SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00355221) during the...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/2025, the facility failed to protect residents from resident-to-resident sexual abuse for one (1) (Resident #34) of four (4) residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #28, who had a history of exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior in front of other residents, was observed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 on 9/21/2024 self-gratifying with their genitalia exposed in front of Resident #34, who was nonverbal and lacked the capacity to consent. There was no documented evidence interventions were put into place, Resident #28 had continued access to Resident #34, and exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior in front of Resident #34 again on 9/22/2024. Using the reasonable person concept, as referenced in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Psychosocial Outcome Severity guide, it was determined psychosocial harm occurred that is not Immediate Jeopardy. The findings include:The policy titled Abuse Investigation, last revised 7/2016, documented reporting of resident abuse and mistreatment shall be properly and thoroughly investigated. Allegations of suspected abuse shall be immediately reported to the nurse manager who shall promptly notify the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing would speak with the individuals involved and interview every person on duty if possible. Residents would be protected from harm during the investigation. The Director of Nursing and Administrator would review all details of the investigation to determine if there was sufficient evidence to believe abuse occurred and appropriate authorities would be notified. State Operation Manual dated 03/10/2025 documented sexual abuse was defined at 42 CFR S483.5 as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident and included but was not limited to: forced observation of masturbation.Resident #28 had diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage in the urinary tract hindering the normal flow of urine), hypertension (high blood pressure), and alcohol abuse. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 08/27/2024 documented Resident #28 was cognitively intact, was understood, understands, and was independent for wheelchair mobility of at least 150 feet on the unit. There were no behaviors documented during the assessment period.The comprehensive care plan dated 08/20/2024 revealed Resident #28 had a history of urinary tract infections, with intervention to irrigate catheter every shift, change catheter monthly, and encourage fluids throughout the day. Resident #28 also had a history of alcohol abuse with interventions to monitor mood patterns and determine if problems were related to external causes.Resident #34 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, depression, and history of cerebral infarction without residual deficits (stroke). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #34 was severely cognitively impaired, was sometimes understood, usually understands, and required a substantial/maximal assist of one staff member for transfers, was dependent on staff for wheelchair mobility, and was non-ambulatory. The comprehensive care plan dated 07/17/2024 documented Resident #34 had a communication problem related to expressive aphasia (difficulty speaking) and was unable to verbalize needs, staff to anticipate and meet all needs and ensure/provide a safe environment. There was no documented evidence interventions were put into place to protect Resident #34 from further abuse following the incident on 09/21/2024.Review of a nursing progress note dated 07/21/2024 at 4:01 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented that they observed Resident #28 touching themself in the hallway in front of an unidentified resident and was reminded that they need to be in the privacy of their room if they wished to do those things. There was no documented follow-up or investigation to this incident. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/08/2024 at 5:45 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented while assisting Resident #28 into their wheelchair with a Certified Nurse Aide, Resident #28 grabbed Certified Nurse Aide's buttocks and would not let go when told to do so. Once Resident #28 was seated in the wheelchair, the Certified Nurse Aide was able to pull themselves away from the resident. There was no documented evidence Resident #28's care plan was updated following this incident.Review of a nursing progress note dated 09/21/2024 at 5:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 documented they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was self-gratifying themselves in the hallway in front of Resident #34's room while staring into the room. Resident #28 was removed from the hallway. Resident #28 was educated that activities involving self-pleasure should only be done in their room and never in public. Review of the 24-hour report sheet dated 09/21/2024 documented Resident #28 had inappropriate behaviors; Resident #34's section was blank. There was no documented evidence that any interventions were put into place following inappropriate sexual behavior by Resident #28 towards Resident #34 on 09/21/2024. Review of a nursing progress note dated 09/22/2024 at 3:36 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 documented Resident #28 was observed sitting in front of Resident #34's room with their right hand in their shorts moving up and down in a fast motion. When approached, they removed their hand. When asked what they were doing, Resident #28 stated they were just watching Resident #34. Resident #28 was removed from the hallway and educated on doing their personal duty in their room and not in front of Resident #34 because it made them uncomfortable. Review of the 24-hour report sheet dated 09/22/2024 documented Resident #34's room was changed to a room closer to the nurse's station. Resident #28 was placed on 15-minute checks after a fall at 11:30 PM and multiple attempts to get up.There was no documented evidence relating to Resident #28's inappropriate sexual behaviors towards Resident #34 or that any interventions were put into place. Review of a nursing progress note dated 09/22/2024 at 6:23 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 documented Resident #34 appeared red in the face, was in a decreased mood with sad expressions. Review of facility Incident Investigation dated 90/23/2024, indicates, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) documented it was reported by nursing staff that on 09/21/2024 Resident #28 was noted to be sitting outside of Resident #34's room touching themselves inside of their shorts while Resident #34 was looking at them through the open door. Resident #28 was alert, oriented, and aware of their actions. Resident #34 was non-verbal and unable to express themselves or move from the area. There was no physical contact, but staff felt that Resident #34 may have been saddened by witnessing Resident #28's behavior. The reporting nurses were interviewed and Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated it was reported to them that Resident #28 was inappropriately touching themself in front of Resident #34. When they approached Resident #28, they were not exposed but were aggressively stroking their hand up and down in their shorts. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 removed Resident #28 from Resident #34's view and counseled them not to engage in that behavior outside of their private space. The following afternoon (09/22/2024), Licensed Practical Nurse #4 observed Resident #28 with their hand in their pants looking into Resident #34's room but could not say for certain if they were acting in a sexual manner. Resident #28 was interviewed and denied any sexual behavior, and stated they were just itching. Resident #28 also stated they remembered Resident #34 from a prior admission when they could communicate, and they were trying to get a verbal response from Resident #34, they were curious if they had helped Resident #34 in their gains with their interactions with them. Resident #34 was non-verbal with little expression, but staff noted they seemed more down yesterday (09/22/2024) following the incident.Review of a signed witness statement dated 09/24/2024, Certified Nurse Aide #1 documented on 09/21/2024 they were walking towards another resident's room when they observed Resident #28 exposing their genitalia to another resident (Resident #34), they ran and got a nurse (Licensed Practical Nurse #3) and told them about the situation. Review of a physician progress note dated 10/04/2024, revealed the Medical Director documented Resident #34 was not feeding themself well and their weight had gradually declined over the last few weeks by a few pounds. The Medical Director documented Resident #34 had an extremely flat affect and was nonverbal, but they believed Resident #34 was able to comprehend more than they were able to express.During an observation and interview on 06/23/2025 at 1:16 PM, Resident #34 was seated in their high back wheelchair and was nonverbal. Resident #34's Health Care Proxy stated Resident #34 would not have welcomed another person exposing their genitalia to them and/or self-gratifying, it would have made them very uncomfortable, and they felt that this was sexual abuse towards Resident #34. During an observation and interview on 06/25/2025 at 9:06 AM, Resident #28 was laying in their bed and stated they had no recollection of the incidents on 07/21/2024 or 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 involving Resident #34 and had never exposed themselves to any another resident. Resident #28 stated they had rashes in their groin occasionally and that could have been a time where a rash was active, and they were itching.During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 9:47 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated on 9/22/2024, they observed Resident #28 from behind, making a fast up and down motion with their right hand/arm, it looked like they were attempting to self-gratify while staring into Resident #34's room, who was seated in their recliner facing the doorway. