Trinity Elms

7449 Fair Oaks Drive, Clemmons, NC 27012 (336) 747-1153
Non profit - Church related 100 Beds LUTHERAN SERVICES CAROLINAS Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
34/100
#300 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Trinity Elms in Clemmons, North Carolina has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #300 out of 417 nursing homes in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #9 out of 13 in Forsyth County, suggesting limited better local options. The facility's trend is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 44%, which is slightly better than the state average, but the facility has concerning RN coverage, being lower than 83% of other facilities in North Carolina. Notably, there were serious incidents where a resident did not receive timely medical attention for skin wounds and another was left unattended in the shower, leading to severe burns, highlighting critical safety issues alongside some strengths in staff retention.

Trust Score
F
34/100
In North Carolina
#300/417
Bottom 29%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$15,646 in fines. Higher than 96% of North Carolina facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below North Carolina average of 48%

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: 44%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $15,646

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: LUTHERAN SERVICES CAROLINAS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews with the staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Medical Doctor (MD), and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), hosp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews with the staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Medical Doctor (MD), and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), hospital, and facility record reviews, the facility failed to correctly identify a resident when the medications ordered for one resident were inadvertently administered to another resident. This occurred for 1 of 3 resident (Resident #1) whose medications were reviewed. The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with cumulative diagnoses which included a history of hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, atrial fibrillation (a type of heart arrythmia), and dementia with behaviors. A review of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) indicated her 4/15/25 admission physician's orders included the following: --17 micrograms (mcg) per actuation ipratropium (an oral inhalation medication used to treat asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) to be inhaled as two puffs orally every 6 hours as needed for shortness of breath; --6.25 milligrams (mg) carvedilol (an antihypertensive medication used to treat high blood pressure and/or atrial fibrillation) to be given as one tablet by mouth twice daily; --125 mcg (5000 units) cholecalciferol (a Vitamin D supplement) to be given as one capsule by mouth one time a day; --40 mg citalopram (an antidepressant medication) to be given as one tablet by mouth one time a day; --5 mg apixaban (an oral anticoagulant) to be given as one tablet by mouth two times a day; --600 mg guaifenesin (an expectorant used to thin mucous secretions) extended release (ER) to be given as one tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for congestion; --20 mg pantoprazole (a medication used to treat acid reflux) to be given as one tablet by mouth one time a day; and, --100 mg quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication) to be given as one tablet by mouth at bedtime. An order was also received on 4/15/25 to check the resident's vital signs every day and evening shift. The resident's 4/22/25 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) reported Resident #1 had severely impaired cognition. Resident #1's EMR included her vital sign results from 4/15/25 through 4/23/25. This review revealed Resident #1's blood pressure (BP) and pulse (P) readings were variable. The low and high readings for her BP and pulse from 4/15/25 - 4/23/25 included the following: --On 4/16/25 at 9:46 AM, her BP was documented to be 147/84 (a high BP reading for this resident); --On 4/16/25 at 9:46 AM, her pulse was documented to be 61 beats per minute (lowest pulse reading); --On 4/18/25 at 9:54 AM, the resident's pulse was documented to be 81 beats per minute (highest pulse reading); --On 4/21/25 at 3:40 PM, the resident's BP was documented to be 105/64 (a low BP reading for this resident). A Medication (Med) Error Report dated 4/24/25 at 10:50 AM documented that a medication error was reported to have occurred on 4/24/25 at 10:00 AM by Medication Aide (Med Aide) #1. The Medication Error Report indicated this med error involved the wrong medication, administration procedure not followed, and the wrong resident. Medications mistakenly administered to Resident #1 included the following: --1 tablet of 10 mg amlodipine (an antihypertensive medication); --1 tablet of 81 mg aspirin; --1 tablet of 5 mg benazepril (an antihypertensive medication); --1 tablet of 10 mg buspirone (an antianxiety medication); --1 tablet of 20 mg citalopram (an antidepressant); --1 tablet of 5 mg oxybutynin XL (an extended release formulation of a medication used to treat overactive bladder); --2 tablets of 100 mg docusate (a stool softener); --1 spray in each nostril of 50 mcg fluticasone nasal spray (a steroid used to treat inflammation due to allergies); --1 tablet of 40 mg pantoprazole (a medication used to treat acid reflux); --1 tablet of 0.5 mg risperidone (an antipsychotic medication); --1 tablet of 100 mg trimethoprim (an antibiotic); --1 drop of 0.4-0.3% Systane eye drops (a lubricant eye drop) instilled into each eye; --1 tablet of 10 mg hydralazine (an antihypertensive medication). The Med Error Report noted the resident's NP was notified of the error on 4/24/25 at 10:55 AM and the MD was notified on 4/24/25 at 11:00 AM. The provider spoke with the resident's Responsible Party (RP) and ordered the resident to be sent to the Emergency Department (ED). An initial interview was conducted on 4/29/25 at 2:10 PM with Med Aide #1 in the presence of the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). Med Aide #1 was identified as the staff member who mistakenly administered another resident's medications to Resident #1 on 4/24/25. The Medication Aide reported she administered Resident #1's morning medications to her around 8:20 AM. At that time, the resident was not wearing her glasses or holding a stuffed animal. During the morning medication pass, she noticed a therapist had come to the hall to get Resident #2 for a therapy session, so she initially skipped over giving Resident #2 her morning medications. A while later (around 10:00 AM), she saw Resident #1 sitting in the TV room. She thought Resident #1 was Resident #2 because she looked quite different (she was now wearing her glasses and holding a stuffed animal). Med Aide #1 stated when she approached Resident #1, she addressed her by Resident #2's name, and Resident #1 responded. She then administered Resident #2's morning medications to Resident #1. Med Aide #1 reported that about one hour or so later, she realized she had made an error and reported it to the nurse (Nurse #1). Resident #1's EMR included a Health Status Note dated 4/24/25 at 11:57 AM and authored by Nurse #1. Nurse #1 was the hall nurse assigned to care for Resident #1 on the first shift of 4/24/25. The note read, Resident was given the wrong medications this am [morning], NP notified and advised for resident to be sent out to be evaluated, POA [Power of Attorney] notified and came to the building. BP 110/68, resident is alert no signs of pain or distress at this time. EMT [Emergency Medical Technicians] were called and are taking resident to [name of hospital]. A telephone interview was conducted on 4/29/25 at 2:26 PM with Nurse #1. When asked, Nurse #1 recalled what transpired the morning of 4/24/25. She reported that Med Aide #1 came and told her that she thought she accidentally gave Resident #1 someone else's medications. The nurse told the med aide to check Resident #1's blood pressure a couple of times to be sure she was doing okay while she herself informed the facility's Director of Nursing (DON), NP (who happened to be in-house), and resident's RP of the incident. She stated the DON and NP joined her as they came to check on Resident #1 and talk with the resident's family member (who came to the facility). When asked if the resident had a change in condition, Nurse #1 stated she did not. Nurse #1 recalled her first BP was a little low (99/63), but when her BP was taken again it was 110/68. However, she reported the decision was made to send the resident out for evaluation as a precautionary measure. Meanwhile, staff stayed with the resident at the nursing station until Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived. An NP Encounter Note dated 4/24/25 reported the resident was seen on this date per staff request due to a medication error. The notes read, in part: Staff nurse reports that resident was given her scheduled am [morning] medication and was also administered another resident's am [morning] medication . She reported the resident was sitting up in a wheelchair and described her as, alert and oriented at her baseline. She is in no acute distress. She denies pain, dizziness, headache, light-headedness. She is speaking in full sentences. No apparent adverse reactions. Staff nurse reports BP of 99/63. The NP's plan of care noted, .She was stable, at her baseline, in no acute distress. BP 110/68 prior to transfer . An interview was conducted on 4/29/25 at 12:02 PM with the NP. During the interview, the NP recalled she initially saw Resident #1 as a new admission on [DATE]. On 4/24/25, the nurse notified her that the resident accidentally received her own morning medications plus those intended for another resident. The NP stated she reviewed the additional medications given to the resident and was primarily concerned about a potential drop in her blood pressure. The NP also noted that since Resident #1 was accidentally given another antipsychotic med, she wanted to have her monitored for potential drowsiness. She reported that although the decision was made to send Resident #1 out to the hospital for further evaluation, her BP was 110/68 prior to leaving the facility and the resident was very stable. The NP added, Absolutely she's had no reactions. The EMS Report related to the transportation of Resident #1 from the facility to the hospital ED on 4/24/25 was reviewed. The Incident Times listed indicated the call was received from the facility on 4/24/25 at 11:50 AM with EMS on scene at 12:00 PM and departing the scene at 12:13 PM. The resident's vital signs were noted at 12:21 PM to include a BP of 118/58 and pulse of 59 bpm. EMS arrived at the hospital ED at 12:25 PM. A narrative of the EMS Report read in part, No interventions were rendered at this time. The pt [patient] was monitored in route to the facility of family's choice. Care was transferred to the ED RN [Registered Nurse]. The hospital ED records were received and reviewed. An ED Provider Note dated 4/24/25 at 12:55 PM noted the resident was alert and at baseline. Vital signs taken at 12:36 PM included BP 113/54 and at 12:40 PM her pulse was 59. The provider noted he reviewed the meds given incorrectly and noted There are couple antihypertensives and some medicine that can cause sedation. Discussed with family will give IV [intravenous] fluid bolus and monitor overnight. An ED Extended Stay Discharge Note dated 4/25/25 at 9:04 AM read, in part: There were all single dose meds and none were especially worrisome. She remained stable overnight. This morning she is asymptomatic and her family feels that she is at her baseline. Her vitals remained normal overnight and she has been stable during the 20 hour ED visit. Resident #1 was discharged back to the facility on 4/25/25. An interview was conducted on 4/29/25 at 2:41 PM with the facility's Medical Director, who was also Resident #1's Medical Doctor (MD). During the interview, the MD reported she was made aware of the 4/24/25 medication error involving Resident #1. When asked, the MD reported the main concern with this situation was about the extra BP medications the resident received. She stated she agreed with the NP in recommending the resident be sent out to the hospital. The MD reported sending her out was more precautionary than anything else. The resident wasn't dizzy, light-headed, or showing any concerning signs or symptoms prior to leaving the facility and she was at her baseline. Upon inquiry, the MD stated she was told the resident did receive fluids in the ED. She added that Resident #1 did not experience any adverse drug effects. An interview was conducted on 4/30/25 at 8:55 AM with the facility's DON. During the interview, the DON was asked what her expectations were for the nursing staff when conducting medication administration. She responded by saying, That they follow their administration guidelines related to the 6 rights [referring to the right person, right medication, right dose, right time, right route, and right documentation].
