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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00300181, NY00323751, and NY003...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00300181, NY00323751, and NY00325885) surveys conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure the residents' rights to a private space for 2 of 13 residents (Residents #3 and #44) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #3 and #44 did not have keys to access a privately locked space.
Findings include:
The facility policy Locked Drawers and Keys revised 1/2024 documented residents were informed of their right to a locked drawer in which they could store their belongings. Nursing and social work was responsible for ensuring residents were notified upon admission that a key for the locked drawer could be obtained from the maintenance department. If a key was lost or no longer worked, staff informed the maintenance department to repair or replace the key and in the interim the facility offered an alternate space for belongings to be locked. Maintenance was responsible to keep track of room changes and switched keys as needed.
During an anonymous meeting on 1/24/2024 at 1:53 PM, 9 of 12 residents present stated they had not always had access to a locked space. Monthly meeting minutes documented residents discussed and requested access to keys/locked spaces in November 2023, December 2023 and January 2024.
1) Resident #44 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cirrhosis of the liver (a condition where the liver was scarred or permanently damaged) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a disease causing airflow blockage and breathing problems). The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact and required substantial/ maximum assistance with most activities of daily living.
During an interview on 1/25/2024 at 2:38 PM, the resident stated they were never offered a key for their locked drawer.
During a follow-up interview on 1/30/2024 at 9:12 AM, the resident stated they would have taken a key, if offered, to lock up their purse.
2) Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including lack of coordination and history of falling. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and required supervision for most activities of daily living.
During an observation and interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:21 AM, the resident stated they were never asked if they wanted a key for their locked drawer. The top drawer of their dresser was observed to have an open space where the lock would be located.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 8:17 AM with registered nurse unit manager #4, they stated the top dresser drawer had a lock and maintenance had the keys. Many residents had asked for keys and a maintenance request would be electronically entered for a key. It was the residents' rights to have access to a locked space that made them feel secure. The admissions department was responsible to inform the residents on how to obtain a key upon admission.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 9:18 AM with social worker #45, they stated all residents should have availability to a locked space in their room with a key. Residents received keys on admission, they knew most residents did not have the availability to a locked space, and this was often brought up in monthly resident council meetings.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:00 AM with the Regional Director of Facilities, the request for a key was entered electronically by staff. All residents should receive a key on admission as it was their right. If staff noticed there was no key, they should submit a maintenance request to obtain one. Part of the room orientation process was to ensure residents had a key for their locked drawers. It was important residents had a secure space for their belongings as part of their home-like environment. They confirmed there had been four key requests in the electronic maintenance request log (11/1/2023, 11/8/2023, 12/13/2023 and 12/19/2023).
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:13 PM with the Director of Admissions, they stated residents were supposed to have a locked drawer with a key located in their room upon admission. The concierge was responsible for making sure rooms were ready for admission and providing a key to a locked drawer was part of the process. If the key was missing, they should put in a maintenance request. Residents should have the availability of a locked drawer so they felt secure when leaving their rooms without fear of missing any personal property.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:34 PM with concierge #54, they stated they were responsible for getting rooms ready for admissions which included making sure a key existed for a locked drawer. If there was not a key maintenance was notified. They double-checked the presence of keys prior to new admissions. It was important for residents to have a key to a locked drawer so they felt at home, had a safe place to lock up their valuables and would not be afraid their personal items would go missing. The new admission rooms had keys approximately half of the time and the facility averaged 7 - 8 admissions per week. Residents should have a key without having to ask for one.
10NYCRR 415.5
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure the results of the most recent Federal/State survey were posted in a pl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure the results of the most recent Federal/State survey were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, family members and legal representatives of residents. Specifically, the most recent survey results and plan of correction were in a binder in a file bin on the wall, approximately 4-feet off the ground, around the corner from the main front lobby desk, and not easily accessible. There were no notices posted advising the residents, family members and legal representatives of the survey results location.
Findings Include:
During the Resident Council Meeting on 1/24/2024 at 1:53 PM, 10 anonymous residents stated they did not know where the binder of previous survey results was located.
During an observation 1/24/2024 at 3:53 PM, a binder with 3 years of past surveys/complaints was around the corner of the lobby in a plastic file bin on the wall. There were no signs posted throughout the facility identifying the location of survey results.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 8:44 AM, receptionist #64 stated they just started working in November 2023, did not know where the survey results binder was kept and they had never seen a sign that indicated where the binder was located.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:05 AM, the Administrator stated past survey results were located in the main lobby area, and for transparency, it would be important for residents, family, and the public to know of past survey results. The residents, families and public had the right to know where past survey results were located. They thought the admission agreement indicated where past survey results were located. Survey results were reviewed in Resident Council and they were not aware that signs needed to be posted in the facility to indicate where the survey results were specifically located.
10NYCRR 415.3(1)(c)(1)(v)
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391 and NY320041) surveys conducted 1/24/2023-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations invol...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391 and NY320041) surveys conducted 1/24/2023-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #134 and 400) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #135 had injuries of unknown origin that were not thoroughly investigated, and Resident #400 was provided a regular consistency sandwich on a ground consistency diet and was later found unresponsive on the floor and the incident was not investigated.
Findings included:
The facility policy Accident and Incident Investigation and Reporting reviewed 1/2023 documented all accidents or incidents involving residents should be investigated and reported to the Administrator. The Nurse Supervisor, charge nurse, or Department Director should promptly initiate the investigation and include all pertinent information. Witness statements should be obtained. The Report of Incident/Accident form was to be submitted to the Director of Nursing within 24 hours. The Director of Nursing would ensure the Administrator received a copy of the form. The form would then be reviewed by the safety committee for trends.
The facility policy Abuse Investigation and Reporting reviewed 1/2023 documented all reports of resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and/or injuries of unknown origin would be promptly reported to local, state, and federal agencies and thoroughly investigated by the facility's management. The administrator would assign the investigation to an appropriate person, and ensure any further abuse, neglect, or mistreatment be prevented. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, mistreatment, including injuries of an unknown source would be reported by the facility administrator or designee to the following persons or agencies including the State licensing agency, the local/ state ombudsman, and the resident representative. Reporting of alleged abuse or serious bodily harm would be reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours, and within 24 hours if there was no alleged abuse or serious bodily harm.
1) Resident #135 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia with agitation and impulse disorder. The 6/17/2022 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, did not reject care, did not wander, required supervision with transfers and walking in their room, supervision and assistance of 1 with walking in the corridor and with locomotion on and off the unit, required extensive assistance of 2 with dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing, was occasionally incontinent of bladder and bowel, had no falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment, and had no skin issues.
The 6/11/2021 comprehensive care plan documented the resident was at risk for skin alterations. Interventions included skin observations.
The 6/23/2021 comprehensive care plan documented the resident had behaviors including being physically aggressive/abusive, wandering, and was resistive/ combative with care. Interventions included distract from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, document all behaviors, and attempt to identify patterns.
On 6/1/2022, nurse practitioner #19 documented the resident had dry fragile skin and had scattered areas of senile purpura (discolored areas on older skin from fragile blood vessels) and had no open areas.
The 6/8/2022-7/3/2022 Weekly Skin Monitoring notes completed by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 documented the resident's skin was intact.
On 7/3/2022 Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioner #76 documented the resident was seen for a follow up. The resident was restless and had intrusive behavior with other residents. The resident went into other resident rooms and took belongings. When the resident was redirected, they became combative.
The 7/6/2022-7/13/2022 Weekly Skin Monitoring notes completed by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 documented the resident's skin was intact.
On 7/19/2022 at 3:25 PM, licensed practical nurse #12 documented the facility's Ombudsman was in to investigate a complaint from 7/18/2022.
On 7/19/2022 at 4:58 PM, registered nurse #34 documented the resident presented with a change of condition. They had 2 small old bruises to their left forearm. This started on 7/19/2022 in the afternoon. The resident was not on any anticoagulant medications. The skin evaluation documented the resident had a contusion (bruise) that was associated with a recent fall. The resident had no other complaints and had no pain to their left forearm. Medical and family were made aware. There was no documented evidence the resident had a recent fall.
On 7/19/2022 at 6:45 PM, registered nurse Supervisor #15 documented they were called to unit to complete an assessment of the resident due to bruising. 2 old ecchymotic (bruises) areas to their lower inner forearm were found, the upper bruise measured 2.5 centimeters by 1.5 centimeters and the lower bruise measured1 centimeter by 1 centimeter. Both areas were noted in the late stages of healing and no other bruises were observed on the resident.
The 7/19/2022 facility investigation, initiated by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13, was documented as ongoing. The resident had 2 light-colored old bruises to their left forearm. The resident ambulated independently, and staff were to continue to anticipate needs. The resident continued to wander in and out of rooms and bumped into things. Staff statements were obtained, and no one was aware of the bruising. The nursing supervisor was made aware, and the resident was assessed. Nurse practitioner #19, the Director of Nursing, the Administrator, and the family were also notified. The investigation did not document that abuse, neglect or mistreatment was ruled out.
On 7/28/2022, nurse practitioner #19 documented they were asked to see the resident for a skin concern to their left upper arm. The resident had scratch marks and did not recall how it occurred. This was a new area since yesterday. The resident's skin remained dry, fragile, and intact. No new orders were needed.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:34 PM, certified nurse aide #29 stated they had annual abuse training. If they noticed any changes in resident's skin, they would alert the nurse. They had never observed any bruising on Resident #135 and never heard of any abuse concerns regarding the resident. The resident used to wander the unit and into other resident's rooms.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:28 PM licensed practical nurse #12 stated they received annual abuse training. If they noticed any bruising on a resident, they would start a bruise sheet, report it to the nurse, document the skin issues, and start an accident and incident report. They would ask a registered nurse to assess the resident as well. They stated the resident used to walk independently. They recalled a family member reporting some bruising but did not recall much else. They would tell a nurse if they were made aware of any abuse accusations.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:39 PM, licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 stated if staff noticed any bruising on a resident, they should alert a nurse. Residents' skin was observed daily during care and weekly on shower days. If a resident had bruising, they should be assessed by a registered nurse and medical should be made aware. Staff should document in the medical chart what they observed. They stated Resident #135's family member reported the bruises, the resident was assessed by registered nurse Supervisor #15, and an incident report was started.
During a telephone interview on 1/29/2024 at 2:49 PM, registered nurse Supervisor #15 stated if staff observed an injury of unknown origin, they should alert a nurse. A registered nurse should assess the resident and an investigation should be started and medical should also be notified. They could not recall any specific incident with Resident #135. They stated if they were asked to assess the resident, they would document their findings. They did not have any involvement to determine if abuse, neglect, or mistreatment was ruled out.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 1:16 PM, registered nurse #34 stated residents should have their skin checked at least weekly on shower days and if staff observed any bruising they should alert the nurse, document their findings, and medical should be notified. An investigation should be started to determine the cause of the bruising. Once the investigation was completed it would be reviewed in morning report with the interdisciplinary team. They had started the investigation for bruising reported on 7/19/2022 and they were unable to determine the cause of the bruising. They expected medical to document if they were made aware of any injuries of unknown origin and they did not. They stated they were unsure why they documented the area was from a recent fall, as no fall had occurred. They stated the interdisciplinary team ruled out abuse, neglect, and mistreatment during morning meetings. The investigation did not indicate abuse, neglect, or mistreatment was ruled out.
During a telephone interview on 1/29/2024 at 2:17 PM nurse practitioner #19 stated they would want to be made aware of injuries of unknown origin. Staff should document any new skin alterations. They might not see a resident right away for noted bruising depending on the severity of the bruising. They stated they did not recall being involved to rule out abuse, neglect, or mistreatment for Resident #135. They stated they did see the resident on 7/28/2022 for scratches, which they documented.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 10:07 AM the Director of Nursing stated staff received yearly abuse training and if they noticed any bruising on a resident, they should alert a nurse. The resident should be assessed by a registered nurse and medical should be notified. An incident report should be started to determine cause of the bruising. The incident report did not document that abuse, neglect, or mistreatment was ruled out.
2) Resident #400 had diagnoses of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), stroke, and disturbances of salivary secretions. The 9/9/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, required supervision with set-up for eating, had a mechanically altered diet, did have a swallowing disorder, required supervision for locomotion on/off unit, and had a wander detection device.
A 3/18/2022 speech language pathologist #17 dysphagia therapy discharge progress note documented chopped consistency was no longer appropriate and the resident was downgraded to ground consistency.
Physician orders documented:
- on 3/18/2022 a regular diet with chopped textures and thin liquids for pleasure feedings.
- on 9/5/2023 aspiration (inhaling food into lungs) precautions related to dysphagia with meals and every shift
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 11/11/2019 and revised 8/29/2023 documented the resident was non-compliant with their diet, got thin liquids from the refrigerator, would drink water from the faucet and eat food not consistent with their diet consistency from the garbage. Interventions included to re-educate on safety concerns of not adhering to their diet and re-direct them to the appropriate diet.
The comprehensive care plan initiated 10/9/2019 and revised 11/15/2023 documented the resident had dysphagia, altered consistency of solids and liquids provided at meals as accepted. Interventions included a regular ground diet with thin liquids.
The 10/24/2023 registered dietitian #36 progress note documented the resident was on a regular diet with ground texture and required supervision with touching assistance for eating.
The 11/13/2023 at 6:35 AM nursing progress note by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #8 documented the resident had loss of solids and liquid from their mouth when eating or drinking and should follow up for a possible swallow disorder.
The 11/14/2023 at 6:35 PM registered nurse (RN) Supervisor #15 progress note documented they responded to a code blue at 6:35 PM that was at the first-floor tower elevators. Upon arrival, Resident #400 was found lying down face first on the floor. Resident #400 was then turned over, was found to have no injuries, and no blood was noted to be anywhere. Resident #400 was found absent of a pulse and respirations. Resident #400 was pronounced deceased at 7:09 PM. The Director of Nursing, the physician, and the Health Care Proxy (appointed to make health care decisions) were notified.
There was no documentation of an accident/incident report regarding the resident's unattended death in a non-residential area.
During a telephone interview on 1/29/2024 at 2:50 PM, registered nurse Supervisor #15 stated nurses were responsible to start incident reports. On 11/14/2023 they received a phone call to go to the back door elevator, Resident #400 was found on the floor, the resident was rolled over, and the resident was cold and bluish color. There was no pulse. Registered nurse Supervisor #15 started chest compressions as they did not know what the resident's code status was. There was nothing visible in the resident's mouth or throat when they checked. The resident had white bubbly foam in the back of their throat. They thought the resident had a heart attack. The supervisor told staff to immediately get the resident's chart to determine advanced directives. Compressions were stopped once they determined the resident was a do not resuscitate. The supervisor thought they began to collect witness statements and start and incident report after the ambulance staff arrived. Staff informed the supervisor that the resident was coming out of the kitchen area. The supervisor stated they called the Director of Nursing shortly after the incident. When reinterviewed on 1/30/2024 at 1:10 PM, the supervisor stated nothing was ejected from the resident's mouth when compressions were done, and they did not remember if witness statements were obtained.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 5:46 PM, Dietary Supervisor #20 stated on 11/14/2023 the resident went into the kitchen and asked staff for a sandwich. They were in the back kitchen room when a new dietary aide gave the resident a regular textured bologna sandwich. At that time, they were not aware the resident was given an incorrect consistency sandwich. When they discovered the resident had been given a regular bologna sandwich and was on a ground diet, they verbally reprimanded the aide and reminded them to not give residents any food without first checking the diet order. The Dietary Supervisor stated they were never asked to complete a witness statement.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 10:46 AM, dietary aide #24 stated they were working in the kitchen cleaning on 11/14/2023 when Resident #400 came in and asked for a bologna sandwich. Dietary aide #24 stated unit helper #26 was in the kitchen and told the dietary aide to give the resident the bologna sandwich. They stated a few minutes later the unit helper returned and stated the resident died. Registered nurse Supervisor #15 came into the kitchen and informed them that the resident had choked on the sandwich and stated residents should not be given any food without first checking their diet orders.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:00 AM, Director of Nursing stated they did not have an investigation regarding Resident #400's death. They only had a statement from registered nurse Supervisor #15. They showed the surveyor a handwritten note from registered nurse #15. When reinterviewed at 3:44 PM, the Director of Nursing stated they did not know who found the resident by the elevator, or what the resident was doing prior to being found on the floor. They were aware of the resident being found on the floor and a code blue being called. They did not know if the nursing supervisor obtained witness statements, when the resident was last seen by staff, what the resident was doing prior to the incident, or specific details regarding the incident. The purpose of an investigation was to determine who found the resident and the circumstances surrounding the incident. Incident reporting was determined by the interdisciplinary team, based on the New York State Department of Health Reporting Guidelines manual, and there were timelines for reporting certain incidents.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:16 AM, unit helper #26 stated they had worked on the evening the resident died. They stated they were in the kitchen near the tray line getting coffee when they heard a code blue. They had just seen Resident #400 a few minutes prior and did not tell anyone to give them a sandwich. Unit helper #26 stated they were unaware the resident had expired until the next day.
