Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation

3864 Sweeten Creek Road, Arden, NC 28704 (828) 681-0904
For profit - Limited Liability company 100 Beds CONSULATE HEALTH CARE/INDEPENDENCE LIVING CENTERS/NSPIRE HEALTHCARE/RAYDIANT HEALTH CARE Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#314 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation has received an F grade, indicating poor performance with significant concerns regarding resident safety and care. Ranking #314 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, and it is #15 out of 19 in Buncombe County, which suggests limited local options for better care. The facility is reportedly improving, having reduced the number of issues from 19 in 2024 to 17 in 2025. However, staffing remains a concern with a 68% turnover rate, much higher than the state average, and fines totaling $172,134, which exceed 93% of North Carolina facilities, indicating ongoing compliance problems. Notably, there have been critical incidents, such as a failure to protect residents after a nurse aide allegedly supplied methamphetamine and syringes to a resident, along with inadequate monitoring for substance abuse triggers, which raises serious safety concerns. While there are some strengths, like average RN coverage, the overall picture suggests families should carefully consider their options before choosing this facility.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In North Carolina
#314/417
Bottom 25%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
19 → 17 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$172,134 in fines. Higher than 79% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
53 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 19 issues
2025: 17 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: 68%

21pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $172,134

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: CONSULATE HEALTH CARE/INDEPENDENCE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (68%)

20 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 53 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening 3 actual harm
May 2025 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to reschedule and hold a care plan meeting that was p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to reschedule and hold a care plan meeting that was previously cancelled and invite the resident to participate in the care planning process for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #43). Findings included: Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a Care Conference Record dated 12/02/24 revealed a quarterly care plan meeting was held with Resident #43 in attendance. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #43 had intact cognition. Review of a Social Worker (SW) progress note dated 03/11/25 revealed Resident #43 was currently in the hospital and his care plan meeting would be rescheduled upon his return to the facility. Review of a physician progress note dated 03/17/25 revealed Resident #43 was seen for a post-hospitalization visit following his hospital stay on 03/08/25 through 03/14/25. Review of Resident #43's electronic medical record revealed no documentation that a care plan meeting was held or Resident #43 was invited to attend a care plan meeting following his return from the hospital on [DATE]. During an interview on 04/28/25 at 9:50 AM, Resident #43 stated he had attended care plan meetings in the past but could not recall attending one this year (2025). Resident #43 stated he was usually notified of upcoming care plan meetings and expressed that he wanted to participate in the care plan meetings so he could communicate and provide input about his care. During an interview on 04/30/25 at 12:15 PM, the SW revealed she was the one responsible for keeping track of the schedule for care plan meetings and invited alert and oriented residents to attend when a care plan meeting was due. The SW confirmed the care plan meeting scheduled for Resident #43 in March 2025 was cancelled due to him being in the hospital. The SW explained she had planned on rescheduling the care plan meeting once Resident #43 returned from the hospital but she dropped the ball and the meeting was never rescheduled. During an interview on 05/01/25 at 5:37 PM, the Administrator explained the SW was very good at keeping track of the care plan meeting schedule and Resident #43's care plan not getting rescheduled following his hospital stay was an oversight. The Administrator stated she would have expected for the SW to make a follow-up note to reschedule Resident #43's care plan meeting when he returned from the hospital and a care plan meeting held with Resident #43.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to assess residents for the ability to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to assess residents for the ability to self-administer medications for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for self-administering medications (Resident #59). The findings included: Resident #59 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included type 2 diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Resident #59 had a physician's order for calcium carbonate antacid 2 tablets every 6 hours as needed for gastroesophageal reflex disease ordered 10/9/24. Resident #59's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] coded her as cognitively intact. A review of Resident #59's care plan dated 3/7/25 revealed no care plan for self-administration of medication. A review of Resident #59's medical record found no assessment for self-administration of medication. An observation in Resident #59's room on 4/28/25 at 10:58 AM found a partially used bottle of liquid bismuth, a bottle of chewable antacids, and an unopened box of [topical treatment for the mouth and gums that may be used to relieve pain] on her bedside table. The resident stated she had the medications for a long time and would take them when her stomach was hurting. Resident #59 said she had the medications ordered and delivered to her. On 4/28/25 at 2:19 PM an observation with Nurse #2 in Resident #59's room found the medications remained at bedside. Resident #59 stated to Nurse #2 she had always had the medications and that she bought them from a store. Nurse #2 told the resident she was not allowed to keep the medications in her room or take them without a nurse giving them to her to take. On 4/28/25 at 2:19 PM Resident #59's assigned Nurse #2 was interviewed. Nurse #2 stated she had administered Resident #59's medication that morning and had not noticed any medications in Resident #59's room. Nurse #2 said Resident #59 was not assessed to take her own medications and should not have any medications stored in her room. Nurse #2 was observed removing the bottle of bismuth, antacid chewable, and the unopened box of [topical treatment for the mouth and gums] from the bedside table. The Nurse stated she was unaware the Resident had those medications at bedside and did not see them in the room when she administered Resident #59's morning medications. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 5/1/25 at 4:37 PM. She stated that Resident #59 would often order items that included medications to be delivered to her at the facility. The DON said Resident #59 would not let the facility search her items or her room for any medications she may have ordered. Additionally, the DON stated Resident #59 needed to have a self-administration of medication assessment completed by a nurse and needed a physician's order for her to self-administer medication. The DON said medications should not be stored in the resident's room and needed to be stored on the nurse's medication cart.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0627 (Tag F0627)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, Family Member and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a discharge planning proces...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, Family Member and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a discharge planning process in place that included documentation of referrals submitted to other skilled nursing facilities (SNF) and documenting the responses to the referrals submitted for a resident who wished to discharge to another SNF closer to family for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #41). Findings included: Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included quadriplegia (form of paralysis that affects all four limbs and torso, pressure ulcer of the sacral region, osteomyelitis (bone infection), bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. Resident #41's comprehensive care plans included a discharge care plan, initiated on 06/13/23 and last revised on 02/02/24, that revealed Resident #41 wished to return to a facility closer to her family and would remain at the current facility for long-term care until a transfer could be made. Review of the Social Services progress notes for Resident #41 for January 2024 to April 2025 revealed the following: - An entry dated 06/14/24 written by the former SW revealed a referral was emailed to a SNF located close to Resident #41's Family Member at the Family Member's request. There was no entry after 06/14/24 noting the SNF's response to the referral sent on 06/14/24. Other than the referral submitted to a SNF on 06/14/24, there were no further entries indicating additional referrals were made to other SNF closer to Resident #41's Family Member during the period January 2024 to April 2025. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 had intact cognition and there was no active discharge plan in place. During a phone interview on 04/28/25 at 1:19 PM, Resident #41's Family Member expressed she wanted Resident #41 to move to a SNF closer to her so that she could be more involved in her care. The Family Member revealed she had asked the SW multiple times to send referrals to a SNF near where she lived but when she (Family Member) called the SNF, they had not received any referrals from the SW. The Family Member stated when she tried to call the SW to follow-up on the referrals, the SW didn't call her back. During an interview on 04/28/25 at 3:04 PM, Resident #41 expressed she wanted to transfer to a SNF closer to her home but only if it was an hour or less from her Family Member, otherwise she would just stay at this facility. The former SW was unable to be interviewed during this investigation. During an interview on 04/28/25 at 3:42 PM, the SW revealed she had only been back at the facility since January 2025. The SW stated she had sent several referrals to SNF closer to Resident #41's Family Member but she would have to look through her files to see where and when the referrals were sent. The SW stated she did not follow-up with the SNF after she sent the referral. She explained if the SNF was willing to accept Resident #41, they would contact her but so far she had not received any responses. She stated the Administrator recently printed off a list of SNF close to Resident #41's Family Member and they were currently working on sending additional referrals. During a follow-up interview on 04/30/25 at 12:15 PM, the SW stated she faxed referrals to SNF located close to Resident #41's Family Member on 02/07/25, 02/25/25, 03/03/25, 03/24/25, 04/01/25, and 04/11/25. The SW explained she did not write down the names or contact information of the SNF she faxed the referrals to, only the city where the SNF was located. During an interview on 05/01/25 at 3:02 PM, the Administrator revealed she recently printed off a list of SNF and highlighted each one within a 50 mile radius of Resident #41's Family Member for referrals to be sent. She stated that she knew the SW had previously sent referrals to SNF for Resident #41 but she was not sure if it was feasible for the SW to follow-up on each referral as the other SNF didn't always respond if they were not wanting to make a bed offer. The Administrator stated there should be documentation in the resident's medical record noting where and when referrals were sent when requested by the resident or Responsible Party.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident #19's diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident #19's diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia that was present on admission [DATE]). Resident #19 was care planned for receiving antipsychotic therapy (haloperidol) for diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia dated 10/28/24. Resident #19's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] included an active diagnosis of schizophrenia. A review of Resident #19's physician orders revealed an order for haloperidol 0.5 milligrams 2 times daily for diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia dated 3/14/25. Resident #19's quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] did not include an active diagnoses of schizophrenia. On 5/01/25 at 11:57 AM the MDS Nurse stated Resident #19 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. The MDS Nurse stated she was directed to not code a diagnosis of schizophrenia on the MDS by direction of the facilities corporate office after Resident #19's annual MDS assessment had been completed and submitted. She stated Resident #19 did not have enough supporting documentation available when admitted to the facility and the MDS assessment dated [DATE] should not have included the diagnosis of schizophrenia and that was a coding error. The Administrator was interviewed on 5/01/25 at 5:24 PM and stated MDS assessments should be coded accurately. Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the area of active diagnosis for 2 of 23 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy (Resident #16 and Resident #19). Findings included: 1. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility 03/28/25 with a diagnosis including depression. Resident #16's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated she had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Review of a Psychiatry evaluation note for Resident #16 dated 04/04/25 read in part as, She did not [have] a history of PTSD. In an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 05/01/25 at 11:57 AM she confirmed she completed Resident #16's admission MDS dated [DATE]. She stated the MDS should not have been coded to reflect Resident #16 had a diagnosis of PTSD and this was a coding error. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/01/25 at 4:38 PM revealed she expected MDS assessments to be coded accurately. An interview with the Administrator on 05/01/25 at 5:39 PM revealed she expected MDS assessments to be coded correctly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan that addressed the resident's ...

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 complete a baseline care plan that addressed the resident's immediate needs within 48 hours of admission for 4 of 13 sampled residents (Residents #73, #16, #72, and #323). The findings included: 1. Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (difficulty breathing). The nursing admission data collection assessment initiated on 04/28/25 and completed on 04/29/25 revealed Resident #73 received insulin injections, antidepressant and diuretic medications. Review of Resident 73's electronic medical record on 04/29/25 revealed no evidence a baseline care plan that addressed her immediate needs was initiated or completed within 48 hours of her admission to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview on 04/30/25 at 9:13 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) explained when residents admitted after-hours (after normal business hours) or over the weekend, nursing staff called her and she assisted them with entering physician orders and starting a baseline care plan for the resident. The DON could not explain why a baseline care plan was not initiated for Resident #73 and stated either she or the nurse should have completed a baseline care plan within 48-hours of Resident #73's admission to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview on 05/01/25 at 5:37 PM, the Administrator stated baseline care plans should be completed within 48 hours of a resident's admission. She stated the baseline care plan should contain pertinent information that addressed a resident's immediate care needs for staff until the comprehensive care plans were developed. 2. Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including muscle weakness. Resident #72 discharged home on [DATE]. Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed there was no baseline care plan included in the medical record. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/01/25 at 4:38 PM revealed the interdisciplinary team initiated the baseline care plan upon admission and it was sent to the MDS Coordinator to assist with developing the comprehensive care plan. She stated once the comprehensive care plan was initiated, the baseline care plan was sent to medical records to be scanned into the electronic medical record. The DON confirmed Resident #72 should have had a baseline care plan and it was overlooked. An interview with the Administrator on 05/01/25 at 5:39 PM revealed she was unaware a baseline care plan was not completed for Resident #72. The Administrator stated she expected all residents to have a baseline care plan completed within 48 hours of the resident's admission. 3. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility 03/28/25 with a diagnosis including colostomy status (having a colostomy in place). Review of Resident #16's baseline care plan dated 03/28/25 did not reflect she had a colostomy (a surgically created opening that connects one end of the large intestine to the abdomen). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 had a colostomy. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/01/25 at 4:38 PM revealed the interdisciplinary team initiated the baseline care plan upon admission and it was sent to the MDS Coordinator to assist with developing the comprehensive care plan. She stated once the comprehensive care plan was initiated, the baseline care plan was sent to medical records to be scanned into the electronic medical record. The DON stated Resident #16's baseline care plan should have reflected that she had a colostomy, and it was an oversight. An interview with the Administrator on 05/01/25 at 5:39 PM revealed she expected baseline care plans to be accurate. 4. Resident #323 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lack of coordination and dementia. Review of Resident #323's medical record revealed there was no baseline care plan completed within 48 hours of Resident #323's admission. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/01/25 at 5:15 PM revealed that she had medical records look for Resident #323's baseline care plan. She stated that a baseline care plan could not be found. She stated that the interdisciplinary team (IDT) was responsible for completing the baseline care plan. An interview with the Administrator on 5/01/25 at 5:44 PM revealed that her expectation was that a baseline care plan be completed within 48 hours of a resident's admission to provide comprehensive care.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to perform activities of daily living (ADL) care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to perform activities of daily living (ADL) care for a resident (Resident #30). This was for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for (ADL) care. Findings included: Resident #30 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease. A review of Resident #30's care plan dated 5/2/24 found he had a care plan for activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to generalized muscle weakness and impaired mobility. Interventions included improved level of function in ADL performance through next review date, clean, check nail length and trim on bath days. An additional intervention included revealed Resident #30 required set-up or clean-up assistance with personal hygiene. A review of Resident #30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessmnet dated 1/28/25 coded him as cognitively intact. Resident #30 had impairment to both sides for upper and lower extremities, needed maximum assistance with bathing, and set-up or clean-up assistance with personal care. A review of the facility's shower schedule found Resident #30's assigned bath days were Tuesday and Friday. On 4/27/25 at 1:17 PM Resident #30 was observed in his room lying on his bed with approximately ½ inch long whiskers and beard hair on his face. The resident stated he preferred to have his face shaved and that he had not had a bath in a week. A review of Resident #30's Nurse Aide (NA) task summary for showers and bathing from 4/1/25 through 4/30/25 found no record of showers or bathing completed for Resident #30. A review of Resident #30's shower sheet records for April 2025 found a shower sheet dated 4/22/25 and 4/29/25 completed for the resident. The 4/29/25 shower sheet was signed completed by NA #2. An in-room observation and interview with Resident #30 on 4/29/25 at 1:35 PM found the resident's beard and whisker hair to remain unchanged. Resident #30 stated he had received a bed bath on 4/29/25 and he had requested the bed bath over a shower. Resident #30 said he asked NA #2 to shave him, and NA #2 had said she would not shave him because she was too nervous. The resident said NA #2 did not come back to tell him who would shave him or when he would be shaved. Resident #30 stated he was not able to shave himself and that he thought he had only been shaved one time in April. NA #2 was interviewed on 4/30/25 at 1:29 PM. She stated she provided the bed bath to the resident Resident #30 on 4/29/25. NA #2 said Resident #30 declined a shower and asked for a bed bath. She said Resident #30 had asked her to shave his face during the bed bath and she told the resident she did not feel comfortable shaving him because of her arm tremors. NA #2 said she told Resident #30 someone else would come back and shave him. The NA stated she was not able to recall who she asked to shave the resident after completing the bed bath on 4/29/25. NA #2 said she does forget to fill out the shower sheets for residents after completing a shower or bath, but she had always given her assigned residents a shower or bath when scheduled. A follow-up interview with NA #2 was conducted on 4/30/25 at 2:41 PM. NA #2 stated she was unaware if Resident #30 was able to shave himself with a razor. She added that the resident would probably be able to use an electric razor to shave himself. NA #2 said shaving a resident was completed when providing a bath or shower for a resident that liked to be shaved. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed 5/1/25 at 4:37 PM. The DON stated shower sheets were supposed to be completed by NAs after every shower or bath. The DON stated if Resident #30 had requested to be shaved then he should have been shaved by NA#2 or the NA who agreed to shave Resident #30.
CONCERN (D)

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 observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to post cautionary and safety signs tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to post cautionary and safety signs that indicated the use of oxygen and ensure the physician order included the oxygen flow rate (amount of oxygen administered in liters per minute) and delivery method (nasal cannula) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #73). Findings included: Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (difficulty breathing). A physician's order dated 04/25/25 for Resident #73 read, respiratory: oxygen-continuous. The physician order did not indicate the oxygen flow rate to be administered or directions or how the oxygen was to be delivered, such as nasal cannula. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment (tool used to gauge an individual's cognition) dated 04/25/25 revealed Resident #73 had intact cognition. During an observation and interview on 04/27/25 at 12:22 PM, Resident #73 was lying in bed receiving supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula with the flow rate on the oxygen concentrator set at 3 liters per minute (LPM). Resident #73 stated she used supplemental oxygen to help with her breathing but was not sure how many LPM she was supposed to receive. There was no cautionary signage posted on the door, doorframe or in Resident #73's room to indicate oxygen was in use. During subsequent observations conducted on 04/28/25 at 8:00 AM, 04/29/25 at 4:50 PM and 04/30/25 at 8:31 AM, Resident #73 was lying in bed receiving supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula with the oxygen concentrator set at 3 LPM. There was no cautionary signage posted on the door, doorframe or in Resident #73's room to indicate oxygen was in use. During an interview on 04/30/25 at 9:13 AM and follow-up interview on 04/30/25 at 12:31 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no cautionary signage placed on the door, doorframe or in Resident #73's room to indicate oxygen was in use and explained there should have been as that was the facility's process. The DON stated the placement of the signage was likely overlooked because Resident #73 admitted to the facility after-hours (after normal business hours). The DON was unaware Resident #73's oxygen order did not indicate the oxygen flow rate and explained it was an oversight that she did not include the LPM when she entered Resident #73's oxygen order in her electronic medical record. During an interview on 05/01/25 at 5:37 PM, the Administrator stated physician orders for oxygen use should include the amount of oxygen to be administered and cautionary signage should be posted on the doors of residents' rooms who were receiving supplemental oxygen.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to assess a resident for risk of entrapment prior...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to assess a resident for risk of entrapment prior to installing and/or using bed rails for 1 of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #18). Findings Included: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her cumulative diagnoses included hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (partial weakness on one side of the body) following cerebrovascular disease (conditions that affect blood flow to the brain) affecting the left dominant side, left knee contracture and chronic pain. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had intact cognition. She had impairment on one side of the lower extremity, was dependent on staff for assistance with bed mobility and did not use bed rails during the MDS assessment look-back period. During an observation and interview on 04/27/25 at 11:20 AM, quarter bed rails were observed in the upright position on each side of Resident #18's bed. Resident #18 explained she used the bed rails to reposition herself when lying in bed. Review of Resident #18's electronic medical record on 04/28/25 revealed no evidence Resident #18 was assessed for risk of entrapment prior to installing and/or using bed rails. An additional observation conducted on 04/29/25 at 4:40 PM revealed Resident #18 lying in bed watching TV with quarter bed rails in the upright position on each side of the bed. During an interview on 04/30/25 at 9:13 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) explained when therapy agreed bed rails would aid a resident with independent bed mobility, an initial bed rail assessment was completed and then bed rails were installed for the resident to use. The DON also stated residents were reassessed quarterly to determine the continued need for bed rail use. The DON stated she did not realize a bed rail assessment needed to be completed for Resident #18 because the use of bed rails were ordered by Hospice. During an interview on 05/01/25 at 8:32 AM, Nurse Aide #1 revealed Resident #18 used the quarter bed rails for independent bed mobility and repositioning. During an interview on 05/01/25 at 5:27 PM, the Administrator stated she would expect bed rail assessments to be completed per the facility policy.
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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure Nurse Aides (NA) were able to demonstrate the competency and skills necessary for providing care to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure Nurse Aides (NA) were able to demonstrate the competency and skills necessary for providing care to meet the individual care needs of residents' that included hand hygiene during incontinence care for 3 of 5 employee files reviewed (NA #2, NA #3 and NA #4). On 04/30/25, NA #3 did not remove soiled gloves and perform hand hygiene before applying a clean brief and touching other items in the resident's environment after providing incontinent care to a dependent resident. Findings included: This tag is crossed referenced to: F 880: Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement their infection control policies when Nurse Aide (NA) #3 did not don (put on) a gown while providing urinary catheter (a tube that drains urine out of the body) care to Resident #65 who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) due to the presence of a urinary catheter and failed to follow their Hand Hygiene policy when NA #3 did not remove soiled gloves and perform hand hygiene before applying a clean brief and touching other items in the resident's environment while providing incontinence care to Resident #65. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 4 staff members observed for infection control practices (NA #3). a. Review of NA #2's employee file revealed she had been employed at the facility since 12/01/22. The employee file did not contain any evidence that NA #2's skills or competencies were checked upon hire or thereafter. b. Review of NA #3's employee file revealed she had been employed at the facility since 03/17/25. The employee file did not contain any evidence that NA #3's skills or competencies were checked upon hire or thereafter. During an interview on 04/30/25 at 2:49 PM, NA #3 stated she had not received any training from the facility regarding her removing gloves, performing hand hygiene and applying clean gloves after removing stool during incontinent care and before touching other items in the room. c. Review of NA #4's employee file revealed she had been employed at the facility since 08/24/23. The employee file did not contain any evidence that NA #4's skills or competencies were checked upon hire or thereafter.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records by not docume...

