WILLOW POINT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER

3700 OLD VESTAL ROAD, VESTAL, NY 13850 (607) 763-4400
Government - County 300 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#591 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Willow Point Rehabilitation and Nursing Center currently holds a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided-this means the facility is performing poorly compared to others. In New York, it ranks #591 out of 594, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes, and #9 out of 9 in Broome County, indicating that there are no better local options available. Although the facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2024 to 6 in 2025, it still faces serious challenges, including a concerning staffing turnover rate of 57%, which is higher than the state average. The facility has accumulated $241,946 in fines, suggesting repeated compliance problems, and has less registered nurse coverage than 85% of state facilities, which can impact the quality of care. Specific incidents include failing to vaccinate eligible residents against pneumonia, leading to multiple cases of pneumonia and hospitalizations, and a lack of supervision that resulted in physical aggression and harm among residents. While the facility has a 3/5 star rating for staffing, indicating an average level of staff retention, the overall environment raises several red flags for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In New York
#591/594
Bottom 1%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$241,946 in fines. Lower than most New York facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New York. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 57%

11pts above New York avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $241,946

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is elevated (57%)

9 points above New York average of 48%

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jun 2025 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025 the facility did not ensure resident rights to personal privacy and confidentiality ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025 the facility did not ensure resident rights to personal privacy and confidentiality of their personal and medical records for four (4) of four (4) residents (Residents #1, #93, #141, and #208) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #1, #93, #141, and #208 identifying and personal information was posted in a public area visible to others. Findings include: The facility policy Corporate Compliance Code of Conduct, revised 7/2018, documented all employees had the responsibility of protecting the confidentiality of resident information. Employees should not reveal in any form of communication (verbal, written, fax, electronic) any personal or confidential information such as diagnosis or treatments. The facility policy Resident Rights, revised 3/2018, documented resident medical, social, and financial records would be released only to those staff members who needed them. During observations on 6/10/2025 at 12:37 PM, 6/11/2025 at 10:31 AM, and at 12:36 PM personal identifying information for Residents #1, #93, #141, and #208 was posted in a public area on the North Lower-Level unit dining room on a pole near the doorway and meal serving area. Resident #1's, #93's, and #141's identifying information included their last name and hospitalization frequency. Resident #208's identifying personal information included their last name and level of assistance required for eating. During an interview on 6/11/2025 at 11:16 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #18 stated the sign posted on the pole in the main dining room was to alert staff to know which residents ate in their rooms. Residents #1, #93, and #141 were hospitalized recently and staff needed to ensure they were in the facility prior to providing them meal trays. Resident #208 required assistance with eating and the sign indicated their need for assistance at meals. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 8:51 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #20 stated resident health information should not be posted in public spaces and all resident information should be kept private and secure. They made the sign for staff, but did not know it was posted in the dining room. They stated they were unsure who posted the list, or how long it was posted. They did not ask the residents if they wanted the information posted in the dining room because they did not know the information was going to be posted in a public space. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 9:28 AM, the Corporate Compliance Officer stated resident information should never be posted in a public space and should be kept secure and private. Resident health information was shared on a need-to-know basis. All staff were trained upon hire and annually on protecting resident health information. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 9:50 AM, the Director of Social Worker stated resident health information should not be posted in public spaces and the facility was obligated to protect resident health information. Residents had a right to determine who their health information was shared with. If resident health information was posted in a public space, the resident's information was not private. 10NYCRR 415.3(d)(1)(ii)
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/9/2025 - 6/13/2025, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/9/2025 - 6/13/2025, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to include services provided to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical well-being for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #197) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #197 did not have a care plan for anticoagulant (blood thinner) use. Findings include: The facility policy Care Plans, revised 2/2002, documented the interdisciplinary team met after each admission of a resident and on a regular basis to evolve a comprehensive plan of care which would best meet the individual needs of the resident. The comprehensive care plan was developed for each resident within 48 hours of admission and included goals, medications, treatments, and diet and was reviewed with the residents and/or their representative and documented in the electronic medical record. Resident #197 had diagnoses including stroke and pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lung). The 6/5/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition; required supervision for transfers, bed mobility, and walking; and was on anticoagulant therapy. The 5/31/2025 active physician orders documented Resident #197 received apixaban (anticoagulant) 5 milligrams twice a day for deep vein thrombosis (blood clot) prophylaxis with a start date of 3/19/2025. The Comprehensive Care Plan did not include the use of anticoagulant therapy, or the risks associate with its use. During an observation on 6/9/2025 at 11:11 AM, Resident # 197 was in bed and had an orange size yellow bruise on their right forearm near the wrist. During an observation and interview on 6/10/2025 at 11:02 AM, Resident #197 had an orange size yellow bruise on their right forearm near the wrist. There was a larger purple and blue bruise on the left upper arm toward the shoulder. They stated they always had bruises because they were not steady on their feet and always bumped into things. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 9:28 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #8 stated they were responsible for the hands-on care for the residents which included bathing, dressing, feeding, toileting, oral care, and more. They used the care card for individual care instructions for each resident which was generated by the care plan. If a resident was on anticoagulant therapy, they could bruise more easily and should be monitored for bleeding. They did not recall if Resident #197 was at risk for bruising or bleeding, but the resident did have a lot of bruises because they bumped into the walls a lot. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 10:23 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated care plans were completed on admission by the interdisciplinary team including social Work, dietary, physical therapy, and nursing. The nursing section was completed by the clinical care coordinators or registered nurses. If a resident was on anticoagulant therapy, it should be documented on the care plan so staff could monitor the resident for bleeding and bruising. Resident #197 received anticoagulant therapy, and it was not documented on the care plan and should be. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 8:42 AM, Clinical Care Coordinator #15 stated they were responsible for completing and updating care plans on admission, quarterly, and with any significant change. If a resident was on anticoagulant therapy, it should be documented in the care plan, so staff could monitor the resident for the risk of bleeding. Resident #197 was on anticoagulant therapy which should have interventions documented in the care plan and did not because the resident was new to the facility. They stated they were trying to update the care plans as the residents had their care plan meetings. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 10:03 AM, the Director of Nursing stated registered nurses were responsible for completing and updating the care plans individually for each resident. If a resident was on anticoagulant therapy, they expected it be documented in the resident's care plan so staff could properly care for the resident and monitor for bleeding. 10NYCRR 415.11(c)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00371020) surveys conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00371020) surveys conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for two (2) of six (6) residents (Residents #127 and #226) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #127 and #226 were not provided with facial grooming/shaving care. Findings include: The facility policy Activities of Daily Living, last revised 3/2015, documented the facility provided residents with Activities of Daily Living care and support in accordance with current standards of practice, State and Federal regulations, and based on the resident's assessed needs, personal preferences, and goals of care. Facial hair was groomed per the resident's preference and/or needs. 1) Resident #127 had diagnoses including Pick's disease (a form of dementia), depression, and anxiety. The 3/28/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, did not reject care, and was dependent for most activities of daily living. The Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 5/3/2021 and updated 10/17/2024 documented Resident # 127 had a self-care deficit with interventions including assistance of one for hygiene and weekly showers. The resident's care instructions (Kardex) documented the resident required assistance of one with AM/PM care, weekly shower, and as needed. The resident was nonverbal and used a notebook to communicate. Resident #127 was observed in their room on 6/9/2025 at 10:58 AM and in the dining room on 6/11/2025 at 1:16 PM with several one-inch long grey chin hairs. During an observation and interview on 6/12/2025 at 9:13 AM the resident was in bed and had several one-inch-long grey hairs on their chin. They shook their head no when asked if they liked the chin hair and touched the hair with their hand and made a frowning face. When asked if they would like it shaved, they smiled and shook their head yes. During an interview and observation on 6/12/2025 at 10:46 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #8 stated their assigned residents were washed, dressed, and groomed daily, and showered weekly according to the shower schedule. Grooming included combing hair, oral care, and shaving. Resident #127 received did not refuse care. They did not shave the resident because they did not notice any facial hair. Certified Nurse Aide #8 entered the resident's room and stated the resident had facial hair and they should have noticed it. 2) Resident #226 had diagnoses including dementia and depression. The 5/21/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, did not reject care, and required partial/moderate assistance of one for most activities of daily living. The Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 5/20/2025, documented the resident had an alteration in activities of daily living function related to impaired balance. Interventions included showers weekly and assistance of one for all hygiene care. The resident's care instructions (Kardex) documented the resident required assistance of one and received weekly showers. The following observations of Resident #226 were made: - on 6/9/2025 at 10:43 AM and 6/10/2025 at 10:56 AM with multiple white chin hairs approximately one inch long. - on 6/11/2025 at 11:26 AM, with multiple white chin hairs approximately one inch long. Resident #226 stated they did not like the chin hairs as they looked like a man and wanted them shaved. They were not sure when their shower day was. - on 6/12/2025 at 8:36 AM, with multiple white chin hairs approximately one inch long. The resident stated they received a shower the evening prior but was not shaved. They stated they were not able to shave themself and wished they were shaved because they felt like a man when they had facial hair. The certified nurse aide activities of daily living log documented hygiene care was provided on 6/11/2025 on the evening shift by Certified Nurse Aide #38. During an interview on 6/12/2025 on 9:51 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #38 stated they were responsible for resident care which included weekly showers, hair shampooing, oral care, feeding, dressing, and shaving residents. Last evening Resident #226 received their shower, and they did not shave the resident as they had three showers to give and did not have time to shave the resident. During an interview and observation on 6/12/2025 at 10:23 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated certified nurse aides were responsible for providing activity of daily living care and residents should not have to ask to be shaved. If staff noticed a resident required shaving, they should ask the resident and shave them if the resident wanted to be shaved. If a female resident had facial hair, it could be embarrassing. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 8:42 AM, Clinical Care Coordinator #15 stated they expected residents to be groomed according to their care plan or Kardex. Residents should be offered shaving daily. Dignity could be an issue for residents with unwanted facial hair. 10 NYCRR 415.12(a)(3)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00344862) surveys conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not ensure accommodation of resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00344862) surveys conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not ensure accommodation of resident food preferences for two (2) of two (2) (Residents #127 and #195) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #127 and #195 were missing preferred food items on their meal trays. Findings include: The facility policy Food Preferences, revised 5/2023, documented resident food and beverage preferences were obtained upon admission and periodically as needed to assist Food and Nutrition Services department in providing preferred food and beverages to enhance/maintain quality of life and nutritional status. 1) Resident #127 had diagnoses including Pick's disease (a form of dementia), mild protein calorie malnutrition, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 1/4/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, required set up assistance with eating, was unable to speak, weighed 95 pounds, had an unplanned 5% or more weight loss, and received a mechanically altered diet. The Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 5/3/2021and updated 4/9/2024 documented Resident #127 had a self-care deficit with interventions including eating meals in the dining room with close supervision at meals. The resident had an alteration in nutritional status and interventions included encouraging fluids and honoring food preferences. Resident #127's meal tickets dated 6/9/2025-6/12/2025 documented 4 ounces of strawberry ice cream for lunch daily. During observations on 6/10/2025 at 1:25 PM and 6/11/2025 at 1:13 PM, Resident #127 did not have the 4 ounces of strawberry ice cream on their lunch meal tray 2) Resident #195 had diagnoses including mild protein calorie malnutrition, anorexia (lack of appetite), and major depressive disorder. The 4/2/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, required supervision or touching assistance with eating, and received a mechanically altered diet. The 10/15/2024 physician order documented the resident was on a Consistent Carbohydrate Diet with No Added Salt mechanical soft diet with regular consistency liquids. The 5/28/2025 Registered Dietitian #31 progress note documented a history of poor intakes with a body mass index of 17.4 in the underweight category. During an observation on 6/9/2025 at 1:09 PM, Resident #195's lunch meal ticket documented 4 ounces of cottage cheese. The resident did not have 4 ounces of cottage cheese on their lunch tray. During an observation on 6/10/2025 at 1:08 PM, Resident #195's lunch meal ticket documented one half salad sandwich in addition to one half chicken salad. The resident did not have an additional half salad sandwich on their lunch tray. During an interview on 6/10/2025 at 1:48 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #30 stated the food was sent to the kitchenette from the main kitchen. The food service worker serving from the kitchenette was responsible for ensuring all items on the meal ticket were on the meal tray. Resident #127 was losing weight and had a poor appetite, but always ate their strawberry ice cream. They usually ate the ice cream first. Resident #195 was losing weight and had a poor appetite and almost always ate their half sandwich. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 8:42 AM, Clinical Care Coordinator #15 stated food service workers set up the trays and made sure they were accurate. Staff that delivered the trays completed the final check for accuracy. Residents should receive everything on their tray that was on their meal ticket. Residents #127 and #195 were both at risk for weight loss and should get all items listed on their meal tickets. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 9:09 AM, Food Service Worker #36 stated meals were prepared and set up in the main kitchen. The entrees were brought up in a hot box and plated in the kitchenette. There were times items that were missing from the resident's trays, and they called the kitchen for a replacement. Nursing staff was responsible for putting ice cream on trays because they were not able to leave the kitchenette area, and the freezer was located outside the kitchenette. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 9:24 AM, Registered Dietitian #32 stated the food service worker in the pantry was the first line and ensured adaptive equipment and meals tickets were accurate. Once the tray was placed in the window the staff passing the tray confirmed accuracy before it was given to the resident. Fluids and ice cream were passed by nursing staff. Cottage cheese was put on the tray from the main kitchen. Residents #127 and #195 were both monitored for weight loss and poor appetites. If Resident #127 enjoyed strawberry ice cream they should have it on their tray. Resident #195 liked cottage cheese, and a half sandwich every day for lunch, and it was important for them to be on the tray. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 9:42 AM, Food Service Worker #35 stated they were responsible for putting every item on the tray in the main kitchen before it was delivered to the kitchenettes including cottage cheese. They did not put ice cream on the trays in the kitchen because there were freezers on the unit and nursing staff was responsible for ice cream if it was on the ticket. 10NYCRR 415.14(d)(3)(4)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/9/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections during one (1) of four (4) lunch meal observations. Specifically, during the lunch meal observation on 6/11/2025 Food Service Aide #27 did not perform hand hygiene after removing their gloves. Findings included: The facility policy Hand Hygiene, revised 5/2025 documented hand hygiene would be performed at a minimum after handling trash, handling soiled linen or supplies, and after contact with blood, bodily fluids, and visibly contaminated surfaces. During a lunch meal observation on the North Lower Level on 6/11/2025 at 12:31 PM, Food Service Aide #27 was serving the lunch meal. While plating a resident tray, they dropped a towel on the floor, picked up the towel with their gloved hand and continued serving the meal without changing their gloves. They stopped serving and changed their gloves without performing hand hygiene. During an interview on 6/11/2025 at 1:18 PM, Food Service Aide #27 stated they were nervous and forgot to change their gloves and perform hand hygiene when they picked the towel up from the floor. They stated they received education on handwashing and knew it was important to prevent the spread of infections to residents. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 1:03 PM, Kitchen General Manager #28 stated food service staff received education on hand hygiene on hire and annually. They stated staff should change their gloves and wash their hands after picking items up off the floor. If they did not do this, it was an infection control issue. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 12:08 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse Infection Control Preventionist #29 stated all staff members should wash their hands or use alcohol-based hand rub during glove changes. If they picked something off the floor with a gloved hand, they should perform hand hygiene and put on new gloves prior to returning to their task. It was important to help decrease/ lessen the spread of infections. All staff were educated on hand hygiene upon hire and annually. 10 NYCRR 415.19(a)(b)