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated that when they approached Resident #28, they pulled their hand out of their shorts and looked surprised that someone caught them; they removed Resident #28 from the area and educated them on doing their private duty in their own room. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they were often Resident #28's nurse, and they did not have an active rash in their groin at the time and did not mention anything about being itchy or itching down there when asked what they were doing. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they were not aware Resident #28 had been observed doing a similar behavior in front of Resident #34 the day prior, but they were aware of Resident #28 having a history of making sexually inappropriate comments to staff and self-gratifying behaviors in their room. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated it appeared to them that Resident #28 was self-gratifying themself in the hallway in front of Resident #34 on 09/22/2024, and when they thought about it throughout the night, they felt what Resident #28 did was abuse. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 10:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that on 09/21/2024, they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was exhibiting sexually inappropriate behavior in front of Resident #34. They approached Resident #28 and saw their hand in their pants making a jerking motion up and down aggressively and did not see any genitalia exposed. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated Resident #28 stated they were waiting for their roommate and was adamant on staying where they were but eventually agreed to come down the hallway away from Resident #34's room. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated following the incident they told staff to increase their monitoring of Resident #28 and #34 for the rest of the shift, documented on the 24-hour report sheet that Resident #28 had inappropriate behavior, and educated Resident #28 on self-gratifying only in their private space, but they did not put any other interventions into place. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated Resident #34 did not have capacity to consent, was nonverbal and relied on staff to anticipate all needs. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they were unaware of the abuse policy, so they did not report anything to anyone, but they felt this was abuse after being reeducated on abuse and abuse reporting. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 reviewed their progress note from 07/21/2024 and stated they did not recall the incident specifically or who the other resident involved was, but felt that Resident #28 was being sexually inappropriate in front of another resident, which they felt was sexual abuse and reported it to the Unit Manager at the time (current Director of Nursing #1). Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they educated Resident #28 right away and there were no further instances until 09/21/2024, but Resident #28 did have a history of being sexually inappropriate towards staff. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:44 PM, Director of Nursing #1 (who was the Unit Manager at the time of the incidents on 07/21/2024, 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024) reviewed the progress note from 07/21/2024 and stated they were never made aware of that incident and should have been so that an investigation could have been initiated. Director of Nursing #1 stated if they were made aware of the 07/21/2024 incident then the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 could have possibly been prevented because they would have been more aware of Resident #28's sexually inappropriate behaviors and could have put interventions into place sooner. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 1:12 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated that on 09/21/2024 they were walking out of another resident's room after finishing care when they observed Resident #28 sitting in their wheelchair, half in the hallway and half in the doorway looking into Resident #34's room, with their genitalia exposed self-gratifying, aggressively. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated Resident #34 was seated in their recliner approximately 10 feet away, facing the doorway, unable to speak or move and staring directly at Resident #28. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they were in shock and their first reaction was to run and alert Licensed Practical Nurse #3, who was at the nurse's station. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 arrived within one (1) minute and Resident #28 was removed from the area. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they felt as though the incident they witnessed was sexual abuse so that is why they reported it right away. They stated a reasonable person would not be okay with something like that (self-gratifying) happening in front of them, it was sexual abuse, and it should not be happening.During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 2:49 PM, Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator reviewed the facility investigation and witness statements. Both stated they were unaware of the documented exposure incident on 09/21/2024. Both stated they agreed that this was sexual abuse and using the reasonable person concept, there was a potential for psychosocial harm to have occurred to Resident #34 from the sexually inappropriate behavior from Resident #28 on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024. Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator stated the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 should have been reported so that interventions could have been put into place immediately to prevent any further incidents. Director of Nursing #1 stated Resident #28 had continued access to Resident #34, and it was important to keep all residents safe. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:36 AM, Director of Social Work stated they evaluated both Resident #28 and Resident #34 following the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024. Resident #28 denied any sexually inappropriate behavior and stated they were just itching themselves. Director of Social Work stated using the reasonable person concept, there was the potential for Resident #34 to have suffered from psychosocial harm during the incidents with Resident #28 and interventions should have been put into place following the first incident on 09/21/2024 and it should have been reported to administration. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:46 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated on 09/22/2024 Resident #34 was sitting in the hallway near the nurse's station in the late afternoon after the incident with Resident #28, and just looked off. They could not say for certain what was going on with Resident #34 because they were nonverbal, but they did not appear themselves.During a telephone interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:54 AM, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) stated they were made aware on 09/23/2024 that Resident #28 exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior in front of Resident #34 on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 and they initiated an investigation. They were made aware Resident #28 exposed themselves to Resident #34 and was self-gratifying, but when they spoke with Resident #28, Resident #28 denied the act and stated they were itching their groin. Registered Nurse #4 stated they were unaware Resident #28 had a previous incident where they were exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior on 07/21/2024, and that should have been reported to them. Registered Nurse #4 stated they were aware of the alleged exposure of genitalia by Resident #28 in front of Resident #34 but could not say for certain that it occurred because they did not interview the witness. Registered Nurse #4 stated that the plan put into place following the 09/22/2024 incident was successful, so they did not feel it was abuse.During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 10:20 AM, the Medical Director stated they were not aware that Resident #28 had exposed their genitalia to Resident #34 on 09/21/2024. They were under the impression Resident #28 only had their hand in their shorts and was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024. Medical Director stated Resident #34 was nonverbal, had moments of clarity and some level of awareness, but did not have capacity to consent. Resident #28 had capacity and was capable of making decisions and they had enough cognition to know what they were doing but just may not have been aware of the social inappropriateness of it. The Medical Director stated Resident #34 would probably not be accepting of the interaction, it would not have been welcomed and using the reasonable person concept, there was a potential for Resident #34 to have suffered psychosocial harm from the sexual behavior exhibited by Resident #28 on 09/21/2024 and again on 09/22/2024. Interventions should have been put into place and facility administration should have been made aware immediately after the incident on 09/21/2024. The Medical Director stated they were aware Resident #28 had a history of being sexually inappropriate towards staff on occasion, but they were not aware of Resident #28 having a history of being sexually inappropriate in public areas in front of other residents and should have been made aware. 10 NYCRR 415.3(d)(1)(vii)
