Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

195 Springbrook Avenue, Clayton, NC 27520 (919) 550-7200
For profit - Limited Liability company 100 Beds PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
8/100
#287 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its operations and care quality. Ranking #287 out of 417 nursing homes in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, while its county rank of #3 out of 5 reveals that only two local facilities are better. The facility is currently improving, with a decrease in reported issues from 16 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is average with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 66%, which is higher than the state average of 49%. Despite more RN coverage than 84% of facilities in North Carolina, there have been serious incidents, including a critical medication error that required emergency intervention for a resident and an incident of abuse by a family member that left another resident injured. Additionally, the facility has accumulated $25,625 in fines, which is considered average, yet raises concerns about compliance. While there are strengths in RN coverage and a trend of improvement, families should weigh these against the serious issues reported.

Trust Score
F
8/100
In North Carolina
#287/417
Bottom 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
16 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
66% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$25,625 in fines. Higher than 97% of North Carolina facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 47 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for North Carolina. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 66%

20pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $25,625

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (66%)

18 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

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 Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, staff and Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from misappropriation of narcotic medication for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property (Residents #299 and #300). The findings included: a. Resident #299 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #299's May 2024 Physician's orders revealed an order for Tramadol 50 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for moderate and severe pain. A review of a Pharmacy Narcotic Delivery Slip dated 5/31/24 revealed 2 medication cards each containing 30 pills of Tramadol 50 mg were delivered by the pharmacy and signed in as being received by 2 facility nurses. Resident #299 was discharged from the facility on 4/4/25. b. Resident #300 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #300's May 2024 Physician's orders revealed an order for Oxycodone 5 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate pain. A review of a Pharmacy Narcotic Delivery Slip dated 5/31/24 revealed 2 medication cards each containing 30 pills of Oxycodone 5 mg were delivered by the pharmacy and signed in as being received by 2 facility nurses. Resident #300 was discharged from the facility on 3/10/25. A telephone interview was completed on 4/23/25 at 2:14 pm with Director of Nursing (DON) #2. DON #2 stated on 6/14/24 Nurse #1 observed during her morning medication pass Residents #299 and #300 were each missing 1 narcotic medication card containing 30 pills and the corresponding medication count sheet. DON #2 stated Nurse #1 revealed Resident #299 had 2 cards of Tramadol 50 mg and their corresponding count sheets and Resident #300 had 3 cards of Oxycodone 5 mg and their corresponding count sheets on 6/12/24 (the last day she worked) and now Resident #299 had 1 card of Tramadol 50 mg and the count sheet and Resident #300 had 2 cards of Oxycodone 5mg and their count sheets remaining. DON #2 stated Nurse #1 informed her during the narcotic medication count on 6/14/24 with the off going nightshift Nurse (Nurse #2), there was no discrepancy in the number of narcotic medication count sheets versus narcotic medication cards. DON #2 revealed an investigation was immediately initiated on 6/14/24, and the missing narcotic medications and the count sheets were unable to be located. DON #2 stated during the investigation it was discovered Nurse #2 had written on the Shift Change Controlled Substance Count Check form 2 narcotic medication prescription numbers of medications she had removed and allegedly sent back to the pharmacy on 6/13/24. DON #2 stated Nurse #2 had not written the residents' names by the prescription numbers or the reason for returning the medications, which is required. DON #2 stated the pharmacy was called and the prescription numbers were discovered to be fictious, and the pharmacy had not received any narcotic medications for Residents #299 or #300. DON #2 stated an audit of all narcotic medications, and their count sheets were completed, and no concerns were noted. The DON stated the State Agency, Department of Social Services, Police Department, Drug Enforcement Agency, and reported Nurse #2 to the Board of Nursing for alleged drug diversion were notified of the suspected misappropriation of narcotic medications. DON #2 stated she attempted to contact Nurse #2 to have her come in for an interview but was unsuccessful. The DON stated she notified the staffing agency that employed Nurse #2 of the suspicion and to also have Nurse #2 placed on the do not return list. DON #2 stated the facility replaced Residents #299 and #300's medication and at no time were they without pain medication. DON #2 stated the facility put a Performance Improvement Plan in place following the event. An interview was completed on 4/23/25 at 2:36 pm with Medication Aide #1. Medication Aide #1 stated she worked on the dayshift on 6/13/24 and did not recall any discrepancies in the narcotic medication count cards or count sheets. Medication Aide #1 stated she did not normally work that medication cart, so she would not have immediately recognized if any narcotic medication cards were missing. An interview was completed on 4/23/25 at 2:49 pm with Unit Nurse Manager #1. Unit Nurse Manager #1 stated Nurse #1 notified her of her suspicion of Residents #299 and #300 each missing 1 full narcotic medication card on 6/14/24. Unit Nurse Manager #1 stated she notified DON #2, and an investigation was initiated. Unit Nurse Manager # 1 stated a 100% audit was completed of all the medication carts and medication storage rooms, and the missing medications were unable to be located. Unit Nurse Manager #1 stated she continued to randomly audit narcotic medication count sheets, shift to shift narcotic counts, and Shift Change Controlled Substance Count Check sheets for discrepancies and has had no further concerns. A telephone interview was completed on 4/24/25 at 8:38 am with Nurse #1. Nurse #1 stated she was frequently assigned to care for Residents #299 and #300 during the dayshift. Nurse # 1 stated she was scheduled to work dayshift on 6/10/24, 6/11/24, 6/12/24, and 6/14/24. Nurse #1 stated she recalled on 6/12/24 Resident #299 had 2 full cards of narcotic medication and Resident #300 had 1 partial narcotic medication card and 2 full cards of narcotic medication. Nurse #1 stated when she completed her shift-to-shift narcotic medication count with Nurse #2 at the beginning of her dayshift on 6/14/24 the narcotic medication count was correct, and the number of narcotic medication count sheets matched the total number of narcotic medication cards. Nurse #1 stated it was during her morning medication when she noticed Residents #299 and #300 were each missing a card of narcotic medication and the corresponding medication count sheet. Nurse #1 stated both residents rarely requested the as needed narcotic pain medication, therefore a whole card should not have been used in the time she was away from the facility. Nurse #1 stated she searched the medication cart and medication storage room and was unable to locate the missing medication. Nurse #1 stated she alerted Unit Nurse Manager #1 and DON #2 of the missing medications. A telephone interview was completed on 4/24/25 at 8:44 am with Administrator #2. Administrator #2 stated DON #2 notified her of the missing narcotic medications on 6/14/24 and an investigation was started. Administrator #2 stated the missing narcotic medications, and their count sheets were unable to be located. Administrator #2 stated multiple attempts were made to contact Nurse #2, but they were unsuccessful. Administrator #2 stated the staffing agency that employed Nurse #2 was notified of the allegations and to not send Nurse #2 back into the facility. Administrator #2 stated a narcotic medication diversion report for Nurse #2 was filed with the Board of Nursing. A telephone interview was completed on 4/24/25 at 11:00 am with the facility's Pharmacist. The Pharmacist verified the pharmacy did not receive any cards of Tramadol 50 mg for Resident #299 or Oxycodone 5 mg for Resident #300 on or around 6/13/24. A telephone interview was completed on 4/24/25 at 11:13 am with Nurse #3. Nurse #3 was unable to recall if she signed in narcotic medications for Residents #299 and #300 on 5/31/24. Nurse #3 stated it was the facility's policy to have 2 nurses count and sign verifying the medication on the Pharmacy Narcotic Delivery Slip matched the medication delivered. An attempt to contact the investigating officer on 4/24/25 at 11:25 am was made, however it was unsuccessful. An interview was completed at 1:37 pm with Administrator #1. Administrator #1 stated she was not employed at the facility during the time of the misappropriation of the residents' narcotic medication. Administrator #1 stated she has had no concern of misappropriation of narcotic medication since becoming Administrator of the facility. Multiple attempts made to contact Nurse #2 were unsuccessful. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a date of 6/14/24 to begin monitoring and a completion date of 6/18/24. 1. Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice. On 06/14/2024 Resident #2 was assessed for pain by the Unit Manager and found to have no changes in pain level. The physician was notified with no new orders. At no time was resident without access to prescribed pain medication. On 06/14/2024 the following agencies were notified regarding the incident of unaccounted for narcotics: Local Police (1:30pm), Adult Protective Services (1:32pm) and the State Agency (2:07pm.) The Pharmacy was notified on 06/18/2024 for replacement of medications. On 06/18/2024 the Drug Enforcement Agency notification was made by the Administrator via an online reporting system. The Staffing Agency was notified by the Director of Nursing regarding suspected misappropriation of narcotic medication and the removal of their employee from our schedule as well as her being added to a do not return list for the facility. The agency indicated that they would initiate an investigation and report to the Board of Nursing. On 7/12/24 Nurse #3 the facility initiated a report of alleged narcotic drug diversion to the NC State Board of Nursing. 2. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. On 6/14/24 the Unit Nurse Managers completed an audit of the last 30 days of ordered narcotic medications to ensure the medications were in the medication carts, administered, or returned to the pharmacy per protocol. The Director of Nursing (DON) will initiate an investigation for any identified areas of concern. On 6/14/24 the DON/Unit Nurse Managers completed an audit of 100% of all residents' Controlled Substance Count sheets in comparison to the narcotic medication blister packs in the medication cart to ensure there were no discrepancies in the count of the medications. On 6/14/24 the DON/Designee will inspect the narcotic blister pill packages for any tampering of medications. On 6/14/24 the Unit Nurse Managers initiated assessments of all residents for pain. The Charge Nurse will address and initiate non-pharmacological interventions, pain medication, and/or Physician notification for any identified areas of concern during the audit. The audit will be completed by 6/14/24. On 6/14/24 the Unit Nurse Managers completed interviews with all alert and oriented residents regarding (1) Do you have any concerns with medication administration to include pain medication? A concern form will be completed for any identified areas of concern. On 6/18/24 the Human Resources Coordinator will complete an audit of all nurses and medication aides license verifications and HCPI checks. All areas of concern will be addressed during the audit. On 6/14/24 the Nursing Supervisor reviewed packing slips for the past 30 days to ensure all narcotic medications were checked in appropriately and accounted for. 3. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur. On 6/14/24 the Nursing Supervisor initiated an in-service with all nurses and medication aides regarding Controlled Substance Diversion to include the definition, implications, and the process for returning narcotic medications. All in-services will be completed on 6/18/24. After 6/18/24, all nurses or medication aides that have not worked and received the in-service will complete upon their next scheduled shift. 4. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. Include dates when corrective action will be completed. The decision to monitor the system for monitoring of narcotics was made on 06/14/2024 by the Administrator and Director of Nursing and presented to the Quality Assurance Committee on 06/14/2024. 100% of all ordered narcotic medications will be reviewed by the DON/Unit Nurse Manager weekly x 4 weeks and compared to the Controlled Substance Count Sheets, medication administration record, and/or return of drug slips to ensure the narcotic medications are being administered or have been returned to the pharmacy as required per policy and there are no signs of drug diversion utilizing the Controlled Substance Audit tool. All areas of concern will be addressed during the audit including reeducating nurses. The DON will review and initial the audits weekly x 4 weeks then monthly x 1 month to ensure all areas of concern are addressed appropriately. The Administrator or DON will present the findings of the Audit Tools to the QAPI Committee monthly for 2 months. The QAPI Committee will meet monthly for 2 months and review the Audit Tools to determine trends and/or issues that may need further interventions and the need for additional monitoring. Alleged date of compliance: 6/18/24
Aug 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews of the staff, physician, and family member, the facility failed to follow the resident's h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews of the staff, physician, and family member, the facility failed to follow the resident's hospital physican order from the discharge summary for sliding scale insulin which included blood glucose checks (normal range 70 to 120) before meals and at bedtime and to check a resident with diabetes blood glucose as indicated in the standing orders when staff was unable to wake him for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for diabetic care (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] documented diagnoses of diabetes, diabetic right foot ulcer, and amputation of the right fifth toe. The resident had blood glucose checks before every meal (3) and at bedtime. The discharge summary included Resident #1's insulin medication orders as follows: - Lispro 100 units/milliliter solution pen-injector. Inject subcutaneous (below the skin) 15 units before meals, sliding scale (fast acting insulin that requires blood glucose check before meals and at bedtime to determine the amount of insulin in addition or less according to the blood glucose level). - Lantus 100 units/milliliter solution pen-injector. Inject subcutaneous 20 units at bedtime, sliding scale (long-acting insulin that required a blood glucose check before administration). Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for orthopedic after care of right fifth toe amputation from diabetic ulcer and had the diagnosis of diabetes. Resident #1's physician orders for insulin dated 8/1/24 were as follows (entered by Nurse #4): - Lispro 100 units/milliliter solution pen-injector. Inject subcutaneous (below the skin) 15 units before meals for diabetes. (This order was not the same as the hospital discharge summary, the sliding scale and accompanying blood glucose check before meals and at bedtime was missing). - Lantus 100 units/milliliter solution pen-injector. Inject subcutaneous 20 units at bedtime for diabetes. (This order was not the same as the hospital discharge summary, the blood glucose check was missing). Resident #1 had standing orders dated 8/1/24 as follows: - Accu-checks (fingerstick blood glucose) before meals and at bedtime for all diabetics, diet controlled, or on oral agents, or insulin for 7 days. Notify the physician of results on day 8. Call the physician for blood sugar less than 60 or greater than 500. - For blood sugars less than 60 give orange juice with two packs of sugar. Recheck in 15 minutes. If still less than 60 contact the physician. For blood sugars greater than 500 contact the physician. Resident #1 had a baseline care plan dated 8/1/24 that addressed his aftercare orthopedic needs and diabetic care. On 8/28/24 at 12:50 pm Nurse #4 was interviewed. Nurse #4 stated that she was the admitting nurse for Resident #1 on 8/1/24 at 5:00 pm. Nurse #4 stated she entered the resident's orders into the electronic medical record including medication from the resident's hospital discharge summary. The summary had the insulin type and dosage and documented sliding scale next to it. Nurse #4 stated she called the physician on 8/1/24 to discuss the Lantus insulin which was long acting because the hospital order had sliding scale. She explained long-acting insulin doses were prescribed with the same dosage and were not given on a sliding scale. Nurse #4 further explained the physician directed her to give the Lantus, as ordered with no sliding scale. She indicated there was no directive received from the physician related to checking blood glucose levels (as indicated in the standing orders). Nurse #4 stated she did not recall if there was short acting insulin because the resident was admitted after mealtime. The nurse further stated she had not checked the resident's blood glucose. She indicated her shift ended at 8:00 pm and she had not administered insulin. Nurse #4 stated Resident #1's admission was her first admission she completed by herself as she usually worked the night shift. She reported there was a feature in the medication record to initiate for nurses to check the blood glucose before giving the Lantus. Nurse #4 stated she was not aware of this feature and was informed during education when she returned to work 8/5/24. She further stated that feature was normally initiated for all new admits receiving Lantus and she had not initiated this feature with the Lantus order for Resident #1. Nurse #4 commented 20 Units of Lantus was a lot of insulin, and a nurse would check the blood glucose before administering. The Lispro short acting insulin had a sliding scale automatically appear in the medication record parameter to choose. But it didn't automatically appear as expected when the order was put in the record. Nurse #4 stated she was not aware the sliding scale with blood glucose check for Lispro insulin before meals and at bedtime had not been initiated with the order to appear in the MAR (Medication Administration Record). Nurse #4 observed the resident's August MAR during interview and could see there was no parameter for sliding scale for the Lispro insulin or blood glucose check before the Lantus administration. Nurse #4 stated she discussed Resident #1 with the Director of Nursing (DON) and admission Nurse on Monday 8/5/24 when she returned to work that the sliding scale was missed. The DON provided education on how to initiate the blood glucose check with Lantus insulin and how to initiate sliding scale and blood glucose checks with Lispro insulin in the record to appear in the MAR for nurses to check. A review of Resident #1's MAR for 8/1/24 - 8/3/24 revealed he was administered Lispro 100 units/milliliter solution pen-injector 15 units before meals and Lantus 100 units/milliliter solution pen-injector 20 units at bedtime for diabetes. There was no documentation of sliding scale along with the Lispro (short acting insulin) and no blood glucose fingerstick checks before meals and at bedtime prior to the Lantus (long-acting insulin) being administered. A review of Resident #1's nurses' notes for his admission [DATE] - 8/3/24) revealed no documentation of fingerstick blood glucose being completed. Resident #1's lab glucose blood draw on 8/2/24 and result on 8/3/24 was 69 (range 70 - 99 normal) for admission. A review of the nurses' documented shift-change report revealed Resident #1 had a fingerstick blood glucose check on 8/3/24 at 4:30 pm with a value of 167 entered by Nurse #1. On 8/27/24 at 1:40 pm an interview was conducted Nurse #1. Nurse #1 stated she was assigned to Resident #1 on 8/3/24 day shift, 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. Nurse #1 stated that the resident was ordered 15 units of Lispro, which was fast acting, before meals. Nurse #1 stated that the resident had no have sliding scale orders in his record and the hospital discharge summary was not available. She stated that 15 units of Lispro was a lot of insulin to administer without checking the blood glucose. Nurse #1 stated she checked the resident's blood glucose without an order before administering the insulin twice on her shift as a nursing judgement. Nurse #1 stated she had never seen a resident with fast acting insulin not have an order to check the blood glucose before meals and at bedtime and had not asked the physician for an order. Nurse #4 stated she reported the blood glucose level taken to nursing staff at shift change and documented one result in the 24-hour shift report. Nurse #1 had not seen any documentation of other blood glucose checks in the 24-hour report, had not received verbal report, or documented in the resident's record. Nurse #1 stated that nurses documented blood glucose in the progress notes if there was no place on the MAR. Nurse #1 stated she had not documented the resident's blood glucose she took in the nursing progress notes. A Nurse's' note dated 8/4/24 by Nurse #2 was created at 1:08 am revealed Resident #1 was sent out to the hospital on 8/3/24 at 11:40 pm. The staff went into the resident's room to change him around 11:00 pm and he was unresponsive and had foam at his mouth. The resident's vital signs were blood pressure 151/109, pulse 63, temperature 98.1 Fahrenheit, respirations 20, and oxygen saturation 94% (normal range 90 to 100%) on room air. When Emergency Medical Services arrived, the resident's blood glucose was 24. The resident was taken to the hospital for further evaluation. On 8/29/24 at 12:15 pm an interview was conducted with Nurse #2. Nurse #2 stated she was assigned to Resident #1 on 8/3/24 7:00 pm to 7:00 am. Nurse #2 received in nursing shift report that the resident was a deep sleeper and difficult to arouse at night. Nurse #2 stated she administered Lantus insulin and Oxycodone at 9:30 pm and the resident was alert and awake. At approximately 11:00 pm or so, Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 reported to Nurse #2 that she could not arouse the resident, and he had some foam around his mouth. The resident was not in any apparent distress and was breathing on his own. His color was unchanged. Nurse #2 stated she tried to wake the resident, and he would not wake. She tried sternal rub and the resident moaned. Nurse #2 stated she took the resident's vital signs, and they were normal for him except the blood pressure was higher. Nurse #2 stated she had NA #1 remain with the resident and she called the physician. The physician provided an order to send the resident out. She indicated she called 911 and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived in about 7 minutes. She reported the whole process took about 15 to 20 minutes Nurse #2 indicated the resident was observed and remained stable breathing on his own until EMS arrived. Nurse #2 stated she had not believed the resident had a blood glucose issue because he had the foam around his mouth and could have had a seizure. The physician had not ordered a blood glucose check and ordered for the resident to be sent out. On 8/29/24 at 12:35 pm an interview was conducted with NA #1. NA #1 stated she was assigned to Resident #1 on 8/3/24 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. NA #1 stated that during her usual rounds at approximately 11:00 pm she observed the resident lying in his bed supine. The resident appeared comfortable as if he was sleeping. She indicated when she went to arouse the resident for nighttime care she noticed some foam around his mouth. She indicated she tried to wake the resident by shaking him and he did not arouse. NA #1 stated the resident's color was normal and could see he was breathing on his own. NA #1 indicated she went and got Nurse #2. The nurse tried to arouse the resident and received very little response, and he would not wake up. NA #2 stated that the nurse took the resident's vital signs, and they were normal except the blood pressure was high. The resident was breathing on his own. She reported the time from finding the resident and calling the physician and then EMS was about 15 to 20 minutes. Resident #1's EMS record documented first set of vital signs at 11:39 pm on 8/3/24 were blood pressure 216/99, pulse 116, respirations 20, and oxygen saturation 93% on room air. The resident was unresponsive. The blood glucose was 24 and intravenous therapy was started for hypoglycemia. Resident #1's hospital record documented he was seen in the Emergency Department on 8/4/24 and was diagnosed with sepsis from his right foot ulcer/recent toe amputation which caused renal failure and profound hypoglycemia. The hypoglycemia was resistant to treatment until the sepsis was treated. On 8/27/24 at 4:55 pm an interview was conducted with the physician. The physician stated that the resident had just been admitted (8/1/24) and he had not seen the resident yet. The physician stated he looked at the resident's orders and agreed/signed upon admission. The physician was aware that the hospital discharge summary order for insulin included sliding scale which would mean before meals and at bedtime blood glucose check. He stated his impression was that the nursing staff was checking the resident's blood glucose. He revealed this appeared to have been missed. The physician stated that he was not aware of the admitting blood glucose lab reported on 8/3/24 of 69, he would be looking at the finger stick blood glucose checks 4 times a day by staff to determine the significance. There were 3 finger stick blood glucose checks (one was documented) and one blood glucose lab over the 2 days the resident was at the facility. The physician also commented that he was scheduled to see the resident on 8/4/24 and would have seen the lab drawn blood glucose of 69 resulted on 8/3/24. On 8/29/24 at 2:14 pm a follow up interview was conducted with the physician. The physician stated that he was on call on 8/3/24, all weekend. The physician had not remembered the particulars of Resident #1. He stated if the staff used the airway, breathing, and circulation check for an emergency and the vital signs were stable, it was acceptable to call him and not 911 immediately. The physician reported the staff call 911 for emergencies and not the physician when residents were not stable, or the cause of change was known. A fingerstick glucose check could be part of the emergency assessment. The physician indicated if the nurse was unsure of the cause of the change, as was in this case a seizure was suspected, it was acceptable to contact him first and received direction since the resident had been assessed and vital signs were stable. EMS was close by, arrived quickly, and addressed the issue. The point was the resident needed a higher level of care and the nurse had sought this. The outcome was unchanged. The resident had sepsis from his recent foot surgical site that needed treatment to control the hypoglycemia. On 8/28/24 at 1:30 pm the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated when Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE], the physician had not provided orders for blood glucose check by fingerstick before meals and at bedtime, which is part of sliding scale. (The standing orders said check blood glucose before meals and at bedtime for 7 days.) The DON stated all residents in the facility that had short acting insulin ordered had a blood glucose check before meals and at bedtime. She indicated she could see how there was confusion due to the Lantus order from the hospital discharge summary noted sliding scale, however, you would check the blood glucose before administration. The DON stated the physician would have added the sliding scale before meals and at bedtime for the Lispro insulin on Sunday 8/4/24 when the physician would have come in to see the resident. She reported if the resident had signs and symptoms of a change, we would have called the physician and informed him of the assessment. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a completion date of 8/8/24: 1. Corrective action for resident(s) affected by the alleged deficient practice: Resident #1 was sent to the hospital on 8/3/24 for hypoglycemia and altered mental status. The resident was treated at the hospital for hypoglycemia and sepsis that caused the hypoglycemia. The resident had not returned to the facility. 2. Corrective action for residents with the potential to be affected by the alleged deficient practice: On 8/6/24, the DON/Unit Manager initiated an audit of all diabetic residents to ensure orders are in place for fingerstick as ordered by the physician. The Unit Managers contacted the physician for any residents on diabetic medications identified without a fingerstick order to validate need for monitoring. A justification note was documented in the clinical record by the Unit Managers for any diabetic resident that the physician does not want blood sugar obtained. Orders were written for all other diabetic residents that require blood sugar monitoring. The audit was completed on 8/8/24. On 8/6/24, the DON/Unit Manager initiated an audit of all residents receiving insulin to ensure sliding scare was initiated per physician orders when indicated or the physician was notified if the order did not specify amount/type of insulin to be administered based on fasting blood glucose level, frequency to be administered, and/or parameters for notification of the physician. The DON/Unit Manager addressed all concerns identified during the audit to include verifying with the physician the need for sliding scale insulin, updating the Medication Administration Record when indicated and education of all nursing staff. The audit was completed on 8/8/24. On 8/6/24, the DON/Unit Manager initiated an audit of all newly written standing orders for glucose monitoring for residents on diabetic medications from 8/1/24-8/6/24. This audit was to ensure that standing orders were activated and completed per physician orders. The DON/Unit Managers addressed all concerns identified during the audit to include but not limited to activating orders when indicated and/or education of staff. The audit was completed on 8/8/24. 3. Measures/Systemic changes to prevent reoccurrence of alleged deficient practice: All nursing staff participated in in-services entitled hypoglycemia, observations of and reporting changes in resident's condition, acute changes, when to notify the physician by telephone, and emergency management by the Director of Nursing completed on 8/8/24 4. Monitoring Procedure to ensure that the plan of correction is effective, and that specific deficiency cited remains corrected and/or in compliance with regulatory requirements. Beginning 8/5/24, the Admissions Nurse/Unit Managers/ADON will review discharge summary for all new admissions/readmissions 5 times a week for discharge summary, for 4 weeks, then monthly for 1 month utilizing the Diabetic Audit Tool. This audit is to ensure all residents admitted with diagnosis of diabetes have blood glucose monitoring orders in place and/or validate with the physician the need for blood glucose monitoring and to ensure the nurse verified with the physician any sliding scale insulin order that does not specify amount/type of insulin to be administered based on fasting blood sugar level, frequency to be administered, and/or parameters for notification of the physician before transcribing to the Medication Administration Record. The Director of Nursing will review the Diabetic Audit Tool 5 times a week for 4 weeks, then monthly for 1 month to ensure all concerns are addressed. The Admissions Nurse/Unit Manager will audit all newly written standing orders to include orders for glucose monitoring utilizing the Standing Orders Audit Tool 5 times a week for 4 weeks, then monthly for 1 moth. This audit is to ensure standing orders were activated and medication and/or glucose monitoring completed per physicians' orders. The Admissions Nurse/Unit Managers will address all concerns identified during the audit to include activating orders when indicated and/or retraining of staff. The DON will review the audit 5 times a week for 4 weeks, then monthly for 1 month to ensure all concerns are addressed. The Director of Nursing will present the findings of the Diabetic Audit Tool and the Standing Orders Audit Tool to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee monthly for 2 months for review and to determine trends and/or issues that may need further interventions put into placed and to determine the need for further frequency monitoring. Ad hoc QAPI meeting held on 8/8/24. Compliance Date: 8/9/24 Validation of the corrective action plan was completed on 8/30/24: There was a signed roster of clinical staff who received in-service for sliding scale insulin blood glucose monitoring, how to input admission orders and activate standing orders, and to verify any unclear admission orders with the hospital and physician. The nursing staff also participated in acute changes, hypoglycemia, when to notify the physician, and emergency management for the in-services. The medication record was reviewed for eight diabetic residents with insulin. All residents had orders for blood glucose monitoring and sliding scale for short acting insulin. There was documentation of initial audit as well as on-going monitoring audits as part of the quality assurance plan. Nurses #1, #2, #3, and #4, NA #1, the Admitting Nursing, the Director of Nursing, and the physician were all interviewed and were able to state nursing received education for diabetic residents admitted with insulin orders and the need for blood glucose checks and sliding scale for fast-acting insulin and to evaluate blood glucose when a diabetic resident had received insulin or oral anti-glycemic medication and there was a change in status. The completion date of 8/9/24 was validated.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a cognitively intact resident from verb...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a cognitively intact resident from verbal and physical abuse by a family member when Family Member #1 threw cold tea and water onto Resident #1, put her hands around Resident #1's throat, threatened to kill her and pushed Resident #1 onto the bed. This resulted in redness to Resident #1's neck. Resident #1 was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation and returned the same day with a diagnosis of the strain of the neck muscle. Staff reported the resident appeared out of breath, nervous, and shocked following the incident. A reasonable person would have experienced feelings such as fear, anxiety, and humiliation. This was for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic pain syndrome. A review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. A review of a nurse progress note written by Agency Nurse #1 completed for Resident #1 dated 5/17/24 at 8:15 PM revealed that Resident #1 walked out of the room to the hallway using her walker, stated Family Member #1 threw tea and water on her and choked her. Resident #1 was drenched in tea (cold tea) and water. Vital signs were taken and oxygen 2 liters given via nasal canula. The residents' skin was assessed, and redness was noted on her neck. Tylenol was given for general pain. The Nurse Practitioner was made aware and an order was received to be sent to ER (emergency room) for evaluation and treatment. Agency Nurse #1 did not respond to attempts to contact her via telephone for an interview. In an interview on 6/04/24 at 2:49 PM Nurse #1 revealed she had been working on Resident #1's discharge on [DATE] as she was scheduled to discharge home that day. Family Member #1 arrived and made multiple excuses for why she could not take Resident #1 home. Nurse #1 revealed that after talking with Family Member #1, she (Family Member #1) went to Resident #1's room, Nurse #1 believed to discuss the discharge with the resident and closed the door. Nurse #1 revealed she was with the Social Worker (SW) approximately 20-30 minutes later when they (Nurse #1 and the SW) saw Family Member #1 walking fast down the hall and noticed that her necklace was broken. When asked what happened to her necklace Family Member #1 began cursing, stated Resident #1 broke the necklace and she (Family Member #1) continued walking. Nurse #1 indicated she went to check on the resident and saw Resident #1 out of her room and overheard her telling Agency Nurse #1 that Family Member #1 tried to choke her. She indicated Resident #1 seemed out of breath so Nurse #1 provided her with oxygen and encouraged her to take deep breaths and calm down. Resident #1 indicated Family Member #1 had thrown tea (cold tea) and water on her, tried to choke her by putting her (Family Member #1's) hands around her throat, and then pushed her back onto her bed. Family Member #2 then pulled Family Member #1 off the resident. Nurse #1 revealed the resident's shirt and pants were wet, and there was liquid on the chair and floor in her room. Nurse #1 revealed she immediately reported the incident to the Director of Nursing (DON) who went to check on the resident. Nurse #1 reported that Resident #1 seemed shocked about what had happened and out of breath as she had waited all day to discharge home and Family Member #1 refused. In an interview on 6/04/24 at 3:00 PM the SW revealed on 5/17/24 she had been working with the Family Member #1 from 11:30 AM till 4:00 PM arranging Resident #1's discharge. She indicated shortly afterwards she saw Family Member #1 in the hall and noticed her necklace was broken. When she asked what had happened, Family Member #1 began cursing Resident #1 and accused her (Resident #1) of breaking her necklace. The SW indicated Nurse #1 was with her and left to check on Resident #1. The SW reported after the incident, she and Nurse #1 encouraged Resident #1 to remain in the facility over the weekend so they could arrange a safe discharge on the following Monday. She indicated Resident #1 was nervous and shaken by the incident. The SW indicated while working with Family Member #1 she had no indication the incident would occur. In a telephone interview with Resident #1 on 6/04/24 at 1:59 PM she reported that 5/17/24 was the first time anything like that had happened and she did not want to talk about it anymore. A review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] at 6:55 PM documented Resident #1 was brought in from the nursing facility for evaluation of possible injuries from an assault by Family Member #1 who was supposed to take her home today. Family Member #1 was reportedly trying to choke Resident #1 and was pulled away quickly. She has been arrested. Resident #1 notes pain in the left paraspinal muscles (muscles that support the back) but no anterior neck pain. Resident #1 was diagnosed with left neck strain. No other injuries were noted on the exam. Resident #1 was discharged back to nursing. Resident #1 was noted to take acetaminophen for discomfort. Review of the Police Report completed on 5/17/24 at 4:56 PM documented the police received a report of a Crime Incident of Assault-Physical the facility. The police investigation was still in process. In an interview on 6/04/24 at 12:56 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated that Family Member #1 arrived on 5/17/24 to discuss plans for Resident #1's discharge home. She revealed the SW had 24-hour care lined up, however Family Member #1 was stalling and decided to not follow through with the discharge plan. The DON revealed the SW reported to her the family was upset, and she sent Nurse #1 down to see Resident #1, who then reported the incident to her. The DON indicated staff remained with Resident #1 and when interviewed by the police, Resident #1, repeated the same story. Resident #1 stated she told Family Member #1 she wanted to go home, and Family Member #1 went crazy on her. Resident #1 reported Family Member #1 said she would kill her, put her hands around her neck and pushed her back onto her bed and if Family Member #2 had not pulled her away, she may have been hurt. The DON reported Resident #1 had light red marks underneath her chin and complained of some neck pain. They called the Medical Doctor and received the order to send to the ED for evaluation. Resident #1 returned from the ED that same day with no new orders, and to follow up with her own physician. During that time, Family Member #1 and Family Member #2 returned to the facility, were stopped from entering the facility and the police arrested Family Member #1. The DON revealed Resident #1 agreed to stay the weekend, to allow time to arrange a safe discharge and on the following Monday (5/20/24) she went home with a family friend and with 24-hour services in place. In an interview on 6/04/24 at 12:53 PM the Administrator indicated she was not in the building on 5/17/24 when Resident #1 reported that Family Member #1 had thrown cold tea and water on her. She indicated the DON immediately notified the police. She reported Family Member #1 was arrested later that evening when she returned to the facility. The Administrator reported that they had no prior indication Family Member #1 would become physical with Resident #1. The facility provided the following corrective action plan: Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice: On 5/17/24 the resident notified the Charge Nurse that during a visit at the facility Family Member #1 threw a glass of tea and attempted to throw a glass of water on the resident then put her hands around the resident's neck and stated, I will kill you. The resident stated Family Member #1 pushed the resident hard back onto the bed, hitting the resident's leg with her shoe. Family Member #2 intervened, and both the Family Member #1 and Family Member #2 left the facility. On 5/17/24 at approximately 4:45pm, the Social Worker and the Unit Manager reported to the Director of Nursing that an altercation had occurred between the resident and the Family Member #1. The Unit Manager completed a skin assessment on the resident which revealed red marks on both sides of her neck. The resident complained of neck pain. On 5/17/24 At approximately 5:00 pm, the Unit Manager notified the physician of altercation and resident assessment with a new order to send the resident to the emergency department for evaluation. The staff stayed with the resident for emotional support. On 5/17/24 at approximately 4:50 pm, the Director of Nursing notified the local police department of alleged family to resident abuse. On 5/17/24 at approximately 5:25pm, the Director of Nursing notified Adult Protective Services (APS) of alleged family to resident abuse. On 5/17/24 at approximately 5:45pm the local police arrived and interviewed the resident with the same findings as the facility. During this time, Family Member #1 arrived back at the facility and was intercepted by the receptionist and police. On 5/17/24 at approximately 6:10 pm, the resident was transported to the Emergency Department. On 5/17/24 at approximately 6:30 pm, all current staff were educated, and a sign with a picture of Family Member #1 and Family Member #2 was placed at the front screening desk and time clock that the Family Member #1 and Family Member #2 were not allowed to visit. On 5/17/24 at approximately 11:45pm, the resident returned from the hospital with a diagnosis of strain of neck muscle, and alleged assault. There were no new orders received. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice: On 5/17/24, skin checks were initiated on all residents who are unable to report signs/symptoms of abuse by the hall nurse. A skin check assessment tool will be utilized with documentation in the electronic medical record. The skin checks were completed by 5/20/24 with no identified areas of concern. On 5/17/24, the Social Worker interviewed all alert and oriented residents regarding abuse. Questionnaires included: Do you know what abuse means? Are there any instances that you felt you were abused in any way that has not been addressed to include verbal abuse and/or abuse by family or visitors? Do you know who to report abuse to? Do you feel safe here? There were no additional concerns identified during resident interviews. Residents were educated on abuse to include domestic abuse and how to report abuse by the Social Worker during the interviews. The interviews were completed by 5/20/24. On 5/17/24, the Director of Nursing initiated questionnaires with all nurses, nursing assistants, medication aides, dietary staff, housekeeping staff, therapy staff, Administrator, Admissions Coordinator, Accounts Receivable, Account Payable, Activities Director, Medical Records, Central Supply Clerk, Maintenance Director, Social Worker (SW), and receptionist regarding: Do you know of any resident that you have witnessed or that has reported abuse to you that has not been addressed to include abuse by resident family and/or visitor? If yes: Please explain. The Administrator and/or DON will address all concerns identified during the questionnaires to include but not limited to assessment of the resident and reporting concerns per facility guidelines. The questionnaires were completed by 5/20/24. After 5/20/24, any staff that had not worked or who had not completed the questionnaire will complete it upon the next scheduled shift. On 5/17/24, the Director of Nursing initiated an audit of all resident progress notes for the past 30 days. This audit is to identify any concerns related to abuse to include but not limited to verbal abuse and/or abuse by family or visitors. The DON will address all concerns identified during the audit to include assessment of the resident and reporting concerns per facility protocol. Audit was completed by 5/20/24. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur: On 5/17/24 the facility posted a picture of Family Member #1 and Family Member #2 at the front screening desk and time clock to ensure they are not permitted in the facility. On 5/17/24 the DON initiated in-services with all nurses, nursing assistants, medication aides, dietary staff, housekeeping staff, therapy staff, Administrator, Admissions Coordinator, Accounts Receivable, Account Payable, Activities Director, Medical Records, Central Supply Clerk, Maintenance Director, Social Worker (SW), and receptionist regarding Abuse to include the definition of, domestic, verbal, and physical abuse, immediately removing/protecting resident from abuse and reporting abuse to the Administrator and/or DON. In-service was completed by 5/20/24. After 5/20/24, any staff who had not completed the in-service will complete it prior to the next scheduled work shift. Proactively the facility mailed in-services to any staff who had not worked or completed the in-service with instructions to read, sign and return to the Administrator and/or DON prior to the next scheduled work shift. All newly hired staff will be in service during orientation regarding Abuse. On 5/20/24 Abuse Quizzes was initiated by the Unit Managers and Social Workers with all nurses, nursing assistants, medication aides, dietary staff, housekeeping staff, therapy staff, Administrator, Admissions Coordinator, Accounts Receivable, Account Payable, Activities Director, Medical Records, Central Supply Clerk, Maintenance Director, Social Worker (SW), and receptionist. The quizzes included questions regarding (1) What to do first if you witness a resident being abused to include abuse by a family member or visitor? (2) If you witness abuse, when do you report it? (3) Who do you report abuse to? (4) if a family member is verbally or physically abusive to a resident, what do you do? (5) Who is the abuse officer/coordinator? The purpose of the abuse quizzes is to ensure that all staff display successful knowledge and understanding of abuse to include domestic abuse, intervening when abuse is witnessed or suspected and reporting abuse. The abuse quizzes were completed by 5/20/24. After 5/20/24, any remaining staff that had not worked and not received the quizzes will complete it upon next scheduled shift. On 5/20/24, the Social Worker and Activities Director held an impromptu Resident Council Meeting with alert and oriented residents to review the definition of abuse to include domestic abuse, signs, and symptoms of abuse, what to do in an abusive situation and reporting abuse. The Social Worker educated any alert and oriented resident who did not attend the meeting 1:1. The education was completed by 5/20/24. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained: The IDT team to include the Administrator, DON, ADON, Unit Managers, and Social Worker, will review resident progress notes utilizing the Concerns Audit tool 5 times a week x 4 weeks during the IDT meeting. This audit is to identify any concerns related to abuse to include but not limited to verbal abuse and/or abuse by family or visitors. The Administrator and DON will address all concerns identified during the audit to determine if further actions are needed. The Social Worker will interview 10 alert and oriented residents regarding abuse weekly x 4 weeks utilizing the abuse questionnaire. Questionnaires included: Do you know what abuse means? Are there any instances that you felt you were abused in any way that has not been addressed to include verbal abuse and/or abuse by family or visitors? Do you know who to report abuse to? Do you feel safe here? The Social Worker will address all concerns identified during the questionnaires to include notification of the Administrator and/or DON per facility protocol. 10 Abuse Quizzes will be completed by the Unit Managers, Treatment nurse, RN Supervisors and/or Quality Assurance Nurse with staff weekly x 4 weeks to include nurses, nursing assistants, medication aides, dietary staff, housekeeping staff, therapy staff, Administrator, Admissions Coordinator, Accounts Receivable, Account Payable, Activities Director, Medical Records, Central Supply Clerk, Maintenance Director, Social Worker (SW), and receptionist. The quizzes are to ensure staff maintain knowledge and understanding of the abuse policy, reporting abuse and protection of the resident. The Nursing Supervisor, Staff Facilitator and Quality Assurance nurse will address all areas of concern identified during the quiz to include re-education of staff. The DON and/or Administrator will review quizzes weekly x 4 weeks to ensure all concerns are addressed. Audits will be reviewed by Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) monthly for 3 months to ensure compliance is achieved and maintained. Include dates when corrective action will be completed: 5/21/24 Onsite validation was completed on 6/05/24 through staff interviews, and record review. Staff were interviewed to validate in-services completed on domestic, verbal and physical abuse and reporting abuse to the Administrator and/or DON. A review of the audits of resident progress notes for past abuse and a review of skin checks for all residents unable to report signs/symptoms of abuse were confirmed to be completed. Review of the questionnaires for all alert and oriented residents interviewed for abuse and review of the questionnaires for all staff do they know of any resident who had been abused were verified. Review of the Abuse quizzes for all staff and the Concerns Audit tool revealed no concerns. Review of residents' progress notes audited for past abuse and resident interviews verified no additional issues were identified. The facility's action plan was validated to be completed as of 5/21/24.
Feb 2024 14 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff, Physician, and resident interviews the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when Nurse #1 administered Resident #63 medications prescribed to Resident #340 to include carvedilol (a medication classified as a beta blocker used to lower the heart rate and high blood pressure) 25 milligram (mg), losartan (a medication to treat high blood pressure) 25 mg, hydralazine (a medication to treat high blood pressure) 100 mg, and apixaban (a medication to thin the blood) 5 mg on 01/14/24. Resident #63 had previously received her own prescribed carvedilol 25 mg and losartan 100 mg that morning prior to receiving Resident #340's medication which resulted in duplicate medication. Resident #63 was transported by Emergency Medical Services to the hospital emergency department (ED) where she required intravenous (IV) (directly into the vein) administration of norepinephrine (a medication used to treat life threatening hypotension) to increase her blood pressure, 2 liters of IV fluids, and was admitted to critical care management for treatment to prevent life-threatening conditions of shock and toxidrome (a syndrome caused by dangerous levels for toxins in the body, often the consequence of a drug overdose). This deficient practice affected 1 of 5 residents reviewed for significant medication errors. Findings included: Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included hypertension, heart failure, cirrhosis of the liver, and renal failure. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #63 was cognitively intact and received an antiplatelet (medication to prevent blood cells called platelets from clumping together to form a clot). Review of the January 2024 physician orders for Resident #63 revealed orders for carvedilol 25 mg and losartan 100 mg. Resident #63 had no orders for hydralazine 100 mg or apixaban 5 mg. Review of the January 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that on 01/14/24 at 8:00 am Resident #63 received all her scheduled medications as ordered to include, carvedilol 25 mg and losartan 100 mg, as evidenced by nursing initials for Nurse #1 and a checkmark on the MAR. Resident #340 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #340's physician orders included carvedilol 25 milligram (mg), losartan 25 mg, hydralazine 100 mg, and apixaban 5 mg. In a record review of a medication error incident report completed by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) dated 01/14/24 at 10:45 am it was revealed that a medication error had occurred for Resident #63 when the medication nurse (Nurse #1) scanned medication for administration prescribed to Resident # 340 (who had the same first name as Resident #63) and instead administered the medication to Resident #63. The review further revealed that the medication nurse (Nurse #1) identified Resident #63 by her first name only. Resident #63 received medications not prescribed to her that included: losartan 25 mg, carvedilol 25 mg, and apixaban 5 mg. A record review of a Facility Witness Statement dated 01/14/24 written by Nurse #1 revealed that Nurse #1 administered medication intended for another resident to Resident #63. It further revealed that she entered Resident #63's room and called her by her first name, and Resident #63 answered. Nurse #1 then administered the medication [intended for Resident #340] to Resident #63. As she was exiting Resident #1's room she realized she administered the medication to the wrong resident. The review further revealed that Nurse #1 immediately notified the DON who informed her to notify the Physician and she then paged Physician #2 and he responded and informed Nurse #1 to send Resident #63 to the hospital. She indicated she called EMS and then assessed the resident until EMS arrived. She then notified the family of the medication error, and that Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for monitoring. The completion of this document was signed as witnessed by the DON and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). Review of a nursing progress note written by Nurse #1 dated 01/14/24 at 3:36 pm revealed Resident #63 received her medications 8:00 am. She remained in bed and stated she was feeling better. At 11:00 am, Nurse #1 scanned and prepared another resident's [Resident # 640] medications, walked into Resident #63's room and identified her by first name. Resident #63 received duplicates of carvedilol and losartan as well as a single dose of apixaban. On exiting the room Nurse #1 became aware of the mistake. She checked Resident #63's B/P with results of 159/86 (increased blood pressure) and rechecked 30 min. later with results of 110/68 (decreased blood pressure). Notified the on-call Physician #2. Orders were received from Physician #2 to send Resident #63 to the emergency department. The family member was notified. EMS arrived and transported Resident #63 to the hospital on [DATE] at 12:15 pm. Review of a nursing progress note written by Nurse #1 dated 01/14/24 at 4:02 pm revealed that this note was an addition to Nurse #1's note dated 1/14/24 at 3:36 pm. The documentation indicated that Resident #63 remained alert and oriented, awake and answering questions appropriately. Respirations remained unlabored, at a rate of 16 when emergency medical services arrived. Resident #63's skin was documented as warm, dry, and pale. She denied pain and stated, I'm just really tired. Resident #63 sat up and moved to the gurney with the assistance of the emergency medical technician. An NA remained with Resident #63 until she was transported. In a phone interview with Nurse #1 on 02/08/24 at 11:24 am it was revealed that she was the weekend supervisor on 01/14/24 and had been assigned to Resident #63's unit that day after another nurse did not show up for her shift. She further stated that she was not typically assigned to a medication cart and was unfamiliar with the resident and unit. Nurse #1 stated she had given Resident #63 her prescribed medications around 8:00 am on 01/14/24. She further stated that around noon on 1/14/24 she prepared medications prescribed for Resident #340, who had the same first name as Resident #63. Resident #340 resided in the room next to Resident #63. Nurse #1 stated she entered Resident #63's room with the medications she had prepared for Resident #340 in error. She stated she only looked at the first name on the room door name plate and called Resident #63 by her first name and that Resident #63 responded yes. She further added that she did not verify Resident #63's last name or date of birth and did not compare the picture on the MAR like she should have. Nurse #1 indicated that she then gave the medication that she had prepared for Resident #340 to Resident #63 and by the time she got back to the medication cart she realized that she had given the wrong medication to Resident #63. She stated that she immediately called the DON and then called Physician #2 and was instructed to send Resident #63 to the hospital for further evaluation and monitoring. The interview further revealed Nurse #1 had checked Resident #63's blood pressure right after she realized she gave Resident #63 the wrong medications and re-checked her blood pressure again 20 minutes later and she noted that Resident #63's blood pressure was lower the second time. She stated she called Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the resident was sent to the hospital for further evaluation and monitoring. She then notified the family. Nurse #1 stated that she was stressed on 01/14/24 because she wasn't familiar with that unit. She further added that the call bell system was not working, and residents were given handbells to call for assistance and she was trying to assist in answering the handbell calls. She added she was behind on administering medications and other residents had come to the medication cart and asked for their medication. She further added that family members of other residents came to her to ask questions, and this caused her to be rushed and she just didn't verify the identity of Resident #63 like she should have. Review of progress note written by Physician #2, the Medical Director, on 01/14/24 at 12:04 pm revealed that he was contacted by a nurse that a resident had a medication error and was given another resident's medications. The note further revealed that Resident #63 had received her own carvedilol 25 mg and losartan 100 mg and in addition received another carvedilol 25 mg, another losartan 100 mg, and received hydralazine 100 mg. In addition, she is quite anemic with a hemoglobin of 7.5 and she received apixaban. The review indicated that Resident #63 could not be monitored safely in the facility and should be monitored on telemetry (continuous heart monitoring), so she was sent to the hospital to be closely monitored. Review of the EMS report dated 01/14/24 revealed EMS responded to a call to the facility because staff gave Resident #63 someone else's medication. The primary impression on the report was documented as poisoning/drug ingestion. Blood pressures monitored during EMS transport to the hospital emergency department indicated blood pressures of, at 12:22 pm 130/54; at 12:34 pm 103/57; at 12:40 pm 108/60; at 12:46 108/63; and at 12:51 95/50. An IV catheter was inserted at 12:48 pm and a saline lock (a short section of tubing attached to the end of an IV catheter that is filled with normal saline solution and then capped to close off the tubing until medications are ready to be administered). The record review further revealed that staff reported to EMS that they had given Resident #63 her prescribed medication and 30 minutes later gave her someone else's medication. It was reported to EMS that Resident #63 was given an extra 25 mg of carvedilol, and extra 100 mg of losartan and was given 2 other medications, that included, apixaban 5 mg and hydralazine 100 mg, not prescribed to her. EMS personnel assessed and monitored the resident continuously while enroute to the hospital. Review of hospital ED records dated 1/14/24 revealed Resident #63 was received in the ED on 01/14/24 from EMS for a chief complaint of hypotension. The original ED assessment and plan outlined and included the following (as written): 1. Unintentional drug administration 2. Hypotension a. Patient normally takes Coreg 25 mg and losartan 100 mg. b. Given additional doses of coreg [carvedilol] 25, losartan 100, hydralazine 100, and Eliquis [apibaxan] 5 by mistake at her facility. c. Monitor vitals. d. Given a 2-liter bolus [IV fluid administered at a rapid rate to improve cardiac output, correct low blood pressure and ensure sufficient renal blood flow] in ER and will continue IV fluid hydration. e. Start peripheral levophed [norepinephrine] and keep MAP [mean arterial pressure] greater than 65 and decrease if able. 3. Hypertension a. Hold home meds. The hospital record review further revealed that Resident #63's blood pressure was 102/67 when she arrived in the hospital emergency department at 12:55 pm and entered triage at 1:04 pm. She was oriented to person, place, and time, was at high risk of morbidity, and had high complexity. She was placed in observation. At 1:10 pm Resident #63's blood pressure was trending downward, and her MAP was <65, a bolus of intravenous fluids was hung to be administered. Vital signs were monitored every 10 minutes and blood chemistry studies were done. An electrocardiogram (EKG) (a test to detect heart problems) was done and revealed a prolonged QT [an irregular heart rhythm] wave abnormality. Poison control was consulted for recommendation in the care of Resident #63 because of the overdose of medication. Poison Control recommended norepinephrine already explained in the PS and to repeat an EKG to ensure the QT prolongation had resolved. At 3:54 pm her blood pressure dropped into 80s/40s, and the physician ordered Resident #63 to be admitted to the hospital to critical care. Resident #63 was discharged from the ED observation at 3:58 pm and admitted to the hospital in critical care, she continued to receive intravenous norepinephrine to treat low blood pressure. A Physician progress note dated 01/14/24 at 3:59 pm indicated that critical care was necessary to treat or prevent imminent or life-threatening deterioration for the following conditions: shock and toxidrome and that critical care time was performed to assess and manage the high probability of imminent, life-threatening deterioration that could result in multi-organ failure. At 5:36 pm Resident #63's blood pressure was 117/87 and her MAP was 96. Her blood pressure was monitored every 10 minutes. The medication error that resulted in the hospitalization of Resident #63 was resolved 48 hours after admission. Resident #63 was hospitalized for a total 4 days, the later portion to of the hospitalization was related to additional gastrointestinal issues that arose after being admitted to the hospital, that was later determined to not be related to the medication error. Resident #63 was discharged from the hospital on [DATE] to home with home health. In a phone interview with Resident #63 on 02/09/24 at 9:28 am she stated that she could recall that on 01/14/24 nurses (could not recall names) kept going in her room at the facility and asked how she felt. I told them I was tired and sleepy because I didn't not get much sleep the night before. She further stated that initially she did not know why staff kept asking her how she felt and then a nurse that she had never seen before told me she had given me my medication and another patient's blood pressure medication and blood thinner, and the doctor had recommended that I be sent to the hospital. She stated that one nurse came in and stayed with her until the rescue squad arrived indicating that she was not left alone during this timeframe. Resident #63 further indicated that she was feeling very sleepy and when the rescue squad arrived, she was taken to the hospital. She stated when she arrived at the hospital she was really scared, and her stomach started hurting and she got sick to her stomach. She stated her blood pressure then bottomed out and they went to working on me trying to get my blood pressure back up. She described the stomach pain that she had as a 9 on a 0/10 scale used to measure intensity of pain (0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain). Resident #63 stated she was in the emergency department all night and then was admitted to the hospital. She stated the doctor told her that her stomach pain occurred because her blood pressure bottomed out. She further added that she was in the intensive care step down unit and had monitors on her that checked her heart, she received fluids and medications intravenously through an IV, and they had to call poison control. Resident #63 stated that when the nurse at the facility brought her Resident #340's medications that she didn't question it because they always brought her medication throughout the day, and she trusted that it was her medication. She stated that they usually asked her for her full name and birthdate but didn't think Nurse #1 asked her that day and just said my first name. In a phone interview with Physician #2 (the Medical Director) on 02/06/24 at 12:15 pm it was revealed that Nurse #1 notified him by phone of a medication error in which she administered another resident's medication to Resident #63. She told him that she had already administered Resident #63 her own prescribed medications on the morning of 1/14/24. Physician #2 recalled that she had given Resident #63 blood pressure reducing medications and a blood thinner not prescribed to her. He further added that she received her own prescribed carvedilol and losartan and then received duplicate doses of carvedilol (beta blocker) and losartan, as well as apixaban (a blood thinner). Physician #2 stated that when Nurse #1 called him Resident #63's vital signs were not concerning to him at that time, but he anticipated what the outcome could be, and he felt that she would need monitoring at the hospital because of the medication error so he called the hospital emergency department himself to give them report on Resident #63. He added he was concerned that she could go into heart block and her pulse rate would decrease down into the 30's and her blood pressure could decrease, and she would become unconscious and all of the medications that she received would cause her blood pressure to decrease. He stated if the blood pressure became too low that it could cause kidney function problems. He further stated that she had cirrhosis of the liver and that caused concerns of bleeding because of the blood thinner. He stated it could take a few days for the beta blocker to clear her system. He stated the resident was at risk for harm and required monitoring, stating if her blood pressure became too low that she would require care in the Intensive Care Unit at the hospital. Physician #2 stated that he felt the situation was handled appropriately by the facility and he was contacted immediately. In a review of an Investigational Summary completed by the facility dated 01/14/24 addressed to the Quality Assurance Committee revealed that a Medication Error occurred on 01/14/24 and that a dayshift nurse had administered the wrong medication to Resident #63 in error. Resident #63 was sent to the emergency department for monitoring related to Resident #63 received increased dosage of blood pressure medication and a blood thinner. The investigational summary revealed there were 3 residents with the same first name on the same unit and the nurse entered Resident #63's room and called the resident by her first name. She then gave Resident #63 the wrong medication. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/8/24 at 11:05 am it was revealed that she was aware of a medication error that occurred on 01/14/24 by Nurse #1. The DON stated that Nurse #1 called her right away on 01/14/24 to report that she had made a medication error and gave Resident #340's medication to Resident #63 in error and that Resident #63 had already received her own prescribed medication, which caused her to receive duplicate blood pressure medication. The DON further added that the medication error could cause Resident #63 to become hypotensive and could have caused cardiac issues in a resident with a cardiac diagnosis. She stated the resident was sent to hospital for routine monitoring. She stated that Nurse #1 was a supervisor and was not usually assigned to a medication cart. Another nurse had called out on 01/14/24 and Nurse #1 was assigned to the medication cart. The DON stated that Nurse #1 should have verified the resident using full name first and last, picture on the electronic medication administration record (e-MAR) and if she was still unsure, she should have asked someone that was familiar with the resident. The interview further revealed that the normal protocol for medication training for nurses was that they received medication administration training for 3 days with another nurse before they are assigned to a medication cart, and if they are not comfortable the training is extended until they are comfortable. They learn to use e-MAR and how to scan meds. Nurses also received computer-based on-line training that included the five rights of medication administration and how to identify a resident. To identify a resident the nurse should compare the picture on the e-MAR to the resident, knock on door and ask the resident their full name. If the resident is not alert and oriented and cannot tell you who they are then the nurse should compare the picture on the e-MAR to the resident and ask a staff member that is familiar with that resident. The DON stated that Nurse #1 received the required medication administration training. Nurse #1 was re-educated but was not disciplined because she resigned from her position right away. Review of medication administration training transcript for Nurse #1 revealed that she had completed computer-based learning modules titled Medication Administration Safety on 08/30/23 and Medication Scanning on 01/10/24. In an interview with the Administrator on 02/06/24 at 12:37 pm it was revealed that she was aware of the medication error regarding Resident #63 and that the nurse immediately notified the DON and the Medical Director, and they decided that due to the type of monitoring required that the resident would be sent to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment. She stated she felt that the medication error occurred because the nurse had distractions of a family member repeatedly coming to the med cart to ask questions and Nurse #1 got distracted and should have just put her medication cart up for the time being. This was the first time this nurse had made any medication errors. The interview further revealed Nurse #1 was very upset that it had occurred and told her that she had other residents with the same first name as Resident #63 and she gave Resident #340's medication to Resident #63 because they had the same first name. She stated after the error occurred the facility did a 100 percent audit for all residents with like names and assessed other resident to make sure they got their meds accordingly, she stated they did some medication pass audits with nurses. The interview further revealed that a Performance Improvement Plan was done and the plan was still in progress. The Administrator stated Nurse #1 should have done the 6 rights of medication administration to include asking the resident her name, first and last name and verifying it with the e-MAR and the picture on e-MAR. The Administrator was notified of Immediate Jeopardy on 02/06/24 at 3:10 pm. The Administrator provided the following corrective action plan with a compliance date of 01/18/24. Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice On 01/14/24, Nurse #1 prepared Resident #340's medication at the medication cart. She entered the room of Resident #63, who has the same first name as Resident #340. She called the resident's first name, and the resident responded. The nurse then administered Resident #340's medications to Resident #63 in error. While exiting the room, the nurse realized she had given the resident the wrong medication. The nurse immediately assessed the resident and obtained vital signs. Blood pressure 159/78, heart rate 77, respiratory rate, 16-18, the resident remained alert and oriented, and able to answer all questions appropriately. The nurse notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and the physician of the medication error, and the resident was sent to the emergency room for monitoring per the physician's recommendations. The resident was admitted to the hospital for monitoring of medications administered in error and was treated with medication for low blood pressure, which was resolved within 24 hours. On 01/16/24, a root cause analysis was completed by the Administrator and Director of Nursing. The root cause of the medication error was determined to be Nurse #1 administered medication to Resident #63 without appropriately confirming the resident's complete name and utilizing the resident's picture in the electronic medical record as an identifier. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice: On 01/16/2024, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and Unit Manager initiated an audit of all residents for signs and symptoms of acute changes in condition to investigate the cause of the change and ensure the change was not related to significant medication errors. There were no areas of concern identified during the audit. The audit was completed by 01/17/2024. On 01/16/2024, an audit of all progress notes for the past 14 days was initiated by the DON. This audit was to identify any documentation related to a resident with an acute change from a significant medication error to ensure the resident was assessed, interventions were initiated, and the physician was notified for further recommendations. There were no areas of concern identified during the audit. The audit was completed by 01/17/2024. On 01/17/2024, the ADON and Unit Manager initiated Medication Pass Audits with all nurses and medication aides including agency. This audit was to ensure (1) the nurses and/or medication aides administer medications per the physician's order (2) staff utilize the rights of medication administration to include the right medication and to the right resident by asking the resident their full name and using the picture in the electronic medication administration record as an identifier and (3) staff demonstrated what to do if resident, family or staff interrupt during medication administration to avoid errors. This includes restarting the 6 rights of medication administration prior to administering the medication to a resident. The ADON and Unit Manager addressed all concerns identified during the audit including reeducation of staff if indicated. There were no other significant medication errors identified during the audit. The audit was completed by 01/17/2024. After 01/17/2024, any nurse or medication aide including agency who has not worked or completed the medication pass audit completed it upon the next scheduled work shift. On 01/16/2024, the ADON initiated an audit of all residents with like names and proximity of room locations. Name alerts were placed on the medication administration record (MAR) for residents with similar names and rooms within close proximity of each other. The ADON addressed all concerns identified during the audit, including posting name alerts in the medical record. The audit was completed by 01/17/2024. On 01/16/2024, the DON completed an audit of all incident reports for the past 30 days to identify any medication administration concerns resulting in medication errors. No additional concerns were identified during the audit. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur: On 01/14/2024, ADON initiated an in-service with all nurses and medication aides to include agency regarding the?Rights of Medication Administration. The education emphasized (1) administering medications per physician order, (2) the rights of medication administration including but not limited to the right medication to the right resident, and (3) disposing of medications if not administered immediately (4) how to identify residents with emphasis on asking resident to state full name and utilizing electronic record photo to verify residents prior to administering medications (5) what to do if you are still not sure of the resident's identity i.e. ask a staff member familiar with the resident to verify their identity and (6) what to do if residents, family or staff interrupt during medication administration to avoid errors which includes restarting the 6 rights of medication administration prior to administering the medication to a resident. The in-service was completed by 01/17/2024. After 01/17/2024, any nurse or medication aide including agency who had not worked or completed the education completed it prior to the next scheduled shift.? All newly hired nurses and medication aides including agency will be educated by the Director of Nursing or Nurse Supervisor during orientation, prior to performing medication administration, regarding the?Rights of Medication Administration including (1) administering medications per physician order, (2) the rights of medication administration including but not limited to the right medication to the right resident, and (3) disposing of medications if not administered immediately (4) how to identify residents with emphasis on asking resident to state full name and utilizing electronic record photo to verify residents prior to administering medications (5) what to do if you are still not sure of the resident's identity i.e. ask a staff member familiar with the resident to verify their identity and (6) what to do if residents, family or staff interrupt during medication administration to avoid errors which includes restarting the 6 rights of medication administration prior to administering the medication to a resident. The Administrator will track to ensure the education is completed by utilizing the staff new hire and/or agency orientation checklist. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained: The decision to monitor the system for prevention of significant medication errors was made on 1/16/24 by the Administrator and Director of Nursing and presented to the Quality Assurance Committee on 1/16/24. The ADON and Unit Manager will complete 5?Medication Pass Audits?across all shifts with nurses and medication aides weekly x 6 weeks then monthly x 2 months. This audit is to ensure (1) the nurses and/or medication aides administers medications per the physician's order (2) staff utilizes the rights of medication administration to include the right medication and to the right resident (3) the staff utilizes the appropriate technique when identifying residents and (4) staff demonstrates what to do if resident, family or staff interrupt during medication administration to avoid errors. The ADON and Unit Manager will address all concerns identified during the?Medication Pass Audits, including re-training of the nurse and/or medication aide. The Administrator will review the Medication Pass Audits weekly x 4 weeks to ensure all concerns are addressed. The Interdisciplinary Team, including, the DON, ADON, Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse, and Nurse Supervisor will review progress notes 5 x week x 6 weeks then monthly x 2 months. This audit is to identify any documentation related to a resident with an acute change from a significant medication error to ensure the resident was assessed, interventions were initiated, and the physician was notified for further recommendations. The Director of Nursing will immediately address all areas of concerns identified during the audit, including resident assessment, notification of the physician for further recommendations with documentation in the electronic record, and staff re-training. The Administrator will review the progress note audit weekly x 6 weeks then monthly x 2 months to ensure all concerns were addressed. The Interdisciplinary Team, including, the DON, ADON, Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse, and Nurse Supervisor will review incident reports weekly x 6 weeks then monthly x 2 months. This audit is to identify any medication administration concerns resulting in medication errors to ensure appropriate interventions were initiated, the physician notified, and the resident assessed as indicated. The Director of Nursing will immediately address concerns identified during the audit, including resident assessment, notification of the physician for further recommendations with documentation in the electronic record, and staff re-training. The Administrator will review the incident report audit weekly x 6 weeks then monthly x 2 months to ensure all concerns are addressed. The Administrator/DON will forward the results of the Medication Pass Audits, Progress Note Reviews, and Incident Report review to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee including the Medical Director, DON, Administrator, Social Worker, Dietary Manager, ADON, Therapy Director, and Activity Director, monthly x 4 months. The QAPI Committee will meet monthly x 4 months and review the Medication Pass Audits, Progress Note Reviews, and Incident Report review to determine trends and / or issues that may need further interventions put into place and to determine the need for further and / or frequency of monitoring. Alleged Compliance Date: 01/18/24 Validation of the corrective action was completed on 02/8/24. This included staff interviews with nurses regarding the 6 rights of medication administration to include resident identification prior to administration of medication as well as observatio[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience when Nurs...

