Stanly Manor

625 Bethany Church Road, Albemarle, NC 28001 (980) 323-7373
Non profit - Other 90 Beds ATRIUM HEALTH Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
14/100
#391 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: October 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Stanly Manor has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #391 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina, they fall in the bottom half, and are the lowest among the four nursing homes in Stanly County. The facility's situation is worsening, as the number of issues increased from three in 2023 to eight in 2024. Staffing is rated average at 3 out of 5 stars, but they have a concerning turnover rate of 63%, which is higher than the state average. Although the facility has more RN coverage than 76% of North Carolina facilities, there have been critical incidents, including a resident being transported on the floor of a van after a fall and another incident where there was no RN coverage for several shifts, raising serious safety concerns. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing coverage, the significant issues and recent trends suggest families should proceed with caution.

Trust Score
F
14/100
In North Carolina
#391/417
Bottom 7%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
63% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$12,054 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 43 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for North Carolina. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
16 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
2023: 3 issues
2024: 8 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 North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 63%

17pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $12,054

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: ATRIUM HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (63%)

15 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Oct 2024 8 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews with hospital system's transportation staff (Driver #1), Passenger Services ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews with hospital system's transportation staff (Driver #1), Passenger Services Manager and Nurse Practitioner (NP), the facility failed to leave Resident #45 in place for a clinical assessment of injury after a fall that occurred during transport. Resident #45 was being transported to dialysis in a hospital system owned transport van. Driver #1 made a sudden stop which caused Resident #45 to slide forward out his wheelchair onto the van floor when his seatbelt loosened. Driver #1 pulled the van into the median of the road and attempted to transfer Resident #45 back into his wheelchair. When Driver #1 was unsuccessful in transferring Resident #45 back to his wheelchair, she continued to transport Resident #45 to the dialysis center while the resident was seated on the floor of the transportation van. Driver #1 was not qualified to provide a comprehensive physical assessment to determine if the resident sustained any injuries. Resident #45 did not sustain any injury, however there was a high likelihood of serious injury after sliding out of his wheelchair onto the floor of the vehicle when the driver had to suddenly apply brakes to avoid hitting pedestrians. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #45). The immediate jeopardy began on 2/9/24 when Resident #45 was not physically assessed for injury before being moved and was transported to dialysis while seated and unsecured on the floor of the transportation van. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 10/15/24 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility will remain out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of D (no actual harm that is immediate jeopardy) to ensure education and monitoring systems put into place are effective. The findings included: The Motor Vehicle Accident and Emergency Reporting procedure updated 6/23/23 included a policy that stated health care passenger service drivers would report a motor vehicle accident or medical/vehicle emergencies immediately. The supervisor should be called (number listed) to resolve any urgent or emergency situations concerning the driver, the delivery or pick-up of passengers, and vehicle related problems at any time. The procedures included if patient starts to slide or shift while in wheelchair during transport - driver must pull over when safe to do so and seek help. i.e. Call 911 - fire department, pull vehicle onto the shoulder of the road; assess patient and/ passenger to determine if emergency medical assistance was needed and if patient or passenger was injured, report this to your supervisor immediate so an online incident report can be done via CARE Event (A Care Event is an incident/accident report that involves resident safety). Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included generalized weakness, end stage renal disease and hypertension. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #45 was cognitively intact. The MDS further indicated he required substantial/maximum assistance (helper does more than half of the effort) to go from a lying position to sitting, utilized a manual wheelchair and received dialysis. An interview was conducted with Resident #45 on 10/11/24 at 5:00 PM. Resident #45 stated he recalled an incident in which he slid from his wheelchair in the transportation van while going to his dialysis appointment. He further stated the brakes [when the driver applied brakes, it] threw him out of the chair. Resident #45 revealed he had gotten help from emergency medical service (EMS) staff to get back into his wheelchair. He stated Driver #1 slammed on brakes and he did not touch his seatbelt. Driver #1's witness statement dated 2/9/24 at 2:45 PM read Driver #1 was driving down [Highway] 52 South towards the dialysis center. Some pedestrians started to run out in the front of her and Driver #1 had to put on brakes suddenly. Somehow the seatbelt came loose, and Resident #45 slid out of wheelchair onto the floor. Driver #1 pulled into the median to check on Resident #45 and attempted to get him up. Resident #45 stated he wanted to stay there and just take him on to his appointment. Once at dialysis, Driver #1 asked for help from dialysis staff. The Dialysis Staff said they could only help if Resident #45 was visible in the building. Driver #1 called 911 to help. Resident #45 stated he was not hurt to the medic on the phone, and they came and got him back in the chair. Driver #1 took Resident #45 in dialysis center for his appointment. Interview with Driver #1 on 10/10/24 at 4:09 PM revealed she could not recall the date of the incident but recalled a van incident that occurred with Resident #45. She stated she was transporting Resident #45 to dialysis when she observed 2 pedestrians that appeared to be darting in the roadway. She slammed on brakes. When she slammed on the brakes, Resident #45 slid from his wheelchair, his seatbelt came loose and he landed on the van floor. She indicated it was the force of the van stopping that made the resident's seatbelt come loose and Resident #45 landed on the van floor. She stated she stopped the van and tried to put Resident #45 back in his chair. She could not get him in the chair, and he stated he did not want help. Driver #1 stated she was close to the dialysis center, so she drove Resident #45 while he was seated on the floor of the transportation van. She indicated she should have contacted 911 to get Resident #45 back into his wheelchair and not drive with him on the floor of the van. Following the incident, she received education to call 911 if a fall happened on transport and she shouldn't move a resident. She further stated she had seen the video of the incident as there was a camera on the transportation vans. An observation of video footage (visual and audio) of the van incident dated 2/9/24 was conducted with the Administrator on 10/11/24 at 2:31 PM. The video footage revealed a date of 2/9/24 and began at 11:43 AM. The camera was mounted in the front of the van and provided a view toward the rear of the van. Resident #45 originally seated behind the driver in the middle isle of the van. At 11:49 AM in transport, Resident #45 was observed to lean forward as his seatbelt was observed to come from his right side (where it was fastened) to his left. Resident #45 was observed to lean to his right side then slide forward out of his wheelchair in the aisle and then fall to his right. After falling to his right, Resident #45 was no longer visible through the video (behind passenger seat). His wheelchair could still be seen in the upright position. Driver #1 was observed to stop the transportation van in the road's median and stated someone ran out in front of her. Driver #1 then exited the driver's seat and entered the side door of the transportation van. She was overheard to tell Resident #45 You going to have to help me out now. Resident #45 was heard telling Driver #1 she was going to have to get some help. Driver #1 was observed to attempt to get the resident back up into his wheelchair as evidenced by picking him up under both arms. Resident #45 was observed sliding back out of his wheelchair back onto his bottom to the floor of the transportation van. Driver #1 then positioned Resident #45's back against his wheelchair while he was seated on the floor while telling him to hold on. Driver #1 was further observed to get back in the driver's seat. She stated she would drive slow. She also stated Resident #45 shouldn't have taken his seatbelt off. Driver #1 transported Resident #45 to the dialysis center. At 11:53 AM Driver #1 was observed pulling into the dialysis center parking covered parking deck. Resident #45 could be heard breathing heavy and moaning. Driver #1 was observed to go into the dialysis center, and then shortly after came back out to the transportation van. Within distance of the surveillance video, Driver #1 was observed to make a phone call at 11:55 AM (not within distance to overhear conversation). Driver #1 was observed to meet emergency medical services (EMS) upon arrival at 12:08 PM. Two EMS personnel were observed to assist Resident #45 back into his wheelchair at 12:10 PM. EMS were observed not to take vital signs or check Resident #45 for injuries. After EMS transferred Resident #45 into his wheelchair they exited the transportation van. Driver #1 was observed taking Resident #45 into the dialysis center at 12:12 PM. According to contact with the local EMS agency on 10/22/24, a report was not made. EMS attendants observed in the video footage did not document the event. Interview with Passenger Services Manager on 10/11/24 at 2:00 PM revealed when an incident occurred during transport, the driver should contact dispatch office. After watching the video footage she indicated following the incident, Driver #1 should have contacted 911 to assist her transferring Resident #45 back into his wheelchair. Driver #1 should not have attempted to transfer Resident #45. She indicated that due to the investigation, Driver #1 was reeducated regarding the seatbelt strap, transporting a secured resident and contacting 911 for assistance. She further indicated it was not part of the procedure to drive with a resident on the floor of the van unsecured. On 10/14/24 at 9:03 AM the Unit Manager stated she had not completed an incident report for the fall but did put the incident in a care event. She continued that generally, when a resident had a fall, the facility would assess the resident before moving them. Assessing the resident prior to getting him up was to ensure there were no fractures or anything that could cause more damage if moved. Interview with the Nurse Practitioner on 10/14/24 at 11:00 AM initially indicated she did not believe the resident had the dexterity to unhook his seatbelt. She stated there should be an assessment of the resident before he was assisted up from the floor of the transportation van. The assessment would have included his level of consciousness, a quick neurological check to see if moving all extremities, baseline mentation, looking for trauma, blood, bruising or any signs of injury. A body assessment should have been completed to identify any abrasions that could have occurred due to the incident. Resident #45 was not someone who could be lifted because Resident #45 cannot assist. An interview with Director of Nursing Services, on 10/14/24 at 3:26 PM was conducted. She stated she had seen the video of the incident involving Resident #45 while he was being transported to his appointment. She further revealed Driver #1 would not have been able to assess the resident due to not being licensed. She indicated Driver #1 also continued to transport Resident #45 following the fall while he was seated on the floor of the transportation van. Driver #1 should have contacted 911 for assistance. Interview with the Administrator on 10/14/24 at 2:12 PM stated she was not clinical and was not involved with Resident #45's assessment following the incident Driver #1 should have not attempted to pick up Resident #45 from the floor of the van and should not have continued to transport Resident #45 while seated on the floor of the transport van. Resident #45 should be assessed before he was moved, and she assumed EMS would have assessed him. The facility was notified of immediate jeopardy on 10/11/24 at 7:17 PM. The facility provided the following immediate jeopardy removal plan. Identify those recipients wo have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance: On 2/09/24 Resident #45 was at the dialysis clinic when the Administrator was notified by a staff member that Resident #45 experienced a fall while in van transport. Driver #1 did not notify the facility administrator nor her supervisor, the Passenger Services Manager, about the accident. On 2/09/24 the Administrator contacted the Passenger Services Manager to begin an investigation and require education of Driver #1. On 2/09/24 Driver #1 put on the brakes suddenly and Resident #45 slid from his wheelchair onto the floor. Driver #1 stated that she did attempt to get Resident #45 up however Resident #45 stated to just to leave him on the van floor and take him to the Dialysis Clinic. Driver #1 then proceeded to call 911 for assistance. Driver #1 asked Resident #45 if he was ok and Resident stated that he was. Resident #45 stated to 911 personnel that he was not hurt, and they moved him back to the wheelchair. After Resident #45 was transferred to his chair by EMS (Emergency Medical Services) staff, Resident #45 stated that he had to go to the restroom Resident #45 required assistance prior to being dialyzed, Driver #1 transported Resident #45 back to the facility to receive care and Driver #1 then transported Resident #45 back to the Dialysis Clinic to be dialyzed without further incident. Driver #1 returned