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00355221) during the Standard survey complet...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 06/27/2025, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immediately, but not later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse, to the administrator and to other state officials (including to the State Survey Agency) for two (2) (Residents #28 and #34) of four (4) residents reviewed. Specifically, there were three (3) documented incidents in which staff observed Resident #28 exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviors in front of two (2) different residents which were not reported to Administration. On 07/21/2024, Resident #28 was observed touching themselves in front of an unknown resident, on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 Resident #28 was observed self-gratifying themselves in front of Resident #34 who was nonverbal and lacked capacity to consent. These incidents were not reported to Administration until 09/23/2024. Additionally, there was a delay in reporting the alleged abuse allegations to the New York State Department of Health. This resulted in, or had the likelihood for, psychosocial harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #34.The findings are:The policy titled Abuse Investigation, last revised 07/2016, documented reporting of resident abuse and mistreatment shall be properly and thoroughly investigated. Allegations of suspected abuse shall be immediately reported to the nurse manager who shall promptly notify the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing would promptly initiate an investigation. Resident would be protected from harm during the course of the investigation. The Director of Nursing or Administrator would notify the State Health Department as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours after the discovery of the incident. For any instances resulting in serious bodily injury, reporting must be done within two (2) hours. 1. Resident #28 had diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage in the urinary tract hindering the normal flow of urine), hypertension (high blood pressure), and alcohol abuse. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 08/27/2024 documented Resident #28 was cognitively intact and independent for wheelchair mobility of at least 150 feet on the unit.The comprehensive care plan dated 08/20/2024 revealed Resident #28 had a history of urinary tract infections, with intervention to irrigate catheter every shift, change catheter monthly, and encourage fluids throughout the day. Resident #28 also had a history of alcohol abuse with interventions to monitor mood patterns and determine if problems were related to external causes.Review of a nursing progress note dated 07/21/2024 at 4:01 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented staff observed Resident #28 touching themself in the hallway with an unidentified resident present and was reminded they needed to be in the privacy of their room if they wished to do those things. There was no documented evidence this was reported to the Nurse Manager, Director of Nursing or the Administrator. Review of the 24-hour report sheet dated 07/21/2024 revealed no documentation regarding the sexually inappropriate behavior exhibited by Resident #28 or that Administration was notified. The facility could not provide any additional documented evidence the sexually inappropriate behavior exhibited by Resident #28 on 07/21/2024 was reported to the Administrator or Director of Nursing.During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 reviewed their progress note from 7/21/2024 and stated they did not recall the incident specifically or who the other resident involved was, but felt that Resident #28 was being sexually inappropriate in front of another resident, which they felt was sexual abuse and reported it to the Unit Manager at the time (current Director of Nursing #1). Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated any suspected allegation of abuse should be reported right away to Administration. 2. Resident #34 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, depression, and history of cerebral infarction without residual deficits (stroke). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #34 was severely cognitively impaired, was sometimes understood, usually understands, and required a substantial/maximal assist of one (1) staff member for transfers, was dependent on staff for wheelchair mobility, and was non-ambulatory. The comprehensive care plan dated 07/17/2024 documented Resident #34 had a communication problem related to expressive aphasia (difficulty speaking) and was unable to verbalize needs, staff to anticipate and meet all needs and ensure/provide a safe environment. There was no additional documentation related to the incidents.Review of nursing progress notes revealed the following:-On 09/21/2024 at 5:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 documented they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was self-gratifying in front of Resident #34, Resident #28 was educated and removed from the area. -On 09/22/2024 at 3:36 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 documented Resident #28 was observed self-gratifying in front of Resident #34, Resident #28 was educated and removed from the area. There was no documented evidence the inappropriate sexual behavior incidents were reported to the Director of Nursing or Administrator. Review of 24-hour report sheets revealed the following:-On 09/21/2024 during the 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM shift, Resident #28 had inappropriate behaviors; Resident #34's section was blank. -On 09/22/2024 during the 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM shift, Resident #34's room was changed to a room closer to the nurse's station. Resident #28 was placed on 15-minute checks after a fall at 11:30 PM and attempts to get up multiple times. There was no documented evidence the inappropriate sexual behavior incidents were reported to the Director of Nursing or Administrator. Review of the New York State Department of Health Complaint Tracking System Complaint/Incident Investigation Report revealed the date/time of the alleged incident was 09/21/2024 at 3:00 PM. The date/time the Administrator was first made aware of the incident was 09/23/2024 at 9:30 AM. It was submitted by the facility on 09/23/2024 at 12:22 PM.Review of facility Incident Investigation dated 09/23/2024 at 8:00 AM, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) documented it was reported by nursing staff that on 09/21/2024 at 3:00 PM Resident #28 was noted to be engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior while Resident #34 was looking at them through the open door. Resident #28 was alert, oriented, and aware of their actions. Resident #34 was non-verbal and unable to express themselves or move from the area, but staff felt that Resident #34 may have been saddened by witnessing Resident #28's behavior. The following afternoon (09/22/2024 at 3:30 PM) Licensed Practical Nurse #4 observed Resident #28 with their hand in their pants looking into Resident #34s room. Resident #34 was non-verbal with little expression, but staff noted they seemed more down yesterday (09/22/2024) following the incident. Both incidents were reported to Registered Nurse #4 on 09/23/2024 at 8:00 AM. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 9:47 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated that on 09/22/2024 they observed Resident #28 from behind, making a fast up and down motion with their right hand/arm, looked like they were attempting to self-gratify while staring into Resident #34s room; they removed Resident #28 from the area and educated them on doing their private duty in their own room. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they were not aware Resident #28 had been observed doing a similar behavior in front of Resident #34 the day prior and they did not report anything to Administration because they did not want to accuse Resident #28 of doing something they might not have been doing. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated it appeared to them that Resident #28 was self-gratifying themself in the hallway in front of Resident #34 on 09/22/2024, and when they thought about it throughout the night, they felt what Resident #28 did was abuse and reported it to the Director of Nursing on 09/23/2024.During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 10:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that on 09/21/2024 they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was exhibiting sexually inappropriate behavior in front of Resident #34. They approached Resident #28 and saw their hand in their pants making a jerking motion up and down aggressively and did not see any genitalia exposed. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they did not report the incident to the Administrator or Director of Nursing because they were unaware of the abuse policy; they should have reported the incident right away to Administration. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:44 PM, Director of Nursing #1 (who was the Unit Manager at the time of the incidents on 07/21/2024, 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024) reviewed Licensed Practical Nurse #1's progress note from 07/21/2024 regarding Resident #28's sexually inappropriate behavior in front of another resident and stated they were never made aware of that incident, and should have been so that an investigation could have been initiated. Director of Nursing #1 stated if they were made aware of the 07/21/2024 incident then the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 could have possibly been prevented because they would have been more aware of Resident #28's sexually inappropriate behaviors. Director of Nursing #1 stated in order to ensure all residents safety, all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to administration immediately so that an investigation can be initiated. Director of Nursing #1 stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to the Department of Health within two (2) hours. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 1:12 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated that on 09/21/2024, they observed Resident #28 sitting in their wheelchair, half in the hallway and half in the doorway looking into Resident #34's room, with their genitalia exposed self-gratifying themself aggressively, while Resident #34 was seated in their recliner, facing the doorway, unable to speak or move and staring directly at Resident #28. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they were in shock and their first reaction was to run and alert Licensed Practical Nurse #3, who was at the nurse's station. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 arrived within one (1) minute and Resident #28 was removed from the area. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 2:49 PM, Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator stated the incidents on 07/21/2024, 09/21/2024, and 09/22/2024 should have been reported right away to Administration so that interventions could have been put into place to prevent any further incidents. Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator stated all suspected allegations of sexual abuse should be reported within two (2) hours to the Department of Health. These incidents were considered sexual abuse, they should have been reported immediately so that Administration could have reported in the required time frame. Director of Nursing #1 stated Resident #28 had continued access to Resident #34, and it was important to keep all residents safe. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:36 AM, the Director of Social Work stated any allegations of abuse should be reported to Administration right away so that they could be reported to the appropriate authorities within two (2) hours. They stated the incident involving Resident #28 and Resident #34 on 09/21/2024 should have been reported immediately to Administration so that an investigation could have been initiated. They stated the incident on 07/21/2024 should have been reported to Administration so that it could have been investigated.During a telephone interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:54 AM, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) stated they were made aware on 09/23/2024 of Resident #28 exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior in front of Resident #34 on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 and should have been made aware immediately following the incidents. Registered Nurse #4 stated they were unaware Resident #28 had a previous incident where they were exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior on 07/21/2024 and that should have been reported to them. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 10:20 AM, the Medical Director stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to administration immediately so that an investigation can be initiated. The Medical Director stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to the Department of Health within two (2) hours. 10 NYCRR 415.4(b)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure their abuse reporti...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure their abuse reporting policy and procedure was updated to include current regulations and guidance. Specifically, the facility did not ensure their policy for abuse reporting was current. This affected two (2) (Residents #28 and #34) of four (4) residents reviewed.
The finding is:
REFER TO:
F 609 - Reporting of Alleged Violations
Review of the policy and procedure titled Abuse Investigation Policy and Procedure revision date 7/16/16 with review dated 5/24 documented reporting of resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, involuntary seclusion, misappropriation of resident property, and injuries of unknown source shall be properly and thoroughly investigated. Allegation of suspected abuse shall be immediately reported to the Nurse Manager who will promptly notify the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing will promptly initiate an investigation. The policy documented reporting to appropriate local/state/federal agencies: the Director of Nursing and Administrator will review all details of the investigation. If there was reasonable cause, the appropriate authorities will be notified. The Director of Nursing or Administrator will notify the State Health Department, Office of Health Systems Management, as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours after the discovery of the incident. For any instances resulting in serious bodily injury, reporting must be done within two hours.
Review of the State Operational Manual issued 4/25/25 documented to Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. Report the results of all investigations to the administrator or his/her designated representative and to other officials in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident and if the alleged violation is verified appropriate corrective action must be taken.
During an interview on 6/25/25 at 12:44 PM, the Director of Nursing stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported immediately to administration, by anyone/whoever sees or hears the situation occur. They stated the Administration must report the allegation to the Department of Health within 2 hours and an investigation would be started. They stated the importance of reporting and investigating an allegation of abuse was to ensure residents safety and to be able to monitor all residents and their behaviors. During a further interview on 6/27/25 at 12:54 PM, the Director of Nursing stated they could not provide further facility policies than what was provided.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 9:32 AM, the Administrator stated the facility had no specific reporting of abuse policy. They stated the reporting of any allegations of abuse would be included in the Abuse Investigation Policy and Procedure revision date 7/16/16 with review dated 5/2024 that was already provided. The Administrator stated they also would refer to the Nursing Home Incident Reporting Manual dated August 2016.
During a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) interview on 6/27/25 at 12:25 PM, the Administrator along with the Director of Nursing stated that policy review was part of the Quality Assurance (QA) process. They stated that facility policies were reviewed annually, and review was also an on ongoing process. The Administrator stated the Medical Director was involved and changes made to any polices were reviewed with the Medical Director.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 1:38 PM, the Administrator stated that any allegation of abuse was to be reported to them immediately, and then to the Department of Health within two hours of notification of the allegation of abuse. The Administrator reviewed the facility's abuse policy and stated the facility policy did not include that any allegation of abuse needed to be reported to the Department of Health within two hours. They stated that the abuse policy does not speak about abuse specifically in the reporting portion and it should be. The Administrator stated the facility policy also did not address the new regulation of a 5-day investigation needing to be sent to the Department of Health. The Administrator stated the facility's abuse policy dated 7/16/16 with review date 5/24 was not up to date with the current regulations and it should have been revised with the current regulations.
10 NYCRR 415.4(b)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00365405) during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure that each resident re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00365405) during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one (1) (Resident #31) of five (5) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, staff did not ensure fall prevention interventions (floor mat) were in place for Resident #31 as care planned and the resident fell out of bed on the floor and sustained abrasions to their left knee, left elbow and left nares (nostril).