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 provide a dignified dining experience when Nurse Aide (NA) #4 stood at Resident #7's bedside while feeding Resident #7. This was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dignity. A reasonable person might feel a lack of dignity when NA #4 stood while feeding them. Findings included: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia. A review of Resident #7's current comprehensive care plan revealed a focus area initiated on 7/21/23 for activities of daily living. The goal, last revised on 11/7/23, was for Resident #7's care to be completed with staff support. An intervention was dependent for eating. A review of Resident #7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was severely cognitively impaired. She had functional limitation of range of motion of both upper extremities. She was dependent for eating. On 2/5/24 starting at 12:54 PM a continuous observation of Resident #7's lunch meal was conducted in her room. NA #4 was observed to feed Resident #7 while standing beside Resident #7's bed. A chair was available in Resident #7's room. At 1:06 PM NA #4 was observed still standing while feeding Resident #7. At 1:09 PM, after Resident #7 indicated she was finished eating, NA #4 was observed to conclude the feeding activity and remove Resident #7's lunch meal from the room. An interview with NA #4 at that time indicated she was familiar with Resident #7 and frequently fed her meals. NA #4 stated she always stood beside Resident #7's bed when she fed her. She stated she always stood when feeding residents as she preferred this. She went on to say she had worked at the facility for 9 years and she had never been instructed to sit beside residents when feeding. On 2/8/24 at 9:57 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing indicated standing while feeding residents was a dignity issue. She stated NA #4 should have been seated and at eye level with Resident #7 while she was feeding her. She went on to say NA #4 should have known this. She further indicated in-service training had begun for all NAs regarding this issue. On 2/9/24 at 11:39 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated NAs should be seated at eye level with residents while feeding them.
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 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 and interviews with the Responsible Party (RP) and staff, the facility failed to facilitate the inclusion...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with the Responsible Party (RP) and staff, the facility failed to facilitate the inclusion of a cognitively intact resident and her RP in the care planning process for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for the care planning process (Resident #287). The findings included: Resident #287 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #287 was cognitively intact. A review of the care plan for Resident #287 revealed it was last revised on 2/28/23. A record review for Resident #287 revealed there were no care plan meetings documented nor was there documentation of attempts to contact or conversations with the RP. On 2/10/24 at 1:10 PM an interview with Resident #287's RP revealed she and the Resident were not invited to care plan meetings until a few days before the Resident's passing on 10/30/23. An interview with Social Worker #1 on 2/7/24 at 12:21 PM revealed she held care plan meetings upon admission, approximately every three months in conjunction with the MDS assessment schedule and in the event of a significant change in the Resident's health. These meetings were documented in the care plan notes section of the medical record and noted everyone who attended and what was discussed. She further stated any contact or attempt to contact the Resident or their RP regarding care plan meetings should be documented. Social Worker #1 was unable to explain why there were no notes for Resident #287 about care plan meetings. On 2/8/24 at 2:30 PM an interview with the Administrator revealed Care Plan meetings were held quarterly and annually and were to be documented, including all who attended, and the topics discussed. Any contact with the Resident or RP would have been documented in the care plan section of the electronic record. The Administrator further stated she knew there was a lack of documentation about care plan meetings, and scheduling of care plan meetings had been an issue.
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 F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviewed, the facility failed to complete a recapitulation of stay for 1 of 1 resident revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviewed, the facility failed to complete a recapitulation of stay for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for a planned discharge from the facility to home (Resident #137). Findings included: Resident #137 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home on 2/17/23. The discharge Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #137 was coded as moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #137's electronic health record revealed a Discharge summary dated [DATE]. Further review of the discharge summary revealed that it did not include the required elements of customary routine, cognitive patterns, communication, vision, mod and behavior patterns, psychosocial well-being, physical functioning and structural problems, continence, disease diagnoses and health conditions, dental and nutritional status, skin condition, activity pursuit, medications, or special treatments and procedures. An interview on 2/07/24 at 11:01 AM with the Social Worker (SW) revealed she was aware of the requirement for a recapitulation summary. She stated that based on the requirements, the discharge summary for Resident #137 did not include all the required elements. She stated that she initiated the summary, and each section entered their portion. She also stated that nursing printed, reviewed, and provided a copy to the resident at discharge. The SW stated she was not employed at the facility in February 2023 and could not say why it was not completed with the required elements. An interview on 2/08/24 at 3:04 PM with the Administrator revealed that she was aware of the requirement for a recapitulation summary and did not know why Resident #137's did not contain the required elements.
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 rinse soap from a resident's skin during a dep...