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/09/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 6/09/2025-6/13/2025, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for one (1) of one (1) main kitchen reviewed. Specifically, the main kitchen had dented cans in use; dishes were not air dried; food was not discarded in a timely manner; and food was stored less than 18 inches from the ceiling. Additionally, food was uncovered while being transported through the North Lower Level hallway. Findings include: The facility policy Dented Cans, revised 4/2023, documented there was a designated place in the storeroom for dented cans, which were then destroyed to prevent the use of spoiled or contaminated food. The Food and Nutrition Services Department does not use foods in dented or damaged cans. The facility policy Dishware Storage, revised 5/2023, documented dishware would be stored appropriately to prevent food soil, dust, or any other debris from adhering to the surface. After coming out of the dish machine, dishware would be air dried prior to storage. The facility policy Labeling and Dating, revised 5/2023, documented all foods would be appropriately wrapped, labeled, and dated based on food storage guidelines. All food would be labeled, dated, and securely covered, and use by dates were monitored and followed. Dented Cans: During an observation on 6/9/2025 at 10:29 AM, the dry storage room had two dented #10 cans of chocolate pudding and one dented #10 can of vanilla pudding. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 12:33 PM, Kitchen General Manager #28 stated all staff should be checking for dented cans. Dented cans could have a break which could allow in air causing possible contamination. Dishwashing: During an observation of the dish room on 6/9/2025 at 10:23 AM, there were sixty clear dessert bowls stacked upright and together. The bowls were wet and not air drying due to their upright position. Twenty-four pan muffin tins were stored upright. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 12:33 PM, Kitchen General Manager #28 stated dishes should be air dried upside down to avoid growth of bacteria in standing water. To avoid contamination, dishes should not be wiped dry with a cloth. Expired and Unlabeled Food: During an observation on 6/9/2025 at 10:13 AM the special reach in cooler contained twelve servings of puree apricots dated 6/2/25. During an observation on 6/11/2025 at 9:23 AM the sandwich cooler had four plastic four-ounce containers of pureed chicken and four regular chicken salads with no labeled dates. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 12:33 PM, Kitchen General Manager #28 stated once items were taken out of their original container they were dated. Staff should check the food dates every day to ensure no outdated food was served. It was the responsibility of all kitchen staff to check dates. They stated it was important to rotate food for food safety reasons. Food Storage: During an observation on 6/9/25 at 10:10 AM the walk-in freezer contained one sheet pan of apple crumble and two sheet pans of frosted cake stored less than three inches from the ceiling. During an interview on 6/13/2025 at 12:33 PM, Kitchen General Manager #28 stated food should be stored off the floor. There should be space between the product and ceiling to maintain air flow in the freezer and avoid contamination. Uncovered Food in Hallway: The following observations were made of uncovered food transported on the North Lower Level hallway: - on 6/10/25 at 12:38 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #23 transported Resident #173's lunch tray from the dining room to their room. The beets on the tray were uncovered. - on 6/10/25 12:43 PM, Unit Helper #17 transported Resident #45's lunch tray from the dining room to their room. The beets on the tray were uncovered. - on 6/10/25 12:58 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #24 transported Resident #158's lunch tray from the dining room down the hall to their room. The beets on the tray were uncovered. - on 6/11/25 12:46 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #25 transported Resident #105's lunch tray from the dining room down the hall to their room. The coleslaw on the tray was uncovered. - on 6/11/25 12:47 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #26 transported Resident #90's lunch tray from the dining room down the hall to their room. The coleslaw on the tray was uncovered. - on 6/12/25 12:44 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #19 transported Resident #45's lunch tray from the dining room down the hall to their room. The broccoli and cauliflower on the tray was uncovered. During an interview on 6/11/25 at 1:18 PM, Food Service Associate #27 stated they did not have lids for the clear square dishes the coleslaw was served in. They stated they were trained to cover hot food to keep the food hot. They stated they were not told to cover cold food. During an interview on 6/12/25 at 1:03 PM, Kitchen General Manager #28 stated the sides of vegetables were plated in the kitchenettes and foodservice staff set them on the resident trays. Nursing transported meal trays to residents either in the dining room or by carrying the down the hall to the residents' rooms. All items should be covered, including coleslaw, broccoli and cauliflower mix, and beets. Food service staff only plated the meals. Nursing staff checked the items to make sure they had everything, put drinks on the tray, and the lids on the tray. Nursing should cover the items. Food should be covered during transport to prevent debris and contamination. During an interview on 6/12/25 at 2:05 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #19 stated once food service plated the meal, nursing put covers on hall trays. All items should be covered, including coffee, juices, and hot items. Items such as beets, coleslaw, and cauliflower and broccoli mix should go under the insulated cover when transported in the hallway, so food was not exposed to contamination and or got cold. During an interview on 6/13/25 at 12:08 PM, Infection Control Preventionist #29 stated staff should be covering all food items leaving the dining room. It was important for food to be covered while traveling down the hallway to prevent expose to pathogens. During a follow-up interview on 6/13/25 at 12:33 PM, Kitchen General Manager #28 stated food prepped prior to meal service was covered in the kitchen by food service staff. When food was plated in the kitchenettes and brought down the hall nursing was responsible for covering the food. The kitchen provided insulated lids. They stated there were no lids for the square clear dishes or ceramic dishes, but nursing staff should place those items under the insulated dome plate covers. 10NYCRR 415.14(h)
Mar 2024 9 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024, the facility failed to vac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024, the facility failed to vaccinate eligible residents with the pneumococcal vaccination (a vaccination developed to minimize the risk of acquiring, transmitting, or experiencing complications of pneumonia) for 44 of 245 residents who consented to the pneumococcal vaccine. Specifically, from 9/5/2023 through 3/25/2024, Residents #12, #14, #17, #18, #24, #27, #31, #43, #45, #57, #63, #74, #82, #95, #102, #103, #108, #109, #117, #118, #126, #129, #134, #165, #173, #177, #186, #192, #213, #214, #215, #216, #219, #222, #224, #226, #229, #235, #484, #533, #585, #586, #587, and #633 consented to and had medical orders to receive the pneumococcal vaccine and did not receive it. Subsequently, 7 of the 44 residents (Resident #24, #95, #109, #126, #215, #229, and #484) were diagnosed with pneumonia and one resident (Resident #95) was hospitalized twice for the treatment of pneumonia. Additionally, a request to purchase the pneumococcal vaccine was submitted by the Director of Nursing and was denied by the fiscal officer; and the Medical Director was not notified the vaccine was not available. This placed 44 residents at the facility at risk for serious harm or death that was Immediate Jeopardy. Findings include: The facility policy Purchase Order Expenditures revised 8/12/2019 documented the requesting department sends a completed Departmental Purchase Request Form or a facility Blanket Purchase Order Encumbrance Request form to fiscal along with any backup from vendors. All paperwork is given to the Deputy of Fiscal to initial and approve. The facility policy EMR (Electronic Medical Record)-Physician/Nurse Practitioner/Physician Assistant Orders updated 1/2019 documented nursing staff would process new, renewed, revised, or discontinued medication, treatment, and ancillary orders provided by the physician/nurse practitioner/physician assistant using the electronic medical record. The facility policy Physician Calls updated 2/2009 documented physician should be notified of changes to include but not limited to change in resident's condition, a resident fall, accident and/or incident to verify orders, and clarification of orders. The facility policy Standing Orders for Administering Pneumococcal Vaccines to Nursing Home Residents dated 9/2022 documented standing orders from the Medical Director to administer pneumococcal vaccines to consenting adult nursing home residents enable nurses to assess the need for vaccination and to vaccinate consenting adults. The procedure included assess adults for need of vaccination; screen for contraindications and precautions; provide vaccine information statements and obtained signed informed consent; administer pneumococcal vaccine; document the dose, date, time, the site the vaccination was given, the lot number, expiration date, and the brand of the vaccine administered. A 12/5/2023 supplier order summary documented 4 boxes of pneumococcal vaccine 0.5 milliliter unit doses (10 count= 40 doses) with an estimated total of $10,158.56. The items were in stock, and the facility could receive the order by the following day. A 12/6/2023 facility Request Form for Departmental Purchase Order documented the Nursing Department requested 4 boxes of pneumococcal vaccine for a cost of $10,158.56. The order was needed as soon as possible for resident and staff immunizations. The form was signed for approval by the Administrator and Assistant Director of Nursing. The form documented after approval, send to Fiscal Department. An electronic mail chain dated 1/23/2024 (1 month and 3 weeks later) documented: - At 11:17 AM, from Infection Preventionist/licensed practical nurse to the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal, questioning where the pneumococcal vaccine purchase order was as they had a lot of pending vaccinations to give. - At 11:51 AM, the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal responded to the facility accountant asking if the request was the same, they had questioned the pricing. - At 11:53 AM, the facility accountant responded, yes it was over $10,000. - At 11:59 AM, the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal to keyboard specialist, the vaccine order was sent back due to it being over $10,000. It would need to be a state contract or group purchasing contract if exceeding $10,000. Residents #12, #14, #17, #18, #24, #27, #31, #43, #45, #57, #63, #74, #82, #95, #102, #103, #108, #109, #117, #118, #126, #129, #134, #165, #173, #177, #186, #192, #213, #214, #215, # 216, #219, #222, #224, #226, #229, #235, #484, #533, #585, #586, #587, and #633 signed consent forms and had medical orders to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. There was no documented evidence they received the vaccine as ordered. Resident #95 had diagnoses including pneumonia and diabetes. The 12/5/2023 Minimum Data Set documented the resident was cognitively intact, and the pneumococcal vaccine was not up to date and the pneumococcal vaccine was not received because it was not offered. A 11/29/2023 physician order documented pneumovax (pneumococcal vaccine) as indicated. A facility pneumococcal conjugate vaccine consent form dated and signed by the resident's representative and witnessed by a nurse (illegible signature) on 12/13/2023 documented the resident wished to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. The November and December 2023 and January, February, and March 2024 medication administration records did not include orders for the pneumococcal vaccine or administration of the vaccine. A 1/24/2024 at 6:13 PM licensed practical nurse #52 progress note documented the resident was experiencing shortness of breath and shaking all over. Oxygen was increased to 5 liters per minute and oxygen saturation (amount of oxygen carried in blood) would not go above 76%. The on call physician was notified and ordered the resident be sent to the hospital. The resident was transported to the hospital by emergency medical services. A 1/25/2024 at 5:14 AM, licensed practical nurse #12 progress note documented the resident was admitted to the hospital for pneumonia. A 1/25/2024 at 2:32 PM licensed practical nurse #38 progress note documented the resident returned from the hospital and was receiving antibiotics for pneumonia. A 2/23/2024 at 7:27 PM licensed practical nurse #11's progress note documented the resident was experiencing tremors. Their oxygen saturation was 77% and their temperature was 102 degrees Fahrenheit. The attending physician was notified, and the family requested the resident be sent to the hospital. 911 was called and the resident was sent to the hospital. A 2/24/2024 at 3:04 AM licensed practical nurse #53 progress note documented they were informed by the hospital the resident was admitted for pneumonia. A 3/1/2024 nurse practitioner #13 progress note documented the resident was seen for a readmission visit after they were admitted to hospital for institutional acquired pneumonia and was started on intravenous antibiotics. The 3/7/2024 at 10:53 AM, licensed practical nurse #11's nursing progress note documented the resident was readmitted to the facility with a diagnosis of pneumonia. Resident #215 had diagnoses including congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease), and chronic respiratory failure. The 10/23/2023 Minimum Data Set documented the resident was cognitively intact, their pneumococcal vaccine was not up to date, and the vaccine was not offered. A facility pneumococcal conjugate vaccine consent form dated and signed by the resident and witnessed by a nurse (illegible signature) on 10/16/2023 documented the resident wished to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. A 10/16/2023 physician order documented pneumovax as indicated. The October, November and December 2023 and January and February 2024 Medication Administration Records did not include orders for the pneumococcal vaccine or administration of the vaccine. A 2/18/2024 at 7:44 PM licensed practical nurse #16 progress note documented the resident was on droplet precautions and was receiving antibiotics for pneumonia. A 2/21/2024 nurse practitioner #20 progress note documented the resident was seen for a routine follow up after they were treated for respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] (a respiratory virus) with superimposed pneumonia and was started on an antibiotic on 2/18/2024. The March 2024 medication administration record documented pneumococcal vaccine inject intramuscularly one time only, administer upon arrival from the pharmacy with a start date of 3/20/2024. On 3/23/2024 at 11:31 AM licensed practical nurse #14 documented with a code 9- other /see progress note. Licensed practical nurse #14's progress note documented pneumococcal vaccine was to be administered upon arrival from the pharmacy. During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 3:16 PM, Resident #215 stated they recalled consenting for the pneumococcal vaccine, and they always took any available vaccines. They were concerned about dying. They felt the pneumococcal vaccine would help them because they required oxygen every day and had a history of bronchitis. Resident #126 had diagnoses including dementia, heart disease, and history of pulmonary embolism (blood clot that blocks blood flow to the lung). The 11/15/2023 readmission Minimum Data Set documented the resident was cognitively intact, the pneumococcal vaccine was not up to date, and was not offered. A facility pneumococcal conjugate vaccine consent form dated and signed by the resident and witnessed by a nurse (illegible signature) on 9/27/2023 documented the resident wished to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. A facility pneumococcal conjugate vaccine consent form dated and signed by the resident's representative (Health Care Proxy) and witnessed by a nurse (illegible signature) on 11/9/2023 documented the resident wished to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. A physician order dated 11/9/2023 documented pneumococcal vaccine as indicated. The November, December 2023 and January, February 2024 medication administration record did not have documented orders for the pneumococcal vaccine or that it was administered. A 2/5/2024 nurse practitioner #15 progress note documented the resident had respiratory viral testing completed and was found to have underlying pneumonia and was treated with antibiotics. The March 2024 medication administration record documented pneumococcal vaccine inject intramuscularly one time only, administer upon arrival from the pharmacy with a start date of 3/20/2024. On 3/21/2024 at 12:04 AM registered nurse #3 documented 9- other/see progress note. Registered nurse #3's progress note documented the vaccine was on order and had not been delivered from the pharmacy. During an interview on 3/25/24 at 2:45 PM, Resident #126's spouse and health care proxy stated Resident #126 had pneumonia in January or February 2024. They wanted the pneumonia shot and could not recall signing a consent for the pneumonia vaccine. INTERVIEWS: During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 12:02 PM, licensed practical nurse/Infection Preventionist #5 stated the pneumococcal vaccine needed to be ordered. There were over 10 residents that had consents for pneumococcal vaccine but there were no vaccines available in the facility. There were issues with a vaccine shortage due to cost in October 2023. They spoke to the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal in January 2024 via electronic mail and again today via telephone and they were still working on contract pricing for the pneumococcal vaccines. During an additional interview on 3/22/2024 at 8:39 AM, licensed practical nurse/Infection Preventionist #5 stated they were responsible for all vaccines for staff and residents. They could not recall the exact date they ran out of the pneumococcal vaccine, but it was prior to September 2023. They had 45 residents with pneumococcal vaccine consents that did not receive the vaccine. During an interview on 3/25/24 at 11:08 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated the pneumococcal vaccine was not available for the residents. They had not received it from the pharmacy but were scheduled to receive it later this day. The Fiscal department rejected the cost of the vaccines, and the ball was dropped due to poor communication. They stated they were responsible for ordering the vaccine, but they could not approve the cost of anything. During a follow-up interview on 3/25/2024 at 11:10 AM, licensed practical nurse/Infection Preventionist #5 stated residents consented to vaccines and their immunization record was updated in their medical record. The vaccines were standing orders that were signed by the Medical Director. They ordered the vaccines on December 6, 2023, and were not able to get them due to the cost. Residents were more susceptible to pneumonia and could have negative health impacts due to their medical diagnoses. The vaccine was recommended for the residents. The pneumococcal vaccine could protect them but did not prevent the illness. During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 11:13 AM, Administrator #1 stated they had a new Deputy Administrator of Fiscal who made the request for the pneumococcal vaccinations, but the County could take a long time to approve anything. The Administrator stated they just approved the pneumococcal vaccines at a cost of $10,897.30 and it would be delivered from the pharmacy today. They stated nobody really knows what could happen if a resident did not receive the pneumococcal vaccination, and they had residents who were diagnosed with pneumonia. During a telephone interview on 3/25/2024 at 11:15 AM, the Medical Director stated the infection control nurse was responsible for keeping them up to date with resident vaccination rates. They were not aware there were several residents who consented to having the pneumonia vaccine and were not vaccinated. The staff did their part to order the vaccines, but the purchase order was not authorized due to the cost of the vaccine. They stated today the facility was in the process of getting 46 vaccines and the residents would receive their vaccines that day. Residents over the age of 65 had a higher risk of getting pneumonia and if not vaccinated, pneumonia could progress with complications that could require hospitalization. It was the residents' choice to be vaccinated and they should receive it if requested. During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 2:07 PM, Administrator #1 stated they did not have the exact details of when the vaccine purchase order was denied but thought it may have started in June of 2023. The Infection Preventionist submitted another purchase request in December 2023 and was told because the cost was over $10,000 it needed to go to the legislature and that could take 2 months. They stated the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal should have told the Infection Preventionist how to order the vaccine differently to keep the cost lower. The Medical Director was not made aware of this issue until today, 3/25/2024. The residents should have been provided with the pneumonia vaccine if they wanted it. During an interview on 03/25/24 2:38 PM, licensed practical nurse/Infection Preventionist #5 stated the last successful order was 6/6/2023. They expected if an order was not approved, they would be notified. They stated they called the fiscal department 3-4 times after initial email on 1/23/24 and was told the order was declined due to cost. During an interview on 3/25/24 at 3:17 PM, the Deputy Administrator for Fiscal Services stated nursing submitted the vaccine purchase request on 11/7/2023 via electronic mail. The problem was the request was over the $10,000 limit. It should have been ordered, but they were supposed to follow the financial rules of the county. They sent licensed practical nurse/Infection Preventionist #5 the listing of those groups the facility could order from in November and December of 2023. The last successful order of a pneumococcal vaccine was in 2023. They thought the purchase order date was 6/13/23 for 3 boxes. During an additional interview on 3/26/2024 at 11:05 AM, the Medical Director stated they assumed the vaccinations were being provided to the residents. Nursing staff obtained the consents from the residents to administer the vaccines and they assumed the vaccines were given. The residents over age [AGE] were at a 10 times higher risk of developing pneumonia. During an interview on 3/27/24 at 2:25 PM, the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal stated there was a hold on purchasing through the county for fiscal year end, 12/8/2023-1/8/2024. They were trying to find a vendor that would honor their price. The Administrator should get quotes from the established vendors, and then follow up to see if anyone would honor their price. They stated that the urgency of the lack of vaccines was not conveyed to accounting. They could have put in an emergency order like they did during COVID, but it was not presented as urgent. ____________________________________________________________________________ Immediate jeopardy was identified, and the facility Administrator was notified on 3/25/24 at 7:00 PM. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 3/27/2024 at 2:45 PM prior to survey exit based on the following corrective actions taken: -On 3/25/2024 on the evening shift, all 44 residents who had signed consent to receive the pneumonia vaccine were vaccinated. The facility reviewed their immunization and vaccination policies and made revisions. -On 3/26/2024, an outside consultant provided education about the federal requirements for the pneumonia vaccine. The education was attended by the Administrator, the Deputy Director of Fiscal Services, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services, and the Infection Preventionist. - Confirmation was made that all 44 residents that requested and consented to have the pneumonia vaccine had been vaccinated on 3/25/2024. - The Director of Nursing, Infection Preventionist, and staff educator provided education to all licensed nurses. - The education included the policy related to pneumonia vaccination, communication with a provider and obtaining medical orders for vaccines, communication with providers on vaccines that were ordered and were not available, the pneumonia vaccine order should be entered into the electronic record and once delivered administered timely, purchasing and ordering vaccines. Additional re-education focused on new admission related to pneumonia vaccine status and the signed declination with education for the resident who declined. A posttest was initiated to ensure retention of the training information. 88.1 % of the staff were successfully educated with a plan to educated employees that were not scheduled to work or out on leave to be educated prior to resuming work duties. - Future vaccine purchasing denials due to cost related issues would be reviewed by the Administrator and referred to the fiscal officer for further review and approval. - The Administrator and the Director of Nursing planned to conduct an audit and the results would be reviewed by their quality assurance and performance improvement committee for six months. 10NYCRR 415.19(a)(1-3)
