/27/18 physician order documented the resident was to have carrot splints placed in both hands after morning care for four hours, remove for lunch, then reapply at 2:00 PM for four hours, and remove. The 1/8/19 updated resident care record (RCR) documented the resident was to have bilateral carrot splits placed with morning care for four hours, remove for lunch, replace at 2:00 PM for four hours, then removed. The January 2019 treatment administration record (TAR) documented the resident's carrots splints were in place from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM on 1/16/19 and 1/17/19 by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #35 and from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM on 1/15/19, 1/16/19, and 1/17/19 by LPN #33. A refusal was documented on 1/15/19 at 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM with no reason noted. On 1/15/19 at 4:44 PM, the resident was observed without a carrot in her right hand which was closed in a fist. On 1/16/19 at 10:10 AM, the resident was observed without a carrot in her right hand and her hand was contracted into a fist. At 10:38 AM, both hands were observed without carrots in place. On 1/16/19 at 2:00 PM, the resident had no carrots in either hand. Both hands were contracted into fists. On 1/17/19 at 9:08 AM and at 10:35 AM, the resident was observed with her right hand contracted into a fist and she did not have a carrot in place. On 1/17/19 at 3:56 PM, the resident was observed without carrots in either hand. Per the 1/17/19 assignment sheet, certified nurse aide (CNA) #34 was responsible for the resident during the day and CNA #32 was assigned to the resident for the evening. When interviewed on 1/17/19 at 4:30 PM, CNA #31 stated a resident's contracture devices such as carrots were documented on the RCR and it was the CNA's responsibility to put them in place. She stated the resident has had carrots in the past, her hands were tight, and the carrots were hard to place at times. When interviewed on 1/17/19 at 4:35 PM, CNA #32 stated the RCR documented if the resident needed carrots and she checked it everyday. The CNA was assigned to the resident on that day and she stated she forgot to put the carrots in the resident's hand. When interviewed on 1/17/19 at 4:40 PM, LPN #33 stated the CNA was responsible for placing the carrot and if they were unable to, she would try to place them. She stated the CNA was responsible for documenting and she did not document on the carrots. The LPN stated the resident had the carrots in for 30 minutes that afternoon and she personally attempted to place them. She stated that a CNA was trying at that moment to place the carrots. At that time, CNA #31 stated she was able to place the carrots with some difficulty. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 9:01 AM, CNA #34 stated the CNA was responsible for putting carrots in place and the LPN was responsible for checking if the carrots were in place. She stated she was assigned to the resident that day and the resident used to have carrots ordered but not anymore. The resident received morning care from the night shift who would be responsible for putting them in and the day shift would make sure they were in after breakfast. She stated she had not put the resident's carrots in for a while. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 9:09 AM, LPN #35 stated if the night shift did not place the carrots after morning care, the day shift would be responsible for placing them when they took over for the resident. She stated she signed off on all her treatments yesterday and did not check to see if the resident had them in place. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 9:14 AM, the registered nurse (RN) unit manager #28 stated the resident was scheduled to have carrots every day and it was documented on the resident's RCR. The RN stated the resident received morning care on the night shift and they should be placing the carrots. If the night shift did not place the carrots, she would expect the day shift to place the carrots when they took over care for the resident. She said if the CNA or LPN signed off on the care or treatment, the carrots should be in place. The resident needed the carrots because her hands were really contracted and it allowed air to get to her hands to protect the skin. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 9:35 AM, OT #25 stated she expected nursing staff to follow through with orders for carrot splints. She stated the resident had carrots for contractures in both hands which allowed the hands to be in a more open position mostly for skin integrity. The resident needed the carrots and she expected staff to place them as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 4 of 6 kitchenettes (Units 5, 6 and 7). Specifically, multiple kitchenette refrigerators contained items that were outdated or were not labeled. Findings include: The Food Service On-Unit Refrigerator policy, dated 9/4/2015, documented Residents items must be labeled with the resident's name and room number and dated when the item is being stored. Items must be used within three days or will be thrown away, and Any unlabeled or undated items will be thrown out by the Food Service staff when they stock the refrigerators. The undated kitchen task assignments included a position that was designated to one employee and this position will be fully responsible to maintain, clean and stock the kitchenette on the Wings daily. The sheet continued to document that refrigerators were to be cleaned and all out dated items removed, to ensure items were properly labeled and dated, food items past three days (per policy) were to be discarded, open beverage items were to have open dates on them, and employee personal items were not allowed in the unit refrigerator. During an observation on 1/15/19 at 12:04 PM, the 2nd floor kitchenette refrigerator had an undated open container of cranberry juice, an open container of apple juice dated 12/31/2018, and two open cartons of Med-Pass 2.0 (a nutritional supplement) dated 12/31/18. On 1/15/19, between 12:44 PM and 1:05 PM, the following observations were made: - the Unit 5 kitchenette refrigerator contained an undated open container of French onion dip; - the Unit 6 kitchenette refrigerator contained an undated container of fried fish/shrimp/clams, and an unlabeled container of diced potatoes; - the Unit 7 kitchenette refrigerator contained an undated tuna sandwich, and an undated plastic container of macaroni and cheese. There was a Food Service On-unit Refrigerator policy and a food memo for all staff posted on all kitchenette refrigerators. On 1/16/19 at 1:00 PM, the Food Service Director stated someone from the kitchen staff was assigned every morning to check the kitchenette refrigerators and ensure that undated food items (drinks/food) were removed. He was not aware of any of the undated items observed on 1/15/19. On 1/17/19 an undated food memo was observed in the unit kitchenettes and documented for all staff All items in refrigerator/freezer must be dated and labeled, and