During a telephone interview on 1/30/2024 at 4:30 PM, licensed practical nurse #37 stated they had found the resident lying on the floor near the first-floor tower elevator. They stated they were never asked to write a witness statement or asked what happened.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 1:36 PM, the Administrator stated a full investigation would have determined who found the resident on the floor and the facility did not traditionally perform an investigation for a code blue. The Administrator was not aware until recently that the resident was given the wrong consistency sandwich and they should have been made aware.
10NYCRR 415.4(b)
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
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 and abbreviated surveys (NY00325885, NY00328424 an...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00325885, NY00328424 and NY00331016) conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 3 of 7 residents (Residents #38, #64, #80) reviewed. Specifically,
- Resident #38 received rapid-acting insulin (starts to lower glucose levels 15 minutes after injection) greater than one hour before meals.
- Resident #64 was observed with a vacuum assisted wound closure device (a type of therapy used for wound healing) that was not functioning.
- Resident #80 was found on the floor, was not assessed by a qualified professional timely, did not receive a physician ordered X-ray immediately as ordered, and was diagnosed with a right hip fracture.
Findings include:
The facility policy Lab and Diagnostic Test Results Protocol revised 1/2022 documented the physician would identify and order diagnostic and lab testing based on diagnostic and monitoring needs. Staff processed test requisitions and arranged for tests.
The facility policy Assessing Falls and Their Causes reviewed 1/2024 documented if a resident was found on the floor without a witness, nursing staff obtained and recorded vital signs and evaluated for possible injuries. Nursing repositioned the resident after their assessment ruled out a significant injury; if there was evidence of a significant injury nursing provided the appropriate first aide. Nursing notified the provider immediately with a significant injury or change in condition and by next office day without a significant injury or change in condition. Nursing staff observed for delayed complications of a fall for approximately 48 hours after an observed or suspected fall and documented findings in the medical record. Documentation included any signs or symptoms of pain, swelling, deformity and/or decreased mobility and any changes in level of responsiveness/ consciousness.
The facility policy Negative Pressure Wound Therapy reviewed 1/2024 documented staff verified that the resident had an order for this procedure, establish negative pressure and therapeutic time settings as ordered. Staff documented time setting and negative pressure settings as read on the vacuum assisted wound closure device. Staff documented the date and time the vacuum assisted wound closure device was started or stopped along with the name and initials of the person who performed the procedure. Staff needed to report any problems.
The facility policy Insulin Administration reviewed 1/2024 did not include guidance for administering short acting insulin before meals.
1) Resident #38 had diagnoses including diabetes. The 11/6/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition and received insulin injections daily.
The comprehensive care plan initiated 1/7/2020 documented the resident required insulin injections daily, staff was to monitor them for hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and hypoglycemia (low blood glucose), they received a therapeutic diet, and blood glucose was monitored per physician orders.
The January 2024 Medication Administration Record documented Novolog (rapid-acting insulin) Flexpen inject 10 units subcutaneously before meals for diabetes at 6:30 AM, 12:30 PM, and 4:30 PM.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 11:40 AM licensed practical nurse #7 administered Novolog insulin injection to the resident and documented it was given in the Medication Administration Record.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 1:34 PM the lunch trays were delivered to the unit and at 1:45 PM the resident received their meal tray and began eating. This was 1 hour and 54 minutes after they received their insulin.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 9:34 AM, licensed practical nurse #7 stated insulin should be administered at mealtimes. If their blood sugar check was high, then the resident could receive it earlier. Resident #38's blood glucose resulted 286 and they received both insulins ordered. They stated the resident received a long-acting insulin which worked through the day and regulated their glucose levels and one short acting insulin, Novolog. Novolog started working fast, within 15 minutes and peaked near 30 minutes and reduced their glucose levels Resident #38 routinely received their insulins, long or short acting together near 8:00 AM and their short acting again routinely near 11:00 AM. If the resident received insulin without food their blood glucose could bottom out and they could have symptoms including sweating, confusion, and feeling clammy. They stated staff were aware of the signs of hypoglycemia and knew to alert a nurse and provide appropriate snacks.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 10:25 AM licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #47 stated short acting insulin should be administered no earlier than 30 minutes prior to mealtime, as it started lowering the blood glucose levels within 15 minutes. Mealtimes were scheduled at specific times, but they were typically late. When meals were late, and a resident had already received insulin they should be offered a snack, or they could become hypoglycemic. Resident #38 had Novolog insulin scheduled for 8:30 and 12:30 during the daytime, breakfast arrived at the unit after 9:00 and lunch after 1:00 PM, so 8:00 AM and 11:30 AM would both be too early to administer insulin. Nurses did not routinely check on the residents after they administered the ordered medications, and the resident would report to staff when they did not feel well.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 1:37 PM, nurse practitioner #18 stated Novolog Insulin was a short acting insulin and should be administered 15 minutes prior to eating a meal. When a resident received insulin and they did not have a meal, they should be monitored more closely. Administering a short acting insulin greater than an hour prior to mealtime was not acceptable for the safety of the residents.
2) Resident #64 had diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), spondylopathy (spinal disorder), and diabetes. The 1/8/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment dated documented the resident was cognitively intact, required assistance of two for transferring and toileting, had an infected diabetic foot ulcer, and received application of dressings to their feet.
The physician order dated 1/22/2024 documented vacuum assisted wound closure device set to 125 mmHg (millimeters of mercury) on the left foot, change three times per week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and as needed if dressing comes off. Check for placement/integrity and function every shift for verification.
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 1/12/2024 documented the resident had an actual alteration in skin integrity related to a diabetic foot wound located on the left foot. Interventions included vacuum assisted wound closure device therapy and follow up with a wound care team outside of the facility.
Resident #64 was observed in their room with the vacuum assisted wound closure device on their left foot not operating on 1/25/2024 at 8:30 AM and at 9:50 AM.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:52 AM, licensed practical nurse #51 stated the vacuum assisted wound closure device was used to promote wound healing when charged and working properly with the ordered settings displayed on the machine. If the numbers were not displayed, the device was either off or the battery had died. They stated it was nursing's responsibility to make sure the wound vac was functioning. If they noticed a wound vac was not working, they would notify their supervisor.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 10:10 AM, registered nurse supervisor #48 stated it was nursing's responsibility to check the function of the vacuum assisted wound closure device every shift and document on the medication administration record. If the vacuum assisted wound closure device was not functioning there could be increased drainage, delayed wound healing, and even increased potential for infection.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 8:21 AM, licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5 stated if a vacuum assisted wound closure device was not functioning staff should notify the nurse. If the vacuum assisted wound closure device was not properly placed or if it had been off for longer than two hours, the wound drainage could sit on the skin causing damage and increase the chance of infection. Staff should never turn on a vacuum assisted wound closure device without knowing how long it had been off.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 9:27 AM, occupational therapist #52 stated they turned on the vacuum assisted wound closure device for Resident #64 sometime on 1/25/2024. They were not sure if this was under their scope of practice and turned it on instinctively when they noticed it was not functioning. They were not sure how long the vacuum assisted wound closure device was off prior to turning it on.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 9:43 AM, licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5 stated if a vacuum assisted wound closure device was not functioning, they would take the dressing off before restarting it as the suction could shift and not provide the necessary treatment for wound healing. If a vacuum assisted wound closure device was not on properly, drainage could sit on the skin causing an infection and worsening of the wound. They stated during Resident #64's dressing change on 1/29/2024 they noted the skin was moist and started to break down.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 9:59 AM physician #63 stated if the vacuum assisted wound closure device was off for over two hours staff should remove the dressing and place a new dressing. If the device was off there was a potential for bacterial overgrowth and delayed wound healing. They would want to be notified if a vacuum assisted wound closure device was off for an undetermined amount of time or over two hours and they were not notified about Resident #64.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 10:25 AM, the Director of Nursing stated if a vacuum assisted wound closure device did not have numbers displayed on the screen, it was not working and nursing staff was expected to put a dressing on the wound and notify the medical provider. It was nursing's responsibility to make sure the vacuum assisted wound closure device was functioning properly. If the vacuum assisted wound closure device was not functioning drainage could pool and cause an infection and further skin breakdown. They expected rehab staff to notify nursing if they noticed a non-functioning vacuum assisted wound closure device.
3) Resident #80 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia and repeated falls. The 1/25/2022 Minimum Data Set Assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, required limited assistance with transfers, walking in their room, on the unit, and in the corridor. The resident was not steady, was only able to stabilize with staff assistance and used a walker. The resident did not have any falls since admission/entry, reentry, or the prior assessment.
The 10/1/2019 comprehensive care plan documented the resident had an increased risk for falls related to their diagnosis of dementia. Interventions included encourage use of assistive device: Hemi-walker (designed for use with one hand) and non-slip footwear when out of bed.
The undated care instructions documented staff encouraged the resident to use their Hemi walker and wear non-slip footwear when out of bed. The resident required supervision or touching assistance when walking 10-150 feet and with walking 50 feet with two turns.
The 4/26/2022 Quarterly evaluation completed by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 documented the resident did not have any pain that impacted their mobility, the resident reported no pain, and had no history of falls in the past 6 months.
On 4/27/2022 at 2:27 PM, Licensed practical nurse #33 documented a late entry note for the evening of 4/26/22 at 9:38 PM. They documented they were made aware by another resident that Resident #80 was on the floor. When they approached Resident #80, they appeared to be sleeping. Once they called out the resident's name they responded. The resident's vital signs were within normal limits, the resident did not complain of pain or discomfort, and their range of motion was within normal limits. The supervisor was made aware of the incident.
There was no documented evidence Resident #80 was assessed by a qualified professional after being discovered on the floor and transferred off the floor.
On 4/27/2022:
- At 5:37 AM, licensed practical nurse #35 documented the resident complained of right leg pain during morning care. They did not observe any bruising, swelling, or redness at that time. The resident required assistance of 2 for incontinence care.
- At 7:33 AM, licensed practical nurse #32 documented the resident presented with signs and symptoms of pain in their right hip. The resident was unable to stand, and STAT (immediate) hip x-ray was ordered.
- At 8:16 AM, registered nurse #4 (former Assistant Director of Nursing/ current Minimum Data Set Assessment nurse) documented it was reported to them the resident complained of right hip pain. They assessed the limb with licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 and the resident did not want their leg touched. The leg was straight with a clear turn to the right. Medical was notified and a STAT x-ray of the right hip was ordered.
- At 1:33 PM, licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 documented the resident was sent to the hospital due to x-ray not being completed since it was ordered at 7:00 AM. The x-ray company was called twice, but they were unable to provide a time the x-ray would be completed.
On 4/27/2022, nurse practitioner #19 documented they were asked to evaluate the resident for complaints of right hip pain. Per nursing, the resident was found on the floor that morning. The resident was unable to answer questions due to cognitive impairment. The resident had obvious evidence of facial grimacing upon palpation of the right hip/ thigh area.
The 4/27/2022 Nursing Home to Hospital Transfer Form completed by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 at 1:37 PM, documented the reason for transfer was other right hip pain. x-ray ordered but not estimated time of arrival.
There was no documented evidence that licensed practical nurse #33 notified the supervisor or medical that the resident was found on the floor on the evening of 4/26/2022, this resulted in the resident not being assessed until the morning of 4/27/2022. There was no documented evidence that licensed practical nurse Unit Manager informed the medical provider the STAT x-ray was not completed in a timely manner.
The facility's Summary of Investigation completed on 4/27/2022 at 1:00 PM, by registered nurse #4 documented Upon video review Resident #80 was observed wandering in and out of rooms and Resident #80 entered Resident #87's room. Resident #87 pushed Resident #80 out of their room and onto the floor. The investigation revealed there was reasonable cause to believe that resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment may have occurred. Staff statements included:
-Licensed practical nurse #33 documented on 4/26/2022 at 9:38 PM, they were made aware the resident was on the floor by another resident. The resident did not complain of pain upon approach, and they were lying on the floor sleeping. Their vital signs were within normal limits, there were no issues with range of motion, and no injuries were noted. Prior to this the resident was up and wandering the hallway. They had alerted licensed practical nurse Supervisor #47. The statement did not include the time licensed practical nurse supervisor #47 was notified.
- certified nurse aide #31 documented on 4/26/22 at 9:15 PM, Resident #80 was observed sleeping on the floor in front of room [ROOM NUMBER]. They last saw the resident at 8:00 PM in their bed sleeping. At the time of the incident the resident was wearing non-skid socks.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 10:04 AM, registered nurse #4 stated on 4/27/2022 Resident #80 complained of pain and they assessed the resident in the morning when they were made aware. After they assessed the resident, they viewed the facility's video footage. The footage revealed Resident #80 wandered into Resident #87's room. Resident #87 pushed Resident #80 onto the floor on 4/26/2022 around 9:37 PM. Another resident alerted staff the resident was on the ground. Licensed practical nurse #33 and certified nurse aide #31 helped the resident off the floor brought them back to their room. They expected staff to alert a supervisor or medical if a resident has an unwitnessed fall or was found on the floor. Licensed practical nurses could not assess resident's as it was out of their scope of practice. It was important for the supervisor and medical to be aware so the resident could be assessed to rule out any injuries, such as fractures.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 11:41 AM, licensed practical nurse #47 stated if a resident was found on the ground or had an unwitnessed fall, they expected staff to notify the supervisor. Either the supervisor or the nurse reporting the incident should notify medical or the on call registered nurse. The resident should not be moved until they were assessed by a registered nurse or medical gave orders. Licensed practical nurses could not assess residents. Both the nursing supervisor and the nurse reporting the incident should document in the chart. They stated they recalled being asked about the incident with Resident #80 being found on the floor because licensed practical nurse #33 documented they made them aware, but they stated they were never made aware of the incident.