The finding is:
The facility policy and procedure titled Accident and Incident Reporting dated 5/2024 documented the purpose of accident and incident reporting is to provide a systematic procedure for thorough investigation of all accidents/incidents; ensure that all responsible conditions for the event are properly identified; and ensure that all necessary actions are implemented to eliminate/minimize further occurrences.
The facility policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care plans dated 8/2024 documented care plan interventions are designed after careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes. When possible, interventions address the underlying sources of the problem areas, rather than addressing only symptoms or triggers. Staff in the facility are required to follow any intervention included in the comprehensive care plan.
Resident #31 had diagnoses that included dementia with agitation, anxiety, and delusional disorders. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 12/2/24 documented Resident #31 was cognitively intact, exhibited behavioral symptoms, and required supervision or touching assistance (staff provide verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance) for bed mobility and transfers.
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 10/24/24 documented that Resident #31 was a high risk for falls related to confusion and deconditioning and interventions included to anticipate and meet resident's needs, low bed, and floor mat next to bed.
The Visual/Bedside Kardex Report (a guide used by staff to provide care) dated 12/18/24 documented safety interventions for Resident #31 included to have their call light in reach, a floor mat next to their bed, and a low bed.
The Accident/Incident Report dated 12/18/24 at 7:00 PM completed by Registered Nurse #1, documented Resident #31 was found next to the bed on their back, bed was in low position and call bell was in reach. They documented abrasions were noted to Resident #31's left knee, left elbow, and left nares (nostril) and a floor mat was placed on the left side of bed to prevent further injury.
Review of the Facility Investigation dated 12/20/24 at 12:21PM completed by Director of Nursing #1, documented that the incident on 12/18/24 was a care plan violation. Resident #31 was noted on the floor next to their bed, the bed was in a low position, and the floor mat was not in place as care planned. Resident #31 had sustained abrasions to their left knee, left elbow, and left nares (nostril). The investigation documented that Certified Nurse Aide #3 was assigned to Resident #31 and did not place the floor mat next to their bed after they assisted them into bed and were not aware they should have had a floor mat.
During a telephone interview on 6/25/25 at 2:45 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated they were familiar with Resident #31 and was assigned to them on the day the incident occurred. They stated they had assisted Resident #31 into bed after dinner and made sure their bed was in low position but did not place a floor mat down before leaving their room. Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated they did not remember seeing a floor mat listed on Resident #31's care plan and did not see one in their room. They stated at the time of the incident they were not aware Resident #31 was to have a floor mat in place when in bed and they would have made sure one was in place if they were aware. Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated floor mats were utilized for resident safety.
During a telephone interview on 6/26/25 at 10:13 AM, Registered Nurse #1 stated they had just started their shift when staff informed them that Resident #31 was on the floor in their room. They stated there was no floor mat present and was not aware at the time of the incident that Resident #31 was care planned to have a floor mat in place. They stated they could not recall the specific injuries Resident #31 sustained from the fall, but did not believe them to be severe. They stated they applied a floor mat after the fall as an intervention and did not realize it should have been present prior to the fall. Registered Nurse #1 stated safety interventions were listed on the care plan and should be reviewed prior to resident care. They stated it was important to ensure safety interventions were in place to prevent injury, that was the purpose of initiating an intervention.
During an interview on 6/26/25 at 3:23 PM, the Director of Nursing #1 stated they had completed the investigation for Resident #31's incident on 12/18/24 and determined staff did not follow the residents care plan. They stated the floor mat was listed as a safety intervention on Resident #31's care plan at the time of the incident on 12/18/24 and should have been in place. They did not know why the floor mat was not in place and stated it could have prevented Resident #31's injuries. Director of Nursing #1 stated nurses, unit managers and themselves were responsible to ensure certified nurse aides were following the care plan. Director of Nursing #1 stated they expected all staff to follow the resident's care plan and ensure safety interventions were in place to avoid any injury.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 9:59 AM, the Administrator stated they expected staff to ensure safety interventions were in place as care planned to protect residents from injury, repeated falls and to keep residents safe.
10 NYCRR 415.12 (h)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure the residents who had an indwelling (foley) catheter (tube inser...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure the residents who had an indwelling (foley) catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) received the appropriate care and services to manage catheters for one (1) (Resident #3) of two (2) residents reviewed. Specifically, staff did not perform hand hygiene or glove change after incontinent care prior to emptying of the resident's indwelling catheter drainage bag and staff did not cleanse the spigot of the indwelling catheter drainage bag prior to or after emptying.
The finding is:
The policy titled Incontinent/Perineal Care Procedure review dated 6/2024 documented to wash, rinse and dry rectal area using a clean section of the cloth with each wipe moving from front to back. Apply protective ointment to perianal area if indicated. The policy documented to remove under pad, gloves and wash hands.
The policy titled Indwelling Catheter Care dated March 2024 documented the purpose of indwelling catheter care was to help prevent catheter associated urinary tract infection from indwelling catheters. The policy documented that after perineal care was completed remove the dirty gloves and perform hand hygiene. Secure the drainage bag in a privacy bag, reposition the resident as needed, clean the bedside table and perform hand hygiene.
Resident #3 had diagnoses including obstructive uropathy (blockage in the urinary system), retention of urine and encounter for palliative care. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 5/2/24 documented Resident #3 was cognitively intact, was understood and understands. The assessment tool documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter and was receiving hospice care.
The comprehensive care plan dated 4/24/24 documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter related to a terminal condition. Interventions included to monitor and documented intake and output, monitor for pain/discomfort due to catheter and monitor/record/report to medical provider any signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection. Interventions included that resident had an indwelling catheter; provide resident and family with education; and support and encourage resident to participation in daily activities.
The Kardex (a resident's guide to care) dated 6/27/25 documented to monitor Resident #3 for pain or discomfort due to the catheter.
Review of the Order Recap Report dated 6/27/25 documented Resident #3 had a medical provider order dated:
-4/24/25 Maintain Foley catheter (16 French 10 cubic centimeters balloon) to gravity drainage every day and night shift of uropathy. Must maintain drainage.