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 maintain complete and accurate medical records by not documenting when residents admitted to the facility, discharged from the facility or expired at the facility for 3 of 23 sampled residents (Residents #73, #71, and #72). Findings included: 1. The profile page in Resident #73's electronic medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the staff progress notes for Resident #73 revealed no entry on [DATE] regarding her admission to the facility, such as the time of her arrival, condition or care needs. An unsuccessful telephone attempt was made [DATE] at 2:43 PM to interview Nurse #2 who had provided Resident #73's care on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:14 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she would have expected for the nurse to have written a progress note when Resident #73 admitted to the facility that included details such as the time she arrived to the facility and her condition upon arrival. The DON stated it was likely that the nurse just forgot since Resident #73 admitted to the facility after-hours (after normal business hours). 2. The profile page in Resident #71's electronic medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #71's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment history revealed a death in the facility tracking record dated [DATE]. Review of the staff progress notes for Resident #71 revealed the last documented staff progress note was an entry dated [DATE] at 9:47 AM. There was no entry on [DATE] detailing the events of Resident #71's death. During a phone interview on [DATE] at 12:35 PM, Nurse #1 recalled being notified by staff on [DATE] that Resident #71 had passed which she confirmed upon her assessment. Nurse #1 stated she should have written a progress note detailing the events of his death and was not sure why she had not. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:14 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she would have expected for the nurse to have written a staff progress note when Resident #71 passed away that included details such as how he was found, the time of death and that the funeral home, Responsible Party and provider were all notified. 3. The profile page in Resident #72's electronic medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility [DATE]. The discharge return not anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #72 discharged home. Review of staff progress notes for Resident #72 on [DATE] revealed no documentation of his discharge home. Further review of Resident #72's medical record revealed all applicable discharge notices were issued as required. Review of the schedule revealed a medication aide (MA) was assigned to care for Resident #72 on [DATE] and Nurse #3 and Nurse #4 were assigned to oversee the MA. A telephone interview with Nurse #3 revealed she did not specifically remember working on [DATE] but if a MA was assigned to care for a resident and was discharged home, she or another nurse was responsible for writing a discharge note. She was unable to state why there was no discharge note for Resident #72 on [DATE]. Nurse #4 was unavailable for interview during the investigation. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 9:17 AM revealed any time a resident was discharged home there should be a nurse's note including what time the resident left, who they left with, any complaints or concerns they may have had, and their condition at the time they left the facility. A follow-up interview with the DON on [DATE] at 4:38 PM revealed if a MA was working and a resident discharged home, it was the responsibility of nurse who was overseeing the MA to write a discharge note and she was not sure why there was not a discharge note for Resident #72 on [DATE]. An interview with the Administrator on [DATE] at 5:39 PM revealed she expected a nurse's note to be included in a resident's medical record including their status at discharge.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement their infection control policies when Nurse Aide (NA) #3 did not don (put on) a gown while providing urinary...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement their infection control policies when Nurse Aide (NA) #3 did not don (put on) a gown while providing urinary catheter (a tube that drains urine out of the body) care to Resident #65 who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and failed to follow their Hand Hygiene policy when NA #3 did not remove soiled gloves and perform hand hygiene before applying a clean brief and touching other items in the resident's environment while providing incontinence care to Resident #65. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 4 staff members observed for infection control practices (NA #3). Findings included: Review of the facility's Hand Hygiene policy last revised 02/05/21 read in part as follows: The CDC [Centers for Disease Control] defines hand hygiene as cleaning your hands by using either handwashing (washing with soap and water), antiseptic hand wash, or antiseptic hand rubs (i.e. alcohol-based sanitizer including foam or gel). Hand Hygiene should be performed before initiating a clean procedure, after contact with body fluids or excretions, when hands are moved from a contaminated-body site to a clean body site during patient care, and after glove removal. Review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy last updated in August 2022 read in part as follows: EBPs are utilized to prevent the spread of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs). EBPs employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities when contact precautions do not otherwise apply. Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include device care or use (urinary catheter and feeding tube). An observation of Resident #65's door on 04/30/25 at 2:39 PM revealed a sign hanging on the door indicating he was on EBP and a shelf containing gowns and gloves was hanging on the door. A continuous observation of NA #3 on 04/30/25 from 2:40 PM until 2:49 PM revealed she performed hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub, entered Resident #65's room, applied gloves, pulled back his bed cover, un-fastened his brief, cleaned his penis and urinary catheter with a resident care wipe, discarded the wipe in a trash bag, assisted Resident #65 onto his right side, removed stool with a resident care wipe, rolled the soiled wipe up into the used brief, rolled a clean brief under Resident #65's right side, assisted Resident #65 onto his back, pulled the brief into place and fastened it, placed a pillow under his head and under his right side, pulled his bed cover into place, picked up the bed control and used it to raise the head of his bed, clipped the bed control to his blanket, picked up the soiled brief, placed it in a trash bag, removed her gloves and placed them in the bag, gathered the trash bag containing the soiled brief, performed hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub, and exited resident #65's room. NA #3 did not don a gown before performing urinary catheter care and did not remove gloves and perform hand hygiene after removing stool and before touching other items and surfaces. An interview with NA #3 on 04/30/25 at 2:50 PM revealed she was not aware that Resident #65 was on EBP, and use of a gown was required when performing catheter care. She also stated she did not usually change her gloves after during incontinence care unless they were visibly soiled with stool, and she did not see any stool on her gloves when she was performing incontinence care for Resident #65. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 04/30/25 at 3:03 PM revealed staff should wear a gown when providing urinary catheter care according to EBP guidelines. She stated gloves should be removed and hand hygiene should be performed any time there was contact with stool. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/01/25 at 4:38 PM revealed she expected staff to wear a gown when providing catheter care and gloves should be removed and hand hygiene should be performed after cleaning stool and before touching other items. An interview with the Administrator on 05/01/25 at 5:39 PM revealed she expected staff to follow EBP signage and the policy for hand hygiene when providing incontinence care.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the Law Enforcement Detective and staff, the facility failed to protect the residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the Law Enforcement Detective and staff, the facility failed to protect the residents' rights to be free from misappropriation of controlled medication for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident property (Residents #173, #174, #175, and #176). The findings included: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation policy, last revised on 11/16/22, revealed in part the facility would ensure all residents were free from misappropriation of property. a. Resident #173 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder. The physician's order dated 01/16/25 revealed Resident #173 had an order to receive one tablet of clonazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg) by mouth every morning (6:00 AM) and at bedtime (9:00 PM) for anxiety/panic attacks. The pharmacy proof of delivery shipment summary sheet revealed 60 tablets of clonazepam 0.5 mg were shipped on 02/18/25 for Resident #173 and was received by the facility on 02/19/25 at 3:13 AM. The February 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed starting on 02/19/25 Resident #173 received a total of 5 tablets of clonazepam 0.5 mg. The clonazepam was documented as administered per physician order on 02/19/25 at 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM, 2/20/25 at 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM, and 02/21/25 at 6:00 AM. No further doses were documented as administered for the remainder of the month and there should have been 55 tablets left remaining. The shift change controlled substance inventory count sheet revealed the former Director of Nursing (DON) initialed that she removed one card of clonazepam 0.5 mg tablets for Resident #173 from the medication cart on 02/21/25 and noted the medication was being returned to the pharmacy. The initial allegation report dated 03/01/25 revealed the facility became aware of an incident on 02/28/25 at 7:54 PM when the Administrator was notified by Medication Aide (MA) #3 that Resident #173's clonazepam (medication used to treat panic disorders and seizures) and declining count sheets were missing, and Law Enforcement was notified. A telephone attempt on 05/01/25 at 2:43 PM for interview with MA #3 was unsuccessful. The investigative report dated 03/08/25 revealed the facility completed a review of pharmacy and facility documentation which revealed on 02/21/25 the former DON removed Resident #173's clonazepam from the medication cart and noted on the controlled substance shift change report that the medications were sent back to the pharmacy and the declining count sheet could not be located. The pharmacy sent 60 tablets of clonazepam on 02/18/25 and review of Resident #173's medication administration record (MAR) revealed 55 of the 60 tablets were unaccounted for. It was noted that Resident #173 did not suffer any harm or mental anguish, and the medication was replaced at the facility's expense. The former DON's last day worked was on 02/25/25 and she did not return back to the facility after that date. Resident #173 passed away at the facility on 04/01/25. b. Resident #174 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain. The physician's order dated 01/30/25 revealed Resident #174 had an order to receive one tablet of oxycodone 5 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. The pharmacy proof of delivery shipment summary sheet revealed 30 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg were shipped on 01/30/25 for Resident #174 and was received by the facility on 01/31/25 at 2:08 AM. The January 2025 MAR for Resident #174 revealed he received a total of 2 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. The oxycodone was documented as administered per physician order on 01/31/25 at 3:47 PM and 10:09 PM. After the last dose was administered on 01/31/25, there should have been 28 tablets remaining. The February 2025 MAR for Resident #174 revealed he received a total of 5 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. The oxycodone was documented as administered per physician order on 02/01/25 at 9:14 PM, 02/02/25 at 11:00 AM, 02/03/25 at 9:46 PM, 02/06/25 at 2:35 PM, and 02/07/25 at 9:56 AM. After the last dose was administered on 02/07/25, there should have been 23 tablets of Oxycodone left remaining. Resident #17 discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and had not returned to the facility at the time of this investigation. The shift change controlled substance inventory count sheet revealed the former DON initialed that she removed one card of oxycodone 5 mg tablets for Resident #174 from the medication cart on 02/21/25. The initial allegation report dated 03/04/25 revealed the facility became aware on 03/04/25 at 4:40 PM during a narcotic audit that 20 tablets of Resident #174's oxycodone (opioid pain medication) was unaccounted for, and Law Enforcement was notified. The investigative report dated 03/08/25 revealed during a narcotic audit, it was discovered that the former DON removed Resident #174's oxycodone from the medication cart and the medication was missing along with the declining count sheet. c. Resident #175 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain. The physician's order dated 02/10/25 revealed Resident #175 had an order to receive one tablet of oxycodone 5 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. The pharmacy proof of delivery shipment summary sheet revealed 28 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg were shipped on 02/10/25 for Resident #175 and was received by the facility on 02/10/25 at 6:15 PM. The February 2025 MAR for Resident #175 revealed she received at total of 10 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. The oxycodone was documented as administered per physician order on 02/10/25 at 10:12 PM, 02/11/25 at 10:38 AM, 02/12/25 at 9:22 AM and 3:35 PM, 02/13/25 at 9:40 AM, 02/14/25 at 8:47 AM, 02/15/25 at 2:54 PM and 10:20 PM, and 02/16/25 at 10:04 AM and 10:16 PM. After the last dose was administered on 02/16/25, there should have been 18 tablets remaining. The shift change controlled substance inventory count sheet revealed the former DON initialed that she removed one card of oxycodone 5 mg tablets for Resident #175 on 02/21/25 and noted the medication was being returned to the pharmacy. Resident #175 discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and had not returned to the facility at the time of this investigation. The initial allegation report dated 03/04/25 revealed the facility became aware on 03/04/25 at 4:40 PM during a narcotic audit that 18 pills of Resident #175's oxycodone was unaccounted for and Law Enforcement was notified. The investigative report dated 03/08/25 revealed during a narcotic audit, it was discovered that on 02/21/25 the former DON removed Resident #175's oxycodone from the medication cart and the medication was missing along with the declining count sheet. d. Resident #176 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of the lower end of the left radius (one of the two long bones in the forearm located on the thumb side). The physician's order dated 01/13/25 revealed Resident #176 had an order to receive one tablet of oxycodone 5 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. The physician's order dated 01/15/25 revealed Resident #176 had an order to receive one tablet of oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain for one day and to discontinue when the oxycodone 5 mg arrived. The pharmacy proof of delivery shipment summary sheets for Resident #176 revealed the following: - 30 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg were shipped on 01/14/25 and was received by the facility on 01/15/25 at 3:57 AM. - 30 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg were shipped on 01/24/25 and was received by the facility on 01/25/25 at 3:08 AM. - 30 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg were shipped on 02/04/25 and was received by the facility on 02/04/25 at 6:11 PM. - 30 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg were shipped on 02/14/25 and was received by the facility on 02/15/25 at 2:34 AM. The January 2025 MAR for Resident #176 revealed she received one tablet of oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg on 01/15/15 at 1:24 PM. The January 2025 MAR for Resident #176 further revealed she received a total of 48 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. The oxycodone was documented as administered per physician order on: -01/13/25 at 4:00 PM -01/14/25 at 12:16 AM -01/15/25 at 2:36 AM and 9:54 PM -01/16/25 at 5:31 AM, 11:55 AM and 5:57 PM -01/17/25 at 12:21 AM, 10:28 AM and 5:52 PM -01/18/25 at 12:33 AM, 6:34 AM, 1:04 PM, and 9:35 PM -01/19/25 at 5:42 AM and 10:07 PM -01/20/25 at 9:09 AM, 4:57 PM and 11:44 PM -01/21/25 at 5:48 AM, 12:56 PM and 7:12 PM -01/22/25 at 2:45 AM, 9:09 AM and 3:30 PM -01/23/25 at 2:05 AM, 9:00 AM, 3:23 PM, and 11:58 PM -01/24/25 at 11:11 AM and 5:26 PM -01/25/25 at 8:13 PM -01/26/25 at 7:02 PM -01/27/25 at 2:35 AM, 10:15 AM and 5:12 PM -01/28/25 at 5:10 AM, 12:39 PM and 7:19 PM -01/29/25 at 6:21 AM and 4:54 PM -01/30/25 at 12:16 AM, 6:20 AM, 1:34 PM, and 8:27 PM -01/31/25 at 3:03 AM, 9:57 AM and 7:06 PM. The February 2025 MAR for Resident #176 revealed she received a total of 51 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. The oxycodone was documented as administered per physician order on: -02/01/25 at 4:06 AM, 10:27 AM, 5:12 PM, and 11:45 PM -02/02/25 at 5:47 AM, 1:10 PM and 8:26 PM -02/03/25 at 6:00 AM, 12:56 PM and 7:37 PM -02/04/25 at 5:01 AM and 11:01 AM -02/05/25 at 9:11 AM, 3:28 PM and 9:30 PM -02/06/25 at 5:41 AM, 12:50 PM and 8:49 PM -02/07/25 at 5:56 AM, 12:55 PM and 7:50 PM -02/08/25 at 4:28 AM, 10:59 AM, 5:38 PM, and 11:47 PM -02/09/25 at 12:28 PM and 8:15 PM -02/10/25 at 5:02 AM, 11:16 AM, 5:35 PM, and 11:45 PM -02/11/25 at 6:45 PM -02/12/25 at 1:20 AM, 11:45 AM and 5:58 PM -02/13/25 at 5:02 AM and 8:51 PM -02/14/25 at 4:27 AM, 11:19 AM and 6:35 PM -02/15/25 at 2:51 AM and 8:53 PM -02/16/25 at 5:59 AM and 7:13 PM -02/17/25 at 9:43 AM and 5:49 PM -02/18/25 at 6:49 AM, 1:08 PM and 8:23 PM -02/19/25 at 4:06 AM and 10:24 AM. Resident #176 discharged home on [DATE]. The shift change controlled substance inventory count sheet was signed by MA #2 on 02/21/25 indicating one card of oxycodone 5 mg tablets for Resident #176 was removed from the medication cart. There was no other signature verifying the narcotics were removed. Included in the facility's investigation documentation was a typed statement dated 03/01/25 written by the current DON that revealed in part, on 02/21/25 MA #2 and the former DON were observed at the 400 Hall medication cart. The former DON was observed removing several narcotic cards and declining count sheets from the medication cart and then walked back up the hallway away from the medication cart with the narcotics and count sheets in hand. The initial allegation report dated 03/04/25 revealed the facility became aware on 03/04/25 at 4:40 PM that 18 pills of Resident #176's oxycodone was unaccounted for and Law Enforcement was notified. The investigative report dated 03/08/25 revealed during a narcotic audit, it was determined that between 01/14/25 to 02/14/25 the pharmacy sent 120 tablets of oxycodone for Resident #176 of which she received 100 doses. There were 20 tablets of oxycodone unaccounted for and the medication was missing along with the declining count sheet. During phone interviews on 04/29/25 at 12:36 PM and 04/30/25 at 4:42 PM, the former DON stated her last day working at the facility was on 02/25/25 and she left without notice because she no longer felt safe working at the facility. The former DON could not recall the date but stated an Officer came to speak with her to get a statement and hinted that she was being accused of narcotic diversion, but he did not go into the specifics of what she was being accused of. She stated she never and would never take any medication from a facility or resident. The former DON stated during her employment at the facility, narcotic medication that needed to be returned to the pharmacy was kept locked in the medication cart. She explained that was not a process she was comfortable with and felt that the narcotic medication should be locked up in the DON's office until the pharmacy picked them up. She could not recall the exact date but stated it was a day or two before the last day she worked (02/25/25) when the Assistant Director of Nursing at the time, who was now the facility's current DON, asked if she would clear the carts, which she explained meant removing narcotic medication that needed to be returned to the pharmacy, and help her finish up the pharmacy returns. The former DON stated she removed some narcotic medication with the associated declining count sheets from the 300 Hall medication cart, but she did not recall the name of the resident the medication belonged to or the name of the medication she removed. She scanned the cards to create a pharmacy return, faxed the log to the pharmacy and placed the narcotic medication into a sealed bag for the pharmacy to pick up. She then handed the bagged medication to Nurse #6 to place back on the medication cart until the pharmacy picked it up. The former DON stated she felt that someone was forging her initials on the narcotic count sheets and just before she left, she had voiced her concerns to the Administrator and ADON that she felt there was some drug diversion going on and there needed to be an audit, but they did not seem to take her concerns seriously. The former DON stated she felt this entire accusation was retaliatory on the facility's part because she quit without notice. She restated she never took any narcotic medication and someone at the facility forged her initials. During a phone interview on 05/01/25 at 9:25 AM, Nurse #6 revealed she no longer worked at the facility. Nurse #6 could not recall the date but stated the former DON had given her some medications that were sealed in a bag for the pharmacy to pick up and she placed the bag in the 100 Hall medication cart because pharmacy usually didn't pick up medications at night which was when she worked. During a phone interview on 04/29/25 at 4:11 PM, the Law Enforcement Detective stated he and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Officer spoke with the former DON together and she denied taking any medications from the facility. The Law Enforcement Officer stated when he reviewed the facility's records, the documentation was not as clean cut as he would have liked. He explained there were gaps from the date the former DON initialed the sheets as having removed the medications and when the medications were noticed missing which meant others had access to the medications during the time frame. The Law Enforcement Detective stated he was closing his investigation, and no charges were filed as he could not determine what actually happened to the medications but felt there was definitely a breakdown in the facility's process that allowed the diversion to occur. A joint interview was conducted with the current DON, Administrator and Regional [NAME] President of Operations on 04/30/25 at 1:26 PM. The Administrator stated on 02/28/25, MA #3 came to let her know that she (MA #3) had tried to get Resident #173's clonazepam refilled but the pharmacy stated it was too soon to refill the medication. The Administrator stated she immediately reviewed the pharmacy sheets for deliveries and then she along with the current DON started looking everywhere to see if Resident #173's clonazepam had been placed in another location by mistake which included checking all medication carts, offices, filing cabinets, desk, and the non-narcotic pharmacy return box. She stated when Resident #173's clonazepam couldn't be located, she called the Regional [NAME] President of Operations to inform him of the situation, and he instructed them to start an investigation and conduct a narcotic audit going back 30 days. She stated the Pharmacy Account Manager came to the facility to help with the investigation and completed a reconciliation of all resident narcotic medications. The Administrator stated during the narcotic audit they discovered that there were a total of 11 narcotic cards with the declining count sheets that had been removed from the medication carts and 4 of the 11 narcotic cards could not be accounted for, there were no narcotic card, declining count sheets or record of return to the pharmacy. She stated there was one common denominator, the former DON had signed off as having removed all 11 narcotic cards/sheets from the medication carts and they were all removed on the same day. She explained she started comparing the narcotic sheets they were able to locate that the former DON had signed as removing the medication from the medication cart with the pharmacy delivery sheets and report of pharmacy returns. Through that process, she was able to determine what medications were unaccounted for and verify there was no pharmacy order for the unaccounted medications to be returned. She then compared the unaccounted medications with the pharmacy delivery sheets and confirmed there was no order from the pharmacy for a return. She stated they determined the medications that were unaccounted for belonged to Resident #173, #174, #175 and #176. She explained Resident #173 was the only resident still at the facility when the incident occurred and her clonazepam was replaced at the facility's expense. Resident #174 and Resident #175 both had discharged to the hospital and Resident #176 had discharged home. The Administrator stated when the current DON talked to Resident #176, she confirmed no medication was provided to her upon her discharge, but she did get a prescription to have filled. The Administrator stated they could not prove that the former DON took the medications, but it was the only thing they could determine likely happened based on their investigation and the former DON was not returning their calls. The Administrator stated the last day the former DON actually worked at the facility was on 02/25/25 and then she sent a text message on 02/28/25 to the current DON (who was the ADON at the time) stating that she was quitting. She stated the Law Enforcement Detective and DEA Officer came to the facility, talked to each of them individually and then came back to the facility to talk to them again after speaking with the former DON. She stated the Law Enforcement Detective and DEA Officer stated that the former DON denied taking the medications and was basically putting the blame for the missing medications on the current DON. The interview continued with the current DON, Administrator and Regional [NAME] President of Operations all stating the former DON never voiced any concerns of diversion to them and as the DON of record at the time, she could have initiated an investigation if she did have concerns but didn't. They all explained the process at the time was for the DON to pull narcotic medications from the medication cart, scan the bar code to initiate a return to the pharmacy, seal the medication in a bag with the bag number for the return, place the bag on the locked medication cart until pharmacy arrived to pick it up and when pharmacy arrived to pick up the medication, they provided a receipt of return. The Administrator and Regional [NAME] President of Operations both stated they realized the protocol was not being consistently followed and a corrective action plan was discussed at QAPI and implemented. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a completion date of 03/06/25: How will corrective action be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? On Friday, February 28, 2025, the Executive Director was notified by a Medication Aide that Resident #173 Clonazepam 0.5mg tablets and declining count sheet was missing. The current Director of Nursing phoned the pharmacy. The pharmacy checked on the missing Clonazepam 0.5 mg tablets and explained to the DON that the Clonazepam was never returned to the pharmacy. The pharmacy replaced the Clonazepam 0.5 mg rapid tablets on the same day as phoned and the charge for those was billed to the facility. A search of the facility was completed by the Executive Director and the Director of Nursing. This included all offices to included desks, filing cabinets, drawers, bookshelves, boxes, shred boxes, removing locks on any locked drawers, filing cabinets, desks, etc. When the search was completed and the missing medication and declining count sheets could not be located, the Regional [NAME] President of Operations, the Regional Clinical Director of Nursing were notified via telephone conference. It was decided that an audit needed to be started and that an ADHOC QAPI needed to be held to discuss and formulate an action plan. On 2/28/25, the Executive Director and the Director of Nursing conducted a Root Cause Analysis regarding the missing controlled medication for Resident #173. It was determined through the root cause analysis, the system for removing narcotics from the medication cart was not always followed with 2 signatures. It was also identified that shift change controlled substance inventory count sheet was not thorough for accurately tracing of narcotics removed from the cart. Through the review of the Shift Change Controlled Substance Count Sheets, it was identified that the previous Director of Nursing had signed the narcotics off of the cart on 2/21/25. The pharmacy return record of controlled substances was reviewed for the date that the narcotics were signed as removed from the medication cart, lock box and the missing narcotics did not appear on the pharmacy return record of controlled substances. The Medical Director, The Regional [NAME] President of Operations, and the Regional Director of Clinical Services was made aware of this root cause analysis. On 2/28/25, an ADHOC QAPI was held with the following quality assurance performance improvement team members: Executive Director, Director of Nursing, Business Office Manager, Social Worker, Medical Records, Maintenance Director, Rehab Manager, Housekeeping Supervisor, and the Medical Director attended by phone. The proposed plan of correction was reviewed, discussed, and agreed upon regarding the corrections needed to attain and sustain compliance. On 3/1/2025, local law enforcement, the regulatory agency and the Board of Nursing were notified of the missing narcotics. The Board of Nursing was notified of the former Director of Nursing potential involvement in regard to the missing narcotics. How will the facility identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice? The Executive Director and the Director of Nursing completed a quality review of prescribed controlled medications that were received from or returned to the pharmacy over the prior 30 days. This review was conducted from 2/28/25 through 3/4/25 to identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. Included in the 30-day review were the following: Shift Change Controlled Substance Count Sheets- which indicates how many narcotic cards/containers are active on the cart and also reveals when controlled substances are added and or removed from the cart. -Pharmacy Delivery Sheets -Destruction History -Current Residents with an order for controlled substances -Discharge Residents that had an order for controlled substances -Controlled Substance Declining Count Sheets, Controlled Substances in Medication Carts -Medication administration records related to controlled substances At the conclusion of this process on 3/4/25, 3 other residents were affected by this deficient practice. Included here are the results of the audit: Resident #176 was admitted to the Oaks at Sweeten Creek on 01/13/2025 and discharged home 02/19/2025. Resident #176 had a physician's order for Oxycodone 5mg tablet every 6 hours as needed for pain. The pharmacy delivery report indicated the following was delivered to the facility: 02/14/2025 Oxycodone 5mg tablet- 30 pills-7 day supply. The last dose being administered on 02/19/2025. The shipment that was received on 02/14/2025 including 30 pills had 18 pills remaining that were unaccounted for, and the declining count sheet was also missing. The DON contacted Resident #176 to ask if she was discharged with the narcotic card of medication. Resident #176 indicated she was not discharged with the medication; but that she received a prescription for the medication. The previous DON removed the controlled substance and the declining count sheet from the cart on 02/21/2025. On 03/04/2025, The Executive Director and Pharmacy representative reviewed medications returned to the pharmacy and there was no indication this controlled substance medication was returned, and the declining controlled substance count sheet could not be located. Resident #174 was admitted to the Oaks at Sweeten Creek in 01/27/2025 and discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. On 01/30/2025, Resident #174 received a physician's order for Oxycodone 5mg tablet every 6 hours as needed for pain. The pharmacy delivery report indicated the following was delivered to the facility: 01/30/2025 Oxycodone 5mg tablet- 30 pills- 7-day supply. A review of the Medication Administration Record indicated that Resident #174 had 7 pills administered to him during his stay, with the last dose being administered on 02/07/2025. The 23 remaining pills were unaccounted for. It is noted that the previous DON removed the controlled substances and the declining count sheet from the medication cart on 02/25/2025. On 03/04/2025, The Executive Director and Pharmacy representative reviewed medications returned to the pharmacy and there was no indication this controlled substance medication was returned to the pharmacy, and the declining controlled substances count sheet could not be located. Resident #175 was admitted to the Oaks at Sweeten Creek on 02/08/2025 and discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. On 02/10/2025, Resident #175 received a physician's order for Oxycodone 5mg tablet every 6 hours as needed for pain. The pharmacy delivery report indicated the following was delivered to the facility: 02/10/2025 Oxycodone 5mg tablet- 28 pills- 7-day supply. A review of the Medication Administration Record indicated that Resident #175 received 10 pills with the last dose being administered on 02/16/2025. The controlled substance medication was discontinued on 02/17/2025. There were18 pills remaining that were unaccounted for. It is noted that the previous DON removed the controlled substance from the medication cart on 02/21/2025. On 03/04/2025, The Executive Director and Pharmacy representative reviewed medications returned to the pharmacy and there was no indication this controlled substance medication was returned to the pharmacy, and the declining controlled substances count sheet could not be located. On 3/4/25, the Pharmacy Account Manager came to the facility to assist with the quality review and concurred with the findings. A licensed nurse completed pain assessments on all current residents on the dates of 3/3/25 through 3/5/25 and there were no residents identified as having pain. On 3/3/2025, the Social Worker conducted interviews with residents with a BIMS of 8 or greater to determine if any of them were in pain, if they received pain medication when they are experiencing pain, and if they have had any issues with receiving pain medications and there were no issues identified. On 3/2/2025, the Executive Director reviewed the grievances for the months of January and February for any issues related to the medication without any concerns noted. What measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not occur? On 3/1/2025, the VP of Clinical Services educated the Executive Director and Director of Nursing via telephone to ensure narcotic control sheets were being utilized per policy, removing controlled substances from the medication carts that are ZEROs (with no pills remaining), removing controlled substances with pills remaining and utilizing the company's policy regarding the returning/ destruction process. On 3/1/2025, The Director of Nursing and Executive Director began education for licensed nurses and medication aides on the policy to ensure proper documentation on controlled substances/ narcotic count sheet and ZERO TOLERANCE- Diversion of Drugs, this education was completed by 3/4/2025 and is included in orientation for newly hired nurses and medication aides. On 03/04/2025, the Pharmacy Account Manager educated the Executive Director and Director of Nursing on delivery and receipt of controlled substances on 3/4/25. Storage and inventory of medications, controlled substances, and products, returns and disposal of medications and controlled substances, maintenance and the file system of controlled substance declining count sheets, delivery and returns to include 2 nurse or 1 nurse and 1 medication aide verification for receiving controlled substances, how to waste/destroy medications, and the Director of Nursing only is to remove narcotics from medication cart along with 1 nurse or 1 medication aide for verification. Per policy, controlled substances are to be removed by the Director of Nursing, any wasted controlled substance is to be performed by two licensed nurses or a licensed nurse and a medication aide. On 03/04/2025, the Executive Director and Director of Nursing educated licensed nurses and medication aides on the new Shift Change Controlled Substances Inventory Count Sheet and delivery and receipt of controlled substances, Storage and Inventory of medications, controlled substances, and products, returns and disposal of medications and controlled substances, maintenance and file system of controlled substance declining count sheets, delivery and returns to include 2 nurse or 1 nurse and 1 medication aide verification for receiving controlled substances, waste/destroy, with the Director of Nursing only to remove narcotics from medication cart with 1 nurse or 1 medication aide for verification. Medication Aides cannot add, remove, destroy/waste of controlled substances without the presence of 1 nurse or the Director of Nursing. Nurses cannot add, remove, destroy/waste of controlled substances without the presence of 1 med aide, another nurse or the Director of Nursing. Newly hired staff will be educated upon hire. The shift change form has been replaced with the Shift Change Controlled Substances Inventory Count Sheet that now includes the following: number of cards, number of count sheets in medication cart, controlled substances added and remove include residents name, medication, strength, number of cards, number of declining count sheets, verified by 2 nurses or 1 nurse and 1 medication aide. Count to be completed with the change of keys from nurse/med aide to nurse/med aide, or when DON is removing controlled substance cards/sheets with doses remaining. It includes the date, time, controlled substance medications at start of the count, declining narcotic count sheets at the start of the count, with 2 signature verification. Also included is the date, time, controlled substance medications at start of the count, declining narcotic count sheets at the start of the count, with 2 signature verification. The directions included on each Shift Change Controlled Substance Inventory Count Sheet are as follows: -Oncoming Nurse/Med Aide must verify count of all controlled substances anytime the keys are changed. If the keys are changed out several times in one day because working partial shifts, then a new row is to be used stating the date and time the controlled substances are inventory count was completed. Only full legible signatures are to be used, NOT INITIALS. -Nurse/Med Aide must count the actual total # of Cards/Containers AND actual total # of count sheets for all supplies in the drawer. -When cards are added, 2 nurses or 1 nurse/1 Med Aide are to add the number of cards/sheets added to include: resident name, drug [NAME][TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to record opened dates on multi-dose oral inhalers and label and date opened multi-dose bottles of eye drops on 3 of 4 me...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to record opened dates on multi-dose oral inhalers and label and date opened multi-dose bottles of eye drops on 3 of 4 medication carts (400 Hall, 200 Hall, and 300 Hall) reviewed for medication storage. Findings included: 1. An observation was made of the 400 Hall medication cart on 05/01/25 at 2:35 PM in the presence of Medication Aide (MA) #1. The observation revealed the following: (a). An opened and undated 7.5 milliliter (ml) multi-dose bottle of Neomycin and Polymyxin (antibiotics) eye drops were stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended dating the eye drops when they were opened and discarding on or before the expiration date. (b). An opened and undated multi-dose bottle of Prednisolone Acetate (steroid) 1% eye drops was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended dating the eye drops when they were opened and discarding them on or before the expiration date. (c). An opened, undated, and unlabeled 15 ml multi-dose bottle of Polyethylene Glycol 400 4% and Propylene Glycol 0.3% (eye lubricants) was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended dating the eye drops when they were opened and discarding on or before the expiration date. (d). An opened and undated multi-dose oral inhaler containing Fluticasone Propionate (a steroid) 250 micrograms (mcg) and Salmeterol Xinafoate (medication to keep airways open) 50 mcg was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended discarding one month after opening the foil pack. (e). An opened, undated, and unlabeled multi-dose oral inhaler containing Fluticasone Propionate 250 mcg and Salmeterol Xinafoate 50 mcg was stored on the medication cart. The medication did not include the name of the resident it had been dispensed for. The manufacturer recommended discarding one month after opening the foil pack. An interview with MA #1 on 05/01/25 at 2:35 PM revealed she was not sure why the eye drops and inhalers did not have an opened date or why the Fluticasone Propionate and Salmeterol Xinafoate inhaler did not have a resident name on it. 2. An observation of the 200 Hall medication cart was conducted in the presence of Nurse #5 on 05/01/25 at 2:56 PM. The observation revealed the following: (a). An opened and undated multi-dose oral inhaler containing Fluticasone Propionate 100 mcg and Salmeterol 50 mcg was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended discarding one month after opening the foil pack. An interview with Nurse #5 on 05/01/25 at 2:56 PM revealed all multi-dose oral inhalers should be dated when opened and she did not notice the inhaler did not have a date. 3. An observation of the 300 Hall medication cart was conducted in the presence of Medicatio Aide (MA) #2 on 05/01/25 at 3:11 PM. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was also present for part of the observation. The observation revealed the following: (a). Two opened and undated 2.5 ml bottles of Latanoprost 125 micrograms (mcg) were stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended dating the medication when opening and discarding within 6 weeks after opening. (b). An opened and undated 5 ml bottle of Levobunolol 0.5% drops (drops that lower pressure inside the eye) was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended dating the eye drops when they were opened and discarding on or before the expiration date. (c). An opened and undated multi-dose oral inhaler containing Umeclidinium 62.5 mcg and Vilanterol 25 mcg (medications used to relax airways) was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended dating the inhaler when removing from the foil pack and discarding the medication 6 weeks after opening. (d). An opened and undated multi-dose oral inhaler containing Fluticasone Propionate 250 mcg and Salmeterol Xinafoate 50 mcg was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended discarding one month after opening the foil pack. (e). An opened and undated multi-dose oral inhaler containing Olodaterol (medication used to relax airways) 2.5 mcg was stored on the medication cart. The manufacturer recommended discarding within 3 months of first use. An interview with MA #2 on 05/01/25 at 3:11 PM revealed all opened medication should have an opened date and he was not sure why the eye drops and inhalers were undated. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/01/25 at 4:38 PM revealed all opened medications should be labeled with the resident's name and date they were opened by the staff member who opened the medication. The DON stated third shift was responsible for checking medication carts nightly to ensure all medications were labeled and dated and the staff member assigned to the medication cart was also responsible for ensuring medications were labeled and dated. An interview with the Administrator on 05/01/25 at 5:39 PM revealed she expected all medications to be labeled and dated at the time they were opened.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observations and interviews with staff, the facility failed to follow the meal spreadsheet and posted menu when they ran out of a food item while plating meals. This deficient ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations and interviews with staff, the facility failed to follow the meal spreadsheet and posted menu when they ran out of a food item while plating meals. This deficient practice impacted 7-9 residents who did not receive regular consistency carrots for their lunch meal. Findings included: The facility's menu spreadsheet for the lunch meal dated 4/29/25 was reviewed. The spreadsheet read Swedish meatballs with gray, buttered noodles, and sliced carrots. On 4/29/25 at 11:40 AM an observation of the lunch meal tray line found the posted lunch meal was Swedish Meatballs with gravy, buttered noodles, and carrots. An observation of the tray line on 4/29/25 at 12:12 PM found the [NAME] plating the last available serving of regular consistency carrots from the trayline. On 4/29/25 at 12:14 PM the [NAME] stated there were not enough regular consistency carrots to finish serving the 300 hall residents (7-9) for the meal. The [NAME] said she had used all the carrots available in the kitchen for the meal. She also said the District Dietary Manager was cooking capri vegetables (mixed vegetables) as a substitute for carrots. On 4/29/25 at 12:16 PM the District Dietary Manager was observed cooking the capri vegetables. On 4/29/25 at 12:17 PM the [NAME] stated she normally needed 6 bags of carrots to prepare a meal for all the residents, and she only had 5 bags to use for the lunch meal. An observation on 4/29/25 at 12:22 PM found the substituted capri vegetable were placed on the tray and the [NAME] resumed plating the lunch meal with the capri vegetables. On 4/29/25 at 12:35 PM the [NAME] stated she did not notify the Dietary Manager that she might not have enough carrots for the meal until the lunch meal tray line had started. The Dietary Manager stated on 5/01/25 at 1:43 PM the cook should have notified the Dietary Manager when she was preparing the meal. The Dietary Manager stated the facility would have purchased more carrots from a store to make sure there were enough for the meal. The Administrator was interviewed on 5/01/25 at 5:24 PM. She stated the posted menu should be followed and accurate. The Administrator stated the cook should have communicated to the DM there were not enough carrots when she first knew the amount on hand was not going to be enough.
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** Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to remove food stored past the use by date from the dry goods sto...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to remove food stored past the use by date from the dry goods storage area. Additionally, the facility failed to clean a circulatory fan cover and prevent water from dripping onto stored food in 1 of 2 kitchen refrigerators (the walk-in refrigerator). This practice had the potential affect food served to residents. The findings included: a. On 4/27/25 at 10:20 AM an observation of the dry goods storage area's bread rack with a fill in Dietary Manager (DM #2) from a sister facility found stored bread past the use by date. DM #2 stated the facility's Dietary Manager (DM #1) was not available on 4/27/25, and he was filling in for the day. The bread rack contained 8 loaves of sliced bread with a use by date of 4/25/25 and 3 packages of hamburger buns with a use by date of 4/23/25. The DM #2 stated during the observation the procedure was to remove the bread from the [NAME] rack and place it into the freezer before the use by date. The DM #2 stated the DM #1 was responsible for ensuring the bread was removed before the use by date. b. On 4/27/25 at 10:27 AM an observation of the walk-in refrigerator with the fill in DM #2 found the refrigeration unit leaking water. The water was a steady drip coming from a pipe connected to the back of the refrigeration unit to the wall. The water was dripping onto a lid of a container labeled pickles, and water was observed on the floor of the walk-in refrigerator. The circulatory fan cover was also observed to contain a thick buildup of crumbly black and gray substance on the cover. The DM #2 stated he did not know how long the refrigerator unit had been dripping water and would notify maintenance about the water and the fan cover. The DM #1 was interviewed on 5/1/25 at 1:43 PM. He stated he had not seen the refrigerator unit dripping water before and the circulatory fan cover would be included on a regular cleaning schedule. The DM #1 said the bread was ultimately his responsibility to ensure it was frozen by the use by date. The Maintenance Supervisor was interviewed on 5/1/25 at 2:00 PM. She stated a refrigerator repair company was called and came to the facility on 4/28/25 to fix the water leak and she had not been aware of the leaking water prior to 4/28/25. The Maintenance Supervisor stated a pipe was not fully insulated and was causing condensation to drip and was fixed. The Maintenance Supervisor stated the fan cover was not on a routine cleaning schedule, and she would include it. The Administrator was interviewed on 5/1/25 at 5:24 PM. She stated the bread should have been removed or frozen by the use by date and the walk-in refrigerator fan cover should be cleaned routinely. She also stated the water dripping from the refrigeration unit should be repaired to prevent any potential contamination of food.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit accurate payroll data on the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit accurate payroll data on the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) related to Registered Nurse (RN) hours and licensed nursing coverage 24-hours per day. This was for 1 of 3 quarters reviewed for sufficient nurse staffing (Quarter 1: October 1-December 31, 2024). Findings included: The PBJ report for the Fiscal Year Quarter 1 2025 (October 1 through December 31, 2024) revealed there were no Registered Nurse (RN) hours for 10/12/24, 10/13/24, 11/17/24, 12/14/24, 12/15/24, and 12/22/24. The PBJ report also noted the facility failed to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours a day for 10/12/24, 10/13/24, 11/09/24, 11/10/24, 11/17/24, and 12/14/24. The daily staff schedules for 10/12/24, 10/13/24, 12/14/24, 12/15/24, and 12/22/24 revealed there was a RN onsite for at least 8 hours a day. Further review revealed on 11/17/24 there was no RN onsite for at least 8 hours a day. The nursing staff time detail reports for 10/12/24, 10/13/24, 11/17/24, 12/14/24, 12/15/24, and 12/22/24 revealed there was no RN onsite for at least 8 hours a day. The daily staff schedules revealed there was no licensed nursing coverage at the facility 24 hours a day on 10/12/24 and 10/13/24. Further review revealed there was licensed nursing coverage at the facility 24 hours a day on 11/09/24, 11/10/24, 11/17/24, and 12/14/24. The nursing staff time detail reports revealed there was no licensed nursing coverage at the facility 24 hours a day on 10/12/24, 10/13/24, 11/09/24, 11/10/24, 11/17/24, and 12/14/24. During an interview on 04/28/25 at 10:26 AM, the Regional [NAME] President of Operations revealed for the dates of 10/12/24, 10/13/24, 11/09/24, 11/10/24, 11/17/24, 12/14/24, 12/15/24, and 12/22/24, the facility did have an RN 8 hours a day and licensed nursing coverage for 24 hours a day. He explained the facility did not use agency staffing and on the above dates, the Administrator at the time, who was an RN, and Director of Nursing both worked shifts as nurses on various days but since they were both salaried they did not clock in or out and their hours would not show on the time detail reports. He stated the corporate office had to manually adjust and input any hours salaried nursing staff worked covering shifts. He explained when nurses from sister facilities worked shifts at this facility, their hours would not show up on the time detail reports because they were only able to clock in and out at their home facility. He stated the corporate office had to manually adjust their hours from the home facility and input the hours at the facility where they had worked. The Regional [NAME] President of Operations revealed the corporate office was not always consistent with the process of manually adjusting and inputting nursing staff hours for payroll data to accurately reflect nursing staff coverage on the PBJ reports submitted to CMS which was why no RN coverage and no licensed nursing staff coverage triggered.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and store personal items in 2 of 6 shared bathrooms (ro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and store personal items in 2 of 6 shared bathrooms (room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]) and maintain packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) in good repair in 6 of 15 resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER]). These failures occurred on 1 of 4 halls (400 hall) reviewed for home-like environment. Findings included: 1. (a). An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 10:52 AM revealed a plastic basket containing an unlabeled toothbrush sitting on the side of the sink. Additional observations of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/28/25 at 3:20 PM, on 04/29/25 at 11:05 AM, on 04/30/24 at 2:14 PM, and on 05/01/25 at 11:24 AM revealed a plastic basket containing an unlabeled toothbrush sitting on the side of the sink. (b). An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 2:56 PM revealed an unlabeled and uncovered bedpan placed between a towel rack and the wall and an unlabeled closed denture cup sitting on a rail behind the toilet. Additional observations of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/30/25 at 3:27 PM and 05/01/25 at 11:20 AM revealed an unlabeled and uncovered bedpan placed between a towel rack and the wall and an unlabeled closed denture cup sitting on a rail behind the toilet. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/01/25 at 4:38 PM revealed all resident care items in shared bathrooms should be labeled and covered appropriately by nursing staff. She stated ensuring personal items were labeled and covered should be monitored as nursing staff came and went from shared bathrooms. 2. (a). An observation of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 10:26 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit. Additional observations of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/28/25 at 8:53 AM and 05/01/25 at 11:21 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit. (b). An observation of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 10:43 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit and the control cover of the unit was hanging off the front. Additional observations of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/28/25 at 9:06 AM, on 04/30/25 at 2:17 PM, and 05/01/25 at 11:04 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit and the control cover of the unit was hanging off the front. (c). An observation of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 11:02 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top and front of the unit. Additional observations of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/30/25 at 3:20 PM and 05/01/25 at 11:20 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top and front of the unit. (d). An observation of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 11:05 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit. Additional observations of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/28/25 at 9:06 AM, 04/20/25 at 2:18 PM, and 05/01/25 at 11:05 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit. (e). An observation of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 11:19 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit. (f). An observation of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/27/25 at 11:20 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit. Additional observations of the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 04/28/25 at 9:07 AM and on 05/01/25 at 11:18 AM revealed multiple broken slats to the top of the unit. An interview with the Maintenance Director on 05/01/25 at 2:35 PM revealed she had been in her position approximately 2 months and was trying to order 2 PTAC units a month but had not gotten around to replacing the PTAC units on 400 hall. She stated she expected the PTAC units to be in good repair. An interview with the Administrator on 05/01/25 at 5:39 PM revealed she was not aware of any concerns with the slats on the PTAC units. She stated management should have noticed the slats during their daily room rounds and notified her so she could see if replacement parts could be ordered or if the entire units would need to be replaced. The Administrator stated she expected the PTAC units to be in good repair.
Feb 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's toenails were trimmed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's toenails were trimmed for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end-stage renal disease and edema. A physician's order dated 09/27/23 for Resident #1 read, Podiatry as needed. A review of Resident #1's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care plan, last revised on 12/04/23, addressed an ADL self-care performance deficit related to dementia. Interventions included: requires partial to moderate staff assistance with personal hygiene, staff to check nail length, trim and clean on bath day and as necessary, and report any changes to the nurse. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #1 required partial to moderate staff assistance with bathing and personal hygiene and displayed no rejection of care during the MDS assessment period. During an interview on 02/26/24 at 10:54 AM, the Social Worker (SW) revealed Podiatry services typically maintained their own schedule for facility clinics and she received an email letting her know the date of the upcoming clinic and which residents would be seen. The SW stated she added residents to the list when nursing staff informed her a resident needed to be seen; however, no one had mentioned anything to her that Resident #1 needed to be seen by the Podiatrist. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 12:46 AM, Nurse Aide (NA) #1 stated she had provided care to Resident #1 on occasion but she was usually dressed and wearing socks by the time she started her shift. NA #1 stated she did not recall observing Resident #1's toenails but when she did notice a resident with long toenails, she informed the nurse. NA #1 stated she would trim a resident's fingernails but did not trim a resident's toenails especially when the toenails were thick. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 1:24 PM, NA #2 explained she didn't trim resident's toenails and when she noticed a resident's toenails were long, she informed the nurse. NA #2 confirmed she was assigned to provide Resident #1's care on 02/27/24 but did not recall observing her toenails. An interview and observation of Resident #1's toenails was conducted with Nurse #1 on 02/27/24 at 2:10 PM. Nurse #1 stated the NAs had not mentioned anything to her about Resident #1's toenails needing trimmed. Nurse #1 explained typically the NAs would let her know when a resident's toenails were too long and if needed, she would inform the SW for the resident to be placed on the list to be seen by Podiatry. Nurse #1 removed Resident #1's socks off both feet and confirmed the toenails on both of Resident #1's big toes extended approximately ½ inch past the tip of the toe. Nurse #1 stated since the toenails on both big toes were thick, they would need to be trimmed by the Podiatrist and she would inform the SW. During a telephone interview on 02/27/24 at 2:32 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) explained a resident was referred to Podiatry for a toenail trim when they were diabetic or had thick toenails. The DON stated NAs should be observing resident's feet when providing daily care, shower or bed bath and reporting to the nurse when the resident's toenails needed trimmed. The DON stated she could understand the NA overlooking Resident #1's toenails at first but for them to have grown out a ½ inch past the tip of the toe, she would have expected for the NA to have noticed and informed the nurse, SW or herself so that a podiatry consult could have been made.