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00314754, NY00319010, NY00320020, NY00327419, NY00331182, and NY00334923) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00314754, NY00319010, NY00320020, NY00327419, NY00331182, and NY00334923) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 4 of 10 residents (Residents #114, #174, #191, and #213) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #114, #191, and #213 were subjected to physical aggression and sexually abusive behaviors by Resident #174 and the facility failed to develop or implement strategic interventions for Resident #174 to protect other residents from victimization. Subsequently, Resident #174 pushed Resident #114 causing Resident #114 to sustain a hip fracture; Residents #174 and #213 were found in sexually inappropriate situations three times; and Resident #174 pushed Resident #191 causing them to hit their head against a wall causing an abrasion. This resulted in harm to Residents #191 and #114 that was not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: The facility policy Abuse Prevention modified 3/2019 documents the facility would not permit residents to be subjected to abuse by other residents. Residents will be provided with appropriate clinical care and treatment and will be cared for according to the individualized care plan. Incidents of resident-to-resident altercations must be reported to the Administrator and addressed by the interdisciplinary team members and care planned accordingly. In such instances the resident that is the perpetrator and all residents who may be vulnerable to the perpetrating resident must have their care documented with immediate safety action taken. The facility policy Behavior Protocol-Handling Problem Behaviors modified 2/2019 documents that all disciplines will implement appropriate strategies to eliminate problem behaviors which may cause emotional and physical problems to both residents and staff. Staff will document in the electronic medical record interventions which were used to attempt to eliminate the behavior, indicating if the interventions were successful. The attending physician/nurse practitioner will be consulted for further recommendations and/or interventions/orders. Resident #174 had diagnoses including frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder (dementia caused by damage to neurons in the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain), aphasia (difficulty expressing themself), and wandering. The 3/15/2023 Minimum Data Set documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and did not exhibit physical or verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others. The 9/5/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, verbal behaviors directed toward others for 1-3 of 7 days, other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others for 1-3 of 7 days, wandered for 1-3 of 7 days, was independent with most activities of daily living, received a daily antidepressant, and used a wander alarm. Resident #174's comprehensive care plan initiated 10/10/2022 and updated 2/27/2023 documented the resident had confusion, wandered, had potential to be verbally aggressive, liked to kiss peers on the forehead and rub back/shoulders, had dementia, had potential for physical aggressiveness, and had behavior problems. Interventions included remind of socially acceptable behaviors, invite to small groups, music in room, 1:1 supervision if needed, independent activity materials provided, walk, TV, care magazines, movies, assess for fall risk, wander risk tool at admission/quarterly/as needed, distract, redirect, wander detection device on right ankle, intervene immediately, encourage to visit peers in public areas, avoid taking inappropriate behaviors lightly, separate residents if sexually inappropriate behaviors noted, medications as ordered, remove from situation, and close door if masturbating. Resident #114 had diagnoses including impulsiveness, emotional lability (rapid, often exaggerated changes in mood), and aphasia (difficulty speaking). The 3/21/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment, did not exhibit behavioral symptoms, did not wander, and required supervision when walking in the corridor and locomotion on the unit. Resident #191 had diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and insomnia. The 6/1/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment, had physical and verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others for 1-3 of 7 days, wandered for 4-6 of 7 days, required supervision of 1 for walking in the corridor and locomotion on the unit, did not use mobility devices, and used a wander alarm daily. Resident #213 had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, restlessness and agitation, and wandering. The 11/15/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment, did not exhibit behavioral symptoms, did not wander, required partial/moderate assistance with walking, and did not use a wander alert device. Nursing progress notes for Resident # 174 documented: - from 1/9/2023 -2/19/2023, the resident exhibited aggressive behaviors including throwing items, slamming, and kicking their door, standing in the hall naked, wandering the unit, becoming impatient and agitated with other residents, swinging at staff, touching other residents, and allowing other residents to touch them, - on 1/20/2023 the resident was examined by the physician with a new order for Celexa (antidepressant). - on 2/24/2023 at 5:04 PM, staff witnessed Resident #174, and another resident enter Resident #174's room and close the door. Staff entered and witnessed the other resident rubbing Resident #174's genitals, both residents were fully clothed. The residents were separated, and Resident #174 was placed on 1:1 supervision, monitored for 72 hours, and the physician was notified. - on 2/27/2023 at 2:10 PM, the physician was updated on the resident's behaviors and a new order was to discontinue Celexa and start Prozac 20 milligrams daily for inappropriate sexual behaviors. - from 2/24/2023-3/1/2023, documented 1:1 supervision continued - on 3/1/2023 at 11:00 AM, 1:1 supervision was completed. Resident #174's comprehensive care plan was revised on 2/27/2023. Another resident was witnessed rubbing Resident #174's genitals over their pants, both residents were fully clothed. Interventions included avoid taking inappropriate behaviors lightly or dismissing as a fluke. Provide 1:1 supervision if indicated. A 3/2/2023 psychiatric nurse practitioner #21 progress note documented the resident was seen per request of staff for frontotemporal dementia with behaviors and sexually inappropriate behaviors. Staff reported sexually inappropriate behaviors of masturbating, and giving attention to other residents, including rubbing their backs. The resident had not touched anyone on private areas of the body. Otherwise, staff did not report any aggression. There was an episode where staff found the resident with a female in their room who was rubbing the resident's genitals over their pants, but both residents were fully clothed, and they were separated. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (antidepressants) can help manage behaviors associated with dementia. If sexually inappropriate behaviors continue, they would recommend starting Tagamet twice a day. The resident would be followed in 2-4 weeks. Nursing progress notes documented: -on 3/4/2023 at 9:43 PM, staff were watching the resident with females as the resident had been petting their hands all day. Staff made sure the resident was not taking anything further. - on 3/12/2023 at 1:08 PM, the resident was following another resident around attempting to play with their hair, at one point staff intervened with gentle direction. - on 3/15/2023 at 1:16 PM, the physician increased Prozac to 30 milligrams daily. - on 3/17/2023 at 2:19 PM, walking around trying to get another resident to go in their room. They proceeded to follow the resident around and was redirected back to their room. - from 3/18/2023-4/13/2023 episodes of slamming and hitting the door, throwing things in their room, and becoming agitated with other residents. A 4/5/2023 physician #18 progress note documented the resident had frontotemporal dementia with negative behaviors and poor impulse control. The increased dose of Prozac would be continued. The resident was definitely doing better according to aides with regards to negative behaviors and mood lability. A 4/14/2023 Accident/Incident Report for Resident #174 completed by registered nurse Unit Manager #24 documented at 7:00 AM, staff heard a thud and found Resident #114 on the floor against the closet of Resident #174's room. Resident #174 was standing near Resident #114 and stated they pushed Resident #114 because they were in their room. Immediate interventions included registered nurse assessment and aggressive behavior monitoring for 72 hours. A 4/14/2023 Accident/Incident Report for Resident #114 completed by Registered Nurse Unit Manager #24 documented at 7:00 AM, Resident #114 was found in Resident #174's room on the floor. Resident #114 stated Resident #174 pushed them. Neuro checks were at baseline, no injury to head, moving all extremities, and without pain. Transferred with assistance of 2 and resident complained of left hip/leg pain once weight bearing. The resident was transported to bed in a wheelchair and was awaiting transport to hospital for evaluation. A 4/14/2023 at 12:44 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #24's progress note documented they called the hospital to check on the status of Resident #114 and was told the resident had a left hip fracture and was waiting for orthopedics. Resident #114's comprehensive care plan initiated 8/23/2022 documented the resident had potential to be physically aggressive related to anger at placement may strike at others. Interventions included to intervene when agitated before escalation and guide away from source of distress. A 4/14/2023 at 2:36 PM, social worker #26 progress note documented they spoke to Resident #174 following the incident with their peer. The resident reported they pushed Resident #114 out of their room. Resident #174 was reminded to ask staff for help if they were bothered or concerned. Resident #174's 4/14/2023 updated comprehensive care plan documented the resident had potential for physical aggressiveness and pushed a peer who wandered into their room causing a fall. Interventions included move peers out of harm's way, remind resident they could cause harm, privacy curtain on doorway, stop sign across door to prevent peers from entering room, may close door for privacy and to keep peers from entering room. Resident #114's comprehensive care plan initiated 4/14/2023 documented the resident had potential to be a victim of abuse related to another resident's intrusive behavior. Resident was found on the floor of Resident #174's room. Interventions included provide environmental barriers to ensure safety-stop sign placed in doorway of Resident #174 to deter Resident #114 from entering. A 4/15/2023 physician #18 progress note documented Resident #174 had aggressive behaviors and poor impulse control, at times. The resident was more mellow with increased dose of Prozac. The plan was to continue the present dose of Prozac 30 milligrams daily and the resident was doing better with negative behaviors and mood lability. A 5/10/2023 physician #18 progress note documented the resident had occasional issues with poor impulse control, verbally and physically. The resident was not perceived as a danger to staff or others. The increase in Prozac seemed to have helped. Nursing notes for Resident #174 documented: - on 5/10/223 at 3:16 PM, the resident was redirected by staff for trying to remove other residents from their room. The resident was reminded to seek staff assistance. The stop sign in doorway was replaced as the resident kept removing and placing it in their closet. - on 5/18/2023 at 10:22 PM the resident was observed trying to kiss another resident on the mouth. Typically, the resident would kiss on the cheek. - on 5/28/2023 at 9:50 PM, the resident became agitated with another resident when they took the stuffed animals they were playing with. Resident #174 followed the resident and raised their arms toward them, but staff quickly intervened and separated the residents. - on 5/30/2023 at 3:14 PM the resident threw a stuffed animal at another resident A 7/4/2023 Accident/Incident Report completed by illegible name and title documented at 7:15 PM, Resident #191 was in Resident #174's room. Resident #174 was telling Resident #191 to leave the room. Resident #191 left the room and Resident #174 pushed Resident #191 on the upper back, causing Resident #191 to shuffle forward. Resident #191 did not fall. Resident #191 was assessed without injury and redirected away from Resident #174. Resident #191 was redirected to their room without further issues. Both residents would be monitored for a minimum of 72 hours for signs of fearfulness or change in behavior. Resident #191 would be monitored for a minimum of 72 hours for aggressive behavior. The plan of care was followed. Resident #191's care plan was updated on 7/4/2023 to include the resident was subject to physical aggression from peers. Interventions included resident would be free of physical aggression by peers. The care plan did not identify new interventions to ensure the resident was free from aggression by peers. Resident #174's care plan was revised on 7/4/2023 to include the resident had potential to be physically aggressive (initiated 2/27/2023) and pushed a peer up against the wall. There were no additional documented interventions. The 7/7/2023 physician #18 progress note documented Resident #174 had their own room and occasionally had negative behaviors with other residents wandering into their room. Staff did their best to avoid the situation. Resident #174 was usually peaceful but became agitated when others wandered into their space. A gradual dose reduction of medication was not currently indicated. Nursing notes for Resident #174 documented: - on 7/27/2023 at 9:17 PM the resident attempted to hit another resident and was redirected. - on 8/4/2023 at 10:46 PM the resident kept throwing a book across the room and ripping out pages. When asked by staff to go to their room they started slamming and kicking the door and kicked a staff in the legs. - on 8/7/2023 psychiatric nurse practitioner #21 was updated on the resident's aggressive behavior and ordered gabapentin 100 milligrams three times daily for agitation. - No negative behaviors were documented from 8/8/2023-8/31/2023. - on 9/1/2023 at 10:32 PM the resident was yelling at another resident, was asked to go to their room, and began kicking the door of their room. - on 9/11/2023 at 7:40 PM the resident had a verbal altercation with another resident. - on 10/5/2023 at 6:31 AM, note states, at 1:30 AM the resident was sitting next to a female resident who was sleeping. The resident attempted to place their hands inside of the female resident's inner thigh. A 10/9/2023 Accident/Incident Report completed by Registered Nurse Unit Manager #24 documented at 3:15 PM Resident #191 was witnessed in Resident #174's room falling to the floor, hitting the right side of their head on the wall as they fell. Resident #174 was standing over Resident #191 then walking away. Resident #191 was crying and would not give a statement. The nurse practitioner examined Resident #191. The resident had a small abrasion on the right ear that required treatment. The resident was wandering per usual shortly thereafter. The care plan was followed, and the plan was to monitor for 72 hours. An unsigned narrative included with the report documented Resident #174 stated they pushed Resident #191 because they were in their room. Both residents would be monitored for a minimum of 72 hours for signs of fearfulness, change in behavior, and aggression. Resident #174 was placed on aggressive behavior charting for a minimum of 72 hours. Resident #191's care plan was revised to include pushed by peer on 10/9/2023. There were no documented revised interventions to ensure the resident remained free of accident hazards. Resident #174's care plan was revised to include they pushed their peer on 10/9/2023. There were no documented revised interventions to protect other residents from aggressive behaviors. On 11/3/2023 at 9:54 PM the resident was reported to be standing over a peer while sleeping and was redirected. The 11/8/2023 nurse practitioner #20 progress note documented Resident #174 could be easily irritable and agitated with staff and other residents. The resident was currently on gabapentin and Prozac. Typically, the resident was easily redirected. The plan was to continue gabapentin and Prozac and non-pharmaceutical interventions. No gradual dose reduction of medication was indicated. A 12/10/2023 Accident/Incident Report completed by illegible name and title documented at 3:45 PM the Supervisor and unit nurse notified them Resident #213 was observed in the dining room sitting on Resident #174's lap. Resident #174 was fondling Resident #213's breasts. The residents were separated. There were no signs of physical or emotional trauma. The included unsigned narrative documented Resident #174 had demonstrated physical behaviors directed toward others as evidence by masturbating with their door open, mutual touching of genitals, had potential to be physically aggressive, went into other resident's rooms, and was exit seeking. Both residents would be monitored for a minimum of 72 hours for any change in behaviors, fearfulness, or aggression. Resident #213's care plan initiated 12/12/2023 documented the resident had the potential for being a victim of abuse related to another resident's behavior, inappropriate closeness, and intrusive behavior. Interventions included redirect resident away from male peers with known history of sexually inappropriate behavior, discourage from rubbing and kissing peers, encourage, and praise appropriate interactions with peers, and encourage attendance at activities to prevent boredom. Resident #174's care plan was revised on 12/10/2023 to include resident was noted rubbing Resident #213 on the outside of their shirt while sitting on their lap. There were no revised interventions to protect other residents from inappropriate behaviors. A nursing progress noted dated 12/11/2023 at 3:31 PM document Resident #174 was agitated. The resident was given space and left alone to calm down. The resident went to their room and returned for breakfast. The resident was seen touching a peer and staff intervened. The 1/3/2024 physician #19 progress note documented Resident #174 had increased outbursts and behaviors with staff and other residents. Staff had stated they have not noted any changes in resident behaviors that would be detrimental. The resident was easily redirected and able to maintain independence. The resident had good behavioral control with Prozac 10 milligrams daily and gabapentin 100 milligrams three times a day for agitation. The resident followed directions and was primarily aphasic (did not speak clearly). Aggressive behaviors had been controlled with current medication dosages. Nursing staff had no concerns with overall behaviors. An Accident/Incident Report dated 2/20/2024 completed by illegible registered nurse documented at 2:15 PM Resident #174 was found with a peer laying across them fully clothed on Resident #174's bed. Resident #174's hand was on the resident's groin. Staff immediately separated the residents. Immediate interventions included registered nurse assessment, separation of the residents, and behavior forms were initiated. A nursing note dated 2/22/2024 at 10:34 AM documented Resident #174 was rubbing a couple of residents' knees while sitting on the couch in the TV area. The residents were asleep on the couch. A nursing note dated 2/24/2024 at 9:51 PM documented Resident #174 was lying in their bed with another resident who was fully clothed. Resident #174 had their pants down with an erect penis. The residents were separated. Resident #174 was placed on 30-minute safety checks. An Accident/Incident Report dated 2/24/2023 at 8:15 PM completed by illegible licensed practical nurse documented they were called to the unit for witnessed sexually inappropriate behavior. Resident #213 was in Resident #174's room. Resident #174 had their pants down with an erect penis. The residents were separated immediately, and Resident #213 denied pain or discomfort. Immediate interventions included the residents were separated, 15-minute checks, registered nurse assessment and transfer to appropriate unit when available (did not indicate which resident would be transferred). There was no documented evidence Resident #174's comprehensive care plan was revised to include interventions to keep other resident's safe from aggression and sexual contact by Resident #174. A nursing progress note dated 2/25/2024 at 9:24 PM documented the resident exited the dining room with their pants halfway down and had an erection. At 9:35 PM the resident was found standing in another resident's room while the other resident was sleeping. The other resident's blanket was pulled down and their brief was exposed. Resident #174 was redirected and encouraged not to go in other's rooms. During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 9:47 AM, certified nurse aide #22 stated for a resident-to-resident incident, staff tried to keep them away from each other post incident. They received dementia training about 3 months ago and were taught to redirect using various methods, try to deescalate the situation, remove the residents from the situation, and walk with the residents. Those techniques were also used to prevent residents from wandering into others' rooms. The facility had used stop signs in the past, but the facility stopped using them on the dementia unit. The aide did not know why the stop sign usage stopped. Resident specific interventions were listed on a resident's care instructions. The dementia unit had multiple residents that wandered. Resident #174 was sexually inappropriate at times and the facility implemented a door sensor in the room doorway about 3 weeks ago. The aide stated that Resident #114 was wandering the unit the morning of 4/14/2023. The aide was providing care to another resident on 4/14/2023 when they heard a thud in Resident #174's room, entered the room, saw Resident #114's feet as they were leaning against the wall by the closet, and Resident #114 was moaning. Resident #174 stepped out of the room after Resident #114 stated Resident #174 pushed them and left the room. There was no stop sign on the door prior to the incident. Resident #174 had not been aggressive with any residents prior to that incident. Resident #174 usually exited their room to get a staff member to deal with the situation. Staff tried to supervise the resident's room at least every 20-30 minutes. Staff used a 1:1 intervention frequently on the unit. Resident #174 could be sexual and had a door sensor on their room. Resident #213 also had sexual behaviors and they were moved for that reason. When the door sensor alarm went off, they checked to see if another resident went into Resident #174's room. The door sensor was implemented about a month ago. They tried to keep eye on the door and check but there were no set times and tried every 20-30 minutes. During an interview on 3/21/2024 at 12:11 PM, certified nurse aide #23 stated resident-specific interventions were documented in the care instructions. The main interventions used were reapproach, redirect, offer food/fluids, and intervene. Resident #191 was frequently in other residents' spaces and wandered the unit. Staff tried to keep a close eye on residents but that depended on staffing numbers. Resident #174 was a younger resident who still had a lot of sexual urges/needs. Prior to putting a door sensor on Resident #174's room door recently, staff frequently rounded the unit and tried to keep an eye on their room. Resident #174 only lashed out if certain residents went into their room. Resident #174's room door was usually kept closed and they previously had a stop sign across the doorway. The aide did not know what happened to it. Resident #213 was moved off the unit as they had liked to get intimate with male residents, particularly Resident #174. During an interview on 3/21/2024 at 1:10 PM, Registered Nurse Manager #24 stated there were independent activities kept on the dementia unit to use as distraction for some residents. Unit staff tried to keep known aggressive residents away from residents they tended to target. Staff had tried stop signs and curtains as deterrents from wanderers going into others' rooms. The residents took them down. Staff checked on each resident at least every hour. Door sensors were also implemented. Resident #174 had behaviors of verbal and physical aggression and was sexually inappropriate at times. The resident attended a lot of supervised activities. Resident #174 did not like other residents in their room and pushed them when they entered. Resident #174 removed barriers that staff put across their doorway to deter others from entering. Staff encouraged Resident #174's door to be closed until Resident #213 was found in the room in inappropriate manners. Resident #114 sustained a fractured hip when Resident #174 pushed them in their room. Resident #174 admitted to pushing the resident. The Manager thought that was the first time Resident #174 was physically aggressive with another resident. Staff attempted to supervise Resident #174 and their room but could not always be in the hallways as they had to provide resident care. Resident #174 now had a door sensor to alert staff that someone was going in or out of their room. Resident #174 was impulsive in the moment and quickly reverted to calmness post incident. Behavioral interventions were discussed as needed as an interdisciplinary team during morning reports. During an interview on 3/21/2024 at 3:53 PM, the Director of Nursing stated when there were resident-to-resident interactions on the dementia unit, they expected staff to use a lot of activities, keep residents in sight as much possible, engage the resident, and constant rounds when providing care. Staff were expected to redirect each resident before an incident could occur. Alarms were to alert staff of a potential situation and nurses were usually in the hallway giving medications. Staff were not able to be in the hallway at all times. Behavioral interventions were in the care plan and care instructions. Resident #114 broke their hip when they entered Resident #174's room and was pushed. That could have been prevented if staff saw Resident #114 ambulating on the unit and enter the room. Resident #191 sustained an abrasion when they were pushed and hit their head while in Resident #174's room. The incidents with Resident #174 and Resident #213 could have been prevented if staff saw them together prior to being inappropriate. In each instance, the residents were placed on hourly checks for 72 hours. Resident #213 was moved to a different unit to prevent reoccurrences. During an interview on 3/21/2024 at 4:41 PM, physician #4 stated Resident #114 sustained harm of a fractured hip and Resident #191 sustained an abrasion when they were pushed by Resident #174. 10 NYCRR 483.25(d)