During a telephone interview on 1/29/2024 at 2:11 PM, nurse practitioner #19 stated when they worked at the facility there was an on call medical provider from 7:00 PM-7:00 AM. If staff found a resident on the floor or a resident had an unwitnessed fall, medical or the registered nurse should be made aware. It was important for medical or the registered nurse to be informed to rule out any injuries. They assessed Resident #80 when they were requested by nursing and an x-ray was ordered and they documented their findings in a medical note.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 9:12 AM, the Director of Nursing stated if a resident had an unwitnessed fall staff should alert the nursing supervisor and medical should also be made aware. Licensed practical nurses could not assess residents and that needed to be completed by a registered nurse or medical. They stated when licensed practical nurse #33 and certified nurse aide #31 found Resident #80 on the floor they should not have gotten them up and they should have notified the supervisor or medical and documented the incident. Documentation should be completed on the date of the event and should include what happened and who was notified. If a physician ordered a STAT x-ray, they expected it to be completed within 1- 2 hours of being ordered. If it could not be completed in that time the resident should be sent to the hospital. They stated there was no documentation of the incident in the resident's chart until the next day. Licensed practical nurse #33 stated they did call licensed practical nurse Supervisor #47, but there was no documentation this occurred. Licensed practical nurse #33 should have also reported the incident to the oncoming shift so the resident could be monitored. At 7:33 AM, a STAT x-ray was ordered, but the x-ray was not completed at the facility despite the x-ray company being notified twice. The resident was sent out at 1:30 PM, this was a long time to wait to obtain an x-ray.
During an interview with licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 on 2/1/2024 at 12:03 PM, they stated a STAT- x-ray should be completed as quickly as possible. They stated they made the former Assistant Director of Nursing and nurse practitioner aware the x-ray was not completed. They finally got the orders to send the resident out to the hospital at 1:30 PM.
10NYCRR 415.12
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 observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00322708 and NY00325885) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents wi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00322708 and NY00325885) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #24) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #24 was observed in their bed with their air mattress (a specialty mattress that provides air flow to relieve pressure) not functioning.
Findings include:
The facility policy Use of Low Air Loss Mattress revised 1/2022, documented residents would be assessed for the appropriateness of an air mattress based on risk factors and/or the existence of actual or history of pressure injuries. An air mattress would be provided to prevent skin breakdown, promote circulation, and provide pressure relief and reduction. Staff would check at least daily that the air mattress was on, was set appropriately, and functioning. If malfunctioning, staff would notify a supervisor and alternate pressure relieving measures would be initiated while the mattress was repaired.
Resident #24 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis on one side) affecting the left nondominant side, aphasia (difficulty speaking), and nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (brain bleed). The 12/3/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers, was at risk for developing pressure ulcers, had one Stage 3 (full-thickness skin loss) pressure ulcer that was not present on admission, received pressure ulcer care, and had a pressure reducing device for the bed.
The 12/5/2023 physician order documented air mattress check hoses, proper functioning, and settings every shift, alternating with a weight of 200 pounds.
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 7/8/2021 documented the resident was at risk for impaired skin integrity related to contractures, immobility, and incontinence of bowel and bladder. Interventions included apply protective/preventative skin care, keep skin clean and dry, and monitor skin condition daily during care and report changes. On 12/5/2023 the care plan was updated to include apply alternating air mattress (an alternating air flow mattress designed to prevent and treat pressure wounds) setting of 200 pounds, nursing to check every shift for function and correct settings.
The 1/24/2024 registered nurse #65 wound progress note documented the resident had a pressure ulcer to the right buttock that was closed or suspected deep tissue injury (deep red, maroon, or purple discoloration due to underlying tissue damage). The area remained fragile and was under observation. Interventions included repositioning, pressure relieving wheelchair cushion, and a specialty mattress.
Resident #24 was observed lying in bed, the air mattress control panel lights were not on, and the mattress was not functioning:
-on 1/24/2024 at 1:58 PM.
-on 1/25/2024 at 9:44 AM and 2:48 PM.
-on 1/26/2024 at 9:53 AM and 1:00 PM.
The January 2024 treatment administration record documented air mattress checks every shift. Check hoses, proper functioning, and alternating with a weight of 200 pounds. The air mattress was documented as checked: from 1/24/2024 day, evening, and night shift through the 1/26/2024 day shift.
- on 1/24/2024 by licensed practical nurse #9 from 6:00 AM-2:00 PM; by licensed practical nurse #84 from 2:00 PM-10:00 PM; by licensed practical nurse #85 from 10:00 PM-6:00 AM.
- on 1/25/2024 by licensed practical nurse #9 from 6:00 AM-2:00 PM and 2:00 PM-10:00 PM; by licensed practical nurse #84 from 10:00 PM-6:00 AM.
- on 1/26/2024 by licensed practical nurse #9 from 6:00 AM-2:00 PM; by licensed practical nurse #84 from 2:00 PM-10:00 PM and 10:00 PM-6:00 AM.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:03 PM, certified nurse aide #66 stated Resident #24 was on an air mattress set to their weight because they had a sore on their back side that had recently closed. They stated they would look to see if air mattresses were on and functioning during rounds. If they observed an air mattress not working, they would tell a nurse. They did not notice during morning care that Resident #24's air mattress was not working and did not recall the last time it was working. They stated it was important to check the air mattress because if it was not working Resident #24 could get new skin breakdown or reopen their old wound.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:11 PM, licensed practical nurse #9 stated all direct care staff were responsible for checking to ensure air mattresses were in place and functioning properly. The medication nurses had to sign off every shift that the air mattress was in working condition and the settings were correct. They did not recall the last time they checked Resident #24's air mattress but if they had signed it off in the treatment administration record it meant they observed the air mattress working. They stated it was important to check the air mattress as ordered because it could put the resident at risk for further skin breakdown if they had to lie on a deflated mattress with a metal bedframe underneath for too long.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:33 PM, registered nurse Unit Manager #10 stated all air mattresses needed a physician order, and the order would include what kind of mattress and the correct setting which went by the resident's weight. They stated all staff who provided direct care should be checking to ensure air mattresses were functioning properly and the medication nurses had to sign off every shift that it was in working order and set correctly. They stated they were not aware that Resident #24's air mattress was not working. If it was observed not working a nurse should have been notified immediately. They stated If a nurse signed it off in the treatment administration record, that meant the nurse observed the air mattress to be working. They stated it was important to ensure Resident #24's air mattress was always in working condition to protect the newly healed wound area and to prevent further skin breakdown.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 1:26 PM, the Director of Nursing stated air mattresses promoted wound healing and relieved pressure to bony prominences to prevent skin breakdown. The nurses were responsible for checking the proper functioning of air mattresses and they had to document their findings in the treatment administration record every shift. If a mattress was not working, they expected staff to get the resident out of bed, remove it, and call maintenance to get a new one. They expected if a resident had an air mattress it should be turned on and functioning properly. If Resident #24's mattress was not functioning properly they were at risk for new pressure ulcers or worsening wounds.
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391, NY00322708, and NY00331016) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391, NY00322708, and NY00331016) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents and the environment remained free of accident hazards for 2 of 10 residents (Residents #128 and #400) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #400 was given food not consistent with their physician ordered diet, and Resident #128 had an unidentified medication on the floor of their room.
Findings include:
The facility policy Administering Medications revised 1/2024, documented for residents unavailable to receive medication on the medication pass, the nurse was to return to the missed resident to administer the medication. If a drug was withheld or refused, the individual administering the medication shall initial and circle the medication administration record space for that specific medication. The individual administering the medications must sign for them in the medication administration record prior to giving the next ones. Residents were able to self-administer their own medications only with a physician order.
The facility policy, Food Consistencies and Definitions reviewed 1/2024 documented ground foods were foods with a moist, soft texture. A ground diet was to have meats that were ground, and nothing pureed.
The facility policy, Serving Snacks (Between Meal and Bedtime), revised 1/2024, documented to check the snack to be sure it was the correct diet order and food consistency was appropriate to the resident's ability to chew and swallow.
1)Resident #400 had diagnoses of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), stroke, and disturbances of salivary secretions. The 9/9/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, required supervision with set-up for eating, had a mechanically altered diet, required supervision for locomotion on/off unit and had a wander detection device.
A 3/18/2022 speech language pathologist #17 dysphagia therapy discharge progress note documented chopped consistency was no longer appropriate and the resident was downgraded to ground consistency.
Physician orders documented:
- on 3/18/2022 a regular diet with chopped textures and thin liquids for pleasure feedings.
- on 9/5/2023 aspiration (inhaling food into lungs) precautions related to dysphagia with meals and every shift.
The comprehensive care plan initiated 10/9/2019 and revised 11/15/2023 documented the resident had dysphagia, altered consistency of solids and liquids provided at meals as accepted. Interventions included a regular ground diet with thin liquids.
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 11/11/2019 and revised 8/29/2023 documented the resident was non-compliant with their diet, got thin liquids from the refrigerator, would drink water from the faucet and eat food not consistent with their diet consistency from the garbage. Interventions included to re-educate on safety concerns of not adhering to their diet and re-direct them to the appropriate diet.
The 10/24/2023 registered dietitian #36 progress note documented the resident was on a regular diet with ground texture and required supervision with touching assistance for eating.
The 11/13/2023 at 6:35 AM nursing progress note by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #8 documented the resident had loss of solids and liquid from their mouth when eating or drinking and should follow up for a possible swallow disorder.
The 11/14/2023 at 6:35 PM registered nurse Supervisor #15 progress note documented they responded to a code blue at 6:35 PM that was at the first-floor tower elevators. Upon arrival, Resident #400 was found lying down face first on the floor. Resident #400 was then turned over, was found to have no injuries, and no blood was noted to be anywhere. Resident #400 was found absent of a pulse and respirations. Resident #400 was pronounced deceased at 7:09 PM. The Supervisor thought the resident expired due to a heart attack.
There was no documented evidence of an accident/incident report regarding the resident's death.
During a telephone interview on 1/29/2024 at 2:50 PM, registered nurse Supervisor #15 stated on 11/14/2023 they received a phone call to go to the back door elevator where Resident #400 was found on the floor. The resident was rolled over, was cold and a bluish color, and did not have a pulse. Registered nurse Supervisor #15 started chest compressions as they did not know what the resident's code status was. There was nothing visible in the resident's mouth or throat when they checked. The resident had white bubbly foam in the back of their throat. They thought the resident had a heart attack. Staff informed them the resident was seen coming out of the kitchen area. When reinterviewed on 1/30/2024 at 1:10 PM, the Supervisor stated nothing was ejected from the resident's mouth when compressions were done. They did not remember if witness statements were obtained.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 5:46 PM, Dietary Supervisor #20 stated on 11/14/2023 the resident went into the kitchen and asked staff for a sandwich. They were in the back kitchen room and thought a new dietary aide gave the resident a regular texture bologna sandwich. Dietary Supervisor #20 stated they verbally reprimanded the aide and reminded them to not give the resident any food without first checking the resident's diet order.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 10:46 AM, dietary aide #24 stated they were working in the kitchen cleaning on 11/14/2023 when Resident #400 came in and asked for a bologna sandwich. Dietary aide #24 stated unit helper #26 was in the kitchen and told the dietary aide to give the resident a sandwich. They stated a few minutes later the unit helper returned to the kitchen and stated the resident died. Registered nurse Supervisor #15 came into the kitchen and informed them that the resident had choked on the sandwich and stated residents should not be given any food without first checking their diet orders.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:16 AM unit helper #26 stated they had worked on the evening of 11/14/2023 when the resident died. They stated they were in the kitchen near the tray line getting coffee when they heard a Code Blue page. They stated they had just seen Resident #400 a few minutes prior. They did not tell anyone to give the resident a sandwich. Unit helper #26 stated they were unaware the resident had expired until the next day when they heard the resident's death was caused by a sandwich.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 7:14 PM certified nurse aide #27 stated they could not recall if they cared for the resident on 11/14/2023. The resident wandered all over the facility. Certified nurse aide #27 stated the resident would eat food from the garbage and was redirected several times. They did not see the resident on the evening they passed.
During an interview on 1/31/2024 at 10:14 AM, the Director of Food Services #21 stated all dietary staff were trained by pairing them with a seasoned dietary worker. That training included how to read a meal ticket and food consistency. There were food consistency posters with examples throughout the kitchen area. Dietary aide #24 had received education on diet consistency. Dietary staff were aware that they were supposed to check a resident's diet order before giving them any food.
During an interview on 1/31/2024 at 1:44 PM, registered nurse Educator #11 stated food consistency education was reviewed during general orientation by the speech therapist and included dietary staff. The Educator told all staff not to give a resident any food until they checked the resident's dietary orders first. Questions about a dietary order or consistency were to be directed to nursing staff. Dietary staff also received education from the dietary department regarding dietary specific topics.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 10:25 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they were unaware the dietary aide gave the resident a regular sandwich. It was common for the resident to wander the building, get food from garbage cans and eat the food. The food was not always the resident's ordered consistency and staff could only reeducate the resident. The resident was care planned for non-compliance. The garbage cans were to be changed frequently.
When interviewed on 2/1/2024 at 1:36 PM, the Administrator stated they were not aware until recently that the resident was given the wrong consistency sandwich and they should have been made aware.
2) Resident #128 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease), epilepsy (seizure disorder), and dependent on renal dialysis (process filtering the blood). The 12/21/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, required supervision and setup for most activities of daily living, had no behavioral symptoms, and did not reject care.
The 11/7/2023 to 1/30/2024 physician orders documented the resident received the following medications:
- Keppra (anti-seizure) 750 milligrams two times a day for seizures;
- Tylenol (pain reliever) 1000 milligrams every eight hours as needed for pain;
- omeprazole (lower stomach acids) 20 milligrams two times a day for acid reflux;
- venlafaxine (antidepressant) 75 milligrams daily in the morning for depression;
- Trazadone (antidepressant and sleep aid) 50 milligrams daily at bedtime for anxiety and sleep;
- Plavix (blood thinner) 75 milligrams daily in the morning for blood thinner;
- Eliquis (blood thinner) 2.5 milligrams two times a day for blood clots;
- Midodrine (to increase blood pressure) 5 milligrams three times a day for low blood pressure;
- rosuvastatin calcium (cholesterol control) 10 milligrams daily at bedtime for high cholesterol; and
- Renvela (removes phosphorus in the blood) 800 milligrams three times a day for high phosphorus in the blood.
During observations on 1/24/2024 at 10:26 AM and 1/25/2024 at 8:58 AM, there was an oval peach pill on the floor in Resident #128's room. The pill was visible from the hallway.
During an interview on 1/25/2024 at 8:58 AM, Resident #128 stated the medication on their floor looked like their seizure pill and it must have been from the previous day. They stated the nurse would give them their cup of medications and leave the room before they took all of them.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:05 AM, certified nurse aide #61 stated they had not seen any pills on the resident's floor, and they would have notified the charge nurse immediately if they did. They stated it would be important to notify the nurse and remove the pill so that other residents would not take them.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:17 AM, housekeeper #59 stated they frequently cleaned the floor in Resident #128's room, and they had not seen any pills on the floor. They stated if they did, they would pick it up and bring it to the nurse because it could be detrimental if another resident found it.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:48 AM, licensed practical nurse #9 stated they had a few residents who wandered on the unit. They stated they waited until Resident #128 took all their pills before they exited the room, and Resident #128 never refused their medications. They stated they were not aware of any pills on the resident's floor and would have disposed of the medication if they saw it and notify the Unit Manager. The resident could be at risk if they missed a dose of an important medication and other residents could be at risk if they took a medication not prescribed to them.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 12:05 PM, registered nurse Unit Manager #10 stated they expected the medication nurse to wait until the resident took all the pills before exiting the room. They stated they were not aware of any pills on Resident #128's floor. If a medication was found, it should be discarded, and the provider notified.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 1:26 PM, the Director of Nursing stated if a medication was found on the floor in a resident's room they should ask the resident about it, verify it with the medication nurse, discard the pill, and call the provider if a dose was missed. They stated the potential danger of the resident not getting their medication as ordered could negatively impact their medical diagnosis.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 1:38 PM, Nurse Practitioner #18 stated they only allowed alert and oriented residents to self-administer certain medications like inhalers and Resident #128 was not able to self-administer. They expected the nurse to stay in the room until all the medications were taken and they would want to be notified if medications were missed. They stated complications could arise if the resident missed a dose or other residents took a medication not prescribed to them.