Resident #45 to the facility after dialysis was completed. There was no documentation that the nurse assigned to Resident #45 completed an assessment after incident on 2/9/24. Resident #45 was assessed by physician on 2/10/24 not related to this incident and no injuries were noted. The Passenger Services Manager provided documentation to validate that Driver #1 received education on the following policies and procedures on 2/13/24 and on 3/2/24: Expectations of Passenger Services Drivers', Mobile Cellular Device, Proper Transport Loading and Unloading Wheelchair Patients, General Safety, Motor Vehicle Accidents& Emergency Reporting Procedures to the facility administrator. On 10/14/24, the Passenger Services Manager notified the facility administrator that on 2/12/24 and 2/13/24, the Lead Driver accompanied Driver #1 on transportation routes and provided one-to one re-training as assigned by the Passenger Services Manager. Driver #1 reported back to work on 2/12/24. The Passenger Services Manager provided documentation to validate that Driver #1 received related education on the following policies and procedures: General Safety, Motor Vehicle Accidents & Emergency Reporting Procedures, Expectations of Passenger Services Drivers, Proper Transport Loading and Unloading Wheelchair Patients and Mobile Cellular Device to the facility administrator. Documentation of training and acknowledgment was signed on 2/13/24. On 3/2/24 Driver #1 was re-educated again on the following Policies and procedures: General Safety, Motor Vehicle Accidents & Emergency Reporting Procedures, Expectations of Passenger Services Drivers, Proper Transport Loading and Unloading Wheelchair Patients and Mobile Cellular Device and documentation of training was provided to the facility administrator. Documentation of training and acknowledgment was signed on 3/2/24. All residents who use wheelchair transportation services for medical appointment[s] are at risk of experiencing an adverse outcome as a result of this deficient practice. Current residents who had been transported by the transportation service within the last 30 days were interviewed on 10/12/24 and 10/13/24 by members from the IDT team, specifically the Resident Liaison, Rehab Manager, Activity Director and LPN/Unit Coordinator regarding any incidents or accidents where the resident was not immediately assessed for injuries occurred in transport. For current residents who were not able to be interviewed, the assigned transportation companions were interviewed 10/12/24 and 10/13/24 and no evidence of any additional deficient practice during transport was reported where drivers moved residents after an incident without being first assessed by 911 personnel or licensed nurse/physician. The Passenger Services Manager was interviewed by the facility Administrator on 10/11/24 and 10/13/24 related to any events of deficient practice reported from all drivers within the last 30 days which required immediate assessment for injuries. The Passenger Services Manager reviewed incident reports and communicated directly with all drivers providing services to the facility and found no evidence of any deficient practice during transport review period reported. The Passenger Services Manager also asked all drivers, including Driver # 1, if there were any accidents/incidents that occurred on transport that were not reported in the last 30 days and the drivers' responses indicated that there had not been any accidents/incidents that had not been reported during review period. On 10/13/24, the Passenger Services Manager confirmed with the facility administrator that interviews; and a review of transportation records for that past 30 days found no evidence of deficient practice with drivers providing service to residents at the facility. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete: The facility will take immediate action by informing Hospital system transportation services to remove Driver #1 from transporting facility residents to any off-campus appointments, Effective at 8:40 pm on 10/11/24. On 10/12/24, the Passenger Services Manager and the Facility Administrator reviewed the policy, Motor Vehicle Accident & Emergency Reporting Procedure and found the policy did not address skilled nursing facility residents and the policy section regarding emergencies was revised on 10/14/24 to reflect that for skilled nursing home residents, drivers are not to move patient until assessed by EMS or licensed nurse/physician, as listed below: Medical/Vehicle Emergencies: • If patient starts to slide or shift while in wheelchair during transport - Driver must pull over when safe to do so and seek help. i.e. Call 911 - fire dept. Each driver has a cell phone provided and other communication devices which are owned and managed through Mobile Medical Services not the facility. • Pull vehicle onto the shoulder of the road • Evacuate Patients and or passengers from the vehicle quickly and safely if vehicle is on fire • Administer first aid and use fire extinguishers as appropriate • Do not move patient. Patient must be accessed by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) or licensed nurse/physician • Drivers will immediately notify the Passenger Services Manager in the event of an incident/accident during transport • Call Atrium Health Security or contact 9-1-1 as needed for emergency help and update Mobile Medicine Passenger Services Dispatch at (704)512-7920 • If patient or passenger is injured, report this to your supervisor immediately so an online incident report can be done via CARE Event (A Care Event is an incident/accident report that involves resident safety) • Driver must remain with patients and/or passengers until all are transported to an emergency care facility if necessary • Have Atrium Health Security notify supervisor and department head as needed On 10/14/24 the facility administrator notified the Passenger Services Manager to immediately notify the facility administrator or charge nurse in the event of an incident/accident during transport. All current van drivers will receive education by 10/14/24. Any current van drivers who do not receive education by 10/14/24 (due to FMLA, leave, etc.) will be required to complete education prior to working a scheduled shift. All van drivers hired after 10/14/24 will be required to complete this training and education upon hire. The education will be required during annual orientation. Beginning 10/12/24, the Passenger Services Manager will immediately notify and provide all transportation services incident reports involving nursing home facility residents to the Administrator and Director of Nursing to ensure that timely resident assessments post medical/vehicle emergencies are completed. The alleged date of immediate jeopardy removal was October 15, 2024. On 10/16/2024 the facility's immediate jeopardy removal was validated by the following: The facility provided documentation to support immediate jeopardy removal including education provided by the Passenger Services Manager to the current drivers. Drivers were interviewed and they reported the procedure to follow if a resident falls on the van, including pulling the van over as soon as possible, calling 911 to request an assessment of the resident by an EMT, contacting the dispatcher to report the accident or incident. Drivers verbalized they were not to move the resident until an EMT, nurse, or physician had assessed the resident for injuries. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 10/15/2024.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 was cognitively intact. He was not receiving an anticoagulant. He did not have any impairment to his upper and lower extremities. Review of Passenger Services Liftgate Use and Patient Safety Check (no date) supplied by the Passenger Services Manager revealed the following: I. Vehicle Liftgate Use & Safety Checks- - Always ride liftgate up when getting ready to offload patient - Ensure liftgate is in the upward position prior to attempting to unload patient - Do not ride liftgate up or down with the patient on lift II.Passenger Safety (Unload) - - Always ride the liftgate up when getting ready to offload patient - Ensure liftgate is in the upward (level with the floor in the rear of the van) position prior to attempting to unload patient and that the liftgate is level with floor of vehicle - Get in front of patient and push wheelchair onto liftgate and secure wheelchair by locking wheelchair brakes Review of Passenger Services Safety Briefing (no date) supplied by the Passenger Services Manager revealed the following: - To ensure the lift gate is in the upward position prior to attempting to offload a patient, always ride the lift gate up after entering from the rear of the vehicle. Review of the video and audio recording (which was center- rear facing) from the hospital owned transportation van dated 8/12/24 revealed the following: - At 6:08 PM the hospital owned transportation van, driven by Driver #1, returned to the facility with Resident #62's responsible party, Resident #62, and another resident. Resident #62 was observed in his wheelchair with his shoulder securement strap resting across his left upper arm. - At 6:09 PM to 6:10 PM, Driver #1 disconnected Resident #62's shoulder securement strap and Resident #62 remained in his wheelchair while another resident was being unloaded by Driver #1 via the lift gate. - At 6:12 PM Driver#1 returned to the hospital owned transportation van and entered from the rear. The lift gate was observed to be on ground level. Driver #1 unsecured Resident #62's wheelchair securement straps from behind. - At 6:13 PM Driver #1, who was behind Resident #62, was observed pulling Resident #62 backwards towards the rear of the hospital owned transportation van. As Driver #1 crossed the threshold at the rear of the hospital owned transportation van, an audible alarm sounded, and indicator lights lit up red and flashed, which indicated the liftgate was not in the upward position and there was a risk of falling out of the rear of the van. Driver #1 proceeded to fall out of the back of the hospital owned transportation van. She let go of Resident #62's wheelchair as she was falling backwards out of the hospital owned transportation van. Resident #62 was seated in his wheelchair and remained in motion rolling backwards out of the hospital owned transportation van. Driver #1's arm was observed to come up to meet the back of Resident #62's wheelchair as Resident #62 and his wheelchair proceeded to roll off the back of the hospital owned transportation van. Resident #62 continued rolling backwards in his wheelchair and his legs were seen coming up in the air as his chair exited the rear of the hospital owned transportation van and pivoted to where the resident was still seated but facing upwards. Resident #62 then was observed to be slightly unseated from his wheelchair. The wheelchair wheels were observed to be hanging off the back of the hospital owned transportation van. Driver #1 ceased to be in the field of vision. Driver #1 and Resident #62 could be heard yelling/calling out for help. Resident #62's wheelchair wheels were suspended in air and still spinning. - At 6:14 PM to 6:16 PM facility staff were observed exiting the facility and saw Driver #1 lying on her back on the lift gate on the ground and Resident #62 in his wheelchair tilted to the left resting on Driver #1 and ran back inside to get help. More staff responded and came out to assist. The Unit Manager also responded. Staff were observed standing over Driver #1 and Resident #62. The Unit Manager was observed entering the hospital owned transportation van from the side entrance and walking to the rear of the hospital owned transportation van towards the lift gate. The Unit Manager was observed bending over and grabbing the wheelchair legs while other staff were observed assisting Driver #1 from underneath Resident #62 and his wheelchair. Resident #62's wheelchair was then placed to the left side of the hospital owned transportation van. Driver #1 was observed to stand and stretch. Staff continued to stand as Resident #62 was being assessed. Resident #62 was assisted by staff back to his wheelchair and taken back inside the facility by staff. An observation was completed on 10/11/24 at 4:55 PM of the Administrator obtaining the measurement of the back of the transportation van where Resident #62 fell backwards in his wheelchair to where he and his wheelchair landed measured three (3) feet and ten (10) inches. Review of the Care Event (incident report) notification completed by the Passenger Services Manager dated 8/12/24 revealed the following information: Event Description- Driver was unloading patient from wheelchair van. Patient fell out of the wheelchair as driver was exiting patient from vehicle. Driver statement will be sent. Date Occurred: 8/12/24. Incident Location (facility): Hospital System- Health Mobile Medicine. Extent of Harm: Mild Harm. Event Type: Fall. Review of Driver #1 witness statement dated 8/12/24 read in part: Driver #1 was unloading two patients. Driver #1 unloaded the first patient and took them inside the building. Driver #1 returned to the hospital owned transportation van on the passenger side, where the door was already opened, and unlocked the seatbelt and the wheelchair securement straps. Driver #1 was behind the wheelchair to pull it back to the rear of the hospital owned transportation van not realizing the lift gate was down on the ground and not in the level position. The safety beeper went off. At that point, Driver #1 was too far back and fell backwards, still holding on to the wheelchair. Driver #1 let go of the wheelchair, so it stayed on the hospital owned transportation van but was tilted back. Driver #1 balanced and held the wheelchair up with her feet as long as she could and called out for help. When Driver #1 strength gave out, the patient and wheelchair fell back onto Driver #1 body breaking the fall. Driver #1 braced his [the resident] upper body with her left arm and hand until help arrived. An interview with Driver #1 on 10/10/24 at 4:33 PM revealed that she and Resident #62 fell out of the back of the hospital owned transportation van on 8/12/24. Driver #1 explained she went to unload Resident #62 from the hospital owned transportation van after unloading another resident. Driver #1 stated she entered the hospital owned transportation van from the rear and proceeded to unsecure Resident #62 from the wheelchair securement straps from behind. Driver #1 explained she remained behind the wheelchair of Resident #62 and wheeled him backwards towards the lift gate area. Driver #1 voiced she did not realize the lift gate was down. Driver #1 continued to explain while moving Resident #62 towards the lift gate area, walking backwards as she was pulling Resident #62 in his wheelchair backwards, Driver #1 verbalized the alarm/sensor sounded as she crossed the threshold at rear of the van. Driver #1 stated the