Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat

4414 Wilkinson Blvd, Gastonia, NC 28056 (704) 824-5550
For profit - Corporation 50 Beds SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
1/100
#345 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation. They rank #345 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina, placing them in the bottom half, and #9 out of 10 in Gaston County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. While staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 45%, which is below the state average, they have faced serious fines totaling $60,781, which is higher than 87% of other facilities in the state. Specific incidents have raised alarm, including a critical finding where a resident fell out of her wheelchair during transport because she was not secured, resulting in a fracture. Another serious issue involved a failure to administer pain medication to a resident who complained of severe pain, which is concerning for proper care management. Overall, families should weigh the facility's staffing strengths against its troubling track record of incidents and compliance issues.

Trust Score
F
1/100
In North Carolina
#345/417
Bottom 18%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
45% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$60,781 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for North Carolina. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 6 issues
2024: 7 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (45%)

    3 points below North Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 45%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $60,781

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Aug 2024 7 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, staff, physician and contract transport company interviews, the facility's contracted transpor...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, staff, physician and contract transport company interviews, the facility's contracted transport driver (Driver #1) failed to leave Resident #12 in place for a clinical assessment of injury after a fall that occurred during transport. Resident #12 was being transported back from a medical appointment in a contract transport van while unsecured in her wheelchair. Driver #1 made a sudden stop which caused Resident #12 to fall forward out of her wheelchair onto the van floor. Driver #1 pulled the van off to the side of the road and transferred Resident #12 off the van floor back into her wheelchair and continued back to the facility. Driver #1 was not qualified to provide a comprehensive physical assessment to determine if the resident sustained any injuries. Upon arrival at the facility, Driver #1 did not notify facility staff of the resident's fall. Resident #12 notified staff of the fall in the van and was assessed by nursing staff and noted to have swelling and a skin tear to her left knee. A hospital computed tomography (CT) scan revealed Resident #12 had suffered a distal (away from the center of the body) left fracture to the femur (break in bone above left knee joint) due to her fall in the van. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #12). The findings included: Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis (MS), muscle weakness, contractures of the left knee, hip, wrist, and of the right knee and hip. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was cognitively intact, utilized a wheelchair for mobility, and dependent for assist with transfers. Resident #12 was also coded as having on-going pain and receiving scheduled pain medications. Review of a physician order dated 10/01/23 revealed Resident #12 received Gabapentin (used for pain) 300 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed (prn) for pain. Review of a physician order dated 10/01/23 revealed Resident #12 received Acetaminophen (mild to moderate pain) 650 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for mild pain. Review of Resident #12's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 10/1/23 through 10/5/23 revealed the following administrations of Resident #12's prn pain medications Gabapentin 300 mg and Acetaminophen 650 mg: - 10/1/23: Gabapentin at 10:44 AM (pain level 1) (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst pain possible) - 10/2/23: Acetaminophen at 8:08 AM (pain level 0), Acetaminophen at 3:27 PM (pain level 0) - 10/3/23: Gabapentin at 8:05 AM (pain level 7), Acetaminophen at 9:06 AM (pain level 7), Acetaminophen at 3:23 PM (pain level 8) - 10/4/23: Acetaminophen at 7:55 AM (pain level 1), Acetaminophen at 7:58 PM (pain level 0) - 10/5/23: Acetaminophen at 5:19 AM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 3:01 PM (pain level 2) Review of facility van incident report dated 10/05/23 written by Unit Manager #1 read in part: [Resident #12] fell from chair after [Driver #1] pressed the brakes while out of facility being transported by outside services. [Resident #12] stated, he slammed on the brakes, and I fell on the floor, he picked me up and put me back in chair. Assessment completed, transport company owner notified, physician notified, vital signs taken, skin assessment completed. Review of Driver #1's statement dated 10/5/23 indicated, [Driver #1] was driving on my way through greenlight, suddenly had to brake, [Resident #12] went forward and hit her knee against driver seat chair. A phone interview was attempted with Driver #1, but he was unable to be reached. An interview was conducted with Resident #12 on 08/20/24 at 11:00 AM revealed on 10/05/23 she had been transported to an appointment by the transport company and on her way back to the facility, Driver #1 had secured her wheelchair in the van but forgot to secure her into her wheelchair, so when he had to make a sudden stop she fell out of her wheelchair onto the van floor. She stated Driver #1 pulled the van off the side of the road and assisted her back into her wheelchair and transported her back to the facility. Resident #12 revealed as soon as she got back to the facility, she notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator about the fall and they asked her what happened, assessed her for injuries and at the time her left knee was swollen some and had a skin tear, but she was not in any real pain. Resident #12 revealed she believed Driver #1 should have either called 911 for help after the fall prior to putting her back into her chair or taken her to the hospital to be assessed. Review of a physician order dated 10/05/23 revealed an order for a mobile x-ray to be completed on Resident #12's left ankle, left foot, left knee, left tibia (located on inside of leg, below knee joint, and forms top of ankle joint), and left fibula (located on outside of leg, below knee joint, and forms top of ankle joint). Review of an on-call physician note dated 10/06/23 indicated on 10/05/23, Resident #12 had a fall from her wheelchair on transportation van. Resident #12's left knee was swollen, she complained of increased pain at a level 10 in her left knee and leg, and her x-ray results had not been received. Ibuprofen 400 mg twice daily for 3 days and Tylenol 500 mg three times daily for 3 days was ordered for Resident #12's acute pain post fall. Review of on-call physician orders for Resident #12 dated 10/06/23 indicated Ibuprofen 400 mg twice daily for 3 days for acute pain post fall and Tylenol 500 mg three times daily for 3 days for acute pain post fall. Review of a mobile x-ray dated 10/06/23 of Resident #12's left knee revealed a moderately displaced (more complex fracture because bones are out of alignment or in pieces) distal left fracture of the femur of indeterminate age (not able to determine how long-ago fracture occurred). Clinical follow-up was recommended. Review of an on-call physician note dated 10/06/23 revealed Resident #12's x-ray results were reviewed with no new treatment orders. The on-call physician indicated to continue to monitor and follow-up with the resident's primary care physician was recommended. Review of Resident #12's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 10/6/23 through 10/8/23 revealed the following administrations of Resident #12's pain medications Tylenol 500 mg and Ibuprofen 400 mg and prn pain medication Gabapentin 300 mg: - 10/6/23: Gabapentin at 12:14 AM (pain level 2), Tylenol at 2:00 PM (pain level of 10), Ibuprofen at 8:00 PM (pain level 0), Tylenol 10:00 PM (pain level of 0), and Gabapentin at 11:24 PM (pain level 1) - 10/07/23 Tylenol at 6:00 AM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 7:35 AM (pain level 1), Ibuprofen at 8:00 AM (pain level 0), Tylenol at 2:00 PM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 3:24 PM (pain level 1), Ibuprofen at 8:00 PM (pain level 0), and Tylenol at 10:00 PM (pain level of 2) - 10/08/23 Tylenol at 6:00 AM (pain level 0), Ibuprofen at 8:00 AM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 10:47 AM (pain level 1), and Tylenol at 2:00 PM (pain level of 0) Review of an on-call physician note dated 10/08/23 revealed Resident #12 complained of pain in her stomach area when inhaling and requested to be sent out to the hospital. Resident #12 was sent out from the facility to the hospital at 4:05 PM. Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was seen at emergency department (ED) for a fall and shortness of breath. Resident #12 had an abrasion and edema (swelling) to the left knee and a CT scan was obtained and revealed a distal femur fracture on the left and some possible bruising to the ribs as a result of the fall. The consulting ED provider did not recommend any emergency intervention given that Resident #12 was non-ambulatory, and wheelchair bound. Resident #12 was discharged back to the facility with an order for Naproxen (treat fever and pain) 375 mg by mouth twice daily and follow-up with orthopedics. During interview with Resident #12 on 8/20/24 at 11:00 AM she revealed on the day after the fall (10/06/23), her pain had gotten worse around her left knee and the facility administered her pain medications and completed an x-ray of her left side. She stated a couple of days later (10/08/23) she started having some trouble breathing and was sent out to the hospital where they confirmed she had broken her left leg and bruised her ribs because of the fall. Resident #12 revealed the hospital administered her some more pain medication, referred her to an orthopedist, and sent her back to the facility. An interview conducted with Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/21/24 at 12:06 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #12. She stated on the afternoon of 10/05/23, Resident #12 had entered the facility by herself in her electric wheelchair after being transported to a medical appointment by their contract transport company. The resident stated that she had fallen on the van and Driver #1 picked her up and placed her back into her wheelchair after the fall and transported her back to the facility. She (the DON) revealed she immediately assessed Resident #12 for injury and noted a skin tear to her left knee with some swelling. The DON stated she notified the physician of Resident #12's fall on 10/05/23 and received an order for a mobile x-ray of the left knee. A mobile x-ray was completed on 10/06/23 and revealed a distal left leg fracture of the femur but was not able to determine the age of the fracture due to Resident #12's contractures and follow-up was recommended. She revealed the on-call physician was notified of the results and did not order any further treatment until reviewed by the facility physician. The DON stated on 10/08/23 Resident #12 was complaining of stomach pain when taking a deep breath and requested to be sent out to hospital. The on-call physician was notified, and orders were received for her to be sent out. She indicated a CT scan completed at the hospital on [DATE] revealed Resident #12 had suffered a left leg fracture of the femur and suspected bruised ribs from the fall in the van. Resident #12 returned to the facility with an order to follow-up with orthopedics outpatient. The DON also revealed after Resident #12 had fallen into the van floor, Driver #1 should have immediately contacted the facility and medical personnel to come and assess Resident #12 prior to moving her back into her wheelchair to keep from possibly causing further injury or trauma. A telephone interview conducted with the physician on 8/21/24 at 4:55 PM revealed he was familiar with Resident #12 and her fall on the van on 10/05/23. He stated he was notified on the day the accident had occurred and approved a mobile x-ray order for Resident #12's left side extremities due to her left knee showing signs of swelling. He revealed the mobile x-ray and the CT scan from the hospital both showed Resident #12 had suffered a left leg femur fracture due to the fall and recommended follow-up with outpatient orthopedic. The physician stated Resident #12 had MS which caused her to have contractures in all her extremities and suspected demineralization (loss of bone minerals faster than can be replaced) that made it easier for injury. He revealed he had been told by the DON that Driver #1 did not have her assessed by medical personnel prior to moving her after the fall. He indicated he would expect medical personnel to be notified immediately anytime a resident sustains a fall so an assessment of injury can be completed prior to them being moved. He stated moving a resident prior to them being assessed could cause further injury or trauma. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 8/21/24 at 5:27 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #12. She stated on 10/05/23, Resident #12 had been transported by their contract transport company to an appointment. She indicated when the resident arrived back at the facility, the resident reported that during her transport back to the facility she was not secured into her wheelchair and had fallen out of her wheelchair onto the van floor. Resident #12 stated Driver #1 had stopped the van and assisted her back into her chair and brought her back to the facility. The Administrator revealed while the DON was assessing Resident #12 for injury and contacting the physician, Driver #1 came into the facility and she attempted to interview him (Driver #1) about the incident, but he refused to give statement and left the facility. The Administrator indicated she contacted the Contract Transport Company Owner to notify them about the incident. She stated the owner of the transport company assisted her with receiving a written statement about the incident from Driver #1 and was able to view camera footage from the van to corroborate Resident #12's statement of how the fall occurred, that she had not been secured into her wheelchair, and Driver #1 did not contact medical personnel to assess her (Resident #12) after the fall prior to transporting her back to facility. The Administrator revealed Resident #12 had suffered a left leg femur fracture and bruised ribs from the fall. She stated according to the information received from the transport company, Driver #1 was no longer employed with the company and had received prior education on accident protocols which included notifying the facility and medical personnel when a resident had been involved in an accident prior to moving resident or proceeding forward with transport. A telephone interview conducted with the Contract Transport Company Owner on 8/22/24 at 9:29 AM indicated on 10/05/23, he was notified by the facility of the fall incident involving Driver #1 and Resident #12. He stated he received a written statement from Driver #1 and reviewed video footage from the van. Driver #1 failed to secure the lap belt and when he (Driver #1) had to stop suddenly Resident #12 fell out of her wheelchair onto the van floor. He revealed after the fall, Driver #1 pulled the van over, assisted Resident #12 back into her wheelchair and transported her back to the facility. He stated Driver #1 was no longer employed with the company and all drivers received training prior to transporting on van safety and the protocol on what to do if an accident occurred. The Contract Transport Company Owner stated Driver #1 should have pulled over, stopped the van, contacted 911 and the facility, and waited for Resident #12 to be assessed by medical personnel prior to her being moved to prevent any further injury to the resident. The facility was notified of immediate jeopardy on 8/22/24 at 5:50 PM. The facility provided the following corrective action plan: 1. Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice; The identified resident (Resident #12) is still a current Resident at the facility. Resident #12 was picked up by a contract transportation driver from a scheduled neurology appointment for transport back to the facility. Prior to leaving the appointment, the contracted driver secured Resident #12 wheelchair, but failed to secure Resident #12 seatbelt leaving her unsecured. During transport, the contracted driver had to slam on brakes causing Resident #12 to fall forward from her wheelchair into the van floor. Contracted Driver pulled off road and assisted Resident #12 back into her wheelchair and then continued to transport Resident #12 back to the facility. Contracted Driver failed to contact 911 and/or facility prior to moving Resident #12 from van floor and prior to placing her back into wheelchair after fall. The following actions after this incident: On 10/5/23, the facility initiated immediate investigation on 10/5/23. On 10/5/23, Resident #12 medical director (MD) and responsible person (RP) made aware of incident. On 10/5/23, Order obtained for x-ray to the left ankle, left foot, left knee, left tibia and left fibula. On 10/6/23, Resident #12 complained of pain on a level of 10 on a level 0-10, MD notified, and new orders obtained for the following: Ibuprofen 400mg take 1 tablet by mouth twice daily x3 days for acute pain post fall and Tylenol 500mg take 1 tab by mouth three times daily x3 days for acute pain s/p fall. Pain medication effective with a pain scale of 0 noted. On 10/6/23, x-ray results were obtained and showed the following, Left tibia/fibula- No fracture or dislocation is identified, bony structures are osteoporotic. Left ankle-No acute fracture, dislocation or osseous lesion, bony structures are osteoporotic. Left Knee- moderately displaced fracture of the distal diaphysis of the femur of indeterminate age. No dislocation is identified. Left Foot-soft tissue swelling of the foot. Bony structures are osteoporotic. No acute fracture or dislocation is identified. There is moderate hallux valgus (bony bump that forms on joint at the base of big toe), mild degenerative change of the interphalangeal (hinge shaped joint in toe) joint, first metatarsophalangeal (joint that connects toes to foot bone) joint and midfoot is present. On 10/8/2023, Resident #12 complained of pain when she inhales in her stomach area especially the left upper quad. Resident and Daughter requested for Resident to be sent out to the Hospital for Evaluation and treatment. Vital signs at that time were as follows: BP 114/72, P 68, Resp. 18, Temp. 97.8. Resident transported via ambulance and MD was notified of the transport. On 10/8/23 hospital x-ray revealed an acute comminuted (break into three or more pieces) and mildly displaced distal femoral fracture with minimal angulation. Soft tissue swelling adjacent to the fracture. A left hip gamma nail (metal implant used to stabilize fractures) seen, no dislocation. No evidence of knee joint effusion (abnormal fluid accumulation within knee joint). On 10/9/23, Resident #12 returned back to the facility via stretcher accompanied by two emergency management technicians (EMT) attendants. Resident complained of pain and discomfort to the left femur upon assessment pain meds were administered and effective. New orders from emergency department (ED) for Naproxen 375mg PO BID. Ortho follow up appointment with Orthopedic surgery as soon as possible. On 10/9/23, Facility made Resident #12 an Ortho appointment on 10/10/23 at 2:15pm. RP and MD made aware of the appointment. On 10/10/23, Resident #12 was taken to Ortho via facility transport. Ortho plan on 10/10/23 state Resident is not a strong surgical candidate given knee contracture, would not recommend a long leg cast at that time. Instead recommended a knee immobilizer and limit range of motion of including weight-bearing. 2. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice; The Director of Nursing reviewed the accidents for the last three months and there were no other situations where licensed nurses did not assess the resident before the resident was moved. Review completed on 10/9/23. 3. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur; The van drivers were re-educated on 10/9/23 by the Administrator on the proper procedures if a resident was to have a fall/injury or abnormal event in the facility van, that 911 is to be called prior to moving the resident. The education was already a component of the Transportation Driver orientation given by Administrator/Designee. The Administrator notified the contract transportation company on 10/5/23 via phone, and stated that until proof of driver training to include wheelchair procedures and calling 911, then contracted transportation will not be utilized. Beginning 10/9/23, Any transportation from contract services was required to provide the driver's PASS (Passenger Assistance Safety and Sensitivity) training to the Administrator/Designee prior to transporting the facilities residents. These competencies are maintained by the Administrator/Designee. The contracted transportation supervisor who is PASS (Passenger Assistance Safety and Sensitivity) Certified completed education for contracted drivers on 10/12/23 and ongoing; prior to transporting facility residents. This education included both wheelchair patent procedures and to contact 911 immediately should any emergencies with patients occur during transport. 4. Address how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. Beginning 10/9/23 Director of Nursing/Designee audited incident/accident logs to ensure no resident had a fall during transportation and 911 wasn't called. Director of Nursing/Designee reviewed incident/accident logs 5 days a week for 4 weeks, 3 days a week for 4 weeks and weekly for 4 weeks. On 10/9/23 Administrator made the decision to take audits to the monthly Quality Assurance meeting for tracking, trending, and recommendations from the IDT team. Alleged Date of Immediate Jeopardy Removal and corrective action plan completion: 10/13/23 The facility's corrective action plan was validated on 8/27/24 by the following: Interviews with facility transporters revealed they had received education on proper procedures if a resident was to have a fall, injury, or accident in the facility van, that 911 was to be called immediately, do not move resident until assessed by a medical professional, and call facility to notify of incident. The education was included as a component of the transportation orientation. Contract transport company re-education dated 10/12/23 verified staff were educated on passenger safety and sensitivity training, wheelchair procedures, and calling 911 immediately for any emergencies during transport. Review of the audit tool for the review of the incident/ accident logs was completed with no issues noted. Interviews were also conducted with alert and oriented residents who had been transported since October 2023 with no concerns, incidents, or accidents identified. Interview with the Administrator revealed she had educated facility transport drivers on proper procedures if a fall, injury, or accident occurred while transporting to include calling 911 immediately and not moving resident until assessed by medical personnel and notifying facility of the incident. The Administrator also verified the contract transport company had educated their drivers on the proper wheelchair procedures, calling 911 for any emergencies during transport, and safety and sensitivity training. The facility's immediate jeopardy removal date and the corrective action completion date was validated as 10/13/23.