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 record review, observations, and interviews with staff the facility failed to store an unopened insulin pen in the refrigerator until needed for use for 1 of 4 medication carts (200/300 Hall ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations, and interviews with staff the facility failed to store an unopened insulin pen in the refrigerator until needed for use for 1 of 4 medication carts (200/300 Hall medication cart) and failed to remove medicated mouthwash by the date it was to be discarded from 1 of 1 medication refrigerator reviewed for medication storage. Findings included: 1. Review of manufacturer's package insert recommended to store unused (unopened) insulin aspart in a refrigerator between 36°F to 46°F and in-use (opened) insulin at room temperature for 28 days. An observation of the 200/300 Hall medication cart was conducted with the Unit Manager (UM) on 2/26/24 at 3:54 PM. Stored on the medication cart and available for use was an unopened insulin aspart (fast-acting) pen. There was no date on the insulin pen to indicate when it was placed on the medication cart. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 3:54 PM the UM revealed the insulin aspart pen should be kept in the designated medication refrigerator until needed for use. She stated the nurses were expected to label the pen with the date it was removed from refrigerator or put on medication cart and was discarded after being in use for 28 days. The UM stated her, or the Director of Nursing (DON) completed the audit reviews of the medication carts three times a week that included to ensure insulin pens were dated. She revealed the nurses received the medications delivered from the pharmacy and placed insulin in the refrigerator in the medication room or on the med cart if needed. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 2:59 PM the DON revealed her, and the UM checked the for expired medications and she was unsure why an unopened insulin pen with no date was stored on the med cart. 2. An observation of the refrigerator located in the medication storage room was conducted on 2/26/24 at 4:49 PM with the UM. Two bottles of medicated mouthwash were stored in the refrigerator and available for use. The labels on the back of the medicated mouthwash indicated one of the bottles was to be discarded on 1/1/24 and the other on 1/9/24. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 4:49 PM the UM stated the facility had one medication storage room and either her or the DON check the refrigerator for expired medications. The UM stated the medicated mouthwash should be discarded, and she removed both bottles from the refrigerator and placed them in the return to pharmacy bin. The UM stated she did not see the discard date label located on the back of the bottles of mouthwash, and she just checked the front label for the expiration date. The UM revealed she was not aware medicated mouthwash had a time limit to be discarded after it was delivered by the pharmacy. An interview conducted on 2/27/24 at 2:59 PM with the DON revealed her and the UM checked the refrigerator in the medication storage room for expired meds. She stated she must have checked the expiration date on the front label of the bottles and did not see the discard date located on the back. The DON revealed she was not aware medicated mouthwash had a time limit to be discarded after it was delivered by the pharmacy. She stated going forward she would know to check medicated mouthwash for a discard date. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 4:49 PM the Administrator stated the monitoring tools did not meet the standards for medication storage if deficiency was found and he was not sure what the breakdown in the process was.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the recertification survey completed on [DATE]. This was for a repeat deficiency in the area of label/store drugs and biologicals that was originally cited during the recertification survey completed on [DATE] and subsequently recited during the revisit and complaint investigation completed on [DATE]. The continued failure of the facility during two federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA Program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F761: Based on record review, observations, and interviews with staff the facility failed to store an unopened insulin pen in the refrigerator until needed for use for 1 of 4 medication carts (200/300 Hall medication cart) and failed to remove medicated mouthwash by the date it was to be discarded from 1 of 1 medication refrigerator reviewed for medication storage. During the recertification survey of [DATE], the facility failed to secure an opened tube of antifungal cream, label insulin pens stored in the medication cart with the date they were opened and remove expired over-the-counter medications in accordance with the manufacturer's expiration date. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:50 PM, the Administrator explained since starting at the facility on [DATE], his focus had been on the processes put into place to correct the concerns identified from the recertification survey and he wasn't sure where the breakdown occurred regarding the repeat deficiency. The Administrator stated they did not meet their standards as identified previously by QAPI. He stated the QA committee would be reviewing and discussing the repeat concern and his goal going forward was to make sure they had effective processes in place that met regulatory guidance.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews the facility failed to: 1) maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen; 2) failed to remove gloves and perform hand hygiene after handling dirty di...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews the facility failed to: 1) maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen; 2) failed to remove gloves and perform hand hygiene after handling dirty dishes; 3) failed to date opened food items stored in the walk-in refrigerator ready for use; 4) failed to discard thickened juice by the date it could no longer be used; and 5) failed to seal and date an open bag of cereal for 1 of 1 kitchen. These practices had the potential to affect ninety-one (91) residents who resided in the facility. Findings included: The initial walk-through observation of the kitchen was conducted on 2/26/24 from 9:05 AM through 10:06 AM with the Dietary Manager (DM). The observations revealed the following: 1 a. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 9:14 AM a metal table with sliding cabinet doors used to store hot and cold beverage serving containers appeared dirty. The tracks on the metal table used to open and shut the cabinet doors had a thick buildup of black colored debris all along the tracks and the inside of the cabinets had crumb-like and paper debris throughout the cabinet shelves. b. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 9:14 AM a heavy-duty can opener attached to a metal table had a buildup of thick black colored debris on the sharp end used to puncture metal cans of food. c. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 9:28 AM the wall directly above the dishwasher sink where dirty dishes were rinsed had a large black colored stain. d. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 9:46 AM the floor in the walk-in refrigerator and freezer cooler appeared dirty. There was a thick black colored build-up of debris at the threshold of the door between the refrigerator and freezer. There was an empty plastic container and other crumb-like debris on the floor in the freezer underneath the shelving where food was stored. e. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 10:06 AM the dry storage room along the lower portion of wall behind the shelving where food was stored appeared dirty in multiple areas. There were stains that appeared as a liquid substance was spilled on the wall and left to dry. The areas of floor along the wall molding underneath the shelving where food was stored had a thick black colored buildup of debris in multiple areas. An interview with the DM conducted on 2/26/24 at 10:06 AM revealed Dietary Staff were responsible for cleaning kitchen equipment and the Cooks were responsible for the daily sweeping and mopping the floors and he was responsible for checking the cleanliness of the kitchen. The DM revealed he was newly hired and since he took over the kitchen on 2/21/24 he was still getting familiar with things. He revealed since he started several dietary staff did not show up for work and if he did not find someone to cover their shift it was his responsibility and he had worked extended hours on multiple occasions. 2) During an observation of the dishwasher in use on 2/26/24 at 9:28 AM Dietary Aide (DA) #1 was washing and rinsing off dirty dishes that she loaded onto racks and sent through the dishwasher. DA #1 was wearing gloves while she washed and rinsed three racks of dirty dishes. After the dishware completed the wash and rinse cycles DA #1 moved from dirty side to the clean side and began to unload the clean dishes. DA #1 did not wash her hands after handling dirty dishes and wore the same gloves she used to wash and rinse dirty dishware to unload the clean dishes. An interview was conducted on 2/26/24 at 9:36 AM with DA #1. DA #1 stated typically she would remove her gloves and wash her hands after handling dirty dishes. DA #1 stated hand hygiene was done to prevent cross contamination from dirty dishes to clean. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 2:34 PM the Regional Dietary Manager stated when washing dishes dietary staff were supposed to remove their gloves and wash their hands before going to the clean side of the dishwasher and receive training about cross contamination. 3. During an observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 2/26/24 at 9:46 AM opened food and beverage items did not have visible dates to determine when it was open, or how long it should be served to residents included the following: a. Half a block of Swiss cheese slices opened and wrapped in plastic. b. One-fourth of block of American cheese slices opened and wrapped in plastic. c. One open 8-ounce carton of milk. d. A small bowl of apple sauce wrapped in plastic. e. A thawed 4-ounce chocolate shake supplement. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 9:46 AM the DM stated when food items were open dietary staff were to write the date it was opened and use by date on the item. He revealed it depended on the product how long it could be in use and served to residents. He stated the use by date for cheese was 7 days and supplement shakes were used 14 days after thawed. He was unsure why a small bowl of applesauce and one open 8-ounce carton of milk were in the refrigerator and stated those should have been dated. 4. During an observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 2/26/24 at 9:46 AM an opened 46 fluid ounce container of thickened orange juice was available for use with an open date 2/7/24 but no use by date. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 9:46 AM the DM stated thickened orange juice should be discarded after being in use for 14 days and should have been removed from the refrigerator on 2/21/24. 5. An observation of the dry storage room revealed on 2/26/24 at 10:06 AM a large bag of rice crispy cereal was not sealed and left open to air with no date. During an interview on 2/26/24 at 10:06 AM the DM stated when cereal was opened it was put in plastic container and label with the date it was open and the date it should be use by. During an observation and interview on 2/26/24 at 2:34 PM the Regional Dietary Manager observed the areas identified for cleanliness. She stated the stain on the wall by dishwasher was an ongoing issue and maintenance would be informed. She stated dietary staff were expected to clean as needed and the metal storage cabinet tracking should be cleaned once a week to prevent buildup of debris and the can opener daily after each use. She stated the floors should be swept and mopped daily and deep cleaned once a week to prevent debris buildup. She revealed the kitchen cleaning schedule included daily tasks to complete and stated she was going to update the schedule to ensure tasks were specifically assigned to a dietary staff member. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 4:49 PM the Administrator revealed he officially started his position on 2/10/24. He stated after the last survey (01/16/24) there were no citations related to dietary or the kitchen and was not his focus. He stated cleanliness and the other issues discussed should be addressed as part of the daily routine of maintaining the kitchen.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff, Responsible Party (RP), and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to notify the Responsible Party of a new diagnosis of pneumonia for 1 of 1 resident review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff, Responsible Party (RP), and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to notify the Responsible Party of a new diagnosis of pneumonia for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for notification of change (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility 09/27/23 with diagnoses including hypertension (high blood pressure) and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of Resident #1's Physician orders revealed an order dated 01/25/24 for a chest x-ray due to cough. Resident #1's chest x-ray result dated 01/28/24 revealed Resident #1 had left lower lobe airspace disease (when air spaces are filled with fluid or pus) which could be related to pneumonia or atelectasis (collapse of an area of the lung). A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed there was no documentation that the Responsible Party (RP) was notified of her diagnosis of pneumonia on 01/28/24. An interview with the Unit Manager on 02/26/24 at 5:46 PM revealed she often worked as a floor nurse, and she cared for Resident #1 on 01/28/24 (she could not recall the exact time she cared for Resident #1). She stated Resident #1's RP called the facility frequently for updates and she probably answered the telephone when Resident #1's RP called to check on her and mentioned the chest x-ray results in conversation. She stated she did not have any memory of calling Resident #1's RP to notify her of the chest x-ray results and confirmed there was no documentation in Resident #1's medical record to reflect her RP had been notified of the chest x-ray results on 01/28/24. A telephone interview with Resident #1's RP on 02/27/24 at 9:10 AM revealed in January 2024 (she was unsure of the specific date) she was notified Resident #1 needed a chest x-ray because she was wheezing. The RP stated she kept calling the facility and was told the chest x-ray results had not returned, and one day when she called to check on the x-ray results, she was notified Resident #1 had been diagnosed with pneumonia. She stated no staff member from the facility called to notify her of Resident #1's chest x-ray results from 01/28/24. A telephone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/27/24 at 11:34 AM revealed she worked as a floor nurse when needed and she cared for Resident #1 for a period of time on 01/28/24 (she could not recall the exact times when she cared for Resident #1). She stated she did not notify Resident #1's family that her chest x-ray that resulted 01/28/24 showed pneumonia. The DON stated Resident #1's RP should have been notified by nursing staff that her chest x-ray on 01/28/24 revealed pneumonia and she was not sure why the RP was not notified. A telephone interview with the Medical Director on 02/27/24 at 12:03 PM revealed he expected nursing staff to notify the resident or their RP any time the resident had a test that showed abnormal findings.
Jan 2024 14 deficiencies 3 IJ (3 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews with the resident and staff, the facility failed to follow their abuse policy for protection after Resident #52 reported on 12/28/23 that Nurse Aide (NA) #1 had b...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews with the resident and staff, the facility failed to follow their abuse policy for protection after Resident #52 reported on 12/28/23 that Nurse Aide (NA) #1 had been providing her with methamphetamine and syringes. The facility failed to suspend NA #1 and allowed her to work her scheduled shift on 12/28/23 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM on 12/29/23. This deficient practice had the high likelihood of serious adverse outcome for 10 residents with history of substance abuse which included Resident #52. Immediate jeopardy started on 12/28/23 when the facility failed to follow their abuse policy and protect all residents with a history of substance abuse including Resident #52 by not suspending NA #1 after Resident #52 alleged that NA #1 had been supplying her with methamphetamine and syringes at the facility. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 1/12/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable credible allegation on immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. The findings included: Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation & Misappropriation Policies and Procedures revised on 11/16/22 indicated under Protection: Any suspect(s), who is an employee or contract service provider, once he/she has (have) been identified, will be suspended pending the investigation. A review of the Facility-Reported Incident dated 12/28/23 indicated an original allegation regarding a staff member allegedly brought syringes and/or drugs to Resident #52 sometime on or before 12/28/23. An interview with Resident #52 on 1/8/23 at 10:09 AM revealed while she received a shower on 12/28/23, they went through her bags and found the methamphetamine and the syringes. She told NA #4 on 12/28/23 after she received her shower that NA #1 had been bringing her methamphetamine and syringes whenever she worked. Review of NA #1's time sheet for 12/28/23 indicated NA #1 clocked in at 7:26 PM on 12/28/23 and clocked out at 7:23 AM on 12/29/23. Multiple attempts were made to contact NA #1 during the investigation, but they were all unsuccessful. An interview with NA #4 on 1/11/24 at 9:01 AM revealed on 12/28/23, Resident #52 told her while she was getting her dressed that she had some needles, syringes and a vape in the pouch. Resident #52 later told her around 5:00 PM that she also had some methamphetamine in the pouch which were brought in to her by NA #1. NA #4 stated she reported this information to the Unit Manager. A written signed statement dated 12/29/23 by the Unit Manager (UM) revealed: Another nurse aide came to the DON's office and stated that Resident #52 told her, while getting her shower, that NA #1, the night shift nurse aide, had been supplying needles and methamphetamine to her when she was working. During an interview with the Unit Manager (UM) on 1/11/24 at 12:15 PM, she stated that Resident #52 told NA #4 after she gave her a shower on 12/28/23 that NA #1 had been bringing her methamphetamine. The UM indicated she learned about this information from Nurse #6. Nurse #6 told the UM that NA #4 did not want to report it directly to the UM because she was scared that she would get in trouble with Resident #52 if she learned that NA #4 was the one who reported it. After hearing about this information, the UM talked to NA #4 in the DON's office on 12/28/23 and confirmed this story from NA #4. Attempts were made to contact Nurse #6 but they were unsuccessful. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/12/24 at 1:13 PM revealed that she was aware of Resident #52's allegation about NA #1 bringing her drugs on 12/28/23 but their only evidence at that time were the syringes with clear and red liquids. She stated that NA #1 should not have worked on the night of 12/28/23 and they should have suspended her that night. The DON remembered calling NA #1 on 12/29/23 to let her know that she was going to be suspended due to Resident #52's allegations. An interview with the Administrator on 1/10/24 at 3:05 PM revealed that he believed the nurses and the nurse aides discovered the syringes in a bag when it fell over while she was getting a shower on 12/28/23. He and the DON talked to Resident #52, and she admitted to them that NA #1 gave her the syringes and the methamphetamine. Review of a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal plan dated 1/11/24 revealed there were currently 10 residents with a history of substance abuse including Resident #52. During a follow-up interview with the Administrator on 1/12/24 at 2:14 PM, he stated that NA #1 should not have worked on the night of 12/28/23 and they should have suspended her immediately when they became aware of Resident #52's allegation on 12/28/23. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy (IJ) on 1/10/24 at 4:16 PM. The facility provided the following credible allegation of IJ removal. * Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance. Resident #52 has a history of drug abuse. On 12/28/23 a bag with approximately 10-20 insulin syringes, some with clear liquid and some with red liquid, was found in the Resident #52's room. Items were removed and placed in the Director of Nursing office. Resident #52 reported Nurse Aide #1 had been providing her with methamphetamine and syringes. The center failed to suspend Nursing Assistant #1 until 12/29/23 and Nursing Assistant #1 worked 7p-7a on 12/28/23. The center failed to provide protection to Resident #52 by not suspending Nurse Aide #1 on 12/28/23. Current residents in the facility have the potential to be affected by the deficient practice. * 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. On 1/11/24 the [NAME] President of Clinical Services provided education to the Executive Director, Director of Nursing and Nurse Manger about Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation. Education included implementing effective systems or processes to protect residents with a history of substance abuse. The [NAME] President of Clinical Services also educated the Executive Director, Director of Nursing and Nurse Manger on the importance of immediate suspension of any suspect in an abuse allegation to ensure the protection of all residents until the investigation is completed. Starting on 1/11/24 all current staff, including contract employees, will be educated by the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and/or the Unit Managers on Abuse Policy including the immediate suspension of any suspect until the investigation is completed. Staff members not educated on 1/11/2024 will not work their next shift until their education has been provided. On 1/11/24 the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and/or the Unit Managers will track who has received and not received education daily by using the facility employee roster. The Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and the Unit Managers have been notified of this responsibility. On 1/12/24, the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and/or the Unit Managers will continue to provide abuse education to all current employees including contract employees. Education will include the following: the immediate suspension of any suspect until the investigation is completed. Education will continue throughout the night shifts and weekend by Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and/or the Unit Managers until current staff have been completed. This will include calling staff who are not on the schedule and are not scheduled to work. The Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and the Unit Managers were notified of this responsibility on 1/11/2024. Newly Hired staff will be educated during the Orientation process by the Director of Nursing going forward. The Director of Nursing was notified of this responsibility on 1/11/24. The alleged date of IJ removal is 1/12/24. On 1/16/24, the facility's credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal was validated by review of documentation regarding staff training on the systems and interventions to protect residents from abuse and the importance of immediate suspension of any suspect in an abuse allegation. Staff interviews revealed receipt of training regarding abuse including immediate suspension of any suspect until the investigation is completed. The facility's date of immediate jeopardy removal of 1/12/24 was validated.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 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 multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews with resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and Police Offic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews with resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and Police Officer, the facility failed to discuss with Resident #52 the presence of many needles found in her possession at the hospital, monitor for illegal substances in her room and supervise Resident #52 for triggers of illegal substance abuse for a resident with a known history of substance abuse. Resident #52 was found with many needles in her room while in the hospital on 9/22/23. On 10/5/23, Resident #52 was sent to the hospital after a sudden onset of lethargy, low oxygen saturation and increased heart rate. Hospital staff documented suspicion of illicit drug use. Staff observed drug paraphernalia in her room including vape pens (a handheld device consisting of a battery attached to a cartridge filled with a concentrate), syringes (some used with old blood in the syringe and some with medication residual), medicine cups with medication residual, and flushes. The facility failed to notify law enforcement and obtain Resident #52's consent to search her room to remove any additional illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. On 12/28/23, a bag with approximately 10-20 insulin syringes with clear and red liquid and another bag with lighters and a vape pen were found in Resident #52's room. Upon investigation on 12/29/23, a folded-up piece of paper with crystals was discovered in one of the bags. Police were notified and identified the crystals as methamphetamine. The facility failed to obtain consent to search Resident #52's room for any additional illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. This was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. Immediate jeopardy started on 10/5/23 when Resident #52 had a change of condition and staff found drug paraphernalia in her room. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 1/12/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable credible allegation on immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. The findings included: Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included quadriplegia (form of paralysis that affects all four limbs and torso), C1-C4 incomplete, respiratory failure with hypoxia (absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions), chronic osteomyelitis (bone infection), bipolar disorder, intraspinal abscess, anxiety disorder, chronic pain, opioid dependence with other opioid-induced disorder, obstructive hepatitis, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. Resident #52's care plan initiated on 8/22/23 indicated Resident #52 had chronic pain. Interventions included to administer analgesia as per orders and to give a half hour before treatments or care, evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions, monitor/document for side effects of pain medication and notify physician if interventions were unsuccessful or if current complaint was a significant change from resident's past experience of pain. Resident #52 did not have a care plan to address her history of substance use disorder. The hospital records for Resident #52's hospital stay from 9/15/23 through 9/28/23 indicated Resident #52 who had a history of intravenous drug abuse-related cervical spine infection was transferred from the facility to the hospital on 9/15/23 due to worsening of a known pressure ulcer. She was noted to have purulent (containing or consisting of pus) drainage. She was on Hydromorphone for chronic pain due to her sacral wounds. The History & Physical dated 9/16/23 indicated she reported to the Emergency Department (ED) doctor that she had used alcohol and methamphetamine in the past with her last use approximately a year ago. A hospital physician note dated 9/22/23 indicated many needles and contraband were found in her room last night. Urine drug screen was not helpful as she had been getting opioids at the hospital although she tested positive for cannabis. She told the doctor that her last intravenous drug use was several months ago in her facility. The urine drug screen done on 9/22/23 indicated Resident #52 was positive for benzodiazepine, cannabinoid, opiate and tricyclic antidepressant. PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter) line was placed on 9/26/23 for intravenous antibiotics. Resident #52 was discharged back to the facility on 9/28/23 with an order for intravenous antibiotics every 6 hours. The Nurse Practitioner's progress note dated 9/29/23 indicated under history of present illness: The hospital discharge summary reports contraband was found in Resident #52's room on the night of 9/22/23 but she stated that her last intravenous drug abuse was prior to coming to the facility. Left upper extremity had an occlusive superficial vein thrombosis (inflammation of the superficial vein) in the basilic and cephalic veins but no deep vein thrombosis. Plan included to continue (antibiotic medication) via PICC line every 6 hours scheduled until 11/2/23 and current pain regimen included Hydromorphone (opioid medication used to treat moderate to severe pain), Oxycodone (opioid medication used to treat moderate to severe pain), Pregabalin (nerve pain medication), Acetaminophen (analgesic used to treat mild to moderate pain) and Tizanidine (muscle relaxant). An interview with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 1/12/24 at 9:02 AM revealed she did not remember asking Resident #52 about the contraband that was found while she was in the hospital in September. The NP stated she might have reviewed the hospital discharge summary after she had already seen Resident #52 and was doing her documentation at the end of the day. The NP stated she did not call the hospital to get more information regarding this incident about Resident #52. She also did not remember if she had talked to the nursing staff about Resident #52 having been found with contraband in the hospital. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/12/24 at 9:42 AM revealed she did not know anything about Resident #52 having been found with contraband and testing positive for cannabinoid while she was at the hospital in September. The DON stated she started working as the DON in the middle of August 2023 but had to take a medical leave for two weeks and then worked a few hours from home and then a few hours at the facility afterwards in September 2023. The DON stated they had an interim Administrator at that time, but she did not find any investigation regarding this incident with Resident #52. A review of Resident #52's Medication Administration Record for September 2023 indicated she received the following medications: * Hydromorphone 8 milligrams (mg) oral tablet 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours scheduled for chronic pain * Alprazolam 0.5 mg oral tablet 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety * Pregabalin 200 mg oral capsule 1 capsule by mouth three times a day for nerve pain * Oxycodone 10 mg oral tablet 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain * Tizanidine 6 mg oral capsule 1 capsule by mouth three times a day and 2 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for muscle spasms The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #52 was cognitively intact, had no behaviors and had range of motion impairment on both sides of the upper and lower extremities. She required set-up or clean-up assistance with eating and oral hygiene but was totally dependent on staff assistance with other activities of daily living. The MDS further indicated Resident #52 received scheduled and as needed pain medication regimen and complained of frequent pain at a level of 6 (moderately stronger pain). Frequent pain rarely or not at all affected Resident #52's sleep at night and rarely or not at all interfered with her day-to-day activities. Resident #52 had one stage 4 pressure ulcer present upon admission. She received antipsychotic, antianxiety, antidepressant, antibiotic, opioid and hypoglycemic medications. She also received intravenous medications and had an intravenous access while a resident at the facility. The Nurse Practitioner's progress note dated 10/5/23 indicated Resident #52 was seen for concerns of hypovolemia. Recurrent fever of 102.0 (normal body temperature is around 98.6 degrees). The NP ordered intravenous fluids and laboratory studies this morning. Nursing reported Resident #52 had been non-compliant with the intravenous antibiotics and had skipped two doses. Upon initial assessment, she was awake and appropriate. Color pale but last hemoglobin was 8.5 (normal hemoglobin level for females is 12 to 16). Lips dry and urine dark. At that point, the NP was going to continue intravenous fluids and obtain blood cultures. Approximately two hours later, nursing requested reassessment. She was very pale, oxygen saturation 40s (normal level of oxygen is usually 95% or higher), lethargic, with heart rate 120-130s (normal resting heart rate for adults ranges from 60 to 100 beats per minute) and systolic blood pressure 80 (normal blood pressure for most adults is systolic pressure of less than 120 and a diastolic pressure of less than 80). She appeared to be intoxicated. 911 was called for transfer to the emergency room (ER). She was placed on non-rebreather with oxygen saturation up to the 90s. She was more alert and talking. She did receive Hydromorphone scheduled, Oxycodone for breakthrough, and Alprazolam 0.5 mg every 8 hours as needed. She had been given one (dose of Alprazolam) around 12 PM which was two hours prior. Found paraphernalia in her room including vape pens, cigarettes, syringes (some used with old blood in the syringe and some with medication residual), medicine cups with medication residual, and flushes. When questioned she denied using any of the supplies found in her room. She became very tearful. The NP called and discussed with her (family member). Plan included due to fever, tachycardia (fast heart rate) and hypoxia to send to ER for evaluation and treatment. Concerned for possible endocarditis (inflammation of the heart valve). The hospital records for Resident #52's hospital stay from 10/5/23 through 10/25/23 indicated Resident #52 was sent to the ER on [DATE] for decreased responsiveness and hypoxia. Resident #52 appeared to be poor historian and was in severe distress with pain and crying during the encounter. She reported that the staff at the facility was not able to wake her up and she was very low on oxygen and was transferred to the hospital. Per ED report, Resident #52's oxygen saturation dropped down to 50% and she was put on 15 liters with a non-rebreather when (her oxygen saturation came up to) around 90%. The urine drug screen dated 10/5/23 indicated Resident #52 was positive for benzodiazepine, cannabinoid, opiate, oxycodone and tricyclic antidepressant. ED note also mentioned concern that Resident #52 might have been crushing up her pain medications and injecting them into her PICC line and possibly also having benzodiazepines snuck into the facility. Toxicology screen on admission was positive for benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, opiates, and tricyclics (although she was prescribed many of these medications chronically). The Infectious Disease (ID) Consultation note dated 10/6/23 indicated the ID doctor recorded that he thought Resident #52 was illicitly injecting/using drugs and this was likely what caused her hypoxia/unresponsiveness/current presentation/readmission rather than a new infection, although they had not ruled this out yet. (She could have a PICC-related bacteremia [presence of bacteria in the bloodstream] or fungemia [presence of fungi or yeasts in the blood] especially if she was using the line illicitly). The ID doctor was also concerned about the possibility of endocarditis given evidence suggesting pulmonary and splenic emboli (sudden blocking of an artery) and recent bacteremia with enterococcus and Klebsiella, but she had been on Ampicillin/Sulbactam covering both of these organisms so he doubted even if she had endocarditis that it would explain this readmission. She was nearly ready to discharge back to the facility on [DATE] when she had recurrent fever to 102.0 and she reported chills, so they requested ID to re-evaluate her to see if any changes were needed. At this point, she had completed four weeks of Ampicillin/Sulbactam and it seemed unlikely that (antibiotic) failure was the cause of her fevers, so ID stopped antibiotics in favor of monitoring fever curve/vitals. Resident #52 had a PICC line that was removed on 10/16/23 and a right-sided internal jugular central venous line was placed. She was transitioned to oral medications and was determined to be stable for discharge on [DATE]. An interview with Resident #52 on 1/10/24 at 1:08 PM revealed the syringes including the vape pens that were found in her room in October 2023 originally came in with her when she was first admitted to the facility. Resident #52 stated she did not feel comfortable answering more questions because she was trying to transfer to another facility which was closer to her family. She said that if she divulged more information, she felt that this might jeopardize her chances of moving to another facility. An interview with Nurse #2 on 1/10/24 at 9:09 AM revealed she usually took care of Resident #52, but she did not work with Resident #52 on 10/5/23 when she was found non-responsive. Nurse #2 stated that she heard Resident #52 was just checked by the Nurse Practitioner (NP), and she was fine initially. She also heard that they observed paraphernalia in her room including vape pens, cigarettes, syringes, medicine cups with medication residual, and flushes. She heard there was a box of insulin syringes. Nurse #2 stated she had asked Resident #52 later on whether she had used the syringes and she denied having used them. She also asked Resident #52 where she obtained the box of insulin syringes and she stated to her that she had brought them from home before she was admitted to the facility. Nurse #2 stated Resident #52 had no visitors because her family lived six hours away and she had no friends. Nurse #2 stated she could have only gotten the vape pens from staff. Nurse #2 further stated that she remembered Resident #52 having a dresser in her room that she kept locked up so that might have been where she was hiding the paraphernalia found in her room. Nurse #2 also shared that when Resident #52 came back to the facility from her hospitalization in October 2023, they started crushing her medications and putting them in applesauce to make sure that she swallowed her pills. Nurse #2 stated that they thought she might have been cheeking (pretending to swallow medications but actually hiding the pills in the part of the mouth between the gum and the cheek) her pills, crushing them later and then injecting them directly into her PICC line. An interview with the Unit Manager (UM) on 1/8/24 at 3:27 PM revealed she was aware of Resident #52's history of drug use and remembered sometime in October 2023 when she was sick and was receiving intravenous antibiotics through a PICC line. The UM stated all of a sudden she became very lethargic and was not responding. The UM stated they found a box of insulin syringes in her room and then Resident #52 was sent to the hospital. While at the hospital, they ran a drug panel which showed positive for a bunch of substances but then she also received a lot of medications. They kept her at the hospital for a long time before she came back to the facility. Back in October 2023, Resident #52 denied having used any intravenous medications, but the staff speculated that she might have been crushing her oral pills and injecting them directly into her PICC line. The UM stated she remembered one of the ports in Resident #52's PICC line being clogged all the time. When Resident #52 came back to the facility, they started crushing all of her medications and placing them in applesauce to make sure she swallowed her pills. During a follow-up interview with the UM on 1/11/24 at 12:15 PM, she stated that she remembered Resident #52 being non-responsive on 10/5/23 and she reported this to the NP and the Director of Nursing. The UM stated she remembered seeing at least three vape pens in addition to the box of insulin syringes at Resident #52's bedside. The UM stated they suspected Resident #52 of cheeking her oral pills, crushing them and then injecting them directly into her PICC line. After they removed everything they found at Resident #52's bedside, they discarded everything. She remembered trying to find out what kind of vape pens they were, but they thought one was for sure a weed pen. The police were not notified, and they did not come to the facility that day. An interview with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 1/10/24 at 9:24 AM revealed she had assessed Resident #52 on 10/5/23 and she was fine but two hours later, she was unresponsive. When she went into her room, they found all kinds of drug paraphernalia including vape pens, syringes, and medicine cups with medication residual. The NP stated there was blood in some of the syringes, so she suspected Resident #52 of not swallowing her pills, crushing them later and then injecting them directly into her skin and into her vein. The NP stated she did not see any marks on Resident #52's skin that day and when she asked her about the syringes in her room, she just cried and denied everything. The NP stated that she told Resident #52 on 10/5/23 that injecting drugs to herself could kill her. The NP also stated that she called Resident #52's family member that day but all she told her was that this was her history and that she had done this before. The NP stated she discussed with Resident #52's family member what actions to take but there was nothing they could do when there were no facilities that would take her. The NP stated that Resident #52 required a facility that offered drug rehabilitation as well as skilled nursing services and this facility was not ideal for her. She shared that when Resident #52 came back to the facility from the hospital in October 2023, she was switched to oral antibiotics, and they decided to crush all her medications. She also shared that Resident #52 was manipulative and tried to trick some of the nurses, so she gave them an order to crush all of her medications. While discussing the drug tests at the hospital, the NP stated that Resident #52 tested positive for cannabinoid which was probably from the vape pens which were found in her room. Her Oxycodone was changed to Hydromorphone while she was at the hospital because it was the medication that was controlling her pain the best. The NP shared she was also hesitant about prescribing Hydromorphone because it was ten times more potent than Oxycodone and was also not ideal with her history of drug abuse. The NP stated Resident #52 was ordering the syringes online. An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 1/10/24 at 8:74 AM revealed after Resident #52 was re-admitted to the facility from the hospital in October 2023, she knew that the nurses had started crushing up her medications whenever they gave them, and she was instructed to open any package together with Resident #52. The SW stated she had been doing this for the last few months and she made sure that there were no suspicious materials or drug paraphernalia such syringes or illegal drugs. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/9/24 at 2:31 PM revealed Resident #52 always had make-up size bags and one fell out into the floor in October 2023. There were insulin syringes and saline flushes with no needles attached with white residue inside. Resident #52 never admitted to doing anything in October 2023, but they thought she had figured out a way to cheat with her medications. The DON stated they thought she was self-injecting her oral pain medications into her PICC line so when she came back to the facility, they started crushing all her medications. The DON also shared that Resident #52 had two different stories regarding how she obtained the insulin syringes: one was that she ordered them online and one was that she had brought them in to the facility when she was first admitted . During a follow-up interview with the DON on 1/11/24 at 11:06 AM, she stated that they were more concerned about sending Resident #52 out to the hospital after she was found unresponsive on 10/5/23 and when she left, she thought she was no longer in danger. The DON stated she didn't know why they didn't call the police to search her room, but they didn't think there were drugs in the vape pens. She stated she thought the vapes were cigarette pens. An interview with the Administrator on 1/10/24 at 3:05 PM revealed he didn't know anything about the incident on 10/5/23 when Resident #52 was unresponsive and was observed with paraphernalia in her room. The Administrator stated there was an interim Administrator at that time, but he hadn't seen any investigation into the incident. A review of the Facility-Reported Incident dated 12/28/23 indicated an original allegation regarding a staff member allegedly brought syringes and/or drugs to Resident #52 sometime on or before 12/28/23. The accused individual's employment was terminated on 1/4/24 and the termination was related to the allegation. Summary of Facility Investigation: Discovery was made by day shift nurse of several used needles in Resident #52's room in a bag near her bed. The Unit Manager verified the same, confiscated the items and kept until police picked them up. Interviews with Resident #52 by the Social Worker, the Administrator and the Director of Nursing verified that Nurse Aide (NA) #1 was supplying Resident #52 with methamphetamine and syringes/needles. Interviews conducted with alert and oriented residents turned up with no further evidence. Skin checks with those residents who were not alert and oriented were completed with no further evidence. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #52 was cognitively intact, had no behaviors and had range of motion impairment on both sides of the upper and lower extremities. She required set-up or clean-up assistance with eating and oral hygiene but was totally dependent on staff assistance with other activities of daily living. The MDS further indicated Resident #52 received scheduled and as needed pain medication regimen and was in almost constant pain at a level of 10 (most severe pain). Frequent pain made it hard for Resident #52 to sleep at night and occasionally limited her day-to-day activities. Resident #52 had one stage 4 pressure ulcer present upon admission. She received antipsychotic, antianxiety, antidepressant, opioid and antiplatelet medications. Resident #52's care plan last reviewed on 12/20/23 indicated Resident #52 had chronic pain. Interventions included to administer analgesia as per orders and to give a half hour before treatments or care, evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions, monitor/document for side effects of pain medication and notify physician if interventions were unsuccessful or if current complaint was a significant change from resident's past experience of pain. An interview with Resident #52 on 1/8/24 at 10:09 AM revealed she had been completely paralyzed but she was now able to move both arms and could lift her left leg a little. She stated she couldn't sit up on her own. Resident #52 stated NA #1 had been bringing her drugs whenever she worked on the night shift. She shared that this got started after she talked to NA #1 about how she ended up with her medical issues which was from doing intravenous drugs. Resident #52 stated that NA #1 mentioned to her that she did them as well, so they started talking about it and NA #1 offered to bring her some drugs. Resident #52 stated she was still in the beginning of her recovery phase of her drug addiction, and this was not something she should have been exposed to, but it was hard for her to say no. Resident #52 stated NA #1 was bringing methamphetamine to her for free but that this didn't help with her goal of trying to get closer to her family. Resident #52 shared that she didn't have a family member close by and they lived six hours away. The interview further revealed that Resident #52 received the methamphetamine in crystal form, dissolved it with water and shoot it with a syringe. Resident #52 stated she had been doing this for about two months a couple of times a day. Resident #52 denied having experienced any withdrawal symptoms after her drugs were removed from her room. She shared that the methamphetamine gave her more energy and that she was not using it often enough to make her experience withdrawal symptoms. Resident #52 explained that when she went to take a shower, the staff went through her bags and found the drugs, but nobody said anything to her right away. Resident #52 stated nobody talked to her for five days except for Nurse #2 who told her that she could get in trouble for it, and she could get arrested. They called her family member and told her that they were worried because the drugs came from an employee. Resident #52 denied having gone through any drug test or talking to the police about the drugs. Resident #52 explained that some of the liquid in the syringes were red due to blood, but the clear liquid was diluted methamphetamine in water. A follow-up interview with Resident #52 on 1/10/24 at 1:08 PM revealed she didn't remember any of the nurses doing full head-to-toe skin assessments on her. Resident #52 stated that she was re-using the syringes that were discovered and that NA #1 was also supplying her those. Resident #52 shared that she injected the methamphetamine straight into whatever vein she could find on her hands and arms. They sometimes left a bump on her skin but no bruising. During the interview, Resident #52 was wearing long sleeves and kept both hands under her bed sheet. When she occasionally pulled out her hands from under her sheet, no marks were observed on her hands. Resident #52 added that she didn't really time the two doses of methamphetamine injection and she just did them whenever she wanted to. Resident #52 stated that her privacy screen was always pulled up around her bed because staff wanted her door open all the time. She reiterated that she never paid for the methamphetamine and that she didn't have enough money to pay for them. She also shared that the vape that was discovered recently was a vape that she kept with her when she went to the hospital back in October 2023 and she didn't need to refill the cartridge because she didn't use it that often. Multiple attempts were made to contact NA #1 during the investigation, but they were all unsuccessful. A written signed statement dated 12/29/23 by Nurse #2 revealed: On 12/28/23, Resident #52 got up for her shower. Nurse #2 went to wipe Resident #52's bed down with bleach wipes, moved her red and black blanket and her cheetah print bag fell over on the bed. In the bag were needles (several), tissue with blood on them, vapes. Nurse #2 took bag to DON. Resident #52 was upset and crying. Nurse #2 informed Resident #52 that her bag was with the DON. An interview with Nurse #2 on 1/8/24 at 11:59 AM revealed she was wiping Resident #52's bed and sanitizing it while she was getting a shower in the shower room on 12/28/23 when her bag fell over after she moved her blanket. The contents of the bag spilled onto Resident #52's bed and revealed some bloody tissues in the bag, and several insulin syringes. Nurse #2 stated she was not sure whether all the insulin syringes were used but some of them had red liquid, and some had a clear substance. Nurse #2 stated she didn't look at all the contents of the bag because Resident #52 had a bloodborne illness, and she didn't want to touch the used syringes without gloves. Nurse #2 stated they later discovered that there was a folded piece of paper in a perfect square and inside was crystal methamphetamine after the police officer identified it the next day. Nurse #2 stated she did not ask Resident #52 about the contents of her bag because she was already upset and crying. She later found out that Resident #52 said that NA #1 had been bringing the drugs to her for free, but she stated that she did not believe that she was getting them for free. Nurse #2 stated she brought Resident #52's bag to the DON's office and they kept it. A follow-up interview with Nurse #2 on 1/10/24 at 9:09 AM revealed she had been doing skin assessments on Resident #52 and did not notice any marks on Resident #52's arms and hands. Nurse #2 stated Resident #52's arms had always looked gray, and she did not notice anything unusual with her skin or her behavior. An interview with NA #3 on 1/9/24 at 12:41 PM revealed she got Resident #52 up out of the bed because she was scheduled to receive a shower. NA #4 along with another nurse aide were assigned to do showers on 12/28/23. NA #3 helped Nurse #2 wipe Resident #52's bed when her cheetah print bag fell over on her bed and some of the needles/syringes fell out of the bed. NA #3 stated she didn't look much inside the bag but the syringes she saw had caps and she was unsure if they had been used. Nurse #2 took the bag to the DON's office. NA #3 stated that while Resident #52 was receiving a shower in the shower room, she must have known that they were going to discover her bag because she sent NA #4 to retrieve her bag, but they had already given it to the DON. When they put Resident #52 back into bed, she must have realized that her bag was gone because she started screaming and yelling about the bag. She kept crying and told them that she had some needles and vape in there. Resident #52 told her that the nurse gave her the vape but she didn't think that was right and she thought that Resident #52 was just making up that statement. Resident #52 also told her that she had brought in the syringes from when she was admitted to the facility. An interview with NA #4 on 1/11/24 at 9:01 AM revealed while assisting Resident #52 with her shower on 12/28/23, she sent her back into her room to get her pouch from her bed. When she went into Resident #52's room, staff had already gotten her bag, so she went back to tell Resident #52 that she didn't see it. NA #4 stated after she put Resident #52 back into bed, she was crying and said that she was mad about the pouch being gone. Resident #52 told her while she was getting her dressed that she had some needles, syringes and a vape in the pouch. Resident #52 later told her around 5:00 PM that she also had some methamphetamine in the pouch which was brought in to her by NA #1. NA #4 stated she reported this information to the Unit Manager. A written signed statement dated 12/29/23 by the Unit Manager (UM) revealed: On 12/28/23, NA #3 brought her two bags and stated while Resident #52 was getting a shower she was making up her bed and cleaning her room up when she noted these two bags on her bedside table. One bag was green and blue, and the other was leopard print. NA #3 told the UM to look in the bags. Upon observation, the UM noted several needles both used and full of clear or red substances. This was in the green and blue bag. In the leopard print bag, there were lighters and a weed vape. The DON, the Administrator and the Social Worker were informed. Another nurse aide came to the DON's office and stated that Resident #52 told her, while getting her shower, that NA #1, the night shift nurse aide, had been supplying needles and methamphetamine to her when she was working. An interview with the Unit Manager on 1/8/24 at 3:27 PM revealed NA #3 brought to her the two bags that were in Resident #52's room while she was in the shower room. The UM stated she remembered because NA #3 had asked for some bleach wipes to sanitize Resident #52's bed while she was in the shower. The UM looked inside the green and blue bag and saw some needles and syringes which some had clear liquid, and some had red liquid. In the leopard print bag were a vape and lighters. Both bags were placed in a plastic bag and locked up in the DON's office. The next day, a police [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interviews with resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and Police Officer, the facility failed to provide effective leadership and implement eff...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interviews with resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and Police Officer, the facility failed to provide effective leadership and implement effective systems to manage and supervise a resident with a history of substance abuse after syringes were found in Resident #52's room and protect all residents after Resident #52 reported Nurse Aide #1 was providing her with methamphetamine and syringes. This failure had a high likelihood of affecting other facility residents. Immediate jeopardy started on 10/5/23 when after observing drug paraphernalia in Resident #52's room the facility's administrative team failed to identify the seriousness of the situation and put effective systems in place. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 1/12/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable credible allegation on immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. The findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F607 - Based on record review and interviews with the resident and staff, the facility failed to follow their abuse policy for protection after Resident #52 reported on 12/28/23 that Nurse Aide (NA) #1 had been providing her with methamphetamine and syringes. The facility failed to suspend NA #1 and allowed her to work her scheduled shift on 12/28/23 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM on 12/29/23. There were a total of 10 residents with a history of substance abuse. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed with a history of substance abuse. F689 - Based on record review, observations, and interviews with resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and Police Officer, the facility failed to discuss with Resident #52 the presence of many needles found in her possession at the hospital, monitor for illegal substances in her room and supervise Resident #52 for triggers of illegal substance abuse for a resident with a known history of substance abuse. Resident #52 was found with many needles in her room while in the hospital on 9/22/23. On 10/5/23, Resident #52 was sent to the hospital after a sudden onset of lethargy, low oxygen saturation and increased heart rate. Hospital staff documented suspicion of illicit drug use. Staff observed drug paraphernalia in her room including vape pens (a handheld device consisting of a battery attached to a cartridge filled with a concentrate), syringes (some used with old blood in the syringe and some with medication residual), medicine cups with medication residual, and flushes. The facility failed to notify law enforcement and obtain Resident #52's consent to search her room to remove any additional illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. On 12/28/23, a bag with approximately 10-20 insulin syringes with clear and red liquid and another bag with lighters and a vape pen were found in Resident #52's room. Upon investigation on 12/29/23, a folded-up piece of paper with crystals was discovered in one of the bags. Police were notified and identified the crystals as methamphetamine. The facility failed to obtain consent to search Resident #52's room for any additional illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. This was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. An interview with the Administrator on 1/10/24 at 3:05 PM revealed when staff found the syringes in Resident #52's bag on 12/28/23, they did not know what were in the syringes and at that point, he did not suspect her of any drug abuse. He acknowledged that he waited another 12 hours before notifying the police, but this was after he discovered the folded-up piece of paper with crystals that was tucked in a pocket of the bag. The Administrator stated he wanted to be sure that there were illegal drugs before notifying the police. He stated that corporate staff advised him on the steps to take in reporting and monitoring regarding Resident #52 after she alleged that Nurse Aide (NA) #1 had been bringing her methamphetamine and syringes to the facility. He further stated that they instructed him on how to do a 4-point plan of correction. He added that once Nurse Aide #1 was terminated on 1/4/24 for not cooperating with the investigation, he didn't see anything else happening to Resident #52. He started talking about having done an ad hoc QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) meeting related to this incident but after he looked at his QAPI folder, he realized that there wasn't one done. The Administrator stated the administrative staff started monitoring Resident #52's room daily through rounds and looking for any obvious signs of illegal drugs in the room. The nurses also monitored Resident #52 for changes in behavior. They also did in-services to all staff regarding abuse and their abuse policy. The Administrator added that after he talked to Resident #52, she promised him that she would not engage in illicit drug use anymore while she was at the facility. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy (IJ) on 1/11/24 at 1:37 PM. The facility provided the following credible allegation IJ Removal. * Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance. The facility failed to provide leadership and effective systems related to a resident with a history of drug abuse not being protected from illegal substances. The facility failed to provide leadership and effective systems related to the protection of all residents after an abuse allegation was made. * 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 Regional [NAME] President of Operations (RVPO) educated the Executive Director (ED) on 1/11/24 in regard to implementing effective systems or processes to protect residents with a history of substance abuse. The RVPO also educated the ED on the importance of immediate suspension of any suspect in an abuse allegation to ensure the protection of all residents until the investigation is completed. The Regional Director of Clinical Services and the [NAME] President of Clinical Services provided education to the Director of Nursing and Nurse Mangers on the Abuse Policy including the immediate suspension of any suspect until the investigation is completed. The Nurse Managers educated the Department Heads of this process. The ED understands that law enforcement is to be notified at the time of the identification of any suspicion or evidence of any illegal substance abuse. During the facility stand up and stand down meeting residents' with a history of substance abuse will be discussed and reviewed for any signs of substance abuse. The Director of Nursing/Nurse Manager will report to the Executive Director daily during stand up/stand down meetings if any residents have exhibited signs of substance abuse. Upon any receipt of an allegation of abuse, the ED will notify both the RVPO and the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS). Upon notification, the RVPO and/or RDCS will provide additional guidance as needed related to any investigation. The RDCS will provide additional oversight to the center leadership team on implementation of policies to ensure the center has effective systems. As stated in the Employee Handbook, possession of illegal drugs on company property is a Level 2 violation and is grounds for immediate termination. The alleged date of IJ removal is 1/12/24. On 1/12/24, the facility's credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal was validated by an interview with the Administrator. He stated that he received education by the Regional [NAME] President of Operations regarding processes related to substance abuse which included immediately suspending any suspect and calling the police if they suspected any resident with drug abuse. As the abuse coordinator, he was responsible for conducting the investigation and doing interviews with residents and staff. The facility's date of immediate jeopardy removal of 1/12/24 was validated.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to obtain dental services when ordered by the medical ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to obtain dental services when ordered by the medical provider for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dental services (Resident #52). The findings included: Resident #52 was admitted on [DATE]. with diagnosis that included quadriplegia. Resident #52's quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] coded Resident #52 as cognitively intact and with no dental concerns. A review of a Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress note dated 7/14/23 read in part Resident #52 was seen for reports of dental pain and possible infected gum. The NP additionally wrote the resident had a cavity in the left lower molar and a referral to the inhouse dentist was made. The NP's plan of treatment included using a numbing gel to help numb the pain and clindamycin (antibiotic) 150 mg capsules 2 times daily for 5 days. A review of Resident #52's physician orders revealed an order dated 7/14/23. The order read to set up in-house dental referral for dental abscess/pain/cavities for 7 days. The 7/14/23 order was signed completed on 7/21/23. The previous Social Worker (SW) for the facility stated on 1/12/24 at 12:55 PM a referral to the in-house dentist was submitted for Resident #52 on 7/14/23. The SW recalled and confirmed the order on 7/14/23 and the Resident's insurance status. Resident #52's was on short term Medicaid at that time, and it did not cover an in-house dental visit. Resident #52's long term Medicaid insurance was approved on 10/1/23. The SW stated Resident #52's first in-house dental visit was on 12/20/23 and she was scheduled to have an extraction 1/22/24. The SW said Resident #52 should have been sent out to a dentist when the referral was made but was overlooked. A review of dental visits to the facility revealed the dentist was at the facility on 10/16/23, and 12/20/23. The dental hygienist visited the facility on 10/2/23, 11/9/23, and 11/20/23. Resident #52 was not seen by the dentist or dental hygienist until 12/20/23. Additional NP progress notes revealed Resident #52 was seen on 11/20/23 for reported tooth pain and for a follow up visit on 11/22/23 for reported tooth pain. The NP's assessment revealed the gum around the left bottom back molar was inflamed and edematous and the resident had trouble chewing. Resident # 2 was started on amoxicillin (antibiotic) 500 mg 3 times daily for 3 days and vicious lidocaine (numbing liquid) 2 times daily for 3 days (11/20/23). On 11/20/23 an order read to begin Amoxicillin 500 mg give 1 capsule by mouth 3 times a day for 3 days and viscous lidocaine 2% swish 10 mL 2 times daily for 3 days for dental abscess. The facility's current SW stated on 1/12/24 at 10:00 AM she started working at the facility in October 2023. The SW said she relied on the staff and the residents to let her know who needed to see the dentist. The SW was not aware Resident #52 needed to see the dentist until the referral made on 11/20/23 and Resident #52 was placed on the list to be seen when dental came back to the facility on [DATE]. The SW stated Resident #52 was scheduled to have a tooth extracted on 1/22/24 by the in-house dentist. A review of Resident #52's dental progress noted dated 12/20/23 revealed the resident was seen for a comprehensive oral exam. The Dentist note included the resident needed an extraction of a molar. On 1/8/24 at 10:19 AM Resident #52 stated she had been waiting a couple months to get her tooth pulled. The resident stated she thought she was seen by a dentist a couple weeks ago and was supposed to come back and extract her tooth that had been bothering her. The resident did not report any difficulty or pain with eating or swallowing and the medicine she had taken for her tooth had helped, and she did not have pain. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated on 1/12/24 at 9:38 AM a referral was made for Resident #52 to see the in-house dentist on 7/14/23. The NP said Resident #52 had pain in her tooth and gum from a cavity and it was treated with an antibiotic and numbing gel. The NP stated Resident #52 did not see a dentist after the referral on 7/14/23 and was not sure why the resident didn't see a dentist. The NP stated the Resident did not complain of any tooth pain after she was treated on 7/14/23 until she saw the resident 11/20/23 for complaints of tooth pain. Resident #52 had pain in the same tooth and was treated with antibiotics and numbing gel. Resident #52 was referred to see a dentist on 11/20/23 and was seen the following month by a dentist on 12/20/23. Resident #52 was scheduled for a tooth extraction on 1/22/24. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated on 1/12/24 at 1:16 PM she was unaware of the referral written on 7/14/23 to see a dentist for tooth pain. Resident #52 should have been sent out to a dentist when the referral was made, and all dental referrals needed to be reviewed and discussed. The Administrator stated on 1/12/24 at 2:07 PM the resident should have been sent out to see a dentist after the referral was made on 7/14/23.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews with staff, Nurse Practitioner and Medical Director, the facility failed to have accurate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews with staff, Nurse Practitioner and Medical Director, the facility failed to have accurate advanced directive information documented throughout the medical record for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for code status (Resident #81). The findings included: A yellow Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form dated 12/13/23 was noted in Resident #81's electronic health record. Resident #81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A pink Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form dated 12/17/23 was in Resident #81's electronic health record and in the MOST forms book at the nurses' station. This form indicated to attempt resuscitation when Resident #81 had no pulse and was not breathing. The form was signed by the Nurse Practitioner on 12/17/23 and by Resident #81 on 12/17/23. The Medical Director's History and Physical written on 12/21/23 indicated Resident #81's code status was Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNR/no Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). The Medical Director wrote that Resident #81 had confirmed Do not Resuscitate (DNR) and Do Not Intubate (DNI) status. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #81 was severely cognitively impaired. During an interview on 1/10/24 at 9:22 AM, Nurse #6 stated that if he found Resident #81 without pulse and respiration, he would send someone to check the resident's code status in the MOST form book located in the nurses' station. Since Resident #81's MOST form indicated to attempt to resuscitate, Nurse #6 stated he would call out a code and set up a code situation. The nurse would start chest compression and artificial respiration while another staff called for emergency services. Nurse #6 acknowledged the presence of the yellow DNR form dated 12/13/23 in Resident #81's electronic health record. He stated that he would follow the resuscitation orders on the MOST form dated 12/17/23 since the date was most recent. During an interview on 1/10/24 at 10:05 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) reviewed Resident #81's code status in his electronic health record. She remembered talking to Resident #81 and completing the MOST form with him on 12/17/23. Resident #81 told the Nurse Practitioner he wanted to be resuscitated. The NP said she knew Resident #81 was a DNR when he first came in from the hospital. The NP reviewed the yellow DNR form dated 12/13/23, the MOST form she signed on 12/17/23, and the resident's History and Physical on 12/21/23 written by the Medical Director. She acknowledged the inconsistencies in the resident's advance directive and those documents. The NP stated she did not know where the miscommunication occurred, but she would talk to Resident #81 again and confirm his advance directive. During an interview on 1/11/24 at 8:42 AM, the Medical Director stated Resident #81 had a yellow DNR form from the hospital and had a MOST form that indicated to attempt resuscitation in his electronic record. He stated he discussed and clarified with Resident #81 on 12/21/23 that he wanted DNR/DNI status. The Medical Director did not recall writing an order for a DNR for the nurse to carry out. He stated he talked to the nursing staff about the resident's DNR status. He could not recall who he talked to. He stated the nursing staff usually prepared the forms but then the resident already had the yellow DNR form in place. During an interview on 1/11/24 at 12:30 PM, the Unit Manager stated if she received a DNR or full code order, she would take the MOST form and take it to the resident to sign. If the provider communicated to her that the resident had a change in their advance directive, the Unit Manager prepared the form and would have the resident or representative sign. The Unit Manager stated she could not recall if the Medical Director notified her of Resident #81's DNR status on 12/21/23. During an interview on 1/11/24 at 10:35 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the nursing staff determined the advance directive of new admissions by looking at the medical records sent from the hospital and by talking to the resident or their representative when they come in. The nurses called the providers and obtained orders for new admission's code status. The nurses transcribed the order and prepared or changed MOST forms. The nurses filled out the MOST form and/or the yellow DNR form and had the resident sign after their discussion. The nurses gave the form to the providers and the providers reviewed the form. She was not sure why the nurse did not change the MOST form on 12/21/23. The DON stated the advance directives were supposed to match in the residents' electronic health record, but nobody was checking on these forms. The DON stated they needed to do audits on the advance directives to prevent discrepancies. She acknowledged that if something happened to Resident #81 the staff would attempt resuscitation on this resident who opted for a DNR status. During an interview on 1/12/24 at 2:25 PM, the Administrator stated that he agreed that the documentation regarding residents' advance directive should be clear and consistent.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered ca...