Jan 2025 4 deficiencies
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 staff interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain accurate advance directive information (code status...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain accurate advance directive information (code status) throughout both the electronic medical record and paper medical record for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for advance directive (Resident #48). The findings included: Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #48's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a physician's order dated 12/12/24 that read full code. Review of Resident #48's paper medical record located at the nurse's station revealed Resident #48 had a signed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form dated 12/16/24. Resident #48's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #48's EMR showed a communication banner on the top of Resident #48's opened EMR and her code status read full code. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 1/15/25 at 9:01 AM. During the interview, Nurse #1 indicated if there was an emergency she needed to know code status she would check the hard chart (paper medical record) first. Nurse #1 indicated that if there was a discrepancy between the hard chart and EMR she would check with the Director of Nursing (DON). Nurse #1 verified discrepancy that Resident #48's paper medical record indicated a DNR and her EMR read full code. An interview was conducted on 1/15/25 at 9:07 AM with the DON and revealed if an emergency were to happen, staff should check the hard chart located in the binder at the nurse's station to see if there is a DNR. The interview further revealed it was her expectation that the EMR and paper medical record match. An interview was conducted on 1/16/25 at 3:16 PM with the Administrator and it was revealed it was her expectation that the paper medical record and EMR should match.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to post cautionary and safety signage outside of ...

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 post cautionary and safety signage outside of resident rooms that indicated the use of oxygen for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #57, #69, and #48) reviewed for respiratory care. The findings included: a. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pneumonia due to hemophilus influenzae (bacteria in the upper respiratory tract). A review of Resident #57's physician orders revealed an order dated 12/10/24 for oxygen to be administered continuously via nasal cannula at 1 Liter/minute. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #57 was coded for receiving oxygen. An observation on 1/15/25 at 10:52 AM revealed Resident #57 was sitting in her wheelchair by her door with oxygen being administered via portable oxygen tank via nasal cannula at 1 L/minute. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #57's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation of Resident #57 conducted on 1/16/25 at 8:56 AM revealed she was sitting in a wheelchair in her room with oxygen being administered via nasal cannula at 1 L/minute. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #57's room to indicate oxygen was in use. b. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. A review of Resident #69's physician orders revealed an order dated 12/23/24 for oxygen that may titrate up to 2 Liters/minute continuously via nasal cannula to maintain oxygen saturation of greater than 90%. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #69 was coded for receiving oxygen. An observation on 1/13/25 at 11:15 AM revealed Resident #69 was sitting in his wheelchair in his room with oxygen being administered via nasal canula at 1.5 L/minute. There was no safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #69's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation on 1/15/25 at 2:29 PM revealed that Resident #69 was sitting in his wheelchair in his room with oxygen being administered via nasal canula at 2 L/minute. There was no safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident 69's room to indicate oxygen was in use. c. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pneumonia, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A review of Resident #48's physician orders revealed an order dated 12/13/24 for 2 L/minute of oxygen continuously via nasal cannula. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #48 was coded for receiving oxygen. An observation on 1/13/25 at 10:44 AM revealed Resident #48 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room with oxygen being administered via nasal cannula at 2 L/minute. There was no safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #48's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation on 1/15/25 at 2:16 PM revealed Resident #48 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room with oxygen being administered via nasal canula at 2 L/minute. There was no safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #48's room to indicated oxygen was in use. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted on 1/16/25 at 10:15 AM. She indicated that it was her expectation that the required oxygen signage be posted for residents who received oxygen. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 1/16/24 at 3:19 PM. Interview further revealed that it was her expectation that the facility had the required oxygen signage posted for residents who received oxygen.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews with resident and staff, the facility failed to secure medications observed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews with resident and staff, the facility failed to secure medications observed at bedside for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for medication storage (Resident #77). The findings included: Resident #77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, anxiety, pleural effusion, and polyneuropathy. A review of the electronic medical record revealed an assessment to self-administer medications which was completed on 9/13/24. The assessment indicated that Resident #77 required assistance to administer oral medications and therefore was not approved to self-administer medications or to keep medications at bedside. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #77 was cognitively intact. On 1/13/25 at 10:38 AM, an observation was made of medications spread out in a line on Resident #77's overbed table. Resident #77 stated that the medications had been sitting there since this morning. Resident #77 further explained that it was normal for the nurse to leave the medications sitting on the overbed table and the plan was to take the medications when Resident #77 was ready to take them. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 1/13/25 at 10:44 AM. She verified she was the nurse that left Resident #77's morning medications on the overbed table for her to take. She also indicated that she thought Resident #77 had been assessed to be safe to self-administer her medications. A review of Resident #77's January 2024 medication administration record revealed the medications left on Resident #77's over the bed table included the following: Gabapentin 100 milligrams (mg), Labetalol 100 mg 1 tablet, Clopidogrel 75 mg 1 tablet , Zetia 10 mg 1 tablet, Lasix, Isosorbide 60 mg 1 tablet, Cozaar 100 mg 1 tablet, Multivitamin 1 tablet, Zoloft 50mg 1 tablet. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 1/13/25 at 11:38 AM. The DON indicated Resident #77's medications should not have been left at bedside.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit accurate payroll data on the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) related to Registered Nurse (RN) hours, licensed nursing coverage 24-hours per day. This was for 1 of 3 quarters reviewed for sufficient nurse staffing (Quarter 4 2024 July 1-September 30). Findings included: Review of the PBJ for Fiscal Year Quarter 4 2024 (July 1- September 30) revealed there were no Registered Nurse (RN) hours for 9/1/24, 9/4/24, 9/5/24, 9/6/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24,9/12/24, 9/13/24, 9/14/24, 9/15/24, 9/16/24, 9/18/24, 9/19/24 9/23/24, 9/24/24 9/26/24, 9/27/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 9/30/24. The PBJ report also noted the facility failed to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours per day for 9/1/24, 9/2/24, 9/3/24, 9/4/24, 9/5/24, 9/6/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24, 9/12/24, 9/13/24, 9/14/24, 9/15/24, 9/16/24, 9/17/24, 9/18/24, 9/19/24, 9/20/24, 9/21/24, 9/22/24, 9/23/24, 9/24/24, 9/25/24, 9/26/24, 9/27/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 9/30/24. Review of the Posted Daily Nursing Staffing Forms, Daily Staffing Sheet, and the nursing staff time detail reports for 9/1/24, 9/4/24, 9/5/24, 9/6/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24,9/12/24, 9/13/24, 9/14/24, 9/15/24, 9/16/24, 9/18/24, 9/19/24 9/23/24, 9/24/24 9/26/24, 9/27/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 9/30/24 were reviewed and revealed there were RN hours for Quarter 4 of the fiscal year 2024. The Posted Daily Nursing Staffing Forms, Daily Staffing Sheet, and the nursing staff time detail reports for 9/1/24, 9/2/24, 9/3/24, 9/4/24, 9/5/24, 9/6/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24, 9/12/24, 9/13/24, 9/14/24, 9/15/24, 9/16/24, 9/17/24, 9/18/24, 9/19/24, 9/20/24, 9/21/24, 9/22/24, 9/23/24, 9/24/24, 9/25/24, 9/26/24, 9/27/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 9/30/24 were reviewed and revealed there were 24-hour per day licensed nursing coverage for Quarter 4 of the fiscal year 2024. An interview was conducted on 1/16/25 at 9:37 AM with the Human Resources Payroll Manager who revealed she was responsible for entering all nursing hours into the payroll system. The Human Resources Payroll Manager stated she recalled that she received notice on 10/10/24 that PBJ data file she submitted for September of 2024 was rejected. She further revealed that she was able to make the corrections and resubmitted the file on 11/14/24 and it was accepted. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 10:31 AM with the Administrator she revealed the PBJ data was submitted based on the information entered by the Human Resources Manager. The Administrator stated the facility had RN hours and licensed nursing staff as required but there must have been an error when the data was reported. She further revealed that the error was corrected as of 11/14/24. The facility implemented the following Corrective Action Plan with a completion date of 11/15/24. On 10/10/24 Validation for PBJ report with an error code. The error was noted and corrected prior to midnight of 11/15/24 deadline. An accepted validation report was received on 11/14/24. On 11/14/24, a monthly PBJ report audit was initiated by the Human Resources Payroll Manager and the Administrator for the previous months July 2024 and August 2024 to determine if any errors occurred . The audit revealed no errors for July 2024 and August 2024. Education on PBJ reporting accuracy was provided to the Human Resources Payroll Manager by the Administrator on 11/14/24. The Administrator will audit monthly PBJ Validation Reports for the months of October 2024-January 2025 to confirm that the reports were accepted without error. The results of the audits will be discussed during the QAPI monthly meetings for the next two quarters and reevaluated for resolution. The facility's alleged compliance date was 11/15/24. The Corrective Action Plan was validated on 1/17/25 and concluded the facility had implemented an acceptable corrective action plan on 11/15/24. An Interview was conducted with the Human Resource Payroll Manager revealed she received education on PBJ reporting accuracy on 11/14/24. The audits conducted on 11/14/24 revealed no errors for the months of July 2024 and August 2024. The audits conducted for October 2024 through December 2024 revealed errors for October 2024 and November 2024 which were all corrected and accepted. A review of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) minutes on 11/15/24 revealed the PBJ validation audits were discussed. The correction date of 11/15/24 was validated.