alarm sound startled her. Driver #1 proceeded to explain she fell backwards out of the hospital owned transportation van taking the wheelchair with Resident #62 with her as she fell. Driver #1 further stated she held the wheelchair with Resident #62 in the air with her feet and hands as long as she could (no timeframe given) and hollered for help. Driver #1 expressed she started to fatigue and the wheelchair with the resident fell on top of her as she laid on the lift gate which was at ground level. Driver #1 voiced Resident #62 did not hit the ground, because she had absorbed his fall. A telephone attempt was made on 10/11/24 at 11:05 AM to speak with the responsible party for Resident #62 without success. Review of the post fall evaluation completed by the Unit Manager dated 8/12/24 revealed the following: Fall Occurrence: August 12, 2024. Day of Week of Fall Occurrence: Monday. Location of Fall Occurrence: Exterior. Description of Fall Activity: Other. Assistive Device: Lift and Walker. Post Fall Injury: No apparent injury. Post Fall Notification (date/ time/ name): August 12, 2024/ 7:25 PM/ Nurse Practitioner. Outcome of Notification: No new order received. Date/ Time of Family Notification/ Family Contact: August 12, 2024/ 7:25 PM/ onsite discussion with responsible party. Post Fall Analysis (current interventions in place): wheelchair for locomotion, wheelchair locked when not in use, non-skid footwear. Review of the Unit Manager nursing progress note dated 8/12/24 read in part: Resident #62 observed laying on back on top of Driver #1 on the lift of the hospital owned transportation van with wheelchair laying on top of Resident #62. The lift gate was resting flat on the ground. Driver #1 stated she broke his fall. Staff came in from the back of the hospital owned transportation van and pulled the wheelchair off of the resident and were able to position resident to where the driver could slide out from under him. Staff assessed Resident #62 for injury with no apparent injuries noted. Staff assisted Resident #62 to his wheelchair and assessed head for injury, none noted. Nurse Practitioner (NP) was made aware and going to complete full assessment of resident for injury. Responsible party made aware and appreciative of care. An interview with the Unit Manager was completed on 10/11/24 at 11:34 AM. The Unit Manager stated she was in her office working and a family member or visitor was leaving out of the facility. The Unit Manager proceeded to state the family member or visitor started hollering her name. The Unit Manager responded and ran towards the front entry hallway per the request. The Unit Manager explained when she arrived at the front entrance door, the lift was down on the back entry of the hospital owned transportation van and Driver #1 was lying flat on her back with her feet against the back of the hospital owned transportation van (bumper area), Resident #62 was on top of Driver #1 on his back, the wheelchair was half on top of him/ half under him somehow. The Unit Manager recalled she immediately went to remove the wheelchair from on top of resident. She stated she could not remove the wheelchair from on top of Resident #62, so she went in the hospital owned transportation van through the side entrance to remove the wheelchair from the top angle. The Unit Manager voiced she was able to remove the wheelchair and get it upright inside the hospital owned transportation van. The Unit Manager stated she exited the hospital owned transportation van with the wheelchair through the side entrance. The Unit Manager further stated that she and another nurse quickly assessed Resident #62 for immediate injury so they could get Driver #1 from underneath him and get Resident #62 lying flat. The Unit Manager and another nurse assisted Driver #1 from underneath Resident #62. The Unit Manager assessed Resident #62 which included movement of all extremities, skin assessment (abrasions, bruising or red marks), and assessing for pain. The Unit Manager recalled Resident #62, and Driver #1 were able to verbalize that Resident #62 did not hit his head during the incident. The Unit Manager and other staff were able to provide support to Resident #62 and assist him with standing so he could transfer to his wheelchair. The Unit Manager had a staff person assist Resident #62 back into the facility. The Unit Manager voiced the NP was onsite and assessed Resident #62 after the incident. The Unit Manager did not recall Resident #62 sustaining any injuries. Resident #62's responsible party was onsite during the incident, but the Unit Manager could not recall if Resident #62's responsible party witnessed the incident. A telephone interview was completed with the Passenger Services Manager on 10/11/24 at 1:56 PM. The Passenger Services Manager recalled the incident involving Resident #62. The Passenger Services Manager stated she was contacted by Driver #1 at some point after the incident. The Passenger Services Manger did not recall the exact time she was notified of the incident. Driver #1 expressed that she forgot to place the lift gate in the upward position while unloading a resident. The Passenger Services Manager stated the video footage in the hospital owned transportation vans had both audio and visual components. The Passenger Services Manager communicated when she reviewed the video footage, the lift gate was not in the upward position and Driver #1 and Resident #62 fell out the back of the hospital owned transportation van onto the lift gate. The Passenger Services Manager recalled seeing the red light flash but did not recall hearing the alarm sound when she reviewed the video footage. The Passenger Services Manager stated Driver #1 was provided re-education on what steps should have been followed when unloading a patient, inclusive of lift gate use, via telephone call on 8/12/24 due to the Passenger Service Manager being out of the office. An in-person coaching, counseling and re-education session on the process for unloading a patient, inclusive of lift gate use, was completed by the Passenger Service Manager on 8/15/24. A telephone attempt was made on 10/11/24 at 11:15 AM to speak with the previous Director of Nursing without success. An interview completed on 10/14/24 at 11:59 AM with Nurse #3 revealed a family member returned inside the building and hollered that help was needed outside. Nurse #3, who was sitting at the nurses' station, and other staff responded. Driver #1 was lying on the lift which was all the way to the ground, Resident #62 was on top driver, and Resident #62's wheelchair was tilted backwards and hung up in the mechanical parts of the lift. Nurse #3 communicated Resident #62 was truly resting on top of driver. Nurse #3 assisted with Resident #62 returning him inside of facility and to his room. The nurse recalled the Unit Manager completed a post fall assessment and informed the NP. Nurse #3 recalled Resident #62 did not have any visible marks or abrasions. Resident #62 did not verbalize any complaint or pain. Nurse #3 stated that Resident #62 was in a pleasant mood after the incident and requested staff to change his clothes due to wearing paper scrubs from his appointment. Review of the Nurse Practitioner assessment dated [DATE] read in part: Patient seen today due to recent fall. Patient had an incident of a fall when he was being transported. Patient moving all extremities at baseline. No visible signs of injury. Denies any complaints. Notes that he is hungry and ready for dinner. Assessment and Plan: Ambulatory dysfunction- physical therapy and occupational therapy. Fall precautions- last fall noted on 8/12 when wheelchair tipped backwards on transport van, but patient sustained no injuries. An interview with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) was completed on 10/14/24 at 10:50 AM. The NP stated she was aware of the incident involving Resident #62's fall out of the hospital owned transportation van. The NP explained she was onsite on 8/12/24 but was not certain if the incident occurred prior to her arrival or when she came out of her office. The NP recalled Resident #62 was back in his room sitting in his wheelchair when she visited him. The NP verbalized she spoke with Resident #62 to determine if he was at his baseline and had any complaint of pain or injury. The NP stated Resident #62 was alert, she was able to determine there was no notable change in orientation (at baseline resident had some confusion), and Resident #62 was able to describe the incident. Resident #62 was able to move all extremities while sitting in his wheelchair. The NP stated she did not have the resident stand. However, he was able to lift legs and push legs against her without any problems. Same with his arms. He had no abrasions on his upper or lower extremities, and no open areas/ abrasions noted to his head area. The NP recalled Resident #62 had no complaints of pain or discomfort. An interview with the Director of Nursing Services was completed on 10/14/24 at 3:05 PM. The Director of Nursing Services stated she was notified of the event a few days later (uncertain of actual date). She explained she was made aware of transport moving someone out the back of the hospital owned transportation van and both resident and driver fell out the back of the hospital owned transportation van due to the lift gate not being in the appropriate placement. The Director of Nursing Services received email notifications after the event of in-servicing/ re-education and training being provided to Driver #1. The Passenger Services Manager completed the plan of correction following the fall from the hospital owned transportation van involving Driver #1 and Resident #62. The Director of Nursing Services was uncertain of the collaboration with facility administrative staff regarding the incident. The Director of Nursing Services explained the process after an incident should include assessment of the resident by a licensed professional, a root cause analysis, and have a plan of correction in place to prevent any further incidents, collaboration between transportation staff and facility administrative staff (if the incident involved a hospital owned transportation van). The Director of Nursing Services was not aware if the facility investigated the root cause and implemented interventions to prevent the incident from happening again. An interview was completed with the unlicensed Administrator on 10/14/24 at 3:51 PM. The unlicensed Administrator communicated Driver #1 did not adhere to the safety mechanism on the lift gate. The alarm sounded and the light flashed. The Administrator continued to communicate Driver #1 did not place the lift gate in the right position when unloading Resident #62 and this caused the incident to occur. The unlicensed Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 10/11/24 at 7:17 PM. The facility provided the following credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal plan: Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice: 1. On 2/09/24 Resident #45 was at the dialysis clinic when the Administrator was notified by a staff member that Resident #45 experienced a fall while in van transport. Driver #1 did not notify the facility administrator nor her supervisor, the Passenger Services Manager, about the accident. On 2/09/24 the Administrator contacted the Passenger Services Manager to begin an investigation and require education of Driver #1. On 2/09/24 Driver #1 was transporting Resident #45 to a dialysis appointment in the Hospital system transportation van. Driver #1 put on the brakes suddenly and Resident #45 slid from his wheelchair onto the floor. The Passenger Services Manager conducted the investigation and completed the review of the video revealed that the lap belt and shoulder harness had excessive slack and did not appear to be snug to the resident as per manufacturer's instructions. Driver #1 went to Resident #45 and attempted to pick up Resident #45 and placed him back in his wheelchair but was unsuccessful and he slid back to the floor where he was in a seated position. Driver #1 returned to the driver's seat, and then drove the van to the Dialysis Clinic, with Resident #45 on the floor of the van. The Dialysis Clinic is approximately 1.2 miles from the facility. On 2/10/24, Fleet Services inspected the van post incident and found no malfunctions of the securement system. On 10/13/24, the facility administrator interviewed the Passenger Services Manager, and she stated that all drivers complete a daily pre-trip audit checklist which includes checking securement straps (lap belt and shoulder harness) for signs of fraying, malfunctioning buckles and wheelchair tie downs before the drivers' first trip of the day. Driver #1 did not report any pre-trip malfunctioning of the van securement system to the Passenger Services Manager on 2/9/24. The Passenger Services Manager provided documentation to validate that Driver #1 received related education on the following policies and procedures: General Safety, Motor Vehicle Accidents & Emergency Reporting Procedures, Expectations of Passenger Services Drivers, Proper Transport Loading and Unloading Wheelchair Patients and Mobile Cellular Device to the facility administrator. Documentation of training and acknowledgment was signed on 2/13/24. On 3/2/24 Driver #1 was re-educated again on the following Policies and procedures: General Safety, Motor Vehicle Accidents & Emergency Reporting Procedures, Expectations of Passenger Services Drivers, Proper Transport Loading and Unloading Wheelchair Patients and Mobile Cellular Device and documentation of training was provided to the facility administrator. Documentation of training and acknowledgment was signed on 3/2/24. On 10/14/24, the Passenger Services Manager notified the facility administrator that on 2/12/24 and 2/13/24, the Lead Driver accompanied Driver #1 on transportation routes and provided one-to one re-training with return demonstration as assigned by the Passenger Services Manager which included manufacturer's instructions for securing the lap belt, shoulder harness and cease driving when resident is not securely seated or when resident has fallen out of wheelchair. Driver #1 reported back to work on 2/12/24. Documentation of training and acknowledgment was signed on 2/13/24 by Driver #1. 