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

Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00328316) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility did not ensure residents received treatmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00328316) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #223) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #223 had an order for a vacuum assisted closure device (a device that uses negative pressure for wound healing) and the device was observed unplugged and not functioning. Findings include: The facility policy titled Wounds-Nursing care of a V.A.C. (vacuum assisted closure) Pump last modified 1/9/2019 documented the vacuum assisted closure device should always be in optimum working order while being used to heal a resident. During each shift, the pump should be checked to ensure it was on. If unable to maintain integrity of the system after 30 minutes, contact the Wound Care Nurse. Resident #223 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including surgical aftercare following surgery on the skin and subcutaneous tissue and unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall. The 1/3/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, dependent for personal hygiene, had a surgical wound, and received surgical wound care. A 12/27/2023 hospital discharge summary documented the resident had a panniculectomy (removal of abdominal excess skin and fat tissue). A wound vacuum assisted closure device was placed. The resident subsequently was found to have necrotic (dead) foul smelling tissue and the wound was debrided (removal of dead tissue) and washed out. The wound culture was positive for the presence of several bacteria. The wound was healing well, and the resident was cleared for discharge. Discharge instructions documented dressing change as needed for vacuum assisted closure device. A 12/27/2023 at 2:16 PM registered nurse #30 initial nursing note documented the resident had an abdominal wound following necrosis at the site of the panniculectomy with a wound vac (vacuum assisted closure device). A 12/27/2023 facility admission order documented cleanse 3 abdominal wounds with normal saline, skin prep to surrounding skin, pack tunneling with white foam, cover wound beds with black foam, then transparent cover, bridge together with suction off of wound bed, then cover with a track pad, place negative pressure wound therapy with settings at 125 millimeters of mercury continuously every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and as needed. Monitor placement, suction/settings 125 millimeters of mercury, cannister every shift. The comprehensive care plan, initiated 12/27/2023, documented the resident had impaired skin integrity due to necrosis at the site of the panniculectomy with a wound vacuum assisted closure device. Interventions included monitor every shift for signs and symptoms of infection, monitor wound vacuum assisted closure device functioning, and dressing changes per physician order. A 2/12/2024 updated physician order documented cleanse mid abdominal wound with normal saline, apply skin prep (a skin protectant) to surrounding skin, pack tunnelling with white foam, cover wound beds with black foam, then transparent, bridge together with suction off the wound bed, then cover with a track pad, place negative pressure wound therapy (vacuum assisted closure device) with setting at 125 milligrams continuously. Change every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and as needed. A 2/27/2024 physician #4 progress note documented the resident had a wound in the lower abdominal area. The resident had been treated with intravenous antibiotics for an extended duration due to wound infection. The resident was not currently on antibiotics. The wound vacuum assisted closure device was in place. Staff were spoken to in detail about the wound care treatment plan. A 3/27/2024 at 3:45 PM registered nurse #30 nursing progress note documented the resident was sent to the emergency department after a fall. A 3/27/2024 at 11:30 PM registered nurse #34 progress note documented the resident returned from the emergency department. There was no documented evidence the resident was assessed, or the wound vacuum assisted closure device was in place and functioning upon return from the hospital. The 3/1/20424-3/31/2024 medication and treatment administration records did not include wound vacuum assisted closure device orders for a dressing or for monitoring of the device. During an observation and interview on 3/28/24 at 8:46 AM, the resident was lying in bed in a gown, covered with blankets. The resident stated they fell yesterday, went to the hospital, and got back around 11:00 PM. The resident pulled back their blankets to expose the wound vacuum assisted closure device tubing and apologized for the odor as the canister gets full. The device was in the top drawer of the bedside stand. The device screen was dark and silent, the canister contained a trace amount (less than 30 milliliters) of dark red/yellow drainage, and the power cord was not plugged into an electrical outlet. During an observation on 3/28/2024 at 10:19 AM, the resident was lying on their back in bed. They returned from the hospital last night and was assisted into bed and the wound vacuum assisted closure device was placed in the top drawer of their bedside stand. They stated the nurses did not check it, just when they changed the dressing. They stated they needed the dressing done today because they were at the hospital yesterday and it was not done. The top drawer of the bedside stand contained the wound vacuum assisted closure device. The device was off, and the screen was dark with no sound emitting from machine. The device was not plugged into an electrical outlet. There was a scant amount dark red and yellow drainage in the canister. The occupational therapist entered the room with an ice pack and therapy equipment at 10:40 AM. During an observation and interview on 3/28/24 at 11:48 AM the resident was lying in bed with the wound vacuum assisted closure device on. There was thin red serosanguinous (red tinged fluid) liquid visible in the tubing. The screen display read 125 milligrams of mercury. Certified nurse aide #35 stated at the time of the observation the wound vacuum assisted closure device care was not done by the certified nurse aides. They stated they would unplug the cord and place the unit on the back of the chair when they transported the resident and plugged it in if it beeped for a low battery, but otherwise they did not touch it. During an interview on 3/28/24 at 11:55 AM, licensed practical nurse #36 stated they administered the resident's medications at around 8:00 AM that morning and they could see fluid movement in the tubing of the wound vacuum assisted closure device. They did not see anything wrong with the tubing or the machine, so they signed off on it in the treatment administration record. If there was something wrong with the machine, they would notify a registered nurse as licensed practical nurses did not do the treatment or handle the intricate controls of the device. During an interview on 3/28/24 12:07 PM occupational therapist #37 stated the resident asked them if the wound vacuum assisted closure device was working when they entered their room earlier and they went and got registered nurse #30 who came right in and assessed the unit and the resident. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 12:09 PM registered nurse #30 stated occupational therapist #37 alerted them the resident had concerns with their wound vacuum assisted closure device. They assessed the wound vacuum assisted closure device and it was off, so they turned it on. They did not know how long it had been off. When they turned it on and it was working as ordered, so they had no concerns. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 1:39 PM licensed practical nurse #38 stated if the wound vacuum assisted closure device was off it should be immediately assessed, and the dressing should be changed. The physician should be notified it was off especially because they did not know how long it was off. The provider should be contacted for guidance prior to just turning the device back on as it was ordered to run continuously. Healing could be delayed, and bacteria build up could cause an infection. If the wound vacuum assisted closure device was off there should have been a wet to dry dressing applied until the ordered treatment could be completed by qualified staff. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 1:47 PM registered nurse #39 stated they were not aware the wound vacuum assisted closure device was off or how long it was off. The device should not just be turned back on without knowing how long it was off. The machine lost suction when it was off, and bacteria could develop in the dressing from the fluid back up. The nurse and medical should be notified it was off. The purpose of the device was to draw drainage away from the wound to promote healing. During a treatment observation on 3/28/24 at 1:59 PM, registered nurse #30 removed the resident's wound vacuum assisted closure device foam dressing. There was moderate serosanguinous wound drainage. The wound was pink and moist. The edges of the wound were in various stages of healing and were clean, dry, and light pink. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 4:05 PM nurse practitioner #40 stated licensed practical nurse #30 called them around 2:00 PM this day and stated that the resident's wound vacuum assisted closure device was off and they were unsure how long it had been off. They stated the wound vacuum assisted closure device drained the fluid away from the wound to allow for wound healing. The wound vacuum assisted closure device should not be turned off until it was time for a dressing change. If the device remained off, they were concerned for a delay in the wound healing process. They stated the device should not have been turned back on once it was found to be off. 10NYCRR 415.12
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024 -3/29/2024, the facilit...

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 3/18/2024 -3/29/2024, the facility did not ensure parenteral fluids (delivery of fluid or medication through a vein) were administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #207) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #207 had an intravenous access device, the physician orders did not include the length of the external catheter or directions for measuring the catheter (to ensure it did not migrate or dislodge); licensed nurses did not know the type of the catheter the resident had; documentation of catheter care was inconsistent; and the care plan did not include daily care and monitoring of the device. Additionally, deficiencies related to intravenous therapy were identified in the areas of Significant Medication Errors (F760), and Competent Nursing Staff (F726). Findings include: The facility policy Intravenous Therapy - Monitoring and General Protocols revised 8/24/2023 documents all midline catheters will be evaluated for length of the external catheter and mid-arm circumference upon admission, and as needed. Documentation of measurements in [centimeters] will be in the electronic treatment administration record. Peripheral [intravenous] site needs to be changed when clinically indicated, every 7 days, or as ordered by the physician. A new sterile cap will be applied to the end of tubing and needleless connector when not in use. The facility policy Intravenous - Dressing Change for Central Vascular Access Devices and Midline Peripheral Catheter revised 8/23/2023 documents measure/note length of external catheter for all midlines, measure in [centimeters]. Measure from the hub of the catheter to insertion site of the catheter. Compare measurement to documented length of external catheter at time of insertion and/or most recent measurement. If there is a difference in measurements of the external catheter, contact physician to obtain order for chest x-ray to confirm the current tip location. Document measurements and procedures in the electronic treatment administration record; document observation and tolerance to the procedure in the progress notes. Resident #207 had diagnoses including pneumonia and sepsis (system wide infection). The 2/3/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, required maximum assistance for activities of daily living, did not receive intravenous medications, and did not have intravenous access including peripheral, midline, or central lines. The 3/19/2024 discharge Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had a peripheral intravenous access and received intravenous antibiotics on admission and at discharge. The 3/13/2024 hospital discharge summary documented the resident was being discharged and would continue intravenous antibiotic therapy with ceftriaxone 2 grams daily until 3/22/2024. The resident was being discharged with an AccuCath (an intravenous catheter) given their chronic kidney disease stage an intravenous peripherally inserted central catheter was indicated. The 3/13/2024 physician orders documented: - AccuCath in left forearm for intravenous antibiotics, monitor for signs and symptoms of infection every shift - change midline dressing weekly on Thursday with [special protective covering], measure line length weekly. - Sodium chloride flush intravenous solution 0.9%, intravenously use 10 milliliters every shift to maintain intravenous patency for 9 days. - Arm circumference 10 centimeters above insertions site measured every Thursday. The comprehensive care plan initiated 3/11/2024 and revised 3/13/2024 documented the resident had a history of pneumonia. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered. A revision on 3/13/2024 documented a complicated urinary tract infection with interventions of ceftriaxone 2 grams (antibiotic) for 9 days, encourage fluids, administer antibiotic, monitor intake and output, monitor labs and diagnostics. A revision on 3/18/2024 documented the resident had respiratory syncytial virus (respiratory disease) with interventions including use of antibiotics. The comprehensive care plan did not include the use of intravenous fluids, intravenous medications, or the presence of an active intravenous access device. The 3/13/2024 health status note by licensed practical nurse #48 documented the resident was readmitted to the facility with a diagnosis of sepsis (systemic infection) secondary to urinary tract infection. The peripheral intravenous access device in the left forearm was patent and working and there were no signs or symptoms of infection at the insertion site. Intravenous ceftriaxone 2 grams was administered and was tolerated well. There was no documented evidence of a measurement of the external catheter length. The 3/14/2024 nurse practitioner #40 re-admission progress note documented the resident was hospitalized from [DATE] through 3/14/2024 with diagnoses of upper gastrointestinal bleed, acute kidney injury, and sepsis pneumonia. The infection specialist recommended ceftriaxone 2 grams intravenously for 2 weeks. The resident was discharged back to the facility to continue the intravenous ceftriaxone 2 grams for sepsis pneumonia. The 3/14/2024 registered nurse #49 progress note documented the peripheral intravenous access device in the left forearm was patent and working, and there were no signs and symptoms of infection at the insertion site. There was no documented evidence of a measurement of the external catheter length. The 3/2024 Medication Administration Record documented: - Change midline dressing weekly on Thursdays with antiseptic dressing, and measure line length weekly. On 3/14/2024 licensed practical nurse #29 documented 9. The documented 9 was associated with the 3/14/2024 progress note by licensed practical nurse #29's documentation of not applicable. - Measure arm circumference 10 centimeters above insertion site. On 3/14/2024 licensed practical nurse #29 documented 9. The documented 9 was associated with the 3/14/2024 progress note by licensed practical nurse #29's documentation of not applicable. - Intravenous catheter in left forearm, monitor for signs and symptoms of infection every shift and was documented as completed on every shift. The medication administration record did not include a reference measurement of the midline catheter. During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 10:55 AM, licensed practice nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 stated Resident #207 had specific intravenous access device supplies for the maintenance of their midline catheter with infused green caps (disinfecting cap that is placed at the end of a vascular access device, intended to reduce the risk for infection) for infection control. The green caps went on the intravenous tubing and the intravenous hub when disconnected. During a follow up interview on 3/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, the licensed practical nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 stated licensed practical nurses with the specific intravenous course training were allowed to handle and administer medications through midline catheters as the end of the venous access device did not extend past the resident's shoulder. Resident #207's intravenous catheter did not go past the shoulder, which meant it was in the licensed practical nurse's scope of practice to administer medications through the device. During an interview on 3/21/2024 at 5:09 PM, licensed practical nurse #31 stated they were not aware that Resident #207 had a midline catheter as their intravenous access device, as they could not manage midline catheters. The additional orders for changing the dressing, measuring the catheter, and the circumference of the arm was not done by a licensed practice nurse. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 9:10 AM, registered nurse #30 stated they had accessed Resident #207's intravenous access device, and it was either a peripherally inserted central catheter or a midline catheter. The venous access device could be visually identified by the external purple hubs where the medication tubing could be connected, a standard peripheral intravenous access device did not have those hubs. Resident #207 had purple hubs on their catheter. They stated if they signed the medication administration record stating they flushed the catheter then they did it. They recalled going into the resident's room and flushing a midline catheter. Upon reviewing the medication administration record to date, the resident's midline catheter had not been measured, their arm circumference was not measured, and the dressing had not been changed since their readmission. Once the intravenous infusion was completed the catheter would be flushed and a green cap applied on the purple hub. The tubing should never be without a cap. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 10:18 AM, licensed practical nurse #29 stated Resident #207 had a standard peripheral intravenous access device. A type of intravenous catheter was the securing device. A midline catheter would be higher up on the arm; the resident's peripheral intravenous device was on the forearm. They could visually tell the difference between a peripheral device and a midline based on where it was located on the body. The gauge of the peripheral device should be in the orders. The licensed practical nurse was unable to find any documentation related to the intravenous device. The hospital discharge was 3/13/2024, therefore they assumed the intravenous insertion date was 3/13/2024. The resident had orders related to a midline catheter that was communicated was going to be discontinued because the resident did not have a midline catheter. They did not speak to a provider regarding the orders. They documented the orders were not applicable. Upon the resident's readmission, there were no assessments completed by a registered nurse, except for their wounds. Peripheral devices could be kept in place safely for at least 14 days, probably longer. The importance of monitoring an intravenous site was to watch for infection and infiltration. There was no information in the electronic medical record regarding the intravenous access device insertion date, gauge, or length of external catheter. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 11:40 AM, licensed practical nurse #17 stated they physically saw Resident #207's intravenous access device. The stat lock (a peripherally inserted central catheter stabilization device, holds the intravenous device in place) was blue in color. The total length of the catheter was 36 centimeters total, and the hospital did not provide the external catheter length. The external length was supposed to be measured on 3/14/2024. The dressing for the intravenous device was supposed to be changed on 3/14/2024. A registered nurse needed to change the dressing, measure the external catheter, and measure 10 centimeters above the site, and measure the circumference of the resident's arm. Licensed practical nurse #48 observed the intravenous site when Resident #207 came back from the hospital. The nursing assessment in the electronic health record should be done by a registered nurse. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 1:54 PM, licensed practical nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 stated they were responsible for initiating and updating residents' care plans. The Clinical Care Coordinators could initiate care plans. The resident had a care plan for the antibiotic for their urinary tract infection, but not the intravenous device. Resident #207 had their peripheral intravenous access device inserted on 3/11/2024. Resident #207 had their dressing change ordered once a week due to the antiseptic dressing. The dressing was ordered to be changed on 3/14/2024, but there was no progress note, so they were not sure why it was not completed. If the dressing was not changed the provider should be notified to get a new date and time. When the resident was readmitted licensed practical nurse #32 stated they did the admission assessment and initial progress note. The resident was a readmission, so nothing changed for them. Physical assessments could be done by a licensed practical nurse, but a registered nurse had to assess the wounds and skin. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 4:16 PM, nurse practitioner #40 stated that the nurses should have called them for clarification of the intravenous access device. Nurse practitioner #40 was not sure if the resident had a midline or central line catheter device. There was a visual difference between a peripheral device and midline device. If the resident was planned for 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics it would likely have been a midline or a peripherally inserted central catheter. The resident was ordered for dressing changes weekly, and they should have done. If the dressing changes were not completed as ordered, it would put the resident at risk for infection. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 4:47 PM, licensed practical nurse #48 stated they had completed the required intravenous course that allowed them to access intravenous devices. Resident #207 had an intravenous catheter which was a peripheral device. They thought that licensed practical nurse #32 called the hospital to verify the type of device but could not recall the date that was completed. The dressing change to the intravenous site should have been changed. If there was a question about the type of venous access device, the order should have been clarified. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:18 AM, the Medical Director stated if the nursing staff was not sure if the resident had a peripheral intravenous device or a midline device, they expected to be notified for clarification. If a dressing change was ordered for an intravenous device, it should have been completed. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:47 AM, the Director of Nursing stated that Clinical Care Coordinators of the units were responsible for initiating and updating care plans. The only registered nurses that were assigned a unit were the Clinical Care Coordinators, however, many of the Clinical Care Coordinators were licensed practical nurses. The Assistant Director of Nursing oversaw all the units in the facility and did wound staging and assessments. Licensed practical nurses could not assess; they could observe and document. Licensed practical nurses could initiate care plans. There was no documentation indicating that a registered nurse assessed Resident #207's intravenous access device. The licensed practical nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 did the complete body systems assessment upon Resident #207's return from the hospital. There was no documentation that a registered nurse followed up on the licensed practical nurse's assessment document. If the intravenous device was a peripheral device, the orders for the midline should have been clarified. If the device was a midline catheter, the external catheter should have been measured and documented. If the device was a peripheral catheter, the gauge needle should have been documented. For both types of intravenous devices, there should have been a note in the medical record about the insertion date. Peripheral devices needed to be changed based on the facility policy or a specific physician's order. The Director of Nursing stated they thought the policy was that peripheral devices had to be changed after 3 days. If there was no documentation, there was no confirmation if anyone clarified whether Resident #207 had a midline or a peripheral device. 10 NYCRR 415.12(k)(2)
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00328316) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00328316) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #207) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #207 was given an incomplete dose of an intravenous antibiotic, 1 late administration of an intravenous antibiotic, and the intravenous access site was not flushed as ordered. Additionally, deficiencies in quality of care related to parenteral/intravenous fluids, and competent nurse staffing were identified in the areas of Parenteral/IV fluids (F694), and Competent Nursing Staff (F726). Findings include: The facility policy Medication Administration System revised 11/10/2020 documented all medication orders are checked against the [electronic medication administration record] and the physician's order in the electronic medical record before administering any drugs the first time. A nurse is responsible for questioning a drug order, if, in their judgment the order is in error or if the order is not legible. At the end of each period of passing medication, the nurse would review the electronic medication administration record for accuracy and completeness, any blank spaces found constitutes a medication error. Drug errors were to be reported immediately to the nursing supervisor and attending physician. The facility policy Intravenous Therapy - Monitoring and General Protocols revised 8/24/2024 documented all physician orders for intravenous therapy would include the route; specific fluid; medication; flush solution, including amount and frequency; volume/flow rate for [intravenous] therapy; and total length of time. Rates will include the amount to be infused per column to time. A new sterile cap was applied to the end of tubing and needleless connector when not in use. All peripheral lines were to be flushed per physician orders and documented in the electronic medication administration record. Resident #207 had diagnoses including pneumonia and sepsis. The 3/19/2024 discharge Minimum Data Set documented the resident was receiving intravenous antibiotics; had peripheral intravenous access upon this admission and at discharge. The comprehensive care plan initiated 3/11/2024 and revised 3/13/2024 documented a history of pneumonia. Interventions included administer medication as ordered, and provide oxygen as needed. The comprehensive care plan revised 3/13/2024 documented a complicated urinary tract infection. The interventions included ceftriaxone 2 grams (antibiotic, did not specify intravenous or oral) for 9 days, encourage fluids, administer antibiotic, monitor intake and output, monitor labs and diagnostics. The comprehensive care plan revised 3/18/2024 documented respiratory syncytial virus (respiratory disease affecting the lungs). The interventions included use of antibiotics. There was no comprehensive care plan for the use of intravenous fluids, intravenous medications, or active intravenous access device. The 3/13/2024 nurse practitioner #15's order documented: - ceftriaxone sodium 2 grams, intravenously every 24 hours for infection/sepsis/urinary tract infection for 9 days at 8:00 PM with sodium chloride flush intravenously before and after antibiotic administration. - sodium chloride flush intravenous solution 0.9%, intravenously use 10 milliliters every shift to maintain intravenous patency for 9 days. - intravascular catheter in left forearm, monitor for sign and symptoms of infection, every shift for antibiotic. During an observation on 3/18/2024 at 10:19 AM, 1:55 PM, and 2:41 PM, there was an intravenous pole with a medication pump in Resident #207's room. There was a quarter full medication bag hanging on the intravenous pole. The intravenous tubing in the pump had the end of the tubing looped over the pump without an infection prevention cap. The 3/2024 Medication Administration Record documented ceftriaxone 2 grams intravenously every 24 hours for infection/sepsis/urinary tract infection for 9 days with a start date of 3/13/2024: - ceftriaxone was documented as administered by licensed practical nurse #54 on 3/16/2024 at 11:16 PM, more than 24 hours after the dose was administered on 3/15/2024 at 8:34 PM. - ceftriaxone was documented as administered by licensed practical nurse #31 on 3/17/2024 at 8:51 PM. The next dose on 3/18/2024 was due between 7:51 PM- 9:51 PM on 3/18/2024. The 3/2024 Medication Administration Record documented sodium chloride flush intravenous solution 0.9%, use 10 milliliters intravenously every shift to maintain intravenous access device patency for 9 days with a start date of 3/13/2024. - On 3/15/2024, there was no documentation the sodium chloride flush was administered to the resident's intravenous access device on the day shift. During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 10:55 AM, licensed practical nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 stated there should not be any medication left in the intravenous medication bag the next morning after the medication was given, especially if the tubing was disconnected. All medications should be disposed of after use. The pharmacy sent Resident #207's medications with instructions to administer 100 milliliters over 30 minutes. It was important for the resident to receive all the medication from the intravenous medication bag because the lack of medication could cause ineffectiveness. The physician order should include the flow rate/infusion time, but the pharmacy added the instructions to the bag. During a follow up interview on 3/21/2024 at 1:18 PM, licensed practical nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 stated Resident #207 had an AccuCath (an intravenous access device), which was a midline catheter and a peripheral venous access device. There was no location to document the medication completion time. The medication was administered over 30 minutes with a flush before and after. The flushes were listed together and only required one administration of the flush to be completed in the medication administration record. During an interview on 3/21/2024 at 5:09 PM, licensed practical nurse #31 stated that an intravenous antibiotic order needed to include the flush, the flow rate/infusion time, and strength. If the order was incomplete, they would call the supervisor or whoever took the order, then call the provider to get clarification. The process for the resident's intravenous medication administration was to flush the intravenous access device with 10 milliliters and check the administration button which triggered the check mark and their initials on the medication administration record, administer the medication, when it was done, they would flush the intravenous access device again. There should not be any medication remaining in the bag when the medication was done infusing. They administered Resident #207's intravenous antibiotic on 3/17/2024 but had the nursing Supervisor assist them. On 3/18/2024, they had assistance from licensed practical nurse #48. Failure to give a full dose of the antibiotic could cause the infection to come back stronger. Licensed practical nurse #31 stated they threw the medication bag away when it was done and thought they had thrown away the medication bag on the night of 3/17/2024. Upon viewing the order in the computer, licensed practical nurse #31 stated the order was incomplete and did not have a flow rate/infusion time. They stated they used the intravenous pump library (saved data from previous administrations) to administer the antibiotics. The registered nurses were responsible for setting up the pumps with the library on their first administration. Licensed practical nurse #31 stated they should have checked the medication, order, and pump together to make sure they all matched. During an interview on 3/22/2024 at 11:11 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated that an order for an intravenous medication should include a flow rate/infusion time. There should not be any medication remaining in the administration bag when the infusion was complete, so the full dose was administrated to the resident. If there was medication remaining in the bag 12 hours after the medication was infused, this would be a medication error and the provider should be notified. If Resident #207 did not receive the full dose of the antibiotic this could be harmful to the resident. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 9:10 AM, registered nurse #30 stated that a complete infusion of an intravenous antibiotic would mean the medication bag was empty. If medication remained in the bag, it would be considered a medication error. The facility policy was to administer medications in the window of 1 hour before the due time, to 1 hour after the due time. Registered nurse #30 stated they would consider the 3/16/2024 dose a medication error as it was given more than 2 hours past the medication administration window. The latest time the medication should be given would be 9:00 PM. The combination of late medications and incomplete infusions would be considered a significant medication error. This could cause the resident to be more susceptible to infection. During a telephone interview on 3/28/2024 at 12:07 PM, intravenous technician #28 stated that the physician orders should have an infusion rate. Their office had to call the provider to clarify the order. The pharmacy included directions to infuse total contents on the intravenous medications. If a medication was due to be given at 8:00 PM, the nurses had an hour before and an hour after to administer that medication. For a medication given at 11:16 PM, the next dose should have been re-timed to 11:16 PM the following day. During a follow up interview on 3/28/2024 at 1:54 PM, licensed practical nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 reviewed Resident #207's Medication Administration Record and stated Resident #207 did not receive all the intravenous flushes every shift as ordered, as 3/15/2024 on the day shift was missing and it should have been done. The antibiotic on 3/16/2024 was given late, as there was a 1 hour before and 1 hour after the ordered administration time to give the medication, this was a medication error. The partial dose given to the resident on 3/17/2024, was also a medication error. They were unaware of any errors with Resident #207's medication administrations. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 4:16 PM, nurse practitioner #40 stated intravenous antibiotics were an aggressive treatment, and infusion rates should always be included in the order, if not the nurses should contact the provider for clarification. If medication was given more than 2 hours late, or if the resident received a partial dose of the intravenous antibiotic, they expected to be notified. If the resident did not receive their full dose of antibiotic this could put the resident at risk of infection. Nurse practitioner #40 stated they had not been notified of any late or partial doses of antibiotic for Resident #207. The antibiotic was ordered to treat the infection. There could be risk of increased infection if the infection went untreated. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 4:47 PM, licensed practical nurse #48 stated they assisted licensed practical nurse #31 with the resident's intravenous administration as they were newer at intravenous administration. Resident #207 did not have an infusion rate in their order, therefore was no way to verify the medication. This was a medication error. As a supervisor, they would notify the provider. The additional dose given at 11:16 PM on 3/16/2024 was also a medication error. The provider should have been notified and the following medication administration times should have adjusted. The late dose and partial dose could cause the infection to worsen, and the late dose could cause the next dose to be given too soon. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:18 AM, the Medical Director stated that medication orders should include infusion time/flow rate, it was expected that they would reach out to the provider for clarification. If the antibiotic was given more than 2 hours late or the dose was incomplete, they should be notified. The late dose and partial dose were both medication errors and staff should have notified them, and they did not. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:47 AM, the Director of Nursing stated Resident #207 did not receive their intravenous flushes per physician orders, as they missed a dose on 3/15/2024. Resident #207's intravenous antibiotic was not given timely and accurately according to the physician orders, the dose on 3/16/2024 was out of that range for administration. The provider should have been notified, there should have been a progress note to go along with that communication, and there was not. Based on the lack of documentation, the nursing staff did not get clarification from the provider to give the dose late, and this was a medication error. An incomplete dose of a medication would also be a medication error, and the provider should have been notified. 10 NYCRR 415.12(m)(2)
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00311514) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00311514) surveys conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 4 of 5 residents (Residents #3, #147, #195, and #212). Specifically, licensed practical nurse #45 did not perform hand hygiene between medication administrations to Residents #3, #147, #195, and #212. (Refer to F 726 Competent Nursing Staff). Findings include: The facility policy Medication Administration System last modified 11/20/2020 documented nurses perform hand hygiene immediately before preparing medications. The facility policy Hand Hygiene last modified 7/29/2020 documented hand hygiene is done before and after any contact with residents, after handling trash, after handling soiled linen or supplies, before and after personal care, before and after feeding residents, and after restroom use. Hand hygiene also applies when administering medications. The following observations were made on 3/20/2024 during a medication administration with licensed practical nurse #45: - at 9:36 AM, licensed practical nurse #45 began preparing medications for Resident #147. Medications included Celexa (antidepressant), senna plus (laxative), and artificial tears (eye drops). Licensed practical nurse #45 entered the resident's room and administered the resident's eye drops and the pills. Licensed practical nurse #45 returned to the medication cart signed off the medications as administered, and handled their pen and personal clipboard on top of the medication cart, and did not perform hand hygiene. - at 9:43 AM, licensed practical nurse #45 moved the medication cart near Resident #195's room, did not perform hand hygiene and prepared Resident #195's medications including atenolol (blood pressure medication), vitamin D3, Eliquis (blood thinner), Lasix (diuretic), fiber laxative, eye vitamin, and spironolactone (blood pressure medication). Licensed practical nurse #45 entered the resident's room, administered the medications, and returned to the medication cart, signed for the medications, handled their pen and clipboard, and did not perform hand hygiene. - at 9:51 AM, licensed practical nurse #45 moved the medication cart near Resident #45's room, did not perform hand hygiene and prepared Resident #45's medications including acidophilus (probiotic), amlodipine (blood pressure), Labetalol (blood pressure medication), Keppra (seizure medications), Protonix (treats reflux), hydralazine (blood pressure medication), Vitamin D3, baclofen (muscle relaxant), folic acid (supplement), ramipril (blood pressure medication), and sertraline (antidepressant). Licensed practical nurse #45 entered the resident's room, administered the medications, and returned to the medication cart, signed for the medications, handled their pen and clipboard, and did not perform hand hygiene. - at 10:06 AM, licensed practical nurse #45 moved the medication cart near Resident #3's room, did not perform hand hygiene and prepared Resident #3's medications including artificial tears drops, aspirin, Sinemet (treats tremors), cranberry supplement, Enulose (laxative), Keppra (seizure medication), metoprolol (blood pressure medication), Toujeo 8 units insulin injection, venlafaxine (antidepressant), and esomeprazole magnesium (acid reducer). The medications were crushed. Licensed practical nurse #45 entered the resident's room and administered the insulin in the resident's right upper arm. Licensed practical nurse #45 spooned the medications to the resident with vanilla pudding alternating with nectar thick juice. They exited the resident's room, signed off administration, handled their pen and personal clipboard, and did not sanitize their hands. Licensed practical nurse #45 did not perform hand hygiene from 9:36 AM- 10:06 AM while administering medications. During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 10:26 AM licensed practical nurse #45 stated they had sanitizer and pointed to the left side of the medication cart. They stated they did not use it in between these 4 residents and should have. If they did not have clean hands, they could pass germs between residents. During an interview on 3/22/2024 at 8:39 AM licensed practical nurse Infection Preventionist #5 stated during medication administration nurses should wash their hands or use hand sanitizer between all residents and before and after giving eye drops and known exposure to soiled items. Lack of proper hand hygiene could cause sickness. Hand washing was the number one way to stop the spread of infection. 10 NYCRR 483.80 (a)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024, the facility did not ensure that licensed nurses had the appropriate competencies and skill sets n...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024, the facility did not ensure that licensed nurses had the appropriate competencies and skill sets necessary to provide nursing care and related services to assure residents safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well- being for each resident for 4 of 4 licensed nurses (licensed practical nurses #31, #45, #48, and registered nurse #51) reviewed. Specifically, licensed practical nurses #31, #45, #48 and registered nurse #51 did not receive routine competency evaluations that covered key skill-set areas including accessing venous access devices, vacuum assisted wound closure devices (wound VACs), hand hygiene, and medication administration. Deficiencies were identified in the areas of Parenteral/IV (intravenous) fluids (F694), Free from Significant Medication Errors (F760), Quality of Care (F684), and Infection Control (F880). Findings Include: The Facility Assessment for 2023 documented annual in-services and competencies were coordinated and scheduled monthly throughout the year. Licensed nurse competencies included person-centered care, medication administration, resident assessments, and caring for persons with dementia and mental health disorders. The facility training document Intravenous (IV)- Scope of Practice dated 1/2018 documented the purpose was to delineate the scope of practice to ensure a consistent knowledge base and demonstration of competency. Licensed practical nurses may perform basic [intravenous] maintenance if they had completed the intravenous maintenance course, demonstrated competency, and a registered nurse was present in the facility. The facility policy Staff Education dated 11/9/2018 documented staff would be provided ongoing educational opportunities that met requirements of the New York State Department of Health and that promoted the growth and reinforce procedures for the nursing home. All employees would be required to receive training upon hire at general orientation and annually on the topics of infection control, safety, resident rights, abuse, corporate compliance, dementia, and quality assurance. The undated facility training document The Practice of Intravenous Therapy by Licensed Practical Nurses in Acute Care Settings documented the provision of intravenous therapy by a licensed practical nurse must be under the direct supervision of a registered nurse who is assigned to the patient care unit at all times that the licensed practical nurse administers [intravenous] therapy. Nursing Personnel Records documented the most current annual competencies as follows: 1) Licensed practical nurse #48 had orientation competencies completed on 4/18/2023, there were no documented competencies for medication administration skills, administration through an intravenous access device, intravenous access device identification, or wound vacuums. 