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, interviews with staff, Dermatologist, and Medical Director, the facility staff failed to notify medical provider of a change in condition for a nonverbal resident with a diagnosis of diabetes when new skin wounds were observed on 7/22/24. The Medical Director was notified on 7/23/24 and Resident #1 was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) on 07/23/24 and was diagnosed with deep partial thickness burns to the anterior (front) and medial thighs bilaterally as well as the mons pubis (fatty tissue that covers the pubic bone). Resident #1 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 07/25/24, had an indwelling catheter inserted to help with wound healing, had daily wound care treatment with Silvadene cream (a topical antibiotic used in partial thickness and full thickness burns to prevent infection) and was administered oxycodone (opioid pain medication used to treat severe pain) for pain. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for accidents (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included lumbar degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, foot drop, right hand contracture, diabetes, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired and rarely/never made self-understood and sometimes understood others (responds adequately to simple, direct communication only). Incident report dated 07/22/24 at 10:00 PM, completed by Nurse #1 was reviewed. The report revealed, on 07/22/24 at 10:00 PM Nurse Aide (NA) #1 notified Nurse #1 that Resident #1 had skin tears to both thighs noted during resident's scheduled shower. NA #1 stated that Resident #1 was scratching inner thighs during shower. NA #1 attempted to prevent Resident #1 from scratching; however, each opportunity that arose (while NA #1 bathed other parts of body/obtained wash cloth towel, etc.) Resident #1 continued to scratch at both thigh areas and in between legs. NA #1 stated that once the skin broke, it could be visually seen that the skin was 'rolling up' causing the exposed areas. Nurse #1 went into resident's room and assessed Resident #1 skin. Both Left and Right upper thighs had redness and thin layer of skin off thigh areas at time of assessment- rectangular in shape. There was small square shape reddened area in the middle of the mons pubic area. Resident #1 was still attempting to scratch when nurse was assessing areas of injury. Resident #1 was encouraged to not scratch and given one of her teddy bears to hold as a possible deterrent from scratching. Resident #1 shows no signs of discomfort not pain; no verbal responses to pain nor facial grimaces displayed. Area was cleaned with saline and covered with dressing in an attempt to prevent infection and also to prevent further scratching by resident. Note made in PEC (Physician Elder Care) book concerning this incident. The incident report further indicated the Physician (Medical Director) was notified on 07/23/24 at 7:18 AM and family member was notified on 07/23/24 at 1:19 AM. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 08/06/24 at 8:11 AM. Nurse #1 indicated she worked a 4-hour shift (7:00 PM to 11:00 PM) on 07/22/23. Nurse #1 confirmed that she relieved Nurse #3 who had just worked a 12-hour day shift (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM). Nurse #1 stated that during report from Nurse #3, no skin alterations were reported in reference to Resident #1. Nurse #1 revealed that on 07/22/24 at about 9:00 PM, NA #1 notified her of a change in Resident #1 skin after completing giving Resident #1 a shower. Nurse #1 indicated that NA #1 stated that Resident's #1 skin started peeling off during shower. Nurse #1 explained she went to Resident #1's room to complete an assessment immediately upon notification. Nurse #1 confirmed that Resident #1 was non-verbal and did not have any non-verbal signs of pain noted. Nurse #1 revealed that the top layer of skin on both Resident #1's upper thigh were gone, and the top of her mons pubis was red. Nurse #1 indicated that the middle of Resident #1 mons pubis had skin peeled off and some of her pubic hair had fallen out. Nurse #1 explained that she cleaned the wounds with normal saline and dressed both thighs with ABD pads to protect the area from infection. Nurse #1 indicated at the end of her shift (11:00 PM) she passed on the information to the oncoming Nurse #2 during shift report. Nurse #1 indicated that she did not notify the medical provider of a change in Resident #1's condition because she did not have time to. Nurse #1 stated that she communicated with Nurse #2 during shift change at 11:00 PM, who confirmed that she (Nurse #2) would notify medical provider. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 08/06/24 at 8:38 AM. Nurse #2 confirmed that she worked an 8-hour shift (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) on 07/22/24 and she relieved Nurse #1. Nurse #1 reported to Nurse #2, that Resident #1 had an incident where she was rubbing her thighs in the shower according to NA #1. Nurse #1 told her Resident #1 had ABD pads to her bilateral upper thighs and the areas were red but not inflamed. Nurse #2 explained that she went with NA #3 at about 11:30 PM to assess Resident #1. Nurse #2 confirmed Resident #1's pubic area had red patchy areas, and pubic hair had fallen out. Nurse #2 indicated that Resident #1 did not have any nonverbal signs of pain. Nurse #2 stated that she did not do anything else for Resident #1 throughout her shift. Nurse #2 indicated that by morning (7:00 AM) on 07/23/24, the areas on Resident #1's genitalia and bilateral upper thighs was more reddened and irritated. Nurse #2 confirmed that at the end of her shift on 07/23/24 at 07:00 she reported Resident #1's wounds to Wound Nurse and Nurse #3. Nurse #2 indicated on 07/23/24 at about 7:30 AM she assessed Resident #1 with the Wound Nurse and Nurse #3, after which she left as her shift had ended. Nurse #2 indicated that she did not notify Medical Provider because she had instructed Nurse #1 to notify Medical Provider and Family when Nurse #1 was completing the incident report. Progress note that was completed on 07/23/24 at 7:52 AM by Nurse #3 was reviewed. The documentation indicated that Prior nurse reports of red area to groin, pubic area, and blister noted to inside of left dorsal/lateral thigh. Nurses enter room noting skin peeling, beefy red, in bi lat (bilateral) groin areas, front of upper thigh, fluid filled blister to dorsal/lateral left thigh. Wound nurse notified and assessed resident with new order to send to hospital for further evaluation. An interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 08/05/24 at 4:01pm. Nurse #3 confirmed that she returned to work on 07/23/24 to start her shift at 7:00 AM and during report, Nurse #3 revealed that Nurse #2 reported Resident #1's skin had peeled completely off in between her thighs and groin area. Nurse #3 recalled Nurse #2 told her Resident #1 had received a shower from NA #1 at 8:00 PM on 07/22/24 and during that shower, the skin peeled off. Nurse #3 confirmed she observed Resident #1's skin with the Wound Nurse present on 07/23/24 at about 8:00 AM and the skin had completely peeled off her bilateral anterior thighs and she had a redness to the pubic area with patchy areas of peeled skin and pubic hair coming out. There was also a blister to the back/posterior left thigh. Nurse # 3 stated that the bilateral upper thighs and pubic area skin looked bad (very red and raw). Nurse #3 indicated that Wound Nurse notified ADON via phone about Resident #1 wounds while in Resident #1's room. Nurse #3 indicated that ADON was on the phone with Wound Nurse and ADON notified provider. Nurse #3 recalled the ADON communicated by phone the provider had been notified and Resident #1 had orders to be transferred to the emergency room. An interview was conducted with Wound Nurse on 08/06/24 at 12:03 PM. The Wound Nurse confirmed that Resident #1 did not have any wounds or skin alterations prior to being discharged to hospital on [DATE]. The Wound Nurse stated on 07/23/24 she was notified by Nurse #3 to come urgently to Resident #1's room. The Wound Nurse stated that she assessed Resident #1 in the presence of Nurse #3 and Resident #1's brief was open to air to avoid it from touching the wounds on her bilateral thighs, groin and pubic area. Wound Nurse explained the skin on Resident #1's bilateral thighs was peeled, raw and red approximately the same size (both wounds were approximately the same shape and size) from the inner thighs to the medial lateral side (from the inside of the thighs to the middle of the thighs) of the upper thigh. The Wound Nurse noted Resident #1's pubic area had patchy areas of missing skin and hair, and the dorsal (upper side) side of the left leg had an intact blister about 2 inches wide. Wound Nurse indicated that there was a little bit of drainage to bilateral upper thighs and pubic areas wounds. The Wound Nurse indicated that Resident #1 was nonverbal and did not have any nonverbal signs of pain during the assessment. Wound Nurse revealed that she notified ADON on 07/23/24 via phone about Resident #1 wounds while in Resident #1's room. Wound Nurse stated that ADON notified provider, while on the phone with her. Wound Nurse further explained that ADON communicated by phone that the provider had been notified and Resident #1 had orders to be transferred to the emergency room. An interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 08/06/24 at 12:19 PM. The ADON indicated that she received a call on 07/23/24 at 7:15 AM from the Wound Nurse stating something had happened to Resident #1 and things were not adding up. ADON indicated that Wound Nurse described the areas were on Resident #1's bilateral upper thighs and had quite a large area of skin peeled off and raw tissue exposed, pubic area had patches of skin peeled off and pubic hair fallen off and the back of her thigh had an intact blister. The ADON noted after the Wound Nurse communicated with her on 07/23/24 at about 7:30am, she notified the provider of Resident #1 new wounds, per the description she obtained from Wound Nurse. ADON indicated that she notified MD and MD indicated to send resident to ED. ADON indicated that she instructed the Wound Nurse to send Resident #1 out to ED. Progress note that was completed on 07/23/24 at 9:00 AM by Nurse #3 was reviewed. The documentation indicated that EMS was notified at 08:00 AM. The note further revealed that EMS transferred resident onto stretch and departed the facility at 8:35 AM. ED provider notes dated 07/23/24 indicated that Resident #1 presented with deep partial thickness burns to the anterior and medial thighs bilaterally as well as the mons pubis. ED provider notes included Resident #1 vital signs on 07/23/24 at 9:07 AM to be a body temperature of 100.2 ?, blood pressure of 147/84, pulse rate of 82 beats per minute and respirations of 16 breaths per minutes. It was noted Resident #1 came from nursing home today with burns to her thighs. Supposedly she had a shower last night at the nursing home and now she has burns. Resident #1 is nonverbal and as such unable to offer any history. The ED provider notes further indicated that Resident #1 had severe contractures (shortening of muscles, tendons, skin and nearby soft tissues that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff, preventing normal movement) to bilateral lower