2. On 8/12/24 Driver #1 returned to the facility from medical appointments with two residents. Driver #1 offloaded one resident and returned the resident back into the facility. Resident #62 was still on the van waiting to be offloaded by Driver #1. Driver #1 unlocked the seat belt and unbuckled the hooks from the wheelchair. When Driver #1 began to pull resident off the van onto the liftgate the safety alarm alerted, indicating an unsafe lift position. Driver #1 stated that she was not in position to stop while in motion and Driver #1 fell off the van onto the grounded lift gate. Driver #1 did not realize that she did not have the liftgate in the correct position which caused the incident to occur. Resident #62, while remaining in wheelchair, fell onto Driver #1. Resident #62 was immediately assessed by a licensed nurse and no apparent injuries were noted. On 8/13/24, the Physician assessed resident for injury related to the incident and no injuries were noted. Passenger Services Manager provided the following employee action and education for Driver #1 on 8/12/24. Driver #1 continued to transport SNF residents without interruption after 8/12/24 incident. Education and actions were validated by the facility administrator on 9/11/24: 8/12/24: Driver #1 reeducated by Passenger Services Manager on the wheelchair van lift gate which included offloading resident from van Driver #1 acknowledged education of Lift gate Use and Patient Safety. Per manufacturer's instructions 8/13/24: Vehicle taken out of service to have liftgate evaluated. Fleet Service found the liftgate was functioning with no concerns and van was put back in use. 8/16/24: Spot Check/Observation/Retraining conducted by Lead Driver II (the senior driver and provides education and training for drivers). Pre-trip inspections are to be conducted daily by Driver assigned prior to driving patients in van. Lead Driver II will randomly audit all drivers pre-trip inspections. 8/19/24: Competency skills checklist document completed for Driver #1 by Lead Driver II. Competency skills checklist includes but not limited to the following for all Mobile Medical Services Drivers: Use of Two Way Radio Knows how to perform pre trip inspection checklist and able to note any vehicle issues Knows how to report vehicle accident within app Liftgate Use Checked Liftgate lights Check lift up and down button Run safety check on liftgate before using for passengers Demonstrated Use of Manual pump for liftgate Vehicle/Liftgate Operations Demonstrates and discuss concepts of safety always Evaluates loading and unloading zones for hazards Opens and properly secures van doors Assures level landing area and clear path of operation for lift Assures liftgate is in the up position prior to offloading wheelchair patient Driver completes a visual inspection of resident/patient wheelchair (excessive items in chair, leg lifts, functioning brakes, rolls freely) Driver identifies weight limit of the lift Put wheelchair patient on the lift in the forward position or per the lift manufacturers recommendation Secured wheelchair on lift. Pushed wheelchair onto van and locked wheelchair brakes Correctly operated lift Driver returns lift control to appropriate location Wheelchair Securement and Patient Restraint Communicated with patient what you are doing (reaching across them to place shoulder harness and lap belt on) Secured back straps Confirms floor anchor position for straps is within the width of the wheelchair frame Pulls straps straight out to chair and attaches to appropriate anchor point on the wheelchair frame Does not allow strap to twist Allows straps to retract and manually tightens them by twisting the ratchet knob Placed lap strap around the patient and locked it in place Secured front straps Identifies lap or lap/shoulder belt system Assures restraint belt is against patient and does not have slack Assures shoulder strap does not twist Positions lab belt low on torso at area of pelvic arch (hips) Positions buckle on the right side Positions shoulder belt over shoulder and not against neck Positions shoulder strap at level with or higher than shoulder Ensures that straps not compromised with blankets that are over patients Watchful of any items that could prevent a safe patient securement Incident & Medical Reporting Correctly stated how an Incident is Reported Involving a Patient Understands process of notification and documentation of any incident All residents who use wheelchair transportation services for medical appointments are at risk of experiencing an adverse outcome as a result of this deficient practice. Residents who experienced transport by the transportation service within 30 days were interviewed on 10/12/24 and 10/13/24 by the following members from the Interdisciplinary team (IDT) for review and discussion: Activities Director, Rehab Manager, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Coordinator and Resident Liaison. Interviews were related to any incidents or accidents while in transport occurred. No evidence of any additional deficient practice during transport was reported. For current residents who were not able to be interviewed, the assigned transportation companions were interviewed 10/12/24 and 10/13/24 and no evidence of any additional deficient practice during transport was reported. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete: The facility will take immediate action by informing hospital system transportation services to remove Driver #1 from transporting facility residents to any external appointments, Effective at 8:40 pm on 10/11/24. Beginning 10/12/24, the Passenger Services Manager will conduct in person training with all transportation drivers assigned to the facility, including return demonstration of offloading and securement of passengers. The training will include the Safety Briefing slide (providing a visual of the correct position for the liftgate); the Passenger Services Liftgate Use; Patient Safety Check requirements. Training and Education will also include offloading residents from the van and proper securement with the wheelchair van wheelchair and resident securement system according to the manufacturer's instructions. Competency skills checklist was completed for all drivers and continues annually upon orientation. Any transportation drivers who do not receive the education by 10/12/24 (due to FMLA, leave, etc.) will be required to complete education prior to working a scheduled shift. All newly hired drivers assigned to the facility will be required to complete this training and education upon hire and all drivers will be required to complete this education annually. Beginning 10/12/24, the Passenger Services Manager will provide documented evidence of training and education of all assigned drivers to the Administrator and Director of Nursing. Alleged Date of Immediate Jeopardy Removal: 10/15/24 The facility's immediate jeopardy removal plan was validated on 10/16/24 by the following: The facility provided documentation to support their corrective action plan including education provided by the Passenger Services Manager to the current drivers who operate the hospital owned transportation vans. The documentation was reviewed for each driver and each driver was found to have received the education and it was documented each driver provided return demonstration to the Passenger Services Manager. Driver #2 demonstrated the correct method to secure a wheelchair with a resident into the hospital owned transportation van using the securement system. Driver #2 demonstrated the correct procedure to remove a resident from the hospital owned transportation van including riding the hospital owned transportation van lift gate to the back of the hospital owned transportation van and entering the hospital owned transportation van from the rear. Interviews were conducted with a sample of drivers, and they were able to report the pre-trip safety checklist, securing a wheelchair passenger into the hospital owned transportation van, and safe removal of a wheelchair passenger from the hospital owned transportation van. The facility's date of Immediate Jeopardy removal of 10/15/24 was validated. Based on observations, record review, review of audio/video footage, and Nurse Practitioner (NP), Passenger Services Manager, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide safe transportation for Resident #45 in the hospital system transportation van to the dialysis center. On 2/9/24 while en route Driver #1 stopped abruptly, and Resident #45 slid out of his wheelchair to the floor of the van. Driver #1 was unable to assist Resident #45 back into his wheelchair and proceeded to drive to the dialysis center with Resident #45 sitting on the floor of the van. In addition, on 8/12/24, Driver #1 failed to ensure the lift gate was in the elevated position before unloading Resident #62 from the back from the van. Driver #1 stood behind Resident #62's wheelchair and wheeled Resident #62 towards the back of the van and lift gate. Driver #1 fell out of the back of the transportation van and Resident #62 and his wheelchair rolled out of the back of the transportation van and landed on top of Driver #1. There was a high likelihood of a serious adverse outcome or injury when the manufacturer's instructions for securing and unloading residents from the transportation van are not followed. This was for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #45 and Resident #62). Immediate jeopardy began on 2/9/24 when Resident #45 fell to the floor of the transportation van while being transported to his dialysis appointment. Immediate jeopardy began on 8/12/24 for Resident #62 when Driver #1 wheeled the resident out of the back of the
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 F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to secure residents personal health information by leaving shift report documentation and a medication cart laptop unattended with resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to secure residents personal health information by leaving shift report documentation and a medication cart laptop unattended with resident information exposed in an area accessible and visible to the public on 1 of 3 Medication Carts (600 Hall Medication Cart). The findings included: While walking down the 600 hall, an observation was completed on 10/10/24 at 10:36 AM of the 600 Hall Medication Cart inclusive of the medication cart laptop which was unattended. The laptop displayed resident personal health information including names, medications, and diagnoses. The 600 Hall shift report documentation was also observed to be face up which displayed resident personal health information. Staff was observed passing by the 600 Hall Medication Cart. On 10/10/24 at 10:38 AM Nurse #4 returned to the 600 Hall Medication Cart. Nurse #4 closed the laptop screen and verbalized her medication cart was locked but she forgot to close her laptop. An interview was completed with Nurse #4 on 10/10/24 at 10:39 AM. Nurse #4 stated she was retrieving dry cereal for a resident and forgot to close her medication cart laptop. Nurse #4 explained she should have closed the medication cart laptop while not in attendance. Nurse #4 also voiced she should have turned her shift report documentation over while not in attendance of the 600 Hall Medication Cart. An interview with the interim Director of Nursing (DON) was completed on 10/10/24 11:16 AM. The interim DON revealed that Nurse #4 should have locked her laptop screen prior to leaving the medication cart unattended. The interim DON further stated that the nurse should have turned over her clip board to protect resident health information. An interview with the Director of Nursing Services was completed on 10/14/24 at 4:07 PM. The Director of Nursing Services explained anytime staff were not with their medication cart the medication cart should be locked. The Director of Nursing Services continued to explain that staff should lock or lower their computer screen so that protected health information (PHI) was not exposed and shift report documentation should also be flipped over so that PHI was not exposed and no one could read as they passed by. An interview with the unlicensed Administrator was completed on 10/14/24 at 4:34 PM. She stated staff should lock or minimize their laptop screen or turn the medication cart towards the wall so the public cannot view protected health information. The unlicensed Administrator further stated that shift report documentation should be flipped over when the nurse left the medication cart unattended.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to label the gastrostomy feeding formula with the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to label the gastrostomy feeding formula with the flow rate and the time the formula was hung for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding (Resident #40). The findings included: Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anoxic brain injury, tracheostomy (a hole that surgeons make through the front of the neck and into the windpipe or trachea), persistent vegetative state, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (medical procedure where a tube is inserted through the abdominal wall and into the stomach) tube placement. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #40 was rarely/never understood and rarely/never made decisions. The nutritional approach while a resident was via feeding tube. Review of Resident #40's care plan revealed the resident required a permanent feeding tube for the provision of nutrition. The goal for Resident #40 was to maintain adequate nutritional and hydration status as evidenced by stable weight, and no indicators of malnutrition or dehydration. Review of a physician order dated 11/16/23 revealed an order for Resident #40 to receive continuous feeding formula infused at 45 milliliters (ml) per hour via pump infusion. Flush enteral tube with 30 ml of water every hour via pump. The manufacturer's information stated prefilled containers can hang safely for up to 48 hours when clean technique and only one new feeding set is used. An observation conducted of Resident #40 on 10/07/24 at 12:57 PM revealed the resident's tube feeding formula labeling information was written on a cloth surgical tape which only contained the date, name of resident and initials of nurse. There was no information about the time it was hung and flow rate based on the order. The pump was running at 45 ml per hour. An interview with Nurse #2 was conducted on 10/07/24 at 1:18 PM revealed the feeding formula was hung by the nurse working on night shift. Nurse #2 verbalized the label should indicate the name of the resident, date and time tube feeding was placed, the rate, and the name or initials of the nurse. An interview with Nurse #3 on 10/11/24 at 1:09 PM revealed she worked from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM on 10/06/24 and confirmed taking care of Resident #40. Nurse #3 said she had been labeling tube feedings as observed and nobody had said anything about what she's been doing. An interview conducted with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/11/24 at 4:20 PM revealed the facility nurses were aware of what needed to be done. The Interim DON further stated that the facility nurses knew the policy. The Interim DON verbalized staff do things to finish quicker. An interview conducted with the unlicensed Administrator on 10/16/24 at 4:45 PM revealed she was still investigating the findings. The unlicensed Administrator verbalized that anytime there was tube feeding, it should be labeled appropriately.