2) Registered Nurse #51 had orientation competencies completed on 7/3/2023 and 7/5/2023, there were no documented competencies for administration through an intravenous access device, intravenous access device identification, or wound vacuums. 3) Licensed practical nurse #45 had orientation competencies completed on 2/5/2024, there were no documented competencies for administration through an intravenous access devices, intravenous access device identification, or wound vacuums. 4) Licensed Practical Nurse #31 did not have orientation competencies provided by the facility for handwashing, personal protective equipment, or medication administration. Additionally, they did not have documented competencies for administration through an intravenous access devices, intravenous access device identification, or wound vacuums. During an interview on 3/21/24 at 4:21 PM, licensed practical nurse Staff Development Coordinator #50 stated they provided education for all staff in the facility. They stated they had not done medication administration trainings or competencies. They were told by the previous Director of Nursing and Administrator that they did not have to do training due to a COVID waiver. They were not intravenous certified, and they did not provide competencies for intravenous medication administration. They would have to use a registered nurse to complete intravenous skills training. The administration reached out to licensed practical nurse #50 for all the competencies the nurses had on file. They stated that if it was not in the package provided, it did not exist. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 9:10 AM, registered nurse #30 stated the facility offered a class through the pharmacy for intravenous knowledge, but registered nurse #30 had not experienced any competencies related to intravenous maintenance or medication administration by the education department in the facility. They clarified that competencies meant they were visually watched as they demonstrated the skills, that activity had not been done. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 10:18 AM, licensed practical nurse #29 stated they were intravenous certified. They took the facility provided class twice, last year being the last class. Competencies were done at the end of class as part of the certification for intravenous access devices. The facility did in-services on medication administration but there were no competencies for medication administration. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 1:54 PM, licensed practical nurse Clinical Care Coordinator #32 stated the facility had not done competencies since they returned to the facility in 7/2022. They had in-services, but competencies were not completed for the nursing staff. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 3:42 PM, licensed practical nurse Staff Development Coordinator #50 stated that the facility had many agency staff. They provided orientation every other week on Mondays and Tuesdays. Staff nurses got 3 days of orientation, certified nurse aides got 2 days of orientation, and agency nurses got 1 day of orientation. The competencies that have a K next to competent on the checklists met they were competent by knowledge. Competent by knowledge met that the nurse or aide stated they knew the material and the processes were talked through. If they did the actual competencies, it would take 3 weeks to get through everything. If the competency was blank, but signed by licensed practical nurse #50, it documented it was competent by knowledge. There were no wound vac competencies or in-services. Handwashing was done during orientation, but no additional competencies were done. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 4:47 PM, licensed practical nurse Nursing Supervisor #48 stated the facility did competencies when hired. Additionally, every time there was a medication error, they had to complete a competency for medication administration. The first time licensed nursing staff did an intravenous medications someone had to watch and there was a checklist for that. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:47 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they could not recall the last time they had a nursing competency for medication administration. They were working on a plan to provide in-services and mandatory trainings. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 12:19 PM, the Administrator stated that the orientation process and training tools were outdated. It was the Director of Nursing's responsibility to oversee the nurse and certified nurse aide competencies. The facility was conducting an in-service and orientation audit with a performance improvement plan. The Administrator stated there was a nurse that reviewed admission medications, and that pharmacy did consults that were reported to the Director of Nursing. There were no audits for medication administration on the units. 10 NYCRR 415.26(c)(1)(iv)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility did not ensure certified nurse aide performance reviews were completed once every 12 m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility did not ensure certified nurse aide performance reviews were completed once every 12 months for 5 of 5 certified nurse aides (certified nurse aides #35, #41, #42, #43, and #44) reviewed. Specifically, there was no documented evidence certified nurse aides #35, #41, #42, #43, and #44 had performance reviews at least once every 12 months. Findings include: The facility policy titled Staff Evaluations, last modified 11/9/2018, documented the facility would provide ongoing feedback to all staff members regarding their performance at specific intervals to encourage continuous improvement as needed. All staff members would receive an annual performance evaluation. If there were any identified areas of weakness, they would be referred to staff education to address the identified areas and assist with performance improvement. Annual performance evaluations were documented as follows: - Certified nurse aide #35: 1/2/2022. - Certified nurse aide #41: 12/29/2021. - Certified nurse aide #42: 1/2/2022. - Certified nurse aide #43: 2/22/2023. - Certified nurse aide #44: 2/17/2023. There was no documented evidence certified nurse aides #35, #41, #42, #43, and #44 had annual performance evaluations since the above noted dates. During the quality assurance interview on 3/29/2024 at 12:17 PM the Administrator stated the Director of Nursing oversaw all the nursing department evaluations and nursing disciplinary actions. During a follow-up interview on 3/29/24 at 1:20 PM the Administrator stated per regulation, certified nurse aides were required to have 12 hours of in-service training annually, with an annual performance evaluation and in-services based on their evaluation deficiencies. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 1:42 PM certified nurse aide #46 stated they did not know what a performance evaluation meant. They did not recall anyone evaluating them specific to their job. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 1:47 PM certified nurse aide #35 stated their last performance evaluation was at least a year-and-a-half ago. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 1:55 PM certified nurse aide #47 stated they used to have annual performance evaluations but had not had any since the COVID pandemic. It had been at least a couple of years since their last annual performance evaluation. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 2:07 PM the Assistant Director of Nursing stated the certified nurse aide annual performance evaluations were done by the Clinical Care Coordinators (Nurse Managers) on the units. Most of the Clinical Care Coordinators were licensed practical nurses. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 2:12 PM the Director of Nursing stated the Personnel Coordinator tracked and let Clinical Care Coordinators know when certified nurse aides were due for their annual performance evaluations. They did annual performance evaluations on Nurse Managers, Supervisors, and ancillary staff. They were aware that certified nurse aide performance evaluations were not getting done as required. 10 NYCRR 415.26 (d) (7)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility's governing body did not establish and implement policies regarding the management an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/29/2024 the facility's governing body did not establish and implement policies regarding the management and operation of the facility. Specifically, there was not consistent communication between the governing body and the facility Administrator to ensure regulatory compliance. Multiple deficiencies including an immediate jeopardy in Influenza and Pneumococcal Immunizations (F883) were identified during the recertification survey. Findings include: The undated facility policy Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee (QAPI) Plan documented: - Quality assurance performance improvement addresses clinical care to continuously improve clinical care. Care data would be reviewed by the committee to proactively identify areas in need of improvement; and address resident choice to ensure decisions affecting the residents were made based on individual preference and care needs. - Administration is responsible for guiding and participating in the quality assurance performance improvement committee. - A member of the facility Advisory Board is committed to participating in the committee and providing a status report at the monthly Advisory Board Meeting. - The Committee will evaluate the program on a quarterly basis, and this will include ensuring that there are adequate resources allotted to meet their initiatives and goals. - A member of the facility Advisory Board will be designated as a liaison to the committee. The individual is vested with the responsibility to report ongoing quality assurance updates to the Advisory Board monthly. Refer to F 883 citation Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccinations An electronic mail chain dated 1/23/2024 (1 month and 3 weeks after the pneumococcal vaccine request was made) documented: - At 11:17 AM, from the Infection Preventionist to the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal questioning where the pneumococcal vaccine purchase order was as they had many pending vaccinations to give. - At 11:51 AM, the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal responded to the facility accountant asking if the request was the same, they had questioned the pricing. - At 11:53 AM, the facility accountant responded: yes, it was over $10,000. - At 11:59 AM, the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal to the keyboard specialist the vaccine order was sent back due to it being over $10,000. It would need to be a state contract or group purchasing contract if exceeding $10,000. During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 11:08 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated the Deputy Administrator was responsible for approval of supply costs. They stated if requested supplies were under a certain dollar amount the facility would cover the cost. If they went over that dollar amount, they had to go to fiscal for approval. During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 2:07 PM, the Administrator stated their Infection Preventionist put in a purchase request for the pneumococcal vaccinations and was told that anything over $10,000.00 needed to go to the legislature and that took approximately 2 months. On 3/24/2024 they authorized the payment for the vaccines without the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal approval. They told the pharmacy to charge it to their personal credit card and they would just submit an expense report later. In June of 2023 the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal should have told the Infection Preventionist how to order vaccines and methods to keep the cost below $10,000. They had recently notified the current Deputy Administrator of Fiscal that purchases for clinical health products should now go through the Administrator. During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 3:17 PM, the Deputy Administrator of Fiscal Services stated they must follow the purchasing rules of the county. They sent the Infection Preventionist a listing of groups they could order vaccinations from. Nursing put in the request for vaccines which went to the county office building. The county office reviewed the request, and they would either approve or deny via an electronic mail and would deny the request if it was over $10,000.00. 10NYCRR 415.26(b)(3)(1)
Oct 2021 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted from 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to ensure that each resident was screened for a mental disorder (MD) or int...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted from 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to ensure that each resident was screened for a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability (ID) prior to admission for 2 of 35 residents (Residents # 165 and #187) reviewed. Specifically, there was no documentation that a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, New York State Department of Health form 695) was completed for Residents #165 and #187 by a qualified screener prior to admission to the facility. Findings include: Resident #187 was admitted to the facility with a history of major depressive disorder. The 3/2/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, felt depressed several days, had not been evaluated by Level II PASARR and required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living (ADL's). Resident # 165 was admitted with diagnoses including depression. The 1/10/2019 comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, had not been evaluated by Level II PASARR, felt depressed several days, and required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living (ADL's). There was no documented evidence Residents #165 and 187 had a PASARR completed prior to admission to the facility as required. During an interview on 10/29/21 at 10:47 AM, the Director of Social Work stated there was not a PASARR for either resident #165 or # 187. The presence of a PASARR was supposed to be monitored by social work, with the help of admissions or the ward clerk, when a resident was admitted . They stated an audit had been performed this week and prior to the pandemic. The facility knew there were missing PASARRs. No change in procedure had been made in response to the missing documents. The purpose of a PASARR was to make sure individuals were appropriate for the level of care and to obtain services as needed. During an interview on 10/29/21 at 10:57 AM, the admission Coordinator stated their understanding was that unit clerks checked the admission packet from the hospital for PASARRs. They were not aware of a specific checklist or protocol in place regarding PASRRs. If a PASARR was missing, admissions would call case management at the discharging facility and request a screen be sent. They stated appropriate level of care was determined by the screen and services that were needed for the resident. The facility was aware that resident #187's PASRR was missing and had attempted to get one from the previous facility and were told it was not available. 10NYCRR 415.11(3)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted from 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to ensure the participation of the resident and the resident's representati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted from 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to ensure the participation of the resident and the resident's representative(s) in the development of a comprehensive care plan for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #191) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #191 was not invited to attend their comprehensive care plan meeting and the resident expressed a desire to participate. Findings include: The 2/5/19 Care Plans facility policy documented the resident and/or resident's representative will be invited to attend and participate in the Interdisciplinary Team care plan meeting, and if unable or unwilling to attend, the plan of care will be discussed with them by the social worker and noted in the progress notes. Resident #191 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, and morbid obesity. The 7/31/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assist of two staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs). The 11/23/20 comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident was alert and oriented with some forgetfulness. The goal was for the resident's strengths to be utilized to improve the resident's quality of life. Interventions were to offer choices that emphasized the resident's strengths, design the care plan to incorporate the resident's strengths into the interventions, and communicate the resident's strengths with the interdisciplinary care plan (ICP) team members. The 7/30/21 social services progress notes documented an MDS assessment was completed, the resident was cognitively intact, and the resident's spouse was invited to the resident's annual care plan meeting. There was no documentation the resident had been invited to the care conference. The undated Care Plan signature sheet documented the annual care plan meeting for Resident #191 occurred on 8/9/21. The resident's spouse signed they were in attendance. During an interview on 10/26/21 at 9:26 AM, Resident #191 stated they had wanted to attend their annual care conference and had not been invited. They had not been aware they had been omitted from the meeting. When interviewed on 10/28/21 at 3:00 PM, social work assistant #17 stated residents were not always included in care plan conferences if they were unable to participate. She stated that Resident #191's family member was present at the care plan meeting, but Resident #191 had not been invited. They stated resident #191 was cognitively intact, and the decision was made by the interdisciplinary team not to invite the resident. They felt that information discussed may have been upsetting to the resident. When interviewed on 10/28/21 at 3:40 PM, the Director of Social Work #2 stated residents should be invited to care plan meetings and assisted to attend. They stated that if a resident was unable to understand or participate, the resident would not be included. Resident #191 was cognitively intact and should have been included in meeting. During an interview on 10/28/21 at 3:53 PM with the resident's family member they stated they participated in the care plan meeting by phone. They stated they did not know why the resident was not included in meeting. 10NYCRR 415.11(c)(2)(ii)
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 10/25/21- 10/29/21, the facility f...

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 10/25/21- 10/29/21, the facility failed to ensure residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #38) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #38 did not receive incontinence care as care planned and was observed inappropriately dressed. Findings include: The 6/2015 facility policy Toileting documented residents would be assisted with toileting every 2-4 hours and upon request during the day, when awake and at other times as directed. If a resident is on a toileting assistance schedule that specifies a designated time, they will be assisted with toileting according to the specific schedule. Resident #38 had diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and depression. The 8/2/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment, physical and verbal behavioral symptoms 4 to 6 times, rejected care daily, required extensive assistance of 2 with dressing, and was totally dependent with 2 staff for toileting. The resident was always incontinent of urine, frequently incontinent of bowel, and was not on a toileting program. The 7/1/21 Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) documented the resident had an ADL deficit related to limited mobility and dementia. Interventions were for one staff to assist with dressing, shoes and socks, incontinence briefs for dignity, and check and change the resident upon rising, before and after meals, at bedtime and as needed. The undated care instructions ([NAME]) documented the resident required assistance of 1 with dressing, socks, and shoes. The resident was incontinent of bladder and bowel and wore incontinence briefs for dignity. The resident was to be checked and changed upon rising, before and after meals, at bedtime, and as needed. The CNA Documentation Report documented that Resident #38 was toileted on 10/27/21 at 2:18 AM on the overnight shift and again at 9:31 AM by CNA #36. The resident was dressed with 1 assist at 9:31 AM by CNA #36. On 10/27/21 at 9:36 AM, Resident #38 was observed sitting in their high back wheelchair at the nursing station with their shoes on the wrong feet. At 12:07 PM, the resident was observed in the dining room and their shoes remained on the wrong feet. When interviewed 10/27/21 at 1:49 PM, CNA #36 stated they were the assigned CNA for resident #38 and the resident was gotten up on the overnight shift. The CNA stated the resident had been up since 6:30 AM and the first time CNA #36 had checked the resident to be changed was at the current time. CNA #36 was unsure if anyone else had provided care to the resident during the shift. The resident should be checked and changed every 2-3 hours and should have their shoes on the correct feet. During an observation on 10/27/21 at 2:03 PM, CNA #36 and one other unidentified staff provided incontinence care for Resident #38. The resident's sweatpants were wet in the crotch area and the resident's brief was saturated. The resident had feces on their skin that was pasty and required three soapy washcloths to remove. During a follow up interview at 2:30 PM, CNA #36 stated they documented at 9:31 AM the resident's level of care only and did not document they provided care for the resident at that time. When interviewed on 10/27/21 at 2:32 PM, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #33 stated they had some oversight over the CNAs. It was the CNA's responsibility to review the resident's [NAME] on their assignment and provide incontinence and toileting care per the resident's care plan. LPN #33 stated they were unaware Resident #38 had not received any incontinence or toileting care during the day shift and that was a long time for a resident to wait. Staff needed to anticipate Resident #38's needs. LPN #33 expected CNAs to tell them if they were running behind or were unable to provide care. The LPN stated they expected the resident to have their shoes on the correct feet. When interviewed on 10/28/21 at 10:33 AM, LPN Unit Manager #9 stated CNAs were to review the [NAME] for each resident on their assignment. CNAs were to let the nurse know if they were running behind or were unable to provide care for a resident. LPN Unit Manager #9 stated staff should be checking and changing residents at least a couple of times during the day shift and that was a long period for Resident #38 to wait for incontinence care. LPN Unit Manager #9 expected the resident to have their shoes on the correct feet. When interviewed on10/28/21 at 11:21 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated CNAs were to check their assigned resident's [NAME]. CNAs were to let the nurse know if they were unable to provide care for a resident. The ADON expected the day shift staff to check and change the residents at least a couple of times during the shift and Resident #38 went too long without receiving care. 10NYCRR 415.12 (a)(1)(4)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 (NY00283499) conducted from...