10NYCRR 415.12 (h)(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
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391 and NY00322708) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents ma...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391 and NY00322708) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #184) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #184 had a significant weight loss, their nutritional interventions were not reassessed, and the resident had additional weight loss. Additionally, there was no documented evidence medical was made aware of the resident's significant weight loss.
Findings include:
The facility policy Nutritional Assessment revised 1/2024 documented a nutritional assessment, including current nutritional status and risk factors for impaired nutrition, would be conducted for each resident. The registered dietitian along with the interdisciplinary team would conduct nutritional assessments for each resident upon admission and as indicated by a change in condition that places the resident at risk for impaired nutrition. The nutritional assessment would be a systemic multidisciplinary process that included gathering and interpreting data and using that data to help define meaningful interventions for the resident at risk for or with impaired nutrition.
The facility policy Weight Assessment and Intervention revised 1/2024 documented the dietitian would review the unit weight record for the month to identify significant weight changes. Negative trends would be evaluated by the treatment team whether or not the criteria for significant weight change had been met. The threshold for significant weight unplanned and undesired weight loss was:
- 5% weight loss at 1 month was considered significant, greater than 5% was considered severe.
- 7.5% weight loss at 3 months was considered significant, greater than 7.5% was considered severe.
- 10% weight loss at 6 months was considered significant, greater than 10% was considered severe.
Interventions for undesirable weight loss would be based on careful consideration that included resident choices and preferences, nutrition and hydration needs of the resident, environmental and functional factors, medications, and the use of supplementation.
Resident #184 was admitted with diagnoses including hypertension and history of falling. The 11/19/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, did not reject care, required supervision or touching assistance with eating, weighed 126 pounds, did not have significant weight change in the past 30 or 180 days, and received a therapeutic diet.
The 9/21/2023 physician order documented the resident was to receive a no added salt, regular consistency diet.
The 9/21/2023, comprehensive care plan documented the resident had a nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem related to Alzheimer's dementia with behavior disturbance. Interventions included to provide supervision and assistance with tray set up at meals, encourage meals in the dining room, monitor meal consumption, provide diet as order, and provide fortified pudding at lunch.
On 9/21/2023, the resident's weight was documented as 133.4 pounds.
The 9/21/2023 registered dietitian #36 admission nutrition assessment documented the resident had no noted edema (fluid retention), received a no added salt regular consistency diet, was independent with eating after tray set up, had consumed 76-100% of their meals, and weighed 133 pounds. Their estimated nutritional needs were 25-30 calories per kilogram of weight, 1-1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, and 1 milliliter of fluid per kilogram of body weight. Nutritional interventions included fortified pudding at lunch and meal preferences were obtained from their significant other.
On 9/22/2023, physician #40 documented the resident received a no added salt regular consistency diet, wandered the unit, and had lower extremity edema. The resident was at risk for malnutrition and the plan was to continue with dietary recommendations, and monitor weights.
On 10/1/2023, the resident's weight was documented as 125.8 pounds (a 5.7%/ 7.6 pound weight loss in 10 days).
On 10/3/2023, registered dietitian #39 documented the resident's current body weight was 125.8 pounds and they had a significant/ unplanned weight loss of 5.7%/7.6 pounds in the past 30 days. Weight loss was probably related to diagnosis of dementia with behaviors, possibly new environment, and consuming less than 50% of their meals on multiple occasions. They continued a no added salt regular consistency diet and was independent at meals after tray set up. Weight stabilization was the goal at this time. Their estimated needs were increased to 30-35 calories per kilogram of body weight, 1-1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, and 1 milliliter of fluid per kilogram of body weight. The resident was at risk for malnutrition related to dementia. Interventions included fortified pudding at lunch, diet as ordered, and 120 milliliters of Boost Very High Calorie (nutritional supplement) would be added 3 times daily at medication pass.
The 10/3/2023 physician order documented the resident was to receive 120 milliliters of Boost Very High Calorie three times daily.
On 11/1/2023, the resident's weight was documented as 126.2 pounds.
On 11/17/2023, registered dietitian #79's quarterly nutrition assessment documented the resident weighed 126.2 pounds; the resident's weight had been stable in the 30 days but had 7.2 pounds loss in 2 months since admission. Weight loss was attributed to behaviors, less than 50% of intakes at meals, new environment, and diagnosis of dementia. The resident remained on a new added salt regular consistency diet, was independent at meals with set up assistance. The resident received 120 milliners of Boost Very High Calorie 3 times daily and fortified pudding at lunch. Weight stabilization was the goal at this time. The resident was at risk for malnutrition related to diagnosis of dementia.
On 12/1/2023, the resident's weight was documented as 121.8 pounds (8.7%/ 11.6 pound loss since admission).
There was no documented evidence the medical provided was notified of the significant weight loss.
On 12/13/2023, registered dietitian #36 documented the resident weighed 121.8 pounds, had a significant/ undesired weight loss at 3 months of 8.7%/11.6 pounds. Their weight had been stable for the past 30 days. The resident had no nutritional concerns at this time, remained on a no added salt regular consistency diet, received supervision or touching assistance at meals, and intakes were 51-100% at meals. Their estimated nutritional needs were 28-32 calories per kilogram of body weight, 1-1.2 grams of protein per kilogram body weight, and 1 milliliter of fluid per kilogram of body weight. The resident remained at risk for malnutrition related to diagnosis of dementia. Interventions included to provide diet as ordered, 120 milliliters of Boost Very High Calorie 3 times daily, and fortified pudding at lunch.
On 12/13/2023, the comprehensive nutritional care plan was updated. The resident had significant unplanned and undesired weight loss through 90 days. The resident's weight had been stable through the past 30 days. No new interventions were documented.
On 1/1/2024, the resident's weight was documented as 118.2 pounds (11.39%/ 15.2 pound weight loss since admission).
There was no documented evidence the medical provided was notified of the significant weight loss.
On 1/17/2024, registered dietitian #36 documented the resident weighed 118.2 pounds and had a significant unplanned weight loss at 3 months 8.7%/11.2 pounds. The resident's weight had been stable for the past 30 days. The resident received Boost Very High Calorie 3 times daily and fortified pudding at lunch. Weight loss was possible due to increased physical activity related to walking on the unit. The resident was consuming 51-100% of meals, received a no added salt regular consistency diet, and required supervision or touching assistance at meals. Their estimated nutritional needs were 29-34 calories per kilogram of body weight, 1-1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, and 1 milliliter of fluid per kilogram of body weight. The resident remained at risk for malnutrition related to their diagnosis of dementia.
There was no documented evidence nutritional interventions were reassessed for effectiveness after the resident continued to lose weight.
The undated certified nurse aide care instructions documented the resident was to eat in the dining room, provide supervision or touching assistance at meals, received fortified pudding at lunch, offer a bedtime snack, monitor intakes, and if intakes decreased notify the registered dietitian and medical. The resident received a no added salt regular consistency diet.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 9:16 AM the resident was observed seated at table in the dining room with staff providing assistance. The resident consumed 100% of their bacon, 75-100% of their French toast, 100% of hot chocolate and 0% of their cold cereal and milk. From 11:22 AM-12:02 PM, the resident was wandering on the unit hallway. At 1:17 PM, the resident was observed in the main dining room for lunch receiving assistance from staff.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 10:11 AM registered dietitian #26 stated significant weight changes were 5% or more in 1 month, 7.5% or more in 3 months, and 10.5% or more at 6 months. Weights were reviewed monthly by the registered dietitian, and they discussed significant weight changes in morning report with the interdisciplinary team and during the facility's monthly weight meeting. If a resident had a significant weight change a weight note was completed and the resident's nutritional needs were reassessed, and nutritional interventions were reviewed. If they noticed the nutritional interventions currently in place were not effective, they would discuss the current interventions with the interdisciplinary team and determine if additional interventions were needed or if current interventions needed to be revised. They provided medical staff with a copy of the resident's weights each month and sometimes medical attended the monthly weight meeting. They stated Resident #184 wandered the unit a lot and their weight had stabilized after a significant loss. The resident's meal intakes were good. They stated they had not revised the resident's nutritional interventions since October of 2023 and felt the current nutritional interventions remained appropriate.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 1:32 PM, nurse practitioner #19 stated the registered dietitian informed them of significant weight changes and provided them with a monthly weight report. Sometimes they attended the monthly weight meetings. They were not aware Resident #184 had a significant weight loss and if they were made aware, they would have addressed it in a medical note. They wanted to be made aware of significant weight changes.
10NYCRR 415.12(i)(1)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure that a resident being fed by enteral means (tube placed in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure that a resident being fed by enteral means (tube placed in the stomach for feedings) received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #2, #24, and #134) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #2, #24, and #134 did not have their tube feeding formula labeled with a date and time.
Findings include:
The facility policy Enteral tube feeding via gravity effective 10/1997 and revised 1/2024, documented when administering a tube feeding on the formula label document initials, date, and time the formula was hung/administered, and initial that the label was checked against the order.
1) Resident #2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including alcohol induced dementia and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 10/17/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, was totally dependent on staff for eating, did not have swallowing disorder, had a feeding tube, received a mechanically altered diet, and received 51% or more of total calories through a tube feeding.
The comprehensive care plan dated 10/11/2023 documented the resident required an enteral tube feeding related to dysphagia through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (feeding tube).
Physician orders dated 10/27/2023 documented Resident #2 received Jevity 1.2 (tube feeding formula) via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube at 124 cubic centimeters per hour to start at 7:00 AM and stop at 7:00 PM.
Resident #2 was observed:
- on 1/24/2024 at 10:02 AM in a recliner with their tube feeding running and not labeled. The pump showed a transfusion rate of 124 milliliters/ hour and 1791 milliliters had infused.
- on 1/30/2024 at 11:53 AM in a recliner with their tube feeding running and not labeled. The pump showed an infusion rate of 124 milliliters per hour.
The January 2024 medication administration record documented Jevity 1.2 via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube via pump at 124 cubic centimeters per hour for 12 hours. Start at 7:00 AM stop at 7:00 PM for total volume of 1488 cubic centimeters.
- on 1/24/2024 licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 documented they administered the tube feeding at 7:00 AM.
- on 1/30/2024 licensed practical nurse #12 documented they administered the tube feeding at 7:00 AM.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:28 PM, licensed practical nurse #12 stated when they hung a tube feeding, they elevated the head of the bed, made sure the tube was in the correct place, checked for residual and hung the feeding with the bag labeled. They stated the tube feeding leaked and they had to hang a new feeding this morning. They did not label the new feeding and should have labeled it with the correct date and rate.
During an interview on 1/30/24 at 1:40 PM, licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 stated tube feedings required the name of the enteral feeding, the time/date the feeding was hung, the rate, and the name of the nurse who hung the feeding. They stated they forgot to label the tube feeding because they were being pulled in many directions. The stated it was important to label the tube feeding to make sure it was the correct rate for the feeding and that was it not an old tube feeding.
2) Resident #24 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including left sided hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body was paralyzed), aphasia (difficulty speaking), and nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain). The 12/3/2023 minimum data set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, did have a swallowing disorder, had a feeding tube, and received 51% or more of total calories through a feeding tube.
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 5/23/2022 documented the resident required a tube feeding related to dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Physician orders dated 3/29/2023 documented Osmolite 1.2 (tube feeding formula) via gastrostomy tube at 65 milliliters per hour to begin at 1:00 PM for 20 hours, remove at 9:00 AM.
During an observation on 1/24/2024 at 11:15 AM, Resident #24's tube feeding was hanging and had been stopped as ordered. The tube feeding formula was not labeled with a date or time or initials of nursing staff who administered the feeding.
The January 2024 medication administration record documented Osmolite 1.2 via gastrostomy tube at a rate of 65 milliliters per hour to begin at 1:00 PM for 20 hours. Remove at 9:00 AM. The medication administration record was signed by registered nurse Unit Manager #10 at 1:00 PM on 1/23/2024.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:42 AM, licensed practical nurse #9 stated the nurse that was passing medications was responsible for hanging tube feedings. They stated after the order was verified to confirm the enteral feeding solution and rate, they prepared the feeding for administration. They stated the tube feeding was not labeled on 1/24/2024 and the tube feeding was hung the evening prior (on 1/23/2024). They notified the Nurse Manager when they noticed the feeding was not labeled. If the tube feeding was not labeled, it could be an infection control risk or even a risk for aspiration (food enters the lungs by accident) by feeding the incorrect amount of formula. When they noticed a tube feeding that was not labeled, they should discard and start a new feeding with an accurate label.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 12:14 PM, registered nurse Unit Manager #10 stated the medication nurse was responsible for hanging the tube feedings. They stated they were not notified the tube feeding for Resident #24 was not properly labeled on 1/24/2024. If a feeding was left hanging too long, it could cause bacterial growth and put the resident at risk.
3) Resident #134 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cerebral palsy (abnormal brain development), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and dehydration (lack of body water). The 12/8/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, did not have a swallowing disorder, had a feeding tube, and received 51% or more of their total calories through a feeding tube.
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 12/8/2023 documented the resident had nutritional and hydration problems related to multiple comorbidities and received all nutritional needs with feedings through a jejunostomy tube (feeding tube placed in the small intestine).
Medical orders dated 10/17/2023 documented Resident #134 was to receive Nutren 2.0 (tube feeding formula) or Resource 2.0 (tube feeding formula) via Jejunostomy tube at 60 cubic centimeters per hour to start at 5:00 AM and stop at 7:00 PM.
Resident #134 was observed in their room in bed with their hung tube feeding not labeled with a date, time, or staff initial's on 1/24/2024 at 1:20 PM and at 2:33 PM.
The January 2024 Medication Administration Record documented Two Cal enteral feeding two times a day for nutritional feeding, may substitute Nutren 2.0 or Resource 2.0 via jejunostomy tube at 60 cubic centimeters per hour. The feeding was administered by licensed practical nurse #32 at 5:00 AM on 1/24/2024.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:52 AM, licensed practical nurse #51 stated tube feedings were required to be labeled with the name of the enteral feeding, the name of the nurse starting the tube feeding, and the date/time the tube feeding was started. They stated new formula was used every day and if a tube feeding was not labeled it could not be verified and could be the wrong enteral feeding.
During an interview on 1/26/2025 at 10:35 AM, licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5 stated all tube feedings should be labeled with the time and the name of feeding that was hung. If a tube feeding was not labeled, they could not verify if a resident received their feeding each day. They expected the tube feeding for Resident #134 to be labeled every day.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 10:10 AM, registered nurse #48 stated when a resident received a tube feeding, they were hung by nursing. A new bag was hung every day and labeled with the name of the enteral feeding, the date/time hung, and nurse's initials who hung the feeding. If the tubing was not labeled, the tube feeding bag, enteral feeding, and tubing should be discarded and a new tube feeding should be hung. If the tube feeding was not labeled there could be bacterial growth and could be the wrong enteral feeding.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 10:25 AM, the Director of Nursing stated a tube feeding should be labelled. The label included the name of the enteral feeding solution, the number of milliliters of solution in the bag, date, time, and signature when hung. They expected all tube feedings to be labeled to ensure accuracy.
10NYCRR 415.12(g)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed for risk of entrapment from bed r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation, review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative, or obtain informed consent prior to the installation of bedrails for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #88, #160 and #192) reviewed. Specifically, for Residents #88, #160 and #192, there was no documented evidence there were bed rail assessments prior to bed rail installation, the risks and benefits of bed rails were explained to the residents or their representatives, or that consents were obtained prior to bed rail installation.
Findings include:
The facility policy Proper Use of Side Rails effective 10/2018 with a review date of 1/2024, included:
- Side rails were used to treat a resident's medical symptoms or to assist with mobility and transfer.
- An assessment would be made to determine the resident's symptoms, risk of entrapment and reason for using side rails.