extremities, knee extension and hips. ED notes indicated that Resident #1 had right upper extremity flexion contracture. ED notes indicated that Resident #1 only moved left upper extremity spontaneously-grossly 3/5 (medical muscle strength assessment that indicated Resident #1 could move her left arm on her own without assistance, but the strength would be rated as 3 out of 5, indicating moderate weakness. A score of 5 would represent normal strength.) Interview with Medical Director conducted on 08/06/24 at 1:56 PM. MD indicated that she received a call on 07/23/24 at 7:30 AM from Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The MD indicated that ADON indicated that Resident #1 had an area to the groin and bilateral thighs, and it looked like a burn. MD indicated she gave orders for Resident #1 to be sent out. MD indicated that the description given was that the area was inflamed, extensive to the bilateral thighs and groin, blister to the back/posterior right thigh. MD further indicated based on the severity and how the skin injury happened quickly, and this was new for Resident #1, the facility should have contacted MD upon change of condition. A Dermatology consultation report dated 08/07/24 was reviewed and indicated that skin lesions to bilateral upper thighs appeared consistent with thermal injury (skin injuries caused by excessive heat), as they were evenly and broadly denuded (removal of skins surface layers) with rounded edges and spare with folds. The report further indicated that no bullae (fluid-filled sacs or lesions that appear when fluid is trapped under a thin layer of skin), or inflammation was noted and there was evidence of re-epithelialization (wound healing) and repigmentation regaining normal skin color) in a follicular (densely packed follicles of varying size lined by a single later of epithelium) pattern. The report also indicated that the skin lesions were not consistent with autoimmune blistering disorder, contact dermatitis, infection, self-excoriation, or a medication reaction like fixed bullous drug eruption or Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) (a rare and serious disorder that affects skin, mucous membrane, genitals and eyes. It causes flu like symptoms along with painful rash that spreads and blisters) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) (severe form of SJS, diagnosed when more than 30% of the skin surface is affected and the moist linings of the body). The report noted a second dermatologist reviewed the clinical images for Resident #1 and agreed with thermal burns from something hot sitting on Resident #1's lap. Recommendations from the report included to use Mepilex Ag dressings (dressing that absorbs drainage and inactivates wound pathogens) to be changed every three days and to discontinue treatment once the skin was completely re-epithelialized. An interview with the Dermatologist who examined Resident #1 on 08/07/24 was conducted on 08/19/24 at 12:15 PM. The Dermatologist indicated that she examined Resident #1 on 08/07/24 and that Resident #1 was accompanied to the dermatologist office by her daughter and a non-administrative nurse from the facility. The Dermatologist stated that she spoke to the Administrator and a nurse manager over the phone on 08/07/24 and the Administrator indicated that she wanted Dermatologist to examine the wounds that had just have been found one day on Resident #1. The Dermatologist shared that she had already reviewed the resident's hospital records the day prior to her coming into the dermatology office. The Dermatologist indicated that facility never shared with her any incident had occurred and the facility Administrator indicated via phone on 08/07/24 just found the wounds one day. The Dermatologist stated that Administrator was very vague, and Dermatologist did not dwell on asking more details from Administrator. The Dermatologist stated she examined Resident #1, and her assessment was that Resident #1 sustained a thermal burn. She was sure that Resident #1 had a thermal burn, and her injuries were not associated with any other cause. The Dermatologist also stated that some burns were not painful at all, but in this case because this were second degree burns, they were painful. Dermatologist further explained that often deeper and more in-depth wounds like a third-degree burn, one would not feel pain because the nerves are burned away. The Dermatologist added that it would have been best for the facility to have notified the medical provider when the injuries occurred, because the skin was denuded, and this increased the risk of infection and due to her being high risk due to diabetes. The Dermatologist further stated that anytime skin was denuded like Resident #1's skin, there is a risk for high infection. She also indicated that burns have a higher risk of infection and that was why the hospital used the Silvadene cream to treat it. The Dermatologist confirmed Resident #1's injuries were not caused by any scratches but could have been caused by hot water or could also have been caused by a washcloth that was wet and hot, that sat on Resident #1 lap. The Dermatologist further stated that it looked like Resident #1 could have been covered with a washcloth on that area at some point. The Dermatologist continued to explain that the burns spared the skin folds, so it was possible that her legs were clamped together, which is why water did not run between them. Or it was something more solid that was placed on her. Dermatologist indicated she would expect that the Resident #1 wound have scars and that there would be change to the color and texture of the skin on the areas. The Administrator was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 08/06/24 at 4:39 PM. The facility provided the following corrective action plan for IJ removal. How corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected: On 7-22-24, Nurse #1 was called by Nurse Aide #1 to assess Resident #1 after a shower. Nurse Aide #1 reported that Resident #1 was in the shower room on a shower gurney, receiving a shower using the handheld showerhead when wounds on thighs were noted. Nurse #1 came to assess Resident #1, Resident #1 had new wounds on bilateral thighs and mons pubis which were treated per physician's group wound protocol by Nurse #1. Nurse #1 described the wounds as, bilateral upper anterior thighs near groin area are altered. Appearing pink in color with rectangular shaped areas that appeared to have top layer of skin absent. Resident #1 had no signs of pain per Nurse #1. Resident's family was notified on 7-22-24 by Nurse #1. On 7-22-24 Nurse #1 placed resident #1 on Physician follow up list to be seen in the morning of 7-23-24 per physician wound protocol. The standing orders for skin care guidelines from the physicians' group states: For stasis and traumatic wounds, the skin care guidelines provide treatment options and state the patient should be placed on problem list for follow-up by clinician on their next visit. On 7-23-24, Nurse #3 called wound nurse to look at the wound, wound nurse called assistant director of nursing, assistant director of nursing called resident #1's medical director to notify the medical director of Resident #1's skin condition. The medical director gave orders to send Resident #1 to the hospital for further evaluation to determine the etiology of the skin condition and the appropriate treatment. How corrective action will be accomplished for those residents having potential to be affected: On 7-23-24, the facility administrator, director of nursing and assistant director of nursing reviewed incident reports for the past 30 days to ensure the physician was contacted for any incidents involving skin per policy. Physicians were properly notified per policy and physician guidelines for all incidents reviewed. What measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the practice will not occur. On 7-23-24, education was conducted by the assistant director of nursing and the staff development coordinator for nursing staff on reporting to physicians and standing facility protocols, per facility policies. The education stated that a physician should be notified when there is a significant injury or change in condition, per policy. The education was completed for all nursing staff on 7-31-24. On 7-23-24, education was provided to all nursing staff, licensed nurses and nursing assistants, by staff development coordinator and assistant director of nursing on the shower protocol. The shower protocol education contained a bullet stating report immediately to nurse and administrative nurse for any possible signs of any type of injury or any type of skin changes. The education was completed for all nursing staff by 7-31-24. Beginning 7-23-24, a QAPI is in place that the administrator or director of nursing will audit all skin and wound incident reports five days per week to ensure the physician was contacted appropriately and timely for one month, then will audit incident reports weekly for one month, then will audit monthly for one quarter. The incident reports are internal documents used for reporting certain incidents and are used for quality assurance. The reports that will be reviewed contain information about any new skin conditions such as wounds, pressure ulcers, skin tears, bruises, etc. These reports are only completed by nurses, and nurses are responsible for notifying the physician as required by the facility and physician protocols. How the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. The facility must develop a plan for ensuring that correction is achieved and sustained. The plan must be implemented, and the corrective action evaluated for its effectiveness. The PoC is integrated into the quality assurance system of the facility. A Quality Assurance Performance Improvement plan was initiated on 7/23/2024. The findings of the audits will be reported by the administrator to the Quality Assurance Committee at each quarterly meeting for one year. Alleged date of IJ removal: 08/01/24 Validation of the immediate jeopardy removal plan was conducted in the facility on 08/20/24. The facility's initial plan audit was verified and signature sheet for education reviewed with no concerns. Facility nurses were interviewed and were aware of the pain management protocol, how and when to assess pain, and how to appropriately respond to a resident's request or nonverbal signs of pain. Facility medication aides, nurse aides, dietary staff, housekeeping staff and rehabilitation staff were also aware of the pain protocol and how to observe for nonverbal signs of pain and how to respond to resident's request or nonverbal signs of pain. The facility's immediate jeopardy removal date of 08/01/24 was validated.