CRITICAL (J)

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 and interviews with resident, staff, physician and the contract transport company's owner, the facility's...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, physician and the contract transport company's owner, the facility's contracted transport driver (Driver #1) failed to provide safe transportation when Resident #12's lap belt was not applied leaving her unsecured in her wheelchair. Resident #12 was being transported back from a medical appointment when Driver #1 made a sudden stop resulting in Resident #12 falling forward out of her wheelchair onto the van floor on her left knee and rolling onto her left side. Driver #1 pulled the van off to the side of the road and transferred Resident #12 off the van floor back into her wheelchair and continued back to the facility. Resident #12 had swelling and a skin tear to her left knee. A hospital CT (computed tomography) scan revealed Resident #12 had suffered a distal (away from the center of the body) left fracture to the femur (break in bone above left knee joint) due to her fall in the van. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #12). The findings included: Review of the contract van vehicle anchorages for the 4-point wheelchair securement systems manual dated 2007 read in part: The illustrated manual provided directions for securing wheelchairs for transport in the transportation van. Tracks on the floor of the van (L-track) where the pin connectors of the retractors locked in place and straps connected to the wheelchair by a J-hook (a J-shaped metal hook affixed to the fabric straps that were attached to the connector pins). The manual illustrated the position of the pin connectors indicated two rear connectors were directly behind the wheelchair and the two front pin connectors were secured to the front and side of each side of the wheelchair. The instructions directed to follow the tie down angles in the illustration and attached the J-hooks on the wheelchair frame in the proper locations and apply resident seatbelt. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis (MS), muscle weakness, contractures of the left knee, hip, wrist, and of the right knee and hip. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was cognitively intact, utilized a wheelchair for mobility, and dependent for assist with transfers. Resident #12 was also coded as having on-going pain and receiving scheduled pain medications. Review of a physician order dated 10/01/23 revealed Resident #12 received Gabapentin 300 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed (prn) for pain. Review of a physician order dated 10/01/23 revealed Resident #12 received Acetaminophen 650 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for mild pain. Review of Resident #12's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 10/1/23 through 10/5/23 revealed the following administrations of Resident #12's prn pain medications Gabapentin 300 mg and Acetaminophen 650 mg: -10/1/23: Gabapentin at 10:44 AM (pain level 1) (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst pain possible) -10/2/23: Acetaminophen at 8:08 AM (pain level 0), Acetaminophen at 3:27 PM (pain level 0) -10/3/23: Gabapentin at 8:05 AM (pain level 7), Acetaminophen at 9:06 AM (pain level 7), Acetaminophen at 3:23 PM (pain level 8) -10/4/23: Acetaminophen at 7:55 AM (pain level 1), Acetaminophen at 7:58 PM (pain level 0) -10/5/23: Acetaminophen at 5:19 AM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 3:01 PM (pain level 2) Review of facility van incident report dated 10/05/23 written by Unit Manager #1 read in part: [Resident #12] fell from chair after [Driver #1] pressed the brakes while out of facility being transported by outside services. [Resident #12] stated, he slammed on the brakes, and I fell on the floor, he picked me up and put me back in chair. Assessment completed, transport company owner notified, physician notified, vital signs taken, skin assessment completed. Review of Driver #1's statement dated 10/5/23 indicated, [Driver #1] was driving on my way through greenlight, suddenly had to brake, [Resident #12] went forward and hit her knee against driver seat chair. A phone interview was attempted with Driver #1, but he was unable to be reached. An interview was conducted with Resident #12 on 08/20/24 at 11:00 AM revealed on 10/05/23 she had been transported to an appointment by the transport company and on her way back to the facility, Driver #1 had secured her wheelchair in the van but forgot to secure her into her wheelchair, so when he had to make a sudden stop she fell out of her wheelchair onto the van floor. She stated Driver #1 pulled the van off the side of the road and assisted her back into her wheelchair and transported her back to the facility. Resident #12 revealed as soon as she got back to the facility, she notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator about the fall and they asked her what happened, assessed her for injuries and at the time her left knee was swollen some and had a skin tear, but she was not in any real pain. Resident #12 revealed the fall in the van happened so fast that she didn't have time to feel scared or even think about what had happened, but she did feel that Driver #1 should have secured her into her chair especially since due to her MS diagnosis she was not able to secure herself. Review of physician order dated 10/05/23 revealed an order for a mobile x-ray to be completed on Resident #12's left ankle, left foot, left knee, left tibia (located on inside of leg, below knee joint, and forms top of ankle joint), and left fibula (located on outside of leg, below knee joint, and forms top of ankle joint). Review of on-call physician note dated 10/06/23 indicated on 10/05/23 Resident #12 had a fall from her wheelchair on transportation van. Resident #12's left knee was swollen, she complained of increased pain at a level 10 in her left knee and leg, and her x-ray results had not been received. Ibuprofen 400 mg twice daily for 3 days and Tylenol 500 mg three times daily for 3 days was ordered for Resident #12's acute pain post fall. Review of on-call physician orders for Resident #12 dated 10/06/23 indicated Ibuprofen 400 mg twice daily for 3 days for acute pain post fall and Tylenol 500 mg three times daily for 3 days for acute pain post fall. Review of a mobile x-ray dated 10/06/23 of Resident #12's left knee revealed a moderately displaced (more complex fracture because bones are out of alignment or in pieces) distal left fracture of the femur of indeterminate age (not able to determine how long-ago fracture occurred). Clinical follow-up was recommended. Review of an on-call physician note dated 10/06/23 revealed Resident #12's x-ray results were reviewed with no new treatment orders. The on-call physician indicated to continue to monitor and follow-up with the resident's primary care physician was recommended. Review of Resident #12's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 10/6/23 through 10/8/23 revealed the following administrations of Resident #12's pain medications Tylenol 500 mg (three times daily), Ibuprofen 400 mg (twice daily), Gabapentin 300 mg (prn): -10/6/23: Gabapentin at 12:14 AM (pain level 2), Tylenol at 2:00 PM (pain level of 10), Ibuprofen at 8:00 PM (pain level 0), and Tylenol 10:00 PM (pain level of 0) -10/07/23: Tylenol at 6:00 AM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 7:35 AM (pain level 1), Ibuprofen at 8:00 AM (pain level 0), Tylenol at 2:00 PM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 3:24 PM (pain level 1), Ibuprofen at 8:00 PM (pain level 0), Tylenol at 10:00 PM (pain level of 2), and Gabapentin at 11:24 PM (pain level 1) -10/08/23 Tylenol at 6:00 AM (pain level 0), Ibuprofen at 8:00 AM (pain level 0), Gabapentin at 10:47 AM (pain level 1), and Tylenol at 2:00 PM (pain level of 0) Review of an on-call physician note dated 10/08/23 revealed Resident #12 complained of pain in her stomach area when inhaling and requested to be sent out to the hospital. Resident #12 was sent out from the facility to the hospital at 4:05 PM. Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was seen at emergency department (ED) for a fall and shortness of breath. Resident #12 had an abrasion and edema (swelling) to the left knee and a CT scan was obtained and revealed a distal femur fracture on the left and some possible bruising to the ribs as a result of the fall. The consulting ED provider did not recommend any emergency intervention given that Resident #12 was non-ambulatory, and wheelchair bound. Resident #12 was discharged back to the facility with an order for Naproxen (treat fever and pain) 375 mg by mouth twice daily and follow-up with orthopedics. During interview with Resident #12 on 8/20/24 at 11:00 AM she revealed on the day after the fall (10/06/23), her pain had gotten worse around her left knee and the facility administered her pain medications and completed an x-ray of her left side. She stated a couple of days later (10/08/23) she started having some trouble breathing and was sent out to the hospital where they confirmed she had broken her left leg and bruised her ribs because of the fall. Resident #12 revealed the hospital administered her some more pain medication, referred her to an orthopedist, and sent her back to the facility. An interview conducted with Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/21/24 at 12:06 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #12. She stated on the afternoon of 10/05/23, Resident #12 had returned to the facility after being transported to a medical appointment by their contract transport company and stated that she had fallen on the van. She revealed she immediately assessed Resident #12 for injury and noted a skin tear to her left knee with some swelling. The DON stated she notified physician of Resident #12's fall on 10/05/23 and received an order for a mobile x-ray of left knee. A mobile x-ray was completed on 10/06/23 and revealed a distal left leg fracture of the femur but was not able to determine the age of the fracture due to Resident #12's contractures and follow-up was recommended. She revealed the on-call physician was notified of the results and did not order any further treatment until reviewed by the facility physician. The DON stated on 10/08/23 Resident #12 was complaining of stomach pain when taking a deep breath and requested to be sent out to hospital. The on-call physician was notified, and orders were received for her to be sent out. She indicated a CT scan completed at the hospital on [DATE] revealed Resident #12 had suffered a left leg fracture of the femur and suspected bruised ribs from the fall in the van, Resident #12 returned to the facility with an order to follow-up with orthopedics outpatient. A telephone interview conducted with the physician on 8/21/24 at 4:55 PM revealed he was familiar with Resident #12 and her fall on the van. He stated he was notified on the day the accident had occurred and approved a mobile x-ray order for Resident #12's left side extremities due to her left knee showing signs of swelling. He revealed the mobile x-ray and the CT scan from the hospital both showed Resident #12 had suffered a left leg femur fracture due to the fall and recommended follow-up with outpatient orthopedic. The physician stated Resident #12 did have MS which caused her to have contractures in all of her extremities and suspected demineralization (loss of bone minerals faster than can be replaced) making it easier for injury, Resident #12 would still have had to fallen hard onto a hard surface to sustain that type of injury. He revealed he had been told by the DON that Driver #1 did not secure Resident #12 into her wheelchair causing her to fall. He indicated he would expect that all residents be secured while being transported in their wheelchairs. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 8/21/24 at 5:27 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #12. She stated on 10/05/23, Resident #12 had been transported by their contract transport company to an appointment. She indicated when the resident arrived back at the facility, the resident reported that during her transport back to the facility she was not secured into her wheelchair and had fallen out of her wheelchair onto the van floor. Resident #12 stated Driver #1 had stopped the van and assisted her back into her chair and brought her back to the facility. The Administrator revealed while the DON was assessing Resident #12 for injury and contacting the physician, she attempted to interview Driver #1 about the incident, but he left the facility, so she contacted the Contract Transport Company Owner to notify them about the incident. She stated the Contract Transportation Company Owner assisted her with receiving a written statement about the incident from Driver #1 and was able to view camera footage from the van to corroborate Resident #12's statement of how the fall occurred and that she had not been secured into her wheelchair. The Administrator revealed Resident #12 had suffered a left leg femur fracture and bruised ribs from the fall. She stated according to the information received from the transport company, Driver #1 was no longer employed with the company and had received prior education on securing residents and their wheelchairs during transport. A telephone interview conducted with the Contract Transport Company Owner on 8/22/24 at 9:29 AM revealed on 10/05/23, he was notified by the facility of the fall incident involving Driver #1 and Resident #12. He also revealed he received a written statement from Driver #1 and reviewed video footage from the van to confirm Resident #12's statement about the fall. He stated according to the van video footage, Driver #1 was transporting Resident #12 from an appointment back to the facility and secured Resident #12's wheelchair into the van but failed to secure her into her wheelchair by using the lap belt. He stated during this transport, Driver #1 had to stop suddenly causing Resident #12 to fall out of her wheelchair onto the van floor. He revealed after the fall, Driver #1 pulled the van over, assisted Resident #12 back into her wheelchair and transported her back to the facility. He stated Driver #1 was no longer employed with the company and all drivers received training prior to transporting on van safety and proper ways to secure residents in wheelchairs in vans. The Contract Transport Company Owner stated Driver #1 should have secured Resident #12 lap belt in her wheelchair to keep her from falling forward out of her wheelchair and once the fall had occurred, he should have stopped the van, contacted 911 and the facility, and waited for Resident #12 to be assessed by medical personnel prior to her being moved. The facility was notified of immediate jeopardy on 8/22/24 at 5:50 PM. The facility provided the following corrective action plan: 1. Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice; The identified resident (Resident #12) is still a current Resident at the facility. Resident #12 was picked up by a contract transportation driver from a scheduled neurology appointment for transport back to the facility. Prior to leaving the appointment, the contracted driver secured Resident #12 wheelchair, but failed to secure Resident #12 seatbelt leaving her unsecured. During transport, the contracted driver had to slam on brakes causing Resident #12 to fall forward from her wheelchair into the van floor. Contracted Driver pulled off road and assisted Resident #12 back into her wheelchair and then continued to transport Resident #12 back to the facility. Contracted Driver failed to contact 911 and/or facility prior to moving Resident #12 from van floor and prior to placing her back into wheelchair after fall. The following actions after this incident: On 10/5/23, Facility initiated immediate investigation on 10/5/23. On 10/5/23, Resident #12 medical director (MD) and responsible person (RP) made aware of incident. On 10/5/23, Order obtained for x-ray to the left ankle, left foot, left knee, left tibia and left fibula. On 10/6/23, Resident #12 complained of pain on a level of 10 on a level 0-10, MD notified, and new orders obtained for the following: Ibuprofen 400mg take 1 tablet by mouth twice daily x3 days for acute pain post fall and Tylenol 500mg take 1 tab by mouth three times daily x3 days for acute pain s/p fall. Pain medication effective with a pain scale of 0 noted. On 10/6/23, x-ray results were obtained and showed the following, Left tibia/fibula- No fracture or dislocation is identified, bony structures are osteoporotic. Left ankle-No acute fracture, dislocation or osseous lesion, bony structures are osteoporotic. Left Knee- moderately displaced fracture of the distal diaphysis of the femur of indeterminate age. No dislocation is identified. Left Foot-soft tissue swelling of the foot. Bony structures are osteoporotic. No acute fracture or dislocation is identified. There is moderate hallux valgus (bony bump that forms on joint at the base of big toe), mild degenerative change of the interphalangeal (hinge shaped joint in toe) joint, first metatarsophalangeal (joint that connects toes to foot bone) joint and midfoot is present. On 10/8/2023, Resident #12 complained of pain when she inhales in her stomach area especially the left upper quad. Resident and Daughter requested for Resident to be sent out to the Hospital for Evaluation and treatment. Vital signs at that time were as follows: BP 114/72, P 68, Resp. 18, Temp. 97.8. Resident transported via ambulance and MD was notified of the transport. On 10/8/23 hospital x-ray revealed an acute comminuted (break into three or more pieces) and mildly displaced distal femoral fracture with minimal angulation. Soft tissue swelling adjacent to the fracture. A left hip gamma nail (metal implant used to stabilize fractures) seen, no dislocation. No evidence of knee joint effusion (abnormal fluid accumulation within knee joint). On 10/9/23, Resident #12 returned back to the facility via stretcher accompanied by two emergency management technicians (EMT) attendants. Resident complained of pain and discomfort to the left femur upon assessment pain meds were administered and effective. New orders from emergency department (ED) for Naproxen 375mg PO BID. Ortho follow up appointment with Orthopedic surgery as soon as possible. On 10/9/23, Facility made Resident #12 an Ortho appointment on 10/10/23 at 2:15pm. RP and MD made aware of the appointment. On 10/10/23, Resident #12 was taken to Ortho via facility transport. Ortho plan on 10/10/23 state Resident is not a strong surgical candidate given knee contracture, would not recommend a long leg cast at that time. Instead recommended a knee immobilizer and limit range of motion of including weight-bearing. 2. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice; No other Residents have had a fall/accident/or injury during a transport due to not being properly secured during transportation. Director of Nursing reviewed last 3 months of accident/incidents to ensure no other falls occurred during transport to and from the facility due to not being properly secured. Audit was completed on 10/9/23. 3. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur; An immediate in-service initiated on 10/9/23 by Maintenance Director on Q-straint system in van and how to properly secure a resident in the van, for facility transportation drivers. This education consisted of hands on and return demonstration, and verbal education. Van Drivers were educated by Administrator on ensuring Driver Transport safety checklist to be completed for all transports completed by the facility van drivers prior to leaving the facility with the resident. Education completed on 10/9/23. On 10/6/23 the contracted transportation company had a safety meeting with all drivers re-educating them on ensuring Residents are properly secured in van prior to transports Education will be added to new Transportation Driver orientation and given by the Administrator. Administrator added education to new hire orientation on 10/9/23. 4. Address how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained; Beginning 10/9/23, Administrator/designee will review transportation book and ensure that Driver Transport Safety checklist for all transports completed by The Ivy van drivers Monday-Friday for 12 weeks. Beginning 10/9/23, someone from Administration observed Residents that were being transported via van to ensure Resident was properly secured in van prior to leaving the facility for transport, Administration observed 5 days a week for 4 weeks, 3 days a week for 4 weeks and weekly for 4 weeks. On 10/9/23 the Administrator made the decision to take the results of the observations to the monthly Quality Assurance meeting for tracking, trending, and recommendations from the IDT team. Alleged Date of Immediate Jeopardy Removal: 10/10/23 Alleged Date of Corrective Action Completion: 10/13/23 The facility's corrective action plan was validated on 8/27/24 by the following: Interviews with facility transporters revealed they had received education on restraint system in van and how to properly secure a resident in the van as well as the driver safety checklist that was to be completed prior to leaving facility with residents. The facility transporters also stated they had to verbalize their understanding of the education they had received and complete a demonstration showing they were capable of securing residents inside the van properly for transport. The facility transporters revealed they only transported residents in manual wheelchairs inside the facility vans and any resident that required a geriatric-chair (a padded chair with a wheeled base) for transport, would have to be transported by non-emergent EMS transport and any resident with an electric