- Consent for using restrictive devices would be obtained from the resident or legal representative per facility protocol.
- Less restrictive interventions would be incorporated in the care plan.
- The risks and benefits of side rails would be considered for each resident.
1) Resident #160 had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. The 11/9/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, had no upper and lower extremity impairments, rolled to the left and right independently, and a bed rail was not used.
The comprehensive care plan, initiated on 11/6/2023, documented the resident used a 1/4 right bed rail for bed controls (non-restraint). Interventions included the resident would be shown how to use bed controls and the 1/4 right bed rail was for bed functioning.
Physician's orders dated 11/6/2023 by nurse practitioner #19 documented right, 1/4 bed rails for bed functioning.
The resident care instructions dated 1/30/2024 documented 1/4 right bed rail for bed functioning.
During an observation on 1/25/2024 at 2:43 PM the resident was observed lying in their bed with a 1/4 bed rail on the right side of the bed.
During an interview on 1/25/2023 at 3:13 PM certified nurse aide #55 stated they did not know why the resident had a 1/4 right bed rail. They left and said they would ask licensed practical nurse #56. They returned shortly after and stated the resident used the 1/4 right bed rail for bed mobility. The risks of having bed rails could be the resident getting hung up or hurt. They had been a certified nurse aide for 3 months and had received education on bed rails.
During an interview on 1/25/2023 at 3:19 PM licensed practical nurse #56 stated they did not know for sure what the resident used the 1/4 right bed rail for but thought it was for bed mobility. The bed controls for the bed were a part of the bed rail. The resident had come from another unit with the bed rail already on the bed. They were not sure if the bed rail could be removed from the bed. Some of the risks associated with a bed rail were the resident could become entangled in the bed rail or get bumped by the bed rail.
During an interview on 1/26/2023 at 9:10 AM, registered nurse Supervisor #57 stated the resident did not have a bed rail assessment. The facility considered that type of bed rail for bed functioning (the controls for the bed were built into the bed rail). The facility did not consider that type of bed rail as a mobility bed rail. The therapy department staff were the ones who assessed residents for bed rails.
During a follow-up interview on 1/26/2023 at 9:12 AM, licensed practical nurse #56 stated the resident was more active in their room at night. An observation of the resident's bed at that time revealed the resident lying in their bed with the 1/4 right bed rail attached to the bed. Licensed practical nurse #56 demonstrated how the 1/4 right bed rail could be lowered using a handle on the outside part of the bed rail. If the 1/4 right bed rail was lowered, the resident would not be able to use the bed controls.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 9:42 AM, certified nurse aide #58 stated they had never seen the resident use the 1/4 right bed rail and that the resident would not know how to use the bed control function built into it. The 1/4 right bed rail that the resident had on their bed was one of the older types of bed rails in the facility.
There was no documented evidence that a bed rail assessment was completed, a risk and benefits of bed rails was completed with the resident or the resident's representative, or that informed consent was obtained prior to the installation of bed rails.
2) Resident #192 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease) and fracture of the left tibia (a bone in the lower leg). The 12/23/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, had no upper extremity impairment, lower extremity impairment on one side, rolled to the left and right with supervision or touching assistance, and a bed rail was not used.
The comprehensive care plan with a start date of 12/19/2023 documented the resident had a 1/4 right bed rail for increased independence and mobility (non-restraint) for impaired bed mobility. Interventions included educate resident on how to safely move in bed with assist of bed rails.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 12:08 PM the resident's bed had a 1/4 right bed rail.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 9:47 AM, certified nurse aide #62 stated they had never observed the resident using their 1/4 right bed rail.
The resident care instructions as of 1/30/2024 documented right, 1/4 bed rail for bed mobility.
Physician orders dated 1/2/2024 documented right, 1/4 bed rail for bed mobility.
There was no documented evidence that a bed rail assessment was completed, a risk and benefits of the bed rail was completed with the resident or the resident's representative, or that informed consent was obtained prior to the installation of the bed rail.
3) Resident #88 had diagnoses including end-stage renal (kidney) disease and legal blindness. The 11/7/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, had no upper and lower extremity impairments, rolled to the left and right independently, and a bed rail was not used.
The comprehensive care plan with a review date of 11/7/2023 documented the resident's bed would be positioned with one side against the wall per their personal preference. Ensure the bed was flush against the wall with the brakes engaged. There was no documentation regarding the 1/4 left bed rail.
The resident's interdisciplinary team physical restraint form dated 11/10/2023 by registered nurse #57 documented the resident did not have a bed rail and did not have any restraints.
During an observation and interview on 1/29/2024 at 9:44 AM the resident's bed was pushed against the wall on the left side and there was a 1/4 left bed rail. Certified nurse aide #62 stated they had never seen the resident use the 1/4 left bed rail and that maybe they used it to stand.
During an observation on 1/29/2024 at 11:20 AM the resident's bed was positioned with the left side of the bed pushed against the wall, with a 1/4 left bed rail.
The resident care instructions as of 1/30/2024 documented the resident had a left, 1/4 bed rail for bed control (non-restraint).
There was no documented evidence that a bed rail assessment was completed, a risk and benefits of the bed rail was completed with the resident or the resident's representative, or that informed consent was obtained prior to the installation of the bed rail.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 11:20 AM, the Director of Therapy stated all residents were assessed for bed rails upon admission. If they did not need bed rails for mobility, and only for the bed functioning device, they would not necessarily receive a bed rail assessment. If a resident did not have that particular type of bed rail raised (in the up position) then they would not be able to reach the bed controls for their bed. A possible risk with bed rails was entrapment.
During a follow-up interview on 1/30/2024 at 8:48 AM the Director of Therapy re-stated that all residents were evaluated for bed rails upon admission, and if a resident needed a bed rail for mobility an initial bed mobility evaluation was done. They usually wrote a note for the residents who needed a bed rail for mobility and then they would be re-evaluated quarterly. If a resident was a heavy assist with care in their bed, then they would not need the bed rails because they would not be able to use them. If a resident needed bed rails for mobility, they would reach out to nursing for them to generate a maintenance request for the bed rail attachment. When the interdisciplinary team held a review meeting for a new admission they would discuss if a resident needed bed rails. They kept a spreadsheet of all the residents that had bed rails. For Resident #88, they had no order for bed rails, and they should not have a bed rail; for Resident #192 there was no order for bed rails; and, for Resident #160 they stated they had done therapy screens on them, and they were functionally independent with bed mobility. Resident #160 needed their specific bed rail for the bed controls on their bed. If their bed rail was lowered, they would not be able to use the bed function device. They had asked administration how long the facility had the bed rails with the bed functioning device built in and they were told those particular bed rails were there when they bought the building. The facility was in the process of obtaining newer bed rails. There were a couple of different kinds of bed rails in the building. They were not aware of any specific bed rail assessment, risk and benefit discussion regarding bed rails or the need of informed consent for bed rails.
10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care and considering the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with facility assessment for 3 of 8 staff personnel records (Licensed practical nurse #67, licensed practical nurse #68, and registered nurse #69) reviewed. Specifically, licensed practical nurse #67, licensed practical nurse #68 and registered nurse #69 did not receive annual competencies that covered key skill-set areas as outlined in the 2023 facility assessment and per regulations.
Findings include:
The Facility Assessment Year 2023 received during the survey entrance conference, documented nurse competencies in the facility included: resident assessment and examinations; specialized care (which included catheterization insertion, colostomy care, oxygen administration, suctioning, post-operation care and dialysis care); caring for persons with Alzheimer's or other dementia; medication administration; caring for residents with mental and psychosocial disorders, and infection control.
The facility policy Competent Nursing Services with a review date of 1/2024 documented:
- The facility must ensure licensed nurses had specific competencies and skill sets necessary to care for residents' needs as identified through resident assessments and described in the plan of care.
- Competencies would be evaluated on a regular basis via observation of care rendered, and periodic audits of topics such as, but not limited to: resident rights, person-centered care, communication, basic nursing skills, basic restorative services, skin and wound care, medication management, pain management, infection control, identification of changes in condition and cultural competency.
- The facility would determine and address the amount and types of training based on the facility assessment regarding the staff competencies that were necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population.
- Competencies would be assessed using a standard tool/audit form, observation, or return demonstration.
Nursing Personnel Records Reviewed for Most Current Annual Competencies with Dates:
1) Licensed Practical Nurse #67:
- Donning and Doffing Personal Protection Equipment: form blank.
- Insertion of Urinary Catheters: 6/28/2023.
- Small Volume Nebulizer Therapy: 6/28/2023.
- Tube Feedings/Enteral Feedings: 6/28/2023.
- Dressing Change Clean/Aseptic Technique: 6/28/2023.
- Insulin pen: 12/20/2023.
- Blood Glucose Meter: 12/20/2023.
- Alcohol Based Hand Rub: 12/20/2023.
2) Licensed Practical Nurse #68:
- Alcohol Based Hand Rub: 12/20/2023.
- Handwashing: 12/20/2023.
- Tube Feedings/Enteral Feedings: 6/27/2023.
- Small Volume Nebulizer Therapy: 6/28/2023.
- Blood Glucose Meter: 6/28/2023.
- Insulin pen: 6/28/2023.
- Clean Wound-Dressing Treatments Administration: 6/28/2023.
- Insertion of Urinary Catheters: 6/28/2023.
3) Registered Nurse #69:
- Tracheostomy Care: 3/8/2021.
- Handwashing: no date.
- Alcohol Based Hand Rub: no date.
- Donning Personal Protection Equipment: 3/2/2021.
- Removing Personal Protection Equipment: 3/8/2021.
- Resident Lifter: 3/2/2021.
- Blood Glucose Meter: 3/8/2021.
- Insulin Pen: 3/8/2021.
- Insulin Administration: 3/8/2021.
- Small Volume Nebulizer Therapy: 3/8/2021.
- Tube Feedings/Enteral Feedings: 3/8/2021.
- Insertion of Urinary Catheters: 3/8/2021.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 10:55 AM with the Education Coordinator they stated if a resident required a nurse to perform a specific skill based on their needs, they would have the nurse perform the skill until they were deemed competent. They learned about residents' changes in condition from the 24-hour report, morning report, or from a supervisor. In order for nurses to be appropriately assigned to meet the needs of residents based on their care plans staff would need a competency. For example, if a resident had a vacuum-assisted closure (wound VAC) device for a wound, nurses would need a competency for that. They had been present with nurses in the past when a resident had a vacuum-assisted closure device and the nurses had not been comfortable applying the device or did not have strong skills. They had been present with nurses for other treatments on residents who had urinary catheters or wound dressing treatments to make sure they were implementing the procedure correctly. Training of staff was ongoing, for example, if there was an incident with a resident, staff would be retrained soon after. They were responsible for nurse competency oversight and nurses should be evaluated on their competencies yearly, at a minimum. They had skills checklists for some nursing competencies but there should also be pre- and post-tests. They understood there should be more of a paper trail with nurse competencies, and that having a spreadsheet and training sign-in sheets was not enough to prove competencies with the nurses.
10 NYCRR 415.26(c)(1)(iv)
.
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
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review during recertification and abbreviated (NY00323751) surveys conducted 1/24/20...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review during recertification and abbreviated (NY00323751) surveys conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure menus were followed for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #64) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #64 had missing menu items from their meal trays and did not receive double entrees as care planned.
Findings include:
The facility policy Accuracy and Quality of Tray Line Service dated 1/2024 documented tray line positions and set-up procedures would be planned for efficient and orderly delivery. All meals would be checked for accuracy by the food/nutrition staff and the service staff prior to serving of meals. The meal would be checked to ensure that foods were served as listed on the menu. The director of food and nutritional services or designee would be responsible for assuring that all foods needed for meal assembly were present at the appropriate time. Each meal would be checked for proper portion sizes.
Resident #64 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke) and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact and required set-up or clean-up assistance only for eating.
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 1/6/2024 documented the resident had nutritional problems related to increased metabolic needs for wound healing with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic disease. Interventions included identify/nonor food preferences, provide diet and consistency per medical order, a no added salt/no concentrated sweets diet, regular texture, nectar thick consistency and double entrees every meal.
Physician orders dated 1/11/2024 documented no added salt/no concentrated sweets diet, regular texture and nectar consistency.
During an interview on 1/24/2024 at 1:34 PM, Resident #64 stated that they were supposed to get a double entree with their meals and did not receive them on 1/24/2024 for breakfast and lunch. Most days they never received a double entree.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 8:19 AM, the breakfast meal ticket documented: 1 package black pepper, two packages diet sugar, 2 slices crispy bacon, 2 slices french toast, one package diet syrup, 1 package margarine, 1 cold cereal, 3 slices toast, 1 package diet jelly, 1 package margarine, 2 packages ketchup, 8 ounces nectar thick milk, 6 ounces nectar thick coffee, 4 ounces nectar thick orange juice, weighted utensils, and double portion entree. Nectar thick coffee was missing from the tray and they did not receive a double entree.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:28 AM, certified nursing assistant #78 stated trays were often missing items including double entrees. Double entrees were ordered for residents with weight loss or those that had wounds and needed the nutrients for wound healing.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:52 AM licensed practical nurse #51 stated they received a lot of complaints from residents about their meals. Meals often had missing items. Resident #64 had a wound and if they did not get their double entrees it could impact their wound healing.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 10:35 AM, licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5 stated meals often had missing items including double entrees. Resident #64 was ordered double entrees for wound healing and should have received them. When items were not on the menu but included on the meal tray it could be dangerous because the resident could have an allergy or be a choking risk.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 10:10 AM registered nurse Supervisor #48 stated meal trays frequently had missing items including double entrees. Residents were usually ordered double entrees for wound healing or if they were malnourished.
During an observation on 1/29/2024 at 12:08 PM the lunch meal ticket documented: nectar thick 2 packages non-dairy creamer, 1 package black pepper, 2 packages diet sugar, 12 ounces chicken ala king, 4 ounces white rice, 1/2 cup mixed vegetables, 1/2 cup mixed fruit, 6 ounces nectar thick coffee, 8 ounces nectar thick diet ginger ale, 4 ounces nectar thick cranberry juice, weighted utensils, and double portion entree. There was nectar milk on the tray that was not on the ticket. Nectar thick water for coffee and nectar thick ginger ale was missing from the tray and they did not receive a double entree.
During an observation and interview on 1/30/2024 at 8:15 AM the breakfast meal ticket documented: 1 package black pepper, two packages diet sugar, 2 slices crispy bacon, 2 slices french toast, one package diet syrup, 1 package margarine, 1 cold cereal, 3 slices toast, 1 package diet jelly,1 package margarine, 2 packages ketchup, 8 ounces nectar thick milk, 6 ounces nectar thick coffee, 4 ounces nectar thick orange juice , weighted utensils, and double portion entree. The resident did not receive a double entree. The resident stated their 1/29/2024 dinner included ground pork which was not their ordered food consistency.
During an interview on 1/31/2024 at 10:24 AM the Director of Food Services stated tray accuracy was completed by the supervisor with tickets while food was being plated on the main kitchen tray line. It was important to make sure diet orders and menus were followed to prevent weight loss and other medical issues that could negatively impact a resident.
During an interview on 2/01/2024 at 11:00 AM Registered Dietician #36 stated residents had reported missing items from their trays and all items were expected to be on the trays.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 1:26 PM, the Director of Nursing stated they did not expect to see items on a resident's meal tray that were not on their meal ticket because there could be safety concerns such as being a choking risk or having an allergy to a food item. Kitchen staff should verify the accuracy of a meal ticket and tray before it went to the unit and nursing should be double checking the accuracy prior to the meal tray being providing to a resident.