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 rinse soap from a resident's skin during a dependent resident's bed bath and to provide nail care for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (Resident #57). Findings included: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Diabetes Mellitus. The quarterly Minimum Data Set 1/10/24 revealed Resident #57 was coded as cognitively intact. He was also coded to be dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADL). He was coded for rejection of care 1-3 days. Review of Resident #57's care plan revised 1/16/24 included an ADL focus with a shower/bath of two person assist as needed. During an observation on 2/08/24 at 9:49 AM, Nursing Assistants (NA) #1 and #2 were observed to provide a bed bath for Resident #57. NA #2 gathered bathing supplies which included a basin of warm water, washcloths, towel, body oil, bottle of body wash, deodorant, and premoistened wipes pack. NA #2 squirted the body wash into the basin of warm water, washed Resident #57's face, arms, upper body, legs, and feet and dried all areas. NA #2 did not rinse the body wash off the resident. NA#2 continued the bed bath by placing the premoistened wipes into the basin of warm soapy water and washed the resident's perineal area. NA #2 dried the perineal area and did not rinse the body wash off the perineal area. NA #2 placed the premoistened wipes into the basin of warm soapy water and wiped the urinary catheter. NA #2 did not rinse the body wash off the urinary catheter. A clean gown and brief were placed on the resident. The lift transfer sling was placed under the resident, and he was transferred to a chair. NA #1 and NA #2 gathered the used linen, emptied the basin, and put all toiletries away. During the bed bath observation, NA #1 provided Resident #57 positioning assistance. During the bed bath observation (2/08/24 at 9:49 AM), the resident was observed to have ¼ inch to ½ inch long yellow fingernails which had brown debris under several of them on his left hand. His toenails were observed to be pale yellow, thick, misshaped with dry patches of skin around them. An interview on 2/08/24 at 10:40 AM with NA #1 and NA #2 revealed that they were unaware that the body wash required rinsing. NA #2 went to Resident #57's room and returned to the interview with the body wash bottle. She confirmed that the bottle of body wash read to rinse thoroughly. She stated she did not rinse the body wash and had not read the bottle. She stated that she did not provide nail care for any residents. NA #2 stated that she thought the unit nurse provided nail care. NA #2 stated that she had not notified the unit nurse that Resident #57's fingernails needed to be cut. NA #2 confirmed that she had worked with Resident #57 frequently and he was on her assignment today. NA #1 stated that she provided positioning and transfer assistance for NA #2 during the resident's bed bath. An interview on 2/08/24 at 2:13 PM with Nurse #1 revealed she worked regularly with Resident #57. She stated she had tried to cut his nails in the past, but he had refused. She stated that she had not documented the attempt. She was unaware that he currently needed to have his nails cut. She stated that she cleaned his fingernails during his bath. An interview and observation on 2/08/24 at 11:45 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Nurse Consultant revealed that Resident #57 did have ¼ inch to ½ inch long yellow fingernails with brown debris under several of the nails on his left hand. She stated that they needed to be trimmed and cleaned. The DON stated that the NA should have rinsed the body wash off Resident #57. The DON stated that nurses cut diabetic resident nails and she did not know why Resident #57's fingernails were not cut. An interview with the Administrator on 2/08/24 at 2:42 PM revealed that the staff had been trained on rinsing the body wash and nail care. She did not know why it had not been done.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and physician interviews the facility failed to obtain daily weights as ordered by the physicia...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and physician interviews the facility failed to obtain daily weights as ordered by the physician for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for respiratory care. Findings included: Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] a diagnoses of congestive heart failure (CHF). A review of Resident #30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. He was taking a diuretic (water pill). On 2/5/24 a review of the current active physician's orders for Resident #30 revealed a physician's order dated 6/3/23 for daily weights one time a day for CHF to be done before 7:00 AM. A review of Resident #30's Medication Administration Record for February 2024 revealed in part the physician's order for daily weights at 6:30 AM. There was no documentation that a weight was obtained on 2/3/24 or 2/5/24. Additionally, there was no documentation of a refusal. A review of Resident #30's progress notes for 2/3/24 and 2/5/24 revealed no documentation he refused his daily weight on those dates. On 2/7/24 at 9:35 AM an interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #5 indicated she was assigned to care for Resident #30 on 2/3/24 and 2/5/24 at 6:30 AM. She stated she was new to Resident #30's hall and recalled asking Resident #30's nurse about him at the beginning of her first shift on 2/3/24. She went on to say the nurse did not ever mention anything to her about Resident #30 needing a daily weight and she had not attempted to get one. On 2/7/24 at 9:44 AM an interview with Nurse #3 indicated she was assigned to Resident #30 on 2/3/24 and 2/5/24 at 6:30 AM. She stated she recalled letting Resident #30's NA know that he needed a daily weight on those days. She went on to say she had not followed up to ensure they were done because she had gotten behind on her medication pass on those mornings. On 2/8/24 at 9:38 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the nurse assigned to Resident #30 on the days when his daily weight needed to be done should be following up with the NA to ensure it was done. On 2/8/24 at 3:45 PM an interview with Physician #2 indicated the daily weights were initiated for Resident #30 to monitor his CHF status. He stated Resident #30 had been stable and managed clinically for his CHF. He went on to say he could probably discontinue Resident #30's daily weights. Physician #2 stated if a resident had a physician's order for daily weights, they should be obtained.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to: 1) obtain a written physician's ord...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to: 1) obtain a written physician's order for the use of a urinary catheter (Resident #30 and #57) and 2) ensure the consulting physician's recommendation for the urinary catheter changes were entered into the medical record (Resident #30). This was for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for urinary catheter. Findings included: 1. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of a hospital discharge summary for Resident #30 dated 12/21/23 revealed in part he was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] for penile cellulitis (skin infection) and balanitis (inflammation of the foreskin and head of penis). It further revealed an indwelling urinary catheter was placed. A review of a Nursing Admission/Reentry assessment dated [DATE] revealed in part Resident #30 was readmitted to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter. A review of a urology Report of Consult form for Resident #30 dated 1/10/24 revealed in part Resident #30's indwelling urinary catheter was changed. It further revealed a recommendation to exchange the indwelling urinary catheter every 4 to 5 weeks. A review of Resident #30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. He had an indwelling urinary catheter. On 2/5/24 at 12:32 PM an observation of Resident #30 revealed he had an indwelling urinary catheter. An interview with Resident #30 at that time indicated he was not having any issues with his catheter. He stated Nurse Aides (NAs) kept the area clean. On 2/7/24 a review of Resident #30's current active physician's orders did not reveal orders for an indwelling urinary catheter or exchange of the indwelling urinary catheter every 4 to 5 weeks as recommended by the urologist. On 2/9/24 at 9:03 AM an interview with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) indicated according to Resident #30's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] he had an indwelling catheter placed because of a neurogenic bladder (bladder dysfunction) and balanitis. She stated Resident #30 should have a current order for this. She went on to say she previously reviewed the Consult Report recommendations from the urologist dated 1/10/24 and had agreed with the recommendations as evidenced by her initials on the document. The NP stated the facility should have a process in place where the order for the indwelling urinary catheter was entered by nursing when he came back to the facility with it and where nursing entered the urology recommendation order. On 2/9/24 at 9:14 AM an interview with NA #3 indicated she was assigned to Resident #30 that day. She stated she had been assigned to care for him frequently and was very familiar with him. She stated Resident #30 had an indwelling urinary catheter since he last came back from the hospital a couple of months ago. She went on to say she emptied the urine from the catheter bag and cleaned the area each shift. She further indicated Resident #30 was not having any issues with his urinary catheter, had not complained of anything, and his urine was clear. On 2/9/24 at 9:18 AM an interview with Nurse #9 indicated she was assigned to care for Resident #30 that day and was familiar with him. She stated Resident #30 had an indwelling urinary catheter. She went on to say he had this in place since she began caring for him on 1/15/24. She further indicated Resident #30 was not having any issues with his catheter. On 2/9/24 at 9:25 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing indicated she was aware of the urology recommendation dated 1/10/24 for Resident #30 to have his indwelling urinary catheter exchanged every 4 to 5 weeks. She stated she reviewed all consulting physician's recommendations and entered these orders herself. She further indicated she recalled entering this order for Resident #30, but she did not see it now. She stated she did not know what had happened to it. On 2/9/24 at 9:46 AM an interview with Nurse #4 indicated he was the facility's Admissions Nurse. He stated he recalled receiving report from the hospital when Resident #30 was admitted back into the facility. He went on to say he had been aware that Resident #30 had an indwelling urinary catheter at that time. He further indicated he recalled putting the order for the catheter into the computer system but did not see it now. He stated he did not know what happened to it. On 2/9/24 at 11:39 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated Resident #30 should have a current active order for his indwelling urinary catheter. She went on to say he should also have a current active order for the consulting urologists recommendation. 2. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included obstructive uropathy. The quarterly Minimum Data Set 1/10/24 revealed Resident #57 was coded as cognitively intact. He was also coded to have an indwelling urinary catheter. Resident #57's care plan last revised 1/16/24 revealed a focus for altered pattern of urinary elimination with indwelling catheter. An observation on 2/05/24 at 12:42 PM revealed Resident #57 lying in bed with a urinary catheter bag hanging on the side of his bed. Review of Resident #57's electronic health record physician's orders revealed no order for a urinary catheter. An interview 2/08/24 at 11:26 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that Resident #57 did not have an order for a urinary catheter. The DON stated she did not know why he did not have a physician's order for a urinary catheter. An interview with the Administrator on 2/09/24 at 10:47 AM revealed that she did not know why Resident #57 did not have an order for a urinary catheter.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to change a tube feeding syringe daily or store a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to change a tube feeding syringe daily or store a tube feeding syringe with the plunger separated from the barrel for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for enteral feeding management (Resident #57). Findings included: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set 1/10/24 revealed Resident #57 was coded as cognitively intact. He was also coded to have a feeding tube. An observation on 2/05/24 at 12:42 PM revealed that the tube feeding syringe plunger and barrel were stored together in a bag hanging on the infusion pump stand at the bedside. The outside of the bag was dated 2/05/24. An observation on 2/06/24 at 7:48 AM revealed that the tube feeding syringe plunger and barrel were stored together in a bag hanging on the infusion pump stand at the bedside. The outside of the bag had 2/05/24 written on it with a '6' written over the '5'. An observation on 2/07/24 at 1:35 PM revealed that the tube feeding syringe plunger and barrel were stored together in a bag hanging on the infusion pump stand at the bedside. The outside of the bag was dated with the same 2/05/24 with '6' written over the '5'. An observation on 2/08/24 at 10:00 AM revealed that the tube feeding syringe plunger and barrel were stored together in a bag hanging on the infusion pump stand at the bedside. The outside of the bag was dated with the same 2/05/24 with '6' written over the '5'. An observation and interview 2/08/24 at 11:45 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that Resident #57's tube feeding syringe were stored together in a bag hanging on the infusion pump stand at the bedside. The outside of the bag was dated 2/05/24 with '6' written over the '5'. The DON stated the tube feeding syringes should be changed every 24 hours and it was night shift's responsibility to change them. She also stated that the plunger and barrel should be stored separately and did not know why they were not. An interview on 2/08/24 at 2:21 PM with Nurse #2 revealed that Resident #57 received tube feeding flushes three times per day. She stated that today she used the tube feeding syringe hanging on the infusion pump stand in his room for his morning tube flush. She stated that she had not noted the date on the syringe bag. She stated she was taught to wash the tube feeding syringe plunger and barrel, let them dry, and then place them back together in the bag for storage which is what she had done. An interview with the Administrator on 2/09/24 at 2:52 PM revealed that she did not know why Resident #57 tube feeding syringe had not been changed daily or the plunger and barrel stored separately.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation of the administration of oxygen (O2) (Resident #30) and the completion of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation of the administration of oxygen (O2) (Resident #30) and the completion of wound treatments (Resident #75). This was for 2 of 21 residents reviewed for accurate documentation. Findings included: 1. On 2/5/24 at 12:32 PM an observation of Resident #30 revealed he was in bed. He was not observed to be receiving oxygen. He was wearing a BiPap machine. An interview with Resident #30 at that time indicated he did not use oxygen. A review of Resident #30's February 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) on 2/7/24 revealed in part a physician's order with a start date of 5/23/23 for O2 3 liters (L) per nasal cannula (NC) continuously. It further revealed documentation by Nurse #3 on 2/2/24, 2/3/24 and 2/4/24 and by Nurse #4 on 2/7/24 that this was administered. On 2/7/24 at 7:24 PM a telephone interview with Nurse #3 indicated she documented on Resident #30's MAR on 2/2/24, 2/3/24 and 2/4/24 that he was receiving O2 3L per NC continuously because she misunderstood the order. She stated Resident #30 had not been receiving any oxygen. She further indicated her documentation that Resident #30 received O2 on those days had been in error. On 2/8/24 at 11:22 AM an interview with Nurse #4 indicated he documented on Resident #30's MAR on 2/7/24 that he was receiving O2 3L per NC continuously in error. He stated he had not seen Resident #30 being administered O2 via any source and had misunderstood. On 2/8/24 at 9:38 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing indicated Nurses should not be documenting that Resident #30 was being administered O2 if he was not. She went on to say documentation in Resident #30's medical record should be accurate and reflect the care they were actually receiving. On 2/9/24 at 11:39 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated the documentation in resident's medical record should be accurate. 2. a. Review of physician's orders revealed an order dated 12/16/23 and discontinued on 1/17/24 for the left ischium (a bone in the hip) wound to be cleaned, patted dry, apply collagenase ointment, calcium alginate, and cover with a foam border dressing daily for wound care. Review of Resident #75's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2024 revealed there were no signatures on 1/01, 1/06, 1/07, and 1/13. b. Review of physician's orders revealed an order dated 1/17/24 and discontinued on 1/30/24 for the left ischium wound to be cleaned, patted dry, apply silver alginate, and cover with a foam border dressing daily for wound care. Review of Resident #75's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2024 revealed there were no signatures on 1/21, 1/26, 1/27, and 1/30. c. Review of physician's orders revealed an order dated 12/16/23 and discontinued on 1/30/24 for the right ischium wound to be cleaned, patted dry, apply silver alginate, and cover with a foam border dressing daily for wound care. Review of Resident #75's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2024 revealed there were no signatures on 1/01, 1/06, 1/07, 1/13, 1/21, 1/26, 1/27, and 1/30. d. Review of physician's orders revealed an order dated 1/17/24 for the sacrum wound to be cleaned, patted dry, apply silver alginate, and cover with a foam border dressing every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for wound care. Review of Resident #75's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2024 revealed there was no signatures on 1/26. An interview on 2/08/24 at 3:57 PM with Nurse #2 revealed that she was regularly assigned to Resident #75's hall. She stated that she was responsible for providing wound care if the Wound Treatment Nurse was not available. She stated that she provided the wound care on 1/01, 1/06, 1/07, 1/21, and 1/30, but had forgotten to sign off that it was completed. Interviews were attempted for hall Nurses #11 and #12 for 1/13, 1/26, and 1/27 but were unsuccessful. An interview on 2/08/24 at 3:02 PM with the Administrator revealed that she was unaware of the wound care documentation not being signed as completed.
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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Physician interviews the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for the use of supplemental oxygen (Residents #68 and #37), assess a resident receiving respiratory medications via nebulizer (Resident #8), change oxygen tubing and humidification bottles in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (Residents #68 and #37), and administer oxygen in accordance with the Physician's order (Resident #30) for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The findings included: 1. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic congestive heart failure and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was moderately cognitively impaired. A physician's order dated 2/2/24 for Resident #8 indicated a time limited order for respiratory medication to be administered via nebulizer every 6 hours through 2/6/24. Resident #8 was observed receiving medication via the nebulizer for a respiratory treatment on 2/5/24 at 1:45 PM. During an interview with Resident #8 on 2/5/24 at 1:47 PM she stated she had a cough/cold for a few days. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that nebulizer treatments were documented as given to Resident #8 every 6 hours 2/2/24 through 2/6/24 as ordered. The Resident's vital signs record revealed oxygen saturation levels (O2 sats) were documented as completed on 2/5/24 at 5:17 PM. There were no other O2 sats documented for the period of 2/2/24 through 2/6/24. A review of Resident #8's progress notes dated 2/2/24 through 2/6/24 revealed that respiratory assessments such as lung sounds and response to nebulizer treatments were not documented at any time during the prescribed respiratory medication use. An interview with Nurse #4 on 2/9/24 at 8:36 AM revealed assessments of O2 sats and lung sounds should be documented on Resident #8 before and after a nebulizer treatment along with a progress note once a shift. If the nebulizer treatment was not effective, he would contact the Physician or NP. He did not have to contact them as treatments had been effective. He was unable to say why he did not document an assessment or progress note on 2/5/24 after nebulizer treatments except that he may have been overwhelmed as he was the Admissions Nurse and did not regularly work on the floor. An interview with Nurse #5 on 2/9/24 at 8:27 AM revealed assessments of O2 sats and lung sounds should be documented on Resident #8 before and after a nebulizer treatment along with a progress note once a shift. If the nebulizer treatment was not effective, she would contact the Physician or NP. She further stated that all treatments she had provided were effective. She was unable to say why she did not document an assessment or progress note after nebulizer treatments on 2/6/24. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/9/24 at 9:05 AM she stated Nursing should complete O2 sats and lung sounds both before and after a nebulizer treatment and document in the resident's chart along with a progress note after each treatment. She further indicated if a treatment was not effective, they should contact the Physician or Nurse Practitioner. She was not aware assessments were not being documented on Resident #8 during the 5 days she was prescribed the medication for cough/congestion. An interview with the NP on 2/9/24 at 10:15 AM revealed Nursing would assess a resident before and after receiving a nebulizer treatment. She further stated the assessment would include lung sounds, O2 sats and effectiveness and would be documented in the chart after each treatment including a progress note each shift. The NP indicated she used the Nursing progress notes as updates on a resident's illness and treatment effectiveness. She was not aware assessments were not being documented on Resident #8 during the 5 days she was prescribed the medication for cough/congestion. 2. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was cognitively intact, had shortness of breath, and received oxygen therapy. A review of Resident #37's care plan dated 1/18/24 indicated a focus of potential for ineffective breathing pattern related to Congestive Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease with a goal that the resident's airway would be maintained through next review. Interventions included oxygen therapy as ordered. A review of Resident #37's Physician orders revealed there was no order for oxygen use. An observation of Resident #37 on 2/5/24 at 3:27 PM revealed she was using portable supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula in her wheelchair in the common area. Upon further observation it was noted the cannula was not dated as to when it was changed last. An observation of Resident #37's bedroom on 2/5/24 at 3:45 PM revealed an oxygen concentrator with a nasal cannula and humidification bottle attached. Upon further observation it was noted the cannula was not dated as to when it was changed last. An observation of the humidification bottle for the oxygen concentrator in her room revealed a date of 12/28/23 was connected for use and was empty. A review of the manufacturer's recommendations on 2/8/24 at 1:45 PM revealed oxygen tubing and humidification bottles should be changed every 7 days. During an interview with the Central Supply Manager on 2/8/24 at 1:30 PM, he indicated he restocked the medication storage rooms for Nursing staff to have access to nasal cannulas and humidification bottles. He further stated they could access the central supply room after hours if needed. In an interview with Nurse #10 on 2/7/24 at 6:11 AM on third shift she stated she did not know who was responsible for changing oxygen tubing and humidification bottles as it was not indicated anywhere that she had seen. Nurse #10 stated the only way she knew if someone was on oxygen was if the resident had an order in the Medication Administration Record (MAR). She further stated she did not know who was responsible for transcribing orders into the MAR or overseeing the process. In an interview with a nurse familiar with Resident #37, Nurse #4, on 2/9/24 at 8:36 AM he revealed he did not know who was responsible for changing oxygen tubing or humidification bottles. He further stated he would expect it to be in the MAR on the day and shift it was due. Nurse #4 revealed the only way he knew if a resident was on oxygen was if they had an order in the MAR or if it was reported to him at shift change. He further stated she did not know who was responsible for transcribing orders into the MAR or overseeing the process. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/6/24 at 1:07 PM she stated night shift was responsible for changing oxygen tubing and humidification bottles once a week on Sundays and should be labeled with the date by the Nurse. She further stated they were to be changed weekly as that is standard practice. The DON was not aware it was not being done and was unaware there was no schedule for changing the tubing and humidification bottles that Nursing could refer to. She further stated she did not have a policy regarding the care of oxygen equipment. The DON was unaware that Resident #37 did not have an order for the use of oxygen. She further stated that a Nurse would have entered the order for oxygen when it was received from the Physician or NP. When asked how nurses would know when to change the oxygen tubing and humidification bottles, she stated, They should just know. An interview with Physician #2 on 2/7/24 at 11:30 AM revealed he was unaware Resident #37 did not have an order for oxygen. He further stated Resident #37 should have an order for oxygen and that the order must not have been transcribed by Nursing. He further stated oxygen tubing and humidification bottles should be changed per manufacturer recommendations or per facility policy. 3. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute respiratory failure. A review of Resident #68's care plan dated 10/3/23 indicated a focus of Potential for Ineffective Breathing Pattern related to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease and Pulmonary Edema with a goal that the resident's airway would be maintained through next review. Interventions included oxygen therapy as ordered. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #68 was cognitively intact, had shortness of breath and was coded as receiving oxygen therapy. A review of Resident #68's Physician orders indicated there was no order for oxygen use. An observation of Resident #68 on 2/5/24 at 11:33 AM revealed he was using portable supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula while in his wheelchair. Upon further observation it was noted the cannula was not dated as to when it was changed last. An observation of Resident #68's bedroom on 2/5/24 at 11:45 AM revealed an oxygen concentrator with a nasal cannula and humidification bottle attached. Upon further observation it was noted neither the cannula nor the humidification bottle were dated as to when they were changed last. A review of the manufacturer's recommendations on 2/8/24 at 1:45 PM revealed oxygen tubing and humidification bottles should be changed every 7 days. During an interview with the Central Supply Manager on 2/8/24 at 1:30 PM, he indicated he restocked the medication stock rooms for Nursing staff to have access to nasal cannulas and humidification bottles. He further stated they could access the central supply room after hours if needed. In an interview with Nurse #10 on 2/7/24 at 6:11 AM on third shift she stated she did not know who was responsible for changing oxygen tubing and humidification bottles as it was not indicated anywhere that she has seen. She further stated she was unaware of who was responsible for transcribing oxygen orders into the MAR. An interview with Nurse #4 on 2/9/24 at 8:36 AM revealed he did not know who was responsible for changing oxygen tubing or humidification bottles. He further stated he would expect it to be in the MAR on the day and shift it was due. He further stated he was unaware of who was responsible for monitoring and entering oxygen orders into the MAR. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/6/24 at 1:07 PM she stated night shift was responsible for changing oxygen tubing and humidification bottles once a week on Sundays and should be labeled with the date by the Nurse. She further stated they were to be changed weekly as that is standard practice. The DON was not aware it was not being done and was unaware there was no schedule for changing the tubing and humidification bottles that Nursing could refer to. She further stated she did not have a policy regarding the care of oxygen equipment. The DON was unaware that Resident #68 did not have an order for the use of oxygen. When asked how nurses would know when to change the oxygen tubing and humidification bottles she stated, They should just know. An interview with Physician #1 on 2/8/24 at 1:15 PM revealed he was unaware Resident #68 did not have an order for oxygen. He further stated Resident #68 should have an order for oxygen. He further stated oxygen tubing and humidification bottles should be changed per manufacturer recommendations or per facility policy. 4. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea and congestive heart failure. A review of the current comprehensive care plan for Resident #30 revealed a focus area initiated on 5/22/23 for ineffective breathing pattern. The goal, last revised on 12/15/23, was for Resident #30 to demonstrate an effective respiratory pattern with an appropriate oxygen (O2) saturation level through the next review. An intervention was O2 therapy as ordered. A review of the physician's orders for Resident #30 revealed a current active physician's order initiated on 5/23/23 of oxygen 3 liters (l) by nasal cannula (NC) every day and night shift for COPD. A review of Resident #30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. He did not use oxygen therapy or BiPap (Bilevel positive airway pressure). On 2/5/24 at 12:32 PM an observation of Resident #30 revealed he was in bed. He was not observed to be receiving oxygen. He was wearing a BiPap machine. An interview with Resident #30 at that time indicated he did not use oxygen. He stated he kept his BiPap on all the time except when he was out of the bed. He went on to say he could put this on and take it off by himself. He stated he was using his home BiPap machine in the facility. He further indicated he was not experiencing any breathing issues or feeling short of breath. On 2/6/24 at 12:11 PM an observation of Resident #30 revealed he was in bed. He was not observed to be receiving oxygen. An interview with Resident #30 at that time indicated he was not having any breathing difficulties. On 2/7/24 at 8:23 AM an observation of Resident #30 indicated he was not observed to be receiving oxygen. He did not appear to be having any breathing issues or be short of breath. On 2/7/24 at 8:24 AM an interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #3 indicated she was very familiar with Resident #30. She stated she was caring for him today and cared for him every day this week on the day shift. She went on to say she cared for him regularly. She further indicated Resident #30 did not use oxygen. NA #3 stated Resident #30's had not been having any difficulties breathing. On 2/7/24 at 7:24 PM a telephone interview with Nurse #3 indicated she was caring for Resident #30 at that time. She stated she was familiar with him and had cared for him before. She went on to say she documented on Resident #30's Medication Administration Record (MAR) on 2/2/24, 2/3/24 and 2/4/24 that he was receiving O2 3L per NC continuously because she misunderstood the order. She stated Resident #30 wore his BiPap continuously and she thought that meant he was receiving oxygen through it. She stated she had just spoken with Resident #30 and observed his BiPap machine, and he was not receiving any oxygen. On 2/8/24 at 9:18 AM a follow up interview with Nurse #3 indicated she put an O2 concentrator in Resident #30's room last night and placed his O2 at 3L per NC under his BiPap. She stated Resident #30 had not had an O2 concentrator in his room prior to that and had not been receiving O2. On 2/8/24 a review of a nursing progress note for Resident #30 written by Nurse #3 dated 2/8/24 at 4:15 AM revealed Resident #30's oxygen was placed in his nose via nasal cannula at 3 liters at the beginning of shift. Nurse #3 continued to have to tell Resident #30 to keep oxygen in nose. When Nurse #3 went into the room to give Resident #30 medication, Resident #30 had taken the O2 out of his nose. Nurse #3 educated to resident that he needed to keep O2 on per the physician's order, but Resident stated, NO. On 2/8/24 at 9:38 AM in an interview the Director of Nursing stated Resident #30 had a current active physician's order for O2 at 3L per NC continuously and he should be receiving this in accordance with the physician's order. She went on to say if there was a question about a physician's order, the nurse caring for Resident #30 should clarify with the physician. On 2/8/24 at 3:45 PM a telephone interview with Physician #3 indicated if a resident had a physician's order for the administration of O2, the order should be followed. On 2/9/24 at 11:39 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated physician's orders for O2 should be followed. She went on to say if Resident #30 had a physician's order for O2, he should be receiving it. She further indicated if Resident #30 had been doing fine without O2 or had been refusing it, the physician should have been contacted to have the order clarified or discontinued.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