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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to post cautionary and safety signage indicating th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to post cautionary and safety signage indicating the use of oxygen outside resident rooms for 3 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #40, Resident #41 and Resident #56). The findings included: 1. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of tracheostomy (a hole that surgeons make through the front of the neck and into the windpipe or trachea). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #40 was rarely/never understood and rarely/never made decisions. The respiratory treatment while a resident was oxygen therapy. A physician's order for Resident #40 dated 10/10/24 revealed to keep the resident's oxygen saturation above 90% and wean to maintain saturation of >90% via tracheostomy collar. During an observation on 10/07/24 at 12:55 PM, no signage for oxygen use was found anywhere near Resident #40's room entrance. Resident #40 was observed on oxygen via tracheostomy collar at 5 liters per minute. An interview conducted with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/11/24 at 4:21 PM revealed the facility consolidated all the residents to halls 400, 500, and 600. Resident #40 moved from 300 hall to 400 hall last week. The Interim DON expressed that before the transfer occurred, the staff went around the facility to ensure oxygen signs were in place at each resident's room requiring oxygen use. The Interim DON verbalized whoever nurse admitted a resident requiring oxygen should make sure necessary items were prepared. An interview conducted with the unlicensed Administrator on 10/16/24 at 4:43PM revealed staff had moved all residents to halls 400, 500 and 600 on 10/04/24. The unlicensed Administrator further revealed staff did not have the chance to make sure cautionary oxygen signage was placed in all residents' rooms that were ordered oxygen. All residents that receive oxygen should have a cautionary signage. 2. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included respiratory failure and seizure disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #41 was severely cognitively impaired, received tracheostomy care (a hole that surgeons make through the front of the neck and into the windpipe or trachea) and oxygen (O2) therapy. Review of physician order dated 10/1/24 indicated a modification. The order sated oxygen adult low flow nasal cannula/O2 at 5 liters per minute (lpm) continuous with 28% humidification via trach for hypoxia prevention. Observation on 10/8/24 at 9:19AM revealed Resident #41in his bed receiving oxygen via tracheostomy. There was no cautionary signage indicating the use of oxygen on Resident #41's door. An observation of Resident #41 on 10/9/24 at 10:45AM revealed him receiving oxygen via tracheostomy. There was no cautionary signage indicating the use of oxygen on Resident #41's door. Interview and observation with Nurse #6 on 10/9/24 at 2:54PM stated she believed it would be the responsibility of the nurse to place oxygen signage on residents' doors. She stated it should be done upon admission or when the resident received an order to use oxygen. Upon observation of Resident #41's room she stated the resident did use oxygen and did not have signage identifying the use of oxygen. Interview and observation with the Interim Director of Nursing on 10/9/24 at 2:58PM revealed it was the responsibly of the admitting nurse or the responsibility of the nurse working when the resident obtained an order for O2 to apply cautionary signage. She further revealed oxygen signage was kept in the oxygen storage room. Upon observation of Resident #41's room the Interim Director or Nursing indicated there was not signage and there should have been signage. She stated the error occurred with they recently moved several residents to consolidate halls. The signage must not have followed the residents. An interview conducted with Unlicensed Administrator on 10/16/24 at 4:43PM revealed staff had moved all residents to halls 400, 500 and 600 on 10/04/24. The Unlicensed Administrator further revealed staff did not have the chance to make sure cautionary oxygen signage was placed on all resident rooms that were ordered oxygen. All residents that receive oxygen should have cautionary signage. 3. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 was moderately cognitively impaired and had oxygen in use upon admission. Review of Resident #56 physician order dated 10/1/24 stated oxygen adult low flow nasal cannula 3-7. May increase flow rate to 3 to keep saturation of peripheral oxygen (spO2) greater than 90% and wean as tolerated to maintain spO2 at 90% or greater. Observation of Resident #56 on 10/8/24 at 8:48AM revealed him to be seated in his wheelchair with nasal cannula applied with oxygen running. There was no cautionary signage to Resident #54's room identifying oxygen was in use. Interview and observation with Nurse #6 on 10/9/24 at 2:54PM stated she believed it would be the responsibility of the nurse to place oxygen signage on residents' doors. She stated it should be done upon admission or when the resident received an order to use oxygen. Upon observation of Resident #56's room she stated the resident did use oxygen and did not have signage identifying the use of oxygen. Interview and observation with the Interim Director of Nursing on 10/9/24 at 2:58PM revealed it was the responsibly of the admitting nurse or the responsibility of the nurse working when the resident obtained an order for O2 to apply cautionary signage. She further revealed oxygen signage was kept in the oxygen storage room. Upon observation of Resident #56's room, the Interim Director or Nursing indicated there was not signage and there should have been signage. She stated the error occurred with they recently moved several residents to consolidate halls. The signage must not have followed the residents. An interview conducted with Unlicensed Administrator on 10/16/24 at 4:43PM revealed staff had moved all residents to halls 400, 500 and 600 on 10/04/24. The Unlicensed Administrator further revealed staff did not have the chance to make sure cautionary oxygen signage was placed on all resident rooms that were ordered oxygen. All residents that receive oxygen should have cautionary signage.
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review,and pharmacist and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date an opened vial of Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) stored in 1 of 1 medication room ref...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review,and pharmacist and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date an opened vial of Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) stored in 1 of 1 medication room refrigerator reviewed for medication storage. The findings included: A review of the manufacturer's recommendation for Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) storage, PPD vials in use more than 30 days should be discarded due to possible oxidation and degradation which may affect potency. An observation was completed of the medication room refrigerator with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/10/24 at 10:03 AM revealed an opened PPD vial in a plastic pouch. The affixed sticker had a dispensed date of 08/2/24. There was no open date or discard date marked on the box/pouch. During an interview with the Interim DON on 10/10/24 at 10:07 AM, the Interim DON verbalized the nurses, and the pharmacist had access to the medication room refrigerator. The Interim DON verbalized she was surprised to see the opened and unlabeled PPD solution had not been discarded. The Interim DON verbalized the pharmacist finished checking the cart and medication room refrigerator last on 10/07/24. The Interim DON removed the PPD solution in question. An interview with the Pharmacist on 10/11/24 at 1:19 PM revealed the Pharmacist inspected the medication room, treatment carts, and medication carts monthly. Last time she conducted her inspection was 10/07/24. The Pharmacist stated that any vial, once opened, should be labeled with open and discard date.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff, family, resident and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, the facility failed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff, family, resident and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, the facility failed to obtain a referral, schedule or arrange an audiology appointment, or and screening for a resident with sensory neural hearing loss whose hearing aids did not fit properly for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #45) reviewed with hearing loss. The findings included: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included cognitive decline and asymmetrical sensory-neural hearing loss. The care plan dated 1/22/24 indicated Resident #45 had a hearing deficit due to hearing loss as evidence by wearing bilateral hearing aids. The goal stated Resident #45 would understand verbal communication as evidence by appropriate response. The interventions included involve in activities that don't depend on hearing, parties, craft games, and small groups. Speak clearly/distinctly, adjust tone and volume of voice as necessary and monitor for changes in condition. A nursing note dated 2/8/24 indicated Resident #45 arrived at the facility via stretcher accompanied by Emergency Medical Services following a hospitalization. Resident #45 was alert, oriented and able to verbalize his needs. The note continued that Resident #45 was hard of hearing (HOH) and had hearing aids. A Speech Therapy note dated 3/6/24 included Resident #45 required written down information (visual cues), as Resident #45 was extremely HOH and hearing aids did not work. Review of Occupational Therapy note dated 3/8/24 stated Resident #45 asked, can you put my hearing aids in. The note did not indicate if Resident #45's hearing aid were put in. Review of a Social Worker (SW) note written by the previous SW dated 8/7/24 stated Resident #45 was watching television with the volume loud as he was HOH. The note continued that Resident #45 had a new roommate who was trying to visit with his wife but was unable to due to Resident #45's loud television. Resident #45 gave the Social Worker permission to turn volume down but seemed aggravated. Resident #45 was alert and appeared oriented. It was a difficult to converse with Resident #45 due to him being extremely HOH. Resident #45 asked the Social Worker to write a question on paper and he answered them appropriately. An interview was attempted with the previous SW. He was unable to be reached by phone. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #45 was cognitively intact. Resident #45 was further coded as having moderate hearing loss and was using hearing aids. An observation of Resident #45 on 10/7/24 at 4:50 PM revealed him to be watching television with headphones. The headphones were held to his ears with tape attached across both earlobes. The tape was holding in place the wires attached to the earbuds. An interview and observation was conducted (via writing) with Resident #45 on 10/10/24 at 1:40 PM. Resident #45 was observed to be watching television in his room with earphones taped in his ears. Resident #45 revealed he had hearing aids, but no one knew how to put them in. Resident #45 stated he could not put them in himself because his hands didn't work like they used to. Resident #45 stated his hearing aids were in a basket on his nightstand. Observation of Resident #45's nightstand revealed a basket with random items. At the bottom of the basket was a chargeable hearing aid case. There were 2 hearing aids observed in the unplugged chargeable hearing aid case. During an interview with the SW on 10/10/24 at 2:04 PM revealed Resident #45 was hard of hearing and required staff to increase their tone or write to him. Resident #45 used headphones (earbuds) to watch TV because he needed the TV loud to hear it. The SW was not aware of any issues regarding Resident #45's hearing aids not working properly. She indicated if a resident had a referral for an outside appointment, it would be scheduled by transportation department. An interview with Resident #45's family member on 10/11/24 at 9:04 AM indicated he had spoken with the facility (name of staff and date unknown) regarding his family member's hearing aids. He stated when he visited the hearing aids were not in Resident #45's ears. He stated he had communicated to the facility (name of staff and date unknown) that they would have to be taken into the store they were purchased, because the store could service the device by turning the volume up or down and changing the filters. He indicated he did not believe the facility had taken the hearing aids to be serviced. He recalled having to take the device to the store to have the filters changed but he could not recall the date. An interview and observation with Nursing Assistant (NA) #3 on 10/10/24 at 1:44 PM revealed Resident #45 was very hard of hearing. She stated he had to get headphones for his television because he had it too loud. Resident #45 did have hearing aids, and they worked. Resident #45 was unable to put his hearing aids in without assistance. She indicated she has tried to put them in Resident #45's ears but they were weirdly shaped and sometimes she couldn't. She stated she has communicated to nurse (name unknown) that Resident #45's hearing aids were difficult to put in. She indicated she recalled the nurse coming in the room and trying and being unsuccessful. She stated his hearing aids did not use batteries but were kept in a charging device. NA #3 stated the last time she worked with Resident #45 she recalled putting in his hearing aids after Resident #45 requested them for a dialysis appointment. She further indicated she might be putting them in his ears wrong. During the observation of Resident #45's hearing aids, NA #3 stated the part that sat in the cartilage of Resident #45's ear did not fit correctly so they won't stay in his ears. An interview with NA #1 on 10/10/24 at 2:37 PM revealed Resident #45 was very hard of hearing and wore hearing aids. She stated when working with him she had not tried to help him put his hearing aids in. Resident #45 has issues with his hands and was not able to put his hearing aids in himself. She further indicated he had not been wearing them and she wasn't sure if it was the responsibility of the nurse or the NA to put them in. She had to get really close to Resident #45 for him to hear, and stated he always said he can't hear anything. NA #1 indicated NAs would look at the resident summary to identify what was required for each resident but could not recall if Resident #45's summary indicated apply hearing aids. Nurse #2 was interviewed on 10/10/24 at 2:03 PM and revealed she was assigned to Resident #45. She stated