During an incontinent care/foley catheter care observation at 6/25/25 at 11:03 AM, Resident #3 was in bed and their indwelling catheter drainage bag was hanging off of the bed frame inside of a privacy bag. The tubing appeared to be cloudy and the urine inside of the bag was a dark amber color. Certified Nurse Aide #5, with the rolling assistance from Certified Nurse Aide #4 provided incontinent care to Resident #3. Prior to care, both staff members performed hand hygiene and donned (put on) clean gloves and a gown. Resident #3's brief was opened and as Resident #3 was rolled on to their side it was observed the resident was incontinent of stool. Certified Nurse Aide #5 washed, rinsed and dried Resident #3 rectum and buttocks area, changed their brief and incontinent pad. Certified Nurse Aide #5 did not doff (take of) their gloves or perform hand hygiene. After Resident #3 was repositioned, Certified Nurse Aide #5 then placed a clean barrier on the floor, removed the spigot from the resident's catheter bag, emptied the resident's urine into a cylinder, replaced the spigot and disposed of the urine into the toilet. Certified Nurse Aide #5 did not cleanse the spigot prior to or after emptying the urine. Certified Nurse Aide #5 then proceeded to touch Resident #3's tray table to place it closer to the resident and moved the resident plastic cup still wearing the same gloves. Certified Nurse Aide #5 never changed their gloves nor performed hand hygiene during to entire observation until all of the above actions were completed.
An interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Aide #4 and Certified Nurse Aide #5 on 6/25/25 at 11:15 AM after care was completed. Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated that Resident #3 was incontinent of a small amount of stool when they provided care. They stated after care was completed, they were to doff gloves and perform hand hygiene. Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated they should have removed their gloves and washed their hands prior to emptying of Resident #3 catheter bag but they just forgot. Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated they did not cleanse the spigot of the catheter bag with alcohol nor change their gloves or wash their hands after emptying of Resident #5 foley bag prior to toughing Resident #3 table and cup. They stated hand washing and glove changes were important for infection control and to prevent germs from entering Resident #3 bladder that could cause a urinary tract infection. Certified Nurse Aide #4 stated agreement with Certified Nurse Aide #5's interview.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 8:33 AM, the Infection Preventionist stated they would expect staff to change gloves and wash their hands in between different processes, such as going from incontinent care to emptying an indwelling catheter bag. They stated Certified Nurse Aide #5 could have introduced an infection to Resident #3 when they did not change their gloves between peri care and foley catheter care. The Infection Preventionist stated they were usure if the nursing staff needed to clean the foley catheter spigot prior to and after emptying the foley bag but stated that it wouldn't hurt anything if they did.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 10:35 AM, the Medical Director stated they facility should have had protocol for indwelling catheter care, and they should have followed it for Resident #3.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 11:41 AM, Registered Nurse #2, Unit Manager, stated they expected staff to change their gloves and wash their hands after incontinent care was completed and prior to emptying of a foley bag. Registered Nurse #2 stated by Certified Nurse Aide #5 not changing their gloves nor performing hand hygiene they could have possibly introduced feces to everything they touched, including Resident #3. Registered Nurse #2 stated that they would have expected Certified Nurse Aide #5 to clean Resident #3 spigot with an alcohol pad prior to and after they emptied, they foley bag for infection purposes.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 12:54 PM, the Director of Nursing #1 stated Certified Nurse Aide #5 should have changed their gloves after providing incontinent care to Resident #3 prior to emptying the residents indwelling catheter bag so they were not spreading any germs or filth everywhere, such as to the resident's catheter tubing, table and cups. The Director of Nursing #1 stated their expectation would be staff in the facility should have cleansed the spigot of the foley catheter bag with an alcohol pad prior to and after emptying of the bag to make sure it was not dirty. They Director of Nursing #1 stated they did not have any facility policies for emptying an indwelling catheter bag nor monthly indwelling catheter care, such as changing of the catheter.
10NYCRR 415.12(d)(1)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard Survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for the sto...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard Survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for the storage of controlled drugs for one (1) of one (1) medication rooms observed. Specifically, controlled drugs (medications that have an accepted medical use that have a potential for abuse) were stored in a double locked metal box located inside a small refrigerator that was not permanently affixed. This involved Resident #3.
The finding is:
The policy titled Controlled Medications, revised on 3/15/23, documented the Director of Nursing and the Consultant Pharmacist maintained the facility's compliance with the federal and state laws and regulations in the handling of controlled substances. All controlled substances would be stored in a double locked cabinet affixed to a wall in the medication room or at the nurse's station. There was nothing specific in the policy regarding refrigerators housing narcotics in the facility.
During an interview and observation of the medication room on 6/25/25 at 8:03 AM, a small black medication refrigerator was sitting on the counter, it was not secured to the counter or the wall. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 opened the medication refrigerator and inside was a metal lock box that was permanently affixed to the glass shelf inside of the refrigerator. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was able to freely move the refrigerator on the countertop and stated they were unaware if the refrigerator was supposed to be permanently affixed. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated the metal lock box inside of the refrigerator required two keys to open it, and Registered Nurse #3 had the keys for the metal lock box, so they were unsure if there were any medications or narcotics in the metal lock box at that time.
During an observation and interview on 6/25/25 at 8:55 AM, Registered Nurse #3 stated they had the keys for the metal lock box located inside the refrigerator in the medication room and there was liquid Lorazepam (a controlled substance and antianxiety/anti-seizure medication) for Resident #3 in the metal lock box. Registered Nurse #3 opened the metal lock box inside the refrigerator in the medication room with two separate keys and removed a box containing one opened 30 milliliter bottle of liquid Lorazepam for Resident #3. Registered Nurse #3 was able to freely move the refrigerator and stated the metal lock box in the refrigerator was affixed to the shelf, but the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to any countertop or wall and was unsure if it was supposed to be.
During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:20 AM, Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated the proper protocol for the refrigerator in a medication room that stored narcotics was that it should have two locks and be permanently affixed to the countertop. Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated they had not been in the medication room really ever so they were unaware the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to the countertop and no one had ever told them or requested to have it be affixed.
During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:21 AM, Director of Nursing #1 stated there were two locks on the metal lock box located inside the narcotic refrigerator, but they were unaware that the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to the countertop or that it should be. Director of Nursing #1 stated the refrigerator was purchased in April of last year, so it must not have been affixed when it was put in the medication room. Director of Nursing #1 stated it was important to ensure it was permanently affixed to avoid diversions.