10NYCRR 415.14(c)(1-3)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys post survey revisit conducted 4/4/2024-4/...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys post survey revisit conducted 4/4/2024-4/9/2024, the facility did not ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use it resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the call bell system for Unit 2 was not functioning properly (see F 919); foods were not maintained at palatable and safe temperatures (see F 804); medication refrigerator temperatures were not consistently logged to ensure maintenance of safe temperatures for medications and education regarding medication refrigerator temperatures and logbooks was not completed as planned (see F 761); and resident areas had fruit flies and floors in disrepair (see F 584).
Findings include:
The 1/2024 facility policy and procedure Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program documented the objective was to provide means to establish and implement performance improvement projects to correct identified negative or problematic indicators and establish systems through which to monitor and evaluate corrective actions. The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee reported directly to the administrator. The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement plan described the process for identifying and correcting quality deficiencies.
The undated job description for Administrator documented that the Administrator was responsible for the maintenance of a safe, sanity, and pleasant environment for all residents, visitors, volunteers, and for good working conditions for employees. The provision of quality health care and daily living services for residents in conformance with state and federal laws, as well as promotes respect for the individuals and protection of their basic rights.
Call Bell System
There were non-functioning call lights on Unit 2 in resident rooms/bathrooms 241, 243, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251, 261, 263, 266, 270, 271, and 274.
Refer to citation text under F 919.
Food Temperatures
1 lunch tray had hot food items that were not maintained at safe and palatable temperatures.
Refer to citation text under F 804.
Medication Refrigerator Temperatures
- 1 refrigerator temperature was out of range with medication present.
- 1 refrigerator temperature logbook was incomplete for 2 out of 5 days.
- Staff education was not provided regarding medication refrigerator temperatures as planned.
Refer to citation text under F 761.
Homelike Environment
- 3 resident rooms had floors in disrepair.
- 1 shower room with missing floor tiles.
- 1 resident room had fruit flies.
Refer to citation text under F 584.
During an interview on 4/5/2024 at 9:04 AM, the Administrator stated the call bell system did not function and staff were aware it was not functioning. They stated the call bell system was for the residents and not the staff. The plan of correction for F 919 Resident Call System from the statement of deficiencies during the recertification survey did not have a repair date. They stated the facility was in compliance for their plan of correction based on the unit's plan of hourly rounding.
During a follow up interview on 4/9/2024 at 11:11 AM, the Administrator stated the only work orders completed for the resident's room were done based on the plan of correction from the previous recertification survey. There had not been any follow up work orders placed for repairs to the floor or missing tiles. The Administrator stated that the Director of Housekeeping was responsible for maintaining the cleaning audit weekly and creating work orders for any issues in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The audit tool did not include information regarding pest control, and there was no documentation related to pest control and the room observed with fruit flies. The Administrator stated they did not know why Unit 2 had 2 medication refrigerators, and 1 logbook sheet, as they were aware of only one medication refrigerator on that unit. The post-survey education was created by the Facility Nurse Educator and approved by the Administrator and the Corporate Nurse before being taught to the staff by the Facility Nurse Educator. The Administrator stated that medication refrigerator monitoring education could only be confirmed by competency. The post-survey education did not include questions related to medication refrigerator monitoring, so competency could not be verified for the staff in the facility. The Administrator stated food temperature concerns were routine discussions in the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings. Food should always be served at a palatable temperature, and some days were better than others. The facility had a per diem Supervisor that quit, and they were able to hire a new Food Service Supervisor about 2 weeks ago. The staffing was improving, but many staff members were still training.
10 NYCRR 415.26
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure facility equipment was maintained in proper operating c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure facility equipment was maintained in proper operating condition for 1 of 7 resident floors (5th floor). Specifically, the fifth floor ice machine was not functional.
Findings include:
The facility could not provide any work orders that documented the fifth floor ice machine was not working.
During an observation on 1/24/2024 at 1:00 PM, the fifth floor ice machine dispensed water but not ice.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 12:25 PM and during a follow-up observation on 1/30/2024 at 1:24 PM, the fifth floor ice machine had been removed from the unit dining room, and there was no ice on the unit.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:26 PM, the Corporate Director of Facilities stated the ice machine was removed from the fifth floor dining room on 1/26/2024 and was not returned to the floor because the facility was awaiting parts. They were not sure how ice was currently being brought to the fifth floor. It was important that all resident floors had ice availability for resident use.
During an interview on 1/30/24 at 1:30 PM, licensed practical nurse #51 stated since the ice machine had been taken off the floor, staff would go to another floor or call the kitchen for a pitcher of ice. The ice machine had been acting up and was fixed within the last 3 months, they would have to get ice for the next meal shift, and it would take time to get the ice from another floor which in turn would slow other tasks down on the floor. It was important for resident floors to have water and ice availability on each floor for residents' use.
10NYCRR 415.29
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391, NY00325885, and NY00331016) surveys c...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00299391, NY00325885, and NY00331016) surveys conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 18 isolated areas (resident rooms 263, 266, 270, and 273; second floor south hallway; second floor south dining room; second floor activities room kitchenette; second floor west shower room; second floor west lounge bathroom; second floor west soiled utility room; second floor south telephone room; second floor south closet near social workers office; resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]; third floor shower room; fifth floor hallway near resident room [ROOM NUMBER]; sixth floor hallways near elevator; and, resident room [ROOM NUMBER]). Specifically:
- On multiple floors the halls, walls, and ceilings were in disrepair.
- The hot water in second floor south dining room did not work.
- The second floor activities room kitchenette had a broken paper towel holder and damaged packaged terminal air conditioner unit covers.
- The second floor west lounge bathroom had a toilet wrapped with medical tape.
- Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a broken electric bed plug.
- Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a missing duplex outlet cover, a broken cabinet, and there was an unapproved electrical device in the room.
- Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was not maintained in a safe and homelike manner and fruit flies were observed.
- The fifth floor hallway near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a broken duplex outlet cover.
- Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was not maintained in a safe and homelike manner.
- The sixth floor hallway near the elevators had an unclean food cart.
Findings include:
The undated Resident Rights handbook documented the facility created an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of the residents' quality of life.
The 10/26/2023 - 1/30/2024 Pest Control Logs did not document fruit flies in resident room [ROOM NUMBER].
The facility could not provide work orders for any of the findings found during tour of the facility.
Observations were made on the following floors:
Second floor:
- On 1/24/2024 at 10:02 AM and during follow-up 2/1/2024 at 12:21 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a gap between the packaged terminal air conditioner unit and the wall it was installed in and there was a missing 3-foot section of chair rail on one of the walls.
- On 1/24/2024 at 10:29 AM and during follow-up on 1/26/2024 at 9:48 AM and 2/1/2024 at 12:35 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had missing cove base (trim between the wall and floor) molding under the heater unit and there were 1/8-inch gaps between some sections of the flooring material. Also, a door knob was damaged, and the wall behind the toilet in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom was damaged with a loose cove base.
- On 1/24/2424 at 11:08 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] floor had 1/8-inch gaps between sections of the flooring material, and missing sections of flooring. Also, there was a missing quad outlet cover.
- On 1/24/2024 at 12:31 PM and during follow-up on 1/26/2024 at 9:48 AM, the second floor south dining room hand washing sink hot water did not work and only cold water came out.
- On 1/24/2024 at 12:43 PM the second floor south hallway had several stained ceiling tiles.
- On 1/24/2024 at 12:53 PM the second floor south dining room had some curtains that were not properly attached and hanging loosely. During follow-up on 2/1/2024 at 12:13 PM, the ceiling paint near the window casing behind the curtains was peeling.
- On 1/25/2024 at 3:10 PM the second floor activities room kitchenette paper towel holder cover was missing. Both packaged terminal air conditioner unit covers within this area were damaged.
- On 1/25/2024 at 3:30 PM and during follow-up on 2/1/2024 at 12:02 PM, the second floor west shower room wall mixing valve cover plate was loose with an exposed hole in the wall.
- On 1/25/2024 at 3:45 PM the second floor west lounge bathroom had a toilet with a closed lid and the lid was wrapped shut with medical tape. During follow-up on 2/1/2024 at 12:02 PM, the medical tape had been cut and partially removed with remnants left behind.
- On 1/25/2024 at 4:00 PM and during follow-up on 2/1/2024 at 12:04 PM, the second floor west soiled utility room had a damaged 6-inch x 2-foot section of wall.
- On 1/26/2024 at 9:39 AM the second floor south telephone room packaged terminal air conditioner unit cover was not attached to the packaged terminal air conditioner unit, and the gap between the packaged terminal air conditioner unit and the wall was not sealed.
- On 1/26/2024 at 9:43 AM the second floor south closet near the social worker's office had broken ceiling tile pieces on the floor with unclean curtains on the floor around and on top of the ceiling pieces.
- On 1/26/2024 at 9:45 AM the second floor south shower room floor had multiple missing floor tiles, and there was a damp, unclean folded towel under the toilet.
- On 2/1/2024 at 12:18 PM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had an electric bed and the ground for the electrical plug was broken.
Third floor:
On 1/24/2024 at 12:12 PM and during follow-up on 1/26/2024 at 12:56 PM and 2/1/2024 at 11:46 AM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had over fifty cups of juice, plastic containers of milk and salad on the window sill. Also, there were 15 coffee cups with lids on a bedside stand and the room was unclean. There were two fruit flies observed on 1/24/2024 at 12:12 PM and three fruit flies observed on 1/26/2024 at 12:56 PM.
- On 1/25/2024 at 3:05 PM the third floor shower room walls around an old tub had multiple holes in them, and there was a bent, packaged terminal air conditioner heater filter being stored in the room.
- On 1/26/2024 at 11:05 AM and during follow-up on 1/26/2024 at 12:40 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a missing duplex outlet cover. The room had a cabinet with a missing access door, and the door was leaning against the wall. The room had an unapproved electrical heated blanket that was plugged in and on top of a resident.
Fifth floor:
- On 1/26/2024 at 12:24 PM the fifth floor hallway near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a duplex outlet that was broken. A computer laptop wire was plugged in to the top outlet plug which was loose, and the bottom outlet blocked the laptop wire from entering it.
Sixth floor:
- On 1/24/2024 at 9:43 AM and during follow-up on 02/1/2024 at 11:44 AM, the sixth floor hallway near the elevators had a food cart with wire shelving which was encrusted with dried debris.
- On 1/24/2024 at 1:30 PM and during follow-up on 2/1/2024 at 11:50 AM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had multiple, stacked boxes and other items on the ground, and there was dust and debris throughout the room.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 12:44 PM, the Housekeeping Director stated all housekeeping staff had been trained on how to use the work order system, and were not sure if the work order system was included during staff orientation. All housekeeping staff was trained every six months to a year but it was not documented. They were not aware of any work orders for the findings during survey and housekeeping staff would usually notify the Housekeeping Director directly or write it down on their task sheet. They did not have access to the work orders submitted, and would visually check each resident floor during daily rounding to see if any maintenance concerns had been fixed. It was important to ensure the facility was maintained in a clean and homelike manner for the residents, so that the facility was safe for residents and staff.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 12:57 PM, the Corporate Director of Facilities stated they were not aware of any of the findings found during tour of the facility. All maintenance staff had been trained on how to use the work order system and they were not sure if the work order system was included during staff orientation. All staff on the resident floors should know how to submit a work order or at least communicate to someone who did know how to submit a work order, and they would have expected work orders to be made for all of the findings. They were aware that a resident room could fall into a state of disrepair over time. They were not aware of the hoarding conditions of resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. It was important for the facility to be maintained in a clean and homelike manner so that the facility was safe for all residents and staff.
10NYCRR 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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00328424) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00328424) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the expiration date when applicable for 3 of 5 medication carts (4th floor, 6th floor and 7th floor) and 7 of 7 medication refrigerators (2 South, 2 West, 3rd floor, 4th floor, 5th floor, 6th floor and 7th floor) reviewed. Specifically, the 4th floor medication cart had eye drops for Resident #61 and Resident #136 without labeled open dates or discard dates; the 6th floor medication cart had eye drops for Resident #9 without labeled open or discard dates, and opened house stock cough syrup without labeled open date or discard date; and the 7th floor medication cart had eye drops for Resident #74 and Resident #94, and two insulin pens for Resident #105 that were not labeled with open or discard dates. Additionally, medication refrigerators on 2 South, 2 West, 3rd floor, 4th floor, 5th floor, 6th floor, and 7th floor did not have consistent documentation that temperatures were monitored or maintained.
Findings include:
The facility policy Storage of Medications revised 1/2024 documented nursing staff was responsible that medication storage was maintained in a safe and sanitary manner. The facility was not to use discontinued or outdated medications. Medications that required refrigeration were stored in the refrigerator in the drug room and all containers that had missing, incomplete, improper, or incorrect labels were returned to the pharmacy.
The facility policy Medication Cart revised 1/2024 documented all medications were stored per the manufacturer's recommendations including temperature. All vials and bottles were dated when opened and expiration dates were visible on all medications and were discarded by the expiration date.
The facility policy Medication Refrigerator revised 1/2024 documented a refrigerator temperature log was maintained daily. All vials and bottles were dated when opened and discarded per the recommended timeframe.
The facility policy Stock/ House Medications revised 1/2024 documented medication containers were dated upon opening and discarded per manufacturer's recommendation after opening. Floor stock expiration dates were checked by nursing at the time of administration and periodically checked by a designee.
The Pharmacy Medications with Shortened Discard Dates document revised 11/29/2023, documented Basaglar and Novolog insulin pens were to be discarded 28 days from the open date. Latanoprost eye drops were to be discarded 42 days from the open date. Artificial tears were to be discarded 4 days after foil pack was opened. Dorzolamide/ Timolol, Brimodine, Olopatadine and Systane eye drops as well as cough syrup were not included in the list. Directions at the top of the document provided a phone number to call the pharmacy for any medication not listed to determine the appropriate discard date.
MEDICATION CARTS
During an observation of the 4th floor medication cart on 11/26/2024 at 11:17 AM with licensed practical nurse #9, Resident #61 had opened artificial tear eye drops without an opened or expiration/ discard date on the label, and Resident #136 had three types of eye drops (latanoprost 0.005%, dorzolamide/timolol 2-0.5% and brimonidine 0.2%) that were opened and not labeled with opened or discard dates. Licensed practical nurse #9 stated all these medications should have an open date and pointed to the attached yellow sticker for the documented open/expiration dates that was blank.
During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 11:27 AM 4th floor registered nurse Unit Manager #10, stated whoever opened the medication was responsible for documenting an opened date or a discard date. Without an opened date, the expiration date was unknown, and residents should not receive expired medications. Registered nurse Unit Manager #10 stated it was important opened and expired dates were documented for resident safety and appropriate medical treatment and expired medications may not work.
During an observation of the 6th floor medication cart on 1/26/2024 at 11:47 AM with licensed practical nurse #67, Resident #9 had olopatadine 0.2% eye drops and Systane eye drops with no opened or expiration/ discard dates. House stock cough suppressant syrup was opened without an open or expired/ discard by date. Licensed practical nurse #67 stated all eye drops should be dated when opened or there was no way to know when they were expired. They stated house stock was supposed to be dated when opened as well.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 11:55 AM 6th floor registered nurse Unit Manager #57, stated medications were labeled with an open date so staff would know the expiration date and when a medication should no longer be used. Residents should not have received expired medications as they could have an adverse reaction.