Resident #45 did have hearing aids but due to not working with Resident #45 for a week she was unsure of when the last time he wore them. Resident #45 was unable to put his hearing aids in himself. Nurse #2 indicated she had never put them in due to it being an NA responsibility. An interview with NA #4 on 10/10/24 at 3:16 PM indicated Resident #45 did not wear hearing aids. She stated he wore earbuds to watch television. There was tape on the earbuds to keep them from falling out of Resident #45's ears. She indicated it was her second day and this was her first time working with Resident #45. She indicated she was unsure if there was a guide that identified what the resident's activities of daily living needs were as she was new and still taking direction from NA#5. Resident #45 was very hard of hearing. She indicated she had to almost holler at him for Resident #45 to hear her. An interview with NA #5 on 10/10/24 at 3:32 PM revealed she recalled being assigned to Resident #45. She stated she had not seen Resident #45 with hearing aids and had not observed hearing aids in his room. Resident #45 had told her he was hard of hearing and that he preferred for staff to get close to his ear when speaking to him. NA #5 stated the electronic medical record would identify if a resident wore hearing aids or had to have hearing aids applied. She had not observed in the medical record that Resident #45 had hearing aids or needed assistance applying them. An interview with Nurse #5 on 10/10/24 at 3:20 PM indicated he had worked with Resident #45. He further revealed he had not seen Resident #45 with hearing aids. Nurse #5 stated Resident #45 did wear headphones when he watched TV because he needed it to be loud. The tape on his ears were to hold the headphones in place. When speaking to Resident #45 he had to speak very loudly so Resident #45 could hear him. He stated if hearing aids were not documented in the resident record on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) or care plan, he wouldn't have looked for them. An interview with the Interim Director of Nursing on 10/10/24 at 2:16 PM indicated Resident #45's hearing aids were placed in his ears when staff could get them in his ears. She recalled having a hard time putting Resident #45's hearing aids in one day when he had an appointment to dialysis. The Interim Director of Nursing couldn't get them in and had to request assistance from another nurse. She indicated it was the NAs that would be tasked with putting in his hearing aids. She did not get a referral for Resident #45's hearing aids or notify the physician because a nurse (name unknown) was able to get them in. Issues with hearing aids should be brought to the attention of administration so the SW could do something like get an appointment. She was unsure if the concerns with Resident #45 made it to the SW. The unlicensed Administrator was interviewed on 10/10/24 at 2:06 PM. She stated Resident #45 wore earphones when he watched television. She stated she had not personally assisted Resident #45 with applying his hearing aids. From staff communication, Resident #45 did not always wear his hearing aids, but she was unsure of the cause. The unlicensed Administrator just understood he didn't like to wear them. She revealed if Resident #45's hearing aids were not fitting appropriately the facility should have gotten him an appointment and discussed the hearing aids with the Resident's family, especially if it was hindering Resident #45's care. The unlicensed Administrator recalled the SW discussing the hearing aids with the resident's family but was unaware if there was a note about the discussion. An interview with the NP on 10/14/24 at 11:00 AM revealed she recalled Resident #45 being hard of hearing. She indicated she did not recall any issues regarding his hearing aids. Resident #45 did not have the dexterity (skill in performing task, especially with the hands) to put in his own hearing aids. The NP stated if the hearing aids were not working or not fitting properly Resident #45 should have been sent out for a referral or at least be evaluated.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and the Executive Director of the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators interviews, the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and the Executive Director of the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators interviews, the facility failed to have a licensed Administrator in place to oversee the daily staff and resident operations of the skilled nursing facility. This failure had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The findings included: An interview was completed with the Executive Director of the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators on [DATE] at 11:12 AM. The Executive Director of the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators was notified on [DATE] by the unlicensed Administrator via telephone call that her license had expired on [DATE]. The Executive Director of the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators explained the unlicensed Administrator was being honest and stated she forgot to renew her license at the end of September. The Executive Director of the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators verbalized the unlicensed Administrator's license was originally issued on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. The Executive Director of the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators communicated a temporary license was issued to the unlicensed Administrator on the afternoon of [DATE] which will expire on [DATE]. A telephone interview with the unlicensed Administrator was completed on [DATE] at 11:09 AM. She explained she was under the impression the deadline for administrator license renewal was extended due to Hurricane [NAME]. The unlicensed Administrator stated she reached out to the NC Board of Nursing Home Administrators and they informed her she was not eligible for the extension due to not being in an affected area. The unlicensed Administrator stated that she had to reapply for her Administrator license and was granted a temporary license effective [DATE] with an expiration date of [DATE]. A telephone interview was completed on [DATE] at 1:45 PM with the [NAME] President (VP) for Advocate Health which includes oversight for the nursing home administrators across the hospital healthcare system. The VP for Advocate Health stated the unlicensed Administrator telephoned him on [DATE] to inform him her license had expired. He further stated the temporary license paperwork was completed the afternoon of [DATE]. The VP of Advocate Health communicated ultimately the Administrators were responsible for making sure their license remained current. The VP of Advocate Health voiced moving forward he and his administrative staff will work with the current Administrators to ensure that issue dates and expiration dates were obtained and reviewed so that all Administrators have an active license within the hospital healthcare system's skilled nursing facilities.
Nov 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, resident interview and outside transportation vendor, the facility failed to maintain a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, resident interview and outside transportation vendor, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity when a nurse yelled and spoke rudely towards 1 of 3 resident's (Resident #3) reviewed for abuse. The findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 5- Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 was cognitively intact. Review of the initial allegation report (24-hour working report) dated 8/9/23 revealed an allegation of abuse. The facility became aware of the allegation on 8/9/23. There was no date documented for the date of the incident. The allegation details revealed agency staff (Nurse #1) was reported not to honor Resident #3 wishes and spoke to the resident in a rude manner. Review of the investigation report (5-day) working report dated 8/16/23 stated the date of the incident was 8/3/23 and the facility became aware of the incident on 8/9/23. The incident involving Resident #3 occurred at the central nursing station. Resident #1's cognition was documented as intact. The accused staff was identified as Nurse #1 and one witness identified as Nursing Assistant (NA) #1. The actions taken revealed agency nurse (Nurse #1) was immediately suspended and her contract term ended during the suspension and investigation. The summary of the facility investigation stated Resident #3 was interviewed by the Resident Liaison and reported agency nurse (Nuse #1) to be rude. The witness to the incident also indicated that Nurse #1 was rude and exhibited poor customer service. A witness statement written by NA #1 on 8/10/23 stated on 8/3/23 on the way out to the van with Resident #3, NA #1 and the Transportation Aide were stopped by Nurse #1. Nurse #1 advised before Resident #3 left she needed to give Resident #3 her insulin. Resident #3 told Nurse #1 she was causing her to be late. The witness statement continued that Nurse #1 lifted Resident #3's shirt and said in a very rude tone, I'm not causing you to be late. You can get your shot before you go or she could mark Resident #3 refused. Which one you want to do? Resident #3 advised Nurse #1 to give her the shot so she could go. Nurse #1 gave Resident #3 the shot and walked off. NA #1, Resident #3 and the Transportation Aide proceeded to the van to leave for the appointment and were told was cancelled due to the doctor being sick. Once Resident #3 was back off the van and headed back to her room she stated the nurse was rude and hateful to her and she didn't want her as a nurse anymore. Once Resident #3 was in her room NA #1 went to the Director of Nursing (DON) and explained the incident that took place. The DON advised she would follow up on the incident with both Resident #3 and Nurse #1 as Resident #3 had made these allegations before on staff and moving forward Nurse #1 would have someone in the room with her when caring for Resident #3 the remainder of the shift. A witness statement written by Transportation Aid on 8/15/23 stated Resident #3, the Transportation Aide and one of the NA's (name unknown) were walking towards the front door to get Resident #3 loaded for her appointment. Resident #3's nurse approached her as we were near the end of the nurse station. She told Resident #3 that she needed to give her one of her medications before we left. Resident #3 stated, can't I take it when we get back, you're going to make me late. The nurse got really irritated and yelled at Resident #3, are you refusing? Because I can definitely document that!. Resident #3 told her to just go ahead and give her the medication and that she just didn't want to be late. Nurse #1 responded with, it's not my fault you're late, you're the one that has 35 different medications to take!. Resident #3 went on to say how she had never had a nurse be so mean and argue with a patient. Nurse #1 responded, Merry Christmas and walked away! A statement written by Nurse #1 dated 8/11/23 revealed Nurse #1 didn't recall the exact date, but she was assigned to be the nurse working on 400-hall. Resident #3 had an appointment around 9:00 AM so Nurse #1 medicated her. After getting through the regular routine with Resident #3, Resident #3 stated that she wasn't doing to make it to her appointment because the provider had the times mixed up. After checking with the scheduler, it was noted that Resident #3 was on time. Upon transport wheeling her to the front, Nurse #1 noticed that she hadn't given Resident #3 her insulin. The statement continued that nurse #1 met up with Resident #3 and the transportation aid at the nursing station. Nurse #1 let Resident #3 know that she didn't give her the last medication. Resident #3 stated Nurse #1 was making her late. Nurse #1 explained that she had the medications with her, but it was up to Resident #1 if she wanted to take it. Resident #3 stated yes so it was administered. A few minutes later Resident #3 was returning to her room because the appointment was canceled due to the provider getting sick. Resident #3 was upset and made comments that Nurse #1 was mean to her and nurse #1 informed her supervisor. Nurse #1's supervisor spoke with Resident #3 and soon after came and got me and we both went to speak to Resident #3 who stated, I don't have a problem with the nurse, and I don't want to hear anything else about it. Nurse #1 finished her shift and was assigned to Resident #3 the next 2 days without any problems. Interview with NA #1 on 11/28/23 at 12:52 PM revealed on the 8/3/23 she and the Transportation Aide were on the way out to the van when Nurse #1 stopped us because she wanted to give Resident #3 an injection. Resident #3 stated you are going to make me late to my appointment. Nurse #1 asked Resident #3 did she wanted the medication or not. Nurse #1 further stated she would document refuse if Resident #3 didn't want the medication (injection). Resident #3 stated to Nurse #1 to hurry up and give her the medication. NA #1 described Nurse #1 tone as very firm and if she was a resident, she wouldn't want to be talked to the way Nurse #1 talked to Resident #3. Following the incident Resident #3 told NA #1 she didn't like how Nurse #1 had spoken to her and she didn't want Nurse #1 working with her. NA #1 stated she told the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/3/23 the day the incident occurred. The DON stated she would address the incident. She indicated the DON had spoken with Nurse #1. Interview with Transportation Aide on 11/28/23 at 2:22 PM stated on 8/3/23 she was taking Resident #3 to an appointment with an NA (name unknown). She indicated a nurse came running up and stated she had forgotten to give Resident #3 one of her medications. Resident #3 stated she didn't want to take the medication because she didn't want to be late to her appointment. She stated the nurse told Resident #3 it wasn't her fault Resident #3 had 35 medications to take. Resident #3 stated she had never seen a nurse go back and forth with a patient. Nurse #1 told Resident #3 Merry Christmas and walked away. The Transportation Aide described Nurse #1's communication with Resident #3 as very rude. She further indicated Resident #3 appeared upset after the interaction with Nurse #1. Interview with Resident #3 on 11/28/23 at 3:04 PM revealed she did not recall the incident. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/28/23 at 1:49 PM indicated she recalled being approached on 8/3/23 by the nurse or a NA that Resident #3 and a nurse were arguing in the hallway. Resident #3 was going out for transport for a doctor's visit. Resident #3 was questioning whether she should take the insulin before the appointment. Nurse #1 and Resident #3 were interviewed, and the DON found Nurse #1 was inappropriate with her tone and she lacked empathy when speaking to Resident #3.