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 develop and implement an individualized person-centered care plan that addressed substance use disorder for 1 of 3 sampled residents with a known history of substance abuse (Resident #52). The findings included: Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, cervical intraspinal abscess due to history of intravenous drug use, and opioid dependence with other opioid-induced disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #52 was cognitively intact and had no behaviors. The MDS further indicated Resident #52 received antipsychotic, antianxiety, antidepressant, opioid and antiplatelet medications. Resident #52's care plan last reviewed on 12/20/23 indicated Resident #52 had an ADL self-care performance deficit, hypotension (low blood pressure), was at risk for falls, had anemia, was on antipsychotic therapy, used anti-anxiety medications, used antidepressant, had nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem, was admitted with pressure ulcer to sacrum, had chronic pain, and had indwelling urinary catheter. Resident #52 also had a mood problem related to Resident #52 was young and far from her family. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered, monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness, and monitor/record/report to the doctor any acute episodes or feelings of sadness. Resident #52 did not have a care plan to address her history of substance use disorder. An interview with the MDS Nurse on 1/11/24 at 12:58 PM revealed Resident #52's care plan was last reviewed on 12/20/23 after she completed a quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #52. The MDS Nurse stated substance use disorder was not usually addressed in care plans unless there was an issue. The MDS Nurse stated she remembered the incident regarding Resident #52 back in October 2023 being brought up at the morning meeting, but she was the treatment nurse back then and not the MDS Nurse. She stated that Resident #52's care plan should have been revised and updated then to include interventions to address the issue regarding substance abuse. The MDS Nurse stated she had heard about staff finding syringes in Resident #52's room in December 2023 and she should have updated Resident #52's care plan. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/12/24 at 1:13 PM revealed Resident #52's care plan was focused more on her medical issues such as her sacral wound and her history of infection. The DON stated they did not normally address issues related to opioid dependence in the care plans, but these should have been addressed in Resident #52's care plan. The DON stated she was not aware of Resident #52 being found with syringes while she was at the hospital in September but when she was sent to the hospital due to possible drug use in October, her care plan should have been addressed when she came back and after she was found with drug paraphernalia in December.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the Consultant Pharmacis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify drug irregularities related to the use of as needed (PRN) psychotropic drug (drug that affects mental state) and provide recommendations for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents #61). The findings included: Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 11/15/23 indicated 1 tablet of Ativan 0.5 milligram (mg) by mouth once every 8 hours as needed for agitation was ordered for Resident #61. This active order did not have a stop date and the rationales for extended therapy beyond 14 days were not found in Resident #61's medical records. A review of the medication administration record (MAR) revealed Resident #61 had received 4 doses of PRN Ativan in November, 8 doses in December 2023, and 1 dose in January 2024. A review of medical records revealed the Consultant Pharmacist had conducted medication regimen review (MRR) for Resident #61 on 11/16/23 and 12/12/23. He did not identify any drug irregularities or provide recommendations for the PRN Ativan order without a stop date. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #61 with severely impaired cognition and indicated she had received antianxiety in the 7-day assessment periods. During an interview conducted on 01/11/24 at 8:50 AM, the MD expected the prescribers to limit PRN psychotropic order to 14 days. If the order had to be extended, he expected the prescribers to document the rationale in the medication record and indicate the duration of therapy. It was his expectation for the Consultant Pharmacist to identify the drug irregularities and report the findings to the facility in a timely manner when performing the monthly MRR. During a phone interview conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:08 AM, the Consultant Pharmacist confirmed he had completed MRRs for Resident #61 on 11/16/23 and 12/12/23. He did not notice the drug irregularities related to the PRN Ativan order without a stop date and attributed the error to his oversight. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/12/24 at 1:15 PM. She expected the Consultant Pharmacist to identify the drug irregularities and report the findings to the facility and provider in a timely manner. During an interview conducted on 01/12/24 at 2:05 PM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation for the Consultant Pharmacist to identify the drug irregularities and report it in a timely manner.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with staff, Nurse Practitioners and the Medical Director, the facility failed to have syst...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with staff, Nurse Practitioners and the Medical Director, the facility failed to have systems in place to prevent a delay in obtaining mental health services for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for behavioral and emotional status (Resident #19). The findings included: Resident #19's medical record contained a Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II dated 8/23/23. The notification indicated that the resident's placement in a nursing facility was appropriate with a recommendation for resident to attend individual or group psychotherapy. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the hospital for suicidal ideation and urinary tract infection. She received antibiotics and was referred to a psychiatric provider. Psychiatry determined that Resident #19's suicidal thoughts/comments were due to grief about being lonely and not having anyone to care for her. Resident #19 also had diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety with psychosis which were stable/controlled upon discharge to the facility. There were no recommendations for psychiatric services in the discharge summary. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and psychosis. admission orders dated 9/12/23 for Resident #19 included a standing order for psychiatric consult as needed. Resident #19's History and Physical on 9/14/23 written by the Medical Director revealed the resident was concerned about her amphetamine/dextroamphetamine medication. The Medical Director wrote that the resident needed psychiatric consultation. Further review of Resident #19's medical record revealed there was no physician order written separate order for a psychiatric consultation. Resident #19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment on 12/20/23 revealed she was cognitively intact and had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others for 1 to 3 days during the assessment period. Resident #19 received antipsychotic, antianxiety and antidepressant medications. A review of Resident #19's medical record from 9/12/23 through 1/7/24 revealed no evidence of a psychiatric consult. Review of nursing progress notes from 9/12/23 through 1/7/24 revealed Resident #19 frequently exhibited behaviors such as yelling, making angry statements, repeatedly ringing for help, and demanding medications that were not due for administration. A Psychiatric Initial Evaluation dated 1/8/24 for Resident #19 indicated she was seen by the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner for management of schizophrenia. She had a known history of schizophrenia, anxiety and depression. Resident #19 reported a long history of psychotic symptoms starting in early adulthood. She routinely experienced auditory disturbances that varied significantly in content/theme. Sometimes these were benign, but sometimes they instructed her to harm herself, or tell her cruel things. She also reported a lifelong inability to sit still, fidgeting, difficulty focusing on tasks requiring sustained mental effort, starting tasks before completing previous ones, trouble following conversation or lectures, and impulsivity. She had extrapyramidal symptoms (drug-induced movement disorders) readily observable in her jaw movements, essentially opening and closing often without lateral movement. She also had a waxing and waning tremor. Recommend to monitor for changes in mood or behaviors and continue the following medications: Fluoxetine, Diazepam, Amphetamine/Dextroamphetamine, and Olanzapine. Benztropine and Lamotrigine were started. During an interview on 1/10/24 at 11:15 AM, the Admissions Coordinator stated she was the Social Worker when Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She stated Resident #19 should have been referred to the psychiatric provider because of her admitting diagnoses and the behaviors she displayed. She stated the nurses usually reviewed the orders and informed the psychiatric provider of any referrals. She did not know why the resident was not evaluated by the psychiatric provider. During an interview on 1/10/24 at 11:30 AM, the Scheduler stated she was the Admissions Coordinator when Resident #19 was admitted to the facility. She stated that if the resident came in with a Level II PASRR, she would usually inform nursing and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurses during the morning meetings. She stated she could not recall if she notified them about Resident #19's psychiatric consult but was sure the resident's behaviors were discussed during the meeting. She stated there would be notes from the psychiatric provider if she was referred. During the interview, the Scheduler did not have access to Resident #19's electronic medical record and was unable to look up if there were any psychiatric notes. During an interview on 1/11/24 at 12:30 PM, the Unit Manager stated if there were psychiatric consult orders, she would put them in the psychiatric provider book at the nurses' station. She stated the psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) came to the facility once a week between 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM to check on residents and check the book for new orders. The Unit Manager stated she could not recall if Resident #19's psychiatric consult referral was put in that book. The Unit Manager stated the NP took the copies of the orders/referrals from the book, and she was unable to look them up. She could not recall if she received any verbal instruction from the medical providers to refer Resident #19 to the psychiatric Nurse Practitioner. During an interview on 1/10/24 at 12:55 PM, Medical Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 stated she made a psychiatric referral and Resident #19 had a standing order for psychology consult on 9/12/23 but believed there was no current psychotherapist who came to the facility. She stated that the psychiatric providers were currently in transition. During the interview, Medical NP #1 called psychiatric NP #2 to clarify. Psychiatric NP #2 told her that Resident #19 was on their list and had been seen by the new psychiatric provider on 1/8/24. During a telephone interview on 1/10/24 at 12:57 PM, Psychiatric NP #2 stated she did not receive Resident #19's psychiatric referral until last week from the Director of Nursing during their meeting. Psychiatric NP #2 stated she did not evaluate the resident but believed she was evaluated by the new Psychiatric NP on 1/8/23. Psychiatric NP #2 stated she did not evaluate Resident #19 because they were currently transitioning to new psychiatric providers. During a follow-up telephone interview on 1/12/24 at 10:32 AM, Psychiatric NP #2 revealed she tried to go to the facility once a week. She checked the psychiatric book in the nurses' station and checked with the Social Worker or the Director of Nursing if they needed her to check on a resident. NP #2 stated the medical providers would also reach out and inform her of any residents she needed to evaluate. She stated the psychiatric consult order for new admissions were written as needed. She stated it was good to have that order in place in case a resident exhibited behavioral problems but could get confusing for staff. She stated she did not evaluate all residents who were admitted unless she was notified to check on a specific resident. She stated she could not recall seeing any referral for Resident # 19 in the book. She could not recall if she received any notification from the medical providers for Resident #19 to be evaluated. She was surprised Resident #19's psychiatric referral was missed. She stated Resident #19 needed the psychiatric evaluation because she had behaviors and was receiving psychiatric medications. During a telephone interview on 1/12/24 at 1:37 PM, the Medical Director (MD) stated he determined after he saw her on 9/14/23 that Resident #19 needed psychiatric consultation because of her behaviors, medications and admitting diagnoses. He stated he usually contacted the psychiatric provider or wrote a referral if a resident needed a psychiatric evaluation. He stated he could not recall if he wrote a referral or if there was a conversation with nursing or the psychiatric provider regarding Resident #19. The MD stated he didn't think there was any negative outcome for Resident #19 due to the delay. During an interview on 1/11/24 at 10:43 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she met with the new Psychiatric NP and Psychiatric NP #2 last week. They discussed the list of residents with psychiatric issues when they all became aware that Resident #19 was never evaluated by the previous psychiatric Nurse Practitioner. She stated Resident #19 was stable but needed psychiatric evaluation because of her diagnoses. The DON indicated Resident #19 should have been seen as soon as the psychiatric provider was available. She stated for some reason she thought Resident #19 had already been seen by the psychiatric provider and she said she was not sure why Psychiatric NP #2 missed it. The DON shared that when they had new admissions, they had batch orders which included a standing order for psychology consult as needed. The psychiatric providers had access to their electronic medical record and could see any newly admitted resident. She stated the nurses put any psychiatric referrals or concerns in the psychiatric book in the nurses' station. The DON stated the psychiatric providers should review all newly admitted residents whether they need to be seen because psychology consult was a standing order for all new admissions. The DON stated Resident #19 should have been seen by psychiatry especially because she had a PASRR level II, and this was part of the recommendations. During an interview on 1/12/24 at 2:25 PM, the Administrator stated the staff needed to ensure psychiatric consultations were completed, especially if residents needed it.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to ensure physician's orders for as needed (PRN) psychotropic drug (drug that affects mental state) was time limited in duration and provided rationales for therapy exceeding 14 days for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents #61). The findings included: Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 11/15/23 indicated Resident #61 had an order to receive 1 tablet of Ativan 0.5 milligram (mg) by mouth once every 8 hours as needed for agitation. This active order did not have a stop date and the rationales for extended therapy beyond 14 days were not found in Resident #61's medical records. A review of the medication administration record (MAR) revealed Resident #61 had received 4 doses of PRN Ativan in November, 8 doses in December 2023, and 1 dose in January 2024 on the following dates: 11/15/23 - 1 dose 11/19/23 - 1 dose 11/24/23 - 2 doses 12/01/23 - 1 dose 12/02/23 - 2 doses 12/14/23 - 1 dose 12/25/23 - 1 dose 12/26/23 - 1 dose 12/29/23 - 1 dose 12/30/23 - 1 dose 01/08/24 - 1 dose The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #61 with severely impaired cognition and indicated she had received antianxiety in the 7-day assessment periods. A review of Resident #61's psychotropic drug use care plan that was last revised on 12/13/23 revealed she was on antipsychotic therapy related to restlessness and agitation. The goal was to remain free of antipsychotic drug related complications. Intervention included administering medications as ordered by the physician. On 01/08/24 at 12:26 PM an attempt to interview Resident #61 was unsuccessful. She was unable to engage in the interview. During an interview conducted on 01/11/24 at 8:50 AM, the MD expected the prescribers to limit PRN psychotropic order to 14 days. If the order had to be extended, he expected the prescribers to document the rationale in the medication record and indicate the duration of therapy. On 01/12/24 at 9:13 AM an interview was conducted with Medication Aide (MA) #1 who confirmed she had administered the PRN Ativan to Resident #61 on 11/24/23, 12/29/23, 12/30/23, and 01/08/24 due to combative behavior when receiving care. During a phone interview conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:08 AM, the Consultant Pharmacist stated PRN psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days unless the prescriber provided a justification in the medical records to extend the order beyond 14 days. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/12/24 at 1:15 PM. She expected all the prescribers in the facility to follow the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) PRN psychotropic medication regulations. During an interview conducted on 01/12/24 at 2:05 PM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation for the all the providers to follow CMS PRN psychotropic medication regulations.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director (MD), the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when nursing staff failed to follow physician's parameter as ordered during insulin and blood pressure medication administration. As a result, Resident #61 had received 6 doses of unnecessary Novolin insulin and 4 doses of blood pressure medication within 24 days. This affected 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #61). The findings included: Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (DM) and high blood pressure. A physician's order dated 11/11/23 indicated Resident #61 had an order to receive 1 tablet of metoprolol (blood pressure drug) 25 milligrams (mg) via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (G tubes) 2 times daily for high blood pressure. The order set a parameter to hold the metoprolol if systolic blood pressure was less than 100 or pulse less than 60. On 12/18/23, Resident #61 received an order to start 8 units of Novolin insulin subcutaneously once every 6 hours for DM. The order set a parameter to hold the insulin when blood glucose level was less than 120 mg per deciliter (dl). Review of Resident #61's blood pressure and blood sugar levels since November 2023 revealed they remained at the baseline and within the normal limits. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #61 with severely impaired cognition and indicated she had received insulin in the 7-day assessment periods. A review of Resident #61's care plan for DM initiated on 12/13/23 revealed she was diagnosed with DM with the goal to remain free of complications related to diabetes through the review date. Intervention included administering diabetic medications as ordered by the physician. A review of the medication administration records (MARs) revealed Resident #61 had received 4 doses of metoprolol since 12/16/23 and 6 doses of Novolin since 12/19/23 outside of the parameters on the following dates: Metoprolol: - 12/16/23 9:00 AM when blood pressure = 96/62 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). - 01/03/24 9:00 AM when blood pressure = 96/60 mm Hg. - 01/03/24 5:00 PM when blood pressure = 99/64 mm Hg. - 01/09/24 5:00 PM when blood pressure = 93/50 mm Hg. Novolin insulin: - 12/19/23 12:00 noon when the blood sugar level was 94 mg/dl. - 12/23/23 6:00 PM when the blood sugar level was 115 mg/dl. - 12/24/23 6:00 PM when the blood sugar level was 112 mg/dl. - 12/31/23 12:00 midnight when the blood sugar level was 98 mg/dl. - 01/02/24 12:00 noon when the blood sugar level was 115 mg/dl. - 01/04/24 6:00 PM when the blood sugar level was 100 mg/dl. On 01/08/24 at 12:26 PM an attempt to interview Resident #61 was unsuccessful. She was unable to engage in the interview. During an interview conducted on 01/10/24 at 3:39 PM, the Unit Manager (UM) confirmed she worked on 12/23/23 and had administered 8 units of Novolin to Resident #61 that day. She did not know why she had failed to follow the parameter set forth for the Novolin order that day and acknowledged that it was an error. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/10/24 at 4:10 PM. She stated she was covering a medication aide (MA) on 12/19/23 and had administered the Novolin outside of the parameter. She could not recall how the incident occurred but stated it was an oversight. During an interview conducted on 01/10/24 at 5:38 PM, Nurse #3 confirmed she worked on 01/03/24 and had administered metoprolol to Resident #61 outside of the parameter. She explained the MA who measured the vital signs had forgotten to give her the blood pressure and pulse reports before the metoprolol administration, and she had forgotten to ask for it. She acknowledged that it was an error due to her oversight. An interview was conducted with the MD on 01/11/24 at 8:50 AM. He expected nurses to follow the parameter with the orders all the time. He stated continuous failure of nursing staff to follow the parameters set forth for metoprolol and Novolin insulin could increase the risk of low blood pressure and/or low blood sugar. During an interview conducted on 01/11/24 at 9:20 AM, Nurse #1 confirmed she had administered metoprolol to Resident #61 on 01/09/24 when the blood pressure was 93/50 mm Hg and the pulse was 93. She explained she had misinterpreted the parameters as she thought both the systolic blood pressure and pulse had to be below 100 mm Hg and 60 to hold the metoprolol. She confirmed she had administered Novolin to Resident #61 when her blood sugar levels were below 120 mg/dl on 12/24/23, 01/02/24, and 01/04/24. She could not recall how it happened and explained it could be caused by distractions during medication pass. During a phone interview conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:08 AM, the Consultant Pharmacist confirmed he had completed MRRs for Resident #61 on 11/16/23 and 12/12/23. He was not aware of the above drug irregularities as all the above incidents occurred after the last MRR on 12/12/23. An interview was conducted with DON on 01/12/24 at 1:15 PM. She expected nursing staff to follow the parameters set forth by the provider when administering medication. During an interview conducted on 01/12/24 at 2:05 PM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation for nursing staff to follow physician's parameters when administering medication. He added failure to do so could result in adverse events or therapy failures.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to secure an opened tube of antifungal cream for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #61) reviewed for medication storage, failed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to secure an opened tube of antifungal cream for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #61) reviewed for medication storage, failed to record opening date for 3 opened insulin pens in 1 of 4 medication carts (500 Hall medication cart), and failed to remove expired over the counter (OTC) medications in accordance with the manufacturer's expiration date for 1 of 4 medication carts (500 Hall medication cart) and 1 of 1 medication room observed during medication storage checks (Main medication room). The findings included: a. During an observation conducted on 01/08/24 at 12:17 PM, an opened tube of antifungal cream containing approximately 100 grams of 2% miconazole nitrate was found left unattended on top of the over-bed table next to Resident #61's bed. Resident #61 was not in the room during the observation. An interview was conducted with Nurse #5 on 01/08/24 at 12:21 PM. She stated she had not been to Resident #61's room in the morning as she had administered her morning medications in the hallway. She denied leaving any medications unattended in Resident #61's room and did not know who had done it. During an interview attempted on 01/08/24 at 12:26 PM, Resident #61 was unable to provide any pertinent information related to the antifungal cream found in her room. An interview was conducted with the Wound Care Nurse on 01/08/24 at 12:28 PM. She stated she had not been to Resident #61's room this morning and denied she had left the antifungal cream unattended. She added the antifungal cream should be kept in the medication cart. Review of Resident #61's medication administration records and treatment administration records revealed she did not have an order to receive the antifungal cream. b. A medication storage audit was conducted on 01/10/24 at 11:07 AM in the presence of Nurse #6. The following medications were found in 500 Hall medication cart and ready to be used: 1. 1 opened bottle of Vitamin E 10 milligrams (mg) containing 75 soft gels expired on 11/30/23. 2. 1 opened pen of insulin Lantus 100 unit per milliliter (ml) without an opening date. 3. 1 opened pen of insulin Glargine 100 unit/ml without an opening date. 4. 1 opened pen of insulin Lispro 100 unit/ml without an opening date. During an interview conducted on 01/20/24 at 11:09 AM, Nurse #6 explained the Vitamin E were rarely used by any resident recently. He confirmed the 3 undated insulin pens had been used and one of the pens was for a discharged resident. He did not use any of the 3 insulin pens in the morning and did not know how they had been left undated in the medication cart. c. A medication storage audit was conducted on 01/11/24 at 12:28 PM for the Main medication room in the presence of the Unit Manager (UM). The following expired medications were found and ready to be used: 1. 5 unopened bottles of Vitamin E 180 mg with 2 bottles expired on 09/20/23 and 3 bottles expired on 11/30/23. Each bottle contained 100 soft gels. 2. 4 unopened bottles of Vitamin B-1 100 mg expired on 12/31/23. Each bottle contained 100 tablets. During an interview conducted on 01/11/24 at 12:36 PM, the UM acknowledged that the above medications had expired and needed to return to the pharmacy. She did not know any designated staff had been assigned to check the medication storage room for expired medication on a regular basis. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/12/24 at 1:15 PM. She stated nurses working on Sunday night were assigned to check the entire medication cart for expired medication and proper storage once a week. In addition, the Consultant Pharmacist would pick and check a few medication carts randomly during the monthly visit. All nursing staff were ordered to check the expiration date before administering medication. It was her expectation for nursing staff to date all the insulin pens when they were opened, and keep the facility free of expired and unattended medications. During an interview conducted on 01/12/24 at 2:05 PM, the Administrator expected nurses to date the insulin pen once it was opened and assign a designated person to check the medication storage room on a regular basis. It was his expectation for the facility to remain free of expired and unattended medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide snacks for 7 out of 7 residents that requested bedtime snacks (Resident #67, #34, #65, #5, #10, #60, #74). The f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide snacks for 7 out of 7 residents that requested bedtime snacks (Resident #67, #34, #65, #5, #10, #60, #74). The findings included: During a resident council meeting on 1/10/24 at 2:08 PM, the residents in attendance (Resident #67, #34, #65, #5, #10, #60, #74) all complained about not always receiving snacks at bedtime or whenever they requested some. Resident #60 stated she could ask for a snack whenever she needed them, but the dietary staff did not always remember to refill the snack room and there were not a lot of choices or variety in the snacks that they had. Resident #60 stated this concerned her especially at bedtime when she needed to eat a snack because she was a diabetic and they didn't have any snacks available in the nourishment room. Resident #34 voiced agreement and stated that this happened all the time. He added that the snack drawer was empty from the night before and the staff didn't have any snacks to give out to the residents. An observation on 1/10/24 at 2:30 PM with Nurse Aide (NA) #7 revealed the nourishment room on the 400 hall had 10 individual containers of yogurt, approximately 10 small cartons of milk and 20 cans of soda. In the drawer were 10 cookies, 10 peanut butter crackers and 5 graham crackers. An interview with NA #7 on 1/10/24 at 5:15 PM revealed that the nourishment room was full now, but it was empty yesterday (1/09/2024). NA #7 stated the staff ran out of snacks at least 1 day every week. NA #7 stated she was unable to provide any snacks to the residents from the evening before. An interview with NA #3 on 1/10/24 at 5:13 PM revealed that the snacks in the nourishment room ran low every week. NA #3 stated that the staff could go to the kitchen to get a snack if they ran out, however once the kitchen staff left for the day no snacks were available. An interview was conducted at 10:46 AM with the Dietary District Manager, who was overseeing the kitchen, revealed that the nourishment room was stocked twice a day once in the morning and then in the evening around 7-8 PM before the kitchen staff left for the day. Some of the snacks they stocked for diabetic residents included diet soda, graham crackers and animal crackers. If the staff ran out of snacks in the evening there was a master key that they could use to get into the kitchen. The District Manager did not know where the key was kept. She said she just knew that the nurses had the key. The Dietary Manager was not aware the residents were running out of snacks. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/12/24 at 1:34 PM disclosed that the nourishment room should have snacks. The DON stated that the 300 hall medication cart had a key so staff could get into the kitchen to get snacks if they ran out after hours. The DON stated that she did not realize that some staff were not aware of the master key kept on the 300 hall medication cart. An interview with the Administrator on 1/12/24 at 2:24 PM revealed that he was aware that at times the nourishment room ran out of snacks, and he had been working with the contracted company running the kitchen to ensure snacks were supplied to the nourishment room.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the recertification survey conducted on 06/24/22 and the complaint investigation survey conducted on 05/03/23. This was for a repeat deficiency in the area of accident hazards/supervision/devices that was originally cited on 06/24/22 during the recertification survey, and subsequently recited during the complaint investigation survey completed on 05/03/23, and recertification survey completed on 01/16/24. The continued failure of the facility during three federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F 689 - Based on record review, observations, and interviews with resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and Police Officer, the facility failed to discuss with Resident #52 the presence of many needles found in her possession at the hospital, monitor for illegal substances in her room and supervise Resident #52 for triggers of illegal substance abuse for a resident with a known history of substance abuse. Resident #52 was found with many needles in her room while in the hospital on [DATE]. On 10/05/23, Resident #52 was sent to the hospital after a sudden onset of lethargy, low oxygen saturation and increased heart rate. Hospital staff documented suspicion of illicit drug use. Staff observed drug paraphernalia in her room including vape pens (a handheld device consisting of a battery attached to a cartridge filled with a concentrate), syringes (some used with old blood in the syringe and some with medication residual), medicine cups with medication residual, and flushes. The facility failed to notify law enforcement and obtain Resident #52's consent to search her room to remove any additional illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. On 12/28/23, a bag with approximately 10-20 insulin syringes with clear and red liquid and another bag with lighters and a vape pen were found in Resident #52's room. Upon investigation on 12/29/23, a folded-up piece of paper with crystals was discovered in one of the bags. Police were notified and identified the crystals as methamphetamine. The facility failed to obtain consent to search Resident #52's room for any additional illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. This was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. During the recertification and complaint survey on 06/24/22, the facility failed to prevent a fall during a transfer with a mechanical lift which resulted in the resident bumping his head and right hand on the floor for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. During the complaint survey on 05/03/23, the facility failed to safely transfer a resident from the bed to the wheelchair when one staff member used a mechanical lift resulting in the resident falling to the floor for 1 of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents. On 04/09/23, a Resident fell out of the sling attached to the mechanical lift landing on the floor on his back, hitting his head, sustaining an abrasion to the left elbow, and experiencing increased pain. Resident was transported to the hospital for evaluation, diagnosed with an age-indeterminate (unable to determine if new or old) right L2 (second lumbar spinal vertebrae) transverse process fracture (bony projection on either side of the bones that make up the spinal column) and returned to the facility on [DATE]. As a result, Resident #1 voiced feeling fearful of falling whenever staff transferred him using a mechanical lift. During an interview conducted with the Administrator on 01/12/24 at 3:01 PM, he stated the facility conducted QAA meeting at least once monthly to discuss area of previously and/or newly identified concerns in the facility. It also included deficiencies from the surveys. The areas of concern were tracked from month to month for progression toward the goals. The Administrator attributed the failure of facility during the recent federal surveys to extensive dependency of agency nursing staff and frequent turnover of both nursing and administrative staff in the recent months. He stated the facility was currently under a transitional and rebuilding phase that needed more cohesion among nursing and administrative staff to ensure success. He added he had been screening applicants personally during the hiring process to ensure the most qualified and dedicated candidates would be chosen.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0949 (Tag F0949)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide behavioral health training that included the competencies and skills necessary to provide care for residents with substance ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide behavioral health training that included the competencies and skills necessary to provide care for residents with substance use disorder for 9 of 9 nursing staff (Nurse Aide #3, Nurse Aide #6, Nurse Aide #5, Nurse Aide #7, Nurse Aide #9, Nurse Aide #10, Nurse Aide #8, Nurse #3 and Unit Manager) reviewed for education requirements. The findings included: Education records from 2/1/23 to 12/12/23 provided by the Administrator were reviewed for the following nursing staff: Nurse Aide (NA) #3: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. NA #6: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. NA #5: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. NA #7: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. NA #9: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. NA #10: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. NA #8: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. Nurse #3: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. Unit Manager: There was no behavioral health training recorded on the education records. The Facility Assessment Tool dated 9/7/23 included an Education Calendar that indicated the topic Screening and Assessing for Substance use disorder in Older Adults was scheduled for June 2023 for nurses. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #3 on 1/9/24 at 12:41 PM revealed she had been working at the facility since 2018 and had not received any education on how to take care of residents with substance abuse disorder. A phone interview with NA #6 on 1/10/24 at 4:50 AM revealed she had been working at the facility for 5 years and did not remember receiving any training on how to take care of residents dealing with substance abuse. A phone interview with NA #5 on 1/10/24 at 4:56 AM revealed she started working at the facility in July 2023 and had not received any education or in-service related to how to take care of residents with substance abuse. A phone interview with NA #7 on 1/10/24 at 5:06 AM revealed he had been working at the facility for 3 years, but he did not recall ever receiving any training on how to deal with residents with substance abuse. A phone interview with NA #9 on 1/10/24 at 5:11 AM revealed she started working at the facility 3 years ago, but she did not remember having been trained on how to take care of residents with substance abuse. A phone interview with NA #10 on 1/10/24 at 5:14 AM revealed she had been working at the facility for five weeks, but she did not receive any type of specialized training regarding residents with substance abuse. A phone interview with NA #8 on 1/10/24 at 5:18 AM revealed she had started working at the facility in October 2023 and she had not received any training on how to support residents dealing with substance abuse. An interview with Nurse #3 on 1/10/24 at 5:42 PM revealed she did not get training on residents with substance abuse at the facility, but she already knew what signs to look for regarding potential drug abuse from working at the hospital before. An interview with the Unit Manager (UM) on 1/11/24 at 12:49 PM revealed she had been in healthcare for 10 years and most of the things she knew she just learned over the years as she worked at the facility. The UM stated she had not received any education or in-service on how to support residents with substance abuse at the facility until today. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/12/24 at 1:13 PM revealed she was responsible for staff training, but she had not gotten started on the education calendar. The DON stated they had completed in-services on any acute issues that came up, but she confirmed that they had not done any education on how to take care of residents dealing with substance abuse. The DON stated she was not sure why they hadn't done this and that she did not have an answer. She stated this was something the nurses picked up on, but it was not something the unlicensed staff would know how to deal with unless they received training on it. An interview with the Administrator on 1/10/24 at 3:05 PM revealed staff had not received specific training related to residents dealing with substance abuse. The Administrator stated he was not sure how to go about doing this and he would need to contract specialty services to provide his staff with training on how to support residents with substance abuse.
Dec 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the commit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the recertification survey conducted on 6/24/22 and the complaint investigation survey conducted on 5/3/23. This was for a repeat deficiency in the area of infection control that was originally cited on 6/24/22 during the recertification survey, and subsequently recited during the complaint investigation surveys completed on 5/3/23 and 12/28/23. The continued failure of the facility during three federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F880 - Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policy when Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene after removing soiled dressings with drainage and before donning new gloves to cleanse the wound for 3 of 3 wound care observations on 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #2 and Resident #3). During the recertification and complaint survey on 6/24/22, the facility failed to establish and implement infection control policies and procedures to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella in the building water systems which could affect 83 out of 83 residents. In addition, the facility failed to implement infection control policies and procedures when the Staff Development Coordinator failed to perform hand washing after the removal of gloves during wound care for a sampled resident and when Nurse Aide #5 and the Staff Development Coordinator failed to perform hand washing after the removal of gloves following the transfer of a resident observed during a mechanical lift transfer. During the complaint survey on 5/3/23, the facility failed to implement infection control for hand hygiene when Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2 did not remove their gloves and perform hand hygiene after providing incontinence care for a resident observed for incontinence care. An interview with the Administrator on 12/28/23 at 3:25 PM revealed training on infection control was part of the general orientation for all of their staff and that he expected his staff to do the proper hand hygiene according to their infection control policy. He stated that they had been discussing infection control during their QAA meetings.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policy when Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene after removing a soiled dressings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policy when Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene after removing a soiled dressings with drainage and before donning new gloves to cleanse the wound for 3 of 3 wound care observations on 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #2 and Resident #3). The findings included: The facility's policy entitled Hand Hygiene Policies and Procedures which is part of their Infection Control Policies and Procedures last revised on 2/5/21 indicated that hand hygiene should be performed: * After contact with blood, body fluids, or excretions, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, or wound dressings. * When hands are moved from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during patient care. * After glove removal. a. An observation of wound care by Nurse #1 was made on 12/28/23 at 10:07 AM. Nurse #1 rubbed hand sanitizer to both hands and put on gloves. She removed the old dressing which included a packing on Resident #2's buttock wound. The old dressing including the packing had moderate amount of serosanguinous (contains or relates to both blood and the liquid part of blood) drainage. She rolled the old dressing into a ball and removed her gloves over the old dressing and discarded it into the trash can. Without doing hand hygiene, she reached into her pocket and proceeded to put on a new pair of gloves to both hands. She then cleaned the wound with normal saline-soaked gauze and packed it with a medicated gauze. She covered the wound with a dry dressing. Nurse #1 discarded any unused supplies and washed her hands at the sink. Another observation of wound care was made for Resident #2 on 12/28/23 at 10:26 AM. Nurse #1 put gloves on after washing both hands. She removed the dressing to Resident #2's left hand which had moderate amount of clear drainage. Nurse #1 removed her gloves and without performing hand hygiene, put on a new pair of gloves. She cleaned the skin tear with normal saline-soaked gauze, applied antibiotic ointment and covered it with a dry dressing. She discarded any unused supplies and washed her hands at the sink. b. An observation of wound care was made for Resident #3 on 12/28/23 at 10:44 AM. Nurse #1 applied hand sanitizer to both hands and put on gloves. Nurse #1 removed the old dressing to Resident #3's wound on the left foot which had a large amount of serosanguinous drainage. She wiped the wound with normal saline-soaked gauze and tried to remove some of the debris off the wound bed with her gloved hand. Nurse #1 then removed both gloves and without performing hand hygiene, reached into her pocket and put new gloves on. She wiped the wound with gauze moistened with povidone iodine solution using her right hand and then removed the glove on her right hand. She put on a new glove on the right hand, wrapped Resident #3's left foot with a gauze wrap, taped it and removed both gloves. She applied Resident #3's sock on his left foot, gathered any unused supplies and washed her hands at the sink. An interview with Nurse #1 on 12/28/23 at 10:57 AM revealed she was supposed to perform hand hygiene before and after each dressing change. Nurse #1 stated she knew that she was also supposed to perform hand hygiene after removing the old dressing and removing her gloves, but she did not do so because she was busy moving and doing the procedure during the dressing changes. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/28/23 at 3:10 PM revealed she was currently in charge of infection control at the facility, and she shared that Nurse #1 had just started working as the treatment nurse. The DON stated that she was not sure whether Nurse #1 received training specifically regarding hand hygiene during wound care, but she knew that Nurse #1 has had experience as a treatment nurse before. The DON stated Nurse #1 should have done hand hygiene after removing old dressings and dirty gloves and that she would need to do some education.
May 2023 5 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to safely transfer a resident from the bed to the wheelchair when one staff member used a mechanical lift resulting in the resident falling to the floor for 1 of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #1). On 04/09/23, Resident #1 fell out of the sling attached to the mechanical lift landing on the floor on his back, hitting his head, sustaining an abrasion to the left elbow, and experiencing increased pain. Resident #1 was transported to the hospital for evaluation, diagnosed with an age-indeterminate (unable to determine if new or old) right L2 (second lumbar spinal vertebrae) transverse process fracture (bony projection on either side of the bones that make up the spinal column) and returned to the facility on [DATE]. As a result, Resident #1 voiced feeling fearful of falling whenever staff transferred him using a mechanical lift. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His current diagnoses included spinal cord injury and chronic pain syndrome. A Transfer Mobility Status assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 required a mechanical lift with a full body sling. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had intact cognition and required total assistance of two staff members with bed mobility and transfers. Resident #1's Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care plan, last reviewed/revised 04/12/23, included an intervention initiated on 07/21/2020 that noted Resident #1 required a mechanical lift with full body sling and two-person assistance for all transfers. During an observation and interview on 05/02/23 at 10:45 AM, Resident #1 was sitting up in his power wheelchair, covered with a blanket and displayed no signs of discomfort. Resident #1 stated he fell out of the mechanical lift during a transfer from his bed to his wheelchair on 04/09/23 and it was the second time staff had dropped him from the mechanical lift, the first time occurring last year. Resident #1 stated typically there were two-staff members present when using the mechanical lift to transfer him but on 04/09/23, he stated Nurse Aide (NA) #3 couldn't find anyone to help her with the transfer so she used the mechanical lift by herself even after he had told her not to. Resident #1 recalled as NA #3 was assisting him out of bed, he was in the sling in the highest position on the mechanical lift when he fell out of the sling to the floor hitting his head and landing on his back. In addition, he also stated he had scraped his left elbow. Resident #1 could not recall how he came out of the sling but stated he was taken to the Emergency Department where he was diagnosed with a brain bleed and lumbar fracture. Resident #1 voiced he was now fearful of falling when staff transferred him using the mechanical lift. During a telephone interview on 05/03/23 at 11:03 AM, NA #3 confirmed she attempted to transfer Resident #1 using a mechanical lift without additional staff assistance on 04/09/23 and he had fallen to the floor during the transfer. NA #3 recalled she had asked other staff for assistance prior to attempting the transfer but they all told her no and she proceeded with transferring him independently because Resident #1 was yelling at her and pressuring her to get him up out of bed. She stated Resident #1 kept telling her that other staff do it all the time and even though she knew better than to transfer him without additional staff assistance she decided to go ahead and transfer him by herself since Resident #1 was getting so angry. NA #3 recalled once she had secured Resident #1 in the sling and lifted him above his bed, the mechanical lift controls stopped working properly and she couldn't get the mechanical lift to raise up or down. NA #3 stated Resident #1 was suspended above his bed and when she tried to move the sling manually, Resident #1 came out of the sling and dropped to the floor. NA #3 could not state for certain how Resident #1 was able to come out of the sling and stated the sling hooks just came loose from the mechanical lift and Resident #1 fell to the bed and then floor. NA #3 stated she immediately went and informed the nurse who came to assess Resident #1. NA #3 confirmed she was instructed to have two-persons during any mechanical lift transfers and stated, I shouldn't have transferred him by myself and feel really bad that it happened. A nurse progress note dated 04/09/23 and written by Nurse #1 read in part, called to resident's room by floor staff. Upon entry, Resident #1 was observed on the floor laying on his back next to his bed. Staff indicated he had fallen out of the mechanical lift. Resident #1 was noted with a small abrasion to his right arm and bleeding noted around his suprapubic catheter site. Resident #1 complained of severe pain all over. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and arrived at the facility with the Fire Department who assisted Resident #1 off of the floor and onto the stretcher. Resident #1 left the facility at 12:00 PM with EMS. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 05/02/33 at 3:50 PM. Nurse #1 confirmed she was working at the facility on 04/09/23 as the Manager on Duty when she was notified Resident #1 was on the floor and immediately went to the room to assess the situation. Nurse #1 stated when she got to Resident #1's room, he was lying on the floor flat on his back, he was alert and complaining of severe pain. Nurse #1 added Resident #1 reported hitting his head when he fell to the floor but upon assessment, she felt no bumps or cuts to the back of his head and the only injury she noted was an abrasion to his left elbow. Nurse #1 stated Resident #1 was not moved and made as comfortable as possible until EMS and the Fire Department arrived to assist him up off the floor and transport him to the hospital for evaluation. Nurse #1 confirmed NA #3 reported transferring Resident #1 using the mechanical lift without additional staff assistance and stated mechanical lifts were supposed to be completed with two-person assistance. Nurse #1 stated when she had NA #3 reenact what she had done during the transfer, the only thing she could figure happened was that NA #3 didn't have the sling hooks attached correctly to the mechanical lift and when NA #3 lifted him, the strap came loose causing Resident #1 to fall out of the sling onto the floor. During an interview on 05/03/23 at 3:44 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) recalled being notified by Nurse #1 on 04/09/23 of Resident #1's fall during a mechanical lift transfer and came straight to the facility to assist in the investigation. The DON stated on 04/09/23, she started immediate re-education of nursing staff regarding mechanical lift transfers that included observations of nursing staff performing a mechanical lift transfer. The DON stated mechanical lifts should always be completed with two-person assistance for safety reasons and it was never appropriate for a staff member to attempt a mechanical lift transfer independently, they should always wait for additional staff assistance. During an interview on 05/03/03 at 8:03 AM, the Administrator revealed she was notified by Nurse #1 on 04/09/23 Resident #1 had fallen to the floor when NA #3 had attempted to transfer him using a mechanical lift without additional staff assistance. The Administrator recalled when she spoke with NA #3 about the incident, NA #3 reported she wasn't able to find anyone to help her with the transfer and felt Resident #1 was getting mad at her and pressuring her to transfer him out of bed, so she attempted the transfer without additional staff assistance. The Administrator stated it was facility protocol there were 2-persons present for all transfers using a mechanical lift and felt NA #3 had made a poor judgement call by not waiting for other staff to assist. The Administrator explained following the incident, NA #3 was immediately suspended pending an investigation, transfer assessments were completed on all residents, and residents' care plans/[NAME] were updated. In addition, she stated all nursing staff completed mechanical lift competencies with return demonstration and were reeducated on mechanical lift procedure that included where to locate information regarding a resident's transfer status and to always have two-person assistance with all mechanical lift transfers. An Emergency Department (ED) report dated 04/09/23 for Resident #1 read in part, presents to the ED after being dropped essentially out of the lift at his skilled nursing facility. The patient apparently was lifted fairly high in his lift chair, he was dropped to the ground landing essentially on his back, he did strike his head but did not have loss of consciousness. The patient is complaining of considerable pain in the mid to upper back, some of which may be chronic. Physical exam: extremities show normal range of motion, no bony or joint deformity, no unilateral calf swelling or tenderness. Alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation, upper extremities are strong bilaterally, lower extremities are immobile and he has diminished sensation below the knees bilaterally which is chronic. No step off (bones are not lined up properly which can be seen and felt by the examiner) or deformity to the back, considerable low thoracic and upper vertebral tenderness without step off or deformity. The patient's work-up is reviewed, his head Computed Tomography (CT; scan that uses x-rays to create pictures of the head) show possible focal subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding inside the brain) along the left frontal lobe without mass effect or evidence of territorial infarct (area of dead tissue resulting from inadequate blood supply) or mass-like lesion. The patient does not have a headache, he continues to complain primarily of back pain. For the most part , his back looks uninjured other than an age-indeterminate right L2 transverse process fracture. Repeat head CT in four hours, if there is no change it may be related to either artifact (something artificial seen on an image but not actually present) or potential inconsequential (not significant) subarachnoid hemorrhage. An ED report addendum dated 04/10/2023 for Resident #1 read in part, He had a CT scan of the head that showed possible focal subarachnoid hemorrhage along the left frontal lobe. Otherwise, his trauma work up was negative for acute injuries. The repeat head CT which was completed at 5:40 PM noted the possible small subarachnoid hemorrhage adjacent to the left frontal lobe is less apparent, may be artifactual. No other evidence of intracranial abnormality. During an interview on 05/03/23 at 11:59 AM, the facility's Interim Maintenance Director revealed the mechanical lift and sling used to transfer Resident #1 on 04/09/23 was immediately placed out of service until a thorough inspection was completed. On 04/13/23, he inspected the mechanical lift which included checking the boom (crane-like arm that uses hydraulics to lift up and down), legs (base of the mechanical lift) breaks, remote, and emergency stop button and all worked properly. He did a thorough check of the sling used during the transfer and there were no rips or tears and the sling hooks were intact. He then used the same sling to hook himself up to the mechanical lift, used the remote to raise himself up and down and everything worked properly. He also completed a thorough check of all the other mechanical lifts in the facility with no concerns identified. The Maintenance Director explained the mechanical lift used to transfer Resident #1 had a hook that spiraled and curved inward and if the sling was attached properly, the weight of the person helped hold the sling and hooks in place and there was no way the sling could have come loose or slid off. The Maintenance Director stated when placing a resident in the sling, the straps should be crossed when attaching the sling hooks to the mechanical lift to secure the resident and ensure there were no exposed areas and his best guess, was that the sling was not attached properly which was how Resident #1 most likely slid out of the sling. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress note dated 04/10/23 read in part, Resident #1 seen today following a fall from mechanical lift on 04/09/23. Head CT initially showed a possible small subarachnoid hemorrhage adjacent to the left frontal lobe but with recheck it was less apparent and likely artifactual. Thoracic and lumbar CT showed an age indeterminate right L2 transverse process fracture. He returned to the facility this morning. During an interview on 05/03/23 at 1:56 PM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) revealed she was notified of Resident #1's fall during a transfer and when she reviewed Resident #1's hospital records, it was noted the L2 fracture was age-indeterminate which meant it could not be determined how or when the fracture occurred. In addition, the NP stated what initially appeared to be a subarachnoid hemorrhage to his left frontal lobe was actually artifactual. The NP explained when she evaluated Resident #1 on 04/10/23 he was already receiving scheduled and PRN (as needed) medications for chronic pain but was complaining of being sore all over and she didn't want to increase the current dosage due to possible sedation but did adjust the scheduled times for his pain medications to be administered. During a telephone interview on 05/03/23 at 4:03 PM, the Medical Director (MD) stated when he reviewed Resident #1's hospital records, the ED report noted the lumbar fracture was age-indeterminate which meant they couldn't tell how old it was or when it happened. The MD explained the fracture could have been the result of the fall on 04/09/23 or something that happened previously, there was just no way to know for sure. The MD stated when Resident #1 returned back to the facility, he was back to his baseline with no apparent residual effects as a result of the fall. The facility provided the following Corrective Action Plan with a completion date of 04/10/23: 1. On 04/09/23, resident was being transferred from the bed to wheelchair by one Nurse Aide utilizing the mechanical lift. Upon interviewing the Nurse Aide, she stated that she was unable to get help and decided to transfer the resident herself due to being pressured by the resident. She stated that she did not feel comfortable but wanted to get the resident up. The Nurse Aide was able to demonstrate how she utilized the sling and how it was hooked up to the mechanical lift. She stated that once she raised the lift it was stuck and she began to pull on it. At that time the strap was under the resident's leg and slipped off the hook causing the resident to slide to the floor and landing on the legs of the lift, back down. The assigned nurse along with the nurse on duty assessed the resident and it was determined the resident would be sent to the ED for evaluation. The resident was alert and oriented and able to answer all questions surrounding the incident. Resident stated he did hit his head and that his back was hurting. Nurses present did not move resident to complete a skin assessment on his back, due to resident complaining of pain. EMS in facility to take resident to hospital for evaluation. X-rays completed at ED did reveal L2 fracture indeterminate age and CT scan revealed a hemorrhage but could be artifactual. Resident remained in the ED overnight and returned to the facility on [DATE]. 2. Nurse Aide involved was immediately suspended pending investigation and educated regarding use of mechanical lift and appropriate positioning of resident. Nurse Aide was also asked to do a return demonstration using the mechanical lift. Mechanical lift that was utilized was taken out of service until inspected by the Maintenance Director, sling that was used was also taken off hallway. Administrator and Director of Nursing met with the Nurse Aide on 04/10/23, written statement received, education provided, written corrective action completed, and mechanical lift competency completed with return demonstration. 3. Reeducation to nursing staff to include Nurse Aides, Nurses and Med Aides initiated on 04/09/23 by the Administrator and Director of Nursing. Education included proper use of the lift, positioning of the slings, and where to find information regarding how residents transfer and if mechanical lift, what sling size to use. All nursing staff will receive education prior to next scheduled shift. Education is ongoing for new hired and contracted staff. a) Mechanical lift competencies completed on all Nurse Aides, Med Aides and Nurses before use of mechanical lifts. b) Transfer assessments completed on 100% of all residents. c) 100% audit of all slings in facility to ensure they were in good condition. d) 100% audit of all care plans and [NAME] to ensure correct information in place and updated as needed with new assessment information. e) Director of Nursing or designee will complete random weekly observations of transfers for three (3) employees to ensure that appropriate transfer technique is being done using a mechanical lift three times a week for twelve weeks. 4. Results of random weekly observations will be discussed at the monthly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting for three (3) months to sustain substantial compliance. 5. Allegation of Compliance Date: 04/10/23. The Corrective Action plan was validated on 05/03/23 and concluded the facility had implemented an acceptable corrective action plan on 04/10/23. Interviews with nursing staff, including agency staff, revealed the facility had provided education and training on use of mechanical lift transfers that included requiring two-person assistance, where to locate information on resident transfer status and what size sling to use if mechanical lift needed. Staff interviewed all verbalized they were observed performing a mechanical lift transfer after receiving reeducation and prior to starting their next shift. Review of the monitoring tools of mechanical lift transfers that began on 04/12/23 were completed weekly as outlined in the corrective action plan with no concerns identified.
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 F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within...