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews with staff, Hospital Case Manager, Plumbing Contractor, Dermatologist, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews with staff, Hospital Case Manager, Plumbing Contractor, Dermatologist, and the Medical Director, the facility staff failed to supervise a severely cognitively impaired and nonverbal resident in the shower room. On 7/22/24 Nurse Aide (NA) #1 left Resident #1 unattended and naked on the shower bed with the water running on her body. When NA #1 returned to the shower spa, Resident #1 had a pool of water over her bilateral thighs and genital area. NA #1 took a washcloth to remove the puddle of water and noticed that Resident #1's top layer of skin on her bilateral upper thighs was peeling off. Resident #1 was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) 07/23/24 and was diagnosed with deep partial thickness burns to the anterior (front) and medial thighs bilaterally as well as the mons pubis (fatty tissue that covers the pubic bone). Resident #1 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 07/25/24, had an indwelling catheter inserted to help with wound healing, had daily wound care treatment with Silvadene cream (a topical antibiotic used in partial thickness and full thickness burns to prevent infection) and was administered oxycodone (opioid pain medication used to treat severe pain) for pain. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included lumbar degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, foot drop, right hand contracture, diabetes, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of the physician orders revealed that Resident #1 had an order initiated on 03/16/24. Minerin Creme (skin protectant cream)- Apply to arms, legs, face topically one time a day for dry skin Apply to arms, legs, face and other external areas needed. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired and rarely/never made self-understood and sometimes understood others (responds adequately to simple, direct communication only). The MDS assessment further indicated Resident #1 had functional limitation in range of motion impairment on one side of her upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) and impairment on both sides of her lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot). The assessment noted Resident #1 had no unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries, or any other ulcers, wounds or skin problems. The MDS assessment also indicated that Resident #1 was not receiving any opioid medication and did not have an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #1's care plans last revised on 06/26/24 revealed no care plan for behaviors including scratching herself. The functional performance-long term care resident; unable to care for herself; Needs assistance with all care - care plan indicated that Resident #1 required total assistance of two-person physical assistance with a total lift for transfers. The care plan revealed that Resident #1 had impaired cognitive function and thought processes related to Alzheimer's. The care plan also indicated that staff needed to apply right hand palm protector in the morning and remove in the evening due to Resident #1's right hand contracture. Nurse Aide electronic documentation (Documentation Survey Report) revealed on 07/21/24, Nurse Aide (NA) #5 noted that Resident #1 did not have any behaviors observed. Documentation revealed that for the task monitor skin observation, NA #5 noted that Resident #1 had none of the above (scratched, red area, discoloration, skin tear, open area) observed. An interview was conducted on 08/05/24 at 3:48 PM with NA #5. NA #5 indicated that she provided care to Resident #1 on 07/21/24 during the evening shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM). NA #5 indicated that Resident #1 did not have any skin issues. NA #5 stated that Resident #1 did not have any verbal or nonverbal signs or symptoms of pain. Skin only evaluation assessment that was completed on 07/22/23 at 6:33 PM by Nurse #3 was reviewed. The documentation indicated that Resident #1 skin was warm and dry, skin color within normal limits, and turgor was normal. The documentation further indicated Resident #1 had dryness noted to all extremities and treatment was applied per orders. Written statement from NA #1 dated 07/23/24 was reviewed. On Monday 07/22/24 Resident #1 was due for a shower. So, with help the NA student help with cleaning her bowel movement. We cleaned her and ready her for the shower. We put her on a gurney to be transported by stretcher (gurney) to shower room. While in the shower room the student aides had to leave. So I was left with task on going to get the body wash after I had wet Resident #1 body. I hung up the running shower head on the wall. Resident #1 had been digging between her legs. Having washed her before I thought it would be alright to proceed to clean where she had been scratching which was nothing new, she had done it before while being clean. This time I notice her skin began to peel as I washed with a washcloth. I finish cleaning all body part and hair. I lower the temperature to remove the excess bowel movement between her legs and dried her off. Reported to the nurse. An interview with the facility Administrator was conducted on 08/06/23 at 11:18am. The Administrator explained that NA #1 had requested to be taken off the schedule on 07/24/24 and asked to leave facility while at work. Administrator stated that NA #1 had not returned or communicated with the facility since 07/24/24 even after multiple attempts. On 08/08/24 at 11:04 AM, the facility had arranged for NA#1 to come to the facility and the interview was conducted over the phone. The surveyor was continuing the survey remotely due to adverse weather. The surveyor could hear people whispering in the room between questions during the interview with NA #1. NA #1 would pause answering questions during telephone interview and SA could hear whispering in the background, after which NA #1 would change the response to a question he had previously answered. NA #1 indicated that he worked second shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM) on 07/22/24. NA #1 stated Resident #1 was not able to bend her knees, and that the only part of Resident #1's body that she could move was her left arm. NA #1 noted Resident #1 was a total care and had a shower scheduled on 07/22/24. NA #1 stated that between 7:30 PM and 8:00 PM he and two NA students went to Resident #1's room to prepare for her shower. While in the room, NA #1 revealed that Resident #1 had a bowel movement and needed to be cleaned prior to transferring Resident #1 onto the shower bed. NA #1 confirmed that when providing perineal care to her genital and rectal area, NA #1 did not observe any scratches, bruises, blisters, skin tears or any skin alterations. NA #1 indicated that together with the two NA students, Resident #1 was wheeled to the spa room. NA #1 noted the two NA students had to leave at 8:00 PM which left him alone in the spa room with Resident #1. NA #1 revealed that Resident #1's head was positioned against the wall that had a mounted handheld showerhead. NA #1 indicated that Resident #1's legs were facing away from the wall that had the mounted handheld showerhead. NA #1 confirmed that he turned on the water for the handheld showerhead and tested the water on his hand. NA #1 revealed that the water felt good to him and did not want to answer if it was hot, but adamantly stated it felt good to me. NA #1 indicated that the water did not have steam. NA #1 stated that after he had rinsed Resident #1 with the water, he realized he did not have soap to use for the shower. NA #1 stated that he placed the handheld showerhead, with water still running, back on the mount on the wall. The stream of the water was directed at Resident #1's body, not at her face. NA #1 indicated that he did not want to use the soap that was mounted in the shower room because it was hand soap. NA #1 confirmed that he then left Resident #1 unattended and walked to the storage room which was down another hall. NA #1 stated that he did not use the call light mounted in the spa room because he was just going to the storage area and back. NA #1 confirmed that he left Resident #1 unattended and naked because she did not move at all, and she was fine. NA #1 indicated he got the soap from the storage room, walked back to the spa room. At first NA #1 stated Resident #1 was left unattended in the shower spa for 30 seconds and later stated it was 10 seconds. NA #1 revealed that when he returned to the spa room, Resident #1 had a pool of water over her bilateral upper thighs and around the genital area. NA #1 confirmed that he noted Resident #1 was grimacing, scratching herself down there and he moved Resident #1's left hand off her genital area because she was scratching. Her fingernails were not long. NA #1 indicated that he tested the water and lowered the temperature of the water because the skin on her genital area started peeling. NA #1 stated that he took a washcloth to remove the puddle of water and noticed that Resident #1's top layer of skin on her bilateral upper thighs was peeling off. NA #1 stated Resident #1 seemed comfortable after he lowered the temperature of the water but could not explain this as he noted the resident was nonverbal. NA #1 indicated he continued to wash Resident #1's entire body with the washcloth including her genital area and upper thighs even though he observed the skin was peeling off. When he was done with the shower, he covered her with a towel and took her back to her room and transferred her into her bed. After that NA #1 went to get Nurse #1 and told her when he was giving Resident #1 a shower her skin was peeling off. NA #1 explained that Nurse #1 came to Resident #1's room, assessed the resident and took a picture of the resident with her phone. An observation was made on 08/06/24 at 1:40 PM of the [NAME] spa room where Resident #1 received her shower on 07/22/24 from NA #1. To get to the storage room you would exit the spa room and go right down the hall, then make a left onto another hallway, walk a couple of steps, and make a left onto a third hallway to get to the storage room. It took the surveyor approximately 45 seconds to walk from the [NAME] spa room to storage room and back to the storage room, without entering the storage room. Nurse Aide electronic documentation revealed that on 07/22/24 at 10:38 PM NA #1 provided shower to Resident #1. Documentation confirmed on 07/22/24 at 10:28 PM, NA #1 noted that Resident #1 did not have any behaviors observed. Documentation revealed that for the task monitor skin observation, on 07/22/23 at 10:38 PM, NA #1 noted that Resident #1 had a skin alteration observed. Incident report dated 07/22/24 at 10:00 PM, completed by Nurse #1 was reviewed. The report revealed, on 07/22/24 at 10:00 PM Nurse Aide (NA) #1 notified Nurse #1 that Resident #1 had skin tears to both thighs noted during resident's scheduled shower. NA #1 stated that Resident #1 was scratching inner thighs during shower. NA #1 attempted to prevent Resident #1 from scratching; however, each opportunity that arose (while NA #1 bathed other parts of body/obtained wash cloth towel, etc.) Resident #1 continued to scratch at both thigh areas and in between legs. NA #1 stated that once the skin broke, it could be visually seen that the skin was 'rolling up' causing the exposed areas. Nurse #1 went into resident's room and assessed Resident #1 skin. Both Left and Right upper thighs had redness and thin layer of skin off thigh areas at time of assessment- rectangular in shape. There was small square shape reddened area in the middle of the mons pubic area. Resident #1 was still attempting to scratch when nurse was assessing areas of injury. Resident #1 was encouraged to not scratch and given one of her teddy bears to hold as a possible deterrent from scratching. Resident #1 shows no signs of discomfort not pain; no verbal responses to pain nor facial grimaces displayed. Area was cleaned with saline and covered with dressing