3. An observation of food temperatures in the steam table at a satellite kitchen on 2/7/24 at 12:22 PM revealed creamed corn that was measured 87 degrees Fahrenheit (F) by Dietary Aide #1 with a dial ...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. An observation of food temperatures in the steam table at a satellite kitchen on 2/7/24 at 12:22 PM revealed creamed corn that was measured 87 degrees Fahrenheit (F) by Dietary Aide #1 with a dial thermometer. The temperatures were done at the start of the tray line. On 2/7/24 at 12:25 PM an observation of the lunch meal in the satellite kitchen revealed Dietary Aide #1 proceeded to plate the corn for a Resident and a Nursing Assistant (NA) #2 took it to the Resident before the error was brought to their attention. The NA removed the plate from the Resident. Dietary Aide #1 had an NA take the remaining corn to the kitchen to be reheated. An observation of the temperature of the reheated creamed corn on 2/7/24 at 12:40 PM revealed a temperature of 140 degrees F measured by Dietary Aide #1 with a dial thermometer. An interview with Dietary Aide #1 on 2/7/24 at 12:30 PM revealed she was aware food on the steam table was to be held at a minimum of 135 degrees F. She further stated she did not know that the creamed corn had to be held at a minimum of 135 degrees F. Dietary Aide #1 stated she had training about the steam table when she was first hired 4 months ago which included infection control, proper temperatures and their part in potential for foodborne illness. In an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 2/8/24 at 8:45 AM he stated he trained new employees in proper food distribution when they were first hired and when an issue came up. The new employee was then teamed up with a more experienced employee for further training. He further stated he held monthly staff meetings and did in-services at that time as well He was able to state that the minimum temperature for food on the steam table was 135 degrees F and if a temperature was below that, the food must be taken back to the kitchen to be reheated and not served to Residents due to the risk of food borne pathogens. In an interview with the Administrator on 2/8/24 at 2:30 PM she stated that she was not aware of any hot food temperatures below 135 degrees F on the steam table recently. She further stated she was unaware the creamed corn that had a temperature of 87 degrees F was served to a Resident. The Administrator believed that a high turnover rate in kitchen staff led to lack of education leading to the creamed corn being served below safe temperatures. Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to don a clean pair of disposable gloves prior to the start of tray line, failed to ensure dietary staff had their hair restrained during food production and failed to serve a food item within safe temperature range. These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: 1. During a food temperature observation on 2/07/24 at 11:42 AM the [NAME] was observed wearing disposable gloves. While wearing the same pair of disposable gloves, he was observed to take a container of food from the stove, open the meal cart door using the handle, close the meal cart door, and pick up a large pot of mashed potatoes from the stove and place it on the counter. While wearing the same disposable gloves, the [NAME] then picked up a serving spoon with one hand and a small plastic bowl with the other hand. While picking up the small plastic bowl, he placed two gloved fingers inside the bowl to aid in picking up the bowl. He was then observed to put a scoop of mashed potatoes inside the bowl. The [NAME] was observed to fill several bowls by placing two gloved fingers inside the bowl to aid in picking up the bowl. An interview on 2/07/24 at 1:50 PM with the [NAME] revealed that he had not changed his disposable gloves after handling other objects such as the stove handle, meal tray carts and food containers prior to plating the mashed potatoes. He also revealed that he had placed his gloved fingers into the bowls prior to putting the mashed potatoes in them. He stated he did this out of the stress of the day and the rush to get the food out to the residents. The [NAME] revealed that he had food safety training and was also serve safe certified. An interview on 2/07/24 at 2:10 PM with the Dietary Manager revealed he did not know why the [NAME] had not changed his disposable gloves prior to plating the mashed potatoes. An interview with the Administrator on 2/08/24 at 2:36 PM revealed that she did not know why the [NAME] had not changed his disposable gloves prior to plating the mashed potatoes. 2. During a food temperature observation on 2/07/24 at 11:42 AM Dietary Aide #1 and Dietary Aide #2 were observed to be wearing hair nets that covered the front portion of their hair but did not cover the back of their hair. Dietary Aide #1 had shoulder length hair which was approximately 6 inches unrestrained below her hair net. Dietary Aide #2 had chin length hair which was approximately 3 inches unrestrained below her hair net. Both Dietary Aides were in the food preparation area with Dietary Aide #2 observed to be slicing tomatoes. An interview on 2/07/24 at 1:57 PM with Dietary Aide #2 revealed that she did not know that her hair was not under the hair net on the back of her head. She stated that she had her hair in the hair net that morning and it must have just fallen out. She stated that she had received training and knew her hair was supposed to be secured under a hair net while in the food preparation area. An interview on 2/07/24 at 2:05 PM with Dietary Aide #2 revealed that she did not know her hair was not under a hair net. She stated that she usually used 2 hair nets to secure her hair and 1 of them must have fallen off. She stated that she had received training and knew her hair was supposed to be secured under a hair net while in the food preparation area. An interview on 2/07/24 at 2:10 PM with the Dietary Manager revealed that Dietary Aides #1 and #2's hair nets must have just 'come undone'. An interview with the Administrator on 2/08/24 at 2:36 PM revealed that she did not know why the Dietary Aides hair had not been secured in hair nets.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Physician interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Physician 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 3/9/21 complaint survey and the 8/20/21 and 9/22/22 recertification and complaint investigation surveys. This was for 7 deficiencies in the areas of F550 Dignity, F677 Activities of Daily Living, F684 Quality of Care/Professional Standards, F693 Tube Feeding, F695 Respiratory Care, F812 Food Preparation and Storage, and F842 Accuracy of Records. These deficiencies were recited on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 2/13/24. The continued failure of the facility during two or more federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F550: Based on observations, record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience when Nurse Aide (NA) #4 stood at Resident #7's bedside while feeding Resident #7. This was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dignity. A reasonable person might feel a lack of dignity when NA #4 stood while feeding them. During the 8/20/21 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to provide a dignified dining experience. During the 9/22/22 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to provide incontinence care. On 2/9/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview, the Administrator discussed the facility's QAA process. She stated she felt the reasons in each example were different. She went on to say she felt the continued difficulties were a result of changing staff. F677: Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to rinse soap from a resident's skin during a dependent resident's bed bath and to provide nail care for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (Resident #57). During the 3/9/21 complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to trim fingernails. During the 8/20/21 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to provide showers or bed baths. During the 9/22/22 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to provide incontinence care and failing to rinse soap per the manufacturer's direction during a bath. On 2/9/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview, the Administrator discussed the facility's QAA process. She stated although staff training had been done, and audits performed to ensure correction of these issues, she felt due to the amount of agency staff the facility employed, Nurse Aides (NAs) just weren't taking their time. She went on to say although there was not a lack of staff, they were being pulled in a lot of different directions. F684: Based on record review and staff and physician interviews the facility failed to obtain daily weights as ordered by the physician for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for respiratory care. During the 8/20/21 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to transcribe orders and have medications available. On 2/9/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview, the Administrator discussed the facility's QAA process. She stated she felt the repeat issues were different. She went on to say she attributed this to changing staff. F693: Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to change a tube feeding syringe daily or store a tube feeding syringe with the plunger separated from the barrel for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for enteral feeding management (Resident #57). During the 9/22/22 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to provide tube feeding as ordered. On 2/9/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview, the Administrator discussed the facility's QAA process. She stated she felt the repeat issues were different. She went on to say she attributed this to changing staff. F695: Based on observations, record review, resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Physician interviews the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for the use of supplemental oxygen (Residents #68 and #37), assess a resident receiving respiratory medications via nebulizer (Resident #8), change oxygen tubing and humidification bottles in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (Residents #68 and #37), and administer oxygen in accordance with the Physician's order (Resident #30) for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. During the 9/22/22 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to notify the physician of a pulmonary consult recommendation. On 2/9/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview, the Administrator discussed the facility's QAA process. She stated she felt the repeat issues were different. She went on to say she attributed this to changing staff. F812: Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to don a clean pair of disposable gloves prior to the start of tray line, failed to ensure dietary staff had their hair restrained during food production and failed to serve a food item within safe temperature range. These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. During the 8/20/21 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to label food. During the 9/22/22 recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to wear hair covering and failing to dry plate covers. On 2/9/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview, the Administrator discussed the facility's QAA process. She stated for the hair covering, although training and auditing had been done, there were changes in staff and there had been no follow-through. F842: Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation of the administration of oxygen (O2) (Resident #30) and the completion of wound treatments (Resident #75). This was for 2 of 21 residents reviewed for accurate documentation. During the 3/9/21 complaint investigation survey the facility was cited for failing to maintain accurate documentation record of meal intake and wound care. On 2/9/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview, the Administrator discussed the facility's QAA process. She stated the last issue with documentation happened 3 years ago. She went on to say she felt the facility had been doing great with documentation so maybe they were just forgetting to document again.
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a dumpster that was in good condition and free of leaks and to maintain the dumpster area free of debris for 1 of 1 dumpster...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a dumpster that was in good condition and free of leaks and to maintain the dumpster area free of debris for 1 of 1 dumpster. This practice had the potential to attract pests and rodents. Findings included: Observation of the facility's dumpster area on 2/07/24 at 1:30 PM with the Regional Nutrition Consultant revealed an area of a black substance around the dumpster which extended about 10 feet toward the road. This area of black substance had a strong odor of refuse. The area observed under the dumpster had approximately 3 inches of black debris which had a strong odor of refuse. The area behind the dumpster and the recycle container but inside the dumpster area fence had several items. These items included a broom, dustpan, shovel, 3 2x4 wood boards, 1 full bag labeled topsoil, 1 partial bag labeled topsoil, and 1 approximately sized 10 feet by 8 feet rusted, gray metal frame with 6 open areas. During an interview on 2/07/24 at 2:10 PM with the Dietary Manager he stated that the dumpster had been leaking for months. He also stated that he was unaware of the items behind the dumpster and did not know why they were there. During an observation and interview with the Administrator on 2/07/24 at 1:45 PM she stated that the dumpster had been leaking for a week and they were working to get a new dumpster. She stated she was unaware of the items behind the dumpster and did not know why they were there.
MINOR (B)