wheelchair would have to be transported by their contract transport company. Contract transport company re-education dated 10/06/23 verified staff were educated on ensuring residents are secured in vans according to the manufacturer's instructions prior to transport. Review of facility orientation education for new hire transport drivers verified the education included the driver safety checklist and educational and video material on van restraint system and securing residents properly into van prior to transport. Review of the audit tools and driver safety checklist was completed with no issues noted. An observation was made on 8/23/24 of facility transporter securing a resident in their wheelchair inside the van in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions prior to being transported. Interviews were also conducted with alert and oriented residents who had been transported since October 2023 with no concerns identified. No additional transportation incidents were identified since October 2023. Interview with the Administrator revealed she had educated facility transport drivers on properly securing residents into the vans, completing van safety checklist, hands-on observations of drivers securing residents into vans prior to transport, completed audits and reviews of driver safety checklist with no issues. The Administrator also stated the facility had only transported residents with manual wheelchairs in their facility vans, residents who required a geriatric chair were transported by non-emergent EMS transport and residents with an electric wheelchair were transported by contract transport. The facility's immediate jeopardy removal date was validated as 10/10/23 and the corrective action completion date was validated as 10/13/23.
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 F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, staff, and responsible person (RP) interviews, the facility failed to notify the RP of a follow-up urol...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, staff, and responsible person (RP) interviews, the facility failed to notify the RP of a follow-up urologist appointment for a scheduled procedure for Resident #19. During Resident #19 urology appointment on 5/31/24, a follow-up recommendation for a cystoscopy (used to diagnose, monitor, and treat conditions affecting the bladder and urethra) procedure was recommended and scheduled for 6/04/24. Resident #19's RP was not notified of the recommendations for the scheduled cystoscopy on 6/04/24. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for notification (Resident #19). Findings included: Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including obstructive and reflex uropathy (blockage preventing urine from draining properly and cause urine to back-up into kidneys), urinary retention, and use of indwelling catheter. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was moderately cognitively impaired and assessed as having an indwelling catheter. Review of urology office note dated 5/31/24 revealed in part Resident #19 was seen on this date for urinary retention and previously failed voiding trials. Follow-up recommendation for treatment included a cystoscopy procedure in office, scheduled for 6/04/24 at 9:00 AM. Review of urology office note dated 6/04/24 revealed in part Resident #19 was seen at urology office on this date for a scheduled cystoscopy for urinary retention. Cystoscopy was completed, Resident #19 tolerated procedure well, and follow-up recommendations for treatment included a referral for a Urolift (small implants placed to lift or hold excess tissue out of the way and allowing urine to flow more freely) procedure to assist with longstanding urine retention. A telephone interview conducted with the RP on 8/21/24 at 9:28 AM revealed she was the legal guardian for Resident #19 and was responsible for reviewing all recommendations from medical appointments. She stated Resident #19 was seen by the urologist on 5/31/24 for urinary retention with recommendations for a scheduled cystoscopy on 6/04/24. She revealed the facility transported Resident #19 to his scheduled urology appointment on 6/04/24 for the cystoscopy procedure. Resident #19's RP stated she was not made aware of the recommendations from Resident #19 urology appointment on 5/31/24 for the cystoscopy procedure on 6/04/24 prior to his appointment. She revealed she was notified by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/05/24 of the outcome and follow-up recommendations from the urology appointment and procedure on 6/04/24, and she informed the DON that she had not been made aware of the recommendations from Resident #19 urology appointment on 5/31/24 or of the scheduled cystoscopy that was completed on 6/04/24. She stated the DON was not aware Resident #19's RP had not been notified of the recommendations from Resident #19 urology appointment on 5/31/24 or of the scheduled cystoscopy on 6/04/24 and assumed the urology office had notified Resident #19's RP of the recommended procedure. Resident #19's RP felt the facility should have contacted her about the recommendations from Resident #19 urology appointment on 5/31/24 and the scheduled cystoscopy on 6/04/24 to assure that she was made aware instead of assuming the urology office would contact her. An interview with the DON on 8/21/24 at revealed she was familiar with Resident #19 and his RP not being notified of follow-up recommendations for a urology procedure. She stated normally she would always notify a residents RP of any follow-up recommendations or scheduled procedures from appointments. She revealed in the case with Resident #19, she had received the follow-up recommendations from his urology appointment on 5/31/24 for a scheduled cystoscopy on 6/04/24 and assumed the urology office had contacted Resident #19's RP about the recommendations and procedure. The DON stated failing to notify Resident #19's RP about the follow-up recommendations and scheduled urology procedure was just an oversight or human error on her part. She revealed she was not made aware Resident # RP had not been made aware of the recommendations from his urology appointment on 5/31/24 for the scheduled cystoscopy on 6/04/24 until she contacted the RP on 6/05/24 to discuss the follow-up recommendations from the cystoscopy and realized Resident #19's RP had no knowledge of the follow-up recommendations or of the cystoscopy. She stated herself and nursing staff were responsible for making sure all RPs were notified of resident appointments, received recommendations from appointments, scheduled follow-up appointments and procedures, and were provided with any paperwork or consents to be completed and reviewed, and moving forward would ensure all resident RPs were notified of any follow-up recommendations or scheduled procedures from appointments. An interview with the Administrator on 8/21/24 at revealed she was familiar with Resident #19 and the incident with his RP not being notified of his urology appointment recommendations for a scheduled cystoscopy on 6/04/24. She stated although the DON and nursing staff typically do notify all resident RPs of any follow-up recommendations from appointments or scheduled procedures, medical offices would usually notify the RPs as well. She believed this incident was just an oversight or human error, the DON assumed the urology office had contacted Resident #19's RP and was not made aware until after the scheduled procedure the RP had not been notified. The Administrator stated the DON should have contacted Resident #19's RP about the follow-up recommendations from his urology appointment on 5/31/24 and his scheduled procedure on 6/04/24, moving forward the DON and nursing staff would be responsible for making sure all resident RPs were made aware of any follow-up recommendations or scheduled procedures from appointments.