During an observation of the 7th floor medication cart on 1/26/2024 at 12:03 PM with licensed practical nurse #6, Resident #74 had artificial tear eye drops that were not labeled with an opened or expiration/ discard date, Resident #94 had latanoprost 0.005% eye drops that were not labeled with an open or expiration/ discard date, and Resident #105 had an insulin Basaglar Kwik pen and insulin Novolog pen that did not have open or expiration/ discard dates. Licensed practical nurse #6 stated medications were dated when opened so an expiration date was known. If residents received expired medications, it could make them sick, they could have an adverse reaction and hospitalization may be required.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 12:10 PM with registered nurse Supervisor #48 they stated staff was expected to date and time any medication when it was opened. The length of time a medication was good for varied by medication and without an open date, there would be no way of knowing if a medication was still good. Medications without an open date should not be administered because it would be unknown if they were good or expired. If a resident received a medication that was no longer good, it may no longer be effective, and the integrity of the medication could be compromised.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:11 PM with Assistant Director of Nursing #65, all medications were labeled with an open date. This included over the counter house stock medications, eye drops, and insulins. Whoever opened the medication was responsible for labelling it with an open date. If a medication was opened but not labeled, it should be discarded. Medications without an open date were not to be administered. Open dates should be checked prior to medications being administered to verify that they were still good. Unit managers completed medication cart audits weekly and pharmacy completed medication cart audits at least annually.
MEDICATION REFRIGERATOR TEMPERATURES
Medication refrigerator temperature logs for December 2023-January 2024 did not document the medication refrigerator temperature was checked on the following units and dates:
- 2 [NAME] on 12/10/2023, 12/11/2023, and 12/16/2023. There was no documented evidence of a temperature log for January 2024.
- 2 South on 12/2/2023, 12/9/2023, 12/10/2023, 12/16/2023, 12/17/2023, 12/23/2023, 12/24/2023, 12/25/2023, 12/30/2023, 12/31/2023, 1/1/2024, 1/6/2024, 1/20/2024, and 1/21/2024.
- 3rd floor on 1/1/2024
- 4th floor- there was no documented evidence of a temperature log for December 2023.
- 5th floor on 12/1/2023, 12/4/2023, 12/6/2023, 12/7/2023, 12/8/2023, 12/9/2023, 12/11/2023, 12/12/2023, 12/13/2023, 12/14/2023, 12/16/2023, 12/17/2023, 12/192023, 12/20/2023, 12/21/2023, 12/22/2023, 12/23/1023, 12/24/2023, 12/26/2023, 12/27/2023, 12/28/2023, 12/29/2023, 12/30/2023, 12/31/2023, 1/1/2024, 1/3/2024, 1/4/2024, 1/5/2024, 1/6/2024, 1/7/2024, 1/8/2024, 1/9/2024, 1/11/2024, 1/15/2024, 1/16/2024, 1/17/2024, 1/22/2024, 1/23/2024, and 1/25/2024.
- 6th floor on 1/26/2024
- 7th floor on 12/1/2023, 12/9/2023, 12/10/2023, 1/7/2024, 1/16/2024, 1/21/2024, 1/22/2024, 1/24/2024, 1/25/2024, and 1/26/2024.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 11:36 AM licensed practical nurse #51 stated the medication refrigerator temperature was checked by the overnight shift and they did not check the refrigerator on the day shift. If appropriate medication temperatures were not maintained the medications could become spoiled and the residents should not receive them.
During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 11:37 AM licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5 stated they expected the nightshift staff to check and document the medication refrigerator temperatures but did not expect the day shift staff to check if it was not completed by the nightshift. It was important for the medication refrigerator temperature to be checked because medications had to be maintained at certain temperatures, so they did not spoil. No medications should be administered without verification that they were not spoiled by verifying appropriate refrigerator temperatures documented on the log. Without daily temperature documentation, there was no way of knowing if the medications were still good.
During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 12:10 PM registered nurse Supervisor #48 stated the medication refrigerator temperatures were checked by the overnight shift licensed practical nurses and the Unit Manager was expected to verify the temperature was checked. If the refrigerator temperature was not accurate the medications such as insulins, eye drops, or vaccines may not be effective and could cause harm. Bacteria could grow in the medication. Without a completed temperature log staff would have no idea if the medications were still good and if temperatures were missing from the log, nothing should be administered from the refrigerator.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:11 PM the Assistant Director of Nursing #65 stated daily medication refrigerator temperatures were checked weekly on the nightshift and the Unit Manager was responsible for checking that the log was completed. This was important because medications such as insulin needed to be kept at a certain temperature or they could spoil. If the temperatures were not being logged, there would be no way of verifying if a medication was safe to administer. Medications should not be administered to residents if the proper and safe temperatures could not be verified, and they should have been discarded.
10NYCRR 415.18(d)
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
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00323751) surveys conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received and the facility p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00323751) surveys conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received and the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, flavorful, and at an appetizing temperature for 2 of 2 meals reviewed (1/25/2024 breakfast and 1/26/2024 lunch meals). Specifically, food was not flavorful and was not served at palatable and appetizing temperatures.
Findings include:
The facility's policy Dining Experience, revised 1/2024, documented the kitchen would provide nourishing, palatable, and attractive meals that met the individuals' daily nutritional needs and food and beverage preference.
During an interview on 1/24/2024 at 10:01 AM, Resident #98 stated they did not eat breakfast because the eggs were always cold.
During an interview on 1/24/2024 at 10:10 AM, Resident #31 stated the food was always cold.
During an interview on 1/24/2024 at 12:53 PM, Resident #185 stated that the food was cold most of the time.
During an observation on 1/25/2024 at 8:30 AM, a breakfast tray was delivered to Resident #98. The tray was tested, and a replacement was ordered for the resident. At 8:30 AM, the food temperatures were measured with the following results: the eggs were 96 degrees Fahrenheit; the hash browns were 96 degrees Fahrenheit; and the milk was 59 degrees Fahrenheit. The food was not hot or palatable.
During an observation and interview on 1/25/2024 at 8:45 AM, Resident #67 stated their breakfast meal was cold and asked licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5 to heat it in the microwave. The breakfast meal was heated in the microwave by licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 12:06 PM, a lunch tray was delivered to Resident #185. The tray was tested, and a replacement was ordered for the resident. At 12:06 PM, the food temperatures were measured with the following results: the fish was 141 degrees Fahrenheit; the stuffing was 126 degrees Fahrenheit; the peas/carrots were 114 degrees Fahrenheit; and the milk was 48 degrees F. The peas/carrots and stuffing were not hot or palatable.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 9:28 AM, certified nursing assistant #78 stated residents often complained that food was cold. When food was cold they heated it in the microwave until it reached the temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:52 AM, licensed practical nurse #51 stated the residents always complained about the food. Complaints included missing items, not being cooked thoroughly, and being cold. It was important for residents to get hot food to prevent malnutrition.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 10:35 AM, licensed practical nurse #5 stated the food was often cold. When the residents complained the food was cold they heated it in the microwave to reach 165 degrees Fahrenheit. Food was necessary to promote wound healing and overall health.
During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 12:25 PM, Resident #185 stated the beef was tough and not cooked thoroughly and the stuffing was bland, thick and sticky.
During an interview on 1/31/2024 at 7:57 AM, the Food Service Director stated hot food items were required to get to the residents at 140 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, and that cold food items were required to get to the residents at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or lower. Hot food items including eggs at 96 degrees Fahrenheit, hash browns at 96 degrees Fahrenheit, and peas and carrots at 126 degrees Fahrenheit were not held at approved temperatures and were not palatable. The Food Service Director stated that the milk served at 59 degrees Fahrenheit and 48 degrees Fahrenheit was not held at approved temperatures and was not palatable. The hot and cold food item temperatures were required to be maintained so the residents could have palatable food.
10NYCRR 415.14(d)(2)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024 the facility did not ensure each resident received at least three meals daily at reg...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024 the facility did not ensure each resident received at least three meals daily at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance with resident needs, preferences, requests and plans of care for 4 of 6 nursing floors (2 [NAME] and 2 South floors, 3rd floor, 5th floor, and 6th floor) observed. Specifically, resident meal trays were delivered to nursing floors up to 43 minutes after the scheduled mealtimes.
Findings include:
The facility policy Frequency of Meals revised 1/2024 documented each resident would receive at least three meals daily, at times comparable to typical mealtimes in the community, or in accordance with resident needs, preferences, requests, and the plan of care.
The 2 South meal delivery times documented Breakfast at 8:30 AM, Lunch at 12:30 PM, Dinner at 5:30 PM.
The following observations were made on 2 South:
- on 1/24/2024 at 12:57 PM the lunch meal cart arrived on the floor. At 12:58 PM the first lunch tray was served to a resident.
- on 1/26/2024 at 12:58 PM the first lunch meal cart arrived on the floor. At 1:04 PM the second meal cart arrived on the floor.
The 2 [NAME] floor meal delivery times documented Breakfast at 8:15 AM, Lunch at 12:15 PM, Dinner at 5:15 PM.
The following observation was made on 2 West:
- on 1/24/2024 at 12:40 PM the lunch meal cart arrived on the floor.
- on 1/25/2024 at 8:58 AM the breakfast meal cart arrived on the floor.
The 3rd floor meal delivery times documented Breakfast at 9:00 AM, Lunch at 1:00 PM, Dinner at 6:00 PM.
The following observation was made on the 3rd floor:
- on 1/24/2024 at 1:28 PM the lunch cart arrived on the floor.
- on 1/25/2024 at 9:36 AM the breakfast cart arrived on the floor.
- on 1/26/2024 at 1:34 PM the lunch cart arrived on the floor.
The 5th floor meal delivery times documented Breakfast at 7:45 AM, Lunch at 11:45 AM, Dinner at 4:45 PM.
The following observation was made on the 5th floor:
- on 1/25/2024 at 8:28 AM the breakfast cart arrived on the floor. At 8:30 AM the first resident meal tray was served.
The 6th floor meal delivery times documented Breakfast at 7:30 AM, Lunch at 11:30 AM, Dinner at 4:30 PM.
The following observations were made on the 6th floor:
- on 1/24/2024 at 11:57 AM the lunch cart arrived on the floor. At 12:04 PM lunch trays were being passed to residents eating in their rooms (low 600s) hall. At 12:07 PM lunch trays were being passed to residents eating in rooms 616-622. At 12:09 PM lunch trays were being passed to residents eating in the lounge across from nurse's station. At 12:10 PM residents in the main 6th floor dining room were yelling out where is the food?. At 12:13 PM residents in the main 6th floor dining room were served their meal trays.
During an interview on 1/24/24 at 1:28 PM 3rd floor certified nurse aide #71 stated they went down to the kitchen that day to bring back the lunch cart because kitchen staff were taking too long to bring it up to the floor.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 9:52 AM 5th floor licensed practical nurse #51 stated residents complained a lot about late meals. Meals were late mostly on the evening shift.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 12:55 PM 2 South unit helper #80 stated lunch was supposed to come at 12:30 PM, they were unsure what was going on and no staff reported to them why the lunch meal was late.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 12:57 PM 2 South certified nurse aide #81 stated they did not know where the lunch meal was, and no one told them the lunch meal was going to be late.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 12:59 PM dietary aide #82 stated they had worked at the facility for 6 years and brought meal carts to the floors. They thought the lunch meal cart was supposed to be delivered to 2 South at 12:30 PM. They were running behind but did not know why. It was important for resident meals to be delivered at the scheduled times and that 30 -45 minutes was too long to wait for meals.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:06 PM dietary aide #83 stated they usually delivered meal carts to the floors. They were not sure what times the meal carts were supposed to be delivered to the floors, were not sure if they were running late and hoped the meal carts were not too late.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:07 PM licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 stated lunch on 2 South was supposed to be served at 12:30 PM. They were not aware the lunch meal was going to be late. It was important for meals to be served on time on the dementia floor because the residents had a routine, which could affect their medication and activities of daily living care schedules. It was a long time for the residents to wait for a meal.
During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 1:21 PM licensed practical nurse #12 stated the lunch meal was late that day and they were not aware the meal was going to be late. If they had known the meal was going to be late, they would not have taken the residents into the dining room as early. Timely meals were a routine and routine was important on the dementia floor. Late lunch meals could cause the residents to be too full for dinner. Late meals could also affect the activity schedule. There was supposed to be a sensory sounds activity that day at 1:30 PM but would have to be rescheduled for later.
During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 10:10 AM registered nurse Supervisor #48 stated meals were often late on all the floors which was a problem for diabetic residents as they could receive their insulin too early. This could cause those residents to have low blood sugar before the meals arrived.
During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 8:14 AM 2 [NAME] registered nurse Unit Manager #4 stated the breakfast meal was supposed to be served between 8:30 AM and 8:45 AM and the lunch meal was supposed to be served at 12:30 PM. They did not think the mealtimes were posted anywhere on the floor. They would consider meals to be late if they were served half an hour past the scheduled mealtime. Meals could be late if there were call-outs from the kitchen staff. Sometimes an electronic message was sent to the floors if a meal was going to be late.
During an interview on 1/31/24 at 10:26 AM the Food Service Director stated any resident meals served greater than 20 minutes past the scheduled mealtimes without notification to the floors was unacceptable. The allowable time between night and breakfast meals was 14 hours. If meals were going to be delayed, they should be notifying the nursing staff. It was important that meals were served in a timely manner so that food could be served at a palatable temperature and taste. If nursing was notified that the meal delivery time was running late, they could call the kitchen for a sandwich for a diabetic resident so that the insulin schedule could be followed.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 10:25 AM the Director of Nursing stated it was important for meals to be served on time due to the diabetic residents in the facility. If diabetic residents received their insulin too early and the meal trays were late, they could become hypoglycemic (low blood sugar). They expected if meal trays were going to be late the kitchen would notify the floors and let them know the times the food carts would be arriving so that a resident's insulin could be held until the meal trays arrived.
During an interview on 2/1/2024 at 10:51 AM Registered Dietitian #79 stated if meals were served consistently late it could affect the residents' routines and schedules. Kitchen staff should notify the Nurse Managers on the floors if the meals were going to be served late.
10 NYCRR 415.14(f)(3)(4)
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00325885) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure the facility stored, prepar...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00325885) surveys conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure the facility stored, prepared, distributed, and served food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchens (the main kitchen) reviewed. Specifically, multiple areas of the main kitchen were unclean; the steamer, a hand wash sink, and the high temperature were in disrepair; there was a an expired package of hot dog rolls and an expired jar of peanut butter; there was an unlabeled package of bread crumbs; there was an undated bag of chocolate mix and two opened containers of chicken paste with no opened date; there was a dented can of pears and a dented can of an unknown product; and there was three sections of sheet cake that were not covered.
Findings include:
A facility policy Cleaning & Sanitation of Dining and Food Service Areas, last reviewed 1/2024, documented:
- Cleaned after each use - all appliances, all small equipment, counters, stove tops (range and griddle), dishes, pots and pans.
- Twice per month - ovens.
- Monthly - freezers, drawers, shelves.
An undated Dietary Aide Task policy documented that a dietary aide was responsible for:
- Maintaining a clean kitchen, workspace, and cleaning dishes.
- Following cleaning schedules and adhering to them on each shift.
- Cleaning the dining room, kitchen, storage area, refrigeration equipment and freezers as directed and scheduled.
- Assisting the manager, dietitian, and diet tech to maintain high quality food, safety and sanitation.
An undated Dietary [NAME] Task job description documented that a dietary cook was responsible for:
- Assisting in cleaning up and kitchen maintenance.
- Maintaining stock rooms, walk-in coolers, and keeping freezers organized and cleaned.
- Reviewing cleaning schedule and assuring cleaning schedule was adhered to.
- Responsible for cleanliness of work area.
The following observations were made in the main kitchen on 1/24/2024 between 9:21 AM - 10:41 AM:
- The stove top burner area had food debris in it and was not clean.
- A section of metal outer shell for the steamer was on and the inside wires and parts of the steamer were exposed.
- The inside of the double oven was not clean.
- The top of of the double oven had three unclean metal grates.
- A rolling cart next to the double had 3 layers of sheet cake that were not dated and not covered.
- The inside of the deep fryer had sticky debris and was not clean, and there were french fries in the deep fryer.
- The scoops for the sugar bin and flour bin were stored within the bins.