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 maintain walls in good repair for 1 of 23 rooms reviewed for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain walls in good repair for 1 of 23 rooms reviewed for the provision of a safe, clean, homelike environment (room [ROOM NUMBER]). Findings included: On 2/5/24 at 2:56 PM an observation revealed approximately 12 linear indented lines on the wall behind the resident's bed that revealed the plaster. On 2/7/24 at 2:50 PM a second observation of the wall with the Maintenance Director revealed approximately 12 linear indented lines on the wall clearly visible on the right side directly behind the resident's head of bed that revealed the plaster. In interview at that time the Maintenance Director indicated the lines were approximately 12 inches long, 1/8 inch deep, and revealed the plaster. He stated he did monthly room checks of the call system and the emergency lights in the bathroom in every room. He went on to say he did not recall when he last checked room [ROOM NUMBER]. He further indicated he did not keep a log of his monthly room checks. He went on to say there was a computer reporting system where staff could make reports of maintenance issues that needed attention. He further indicated staff would also sometimes tell him in person. The Maintenance Director stated he had not been aware of the gashes in the wall in room [ROOM NUMBER] before now. On 2/8/24 at 9:27 AM a follow-up interview with the Maintenance Director indicated he had last been in room [ROOM NUMBER] about a week or two ago working on the resident's wheelchair. He stated he had not noticed the gashes in the wall at that time. On 2/7/24 at 3:15 PM an interview with NA #3 indicated she was assigned to the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. She stated she had regularly been assigned to work with the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] since his admission to the facility about 2 weeks ago and the scratches had been in the wall since the resident came. She went on to say she thought they were from the movement of the bed up and down. She further indicated she had not notified the Maintenance Director of the scratches because he should have noticed them when he did his rounds. On 2/7/24 at 3:36 PM an interview with the Administrator indicated the facility had a process in place where rooms were inspected after a resident was discharged before a new resident was admitted to the room. She stated she felt the reason the wall in room [ROOM NUMBER] had not been fixed before the current resident was admitted to it was the Maintenance Director had been fixing another room at the time. She further indicated the facility was looking into purchasing bumpers for the beds that would prevent the issue.
Sept 2022 11 deficiencies
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, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care causing...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care causing the resident to feel not good but there was nothing she could do about it for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care. (Resident #31) Findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of stroke (damage to the brain from interrupted blood supply). A review of her quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. It further revealed she had no behaviors or rejection of care. She was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. She required the extensive assistance of two people for toileting and personal hygiene. On 09/19/2022 at 1:46 PM an interview with Resident #31 indicated she had not been offered or provided with incontinence care since the early morning of the night shift around 4:00 AM or 5:00 AM that day. She stated she did not always know if or when she had been incontinent. She went on to say she asked a nurse aide (NA) for incontinence care when they came to her room around lunch time that day. She stated the NA told her they would be back to provide her care after lunch. She further indicated she did not know the NA's name. Resident #31 stated it did not make her feel good to wait this long for incontinence care but she really didn't think there was anything she could do about it. She went on to say it was her understanding the NAs had a system where they started at one end of her hall and worked around. She further indicated she must be at the end. On 09/19/2022 at 2:03 PM Resident #31 was observed to initiate her call light for assistance. A continuous observation revealed at 2:09 PM NA #5 responded to Resident #31's call light. Resident #31 asked NA #5 for incontinence care. An observation of the incontinence care provided by NA #5 at that time revealed Resident #31's incontinence brief was saturated with urine and stool. Her under pad and draw sheet were observed to be soiled with urine. The case on a pillow positioned on Resident #31's left side near her waist was observed to be soiled with urine. A strong odor of urine was present. An interview with NA #5 at that time indicated Resident #31 was not able to reliably tell if or when she was incontinent. NA #5 stated Resident #31's incontinence brief was saturated with urine and stool. She stated her pad, drawsheet and pillowcase were also soiled with urine. She went on to say this was the first time she provided incontinence care to Resident #31 since she started her shift at 7:00 AM. She further indicated she had not offered Resident #31 any incontinence care previously that day. On 09/19/2022 at 2:55 PM an interview with Nurse #4 indicated she was assigned to Resident #31 on the 7AM-3PM shift that day. Nurse #4 went on to say she would help NA's with providing incontinence care or other care to residents when she was asked . She stated NA #5 had not asked her for any assistance with providing incontinence care to Resident #31. On 09/19/2022 at 3:14 PM a follow-up interview with NA #5 indicated she was assigned to provide care to Resident #31 from 7AM until 3PM that day. She went on to say she was responsible for the usual number of residents. She stated she was familiar with Resident #31. NA #5 went on to say she did not keep track of when Resident #31 was last offered or provided with incontinence care. She stated she had a system where she started her shift by providing care to the residents that needed a shower first. She further indicated she just had not gotten around to Resident #31 yet. She stated she should have provided incontinence care to Resident #31 at least 2 to 3 times during her shift. She stated she had not asked the nurse or other NAs for help with providing incontinence care to Resident #31. She further indicated from 7:00 AM until 2:00 PM was too long for Resident #31 to go without incontinence care. She stated going that long without incontinence care would put Resident #31 at risk for skin breakdown. On 09/22/2022 at 11:00 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated incontinent residents should receive incontinence care at least every 2 to 3 hours and more often if they needed it. She stated she would expect NAs to check residents for incontinence at the beginning of their shift and then every 2 to 3 hours or more frequently as needed.
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 review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the advanced directive code status informati...