May 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) scheduled for 8 consecutive hours a day for 7 of 30 days (1/2/22, 1/3/22,1/8/22,1/9/22,1/15/22,1/16/22 a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) scheduled for 8 consecutive hours a day for 7 of 30 days (1/2/22, 1/3/22,1/8/22,1/9/22,1/15/22,1/16/22 and 1/8/23) reviewed for staffing. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings included: A review of daily staffing assignment sheets and RN timecards for 1/1/22 through 1/15/22 and 1/1/23 to 1/15/23 revealed on 1/2/22, 1/3/22,1/8/22,1/9/22,1/15/22,1/16/22 there was no RN coverage in the facility. On 1/8/23 the staffing assignment sheet and RN timecard revealed an RN worked 4.5 hours out of the required 8 hours a day. A review of the posted daily staffing 1/1/22 through 1/15/22 and 1/1/23 to 1/15/23 revealed the census ranged from 42 to 46 residents. A joint interview on 5/25/23 at 12:25 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the corporate Director of Nursing Services confirmed the dates listed above without an RN was accurate. The corporate Director of Nursing Services stated they had received approval in February 2022 from their corporate office to hire traveling nurses (RNs that travel to different facilities) and an international traveler RN to fill the void of the weekend RN vacancy. The DON stated that their census had been in the 40s for the last one and half years so the DON, Assistant Director of Nursing and the Minimum Data Set Nurse had counted for days during the week; Monday through Friday and had worked on some weekends but could not cover all the weekends. An interview with the Administrator on 5/25/23 at 1:32 PM stated that she had begun her role as the Administrator at the facility as of March of 2023, and we are ensuring RN coverage is consistent by utilizing traveling nurses to fill the shortage and will plan to have a secondary option to alternate nursing administration to cover the weekends.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly assessments within the required 14-day t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly assessments within the required 14-day timeframe for 2 of 18 residents reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments (Resident #26 and Resident #4). The findings included: a. Resident #26 quarterly MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 5/18/2023. b. Resident #4's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 5/18/2023. The MDS nurse was interviewed on 5/25/2023 at 10:38 AM. The MDS nurse reported she had been struggling with timeliness of assessments and had other nurses helping to get the assessments caught up. The MDS nurse reported she was aware Resident #26 and Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment was late. The Administrator was interviewed on 5/25/2023 at 1:18 PM. The Administrator reported it was not until after a mock survey conducted on 5/5/2023 that the management team realized how many assessments were late. The Administrator reported that nurses came to help with the completion of the assessments. The Administrator reported she expected the MDS assessments to be completed in a timely manner.
Oct 2021 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance with daily oral ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance with daily oral care and provide instruction on proper oral care in accordance with the resident's comprehensive care plan to ensure he maintained or improved on his ability to carry out his own oral hygiene care. This was for 1 of 1 resident with identified dental needs reviewed for activities of daily living. (Resident #3). The findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included anoxic brain damage. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] coded the resident's cognition as being cognitively intact and he was assessed in the areas of self-care for oral hygiene - the ability to use suitable items to clean teeth with set up assistance with helper sets up or cleans up and resident completes the activity. Resident #3's dental/oral status was assessed as having cavity or broken natural teeth. Resident #3 was coded as having no refusals of care. A review of the Resident #3's active dental care plan with a start date of 5/19/19 revealed a plan of care that read, Resident #3 was at risk for decline in oral health due to natural teeth in poor condition with obvious caries (caries is identified as tooth decay). The care plan revealed a goal that Resident #3 will remain free of oral issues through next review with a review date as 11/11/21. The interventions included Set up and assist as needed with daily oral care and provide instruction on proper oral care techniques as needed. An observation of Resident #3 on 10/18/21 at 11:50 AM revealed the resident had decaying front teeth. An interview was completed with Resident #3 on 10/20/21 at 9:58 AM who was asked if he had a toothbrush. Resident #3 stated he did not know where his toothbrush was. He indicated they used to bring it to him, but they had not done so in a while. Resident #3 was not able to state when the last time it was that staff had brought his toothbrush. An observation of Resident #3's bathroom sink and cabinet revealed no oral hygiene products in the bathroom and the sink, and the cabinet was empty. With Resident #3's permission, his night-stand drawer was opened and revealed no visible oral hygiene products. The resident was asked if he had a bed bath today and he stated that he had a bed bath this morning and when asked if he brushed is teeth, he stated he had not. An interview and observation were completed with Nursing Assistant (NA) #5, the NA assigned to Resident #3, on 10/20/21 at 10:06 AM. NA #5 was asked if Resident #3 brushed his teeth after his morning bed bath on 10/20/21. NA #5 revealed oral hygiene care was not completed with Resident #3 that morning because she forgot about it. NA #5 stated the toothbrush is normally set up by staff for Resident #3 and he brushed his teeth himself. NA #5 stated it had been a long time since she had personally watched Resident #3 brush his teeth. NA #5 stated Resident #3 had always been cooperative and would not refuse oral hygiene. NA#5 was asked if she knew where Resident #3's toothbrush was and she opened his night-stand drawer and found a toothbrush in the bottom of his night-stand, however she was not able to find any toothpaste and stated that she would locate some for Resident #3. NA #5 was observed placing Resident #3's toothbrush on his bedside table. An interview was completed with Nursing Assistant (NA) #4 on 10/20/21 at 10:38 AM who stated that Resident #3 was able to brush his own teeth but had refused to do so on some occasions in the past. NA #4 stated that Resident #3 had a small tube of toothpaste in his drawer on Monday 10/18/21. NA #4 stated she had not watched him brush his teeth but had set up his toothbrush for him. An interview was completed with Nursing Assistant (NA) #6 on 10/20/21 at 3:10 PM who stated that she had never watched Resident #3 brush his teeth but did set up his toothbrush for him. NA #6 was asked where the resident's toothbrush was located, and she stated usually in his drawer. NA #6 was asked if he the resident had toothpaste, and she stated he should have toothpaste in his drawer. NA #6 stated that Resident #3 never had refused cares. On 10/20/21 at 3:06 PM an observation and interview were completed with Resident #3. Resident #3's bedside table had a plastic pink kidney shaped basin with a toothbrush and toothpaste lying in the basin. Resident #3 was asked if he had brushed his teeth and he said he had. On 10/21/21 at 8:50 AM an observation and interview were completed with Resident #3. Resident #3 was lying in his bed with a plastic pink kidney shaped basin with a toothbrush and toothpaste lying in the basin. Resident #3 began to brush his teeth and opened the tube of toothpaste and put it on the toothbrush. Resident #3 brushed his teeth but did not spit out any toothpaste and had drank water which he swallowed. Resident #3 was asked if he knew what the plastic pink kidney shaped basin was for and Resident #3 stated to hold his toothbrush and toothpaste. Resident #3 was asked if he had ever spit out the water with his toothpaste into the plastic bin and Resident #3 did not respond. An interview was completed on 10/21/21 at 9:57 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated that it was her expectation that the resident have an observation by facility staff and cueing to complete the oral hygiene tasks daily. DON further stated the facility staff should provide education on the steps for oral hygiene, so the resident learned how to do proper oral care. DON stated that she felt Resident #3 could retain the steps for proper oral hygiene care if provided the education by staff. An interview was completed on 10/21/21 at 10:34 AM with the Administrator who stated it would be her expectation that the facility staff assist residents with oral care every day and follow the care plan as written.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to refer a resident with identified denta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to refer a resident with identified dental needs to the dentist. This was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dental care. (Resident #3) Findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anoxic brain damage and diabetes mellitus. Resident #3's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was a Medicaid recipient and coded Resident #3's cognition as being cognitively intact. Resident #3's dental/oral status was assessed as having cavity or broken natural teeth. A review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] coded the resident's cognition as being cognitively intact. A review of Resident #3's dental care plan with a start date of 5/19/19 revealed a plan of care that read, Resident #3 was at risk for decline in oral health due to natural teeth in poor condition with obvious caries. (Caries is identified as tooth decay) The care plan revealed a goal that Resident #3 will remain free of oral issues through next review with a review date as 11/11/21. The interventions included Refer for Dental exam per resident/resident representative preference. A care plan intervention for diet included mechanical altered regular with soft bite sized meats. A review of the facility's in-house dental clinics for 2020 were scheduled at the facility on 1/3/2020, 7/2/2020 and 7/23/2020. Resident #3 was scheduled to be seen for follow-up/dentures on 7/2/2020 and 7/23/2020 but both clinics were cancelled due to Covid-19. A review of the facility's in-house dental clinics for 2021 revealed one clinic for 7/27/21 but was canceled due to the dental provider not presenting with a negative Covid-19 Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. An observation and interview with Resident #3 on 10/18/21 at 11:50 AM revealed the resident had decaying front teeth. Resident #3 stated that I have not had any dental exams due to Covid, but he had told staff that he wanted to have his teeth looked at as he would like to get dentures. An interview was completed on 10/20/21 at 8:59 AM with the Transportation Coordinator (TC) who sets up all the dental services. The TC stated that she would put residents on the schedule if they would get an order from the doctor or if the dental clinics are set up, the TC would ask the resident's family if they would like to have their loved one to be seen. The TC stated if the resident was alert and oriented, we would ask the residents. The TC stated that the dental clinic that was scheduled in July of this year was cancelled as the Administrator stated the facility was not allowed to have dental clinics due to Covid. The dental clinic that was set up for 9/27/21 needed to be canceled as the facility's ownership was requiring a negative PCR Covid test for the providers. The TC stated the dental provider thought they could show their vaccination cards and therefore the clinic needed to be cancelled. An interview was completed with Resident #3 on 10/20/21 at 9:58 AM who stated that he doesn't have many upper teeth left, but the bottom teeth are Ok. Resident #3 stated that he was not in any pain and has soft foods. An interview was completed on 10/20/21 at 11:40 AM with the Administrator who was asked why there had not been in dental clinics in 2021. The Administrator stated that the corporation held a planning meeting on 4/15/21 for re-entry of dental services and the plan was not finalized until later in the year. The Administrator stated that it would be her expectation that if a referral was needed for dental services the facility could have sent Resident #3 out of the facility for dental services. A telephone interview was completed with the dental provider on 10/21/21 at 4:27 PM who stated the facility's corporation had recently made a change. The dental provider stated they had known part of the policy and thought since they were vaccinated, they could show proof of their vaccination cards, however the dental team had been turned away the day of the clinic as they did not have a PCR Covid test. An interview was completed on 10/21/21 at 9:57 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated that she had been aware many dental clinics were cancelled due to Covid-19. DON stated that it would be her expectation for Resident #3 to be free of any dental issues and to follow up with the facility's dental clinic. The DON stated that if it was an immediate need any resident would be outsourced to an outside dental clinic. The DON stated that it would be her expectation that Resident #3 would have been seen. The DON stated nursing staff could have made a referral and collaborated with the TC to ensure Resident #3 was seen. An interview was completed on 10/21/21 at 10:34 AM with the Administrator who stated it would be her expectation to follow the process that is in place and for nursing to let the dental provider know and for the facility to obtain a referral for Resident #3 to be seen timely. The Administrator stated it was her expectation that Resident #3 should have been seen for dental services. The Administrator stated that if a resident is needing any type of dental services that they could be sent out of the facility for dental services.