- The floor under the freezer shelves had various debris and were not clean.
- The clean dish rack had 4 stained and unclean pots, and the outside of multiple coffee carafes were unclean.
- The hand wash sink by the dish machine was not properly affixed to the wall.
- The coffee station cart area had two 16-ounce chicken base paste containers with no opened date, there was multiple lids sitting on an unclean surface, there was an unclean coffee carafe, and there was a package of hot dog rolls with the best use by date of 1/16/2024.
- The high temperature dish machine gauge indicated that the wash side water was 130 Fahrenheit.
- The dry storage room contained unlabeled bread crumbs, an opened peanut butter container dated 8/18/2023, an opened 5-pound bag of chocolate mix that was not dated, there was a dented #10 can with no label on it and there was a dented #10 can of pears.
During an interview on 1/24/2024, at 10:41 AM, the Food Service Director stated that the grease in the fryer looked like it had been there longer than a week. The french fries in the deep fryer were from the dinner the night before and should have been taken out after that meal.
During an observation on 1/25/2024, between 7:15 AM and 7:30 AM, the temperature gauge read 170 degrees Fahrenheit and the high temperature dish machine wash side water within the machine had a temperature of 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
During an interview on 1/31/24 at 8:13 AM, the Food Service Director stated the following:
- They toured the kitchen daily and that included checking the environment;
- they were aware the double oven could become dirty quickly, confirmed that it was not cleaned timely, and the double oven should have been cleaned weekly;
- the undated and uncovered sheet cakes near the double oven would immediately be discarded and new sheet cakes would be made for that lunch service, was aware that the layers of sheet cake should have been covered and was not sure why they were not covered;
- the dented and unlabeled cans of food in the dry storage room should have been moved to the dented cart section of the room;
- they were not aware that the sink was not affixed to the wall and should have been;
- that the exposed wires and parts within the metal steamer should not have been visible, were not cleanable, and the missing metal section on the floor next to it should have been properly attached to the device;
- was aware the scoops were not allowed to be kept in the sugar or flour bins and that each scoop should be separately stored in a clean manner;
- that all food items within the dry storage room were required to have an identifier of what they were, that the five pound bag of chocolate mix should have had an open date, and the opened peanut butter should have been discarded after five days;
- the opened containers of chicken paste was required to have an open date and should have been discarded since there was no date;
- the hot dog rolls with expiration date of 1/16/2024 should have already been discarded before the tour of the kitchen and was immediately discarded upon observation;
- the dish machine broke down the same time as the federal survey started on 1/24/2024, was fixed on 1/26/2024 when the new part arrived, was converted from a high temperature system to a low temperature chemical system after the breakfast service on 1/24/2024, and a work order was made that day;
- the deep fryer should be emptied, cleaned and refilled weekly;
- the kitchen cooking surfaces including the clean dish area, the coffee station, and the stove top area should be wiped down and cleaned daily; and,
- it was important to ensure that the main kitchen was maintained in a clean manner so food products and items sent up to the residents were clean and safe, and that the main kitchen was clean for the kitchen staff.
10NYCRR 415.14(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 record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program de...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024 - 2/1/2024, the facility did not ensure to 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. Specifically, the required quarterly Legionella (type of bacteria that causes Legionnaire's disease) water testing was not completed after 30% of the annual water samples detected Legionella.
Findings include:
The facility's Legionella Management Plan, Potable Water System, dated December 2022, documented if detected levels of Legionella was greater than 30% it would require immediate implementation of short-term control measures and the water system should be re-sampled no later than 4 weeks after disinfection to determine the efficacy of the treatment. Documentation included procedures to be followed, directives issued, testing performed and procedures for disinfection that prevented exposure to contaminated water.
The facility policy Legionella Water Management Program, revised 1/2024, documented the purpose was to identify areas in the water system where Legionella bacteria could grow and spread and to reduce the risk of Legionnaire's disease. The water management program would be reviewed at least once a year or sooner if the control limits were not consistently met.
The facility's annual Legionella testing was completed on 4/5/2023 and resulted in more than 30% of their samples positive with Legionella detected.
There was no documented evidence treatment of the water supply, and the required quarterly Legionella water testing, was completed 4/5/2023 - 1/25/2024.
During an interview on 1/25/2024 at 4:45 PM, the Corporate Director of Facilities stated if greater than 30% of water samples tested positive for Legionella they were required to then test quarterly. It was important to test water for Legionella to mitigate the risk for potential Legionella exposure.
10 NYCRR 415.19(a)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024 the facility d...
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 conducted 1/24/2024-2/1/2024 the facility did not ensure they were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relayed the call directly to a staff member for 2 of 6 units (Unit 2 and Unit 3) reviewed. Specifically, non-functioning call lights were observed on Unit 2 in resident rooms 266, 274, 269, 263, 261, 250, 248, 245, 241, the second floor south shower room, and the second floor dining room; and, on Unit 3 resident room [ROOM NUMBER].
Findings include:
The facility policy Answering the Call Light reviewed by the facility 1/2024 documented:
- Be sure the call light was plugged in at all times.
- Be sure the call light was within easy reach of the resident.
- Report all defective call lights to the nurse supervisor promptly.
On 1/24/2024 the following observations were made on Unit 2:
- At 10:02 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom had no call light cord.
- At 10:31 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom call light cord was tied up with plastic glove and a spoon.
- At 10:42 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom had no call light cord.
- At 11:08 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom call light was approximately 10 inches long and more than 6 inches above the floor (not long enough).
- At 11:16 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom had no call light cord.
- At 11:24 AM the Unit 2 south shower room had no call light string on the side with the shower chair.
- At 11:25 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom had no call light cord.
- At 11:35 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom call light was 8 inches in length and more than 6 inches above the floor (not long enough).
- At 11:40 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom call light cord was the correct length but was tied to the glove holder.
- At 11:47 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom had no call light cord.
- At 12:58 PM the Unit 2 dining room had no call light cord.
On 1/26/2024 the following observation was made on unit 3:
- At 12:47 PM resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom call light cord was 3 inches long and not accessible to the resident when seated on the toilet.
During an interview on 1/30/24 at 12:16 PM the Corporate Director of Facilities stated they were not aware of the missing call light cords and the short call light cords on Units 2 and 3. The call light cords were required to be no less than 6 inches from the floor. Staff working on the residents' units were the primary witnesses of the call light cords and should be aware that call light cords were required. Work orders should be made for short or missing call light cords, and all staff were trained to submit a work order if they saw an issue. They stated they could not find any call light cord work orders for the last three months on Unit 2.
During an interview on 1/30/24 at 1:03 PM licensed practical nurse #12 stated staff were trained to submit work orders, and they could be submitted under the work order icon on the computer. They were not aware of any missing call lights as no certified nurse aides or other staff mentioned this to them. If there was no call light a resident could not use it to ask for assistance. Call lights should be readily available for residents to request assistance.
10 NYCRR 415.29
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 F0678
(Tag F0678)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00332276) conducted [DAT...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00332276) conducted [DATE]-[DATE], the facility failed to ensure resident preferences and physician orders related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (perform chest compressions in the event of a cardiac arrest), and other advance directive issues were communicated throughout the facility so that staff knew immediately what action to take or not to take when an emergency arose. Specifically, staff were unable to consistently identify resident code status indicators in the event of cardiac arrest. On [DATE], Resident #400 was found without a pulse in a non-residential area of the facility. Staff did not know the resident's code status and initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (chest compressions). The resident had a physician order documenting do not attempt resuscitation (allow natural death). In addition, resident code status identification bracelets were documented as being in place and were observed not in place for Residents #2, #16, #64, #87, #126, and #185. This resulted in no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy but Substandard Quality of Care with the potential to affect all 202 residents in the facility during a cardiac emergency.
Findings include:
The facility policy titled Advance Directives, reviewed by the facility 1/2024, documented advance directives would be respected in accordance with state law and facility policy. Upon admission, the resident would be provided information and formulate an advance directive. If unable to do so, the resident's legal representative would be given the information and formulate the advance directives. Information about the advance directives would be displayed prominently in the medical record. The plan of care would be consistent with those wishes. The resident would not be treated against their wishes. Do not resuscitate indicated that in the event of cardiac or respiratory failure, no cardiopulmonary resuscitation was to be used. The policy did not address code status identification bands.
The facility policy titled Emergency Procedure-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation reviewed by the facility 1/2024 documented if an individual was found unresponsive and not breathing normally, a licensed staff member certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation would initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation unless it was known that the resident had a do not attempt resuscitation order. If a resident's do not attempt resuscitation status was unclear, cardiopulmonary resuscitation would be initiated until it was determined there was a do not attempt resuscitation order. The policy did not address code status identification bands.
Resident #400 had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (abnormal heartbeat), schizophrenia and high blood pressure. The [DATE] Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition and required supervision with most activities of daily living.
Resident #400's Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment was verbally consented to by the resident's Health Care Proxy (a person designated to make health care decisions) on [DATE] at 12:47 PM and signed by the nurse practitioner on [DATE] and documented the resident's resuscitation instructions were do not resuscitate (allow natural death).
The [DATE] at 6:35 PM registered nurse supervisor #15 progress note documented they responded to a code blue (medical emergency) at 6:35 PM that was at the first floor tower elevators. Upon their arrival, Resident #400 was found lying down face first on the floor. Resident #400 was found absent of a pulse and respirations. Resident #400 was pronounced deceased at 7:09 PM.
During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 2:50 PM, registered nurse supervisor #15 stated Resident #400 was found on the floor by the back door elevator and had no pulse. They stated they started chest compressions as they did not know what the resident's code status was. There was no identification band on the resident, and they told staff to immediately get the resident's chart.
Resident #400's [DATE] medication administration record documented check resident's identification band to be in place and intact, do not resuscitate/do not intubate. The last shift signed for was by licensed practical nurse #7 on the [DATE] day shift.
During an observation on Unit 7 on [DATE] at 1:12 PM a poster at the nurse's station titled Wristband Dots documented:
blue is diabetic.
purple is do not resuscitate.
yellow is fall.
red is allergies.
Resident #2's Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment form documented a verbal consent was obtained from the resident's decision maker on [DATE] and was signed by the nurse practitioner on [DATE]. The form documented Do Not Attempt Resuscitation.
On [DATE] at 11:53 AM and at 2:41 PM, Resident #2 was observed not wearing an identification band.
Resident #2's 1/2024 medication administration record documented check resident's identification band to be in place and intact every shift. The record documented the check was done and signed for by staff every shift on [DATE].
Resident #16's Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment was signed by the resident and the nurse practitioner on [DATE] and documented Do Not Attempt Resuscitation.
On [DATE] at 1:38 PM Resident #16 was observed not wearing an identification band.
Resident #64's [DATE] physician order documented Full code.
On [DATE] at 1:32 PM Resident #64 was observed not wearing an identification band.
Resident #87's Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment was verbally consented to by the resident on [DATE] and signed by the nurse practitioner on [DATE] and documented attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
On [DATE] at 11:53 AM Resident #87 was observed not wearing an identification band.
Resident #126's Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment was signed by the resident and the nurse practitioner on [DATE] and documented Do Not Attempt Resuscitation.
On [DATE] at 3:26 PM, Resident #126 was observed not wearing an identification band.
Resident #126's 1/2024 medication administration record documented check resident's identification band to be in place and intact every shift for monitoring. Staff signed for the band every shift through the [DATE] day shift.
Resident #185's Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment was signed by the resident [DATE], was not signed by a medical provider, and documented attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A physician order dated [DATE] documented the resident was a full code.
On [DATE] at 1:32 PM Resident #185 was observed not wearing an identification band.
During an interview on [DATE] at 1:12 PM licensed practical nurse #6 stated code status was documented on a wristband with colors. Blue meant do not resuscitate and they did not know what red meant. They stated they signed for identification bands during their shift. They could not always tell code status by the bracelet because the colors could fade in the shower. They stated even with a bracelet they would initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:40 PM licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #5 stated the Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment would determine code status. The resident bracelets just told the resident's name on some floors but on the 5th floor it included code status. The bracelets had different color stickers for do not resuscitate and altered consistency, but the stickers fell off. If a nurse was documenting they signed for placement of a bracelet and they did not, they would not know the resident's code status. They stated they did not know what the colors meant but they could look at the poster at the nursing station. A certified nurse aide had told them there was a template on the back of their name badge.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:41 PM licensed practical nurse #12 stated to find a resident's code status they looked in the Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment book or in the computer. They stated the residents used to have plastic bracelets that were labeled with the code status, but they were not sure if they were still using them. The identification bands checked in the treatment administration record were for resident identification and not code status.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:45 PM certified nurse aide #28 stated they would know a resident's code status by asking the nurse to check the chart, looking at the list at the nursing desk, or looking at the resident's bracelet. They stated the bracelets were color coded, but they did not know what the colors meant and had not been educated.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:49 PM, registered nurse #10 stated the residents were given an
identification bracelet when they were admitted to the facility. The bracelet had the resident's name, code
status, and other identification factors on different colored stickers. They stated most of the residents did not keep their bracelets in place so they would check the medical orders for life sustaining treatment and the order for code status. They stated the medication nurses should check the resident's bracelet every shift and document it in the record. They stated all units had a chart on the wall by the nurse's station that listed the meaning of the colored dots that were on the bracelets, and it was also on the back of their name badges.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:52 PM Education Coordinator #11 stated if a resident had a purple dot on their wrist bracelet it meant the resident was a do not resuscitate, and if there was no colored dot it meant the resident was a full code. Staff were also trained to check the resident's electronic medical record for code status. If a resident did not have a bracelet staff should notify the Unit Manager for a replacement. All staff name badges had an area on the back that explained the color codes on the bracelets, and this was all reviewed during staff orientation.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:55 PM licensed practical nurse Unit Manager #13 stated they determined code status by looking at the computer, the Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment book, and there was also a bracelet the residents wore. They stated the bracelet was paper but the residents on their unit did not keep them on. If a resident was a do not resuscitate the bracelet would be purple. If a nurse documented in the medication administration record the bracelet was checked it meant the resident was wearing it.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:58 PM certified nurse aide #39 stated they would look at the resident's bracelet to determine code status. They stated there was blue and purple on the bracelets and they did not know what the colors meant. They stated they would also check the Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment if needed.
During an interview on [DATE] at 3:16 PM, licensed practical nurse #16 stated each resident should be wearing an identification band that identified their advance directive status. If a resident was found on the floor unresponsive, staff were to call a code blue and check the identification band for code status. They did not remember if Resident #400 had an identification band on [DATE]. They stated they did not always check for the bands when signing for them and usually checked only residents that had a habit of removing them.
During an interview on [DATE] at 3:44 PM, the Director of Nursing stated staff should document in the medication administration record every shift for checking and placement of each resident's identification band. There should be a progress note made if a resident refused the band. Each Unit Manager was responsible for applying an identification band and ensuring the identification bands, physician's orders, and Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment forms matched. The identification bands were an added step to quickly identify a resident's code status.
During an interview on [DATE] at 4:30 PM licensed practical nurse #37 stated they would look at the Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment or in the computer to determine code status. Every resident was supposed to have a bracelet that was checked every shift.
During an interview on [DATE] at 11:13 AM, nurse practitioner #18 stated all residents in the facility should have an advance directive order so that staff knew whether the resident wished to be resuscitated in the event of cardiac arrest. Ramifications of initiating cardiopulmonary resuscitation included causing unnecessary bodily harm, broken ribs, and injuries to the person's internal organs if they were to be resuscitated.
During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 3:04 PM, physician #40 stated cardiopulmonary resuscitation should not be initiated if a resident was a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation, as that was not their wish. All residents in the facility had Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment. Staff should follow all advance directives orders.
10 NYCRR 415.3(e)(2)(iii)