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 (NY00283499) conducted from 10/25/2021 through 10/29/2021, the facility failed to ensure the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #37), 2 resident bathrooms and 1 shower room reviewed. Specifically, Resident #37 sustained a burn to their left ankle after a staff member spilled a reheated bowl of oatmeal on the resident and the facility did not develop a plan to prevent reoccurrences. Additionally, the hot water from bathroom sinks in South Unit resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and South Unit resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was over 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and the South Unit 2 shower room had a water temperature over 120 F. Findings include: REHEATING FOOD The undated facility policy Storage of Resident Food Brought in from Outside of the Facility documented the facility would provide safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption of all food including those brought in for the residents by family and visitors. There was no documentation what the appropriate temperatures were for reheating foods or fluids using the microwave. Resident #37 had diagnoses including fractured right femur and acute kidney failure. The 8/3/21 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and required set-up assistance with meals. The 7/27/21 Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) documented the resident had an activity of daily living (ADL) deficit and required set-up help with meals. The care instructions ([NAME]) documented the resident received a regular diet, required set-up assistance at meals, and preferred to have their food items kept on the tray. Nursing progress notes on 9/19/21 documented: -at 9:11 AM, a nurse on the unit brought oatmeal they had reheated in the microwave to the resident at 8:45 AM and the nurse accidentally dropped the bowl. Hot oatmeal landed on the resident's foot causing a painful reddened area. Ice was immediately applied, and a registered nurse (RN) assessed the resident and observed no other injuries or blistering. The resident's medical provider and family would be notified. -at 9:12 AM, the RN documented at 8:45 AM, they assessed the resident's skin after a staff member lost their balance and spilled 2 tablespoons of oatmeal on the resident's left foot area. On assessment the resident was awake and oriented, sitting in their wheelchair, and eating breakfast. The left ankle/foot area was intact and had a reddened area approximately 5 centimeters (cm) by 6 cm. No blisters were noted. The resident complained of burning sensation to the area. Staff removed the resident's socks and shoes, wiped the oatmeal off the resident and applied an ice pack to the area. The medical provider and family were notified. -at 9:49 AM, the facility Administrator was notified of the incident. -at 9:59 AM, LPN #14 documented Resident #37 and Resident #37's roommate complained the oatmeal and coffee were cold and requested the items to be heated up. After reheating the items, LPN #14 set down the roommate's coffee and the oatmeal fell out of the LPN's hand spilling on the tray table, the floor, and Resident #37's inner left ankle. Resident #37 reported it is burning, and some fell on my leg. The oatmeal was wiped away, ice was applied per the resident's request and the nursing supervisor was notified. The RN assessed the resident, the resident has a round reddened area to left inner ankle the size of a silver dollar with no blistering noted. Medical and family were notified. On 9/19/21 at 10:07 AM, a physician order documented to apply ice as needed, on for 20 minutes and off for 20 minutes for 3 days, apply Bacitracin (antibiotic) ointment as needed up to 3 times a day for 7 days. Nursing progress notes on 9/19/21 documented: -at 4:58 PM by LPN #14 the resident's family member noted blistering to the resident's left inner ankle. Upon inspection there were 2 fluid filled blisters in the middle of a reddened area, both approximately a 1/2 inch in length. The on-call provider was notified of the resident's change. -at 5:07 PM by LPN #14 ice was applied to the left inner ankle for 20 minutes and removed. Bacitracin ointment was applied. -at 11:52 PM, Bacitracin ointment was applied, and the resident offered no further complaints of pain. The CCP was updated on 9/19/19 and documented the resident had a red area on the left ankle foot area from hot oatmeal. Interventions included to apply ice to the left inner ankle for 3 days, on for 20 minutes and off for 20 minutes and apply silver sulfadiazine (SSD) cream to the left ankle and cover with gauze twice daily. There was no documented evidence the CCP was updated to include interventions to prevent further burns. The 9/19/21 facility Investigation Statement documented LPN #14 brought Resident #37 and Resident #37's roommate reheated oatmeal and coffee at 8:30 AM. The resident was sitting in their manual wheelchair with the wheels locked at bedside with their tray table in front of them. LPN #14 heated the oatmeal for 45 seconds in the microwave, which was the time the LPN stated they would heat the item for their child at home. The LPN accidentally dropped the bowl of oatmeal and approximately 2 tablespoons of oatmeal landed on the resident's left foot and inner ankle. The oatmeal was wiped away and ice was applied. LPN #14 notified the nursing supervisor of the incident. The 9/22/21 Individual Education Record documented LPN Unit Manager #9 provided LPN #14 with informal education or instruction on warming food in the microwave for residents. Microwaved food was to be heated in 15 seconds intervals so the temperature of the item could be monitored. There was no documentation how the staff would monitor the temperature of the food item. On 10/25/21 at 12:03 PM, Resident #37 was observed in their room seated in their wheelchair wearing shoes and socks. There was a dried scab on their left ankle. Resident #37 reported a nurse spilled oatmeal on them, staff tended to the area, and their family was notified right away. The resident stated their oatmeal was cold and they were unsure if staff had to reheat food often. On 10/25/21 at 1:44 PM, the kitchen area of 2 South was observed. There was a microwave in the kitchen and no food thermometers were observed in the kitchen. There was no guidance observed on how long to reheat food or to what temperature. During an interview with CNA #30 on 10/28/21 at 8:44 AM, they reported staff reheated food items in the microwave. They tested the temperature of the food by feeling it and stirring it up. They reported there were no thermometers available to take food temperatures and they were unsure how to test the food temperatures. During an interview with CNA #31 on 10/28/21 at 8:49 AM, they stated staff sometimes heated food in the microwave. The CNA stated they did not check the temperature of the food prior to serving the residents. There were no thermometers on the unit, and they had never received any education regarding microwave usage at the facility. During an interview with CNA #32 on 10/28/21 at 8:54 AM, they reported when they used the microwave, they heated the food in 30 second intervals. The CNA stated there was a thermometer in the 2 South kitchen and they made sure the food items were 145 degrees Fahrenheit (F) after stirring the food. The CNA opened a drawer in the kitchen area and showed the surveyor a food thermometer and alcohol wipes. During an interview with LPN #33 on 10/28/21 at 9:01 AM, they reported staff were not to heat food items in the microwave as they were unable to control the temperature of the food. The LPN stated they were educated at a previous employer and were unsure if they received any training on microwave usage at this facility. They thought there was a thermometer in the kitchen and stated the kitchen staff knew the proper temperatures food items were to be heated to. During an interview with the LPN #9 on 10/28/21 at 9:06 AM, they stated staff could heat up food in the microwave. They had not received any education on microwave usage at this facility. There was a thermometer in the kitchen and on the [NAME] Wing the microwave had instructions for heating food, but the 2 South Unit did not have instructions. Staff should not heat up food for longer than a minute and the LPN stated they expected staff to take the temperature of the food when it came out of the microwave prior to serving the residents. On 10/28 the following observations were made in the unit kitchen areas; -at 9:14 AM, on 1 South there was a microwave and no food thermometers or guidance on how long to reheat food or proper food temperatures. -at 9:18 AM, on 3 South there was a microwave and no food thermometers or guidance on how long to reheat food or proper food temperatures. -at 9:30 AM, on 2 North there was a microwave and no food thermometers or guidance on how long to reheat food or proper food temperatures. -at 10:04 AM, on the [NAME] wing there was a microwave with a document titled Microwave Settings for Call Down Items for Each Portion which included the time each item should be heated for. There were no recommendations for temperatures and no food thermometer was observed. During an interview with LPN Unit Manager #9 on 10/28/21 at 10:33 AM, they reported the microwave was not regularly used. Staff had not received training on how to use the microwave. Staff were to reheat food items in small increments to control the temperature of the food items. The LPN Unit Manager stated they were unsure if there was a thermometer available on the unit for taking food temperatures. The LPN Unit Manager stated they tested reheated food temperatures by stirring the food, putting on a glove, and checking the middle of the item with their finger. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 10/28/21 at 11:22 AM, they reported they did not recall if nursing staff received education on microwave usage. If staff needed to reheat an item, they were to use clinical judgment. They should look for steam, touch the bowl or plate, and wait for it to cool down. The ADON stated there were some thermometers on the units, but nursing staff did not take food temperatures. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/28/21 at 1:34 PM, they stated nursing staff was able to heat food items in the microwave, they did not take any food temperatures and was unsure if there were food thermometers in the unit kitchens. They said taking the temperature of food items would help prevent food borne illness and accidents. During an interview with the Food Service Director on 10/29/21 at 10:16 AM, they stated there were thermometers in the unit kitchens. The Food Service Department had not provided any education to nursing staff regarding microwave usage. The Director stated staff should be taking the actual temperature of the food item versus heating it up for a certain timeframe. They were unaware there was a document on the [NAME] Wing microwave that indicated reheating times, and this was not to be used and should be discarded, as every microwave was different. WATER TEMPERATURES The undated blank Water Temperature Readings documented the following data was to be completed during water temperature readings: the staff member name completing inspection, the date, location, the temperature reading, the time, and staff initials. During an observation on 10/25/21 at 12:07 PM, the bathroom sink water temperature on the 2nd floor South Unit was measured in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The temperature of the water was 122 degrees F. The resident who resided in the room reported sometimes the water was too hot. During an observation on 10/25/21 at 2:21 PM, the bathroom sink water temperature on the 1st floor South Unit was measured in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The temperature of the water was 121.7 degrees F. On 10/25/21 at 3:05 PM, on the 2nd floor South Unit, the bathroom sink water temperature was remeasured in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The temperature of the water was 122 F. On 10/25/21 during an interview at 3:30 PM, the Maintenance Director stated the South Unit boiler water was maintained at 118 degrees F and the facility did weekly water temperature checks. On 10/25/21 during an observation in the boiler room at 3:43 PM, the South Unit boiler water temperature gauge was reading 122 degrees F. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 3:43 PM, maintenance mechanic #29 stated that the boiler that supplied the water to the South Unit resident's bathroom sinks and shower areas could go up or down 2 degrees F depending on water usage. During an observation on 10/25/21 at 3:45 PM, the [NAME] Wing Unit boiler water temperature gauge was reading 122 degrees F. During an interview at 3:45 PM on 10/25/21, the Maintenance Director stated the [NAME] Wing Unit boiler supplied water to the [NAME] Wing resident bathroom sinks and shower areas. The water temperatures could be adjusted using a valve and they had tried to keep the water under 120 degrees F. During an observation on 10/25/21 at 3:50 PM, the North Unit boiler temperature gauge read 122 degrees F. The Maintenance Director stated this boiler supplied water to resident bathroom sinks and shower areas. During an observation on 10/25/21 at 3:59 PM, the 2nd floor South Unit shower area/tub water temperature measured at 120.9 degrees F, and then held the temperature at 120.8 degrees F. The temperature of the water was hot to touch, and the surveyor's pointer finger turned dark pink when held under the water. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 4:00 PM, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #22 stated that the residents received baths once or twice a week and basic hygiene was provided to all residents using tap water. If they noticed or were told the water temperature was too hot, they would adjust the water temperature at the tap by adding more cold water. If the temperature could not be adjusted, they would notify the nursing supervisor and maintenance would be called. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 4:03 PM, with certified nursing assistant (CNA) #23 they stated residents received weekly showers and basic hygiene daily. The CNA stated sometimes on the B side of the unit a resident would report the water was too hot. If they were unable to adjust the water temperature at the tap, they would bring the resident to the A side of the unit. They would alert the unit's nurse manager or charge nurse and tell maintenance. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 4:11 PM, 1st floor South Unit LPN #24 stated that residents received baths once a week and basic head to toe hygiene daily. They had heard from both staff and residents the water temperatures had fluctuated and would not stay a steady temperature. They thought the water temperature was better during the evening time. The LPN stated they would notify the maintenance department via email if there were water issues. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 4:20 PM, CNA #25 stated they would check bath and shower water temperature and if able have the resident check the water temperature for comfort before giving a bath or shower. They stated they checked the temperature with their hand and the water temperature did not remain steady and would alternate between hot and cold at all times of the day. If the water was too hot, they would remove the resident from the water and wait for the water to cool down before resuming the bath or shower. The CNA stated they thought this was how the water was at the facility and they had never reported the issue. The CNA stated most residents on the unit had complained about the water temperature being too hot. During an observation on 10/25/21 at 4:40 PM, the Water Temperature Log binder documented there had been water temperatures over 120 degrees F in March and April 2021. There was no documentation to indicate what the facility had done to adjust the water temperatures. The log did not include the previous week's temperature log and the facility was unable to locate the missing temperature log. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 4:45 PM, the Maintenance Director stated that the allowable water temperature range in the resident areas was 95-120 degrees F. The Water Temperature Log was created with the assistance of the Administrator and was meant to keep track of the water temperature. The facility previously used a spreadsheet with temperature guidelines that would prompt the user to recheck the water temperature after there was a reading greater than 120 degrees F. They were unsure why the facility had stopped using this form. The Director stated water temperatures would fluctuate throughout the day and they were unsure if the facility had a hot water policy. The Director stated staff should notify maintenance via a work order if water was too hot and maintenance would adjust the boiler mixer valve. The Maintenance Director verified there was no documentation that the boiler mixer value had been adjusted after the hot water temperatures were identified in March and April 2021. The Director stated maintenance thermometers used to check the water temperatures on the units had not been calibrated since they were purchased. The Director stated if the mixing valve was adjusted or there were any water temperature readings over 120 degrees F the water temperature should have been retested. They were not aware of any hot water issues at the facility and the facility's resident council had only identified that the water temperature would fluctuate from hot to cold. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 5:21 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated they were had not heard of any recent hot water issues at the facility. In the past there had some instances of hot water and the maintenance department had to replace some mixing valves to address the issues of fluctuating water temperatures. If the water was too hot in a resident's bathroom sink or in a shower room the resident should be removed from the hot water immediately and maintenance staff and the Maintenance Director would be notified. There were on-call maintenance staff available on evenings, nights, and weekends. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 5:24 PM, CNA #27 stated if the water was too hot, they would adjust the water at the tap using more cold water. The CNA stated the water temperature was hard to adjust because the shower handles had a lot play in them. The CNA stated some resident's bathroom sinks (216) would feel too hot. The water temperature would flare up and take 10 minutes before going down to acceptable temperature. The CNA stated if they were unable to adjust the water temperature, they would use a washcloth to finish bathing the resident with water from another source. During an interview on 10/26/21 at 10:15 AM, the Maintenance Director verified the facility had 3 or 4 thermometers and that the thermometers had never been calibrated. The Director stated they could not find last week's completed Water Temperature Log. During an interview on 10/26/21 at 10:15 AM, maintenance mechanic #29 stated that the usual maintenance worker who was responsible to test water temperatures at the facility was not available. They stated the number of testing locations varied weekly. The maintenance worker stated the maximum temperature the water could be in resident areas was 120 degrees F. The temperature coming out of bathroom sink or shower should not be above the boiler missing valve temperature. They checked the water temperature usually during peak water usage, 9 AM - 11 AM and sometimes in the afternoon. The thermometers used to test the water temperature on the resident units had a + / - 4 degree F range. They would run the water for 2-3 minutes or until the thermometer temperature stabilized or started going down. 10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to provide necessary behavioral health care and services to attain ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to provide necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #202) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #202 was withdrawn and seclusive in their room and was refusing food and medications and a referral for behavioral health services was not completed as ordered. Findings include: The undated facility policy Behavioral Health Services documented all residents receive the necessary behavioral health care and services to assist him or her to reach and maintain the highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning. Behavioral health care plans shall be reviewed and revised quarterly, annually, and as needed such as when interventions are not effective or when the resident experiences a change in condition. Resident #202 had diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and depression. The 10/13/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of one for most activities of daily living (ADLs). The resident scored 8 on the Resident Mood Interview (PHQ-9, an interview that screens for symptoms of depression, 8 is mild depression). The 10/13/21 comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the following care areas: - Activities, the resident was shy in groups and needed gentle encouragement to participate; interventions were to encourage them to participate in programs for social stimulation, 1:1 visits within room activities such as magazines and coloring, praise when attending activities, inform on benefits of remaining active. - Mood and behavior disorder related to altered mental status and hallucinations (stated they ate glass, nurses made them blind, poor appetite); interventions were to administer medications as ordered, behavioral health consult and treat, give the resident as many choices as possible, monitor behaviors every shift, observe need for food, drink, pain medication, provide