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 ensure the advanced directive code status information maintained in the electronic record and the hard copy chart matched. This was for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #76) reviewed for advanced directives. Findings included: Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal). A review of his quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. On 9/19/2022 at 1:12 PM a review of Resident #76's electronic medical record revealed a physician's order dated 7/01/2021 for Full Code. The profile section of the electronic record indicated Full Code. In an interview on 09/21/2022 at 2:29 PM Resident #76 stated he had a DNR status. He further indicated he did not want to be resuscitated if his heart or breathing were to stop. On 9/21/2022 at 2:36 PM a review of Resident #76's hard copy chart revealed a physician's order dated 10/30/2019 of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). It further revealed a bright yellow DNR form as the front page signed by Resident #76's attending physician on 1/07/2021. There was no expiration date. On 9/21/2022 at 2:51 PM in an interview Social Worker (SW) #1 stated he had been Resident #76's SW since he was admitted to the facility. He further indicated Resident #76's code status was initially DNR. SW #1 went on to say he had a conversation with Resident #76 in July 2021 where Resident #76 expressed the desire to be a Full Code. SW #1 stated while he periodically did an audit to make sure the code status of residents matched in both the electronic record and the hard chart, he must not have taken Resident #76's DNR form out like he should have after that conversation and the physician's order for Full Code. He went on to say resident's advanced directive code status information should match in the electronic record and hard copy chart or nurses could be confused about code status in the event the electronic record was unavailable. On 09/21/2022 at 3:36 PM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the advanced directive code status information for residents should match in both the electronic record and hard copy chart.
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 observations, record review, and resident, staff and physician interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident, staff and physician interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care ( Resident #31) and failed to rinse soap from a resident's skin per manufacturer's directions during a bath ( Resident #7) for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care. Findings included: 1. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of stroke (damage to the brain from interrupted blood supply). A review of her quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. It further revealed she had no behaviors or rejection of care. She was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. She required the extensive assistance of two people for toileting and personal hygiene. A review of the current comprehensive care plan for Resident #31 revealed a focus area initiated on 08/10/2018 of urinary and bowel incontinence related to impaired mobility, requires assistance with toileting needs, history of overactive bladder and increased risk for skin breakdown. The goal last revised on 05/12/2022 was for her to be free of skin breakdown related to bowel and bladder incontinence through the next review. An intervention was to provide incontinence care promptly. On 09/19/2022 at 1:46 PM an interview with Resident #31 indicated she had not been offered or provided with incontinence care since the early morning of the night shift around 4:00 AM or 5:00 AM that day. She stated she did not always know if or when she had been incontinent. She went on to say she asked a nurse aide (NA) for incontinence care when they came to her room around lunch time that day. She stated the NA told her they would be back to provide her care after lunch. She further indicated she did not know the NA's name. Resident #31 stated it did not make her feel good to wait this long for incontinence care but she really didn't think there was anything she could do about it. She went on to say it was her understanding the NAs had a system where they started at one end of her hall and worked around. She further indicated she must be at the end. On 09/19/2022 at 2:03 PM Resident #31 was observed to initiate her call light for assistance. A continuous observation revealed at 2:09 PM NA #5 responded to Resident #31's call light. Resident #31 asked NA #5 for incontinence care. An observation of the incontinence care provided by NA #5 at that time revealed Resident #31's incontinence brief was saturated with urine and stool. Her under pad and draw sheet were observed to be soiled with urine. The case on a pillow positioned on Resident #31's left side near her waist was observed to be soiled with urine. A strong odor of urine was present. Resident #31 was not observed to have any skin breakdown on her bottom or perineal area. Slight skin redness was observed present to Resident #31's bottom. An interview with NA #5 at that time indicated Resident #31 was not able to reliably tell if or when she was incontinent. NA #5 stated Resident #31's incontinence brief was saturated with urine and stool. She stated her pad, drawsheet and pillowcase were also soiled with urine. She went on to say this was the first time she provided incontinence care to Resident #31 since she started her shift at 7:00 AM. She went on to say she had not offered Resident #31 any incontinence care previously that day. On 09/19/2022 at 2:55 PM an interview with Nurse #4 indicated she was assigned to Resident #31 on the 7AM-3PM shift that day. Nurse #4 went on to say she would help NA's with providing incontinence care or other care to residents when she was asked . She stated NA #5 had not asked her for any assistance with providing incontinence care to Resident #31. On 09/19/2022 at 3:14 PM a follow-up interview with NA #5 indicated she was assigned to provide care to Resident #31 from 7AM until 3PM that day. She went on to say she was responsible for the usual number of residents. She stated she was familiar with Resident #31. NA #5 went on to say she did not keep track of when Resident #31 was last offered or provided with incontinence care. She stated she had a system where she started her shift by providing care to the residents that needed a shower first. She further indicated she just had not gotten around to Resident #31 yet. She stated she should have provided incontinence care to Resident #31 at least 2 to 3 times during her shift. She stated she had not asked the nurse or other NAs for help with providing incontinence care to Resident #31. She further indicated from 7:00 AM until 2:00 PM was too long for Resident #31 to go without incontinence care. She stated going that long without incontinence care would put Resident #31 at risk for skin breakdown. On 09/21/2022 at 2:42 PM an interview with Resident #31's physician (MD #2) indicated from 7:00 AM until 2:00 PM was too long for Resident #31 to go without being provided incontinence care. He stated going that long would put Resident #31 at risk for skin breakdown from friction. On 09/22/2022 at 11:00 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated incontinent residents should receive incontinence care at least every 2 to 3 hours and more often if they needed it. She stated she would expect NAs to check residents for incontinence at the beginning of their shift and then every 2 to 3 hours or more frequently as needed. She went on to say Resident #31 had a history of skin issues. She further indicated going from 7:00 AM until 2:00 PM without receiving any incontinence care would put Resident #31 at increased risk for skin breakdown. 2. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His active diagnoses included chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, cerebrovascular accident (CVA, TIA, or stroke), and hemiplegia or hemiparesis. Resident #7's care plan dated 8/8/2022 revealed he was care planned activities of daily living care. The interventions included to assist the resident with bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, set up assistance with eating, transfers, bed mobility, and toileting. Resident #7's minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as severely cognitively impaired. He was assessed to have no moods or behaviors. He required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene. He was totally dependent on staff for transfers, locomotion off unit, and toilet use. Review of the manufacturer's directions on the bottle for the soap used for Resident #7 indicated to, Moisten scalp, skin or washcloth. Apply gel, lather, and rinse thoroughly. During observation on 9/20/22 at 10:48 AM Nurse Aide #1 was observed providing a bath for Resident #7. Nurse Aide #1 added warm water and soap to a wash bin. Soap suds were visible in the soap bin water. Nurse Aide #1 then placed a washcloth in the soap water and used this to clean the resident's arms and upper body with soap suds visible on the skin. Nurse Aide #1 then put the washcloth back in the soap water, wrung out the washcloth, and used this to then go over the areas of Resident #7's skin he just washed and then patted the resident dry. Nurse Aide #1 proceeded to complete Resident #7's bath in this manner. During an interview on 9/20/22 at 11:22 AM Nurse Aide #1 stated in hindsight he should have had a system to rinse the soap from the resident's skin, but because he only had one wash bin, he only had the water with soap in it which was why he did not rinse the soap from the resident's skin prior to drying it. During an interview on 9/20/22 at 1:45 PM the Director of Nursing stated Nurse Aide #1 should have rinsed the soap from the skin prior to drying the skin to avoid skin irritation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, Physician interview and family interview, the facility failed to provide the resident'...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, Physician interview and family interview, the facility failed to provide the resident's tube feeding according to the Physician's orders for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #249) reviewed for tube feeding. Findings included: Resident #249 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition. Upon admission, Resident #249 was documented as alert and oriented to place. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed an order for Resident #249 to receive one can (can of fortified nutritional supplement), every 4 hours, 4 times a day and a heart healthy puree diet. Review of the facility's Physician orders from 9-13-22 to 9-15-22 revealed Resident #249's tube feeding order was not written until 6:58pm on 9-14-22. Resident #249's care plan dated 9-14-22 revealed a goal that she would be free from complications of tube feeding. The interventions for the goal were in part observe for signs and symptoms of tube feeding complications, elevate the head of the bed, care for tube feeding site per facility protocol. Review of a Physician order dated 9-14-22 revealed Resident #249 was to receive 240ml (milliliters) of tube feeding followed by 240ml of water every 4 hours. A Physician order dated 9-15-22 revealed Resident #249 was to have nothing by mouth (NPO). Resident #249's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of September 2022 revealed no documentation that Resident #249 received her tube feedings until 9-15-22 at 8:30am. During a family interview on 9-19-22 at 2:31pm, the family member voiced concern that she did not think Resident #249 received her tube feedings for several days. The family member explained she had brought several cans of the tube feeding the resident received in the hospital and placed it on the resident's countertop. She stated each day she had come to visit Resident #249; the same number of cans would be on the resident's countertop. The family member said she had spoken with staff about the resident's tube feeding and stated the staff would tell her the facility was trying to obtain an order to provide the tube feeding. A telephone interview occurred with Nurse #1 on 9-20-22 at 10:14am. Nurse #1 confirmed she was the admitting nurse for Resident #249 on 9-13-22 around 3:00pm. She stated she had reviewed the hospitals discharge orders with the facility Physician on 9-13-22 around 3:30pm but said she could not remember verifying any tube feeding orders for resident #249. Nurse #1 also stated she did not provide tube feedings to Resident #249 but clarified the resident should have received a feeding at 4:00pm on 9-13-22. An interview with Nurse #2 occurred on 9-20-22 at 10:52am. Nurse #2 discussed being assigned to Resident #249 on 9-14-22 from 7:00am to 7:00pm. She explained she did not review the resident's orders because when she arrived to work the previous nurse had informed her all the orders were in the computer system. Nurse #2 said she was aware Resident #249 had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube for tube feedings but did not see any feedings were scheduled on her shift. The nurse explained when Resident #249's family member arrived for a visit late in the afternoon of 9-14-22, the family member had questioned her about the resident's tube feedings. She said it was then she realized there had not been an order obtained for Resident #249's tube feedings so she called the Physician and obtained an order at 6:58pm on 9-14-22. Nurse #2 stated she could not remember if she provided a tube feeding to the resident but thought she may have and just forgot to document the tube feeding. During a telephone interview with Nurse #3 on 9-20-22 at 12:21pm, the nurse confirmed she had worked 7:00pm to 7:00am on 9-14-22 and was assigned to Resident #249. Nurse #3 stated upon her arrival to work, she assisted Nurse #2 to place Resident #249's tube feeding order into the computer system. She said Resident #249 could have a tube feeding at 8:00pm but she did not provide the feeding. She explained the resident's family member was present and thought the family member would provide the tube feeding. Nurse #3 stated she did not know if the family member had provided the tube feeding. Physician #1 was interviewed by telephone on 9-20-22 at 2:27pm. The Physician stated he had received a call to review Resident #249's hospital discharge orders but said he could not remember if the resident's tube feedings were discussed at that time. The Physician discussed the possibility of Resident #249 declining if she had not received her tube feedings for 2 days but clarified the labs he had obtained on 9-15-22 did not reflect Resident #249 had gone 2 days without tube feedings. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 9-20-22 at 4:09pm. The DON stated the admitting nurse should have clarified Resident #249's tube feeding orders and placed the order into the facility's computer system. During an interview with the Administrator on 9-22-22 at 11:45am, the Administrator stated she expected all orders to be clarified upon admission and entered in the computer system. She also said she expected the staff following the admission to also review, clarify and ensure all orders are entered into the computer.
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 record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the Physician of the Pulmonologist consult...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the Physician of the Pulmonologist consult recommendations for Resident #11. This was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory. Findings included: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 was cognitively intact, and he was coded for oxygen usage. Review of Resident #11's Pulmonary consult dated 3/10/22 revealed the Pulmonologist recommended the following: - a follow up appointment in about 3 months - Budesonide (anti inflammatory for lungs) one vial twice daily - Performist (relaxes the lung muscles) twice daily - Duonebs (respiratory inhalant) four times a day while awake - Auto bipap (bilevel positive airway pressure which is a breathing machine that delivers 2 levels of air pressure) at night with oxygen Review of Resident #11's electronic medical record (EMR) for March 2022 revealed the resident had orders Budesonide twice daily (ordered 10/26/21), Cpap (continuous positive airway pressure which is a breathing machine that delivers a continuous level of air pressure) at night with oxygen (ordered 10/26/21), and duoneb (ipratropium and albuterol ordered 11/08/21) and no orders were discovered for Performist, bipap, or the Pulmonary follow up appointment. An interview on 9/20/22 at 2:42 PM with the Transportation Director revealed she was not employed at the facility until the end of June. She was unable to locate any information related to a follow up Pulmonary appointment for Resident #11 since his Pulmonary consult on 3/10/22. An interview, conducted in conjunction with a record review, on 9/20/22 at 3:37 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that Resident #11 had no orders for Performist or bipap and had not been scheduled for a follow up Pulmonary appointment since his 3/10/22 consult. An interview on 9/21/22 at 11:19 AM with Physician #1 revealed he was not aware that Resident #11 had a Pulmonary consult in March and had not seen the Pulmonologist's notes or recommendations. He stated Resident #11 was very stable on his current respiratory medications and treatments so he would not have changed them at that time. He further stated the resident should have had his recommended follow up Pulmonary appointment. An interview on 9/21/22 at 12:09 PM with the Administrator confirmed that Physician #1 should have been provided the Pulmonary consult recommendations and she did not know why it was not done.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to arrange a follow-up pulmonary appointment for 1 o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to arrange a follow-up pulmonary appointment for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #11). Findings included: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 was cognitively intact and he was coded for receiving oxygen. Review of Resident #11's pulmonary consult dated 3/10/22 revealed the Pulmonologist recommendation for a return appointment 'in about 3 months or around 6/10/22.' Review of Resident #11's electronic medical record revealed no pulmonary follow up appointment. An interview on 9/20/22 at 2:42 PM with the Transportation Director confirmed her position was responsible for scheduling resident follow up appointments but she was not employed at the facility until the end of June. She was unable to locate any information related to a follow up pulmonary appointment for Resident #11 since his pulmonary consult on 3/10/22. She stated she was supposed to receive a copy of the consult paperwork to review for follow up appointment recommendations and schedule the appointment. An interview on 9/20/22 at 2:45 PM with the Medical Records Director and the Transportation Director revealed she was unable to locate any information related to a follow up pulmonary appointment for Resident #11. An interview on 9/20/22 at 3:37 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that Resident #11 had not been scheduled for a follow up pulmonary appointment since his 3/10/22 consult. An interview on 9/21/22 at 11:19 AM with Physician #1 confirmed that Resident #11 should have had a pulmonary follow up appointment as recommended by the Pulmonologist. An interview on 9/21/22 at 12:09 PM with the Administrator confirmed that Resident #11 should have had a follow up appointment and she did not know why it was not done.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #24 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], was hospitalized on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #24 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], was hospitalized on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] on with diagnoses which included anxiety and depression. The 5-day Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was cognitively intact. During the look back period, she was coded for rejection of care for 1 - 3 days and had received no antianxiety medications. Resident #24's care plan, created on 7/26/22 and last revised on 9/07/22, revealed a focus for psychotropic drugs with the potential for side effects related to antidepressant and antianxiety. The interventions included monitoring for tremors and for the Physician to evaluate the effectiveness and side effects. A Physician's order dated 7/17/22 read in part for Lorazepam (antianxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg) by mouth every 12 hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety/anxiousness. There was no stop date. On her readmission to the facility, a Physician's order dated 8/30/22 read in part for Lorazepam 0.5 mg by mouth every 12 hours PRN for anxiety. There was no stop date. Review of Resident #24's Medication Administration Records (MAR) for July, August, and September revealed she received Lorazepam 6 times in July (July 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31), 2 times in August (August 3 & 9); and 2 times in September (September 5 & 6). Reviews of the monthly drug regimen review dated July 21, 2022, completed by the Consultant Pharmacist for Resident #24 included a recommendation to the physician that read in part that Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) guidelines limit the duration of PRN psychotropic orders to 14 days with an area for the Physician to discontinue or add for a stop date for the Lorazepam. Review of the Consultant Pharmacist drug review recommendation revealed it was signed by Physician #2 with no discontinuation or stop date noted. An interview on 9/21/22 at 11:38 AM with Consultant Pharmacist confirmed she was aware of the need for a stop date for PRN psychotropic medications. She stated that on the monthly regimen review she had made a recommendation to the physician for a stop date or discontinuation of Resident #24's Lorazepam. She stated she had not completed the August review due to the resident's hospitalization and had not yet completed the September monthly review. An interview on 9/21/22 at 2:36 PM with Physician #2 revealed he was aware of the need for a stop date for PRN psychotropic medications and did not know why Resident #24's Lorazepam did not have a stop date. He stated it was Just missed and must have slipped through the cracks. An interview on 9/21/22 at 12:06 PM with the Administrator revealed she was aware of the need for a stop date for as needed psychotropic medications and did not know why there was no stop date. Based on record review, staff, Pharmacy consultant, and Physician interviews, the facility failed to ensure Physician's orders for an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication (drug that effects the mental state) were time limited in duration for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #24) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: 1.Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included anxiety. Upon admission on [DATE] Resident #1 was documented as moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #1's care plan dated 9-14-22 revealed a goal that she will tolerate the lowest therapeutic dose of psychotropic medications. The interventions for the goal were in part administer psychotropic medications per the Physician orders. Review of the Physician orders for 9-13-22 revealed an order for Resident #1 to have Lorazepam (antianxiety medication) 2mg (milligrams) every 6 hours as needed for anxiety. The order was observed to not have a stop date. Nurse #1 was interviewed on 9-21-22 at 10:35am. Nurse #1 stated PRN psychotropic medication should have a stop date within 14 days of when the order was written. She explained if the PRN medication did not have a stop date, she would contact the Physician and obtain a stop date. Nurse #1 said she was unaware Resident #1's PRN Lorazepam did not have a stop date because she had not provided Resident #1 the PRN medication. The Pharmacy Consultant was interviewed by telephone on 9-21-22 at 11:51am. The Consultant stated she had not seen Resident #1 yet because she was a new admission, so she was unaware the resident had a PRN Lorazepam order without a stop date. She said a PRN Lorazepam order should have a stop date within 14 days from when the order was written. Physician #2 was interviewed by telephone on 9-21-22 at 2:36pm. Physician #2 stated Resident #1's 9-13-22 order for Lorazepam 2mg every 6 hours as needed should have had a stop date written. He stated the order had slipped through the cracks and was missed. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9-22-22 at 10:45am, the DON stated the process for PRN stop dates was the Pharmacy Consultant would review the medications, send the recommendation for a stop date to the facility and the facility would give the recommendation to the Physician. She explained since Resident #1 was a new admission, the nurse liaison was responsible for reviewing the medications and checking for PRN stop dates. The DON stated the nurse liaison was also new and may not have known to check for the stop dates on PRN's. The Administrator was interviewed on 9-22-22 at 11:45am. The Administrator stated she expected staff to have approved documentation that included what the medication was for and a stop date if needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 include documentation in the resident's medical record to ref...