During a telephone interview on 6/27/25 at 9:02 AM, the Pharmacy Consultant stated they came into the facility once a month and performed storage audits which were then presented at the facility's monthly QAPI (quality assurance and improvement) meeting. The Pharmacy Consultant stated the regulation was that the narcotic refrigerator was to be permanently affixed to the wall or tethered to the countertop and they performed an audit of the medication room in April of 2025 and did not look to see if the refrigerator was permanently affixed to any surface. Pharmacy Consultant stated maintenance could affix the refrigerator, and could not say what could happen if the refrigerator was not permanently affixed.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 11:10 AM, the Administrator stated the regulation was that the refrigerator that housed narcotics should be double locked and permanently affixed to a countertop. The Administrator stated they were unaware the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to the counter when it was replaced in April of 2024, but it should have been. The Administrator stated the Pharmacy Consultant did audits of the medication room, and the refrigerator being affixed would be something they look for, and they would have expected them to notice and report it to someone because that was a high risk for diversion.
10NYCRR 415.18 (e)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not conduc...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not conduct an annual review of or maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (2) (Residents #3 and #4) of two (2) residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (interventions designed to reduce transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms including gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities) and one (1) of one (1) facility legionella program. Specifically, staff did not wear appropriate personal protective equipment during wound care (Resident #4) and Resident #3 did not have enhanced barrier precaution signage posted on their door when they had an indwelling catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). Additionally, the Legionella Water Management Plan, Legionella Risk Assessment, and Legionella policy and procedure were not reviewed or revised annually.
The findings are:
The policy titled Guidelines for Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 4/24 documented all employees must follow the enhanced barrier precautions during high contact care activities for residents with chronic wounds or indwelling medical devices. The purpose was to reduce transmission of multidrug resistant organisms to other residents, staff, community and the environment. The policy documented that each resident room that was on enhanced barrier precautions would have personal protective equipment readily available and appropriate discreet signage outside their door.
Review of the Enhanced Barrier Precaution signage (a sign used by the facility that was posted outside a resident's door to indicate they required enhanced barrier precautions) documented that providers and staff must wear gloves and a gown for the following high-contact resident care activities: device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy, and wound care (any skin opening requiring a dressing).
1. Resident #4 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; breathing disorder), neuropathy (nerve pain), and peripheral vascular disease (narrow blood vessels cause restricted blood flow). The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 4/27/25 documented Resident #4 was cognitively intact, required a substantial/ maximal assist of one staff member for bed mobility, and had one (1) venous/arterial ulcer that required the application of ointments/medications and nonsurgical dressings.
The comprehensive care plan dated 7/4/24 documented Resident #4 had non pressure ulcers in scar tissue with a history of MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; bacterial infection) and osteomyelitis (bone infection) with interventions including to administer treatments as ordered and maintain universal precautions when providing resident care.
Review of the Kardex (a resident's guide to care) dated 6/26/25 documented Resident #4 required enhanced barrier precautions for wounds.
Review of a wound evaluation dated 6/25/25 at 10:25 AM, Registered Nurse #2 Unit Manager documented Resident #4 had a wound to the right trochanter (hip) measuring 6.2 centimeters by 1.8 centimeters with slough (dead tissue) present and a moderate amount of serosanguineous (fluid that contains blood and serum) drainage.
Review of medication review report dated 6/26/25 revealed an active physician order to cleanse Resident #4's right hip wound with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply a nickel thick layer of Santyl (debriding medicated ointment), cover with Aquacel dressing (creates moist wound healing environment and provides antimicrobial activity), cover with a dressing every day shift (6:00 AM - 2:00 PM) on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
During an observation on 6/25/25 at 8:51 AM, an Enhanced Barrier Precaution sign was posted on the door to Resident #4s room. The sign instructed staff to wash their hands and wear gloves and a gown during high-contact resident care including but not limited to wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing. A bin with personal protective equipment next to Resident #4s room door included gloves and gowns.
During an observation on 6/25/25 at 10:57 AM, Registered Nurse #3 entered Resident #4s room with supplies in hand, set them down on a clean barrier next to the resident's bed. They performed hand hygiene then applied gloves. Registered Nurse #3 cleansed Resident #4s right hip wound, patted dry with clean gauze, applied a nickel thick amount of Santyl to the wound bed, then a small amount of Aquacel, then covered the wound with an adhesive dressing. Registered Nurse #3 did not wear a gown during the direct hands-on care.
During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:03 AM, Registered Nurse #3 stated they were unsure of what exactly enhanced barrier precautions entailed. They walked over to Resident #4s room and reviewed the enhanced barrier precaution signage on the door and then stated they should have been wearing a gown while completing the treatment to Resident #4s right hip, it was important to ensure infections were not spread.
During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:18 AM, Director of Nursing #1 stated Registered Nurse #3 should have worn a gown and gloves while completing the treatment to Resident #4s wound, they should have been applied prior to entering the room and removed prior to leaving the room. Director of Nursing #1 stated it was important that all staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment when caring for residents on enhanced barrier, and all different precautions.
During an interview on 6/26/25 at 1:21 PM, Registered Nurse #2 Unit Manager stated when they removed the dressing from Resident #4s right hip prior to their shower on 6/25/25, the dressing had a moderate amount of serosanguineous drainage on it. Registered Nurse #2 stated Resident #4 was on enhanced barrier precautions, and they expected all staff to wear a gown and gloves when providing any hands on care, including wound dressing changes; they stated Registered Nurse #3 should have worn a gown and gloves when they completed Resident #4s treatment, it was important for infection control, did not want to spread any bacteria to and from other people.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 8:50 AM, the Infection Preventionist stated they expected staff to wash their hands, then apply a gown and gloves prior to entering a resident's room that was on enhanced barrier precautions if they planned on providing hands on care. Infection Preventionist stated Registered Nurse #3 should have applied a gown and gloves prior to providing the wound treatment to Resident #4, to protect the resident.
2. Resident #3 had diagnoses including obstructive uropathy (blockage of the urinary system), retention of urine and encounter for palliative care. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #3 was cognitively intact, understood and understand. The assessment tool documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter and was receiving hospice care.
The comprehensive care plan dated 4/24/24 documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter related to terminal condition. Resident #3 required enhanced barrier precautions per the Center for Disease Control and Prevention/New York State Department of Health. Interventions included that resident had an indwelling catheter; provide resident and family with education.
The Kardex dated 6/27/25 documented Resident #3 was on enhanced barrier precautions for an indwelling catheter.
Review of the Order Recap Report dated 6/27/25 documented Resident #3 had a medical provider order dated 4/25/25 for enhance barrier precautions-Catheter every day and night shift and monitor continued compliance.