in an attempt to prevent infection and also to prevent further scratching by resident. Nurse Aide electronic documentation revealed that on 07/22/24 at 10:28 PM, NA #3 noted that Resident #1 did not have any behaviors observed. Documentation revealed that for the task monitor skin observation, NA #3 noted that Resident #1 had none of the above (scratched, red area, discoloration, skin tear, open area) observed. Written statement from NA #3 dated 07/23/24 documented while putting Resident #1 back to bed, I did not notice anything. I changed her and her skin was fine. Resident #1 legs and groin area was normal. Multiple attempts were made to reach NA #3 for an interview were unsuccessful. Written statement from Nurse #1 dated 07/23/24 at 1:20 PM revealed, I worked at [facility name] for a as needed (prn)shift (07:00 PM to 11:00 PM) on 07/22/24. During my shift, around 10:00 PM, I was notified by NA #1 of Resident #1 skin injury. Resident #1 was said to have been scratching her thighs intensively while being given a shower. Once notified by NA #1, I went into Resident #1's room and assessed the newly noted skin alterations. At his time Resident #1 thighs, bilaterally, (upper anterior thighs, near groin area) were altered, appearing pink in color, and ironically, both had rectangular shaped areas that appeared to have the top layer of skin absent. Per NA #1 recollection and report to me, while showering he attempted to prevent Resident #1 from scratching her thighs but Resident #1 persistently kept doing so. NA #1 stated that Resident #1 skin was broken from her scratching and Resident #1 skin just rolled/pulled off. When in resident's room completing assessment of the area, Resident #1 was attempting to scratch the thigh area. A teddy bear in her nightstand was given to her in her left hand in at attempt to deter resident from scratching. There was also a pink area in the center of the mons pubis. Resident #1 had no signs or symptoms of pain or discomfort at this time. No moaning, yelling, no facial grimacing. In an attempt to clean and cover the areas, I cleaned both thighs and mons pubis with saline and covered both thighs with dressings. Resident #1 was sitting in shower chair at the time of assessment. Resident was continued to be monitored. (no bleeding nor drainage noted). An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 08/06/24 at 8:11 AM. Nurse #1 indicated she worked a 4-hour shift (7:00 PM to 11:00 PM) on 07/22/23. Nurse #1 confirmed that she relieved Nurse #3 who had just worked a 12-hour day shift (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM). Nurse #1 stated that during report from Nurse #3, no skin alterations were reported in reference to Resident #1. Nurse #1 revealed that on 07/22/24 at about 9:00 PM, NA #1 notified her of a change in Resident #1 skin after completing giving Resident #1 a shower. Nurse #1 indicated that NA #1 stated that Resident's #1 skin started peeling off during shower. Nurse #1 explained she went to Resident #1's room to complete an assessment immediately upon notification. Nurse #1 confirmed that Resident #1 was non-verbal and did not have any non-verbal signs of pain noted. Nurse #1 revealed that the top layer of skin on both Resident #1's upper thigh were gone, and the top of her mons pubis was red. Nurse #1 indicated that the middle of Resident #1 mons pubis had skin peeled off and some of her pubic hair had fallen out. Nurse #1 explained that she cleaned the wounds with normal saline and dressed both thighs with ABD pads (large gauze wound dressings) to protect the area from infection. Nurse #1 indicated at the end of her shift (11:00 PM) she passed on the information to the oncoming Nurse #2 during shift report. Written statement from Nurse #2 dated 07/23/24 revealed, I came in on 3rd (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) shift on 07/22/24 behind Nurse #1. Nurse #1 reported an incident related to Resident #1. Stated that Resident #1 had skin that peeled back on thighs. Nurse #1 asked if she needed to do an incident report, and I said yes and call family and doctor. I went down with NA#2 and NA #6 to check on Resident #1. Resident #1 had dressings on inner thighs. I assessed Resident #1's thighs. They were light pink without signs of infection. New sterile ABD pads added and covered areas. Resident #1 had no signs or symptoms of pain. Nurse #3 put a clean rolled up towel between knees to help. Resident #1 did have some pink, red area to her pubic hair area also. Oncoming Nurse #3 and Wound Nurse notified in the morning. I did call Resident #1 daughter and notify her at around 07:00 AM. Area to inner thighs looks darker and worse than earlier. Wound light pink-no extra skin -no bleeding, uneven edges. No signs or symptoms infection to inner bilateral thighs and no signs or symptoms of pain. Pink/Red area pubic area. This was observed at beginning of my shift. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 08/06/24 at 8:38 AM. Nurse #2 confirmed that she worked an 8-hour shift (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) on 07/22/24 and she relieved Nurse #1. Nurse #2 stated that Resident #1 was not known to have any wounds or skin alterations prior to 7/22/24. Nurse #2 confirmed that Resident #1 was nonverbal. Nurse #2 stated that Resident #1 did not have a history of scratching, and no one had reported any concerns about any new behaviors. Nurse #1 reported to Nurse #2, that Resident #1 had an incident where she was rubbing her thighs in the shower according to NA #1. Nurse #1 told her Resident #1 had ABD pads to her bilateral upper thighs and the areas were red but not inflamed. Nurse #2 explained that she went with NA #3 at about 11:30 PM to assess Resident #1. Nurse #2 confirmed Resident #1's pubic area had red patchy areas, and pubic hair had fallen out. Nurse #2 indicated that Resident #1 did not have any nonverbal signs of pain. Nurse #2 stated that she did not do anything else for Resident #1 throughout her shift. Nurse #2 indicated that by morning (7:00 AM) on 07/23/24, the areas on Resident #1's genitalia and bilateral upper thighs was more reddened and irritated. Nurse #2 confirmed that at the end of her shift on 07/23/24 at 07:00 she reported Resident #1's wounds to Wound Nurse and Nurse #3. Nurse #2 indicated on 07/23/24 at about 7:30 AM she assessed Resident #1 with the Wound Nurse and Nurse #3, after which she left as her shift had ended. Nurse Aide electronic documentation revealed that on 07/23/24 at 12:44 AM, NA #2 noted that Resident #1 did not have any behaviors observed. Documentation revealed that for the task monitor skin observation, NA #2 noted that Resident #1 had none of the above (scratched, red area, discoloration, skin tear, open area) observed. Written statement from NA #2 dated 07/23/24 revealed, I arrived at work at 11:00 PM, the NA from second shift took me to show me what happened to Resident #1 when he gave a shower earlier. Resident #1 thigh and part of her pubic area was gone. It was pink area in color. I had the Nurse #2 to come and look at it as well. Multiple attempts were made to reach NA #2 for an interview were unsuccessful. Progress note completed on 07/23/24 at 7:52 AM by Nurse #3 was reviewed. The documentation indicated, Prior nurse reports of red area to groin, pubic area, and blister noted to inside of left dorsal/lateral thigh. Nurses enter room noting skin peeling, beefy red, in bilateral groin areas, front of upper thigh, fluid filled blister to dorsal/lateral left thigh. Wound nurse notified and assessed resident with new order to send to hospital for further evaluation. Written statement from Nurse #3 dated 07/23/244 at 7:40 AM stated: this nurse completed skin check between 1315-1330 (1:15 PM and 1:30 PM) with no wound noted to skin. Resident had not yet had shower due to 3-11pm shower. No CNAs reported to this nurse no new areas to skin after skin check completed. A second written statement from Nurse #3 dated 07/28/24 documented: prior to this nurse notifying 911 for transport of Resident #1, I asked Wound Nurse what Resident #1 was being transferred to ED for and how to word injury. I notified 911 for transport to [local hospital] for skin injury to groin and pubic area being treated as abuse investigation. 911 operator asked this nurse if I thought it was abuse or sexual I stated no. When EMS arrives to transport Resident #1, they asked how the injury occurred. I could only give information passed from prior nursing report. That resident was given a shower late the night before the NA that was assisting reported to the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM nurse Resident #1 was scratching upper thigh area, skin tear reported that nurse treated area with wound spray and completed incident report. An interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 08/05/24 at 4:01pm. Nurse #3 revealed that she provided care to Resident #1 on 07/21/24, 07/22/24, and 07/23/24. Nurse #3 confirmed that she worked a 12-hour shift (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) on 07/22/24. Nurse #3 stated that Resident #1 required two-person assistance with providing incontinence care, bathing and showers. Nurse #3 confirmed that Resident #1 could move her left arm and rub or scratch her right arm. Nurse #3 confirmed that Resident #1 had never scratched herself to the point of having any skin alterations. Nurse #3 also indicated that Resident #1 was nonverbal. Nurse #3 explained that on 07/22/24 she assisted NA #3 with providing incontinence care to Resident #1 and Resident #1 did not have any skin alterations. Nurse #3 indicated that Resident #1 had dryness on her face and was ordered skin protectant cream once a day. Nurse #3 confirmed that she returned to work on 07/23/24 to start her shift at 7:00 AM and during report, Nurse #3 revealed that Nurse #2 reported Resident #1's skin had peeled completely off in between her thighs and groin area. Nurse #3 recalled Nurse #2 told her Resident #1 had received a shower from NA #1 at 8:00 PM on 07/22/24 and during that shower, the skin peeled off. Nurse #3 confirmed she observed Resident #1's skin with the Wound Nurse present on 07/23/24 at about 8:00 AM and the skin had completely peeled off her bilateral anterior thighs and she had a redness to the pubic area with patchy areas of peeled skin and pubic hair coming out. There was also a blister to the back/posterior left thigh. Nurse # 3 stated that the bilateral upper thighs and pubic area skin looked bad (very red and raw). Nurse #3 indicated that Wound Nurse notified the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) via phone about Resident #1 wounds while in Resident #1's room. Nurse #3 indicated that ADON was on the phone with Wound Nurse and ADON notified provider. Nurse #3 recalled the ADON communicated by phone the provider had been notified and Resident #1 had orders to be transferred to the emergency room. Skin only evaluation assessment that was completed on 07/23/23 at 8:36 AM by Wound nurse was reviewed. The documentation indicated, Resident #1 Skin warm & dry, skin color WNL and turgor is normal. Right palm protector External device removed, and site inspected: Head, neck, and ears intact with scattered dry skin and moles. Trunk inspected and intact with scattered moles. BUE intact with scattered dry skin. Back, buttock, and sacrum intact. Peeled open wounds to bilateral thighs and inner thighs with an intact blister to the left