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 include documentation in the resident's medical record to reflect education was provided regarding the benefits and potential side effects of receiving the pneumococcal vaccine and failed to include why vaccines were not administered for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Residents #11, #70, and #88). Findings included: The facility policy for New admission Vaccination Screening dated 2/23/22 read in part Regarding Pneumococcal immunizations, facilities are expected to follow Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) recommendations. This means facilities need to have a protocol in place for the administration of pneumococcal vaccine(s). 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure and he was coded to be cognitively intact. Review of Resident #11's immunization record revealed no pneumococcal vaccinations had been administered or refused. An interview on 9/21/22 at 8:35 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was also the Acting Infection Control Nurse confirmed Resident #11 had not received the pneumococcal vaccine and she did not know why it had not been given. She stated the previous Infection Control Nurse should have monitored newly admitted residents to ensure they were offered or given the pneumococcal vaccine and she had not done so. An interview on 9/21/22 at 12:14 PM with the Administrator confirmed that Resident #11 should have received the pneumococcal vaccine and she did not know why it had not been done. 2. Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses which included obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and stroke and he was coded to have severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #70's immunization record revealed no pneumococcal vaccinations had been administered or refused. An interview on 9/21/22 at 8:35 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was also the Acting Infection Control Nurse confirmed Resident #70 was eligible for the pneumococcal vaccine due to his medical conditions but had not received the pneumococcal vaccine and she did not know why it had not been given. She stated the previous Infection Control Nurse should have monitored newly admitted residents to ensure they were offered or given the pneumococcal vaccine and she had not done so. An interview on 9/21/22 at 12:14 PM with the Administrator confirmed that Resident #70 should have received the pneumococcal vaccine and she did not know why it had not been done. 3. Resident #88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses which included coronary artery disease and hypertension and she was coded to be cognitively intact. Review of Resident #88's immunization record revealed no pneumococcal vaccinations had been administered or refused. An interview on 9/21/22 at 8:35 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was also the Acting Infection Control Nurse revealed she did not know if Resident #88 had received the pneumococcal vaccine prior to admission or not. She stated she did not know why it had not been documented as given prior to admission or the resident had not received the vaccine since admission to the facility. She stated the previous Infection Control Nurse should have monitored newly admitted residents to ensure they were offered or given the pneumococcal vaccine and she had not done so. An interview on 9/21/22 at 12:14 PM with the Administrator confirmed that Resident #88 should have received the pneumococcal vaccine and she did not know why it had not been done.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to serve food in sanitary conditions by a staff not covering their hair while preparing and serving food in 1 of 4 kitchenettes observed (Hall ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to serve food in sanitary conditions by a staff not covering their hair while preparing and serving food in 1 of 4 kitchenettes observed (Hall 300/400 Kitchenette) and failed to dry plate covers individually for 1 of 1 dishwashing observations in the main kitchen. Findings included: 1. During observation on 9/20/22 at 8:30 AM Dietary Aide #1 did not have a hairnet on while she was plating food for breakfast at the Hall 300/400 Kitchenette. During observation on 9/20/22 at 12:23 PM Dietary Aide #1 was again observed plating food at the Hall 300/400 Kitchenette. Dietary Aide #1 did not have a hairnet on while she was plating food for lunch. During an interview on 9/20/22 at 12:27 PM Dietary Aide #1 stated she did not realize she was not wearing a hair net and should have been for infection control. During an interview on 9/20/22 at 12:28 PM the Dietary Manager stated staff should wear a hairnet when preparing and serving food at the kitchenettes and Dietary Aide #1 did not have one on and should have. During an interview on 9/20/22 at 2:13 PM the Administrator stated staff should wear hair nets when preparing and serving food. 2. During observation on 9/21/22 at 8:28 AM plate covers were observed in the kitchen on the drying rack next to the dishwasher. There were 15 plate covers and they were stacked or nested in each other where they were placed on the drying rack. When the Dietary Manager removed the 15 plate covers from the nested stack, water was observed on the surfaces of each plate cover. During an interview on 9/21/22 at 8:28 AM the Dietary Manager stated the plates should have been stored separately to dry to prevent bacterial and other growth. He concluded he would separate the lids for drying immediately. During an interview on 9/21/22 at 11:34 AM the Administrator stated when dishes were drying including plate covers, they should not be nested when drying.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interviews with resident, physician, Pharmacy Consultant, and staff, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain impleme...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews with resident, physician, Pharmacy Consultant, and staff, 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 10/19/2019 complaint survey, 12/19/2019 recertification/complaint survey, 3/9/2021 complaint survey, and 8/20/2021 recertification/complaint survey. This was for 7 deficiencies cited on the current recertification/complaint survey of 9/22/22: 3 deficiencies were cited on 12/19/2019 and 8/20/2021 in the areas of F582 Medicaid/Medicare Coverage Liability Notice, F758 Free From Unnecessary Psychotropic Medication, and F812 Food Storage; 1 deficiency was cited on 10/19/2019 and 8/20/2021 in the area of F550 Dignity; 1 deficiency was cited on 8/20/2021 and 3/9/2021 in the area of F677 Activities of Daily Living Care Provided for Dependent Residents; and 2 deficiencies were cited on 8/20/2021 in the areas of F745 Provision of Medically Related Social Services and F883 Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccinations. The continued failure of the facility during 2 or more federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: 1. F550: Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care causing the resident to feel not good but there was nothing she could do about it for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care. (Resident #31) During the recertification/complaint survey of 8/20/2021 the facility was cited for failing to maintain a dignified dining experience. During the 10/19/2019 complaint survey the facility was cited for failure to ensure a resident was able to use a bedside commode without urine spilling onto the floor causing embarrassment. 2. F582: Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary notices (Resident #71). During the recertification/complaint survey of 8/20/2021 the facility was cited for failing to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN). During the recertification/complaint survey of 12/19/2019 the facility was cited for failing to provide a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN). 3. F677: Based on observations, record review, and resident, staff and physician interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care ( Resident #31) and failed to rinse soap from a resident's skin per manufactures directions during a bath ( Resident #7) for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care. During the recertification/complaint survey of 8/20/2021 the facility was cited for failing to provide showers or bed baths to dependent residents. During the 3/9/2021 complaint survey the facility was cited for failing to maintain dependent resident's fingernails trimmed. 4. F745: Based on record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to arrange a follow-up pulmonary appointment for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory (Resident #11). During the recertification/complaint survey of 8/20/2021 the facility was cited for failure to arrange a follow-up appointment. 5. F758: Based on record review, staff, Pharmacy consultant, and Physician interviews, the facility failed to ensure Physician's orders for an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication (drug that effects the mental state) were time limited in duration for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #24) reviewed for unnecessary medications. During the recertification/complaint survey of 8/20/2021 the facility was cited for failure to obtain a stop date for prn psychotropic medication and for not completing a Dyskinesia Identification System Condensed User Scale (DISCUS). During the recertification/complaint survey of 12/19/2019 the facility was cited for failure to obtain a stop date for prn psychotropic medication. 6. F812: Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to serve food in sanitary conditions by a staff not covering their hair while preparing and serving food in 1 of 4 kitchenettes observed (Hall 300/400 Kitchenette) and failed to dry plate covers individually for 1 of 1 dishwashing observations in the main kitchen. During the recertification/complaint survey of 8/20/2021 the facility was cited for failing to label opened foods with a use by date. During the recertification/complaint survey of 12/19/2019 the facility was cited for failing to change gloves. 7. F883: Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to include documentation in the resident's medical record to reflect education was provided regarding the benefits and potential side effects of receiving the pneumococcal vaccine and failed to include why vaccines were not administered for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Residents #11, #70, and #88). During the recertification/complaint survey of 12/19/2019 the facility was cited for failing to assess residents for eligibility and offer pneumococcal vaccinations upon admission to the facility and for failing to offer annual influenza vaccine. In an interview on 9/22/2022 at 11:25 AM the Administrator stated she felt the facility's failure to maintain the corrective actions put in place by their QAA Committee was due to the frequent changeover in management staff and the facility's being overwhelmed during the COVID pandemic. She went on to say there had been changeover in Director of Nursing, Transportation, and Kitchen management staff. She further indicated she felt the facility now had stable staff in these positions and was working hard to phase out agency staff with permanent staff. The Administrator stated with the consistency of staff and ongoing training the issues would get better.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide required dementia management and/or abuse prevention training for 3 of 3 current nursing staff (Nurse Aide (NA) #2, NA #3, N...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide required dementia management and/or abuse prevention training for 3 of 3 current nursing staff (Nurse Aide (NA) #2, NA #3, NA #4) reviewed for education requirements. Findings included: 1.NA #2 was hired on 2-3-22. The facility provided NA #2's new hire education and education completed since her hire date. Upon review of the education, NA #2 had not received education on dementia management training. 2. The hire date for NA #3 was 5-25-21. The facility provided NA #3's new hire education and education completed since her hire date. The review revealed NA #3 had not completed the annual dementia management training or the abuse prevention training. 3. NA #4 was hired on 12-1-20. The facility provided NA #4's new hire education and education completed since her hire date. Upon review, NA #4 had not completed the annual dementia management training. The Human Resource Coordinator (HRC) was interviewed on 9-22-22 at 9:50am. The HRC clarified the facility did not have a staff development coordinator and she was responsible for the staff education. She explained she was not a nurse but was still responsible for teaching nurse topics. She stated she teaches through videos and then the new hire is paired with a long-term employee of the same discipline for their check off requirements. The HRC discussed starting her position in April 2022 and was unaware of the education issues and that employees were to complete their training in the facility's computer system until a survey was conducted in May 2022. She said in July 2022 she had begun educating all the staff on the facility's educational computer system and the need to complete yearly training through the computer system. The HRC discussed prior to the week of 9-19-22, no employee had completed the required dementia management training and explained NA #3 had been mailed the abuse prevention training but stated she had not received confirmation that NA #3 had completed the training. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9-22-22 at 10:45am, the DON discussed starting her position in May 2022 and was unaware who was responsible for staff education prior to May 2022. She also discussed becoming aware of the lack of staff education in May 2022 during a survey, so the facility began completing education on abuse and other topics but had not included the dementia management training. The DON stated the lack of staff education was also due to staff turn over and the use of agency staff. The Administrator was interviewed on 9-22-22 at 11:45am. The Administrator discussed staff being educated on the facility's education computer system and she expected staff to complete their annual training as assigned.
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "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: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $25,625 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $25,625 in fines. Higher than 94% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (8/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 66%, which is 20 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 68%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 25 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center?

Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 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 PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Clayton, North Carolina.

How Does Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (66%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-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 Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center is high. At 66%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 68%. 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 Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

Springbrook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has been fined $25,625 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,335. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Springbrook Nursing And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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