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. An observation was conducted in the kitchen on 10/18/21, which started at 11:58 AM. During the observation the food for the r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. An observation was conducted in the kitchen on 10/18/21, which started at 11:58 AM. During the observation the food for the resident ' s meal was checked for appropriate holding temperatures. The cook completed checking the temperatures of foods in the steam table and at 12:16 PM she and the other dietary staff started to plate and tray the resident ' s meals for lunch. The alternate for lunch was a chicken salad sandwich. There were 5 chicken salad sandwiches, they were wrapped in plastic wrap, and were in a pan placed on top of another pan with ice in it. One of the sandwiches, in the pan, had been placed on top of a clear plastic container containing a lettuce salad which was also in the pan, and the other 4 were stacked vertically so that only the bottom edge of the sandwich was in contact with the cooled surface of the pan. The Dietary Aide (DA) was observed plating the sandwich which had been sitting on top of the salad container for a resident. The DA stated they had never checked the salad of the chicken salad sandwiches. The DA was observed to check the temperature and the temperature of the chicken salad of the sandwich was observed to have been 56 degrees Fahrenheit. The DA stated she would dispose of the sandwich. She further explained the sandwiches had come right out of the refrigerator and they had been made not too long before they started the tray line for lunch. The DA was then observed checking a second sandwich which had been sitting on the chilled tray and the chicken salad of the sandwich was observed to have been 51 degrees Fahrenheit. An interview was conducted on 10/18/21 at 12:42 PM with the DA and she stated she should have checked the temperature of the chicken salad in the sandwiches when they did the other food temperatures prior to starting the tray line. An interview was conducted on 10/18/21 at 12:46 PM with the cook and she stated they had not been checking the temperature of the chicken salad sandwiches. She said the sandwiches had been made at about 11:00 AM and then had been placed in the 2-door cooler until they were brought out for the lunch line. She said the temperature of the chicken salad sandwiches should have been checked because the chicken salad is a perishable food and needed to stay cold. An interview was conducted on 10/18/21 at 12:48 PM with the Dietary Manager (DM) and the Dietary Consultant (DC). The DC stated the sandwiches should have been checked when the other temperatures were checked for the tray line. She further stated the chicken salad in the sandwiches should have been in the range of 32 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The DM stated they would keep the chicken salad sandwiches in the 2-door cooler and remove each sandwich as needed in order to keep the sandwiches at a proper temperature. During an interview conducted on 10/20/21 at 10:08 AM the Administrator stated her expectation was for food to be kept in the appropriate temperature range for cold and hot foods. She said the chicken salad sandwiches were out of the safe temperature range and the temperature should have been checked prior to the food being plated for the resident. She said all perishable foods should be checked for proper temperature prior to the start of the tray line and a log for temperature of all perishable foods had been implemented after the deficient practice was identified. Based on record review, observations and staff interviews the facility failed to check the expiration dates of thickened liquids maintained in the bedside coolers for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for thickened liquids (Resident # 32 and Resident # 41) and failed to check the temperature of 5 of 5 chicken salad sandwiches prior to plating for the tray line. Findings included: 1.Resident # 32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included post cerebral infarction dysphagia and malnutrition. A review of a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] included that Resident # 32 had a swallowing disorder and received a mechanically altered diet. A review of a care plan for Resident # 32 updated 09/08/2021 revealed that resident # 32 had an increased nutritional and dehydration risk related to history of dysphagia and need for a mechanically altered diet. A review of a physician (MD) order dated 12/01/2020 included in part that Resident # 32 was to receive a puree diet with honey thick (moderately thick) liquids. A review of a note by the registered dietician (RD) dated 09/21/2021 at 11:13 AM included in part that Resident # 32 received a dysphagia puree diet with moderately thick liquids. On 10/19/21 08:19 AM an observation of Resident # 32's room revealed a blue and white cooler on the nightstand next to the bed that contained 7 pre thickened honey constancy containers inside. Three of the containers were identified to have expiration dates that included 2 clear water containers with expiration dates of 08/25/2021 and another dated 09/15/2021. The cooler also contained a thickened iced tea container with an expiration date of 01/08/2021. The items were removed from the cooler and nursing assistant (NA) # 2 stated that she did replenish thickened liquid items at times from the containers that the dietary staff left in the nourishment refrigerator but that she never looked at the expiration dates and she would have informed the nurse and thrown the items away immediately. An interview conducted with the dietary manager (DM) conducted on 10/1920/21 at 3:29 PM revealed that she was not aware of any expired thickened liquids brought to the nourishment refrigerator by the dietary staff daily. The DM revealed that her expectation was that all food or other items dispensed from the kitchen were to have expiration dates checked prior to being delivered to residents or resident care areas. On 10/20/2021 at 11:28 AM an interview conducted with NA # 4 revealed that she was had removed about 3 to 4 expired thickened liquid items from the bedside cooler of Resident # 32 and threw the items away immediately. NA #4 revealed that the nurse at that time witnessed the episode but that she was not certain who the nurse was or the specific date. The nursing home administrator ( NHA) was interviewed on 10/21/2021 at 8:25 AM. The NHA stated that it was her expectation that all bedside coolers that contained thickened liquids have at least daily checks of the expiration dates of the items and if expired items were identified the items be disposed of immediately and that the director of nurses ( DON) or NHA be notified immediately. #2. Resident # 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included vascular dementia and dysphagia. A review of a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Resident # 41 received a mechanically altered diet. A review of MD order summary dated 10/01/2021 included an order written 04/09/2021 that Resident # 41 was to receive a dysphagia puree diet with mildly (honey) thick liquids. An interview conducted with the DM on 10/19/2021 at 3:29 PM revealed that she was not aware of any expired thickened liquids brought to the nourishment refrigerator by the dietary staff daily. The DM revealed that her expectation was that all food or other items dispensed from the kitchen were to have expiration dates checked prior to being delivered to residents or resident care areas. On 10/20/2021 at 11:28 AM an interview conducted with NA # 4 revealed that she was not aware of expired items in the blue thickened liquid items in the room of Resident # 41. NA # 4 revealed that if she had noted expired items in the cooler, she would have removed the item immediately and reported the concern to the nurse. The NHA was interviewed on 10/21/2021 at 8:25 AM. The NHA stated that it was her expectation that all bedside coolers that contained thickened liquids have at least daily checks of the expiration dates of the items and if expired items were identified the items be disposed of immediately and that the DON or NHA be notified immediately.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a CMS- 10055 SNF ABN (Centers for Medicare and Medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a CMS- 10055 SNF ABN (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice) prior to discharge from Medicare Part A skilled services to 2 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review (Resident #17 and Resident #23). Findings included: 1.Resident # 17 was admitted to the facility 01/25/2021 with diagnosis that included hypertension (HTN). A review of the medical record of Resident #17 revealed a CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non - Coverage letter (NOMNC) was given to Resident #17 on 03/10/2021 which indicated that Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services would end on 03/10/2021. Resident #17 remained at the facility. A review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed a CMS - 10055 SNF ABN form was not provided to Resident #17. An interview conducted with the facility resident liaison (RL) on 10/20/2021 at 8:54 AM and revealed that she was not aware that a SNF ABN was required for residents that remained in the facility with remaining Medicare Part A benefit days after skilled services were discontinued required a SNF ABN form. The rehabilitation manager (RM) was interviewed on 10/20/2021 at 10:05 AM. The RM revealed that she was not aware that when a resident no longer received skilled services with remaining Medicare Part A days required a SNF ABN form. On 10/21/2021 at 8:25 AM an interview conducted with the nursing home administrator (NHA) revealed that she expected SNF ABN forms be issued timely and appropriate as the regulation required. 2. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and atrial fibrillation (AFib). A review of the medical record of Resident #23 revealed a MS-10123 NOMNC was given to the responsible party (RP) that indicated Medicare Part A coverage for skilled services would end on 06/07/2021. Resident #23 remained at the facility. A review of the medical record for Resident #23 revealed a CMS - 10055 SNF ABN form was not provided to Resident #23 or the RP. An interview conducted with the facility RL on 10/20/2021 at 8:54 AM and revealed that she was not aware that a SNF ABN was required for residents that remained in the facility with remaining Medicare Part A benefit days after skilled services were discontinued required a SNF ABN form. The RM was interviewed on 10/20/2021 at 10:05 AM. The RM revealed that she was not aware that when a resident no longer received skilled services with remaining Medicare Part A days required a SNF ABN form. On 10/21/2021 at 8:25 AM an interview conducted with the NHA revealed that she expected SNF ABN forms be issued timely and appropriate as the regulation required.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide actual hours worked by nursing staff for 3 of 7 days reviewed for accurate nurse staffing hours. Findings included: A review ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide actual hours worked by nursing staff for 3 of 7 days reviewed for accurate nurse staffing hours. Findings included: A review of the Posted Daily Nurse Staffing Forms for 10/1/2021 to 10/7/2021 revealed the nurse staffing hours were incorrect for 3 of 7 days: a. On 10/1/2021 the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift had 48 hours recorded for the Nurse Aides, but the actual hours were 24 hours. b. On 10/3/2021 the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift had 12 hours recorded for Registered Nurse and 12 hours record for the Licensed Practical Nurses, but the actual hours were 0 hours for the Registered Nurse and 24 hours for the Licensed Practical Nurses. c. On 10/5/2021 the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift had 48 hours recorded for Nurse Aides, but the actual hours were 36 hours for the Nurse Aides. An interview with the Unit Secretary on 10/20/2021 at 2:25 pm revealed she was responsible for filling out the Posted Nurse Staffing each morning. She stated she does not update the form when staff call out or there are changes to the schedule. The Unit Secretary stated she did not know who was responsible for updating the Posted Nurse Staffing form when staff call out or the schedule changes. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 10/20/2021 at 3:38 pm she reviewed the Posted Nurse Staffing Forms and Nursing Schedules for 10/1/2021 to 10/7/2021. The Director of Nursing stated there were discrepancies between the Posted Nurse Staffing hours and available staff recorded on the Nursing Schedules for 10/1/2021, 10/3/2021, and 10/5/2021. The Director of Nursing stated she had not been the Director of Nursing for very long and had not had a chance to work on the process for completing the Daily Nurse Staffing Forms with the nursing staff. The Administrator was interviewed on 10/21/2021 at 10:14 am and stated she was aware of the Posted Nurse Staffing was not accurate for the Posted Daily Nurse Staffing Forms reviewed for 10/1/2021 to 10/7/2021. The Administrator stated the facility should have a process in place to ensure the Posting Daily Nurse Staffing was updated each shift with accurate information.
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: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 16 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $12,054 in fines. Above average for North Carolina. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (14/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 14/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Stanly Manor's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Stanly Manor an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within North Carolina, 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 Stanly Manor Staffed?

CMS rates Stanly Manor's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 63%, which is 17 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 70%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Stanly Manor?

State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at Stanly Manor during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 10 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Stanly Manor?

Stanly Manor is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by ATRIUM HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 54% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Albemarle, North Carolina.

How Does Stanly Manor Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Stanly Manor's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (63%) 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 Stanly Manor?

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 Stanly Manor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Stanly Manor has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (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 North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Stanly Manor Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Stanly Manor is high. At 63%, the facility is 17 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 70%. 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 Stanly Manor Ever Fined?

Stanly Manor has been fined $12,054 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,199. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Stanly Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

Stanly Manor 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.