baby doll or stuffed animal for comfort, psych consult as indicated. The physician orders documented the following: 3/15/18 Behavioral Health consult; 10/12/21 Downgrade Diet to Regular pureed texture, regular consistency; 10/25/21 Physical Therapy evaluation secondary to decline in ability to stand and transfer, 5 times a week for 4 weeks. The 2/3/20 Psychologist #11 progress note documented the resident had low mood, poor sleep, poor concentration, and lack of enjoyment in activities. The resident had sufficient cognitive capacity to benefit from psychotherapy. Services were recommended 1- 4 times per month; the resident had a biologically based mental illness requiring ongoing treatment and continued to experience symptoms of depression which negatively impacted functioning. There were no other documented Behavioral Health progress notes. The 10/1/21-10/11/21 Nursing progress notes documented Resident #202 was weepy, anxious, and not easily redirected. The resident had a poor appetite, refused to eat and consumed drinks with much encouragement. On 10/11/21, Nurse Practitioner (NP) #12 was updated of the resident's decline, difficulty feeding self and transferring. The 10/13/21 social worker assistant #13 progress note documented the resident was seen to complete an MDS assessment. The resident was alert with confusion and stated they felt bad about themself. When asked how, the resident responded, I don't know, I just do. They reported having trouble falling asleep which made them tired during the day. The plan was to follow the care plan through next review. There was no documented evidence the resident was referred for behavioral health. The 10/13/21 NP #12 progress note documented they saw Resident #202 for overall decline. The resident was no longer feeding themself, and on exam appeared more withdrawn and flatter than normal. The resident reported feeling sad and depressed every day. After discussion with the Medical Director, the plan was to start mirtazapine (an anti-depressant, also used to stimulate the appetite) 15 mg (milligrams) daily and increase to 30 mg in 2 weeks. The 10/14/21 dietary progress note documented the resident's diet was recently downgraded to pureed, intakes averaged 45%. The resident started on Remeron (mirtazapine) for depression which could also help with appetite stimulation. The resident had unfavorable weight loss related to decreased intakes of pureed diet. The intervention was to add Ensure Plus to meals. The following weights were recorded for the resident: 10/7/21-143.8 pounds (lbs) 10/26/21-136.2 lbs (a 5.2% weight loss). The 10/14/21-10/22/21 nursing progress notes documented the resident continued to remain weepy, anxious, and needed much encouragement to go to the dining room for meals. The resident refused meals and alternatives offered and refused medications. The resident was withdrawn and seemed depressed. On 10/21/21 NP #12 was updated on the resident's refusals of meals and walking. The mirtazapine was increased to 30 mg and labs were ordered. The 10/22/21 licensed practical nurse (LPN) Unit Manager #3 documented NP #12 reviewed the resident's lab results and an order was made for the resident to receive 2 liters of fluids via clysis (injection) for dehydration. NP #12 reviewed resident status with the Medical Director; felt Resident #202 was having a cycle of psychosis and ordered 1 mg Haldol (an antipsychotic). The 10/23/21-10/27/21 nursing progress notes documented the resident continued to have a poor appetite, wanted to stay in their room, and was afraid. Medications and nutritional intakes were refused. Emotional support was offered with little effect. The resident was not bearing weight with transfers and a referral was sent to physical therapy (PT). The 10/26/21 social work assistant #13 progress note documented the inter-disciplinary team care plan meeting was held. The team discussed how Resident #202 had been struggling to be themself, the care plan was reviewed, and no changes were made. The was no documented evidence the resident had been referred to the psychologist for follow-up of recommended services since 2/3/20. On 10/27/21 at 9:54 AM, Resident #202 was observed in their room and had just returned from the dining room after breakfast. The resident was in a wheelchair wrapped in a blanket. The resident spoke in whispers and did not make eye contact. On 10/28/21 at 10:15 AM, the resident was in their room seated in their wheelchair. The television was on, the resident was looking down. At 1:22 PM, the resident was in the dining room and was assisted with their meal. The resident did not feed themself and took only small sips of their drink. When interviewed on 10/28/21 at 1:49 PM, certified nurse aide (CNA) #15 stated they were familiar with Resident #202 and noticed a difference in the resident. The resident was normally happy and interacted with the staff but lately was not upbeat. The CNA stated the resident used to like to eat but no longer wanted to. The resident used to sit in the common area after meals or enjoyed coloring but had not been receptive and said no to pretty much everything. CNA #15 stated they had talked about the resident's decline with the previous unit care coordinator. When interviewed on 10/28/21 at 2:15 PM, LPN #16 stated the resident took their medications on this day without a problem but had been refusing them lately. The resident had also been refusing to eat even when offered alternatives and no longer walked to the dining room LPN #16 was unsure if the resident had lost weight and the decline was new for the resident. LPN #16 was aware the resident had a history of mental health concerns such as hallucinations and delusions but was uncertain if the resident had seen a counselor in the past. LPN #16 had discussed the resident with LPN Unit Manger #3 and thought there had been a care conference for the resident that week. When interviewed on 10/28/21 at 2:43 PM, LPN Unit Manager #3 stated they had spoken with NP #12 on 10/27/21 and the plan was to give the mirtazapine time to become effective and then increase it, and to change the resident to weekly weights. Physical therapy had also started to work with the resident due to trouble ambulating. The LPN was not aware if the resident had seen a counselor in the past. When interviewed on 10/28/21 at 5:15 PM, the Director of Social Work #2 stated the facility had used an agency for behavioral health services. During the pandemic, the agency completed resident sessions by telephone. The behavioral health agency determined if a resident needed to continue participation in their services and if the resident was cognitively able to benefit. The Director of Social Work stated the last behavioral health entry from 2/2020 documented to continue services. The Director had contacted the behavioral health agency and stated they were told the resident had been discontinued from services. The Director stated for the resident to be seen again a referral would be made and the behavioral health service would screen the resident to determine if they would benefit from services again. The resident's history and statements made to social work assistant #13 on 10/13/21 should have triggered a referral. When interviewed on 10/29/21 at 8:33 AM, social work assistant #13 stated they saw the resident on 10/13/21 for a MDS assessment and again at lunch the past week and the resident was not doing well. Social work assistant #13 stated on 10/13/21 they documented in a progress note the resident had stated they felt bad about themself and did not know why. The social work assistant stated when a resident with a history of behavioral health concerns made such statements, they would try to learn the resident's baseline or would discuss the resident with their supervisor. The social work assistant stated they had not sent a referral for the resident. The social work assistant stated there was a care plan meeting on 10/26/21 and the resident was discussed from more of a nursing and medical focus. Social work assistant #13 stated when they had discussed the resident with NP #12 it was about advanced directives. When interviewed on 10/29/21 at 9:31 AM, NP #12 stated the resident had a significant mental health history. NP #12 had discussed the resident's care with the Medical Director. The resident's medications had been reviewed; the resident had been stable on their current medication regimen. Mirtazapine was added but took time to become effective. Dietary had added supplements for the resident, labs had been drawn and clysis had been administered when the resident started to look dry. The NP stated the resident also received a little dose of Haldol to possibly break the psychosis. NP #12 was not aware the resident had seen behavioral health services in the past but stated it would be worth a screen. NP #12 stated the last time they saw the resident, the resident was withdrawn and had stated their food was poisoned. Based on that, NP #12 determined the resident's food issues and dehydration were a result of depression. NP #12 stated it could not be known but it was possible if Resident #202 had been seen earlier by behavioral health the depression may not have progressed as far. 10 NYCRR 415.12(f)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals in accordance with currently accepted professional ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted 10/25/21-10/29/21, the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 of 4 nursing unit medication rooms and 1 of 5 medication carts (South 2B unit medication room and medication cart) reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not dispose of expired medications and biologicals in the medication room and medication cart on South 2B unit. The facility policy Medication Storage revised 2/6/19 documented all medications were to be stored according to pharmacy instructions and manufacturer recommendations. The policy did not document protocol for monitoring for expired medications or biologicals. On 10/27/21 at 9:26 AM during a medication cart storage observation on South 2B unit with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #8, there was a stock bottle of Calcium 600 milligrams (mg) with Vitamin D3 400 units that had a manufacturer expiration date of 3/21 and an opened bottle of docusate sodium (Colace- stool softener) 100 mg with a manufacturer's expiration date of 9/21. On 10/27/21 at 9:26 AM during a medication room storage observation on South 2B unit with LPN #8, the following was observed: - 1 open bottle of Thera Vitamins with a manufacturer expiration date of 9/21; - 1 unopened bottle of Colace 100 mg with a manufacturer expiration date of 9/21: - 1 unopened bottle of Gerimucil (stool softener) with a manufacturer expiration date of 8/21; and - 1 opened vial of Afluria (flu vaccine) in the medication refrigerator with no documented opened date on the vial or box. When interviewed on 10/27/21 at 9:26 AM, LPN #8 stated they were unaware of any resident that received the expired medications. The LPN stated the 11-7 shift was expected to check for expired medications in the medication carts, rooms, and refrigerators. The LPN was not sure of the frequency of the checks. The expired medications should have been discarded. The vial of flu vaccine was considered expired as there was no way to determine how long the vial had been opened and it was only good for 30 days once opened. When interviewed on 10/27/21 at 9:50 AM, LPN Manager #9 stated the 11-7 nurse was responsible for checking stock medication expiration dates. The unit currently did not have a full-time night nurse and was using agency. The LPN stated the day shift was responsible for checking for expired medications at that time and the checks were to be done monthly. The LPN stated the medication cart, room and refrigerator checks were audited randomly last on 10/22/21 by the unit manager. The LPN stated the nurse opening any vial or medication was expected to hand write the opened date on the bottle or vial. Any expired medications should have been discarded and each nurse should check expiration dates prior to administering medications to a resident. 10NYCRR 415.18(d)(e)(2-4)
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted from 10/25/21-10/28/21, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted from 10/25/21-10/28/21, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 main kitchen reviewed. Specifically, the main kitchen had an unclean/unsanitary empty storage room floor, multiple dirty/stained ceiling tiles and multiple unlabeled and outdated food items. Findings included: The facility policy Food Safety Product Labeling and Dating Guideline revised 1/29/21, documented ready to eat food, time/ temperature control (TCS) food prepared and held longer than the subsequent meal period must be marked to indicate the date or day which food should be consumed or discarded by. The facility Food Service Worker job description dated 3/2016, documented the general responsibilities included assisting with the preparation of hot and or cold foods, properly storing food, utilizing knowledge of temperature requirements and spoilage, and complying with all Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) policies and procedures. UNCLEAN/UNSANITARY KITCHEN ENVIRONMENT During an observation with the Food Service Director on 10/26/21 at 12:35 PM, an empty storage room floor had 2-3 inches of standing brown/unclean water. Worms were observed crawling on the floor. There was a dirt buildup with more worms behind the bottom wall cove base of one of the empty storage room walls. Unclean light brown water was flowing into the room from behind the ice machine. The natural flow of water on the floor inside the main kitchen flowed along the wall of the three-bay sink, then behind the ice machine, and then directly into the empty storage room. During an interview on 10/26/21 at 12:42 PM, the Food Service Director stated the empty storage room had not been used since they had been hired 3 years ago. The Food Service Director was not aware of the current condition of this room. They stated it had been at least 6 months since they had been in the room since it had not been in use for a long period of time. The Food Service Director stated that this room was part of the kitchen and it was negligent on part of kitchen staff not to clean the room. The Food Service Director stated that when the ice machine leaked, water would flow along wall into the unused storage room. They could not recall the last time the ice machine had leaked or been repaired and could not provide any work orders. During an observation on 10/27/21 at 12:45 PM, there were multiple soiled/stained ceiling tiles throughout the main kitchen. During an interview on 10/27/21 at 12:45 PM, the Food Service Director stated that there were stained ceiling tiles in the main kitchen, and they were aware of some of the stained ceiling tiles. They stated that the kitchen did have cleanable ceiling tiles. The Food Service Director could not provide documentation on the last time the ceiling tiles were cleaned. The Food Service Director stated that it was the responsibility of the housekeepers to clean the ceiling tiles in the main kitchen, after hours. During an interview on 10/27/21 at 12:55 PM, the Food Service Director stated that the unused storage room in the kitchen had approximately 2 inches of water on the floor that morning when the morning kitchen staff came it. They stated all the water in the unused storage room had been vacuumed out the night before. During an interview on 10/27/21 at 4:47 PM, the Food Service Director stated cleaning behind ice machines should be done twice a day and had not been completed recently. The Food Service Director stated that there was no facility policy for cleaning the floors/ceilings in the main kitchen. OUTDATED/UNDATED FOOD During an observation on 10/25/21 at 10:40 AM, with the Food Service Director present, the cook's cooler contained 3 dishes of uncovered oatmeal, 5 uncovered pans of chicken ala king, unlabeled mixed vegetables, and unlabeled broccoli. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 10:40 AM, the Food Service Director stated that the chicken ala king was placed in the cook's cooler less than ten minutes ago to cool. On 10/25/21 at 10:51 AM, with the Food Service Director and food service worker #18 present, the following was observed in the dinner cooler: - 1 can of pumpkin with a metal lid and an opened date of 10/13; - 14 undated servings of puree coconut cream pies; - 1 cup of undated salad with egg and cheese; - 2 cups of undated mixed fruit; - 1 cup of undated puree cottage cheese; and - 2 cups of undated puree fruit. On 10/25/21 at 10:51 AM, with the Food Service Director and food service worker #18 present, the following was observed in the breakfast cooler: - 21 cups of undated stewed prunes; - 7 cups of undated diet banana pudding; - a 5 pound bag of brown shredded lettuce; and - 1 cup of undated diced peaches. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 10:51 AM, food service worker #18 stated that the 1 cup of puree cottage cheese was placed in the dinner cooler on 10/19/21, the 2 cups of puree fruit were placed in the dinner cooler on 10/21/21, the 21 cups of stewed prunes were placed in the breakfast cooler on 10/19/21, the 7 cups of diet banana pudding were placed in the breakfast cooler on 10/21/21, and the 1 cup of diced peaches was placed in the breakfast cooler on 10/19/21. On 10/25/21 at 11:01 AM, with the Food Service Director and food service worker #18 present, the following was observed in the special cooler: - 9 cups of undated diced peaches; - 5 cups of undated cut watermelon; -17 cups of undated banana pudding; and - 2 cups of undated chef salad with egg and cheese. During an interview on 10/25/21 at 11:01 AM, food service worker #18 stated that the 9 cups of diced peaches were placed in the special cooler on 10/21/21, the 5 cups of cut watermelon were placed in the special cooler on 10/21/21, the 17 cups of banana pudding were placed in the special cooler on 10/21/21, and the 2 cups of chef salads with egg and cheese were placed in the special cooler on 10/22/21. During an interview on 10/27/21 at 12:55 PM, the Food Service Director stated after the breakfast service the warm oatmeal that was not used was placed into the walk-in cooler. It was placed in the cooler uncovered to assist with the cooling process. The oatmeal would be covered once it was fully cooled. It was policy to keep warm objects in coolers uncovered to speed up the cooling period. These food items would be covered after 3 or 4 hours. The Food Service Director stated everything that goes into the cooler should be properly labeled. During an interview on 10/27/21 at 4:47 PM, the Food Service Director stated the cooks, cold prep staff, and production manager would check to ensure food was labeled. The Food Service Director stated the facility had a policy to discard food 3 days after the prepared by date. They stated that all staff entering the walk-in coolers, walk-in freezers, and refrigerators should have been checking the labeled dates. The Food Service Director stated that due to the fact they did not have any blast chillers, prepared hot foods were currently kept uncovered in the walk-in coolers to ensure that warm foods are cooled within the 2 hour and 4 hour windows for proper cooling temperatures. During an interview on 10/27/21 at 4:52 PM, cook #19 stated that every time they made food it would be labeled before being placed in the walk-in cooler. The cook stated that food was discarded after 3 days of the preparation date, and that all staff entering the walk-in coolers, freezers, and refrigerators should be checking the labeled dates. During an interview on 10/29/21 at 8:21 AM, food service worker #18 stated that food was supposed to be dated either on the tray or on the item before being placed in the cooler and could be kept for 3 days. Food service worker #18 stated they looked at the posted menu for a date if they did not know when the food was made. They stated the kitchen staff would try to make food items a day ahead and would discard food if older than 3 days. Food service worker #18 stated that they had not received any food service training at this facility. They stated that the staff person whose role they took over had discussed the policies regarding food storage and labeling. During an interview on 10/29/21 at 8:27 AM, Food Service Operations Manager stated that they oversaw all operations of kitchen. They stated It was their expectation that kitchen staff ensured that food was dated and on a 3 day rotation. If a food was not labeled or dated, it should be immediately discarded. 10NYCRR 415.14(h)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $241,946 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $241,946 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New York. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 3/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates WILLOW POINT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at WILLOW POINT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 20 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

WILLOW POINT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 300 certified beds and approximately 247 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a large facility located in VESTAL, New York.

How Does Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, WILLOW POINT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at WILLOW POINT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 57%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?

WILLOW POINT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has been fined $241,946 across 2 penalty actions. This is 6.8x the New York average of $35,498. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Willow Point Rehabilitation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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