During intermittent observation on 6/23/25 from 9:39 AM-11:14 AM, 6/24/25 at 8:47 AM-1:03 PM, and 6/25/25 8:44 AM-11:03 AM Resident #3 was in bed with their foley catheter in a privacy bag hanging from the bed frame. There was no enhanced barrier precaution signage on or near the resident's door or doorway.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 8:33 AM, the Infection Preventionist stated any nursing staff can initiate a resident on enhance barrier precautions. They stated staff were aware of a resident being on enhanced barrier precautions by getting morning report and there would be signage on the resident's door. The Infection Preventionist stated Resident #3 had a foley catheter which required them to be on enhance barrier precautions. They stated they were unaware that Resident #3 did not have enhanced barrier precautions signage on their door, but they should have. The Infection Preventionist stated the reason a resident needed to be on enhanced barrier precautions was to protect the resident from us.
During an interview on 6/26/25 at 9:25 AM, the Certified Nurse Aide #4 stated the purpose of enhance barrier precautions were to attempt to hinder the spread of infection. They stated they would know if a resident was on enhanced barrier precautions because there would be a sign on the resident's door with personal protective equipment bins. They stated they could not recall if Resident #3 had signage on their door, but they knew they needed to wear a gown and gloves when providing care because the resident had a foley catheter.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 11:41 AM, Registered Nurse #2, Unit Manager stated staff knew how to identify if a resident was on enhanced barrier precautions by signage on the resident's door. They stated any staff member can initiate enhance barrier precautions on a resident. Registered Nurse #2 stated Resident #3 was to be on enhanced barrier precautions because they had a foley catheter. They stated they placed signage and a personal protective equipment holder on Resident #3s door on 6/25/25. Registered Nurse #2 stated they were unsure why Resident #3 did not have signage on their door prior to 6/23/25 but should have.
During an interview on 6/27/25 at 12:54 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that Resident #3 should have had an enhance barrier precaution signage on their door and it was an oversight that Resident #3 did not have one.
3.Review of the facility's collection of Legionella documents revealed it contained the following documents:
-Document titled Table of Reviews and Revisions, with the most recent entry dated 8/22/23 by the former Maintenance Manager
-Facility policy and procedure titled Legionella Policy, reviewed/ revised 1/23, initiated by the Director of Support Services and approved by the Chief Executive Officer
-Document titled Legionnaires Disease Manual, reviewed/ revised by the former Maintenance Manager 8/22/23
-Form DOH (Department of Health)-5222, Environmental Assessment of Water Systems in Healthcare Settings, dated 3/17/23, completed by the former Maintenance Manager
-Document titled Sampling and Management Plan for Healthcare Facilities: Guidance and Template, effective date 4/1/18, completed by the former Administrator and the former Maintenance Manager
During an interview on 6/25/25 at 3:03 PM, Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated the Maintenance Manager had been on leave since March 2025 and they had been doing most of the Maintenance Manager's tasks since then. Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated they ensured that the annual Legionella water testing was completed, but they were not told to perform an annual review the facility's Legionella documents.
During an interview on 6/25/25 at 3:45 PM, the Director of Support Services stated the Maintenance Manager had a role in reviewing Legionella documents annually, but currently, the facility was in a state of transition with the Maintenance Manager position. The Director of Support Services also stated they personally oversaw the maintenance department, and they were responsible to do the annual review along with the Administrator and the Environmental Facilities Coordinator.
10NYCRR 415.19 (a)(2)
NYCRR Title 10 4-2
4-2.3(b)
4-2.4(c)
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide the...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide the liability and appeal notices to Medicare beneficiaries at the termination of Medicare coverage in the appropriate time frame for two (2) (Residents #30 and #94) of six (6) residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) to the residents who were being discharge from the facility two days prior to their last covered Medicare day.The findings are:The facility policy titled Medicare Non-Coverage Letters revised on May 2018, documented the purpose of the letter was to inform any resident with Medicare coverage that coverage days will be ending or not utilized due to determination of non-coverage, discharge from the facility or exhaustion of benefits. In the case the beneficiary was discharged with Medicare days remaining they would be provided with the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC CMS-10123). The policy documented the notice would be issued no later than two days prior to discharge or termination of services, unless discharge was by patient request. 1.Resident #30 was admitted to the facility under Medicare Part A services with diagnoses including surgical after care, complication of internal left hip prosthesis and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set (resident assessment tool) dated 5/9/25 documented Resident #30 had a planned discharge.Review of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC-10123) letter documented Resident #30's current Medicare skilled nursing services would end 5/8/25. In the additional information section on the letter the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator documented they spoke with Resident #30 regarding their Medicare coverage for skilled services ending on 5/8/25 due to the resident was being discharged from the facility on 5/9/25. Resident #30 signed the letter on 5/7/25. This would only be one day prior to the end of the last covered Medicare day. 2. Resident #94 was admitted to the facility under Medicare Part A services with diagnoses including cholecystitis (inflammation of the gallbladder), diabetes mellites type 2 and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #94 had a planned discharge.Review of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC-10123) letter documented Resident #94's current Medicare skilled nursing services would end 5/29/25. In the additional information section on the letter the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator documented they spoke with Resident #94 regarding their Medicare coverage for skilled services ending on 5/29/25 due to the resident was being discharged from the facility on 5/30/25. Resident #94 signed the letter on 5/28/25. This would only be one day prior to the end of the last covered Medicare day. During an interview on 6/24/25 at 10:59 AM, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letters needed to be given to the resident/resident representative two days prior to a resident's last covered Medicare day. They stated this was so the resident had time to appeal the ending of coverage if they chose to. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated if the resident was going home, they would always give the resident the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letter two days prior to the discharge date . The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated they gave Resident #30 the letter on 5/7/25 and the resident was discharged on 5/9/25. They stated they gave Resident #94 the letter on 5/28/25 and they were discharged from the facility on 5/30/25. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated the facility did not bill the day of discharge and then stated Resident #30 and Resident #94 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letters were not given in the proper time frame. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated technically Resident #30, and Resident #94 were given the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) only one day prior to the end of Medicare coverage. They stated they were unsure why they used a different time frame from residents that remained in the building and historically that was the way it always done.During an interview on 6/27/25 at 1:38 PM, the Administrator stated the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator was responsible to issue the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC). The Administrator stated they would expect letters of Medicare Non-coverage would be given to the residents two days prior to the Medicare last covered date. The Administrator stated there was a misunderstanding with the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letters and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator was giving them to the resident who were to be discharge from the facility a day too late. 10NYCRR 415.3(h)(2)(iv)