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 complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD, last day of the observation period) for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents (Residents #1 and #3). Findings included: 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #1's medical record on 05/02/23 at 2:11 PM revealed a quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 04/11/23 that had a status of in progress. During an interview on 05/02/23 at 3:50 PM, the MDS Coordinator explained she was the only person in the MDS position with no one to cover for her when she was out of work and she just got behind on completing assessments. The MDS Coordinator confirmed Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not completed within the regulatory timeframe. During an interview on 05/03/23 at 4:53 PM, the Administrator stated she just found out there was an issue with MDS assessments not being completed within the regulatory timeframes. The Administrator explained had she known there was an issue, she and/or other regional staff could have assisted the MDS Coordinator with completing the MDS assessments. 2. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #3's medical record on 05/02/23 at 9:59 AM revealed a quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 04/15/23 that had a status of in progress. During an interview on 05/02/23 at 3:50 PM, the MDS Coordinator explained she was the only person in the MDS position with no one to cover for her when she was out of work and she just got behind on completing assessments. The MDS Coordinator confirmed Resident #3's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not completed within the regulatory timeframe. During an interview on 05/03/23 at 4:53 PM, the Administrator stated she just found out there was an issue with MDS assessments not being completed within the regulatory timeframes. The Administrator explained had she known there was an issue, she and/or other regional staff could have assisted the MDS Coordinator with completing the MDS assessments.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the recertification and complaint investigation survey completed on 06/24/22. This was for a repeat deficiency in the area of free of infection control that was originally cited on 06/24/22 during a recertification and complaint investigation survey and subsequently recited during a complaint investigation survey on 05/03/23. This continued failure of the facility during two federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F880: Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to implement infection control for hand hygiene when 2 of 2 facility staff (Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2) did not remove their gloves and perform hand hygiene after providing incontinence care for 1 of 1 resident observed for incontinence care (Resident #2). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 06/24/22, the facility failed to establish and implement infection control policies to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella in the building water systems that had the potential to affect 83 of 83 residents. The facilty also failed to implement infection control procedures when the Staff Development Coordinator and Nurse Aide failed to perform hand washing after the removal of gloves during wound care and following a resident transfer for 2 of 2 sampled residents. During an interview on 05/03/23 at 8:03 AM, the Administrator revealed she was not employed at the facility in June 2022 during but had read the CMS 2567 to familiarize herself with the results of the recertification and complaint investigation survey and understood there was a similar incident that had occurred with Resident #1 last year. The Administrator stated staff were educated on proper procedure related to using mechanical lifts with an emphasis on the importance of always having two-person assist with mechanical lift transfers and felt the Nurse Aide had made a poor judgement call by not following facility protocol and waiting on other staff to assist.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to implement infection control for hand hygiene when 2 of 2 facility staff (Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2) did not remove the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to implement infection control for hand hygiene when 2 of 2 facility staff (Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2) did not remove their gloves and perform hand hygiene after providing incontinence care for 1 of 1 resident observed for incontinence care (Resident #2). Findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene last revised August 2019 read in part as follows: This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: after contact with blood or bodily fluids and after removing gloves. 1. A continuous observation of Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 05/02/23 from 10:30 AM through 10:37 AM revealed NA #1 provided incontinence care to Resident #2. With gloved hands, NA #1 cleaned urine with a resident care wipe, removed the wet brief and care wipes and placed them in the trash can, placed a clean brief under Resident #2, secured the brief tabs, pulled Resident #2's gown down, sat the container of resident care wipes on the air conditioner, and pulled up Resident #2's bed cover. NA #1 picked up the trash bag containing the wet brief, removed her left glove and placed it in the trash bag, pushed Resident #2's overbed table closer to the bed with her left hand, opened the room door with her left hand, and placed the trash bag in a trash can in the hallway. NA #1 did not remove her gloves and perform hand hygiene after removing urine and before touching Resident #2's clean brief, gown, container of resident care wipes, bed cover, overbed table, and door handle. An interview with NA #1 on 05/02/23 at 10:38 AM revealed she had been trained to remove her gloves and perform hand hygiene after providing incontinence care and she did not when she provided incontinence care for Resident #2 on 05/02/23 because she just didn't think about it. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/03/23 at 3:51 PM revealed NA #1 should have removed her gloves and performed hand hygiene after performing incontinence care and before touching other items in Resident #2's room. An interview with the Administrator on 05/03/23 at 4:52 PM revealed gloves should be removed and hand hygiene should be performed after providing incontinence care. 2. A continuous observation of Nurse Aide (NA) #2 on 05/03/23 from 8:59 AM through 9:04 AM revealed NA #2 provided incontinence care to Resident #2. With gloved hands, NA #2 cleaned urine and stool with a resident care wipe, removed the soiled brief and care wipes and placed them in the trash can, placed a clean brief under Resident #2, secured the brief tabs, removed her gloves and placed them in the trash can. NA #2 handed Resident #2 the bed control, removed the trash bag containing the soiled brief from the trash can and sat the bag on the floor, washed her hands, and removed the trash bag from the room. NA #2 did not remove her gloves and perform hand hygiene after removing urine and stool and before touching Resident #2's clean brief and the bed control. An interview with NA #2 on 05/03/23 at 9:05 AM revealed she had been trained to remove her gloves and perform hand hygiene after providing incontinence care and it was an oversight that she did not when providing care to Resident #2 on 05/03/23. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/03/23 at 3:51 PM revealed NA #2 should have removed her gloves and performed hand hygiene after performing incontinence care and before touching other items in Resident #2's room. An interview with the Administrator on 05/03/23 at 4:52 PM revealed gloves should be removed and hand hygiene should be performed after providing incontinence care.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