dorsal/lateral thigh. Lower half of bottom extremities intact with scattered moles and dry skin. Slight redness to heels, toes intact. Written statement from Wound nurse dated 07/23/24 was reviewed. The Wound Nurse documented, I was texted by Nurse #3 at 7:05 AM about an urgent assessment needed on Resident #1. I arrived a few minutes later to find nursing staff at bed side with Resident #1 brief open to air with a large raw bilateral wound to the legs and pubic area with an intact blister to the dorsal area of the left leg. ADON notified at 07:11 AM of injuries, zeroform (bacteriostatic wound dressing) and ABD pads applied. A full skin assessment was completed. All skin was intact, old wound area noted on the back of the knee. Resident #1 was clean and dressed at bedside, visibly stable, and management was notified. An interview was conducted with Wound Nurse on 08/06/24 at 12:03 PM. The Wound Nurse confirmed that Resident #1 did not have any wounds or skin alterations prior to being discharged to hospital on [DATE]. The Wound Nurse stated on 07/23/24 she was notified by Nurse #3 to come urgently to Resident #1's room. The Wound Nurse stated that she assessed Resident #1 in the presence of Nurse #3 and Resident #1's brief was open to air to avoid it from touching the wounds on her bilateral thighs, groin and pubic area. Wound Nurse explained the skin on Resident #1's bilateral thighs was peeled, raw and red approximately the same size (both wounds were approximately the same shape and size) from the inner thighs to the medial lateral side (from the inside of the thighs to the middle of the thighs) of the upper thigh. The Wound Nurse noted Resident #1's pubic area had patchy areas of missing skin and hair, and the dorsal (upper side) side of the left leg had an intact blister about 2 inches wide. Wound Nurse indicated that there was a little bit of drainage to bilateral upper thighs and pubic areas wounds. The Wound Nurse indicated that Resident #1 was nonverbal and did not have any nonverbal signs of pain during the assessment. An interview was conducted with the ADON on 08/06/24 at 12:19 PM. The ADON indicated that she received a call on 07/23/24 at 7:15 AM from the Wound Nurse stating something had happened to Resident #1 and things were not adding up. ADON indicated that Wound Nurse described the areas were on Resident #1's bilateral upper thighs and had quite a large area of skin peeled off and raw tissue exposed, pubic area had patches of skin peeled off and pubic hair fallen off and the back of her thigh had an intact blister. The ADON indicated that at that time they did not have an idea of what was the cause. The ADON stated she got more information that it was in relation to a shower and self-inflicted scratching from an interview she conducted with NA #1. The ADON explained she interviewed NA #1 in the presence of the Administrator and MDS Nurse #1. ADON stated that NA #1 indicated that he took Resident #1 to the spa room to give her a shower on 07/22/24, on a shower bed. NA #1 indicated that he turned on the handheld shower and began to rinse Resident #1 and he did not have any soap and had to leave Resident #1 in the shower room alone and unattended to get soap. NA #1 indicated that when he returned to the spa room, Resident #1 was scratching her genital area. NA #1 reported the skin started to peel off Resident #1's bilateral upper thighs and he continued to wash her with a washcloth. NA #1 indicated after completing shower, he returned Resident #1 to her room and notified Nurse #1. NA #1 indicated to them he wanted to finish showering Resident #1 then notify the nurse. The ADON indicated that she was concerned that NA #1 left Resident #1 alone in the spa room with water running on her skin. ADON indicated that NA#1 knew not to leave a severely impaired resident alone and unattended in the spa room. The ADON noted after the Wound Nurse communicated with her on 07/23/24 at about 7:30am, she notified the provider of Resident #1 new wounds, per the description she obtained from Wound Nurse. Progress note completed by Nurse #3 on 07/23/24 stated: Prior nurse reports of red area to groin, pubic area, and blister noted to inside of left dorsal/lateral thigh. Nurses enter room noting skin peeling, beefy red, in bilateral groin areas, front of upper thigh, fluid filled blister to dorsal/lateral left thigh. Wound nurse notified and assessed resident with new order to send to hospital for further evaluation. Progress note that was completed on 07/23/24 at 9:00 AM by Nurse #3 was reviewed. The documentation indicated that EMS was notified at 08:00 AM. The note further revealed that EMS transferred resident onto stretch and departed the facility at 8:35 AM. ED provider notes dated 07/23/24 indicated that Resident #1 presented with deep partial thickness burns to the anterior and medial thighs bilaterally as well as the mons pubis. ED provider notes included Resident #1 vital signs on 07/23/24 at 9:07 AM to be a body temperature of 100.2 ?, blood pressure of 147/84, pulse rate of 82 beats per minute and respirations of 16 breaths per minutes. It was noted Resident #1 came from nursing home today with burns to her thighs. Supposedly she had a shower last night at the nursing home and now she has burns. Resident #1 is nonverbal and as such unable to offer any history. The ED provider notes further indicated that Resident #1 had severe contractures (shortening of muscles, tendons, skin and nearby soft tissues that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff, preventing normal movement) to bilateral lower extremities, knee extension and hips. ED notes indicated that Resident #1 had right upper extremity flexion contracture. ED notes indicated that Resident #1 only moved left upper extremity spontaneously-grossly 3/5 (medical muscle strength assessment that indicated Resident #1 could move her left arm on her own without assistance, but the strength would be rated as 3 out of 5, indicating moderate weakness. A score of 5 would represent normal strength.) ED notes dated 07/23/24 indicated, Resident #1 cleaned up due to voiding. Wound rinsed with water and pat dried. New chux pad (disposable under pads) applied and new gown applied. An emulsion dressing was placed around the burned area and put a PC (permanent catheter-indwelling) on. ED notes dated 07/24/24 stated Resident #1 was repositioned on her right side with pillow support. Call light within reach. After visit summary note dated 07/25/24 indicated the medications administered to Resident #1 while in the hospital on [DATE] at 09:50 AM to include Acetaminophen (Tylenol) and silver sulfadiazine topical dressing on bilateral thighs. Hospital wound care notes dated 07/24/24 indicated: Patient seen today for skin/wound consult. Heels clear. Feet overall very dry. Raw reddened burn like areas to suprapubic area and bilateral inner thighs. Right thigh wound is approximately 12 centimeters(cm) x 17 cm x 0.2 cm. Right thigh wound noted to have a thick pale layer of tissue sloughing. Left thigh wound is approximately 11.5 cm x 14 cm x 0.2 cm. Perineum is a combination of open areas and discoloration. Open area is approximately 4.5 cm x 6.5 cm. Black discoloration extending down both labia. Darker discolored skin will likely slough as well. Would hold off on purwick (purwick is a female external catheter for collecting urine) placement at this time due to discolored areas on labia. Discussed concerns with MD (Medical Doctor). Patient is also incontinent of urine at baseline. Appears to be partial thickness burns of thighs. No other burned areas noted on body. Patient keeps legs very tight together. Abdominal fold and breast fold clear. Bilateral upper extremities clear. Back clear. Shinny gray yeasty appearance to bilateral inner buttocks, gluteal crease and peri rectum. Skin currently intact. Patient on pressure redistribution surface. Records discussed with MD and nurse. Hospital Focused Physical Therapy initial evaluation dated 07/24/24 indicated: Patient presents from long term care facility with burns to inner thighs from bath water. Patient also unable to follow commands-did not follow one command this session. Spoke with nursing. Nursing cleared patient to participate in therapy. No pain reported, no grimaces noted. No pain reported, did not observe patient in any discomfort. A statement written by Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse #1 dated 07/23/24 revealed: Interview with NA #1. NA #1 stated that around 8:00 PM on Monday evening 7/22/24, he began to get Resident #1 ready for her shower. Resident #1 had a BM and he cleaned her before putting her on the [TRUNCATED]
Aug 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% as evidenced by a medication error rate of 7.69% (2 errors out of 26 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% as evidenced by a medication error rate of 7.69% (2 errors out of 26 opportunities) for Resident #60. The findings included: 1a. A medication administration for Resident #60 was observed on 8/23/23 at 10:47 AM, Medication Aide (Med Aide) #4 administered a Metoprolol Succinate ER 12.5 mg tablet, for Atrial Fibrillation (irregular heartbeat) after crushing it with other medications and mixing it in applesauce. Review of physician orders for Resident #60 revealed an order dated 8/12/22 at 2:49 pm for Metoprolol Succinate ER Tablet Extended Release. Give 0.5 tablet of 25 mg tablet by mouth once a day for Atrial Fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat). Review of the August 2023 Medication Administration Record for Resident #60 revealed no orders for crushed medications, and the Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release 24 Hour tablet, half of a 25 mg tablet (12.5 mg) by mouth was administered August 1 through August 23, 2023. Review of the Progress Notes revealed Nurse #5 documented crushing medications for Resident #60 due to difficulty swallowing on 6/25/23 at 9:57 am, on 7/2/23 at 12:21 pm, and on 8/7/23 at 11:58 pm. Review of the 7/27/23 at 1:34 pm Social Services Progress Note revealed Social Worker #1 documented Resident #60 had slurred speech related to Dysphagia, Pharyngoesophageal phase, and could make her needs known and be understood. The monthly Pharmacy Consultant #1's Progress Note on 8/9/23 at 11:38 am revealed that medication changes were reviewed, and that the status of Resident #60 was being monitored. There were no recommendations. The previous month's documentation by Pharmacy Consultant #1 on 7/9/23 at 12:04 pm also revealed the medication changes were reviewed and that the status of Resident #60 was being monitored. There were no recommendations. An interview on 8/23/23 at 3:41 pm with Pharmacy Consultant #1 revealed that Metoprolol Succinate extended release could be cut in half from a 25 mg tablet but should not be crushed because it was intended to be administered once a day and would slowly release throughout the day once swallowed. She continued that the dose of 12.5 mg was a small dose and would not cause harm if crushed. An interview on 8/23/23 at 4:40 pm with Nurse #6 revealed she recalled that Resident #60 started to receive crushed medications the previous month because Resident #60 occasionally choked on her medications and had vomited them up on one occasion. She further revealed Resident #60 would have been able to take the 12.5 mg Metoprolol Succinate tablet without crushing it because it was small enough that she wouldn't have choked on it. On 8/23/23 at 9:00 pm, a new order was in the electronic medical record for Resident #60 for Metoprolol Tartrate Oral Tablet, 6.25 mg by mouth two times a day for Atrial Fibrillation. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/25/23 at 10:22 am revealed that Resident #60 had a decline in June 2023, began to receive crushed medications, and the nurses and med aides were informed about crushing Resident #60's medications through communication at the change of shift reports. The DON continued that there were standing orders from their parent company for crushing medications, and that a standing order for crushing medications was an order that could be implemented, unless contraindicated by the drug manufacturer, and the nurses and med aides would know a standing order had been implemented by documentation in the Progress Notes. She continued that crushing medications could also be temporary, and that Resident #60 had no orders from a physician for crushing medications because a standing order was an order. She revealed that the extended-release Metoprolol Succinate ER tablet should not have been crushed, and that a new order for Metoprolol Tartrate was being added for Resident #6. An interview on 8/25/23 at 11:00 am, Med Aide #4 stated she gave Resident #60 crushed medications because Resident #60 liked them to be crushed. Med Aide #4 recalled that the medication card for Resident #60 from Pharmacy for Metoprolol Succinate had do not crush written on it and crushed it anyway because of discussions at change of shift reports that Resident #60 preferred her medications crushed. She continued that she could not write in the Progress Notes but read in the Progress Notes about crushing medications for Resident #60. She concluded that she confused Metoprolol Succinate (a non-crushable medication) with Metoprolol Tartrate (a crushable medication). 1b. During the medication administration observed to Resident #60 on 8/23/23 at 10:47 AM, Med Aide #4 administered one capful of polyethylene glycol 3350 powder solution sugar free mixed in a medication plastic cup with water. Med Aide #4 set the medication cup of polyethylene glycol in front of Resident #60 on her bed table. Resident #60 began to sip the liquid polyethylene glycol and Med Aide #4 left the room. Review of physician orders for Resident #60 revealed an order dated 9/8/22 at 7:00 am for polyethylene glycol 3350. Give one scoop by mouth one time a day for Constipation. Review of the August 2023 Medication Administration Record for Resident #60 revealed polyethylene glycol 3350, one scoop by mouth one time a day for constipation was administered August 1 through August 23, 2023. An interview on 8/23/23 at 11:21 am with Nurse #6 revealed when she passed medications, she stayed with Resident #60 until she completed her polyethylene glycol mixed with water. On 8/23/23 at 4:34 pm, the medication plastic cup with liquid polyethylene glycol was observed undrunk and sitting in front of Resident #60 on her bed table. An interview with the DON on 8/25/23 at 10:22 am revealed there would be extra training for Med Aide #4, and the nurses would also complete closer oversight of the Med Aides to ensure correct medication pass protocols were followed. An interview on 8/25/23 at 11:11 am with Med Aide #4 revealed that she left the cup of polyethylene glycol mixed in water on the bedside table of Resident #60.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and local Department of Social Services (DSS) Adult Protective Services (APS) Supervisor interv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and local Department of Social Services (DSS) Adult Protective Services (APS) Supervisor interviews, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident abuse to Adult Protective Services within the required time frame for 1 of 1 resident abuse allegation reviewed (Resident #2). Findings included: Review of the policy titled Abuse investigation and reporting for Senior Services dated 4/19/06 and revised 1/26/23. Which stated: The administrator (or designee) will ensure that a completed DHSR form initial Allegation Report located at: NC DHSR CHCPIS: Provider Information fncdhhs.gov) is submitted to the Health Care Personnel Registry Section of the Division of Health Services Regulations within 2 hours after the allegation is made if the events that caused the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury (see #1). All other allegations will be reported using the same form within 24 hours. Even though the form asked for employee information, it can and should be utilized for any individual against whom an allegation is made. Adult Protective Services must also be notified within the same frames. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part, Alzheimer's Disease. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was severely cognitively impaired and had no negative behaviors. The Initial Allegation Report dated 7/31/23 revealed an allegation of resident to resident abuse for Resident #2 who was observed by staff with a male resident (Resident #283) in her room with his head on her bare chest. The report was faxed to Health Care Personnel Investigations (HCPI) of the Division of Health Services Regulations (DHSR) on 7/31/23 at 10:36 PM. Review of section I Notification to Other Agencies- Department of Social Services revealed it was left blank. The Investigation Report (5day) was faxed to the HCPI Section of the Division of Health Services Regulations (DHSR) on 8/7/23 3:34 PM. Review of section I Notification to Other Agencies- Department of Social Services indicated APS was notified on 8/7/23. An interview conducted on 8/29/23 at 5:05 PM the Administrator revealed she had a prior agreement with their county DSS/APS to send them the report after the 5- day investigation was completed. An interview conducted on 8/31/23 at 11:19 AM the DSS Adult Protective Services Supervisor revealed that nursing homes were required to follow guidance from DHSR for reporting.
Mar 2022 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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 observations, record review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain an indwelling urinary catheter bag and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain an indwelling urinary catheter bag and a nephrostomy bag off the floor. This was evident for 2 of 3 observations of Resident #25. Findings Included: Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and diagnoses included neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, urine retention and cerebral palsy. A quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #25 identified he had an indwelling urinary catheter. A care plan dated 11/1/21 for Resident #25 revealed he had a catheter and bilateral nephrostomy tubes. Interventions included for the nurse to take care of his catheter and nephrostomy tubes and the aides to take care of his catheter equipment. An observation on 3/28/22 at 12:26 pm of Resident #25 revealed the resident ' s bed was in a lower position. The indwelling urinary catheter bag and one nephrotomy tube bag were touching the floor. An observation on 3/29/22 at 10:00 am of Resident #25 revealed he was in bed being fed his breakfast and one nephrostomy tube bag was touching the floor. An interview on 3/30/22 at 11:42 pm with Medication Aide (MA) #1 revealed Resident #25 had a urinary catheter and a bag on each side that drained his kidneys. She stated the only thing she did was empty them and report his output to the nurse. MA #1 added the nurse was responsible for the rest of his care for the catheter and nephrostomy tubes. An interview on 3/30/22 at 12:10 pm with Nurse #1 revealed Resident #25 had an indwelling urinary catheter and bilateral nephrostomy tubes. She stated the resident ' s indwelling urinary catheter and nephrostomy tubes should be positioned so they can drain and should not be touching the floor. An interview on 3/31/22 at 11:05am with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #25 ' s catheter should have been placed in a basin when the resident ' s bed was in a lower position, so the catheter bag was not touching the floor. She stated Resident #25 ' s nephrostomy tube bag should not have been touching the floor.
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 staff interview the facility failed to ensure opened foods were sealed, labeled and dated. This was evident for 1 of 1 kitchen observation. Findings Included: An observation ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interview the facility failed to ensure opened foods were sealed, labeled and dated. This was evident for 1 of 1 kitchen observation. Findings Included: An observation of the kitchen on 3/28/22 at 10:50 am was conducted with the Assistant Food Service Director (AFSD). The following concerns were identified in the walk-in freezer: 1. A partial case of Salisbury steak patties that had been removed from the original packaging were not labeled and dated. 2. A partial case of breaded vegetable rounds were open and exposed to the air. 3. A partial case of pizza crusts were open and exposed to the air. 4. A partial case of French toast were open and exposed to the air. 5. A partial case of pasta sheets were open and exposed to the air. An interview with the AFSD revealed all these items should have been sealed, labeled and dated when opened. An interview on 3/31/22 at 11:15 am with the Administrator revealed she expected foods to be closed, labeled and dated when opened.
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 44% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $15,646 in fines. Above average for North Carolina. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (34/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 34/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Trinity Elms's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Trinity Elms 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 Trinity Elms Staffed?

CMS rates Trinity Elms's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Trinity Elms?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at Trinity Elms during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 8 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 Trinity Elms?

Trinity Elms is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by LUTHERAN SERVICES CAROLINAS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 90 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Clemmons, North Carolina.

How Does Trinity Elms Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Trinity Elms's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Trinity Elms?

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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Trinity Elms Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Trinity Elms has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 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 Trinity Elms Stick Around?

Trinity Elms has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for North Carolina nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Trinity Elms Ever Fined?

Trinity Elms has been fined $15,646 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,235. 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 Trinity Elms on Any Federal Watch List?

Trinity Elms 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.