All items in refrigerator/freezer undated or unlabeled will be discarded. On 1/17/19 at 9:38 AM, the refrigerator in the Unit 2 kitchenette was observed with an undated open container of apple juice dated 12/31/18, and two open cartons of Med-Pass 2.0 dated 12/31/18. The side of the Med Pass 2.0 container stated it was good for 4 days after opening. On 1/17/19 at 4:17 PM, the Food Service Manager stated the dates on the two Med Pass 2.0 containers and the two apple juice containers indicated when they were received by the facility, and there was no open date on the containers. During an interview with dietary staff #1 on 1/18/2019 at 10:51 AM, she stated she was responsible for checking all refrigerators on resident units daily on her scheduled work days. She worked 1/15 to current. She stated anything that has an expired date was to be taken out of the refrigerator. She stated staff often put their personal food in the refrigerators without open dates and she would have to ask them who they belonged to and tell them they would have to be thrown away. She stated there should be an open date on items and if it was after 3 days she was to discard the items. She stated she did not use this date for items such as juice and would use the manufacturers expiration date on the item itself. 10NYCRR 415.14(h)
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure 2 of 6 residents (Residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure 2 of 6 residents (Residents #62 and 106) reviewed for advance directives, had the right to formulate advance directives. Specifically, Residents #62 and 106 had Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) completed by a health care proxy (HCP, a person designated to make health care decisions for someone determined to lack capacity for decision making) and there was no documentation the residents lacked decision-making capacity. Findings include: The April 2015 Resuscitation Orders and Health Care Proxy Policy documented when the attending physician determined the resident/patient lacked the capacity to make a DNR (do not resuscitate) decision, a concurring physician's assessment would be sought. 1) Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including advanced senile dementia. The 9/2/14 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance for all activities of daily living. The 8/26/14 physician orders documented advance directives per the resident's MOLST form. The 8/29/14 MOLST form documented the resident was a do not resuscitate (DNR, allow natural death), do not intubate (DNI), and comfort measures only. The form was signed by the resident's Health Care Proxy (HCP). There was no documentation the resident had a determination of capacity completed by the attending physician and a concurring physician or nurse practitioner. 2) Resident #106 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including senile dementia, advanced multiple sclerosis with spastic quadriplegia, and history of psychoses. The 1/20/14 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. The 1/13/14 comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident was to receive palliative care. The 1/14/14 MOLST documented the resident was a do not resuscitate (DNR, allow natural death), do not intubate (DNI), and comfort measures only. The resident's HCP provided verbal consent for the orders. The 7/14/14 physician order documented advanced directives per the resident's MOLST. There was no documentation the resident had a determination of capacity completed by the attending physician and a concurring physician or nurse practitioner. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 9:42 AM, the Director of Social Services stated the physician determined if a resident had capacity to make health care decisions during their initial visit. If a resident lacked capacity, the facility had a form that two providers had to complete and a copy should be in the chart. She stated she would expect the resident to have a lack of capacity in the chart and capacity had to be determined prior to completing the MOLST. She stated this was the responsibility of the nurses and the physicians and social work would double check the forms. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 9:54 AM, the registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #27 stated the physician determined if the resident had capacity to make health care decisions. She stated there was not a form to fill out and the physician would document capacity in his note. She stated they had not been getting a second concurring physician or practitioner to determine capacity. The RN stated the resident did not have capacity to make advance directive decisions. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 9:59 AM, the registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #28 stated she was familiar with the procedure for lack of capacity requiring two concurring physicians and she did not think it was done at the facility. She stated the physician would determine capacity during the initial visit and the unit manager would provide the Lack of Capacity form for the physician to sign. The social worker would check the form. The form should be in the resident's chart. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 10:05 AM, nurse practitioner (NP) #29 stated the physician determined capacity of the resident on admission. With the electronic MOLST, two physicians were needed to determine capacity. The NP stated the physician never asked her to determine a resident's capacity. When interviewed on 1/18/19 at 10:39 AM, physician #30 stated he initiated advance directives during his first visit and determined capacity at that time. He had not seen the lack of capacity form in a while and he would expect the Unit Manager to provide the form for him. 10NYCRR 415.3(e)(2)(iii)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 13/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New York, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc Staffed?

CMS rates ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 61%, which is 14 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc?

State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 21 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc?

ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 200 certified beds and approximately 135 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a large facility located in OSWEGO, New York.

How Does St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (61%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc Stick Around?

Staff turnover at ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC is high. At 61%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 56%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc Ever Fined?

ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is St Luke Residential Health Care Facility Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

ST LUKE RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY INC is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.