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 complete and transmit an entry tracking record within 14 day...

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 complete and transmit an entry tracking record within 14 days of the admission date and a discharge - return anticipated MDS assessment within 14 days of the discharge date for 1 of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #1's medical record on 05/02/23 at 2:09 PM revealed the last completed MDS assessment was a Medicare 5-day Prospective Payment System (PPS) dated 03/23/23. Further review revealed: a. A discharge - return anticipated MDS assessment dated [DATE] noted a status of in progress. b. An entry tracking record dated 04/10/23 noted a status of in progress. Review of the staff progress notes for Resident #1 revealed he was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview on 05/02/23 at 3:50 PM, the MDS Coordinator explained she was the only person in the MDS position with no one to cover for her when she was out of work and she just got behind on completing assessments. The MDS Coordinator confirmed Resident #1's discharge - return anticipated MDS assessment dated [DATE] and the entry tracking record dated 04/10/23 were not completed or transmitted within the regulatory timeframe. During an interview on 05/03/23 at 4:53 PM, the Administrator stated she just found out there was an issue with MDS assessments not being completed and/or transmitted within the regulatory timeframes. The Administrator explained had she known there was an issue, she and/or other regional staff could have assisted the MDS Coordinator with completing the MDS assessments.
Jun 2022 10 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to obtain laboratory testing as orde...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to obtain laboratory testing as ordered for a resident with complaints of abdominal pain and decreased appetite. Resident #3 was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) after a change in condition and diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) requiring hospitalization. This was for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hydration. Findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility 08/21/15 with diabetes and adult failure to thrive (a state of decline). Review of NP #1's note dated 02/14/22 revealed she saw Resident #3 for decreased appetite and epigastric discomfort (upper abdominal pain just below the ribs). The note stated she would check a complete blood count (abbreviated as CBC and meaning a blood test which can check for a variety of conditions including anemia, infection, and kidney function), and a comprehensive metabolic panel (abbreviated as CMP and meaning a test which checks the body's chemical balance and metabolism) for leukocytosis (a check of white blood cells that can indicate infection if elevated) and electrolyte balance. A Physician order dated 02/14/22 revealed orders to obtain a hemoglobin A1 C (a blood test which measures blood sugar control over time), a CBC, and a CMP on 02/15/22. Review of NP #1's note dated 02/15/22 revealed laboratory results were still pending and if they revealed evidence of dehydration intravenous (abbreviated as IV and meaning in the vein) fluids would be ordered. Review of Resident #3's medical record did not reveal any results for a hemoglobin A1C, a CBC, or a CMP obtained on 02/15/22. A nurse's note written by Nurse #1 dated 02/20/22 revealed Resident #3 was sent to the hospital at the request of her Responsible Party (RP) to be evaluated because she was not eating or drinking, not taking her medications, and was having a hard time swallowing. A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 03/01/22. The summary stated Resident #3 present to the ED on 02/20/22 with decreased responsiveness and being more withdrawn for the past week. The summary noted Resident #3 had a history of altered mental status, poor oral intake, and a possible UTI over the last week and was admitted to the medical floor and treated empirically (treatment given based on experience without having precise knowledge of the cause of a disorder) with IV fluids and antibiotics. Resident #3 completed a 7-day course of ceftriaxone (an antibiotic) and continued to remain very lethargic. She required a one-to-one caregiver for meals and there was a concern that she would not maintain adequate nutrition and hydration as an outpatient. Resident #3's family declined a feeding tube and she was discharged back to the facility 03/01/22. Discharge diagnoses included hypernatremia (an elevated level of sodium in the blood), decreased oral intake, altered mental status, vascular dementia, and acute UTI. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired and did not reject care. An interview with NP #1 on 06/24/22 at 10:35 AM revealed she saw Resident #3 on 02/14/22 because she was having a poor appetite and abdominal pain. She stated she ordered laboratory tests to be collected 02/15/22 to aide in evaluating Resident #3's condition. NP #1 stated when she saw Resident #3 on 02/15/22 the laboratory tests were still pending. NP #1 stated she was not notified the blood for the laboratory tests ordered for 02/15/22 had not been collected and she should have been notified the tests had not been done. She stated she had no way of knowing if she had received Resident #3's laboratory tests ordered for 02/15/22 if that would have prevented Resident #3 from being hospitalized on [DATE]. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 06/24/22 she confirmed the hemoglobin A1C, CBC, and CMP ordered 02/15/22 had not been collected. She stated an outside laboratory company was unsuccessful in obtaining the laboratory specimen on 02/15/22 and came again to collect the specimen on 02/16/22. The ADON stated the laboratory company was unable to collect the laboratory specimen on 02/16/22. She stated she was off 02/17/22 and assumed the Unit Manager working 02/17/22 would follow-up on making sure Resident #3's laboratory specimen was collected but the order for Resident #3's lab work ordered 02/15/22 fell through the cracks. During an interview with Unit Manager #1 on 06/24/22 at 03:54 PM she confirmed she worked 02/17/22 and was not aware she needed to follow-up on obtaining lab work for Resident #3. A joint interview with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/24/22 at 06:23 PM revealed laboratory tests should be collected as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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 observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident in a dignified mann...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident in a dignified manner, when a nurse spoke abruptly to a resident (Resident #44) without looking at her to acknowledge her request for a cup of ice. This affected 1 of 4 residents reviewed for dignity and respect and made Resident #44 feel bad. The findings included: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident or stroke, and hemiplegia. Resident #44's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed she was severely cognitively impaired and was on a therapeutic diet with thin liquids. Resident #44's assessment also revealed the resident was always understood and always understands. Observation on 06/21/22 at 3:05 PM of Resident #44 revealed she was at the nurse's station sitting in her wheelchair holding a white cup. Nurse #4 walked in front of the resident and the resident asked Nurse #4 for a cup of ice. Nurse #4 without looking at the resident, and in an abrupt tone stated, you are just going to have to wait. Nurse #4 picked up her clipboard and walked in front of Resident #44 again without acknowledging her and continued to walk down the hall to the medication cart. Nurse #4 did not ask the 2 nursing aides sitting at the desk to assist the resident and did not get the resident a cup of ice as she had requested. An interview was conducted on 06/21/22 at 3:25 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON was informed about Nurse #4 abruptly responding to the request of Resident #44 for a cup of ice and the subsequent failure to provide the cup of ice to the resident. The DON revealed Nurse #4 had not worked a lot at the facility and stated the facility would not tolerate residents being spoken to in an abrupt manner and their requests being ignored by any employee. The DON stated Nurse #4 would be relieved of her duties immediately pending an investigation. Interview on 06/21/22 at 3:35 PM with Resident #44 revealed she was alert to person, place and time at the time of the interview. Resident #44 recalled the interaction at the nurse's station with Nurse #4 and stated the nurse made me feel bad but I couldn't say anything because I am just a resident. Resident #44 went on to explain that some of the employees working here only wanted money and didn't want to take care of the residents. A follow up interview on 06/24/22 at 9:59 AM with the DON revealed she had done one on one education with Nurse #4 about how to appropriately speak to residents and had sent her home and notified her agency that Nurse #4 was not to return to the facility. A phone interview on 06/24/22 at 3:38 PM with Nurse #4 revealed she had just reported for work and checked to see where she was working for her shift and was going to count the medication cart with the nurse that was leaving and went to grab her clipboard when the resident asked her for some ice water. Nurse #4 stated the resident was not assigned to her and had passed her nurse coming to the nurse's station and said there were 2 Nurse Aides (NAs) at the desk, and she told the resident, you are just going to have to wait a minute. Nurse #4 stated she was not aware the State was in the building and said when she completed counting the medication cart with the nurse that was leaving, she was told to report to the DON's office. She stated she went into the DON's office, and she had her sign a paper and go home. Nurse #4 further stated, I didn't say nothing more to the resident than what I said but the DON sent me home. An interview on 06/24/22 at 6:50 PM with the Administrator revealed she expected all staff to always treat all residents with dignity and respect.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to honor a resident's request to get ou...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to honor a resident's request to get out of bed to attend a scheduled activity for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for choices (Resident #16). The findings included: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including lack of coordination and heart failure. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #16's cognition was intact with no refusal of care during the lookback period. The MDS also indicated Resident #16 required total assistance by 2-person using a mechanical lift for transfers. The Care Plan (CP) revised on 01/26/22 revealed Resident #16 was independent for meeting social needs but due to immobility and physical limitations might need encouragement and reminders to activities. The CP goals included to attend and participate in activities of choice. The interventions directed nursing staff to assist and escort and listed bingo as one of Resident #16's preferred activities. During an interview on 06/21/22 at 9:05 AM Resident #16 revealed she wanted to participate in bingo, a scheduled activity on 06/20/22. Resident #16 revealed she made Nurse Aide (NA) #3 aware she wanted out of bed to play bingo and called the front desk to request assistance out of bed. When Resident #16 revealed she was not assisted out bed and missed bingo she became tearful. Resident #16 stated when bingo was a scheduled activity, she wanted to get out of bed to attend and indicated staff were aware of this. Resident #16 was unable to recall who she spoke with on phone on 06/20/22 to request assistance out of bed. An interview was conducted on 06/22/22 at 12:20 PM with the Business Office Manager (BOM). The BOM revealed Resident #16 frequently called the front office to make her needs known and they could assist with no hands-on care or encourage her to use the call light for NA staff or if engaged office staff would find a NA to assist with care. The BOM revealed to her knowledge Resident #16 hadn't called to request assistance with getting out of bed. An interview was conducted on 06/22/22 at 12:35 PM with NA #3. NA #3 revealed he was responsible for the care of Resident #16 on 06/20/22 and was aware she wanted to get out of bed on Monday and Wednesday to play bingo. NA #3 revealed on 06/20/22 due to a being short staffed he was assigned approximately 30 residents to care for and three with outside appointments he had to get ready. NA #3 stated he didn't have time to get Resident #16 out of bed for bingo and revealed at times residents who needed 2-person assistance using a mechanical lift stayed in bed due to being short of staff. NA #3 stated it only happened once in while that he couldn't get residents out of bed upon request. A joint interview was conducted on 06/24/22 at 6:48 PM with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The DON revealed she was not aware Resident #16 wanted to get out of bed on 06/20/22. The DON indicated if she knew Resident #16 wanted out of bed she would have provided assistance. Both the Administrator and the DON stated their expectation was for nursing staff to assist a resident out of bed upon request.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide bathing as scheduled for 1 of 9 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide bathing as scheduled for 1 of 9 residents dependent on staff for activities of daily living (Resident #68). The findings included: Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #68's diagnoses included cerebrovascular accident (loss of blood flow to the brain) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (restricted airflow to the lungs). The Care Plan last revised on 05/16/22 identified Resident #68 as having a self-care performance deficit related to impaired balance and limited mobility. The goal was for Resident #68 to remain at her current level of functioning and included the intervention to provide extensive to total assistance with showers per protocol and as necessary. Review of Resident #68's activity of daily living documentation for April, May and June 2022 revealed bathing was scheduled during evening shift on Wednesday and Saturday. For the month of April bed baths were documented as given on 04/06/22, 04/09/22, 04/13/22, 04/20/22, 04/23/22, and 04/30/22. On 04/02/22 the documentation indicated Resident #68 refused and on 04/16/22 and 04/27/22 a partial bed bath was given. For the months of May and June the records revealed Resident #68 did not have assistance with a bed bath or shower documented on the following days: 05/14/22, 06/11/22, and 06/18/22. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #68's cognition as moderately impaired with no rejection of care behaviors during the lookback period. The assessment of Resident #68's functional status for activities of daily living indicated extensive assistance was needed with bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. An interview was conducted on 06/21/22 at 9:36 AM with Resident #68. Resident #68 stated her bathing scheduled was to receive a shower twice a week but wasn't done. Resident #68 was unable to recall her last shower and indicated there were several weeks she didn't receive one. Resident #68 revealed she had complained about missed showers, but nothing was done. When she didn't get her scheduled shower Resident #68 stated she didn't always get a bed bath either and the Nurse Aides (NA) would tell her there wasn't enough staff to assist her. An interview was conducted on 06/22/22 at 9:18 AM with Resident #68. Resident #68 revealed there were times her bed baths weren't done or not done good, and she still felt dirty. A follow-up interview was conducted on 06/24/22 at 12:02 PM with Resident #68. Resident #68 revealed when her shower wasn't given a bed bath was okay but if no bathing was offered it wasn't. Resident #68 stated she often went without a shower or bed bath. An interview was conducted on 06/24/22 at 12:12 PM with Nurse Aide (NA) #1. NA #1 revealed she worked from 7 AM to 7 PM and was assigned to assist Resident #68 on 06/18/22 with a shower. NA #1 revealed she was the only NA assigned to the hall Resident #68 resided and had more than 20 residents to care for. NA #1 stated could not get scheduled showers done and didn't provide a shower for Resident #68 on 06/18/22. NA #1 revealed when she was the only NA on the hall, she could feed residents, answer call lights, and provided incontinence care. NA #1 revealed when a shower wasn't provided, she tried to give a bed bath but wouldn't be a complete head to toe bath, she would clean the resident's face and perineal area. An interview was conducted on 06/24/22 at 3:28 PM with NA #2. NA #2 revealed she worked second shift and was assigned to hall where Resident #68 resided on 06/20/22. NA #2 revealed on 06/20/22 she was the only NA assigned on the hall and had a lot of residents that require total care and couldn't give her scheduled showers. NA #2 stated Resident #68 had not refused her shower and voiced she smelled and asked to be wiped up. NA #2 stated she couldn't give a shower on 06/20/22 but did provide a partial bed bath and washed the resident's face, neck, under the arms, and perineal area. NA #2 revealed two or three times a week she would be the only NA on the hall and wasn't able to provide residents their scheduled showers. A joint interview was conducted on 06/24/22 at 6:34 PM with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The Administrator stated she would expect Resident #68 was offered a shower twice a week as scheduled. The Administrator stated it was the facility's policy to provide bathing to residents per their preference. The DON revealed she was aware staffing was short and showers weren't being done. The DON revealed she often stayed over to provide resident showers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to prevent a fall during a transfer wi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to prevent a fall during a transfer with a mechanical lift which resulted in the resident bumping his head and right hand on the floor for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents (Resident #56). The findings included: Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of spinal cord injury. Review of Resident #56's care plan dated 07/21/20 and revised on 05/19/21 revealed in part, he had a self-care deficit in the area of activities of daily living and required total assist of 1-2 staff to turn and reposition in bed as necessary. He also required a mechanical lift with the assistance of 2 staff members for transfers between his wheelchair and bed. The care plan also indicated Resident # 56 was at risk for falls. Fall prevention interventions included in part, reminders to keep his call bell within reach and providing re-education for Resident # 56 on the risks of keeping his bed in a high position. Resident #56's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact for daily decision making. The MDS further revealed he required extensive assistance from 2 staff members for toileting, personal hygiene and bed mobility and was dependent upon 2 staff members for transfers. Review of an incident report for Resident #56's fall was dated 6/18/22 and completed by the DON revealed in part, the witnesses to the fall were Nurse Aide (NA) #1 and NA #4. The incident report further revealed he slid out of a lift sling while being transferred by 2 staff members using a mechanical lift and bumped his right hand and the left side of his head on the floor. No apparent injuries were noted but the resident was transported to the hospital. The facility's nursing progress notes revealed Resident #56 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and returned later that evening. The hospital reported scans were completed of his head, neck, and pelvic area none indicated injury. Review of Resident #56's Change of Condition Assessment (referred to as SBAR in facility electronic medical record) dated 06/18/22 at 4:09 PM indicated Resident # 58 was being transferred from his chair to his bed with the assist of 2 staff members. During the transfer, he slid out of the sling on the upper left side and was then lowered to the floor. He was then assisted into his bed. The SBAR further revealed the resident complained of pain in his right hand and on the left side of his head, but no injury was visible. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) on call was notified about the fall and she gave an order to send him to the emergency room for evaluation. In an interview with Resident #56 on 06/20/22 at 4:22 PM, he stated he had fallen on 06/18/22. He indicated staff lifted him with the mechanical lift to put him to bed. He stated he fell and hit his head and right hand. He also stated these staff members had worked with him in the past and knew how to care for him properly, but he thought one of the straps on the lift sling was not attached causing his fall. He further revealed he went to the hospital emergency department and there was no injury, but he continued to have pain in his head and hand. On 6/22/22 at 4:55 PM an interview was conducted with NA #1. She stated on the afternoon of 06/18/22 NA #4 asked her for assistance with transferring Resident #56. She indicated the resident was in his chair and the mechanical lift sling was under him. NA #1 revealed she checked the sling placement, raised him up in the mechanical lift and handed the lift control to NA #4 so that she could support his feet. She then stated when they moved him toward the bed, his upper body slipped toward his left side, which was flaccid, and his lower body was still in the sling. She stated Resident #56 hit his arm and head, but they were able to safely lower him the rest of the way down to the floor. NA #1 stated that she knew the loops were all attached correctly to the lift because she recalled unhooking all 4 sling loops after he was lowered to the floor. She further revealed she was not certain what had caused Resident #56's fall from the mechanical lift. In an interview on 06/23/22 at 8:45 AM, NA #4 revealed she was assigned to care for Resident #56 on the afternoon of 6/18/22. She stated that when he requested to be transferred to bed, she requested assistance from NA #1 for the transfer using the mechanical lift. She further revealed she made sure the sling straps were attached to the hooks of the lift and she ensured he was secure in the sling. She stated NA #1 was holding his legs and she was operating the lift with the handheld control. She stated as they were transferring him Resident #56 went backwards and to his left side and she immediately left to get a nurse. She then stated Nurse #3 came and checked him and there was no bleeding or obvious injury, but he complained about his head hurting and his right hand hurting. NA #4 revealed she did not know how the fall occurred. She further revealed Resident #56 frequently provided direction to caregivers and was able to tell staff if he thought he was not positioned correctly. She stated it was possible his body shifted left, and the sling shifted right causing him to fall but she could not say for certain what occurred because the fall happened very quickly. In an interview on 06/24/22 at 9:21 AM with Nurse #3 she revealed she was on duty at the facility the evening Resident #56 fell. She further revealed NA #1 and NA #4 told her he slid out of the mechanical lift sling on his left side but did not know what caused him to slide. She stated she examined Resident #56 and did not see any obvious injuries, but he was sent to the ER for x-rays with complaints of head and right hand pain. On 06/19/22 the nursing progress notes indicated Resident #56's right hand appeared swollen and had light colored bruising. The right hand was elevated, and ice was applied. The NP on call was notified and an order was obtained for a right hand x-ray. Review of the facility NP progress note dated 6/20/22 revealed he was examined for complaints of a sore right hand from the fall. She indicated the x-ray of his right hand showed no fracture or dislocation. The NP progress note revealed upon exam he had no bruising or boney abnormalities of the right hand but did have mild edema. She recommended treatment with ice to hand as needed for discomfort. Review of Resident #56's Electronic Medical Record revealed a Radiology report dated 06/20/22 that indicated no fracture or dislocation was seen on the right hand x-ray. A nursing progress note dated 06/20/22 at 3:11 PM revealed Resident #56 had no latent injuries from his fall. He had complaints of pain and was given ordered pain medication which was effective. An observation and joint interviews were conducted on 06/23/22 at 2:05 PM with The Regional [NAME] President of Operations, the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and NA#1. The facility staff demonstrated the use of the mechanical lift with the sling used by Resident #56. NA #1 revealed on the afternoon of his fall, she lifted Resident #56 up and out of his chair and turned him in the direction of his bed and the fall occurred as they moved him toward the bed. The demonstration revealed it would not have been possible to elevate the resident from his chair if all 4 of the sling straps were not attached to the arms of the lift. The Corporate nurse, SDC and NA #1 agreed that the probable cause was the back of the sling was too low on his back and when the resident's flaccid left side slid out of the sling, the weight of his body shifted left and out of the sling causing the fall. A joint interview was conducted with the Corporate [NAME] President of Clinical Operations, DON, and Administrator on 6/24/22 at 5:19 PM. The Administrator stated she interviewed Resident #56 after the fall on 6/18/22 and he was not able to tell her how the fall occurred, but he did report staff unhooked all 4 sling straps after he was lowered to the floor. She stated she interviewed all staff involved after the fall and the only explanation was that the sling was too low on the resident's back. The Corporate Clinical Manager stated he also investigated the incident and was not able to determine a definite cause. The Administrator and DON both indicated Resident #56 had an accident, and it should not have occurred.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain sufficient nursing staff to ensure a resident's (Resident #16) request to get out of bed was honore...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain sufficient nursing staff to ensure a resident's (Resident #16) request to get out of bed was honored. The facility also failed to ensure showers or complete baths were provided as scheduled (Resident #68). These failures affected 2 of 14 residents sampled in areas of choices and activities of daily living. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: 1. F 561: Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to honor a resident's (Resident #16) request to get out of bed to attend a scheduled activity for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for choices. 2. F 677: Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide bathing as scheduled for 1 of 9 residents dependent on staff for activities of daily living (Resident #68). Review of the nursing staff scheduled from 06/18/22 through 06/24/22 revealed during first and second shifts there were assignments with one Nurse Aide (NA) on the hall for the following days: 06/18/22, 06/19/22, 06/20/22, and 06/24/22. During an interview on 06/22/22 at 2:09 PM NA #7 stated staffing was awful and when she was assigned the entire hall did her best to complete her assigned showers but wasn't always able to. During an interview on 06/22/22 at 2:59 PM the Staff Development Coordinator/Wound Care/Scheduler revealed on 06/20/22 a NA called out, a NA was sent home, and a Nurse resigned. He was unable to find staff to cover those shifts and NA #3 was reassigned to provide care for larger group of residents. During an interview on 06/23/22 at 3:24 PM NA #6 revealed on 06/19/22 she was the only NA on the 300-hall giving her approximately 25 residents and couldn't get a resident who needed 2-person assist using the mechanical lift out of bed upon request. NA #6 stated it was impossible to get rounds done every two hours when she was the only NA on the hall. An interview was conducted on 06/24/22 at 4:32 PM with the Staff Development Coordinator/Wound Care/Scheduler. The Staff Development Coordinator/Wound Care/Scheduler revealed he tried to schedule eight NA staff for day shift, six for evenings, and four for nights. If he had two NA staff drop from the schedule, he started calling other staff to come in. The Staff Development Coordinator/Wound Care/Scheduler revealed pay incentive programs were initiated to help with weekend staffing issues and indicated it had improved. He revealed it was difficult to get shifts covered with current staff already working a lot of hours and issues with agency staff not showing up and having to find coverage on short notice. Right now, his focus was trying to find staff for night shift and indicated he had more flexibility to find coverage on day shift due to more staff were available. The Staff Development Coordinator/Wound Care/Scheduler revealed he hadn't received complaints from NA staff when scheduled as the only one on the hall and not able to complete their assigned residents shower. The Staff Development Coordinator/Wound Care/Scheduler revealed nursing staff come in early or stay late when resident showers weren't given in attempt to make it up. An interview was conducted on 06/24/22 at 6:34 PM with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The Administrator revealed the facility had increased wages and offered referral bonuses to staff. She revealed the DON covered shifts along with the Social Worker and admission Director who were both certified NA. The DON revealed she had stayed and worked as NA to help provide resident care and agency staff were also utilized to fill gaps in the schedule. Both the Administrator and DON indicated there were staffing issues, but staff worked good as team.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3 a. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/20/22 at 10:35 AM revealed an unlabeled razor sitting on ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3 a. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/20/22 at 10:35 AM revealed an unlabeled razor sitting on the side of the sink and 2 unlabeled and uncovered bath pans stacked inside each other sitting on the floor under the sink. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/23/22 at 03:26 PM revealed an unlabeled razor sitting on the side of the sink and 2 unlabeled and uncovered bath pans stacked inside each other sitting on the floor under the sink. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/24/22 at 03:19 PM revealed an unlabeled razor sitting on the side of the sink and 2 unlabeled and uncovered bath pans stacked inside each other sitting on the floor under the sink. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/24/22 at 03:20 PM. An interview with the DON at the same date and time revealed she expected all personal items to be labeled and stored appropriately. She stated any staff member who placed personal items in bathrooms was responsible for labeling and storing the items appropriately. An interview with the Administrator on 06/24/22 at 06:23 PM revealed she expected all personal items to be labeled and stored appropriately. b. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/20/22 at 12:02 PM revealed 2 unlabeled razors, an unlabeled comb, and an unlabeled brush were sitting on the side of the sink. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/23/22 at 08:26 AM revealed 2 unlabeled razors, an unlabeled comb, and an unlabeled brush were sitting on the side of the sink. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/24/22 at 02:05 PM revealed an unlabeled brush was sitting on the side of the sink and an unlabeled toothbrush was sitting on the back of the toilet. An observation of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted with the DON on 06/24/22 at 03:20 PM. An interview at the same date and time revealed she expected all personal items to be labeled and stored appropriately. She stated any staff member who placed personal items in bathrooms was responsible for labeling and storing the items appropriately. An interview with the Administrator on 06/24/22 at 06:23 PM revealed she expected all personal items to be labeled and stored appropriately. c. An observation of the wall between the toilet and sink of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/20/22 at 12:02 PM revealed a brown substance that was easily removable with a paper towel. An observation of the wall between the toilet and sink of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/23/22 at 08:26 AM revealed a brown substance that was easily removable with a paper towel. An observation of the wall between the toilet and sink of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/24/22 at 02:05 PM revealed a brown substance that was easily removable with a paper towel. An observation of the wall of the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted with the Housekeeping Accounts Manager on 06/24/22 at 03:13 PM. An interview at the same date and time revealed bathrooms were cleaned daily and that included checking the walls for any stains or splashes. He stated the brown substance should not be on the bathroom wall of room [ROOM NUMBER] and it was overlooked when the bathroom was cleaned. An interview with the Administrator on 06/24/22 at 06:23 PM revealed she expected she expected the bathroom walls to be clean. d. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/20/22 at 10:49 AM revealed an exposed area of sheetrock approximately 6 to 8 inches long on the wall beside B bed. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/23/22 at 08:21 AM revealed an exposed area of sheetrock approximately 6 to 8 inches long on the wall beside B bed. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 06/24/22 at 02:09 PM revealed an exposed area of sheetrock approximately 6 to 8 inches long on the wall beside B bed. An observation of the wall in room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted with the Maintenance Director on 06/24/22 at 03:23 PM. An interview at the same date and time revealed he tried to interact frequently with residents and he checked their rooms for needed repairs when he was taking with residents. He stated he was in room [ROOM NUMBER] frequently but overlooked the area of exposed sheetrock next to B bed. An interview with the Administrator on 06/24/22 at 06/23 PM revealed she expected the walls to be maintained in good repair. 4. An observation on 06/21/22 at 9:23 AM revealed the resident's privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-B had a brown colored smear stain on lower part of the curtain. On 06/22/22 at 9:17 AM the privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-B continued to have the same brown colored stain. An observation and interview were conducted on 06/24/22 at 3:10 PM with the Housekeeping Account Manager. The Housekeeping Account Manager observed the brown colored smear stain on the privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-B. The Housekeeping Account Manager revealed privacy curtains were changed or washed as needed and monthly when the room was deep cleaned and during a room change. He also expected privacy curtains were checked daily when a resident's room was cleaned. The Housekeeping Account Manager stated he would ensure the privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-B would be washed and/or replaced. During an interview on 06/24/22 at 5:25 PM the Administrator revealed it was her expectation privacy curtains were changed when resident rooms were deep cleaned and as needed. The Administrator stated if a stain on the privacy curtain appeared to be fecal matter or blood, she wanted it changed as soon as possible. The Administrator revealed she expected staff to notice dirty privacy curtains to ensure if needed it would be cleaned or replaced. Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to properly label and store personal items for 2 of 36 bathrooms (bathrooms of room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]), maintain clean and sanitary walls for 1 of 36 bathrooms (bathroom room [ROOM NUMBER]), maintain walls in good repair for 1 of 54 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]), and maintain clean and sanitary privacy curtains for 3 of 54 rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) reviewed for safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The deficient practice affected 3 of 5 halls (200, 300, and 400 halls). Findings included: 1. An observation and interview on 06/20/22 at 11:20 AM revealed Resident #38's privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER] had several white stains scattered in the middle and lower part of the dark green curtain. Resident #38 voiced she did not like that her privacy curtain looked dirty and stained and stated when she mentioned it to facility staff, they were going to replace it with a new one but haven't. She added, maybe they could at least try to wash it. Subsequent observations on 06/21/22 at 9:58 AM and 06/24/22 at 9:20 AM revealed the condition of the privacy curtain remained unchanged. An observation and interview were conducted on 06/24/22 at 3:10 PM with the Housekeeping Account Manager. The Housekeeping Account Manager observed the white stains on the privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The Housekeeping Account Manager explained privacy curtains were changed or washed as needed, during a room change, and/or when the room was deep cleaned once a month. He further explained privacy curtains should be checked for cleanliness when resident rooms were cleaned daily. The Housekeeping Account Manager stated he would ensure Resident #38's privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER] would be washed and/or replaced. During an interview on 06/24/22 at 5:25 PM the Administrator revealed it was her expectation privacy curtains were changed when resident rooms were deep cleaned and as needed. The Administrator stated she expected staff to notice dirty and/or stained privacy curtains in order for them to be cleaned or replaced. 2. An observation on 06/21/22 at 2:55 PM revealed the beige privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A was pulled around the bed, visible from the hall, and had a several green stains scattered throughout the center of the curtain. Subsequent observations on 06/21/22 at 4:40 PM and 06/24/22 at 9:20 AM revealed the privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A was pulled around the bed, visible from the hall and the condition of the privacy curtain remained unchanged. An observation and interview were conducted on 06/24/22 at 3:10 PM with the Housekeeping Account Manager. The Housekeeping Account Manager observed the green stains on the privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A and stated the stains were permanent and would not wash out. The Housekeeping Account Manager explained privacy curtains were changed or washed as needed, during a room change, and/or when the room was deep cleaned once a month. He further explained privacy curtains should be checked for cleanliness when resident rooms were cleaned daily. The Housekeeping Account Manager stated he would ensure the privacy curtain in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A would be replaced. During an interview on 06/24/22 at 5:25 PM the Administrator revealed it was her expectation privacy curtains were changed when resident rooms were deep cleaned and as needed. The Administrator stated she expected staff to notice dirty and/or stained privacy curtains in order for them to be cleaned or replaced.
CONCERN (E)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · 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 request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR)...

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 request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) review for residents with a new mental health diagnosis for 4 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR (Residents #10, #37, #62, and #69). Findings included: 1. A PASRR Notification letter dated 08/08/16 revealed Resident #10 had a Level 1 PASRR with no expiration date. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anxiety and bipolar disorder. Review of Resident #10's list of cumulative diagnoses contained in his medical record revealed a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder with the onset date of 06/02/21. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 9:47 AM, the Social Worker (SW) explained she was new to the position and was unaware of the regulation requirement to request a PASRR review for any resident with a new mental health diagnosis or significant change in condition. The SW confirmed she had not requested a Level II PASRR evaluation for Resident #10. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 12:09 PM, the Administrator confirmed knowledge of the regulation requirement to request a Level II PASRR evaluation when a resident had a new mental health diagnosis or a significant change in condition. The Administrator explained during the survey process, they realized they did not have a system for requesting PASRR re-evaluations and going forward, the SW would be the person responsible for requesting Level II PASRR reviews when indicated. 2. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. A PASRR Notification letter dated 10/24/18 revealed Resident #37 had a Level I PASRR with no expiration date. Review of Resident #37's psychiatric progress note dated 10/11/21 revealed a new diagnosis of delusional disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 9:47 AM, the Social Worker (SW) explained she was new to the position and was unaware of the regulation requirement to request a PASRR review for any resident with a new mental health diagnosis or significant change in condition. The SW confirmed she had not requested a Level II PASRR evaluation for Resident #37. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 12:09 PM, the Administrator confirmed knowledge of the regulation requirement to request a Level II PASRR evaluation when a resident had a new mental health diagnosis or a significant change in condition. The Administrator explained during the survey process, they realized they did not have a system for requesting PASRR re-evaluations and going forward, the SW would be the person responsible for requesting Level II PASRR reviews when indicated. 3. A PASRR Notification letter dated 02/24/19 revealed Resident #62 had a Level I PASRR with no expiration date. Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included hip fracture. Review of Resident #62's list of cumulative diagnoses contained in her medical record revealed a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder with an onset date of 07/05/21 and unspecified psychosis with an onset date of 08/31/21. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 9:47 AM, the Social Worker (SW) explained she was new to the position and was unaware of the regulation requirement to request a PASRR review for any resident with a new mental health diagnosis or significant change in condition. The SW confirmed she had not requested a Level II PASRR evaluation for Resident #62. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 12:09 PM, the Administrator confirmed knowledge of the regulation requirement to request a Level II PASRR evaluation when a resident had a new mental health diagnosis or a significant change in condition. The Administrator explained during the survey process, they realized they did not have a system for requesting PASRR re-evaluations and going forward, the SW would be the person responsible for requesting Level II PASRR reviews when indicated. 4. A PASRR Notification letter dated 06/08/17 revealed Resident #69 had a Level I PASRR with no expiration date. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #69's list of cumulative diagnoses contained in her medical record revealed new diagnoses of adjustment disorder with anxiety and delusional disorder, both with an onset date of 04/21/22. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #69 was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability. Review of Resident #69's medical record revealed a Consent for use of Psychoactive Medication Therapy form dated 05/15/22 that listed the specific conditions to be treated were mood disorder with psychotic features and schizophrenia. The proposed course of the medication was listed as prolonged treatment. The significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #69 was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 9:47 AM, the Social Worker (SW) explained she was new to the position and was unaware of the regulation requirement to request a PASRR review for any resident with a new mental health diagnosis or significant change in condition. The SW confirmed she had not requested a Level II PASRR evaluation for Resident #69. During an interview on 06/10/22 at 12:09 PM, the Administrator confirmed knowledge of the regulation requirement to request a Level II PASRR evaluation when a resident had a new mental health diagnosis or a significant change in condition. The Administrator explained during the survey process, they realized they did not have a system for requesting PASRR re-evaluations and going forward, the SW would be the person responsible for requesting Level II PASRR reviews when indicated.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

3. Review of the facility policy entitled Hand Hygiene revised on 02/05/21 revealed the following overview statement: The CDC defines hand hygiene as cleansing your hands by using either handwashing (...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. Review of the facility policy entitled Hand Hygiene revised on 02/05/21 revealed the following overview statement: The CDC defines hand hygiene as cleansing your hands by using either handwashing (washing with soap and water), antiseptic hand wash, or antiseptic hand rubs (i.e., alcohol- based sanitizer including foam or gel). The policy listed specific indications for activities that required hand hygiene and included after glove removal. An observation of the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and Nurse Aide (NA) #5 transferring Resident #56 with a mechanical lift was conducted on 06/22/22 at 11:12 AM. Prior to the transfer, the SDC washed his hands with soap and water in the resident's bathroom. He donned gloves and he and NA #5 transferred the resident. The SDC then removed his gloves and placed them in the pocket of his pants. He did not perform hand hygiene. He proceeded to straighten up personal items in the resident's room. The SDC then donned new gloves and wiped the cover of the resident's air mattress with a disposable wipe. He removed the gloves, discarded them in a trash can and left the room without performing hand hygiene. On 6/22/22 at 3:00 PM an interview was conducted with the SDC. He stated he should have sanitized his hands when he removed his gloves during the observation of the resident transfer. He also stated there was no hand sanitizer available in the room. In a joint interview on 6/22/22 at 6:55 PM the DON and Administrator indicated the expectation was that staff performed hand hygiene after removing gloves. Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to establish and implement infection control policies and procedures to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella in the building water systems which could affect 83 out of 83 residents. In addition, the facility failed to implement infection control policies and procedures when the Staff Development Coordinator failed to perform hand washing after the removal of gloves during wound care for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #44) and when 1 of 7 Nurse Aides (NA #5) and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) failed to perform hand washing after the removal of gloves following the transfer of 1 of 1 resident (Resident #56) observed during a mechanical lift transfer. These failures occurred during a global pandemic. The findings included: 1. Review of the facility's Emergency Preparedness plan revealed no information related to a facility water safety management program to minimize the risk of transmission of Legionella Disease to the residents, staff, and visitors by testing the water. In an interview on 06/24/22 at 6:50 PM, The Administrator stated she was unaware of the requirement to develop a program to minimize the risk of transmission of Legionella through the facility's water system. She stated that she spoke with the facility Maintenance Director, and he was also unaware of the requirement. She further revealed the facility water was supplied by the city and no water testing had been done. The Administrator stated she and the Maintenance Director had contacted the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and had been told by them they did not have to test the water since they were on city water. 2 Review of the facility policy and procedure entitled Hand Hygiene revised on 02/05/2021 revealed the following overview statement: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines hand hygiene as cleansing your hands by using either handwashing (washing with soap and water), antiseptic hand wash, or antiseptic hand rubs (i.e., alcohol-based hand sanitizer including foam or gel). The policy listed specific indications for activities that required hand hygiene and included after the removal of gloves. An observation on 06/21/22 at 9:18 AM was made of wound care performed by the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) on Resident #54. The SDC donned clean gloves and proceeded to cleanse Resident #44's 2nd digit on his right foot with sterile normal saline and proceeded to the 1st digit on the right foot and cleansed it with sterile normal saline and then moved to the right heel and cleansed it with sterile normal saline. The SDC then doffed his gloves and without performing hand hygiene donned a new pair of clean gloves and proceeded to paint the 2nd digit on the right foot with betadine, and then painted the 1st digit with betadine and then proceeded to paint the right heel with betadine. The SDC then doffed his gloves and washed his hands with soap and water. An interview on 06/22/22 at 3:11 PM was conducted with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC). The SDC revealed he had not sanitized his hands after doffing his gloves following cleansing Resident #44's wounds with sterile normal saline. The SDC stated there was no hand sanitizer in the resident rooms and the facility did not have handheld sanitizers provided to employees for use in the resident rooms. The SDC further stated he should have sanitized his hands after doffing his gloves and before donning a clean pair of gloves to continue the wound care for Resident #44. An interview on 06/22/22 at 6:55 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator revealed it was their expectation that staff perform hand hygiene after the removal of gloves.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor food preferences for 1 of 4 sam...

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 honor food preferences for 1 of 4 sampled residents reviewed (Resident #51). This failure had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #51 was cognitively intact and required set-up help only with meals. During an interview on 06/21/22 at 9:30 AM, Resident #51 stated she often received food items she did not like with her meals, such as cucumbers and tomatoes. Resident #51 explained she had discussed her dislikes with the Dietary Manager (DM) on several occasions in the past; however, she still continued to receive food she did not like with certain meals. Review of Resident #51's dietary preferences provided by the DM on 06/22/22 at 2:03 PM revealed tomatoes were listed as a dislike. Cucumbers were not listed as a dislike. An observation of the lunch meal on 06/23/22 at 12:21 PM revealed Resident #55 was served two scoops of macaroni and cheese, a bowl of diced cooked tomatoes and dessert. During a follow-up interview on 06/23/22 at 12:21 PM, Resident #51 restated she did not like tomatoes and was served a bowl with her lunch meal. Resident #51 voiced she spoke with the DM again yesterday (06/22/22) regarding her food preferences. During an interview on 06/24/22 at 9:30 AM, the DM explained a resident's dislikes only printed on the meal card if a particular item was part of the meal being served that day and a substitution would be provided for the disliked food item. The DM stated she spoke with Resident #51 on 06/22/22, updated her dietary preferences and confirmed tomatoes were listed as a dislike. The DM could not explain why Resident #51 was served diced tomatoes with her lunch meal on 06/23/22 and stated the food item should have been substituted with another vegetable. During an interview on 06/24/22 at 5:17 PM, the Administrator stated she would expect for residents' dietary preferences to be updated and followed when meals were served. The Administrator voiced she would prefer residents were not served food items they did not like.
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: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $172,134 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 53 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $172,134 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation 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 Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 21 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 92%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 53 deficiencies at Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 43 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 Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation?

Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CONSULATE HEALTH CARE/INDEPENDENCE LIVING CENTERS/NSPIRE HEALTHCARE/RAYDIANT HEALTH CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 74 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Arden, North Carolina.

How Does Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (68%) 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 Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation?

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

Is Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 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 Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation is high. At 68%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 92%. 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 Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation has been fined $172,134 across 2 penalty actions. This is 4.9x the North Carolina average of $34,800. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Biltmore Haven Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation 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.