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 4 of 4 residents (Resident #1, #6, #8, and #42) reviewed for respiratory care. The findings included: a. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was not coded for receiving oxygen. A review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order dated 1/26/24 for oxygen to be administered continuously via nasal cannula at 3 liters per minute (l/min). An observation on 8/19/24 at 4:03 PM revealed Resident #1 was lying in bed wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being administered at 3 l/min. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #1's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation of Resident #1 conducted on 8/20/24 at 11:00 AM revealed she was sitting on the side of her bed with oxygen being administered via nasal cannula at 3 l/min. There was no safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #1's room to indicate oxygen was in use. b. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #6 was not coded for receiving oxygen. A review of Resident #6's physician orders revealed an order dated 5/20/24 for oxygen to be administered via nasal cannula at 2 l/min as needed. An observation on 8/20/24 at 11:00 AM revealed Resident #6 was sitting in her wheelchair wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being administered at 2 l/min. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #6's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation on 8/22/24 at 9:45 AM revealed Resident #6 was lying in bed and wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being administered at 2 l/min. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #6's room to indicate oxygen was in use. c. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #8 was not coded for receiving oxygen. A review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed an order dated 6/14/24 for oxygen to be administered via nasal cannula at 2 l/min as needed. An observation conducted on 8/19/24 at 12:21 PM revealed Resident #8 was lying in bed sleeping and wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being administered at 2 l/min. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #8's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation conducted on 8/20/24 at 9:30 AM revealed Resident #8 was lying in bed sleeping and wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being administered at 2 l/min. There was no safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #8's room to indicate oxygen was in use. d. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility 8/13/24. A review of the admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #42 was coded for receiving oxygen therapy during the assessment period. A review of Resident #42's physician orders indicated an order dated 8/14/24 for oxygen to be administered via nasal cannula at 3 l/min continuously. An observation conducted on 8/19/24 at 4:43 PM revealed Resident #42 was lying in bed wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being delivered at 3 l/min. There was no cautionary or safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #42's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation of Resident #42 was conducted on 8/20/24 at 11:30 AM. Resident #42 was lying in bed wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen being delivered at 3 l/min. There was no safety signage posted at the entrance to Resident #42's room to indicate oxygen was in use. An observation conducted at the main entrance of the facility on 8/19/24 at 5:30 PM revealed there was no cautionary or safety signage posted to notify those entering the building that oxygen was in use. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 8/22/24 at 3:10 PM. She stated she had not noticed there was no safety signage posted at the facility's main entrance to indicate oxygen was in use but that it should be posted. The Administrator further stated safety signage for oxygen use was not posted outside of resident rooms because she was not aware that was still a requirement. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing on 8/23/24 at 10:56 AM. She stated safety signage for the use of oxygen was not posted at the facility entrance or outside of resident rooms because they were not aware the signage was required.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, Nurse Practitioner, and Physician interviews, the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, Nurse Practitioner, and Physician interviews, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered by the Physician that included Bosulif (medication for leukemia) and Olanzapine (an antipsychotic medication). This occurred for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #9 and Resident #13) reviewed for significant medication errors. Findings included: 1. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility 08/24/22 with a diagnosis including chronic myelocytic leukemia (cancer of white blood cells). Review of Resident #9's Physician orders revealed an order dated 01/20/23 for Bosulif 100 milligrams (mg) 2 tablets by mouth every day related to leukemia. Review of Resident #9's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact with no behaviors. Review of Resident #9's Medication Administration Records (MARs) from December 2023 through August 2024 revealed Bosulif was initialed by nursing staff as being administered as ordered. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Infection Preventionist (IP) on 08/21/24 at 11:53 AM revealed the facility became aware on 08/01/24 that Resident #9 had a surplus of Bosulif on the medication cart. She explained Bosulif was provided by an outside specialty pharmacy and the facility only received 60 pills a month so she was unsure why there would be leftover medication in the cart. The ADON/IP stated she checked the medication cart where Resident #9's Bosulif was stored, and she noted three opened bottles of Bosulif with varying amounts of pills in each bottle. She stated one bottle indicated it was dispensed in December 2023, one bottle indicated it was dispensed in January 2024, and the last bottle indicated it was dispensed in February 2024. The ADON/IP stated Resident #9 was a participant in an all-inclusive care program which provided her Bosulif. She stated the Physician at the all-inclusive care program was notified that Resident #9 did have a surplus of Bosulif medication and the facility was unable to determine why there would be a surplus of the medication. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/21/24 at 12:06 PM revealed the facility became aware of Resident #9 having a surplus of Bosulif on the medication cart on 08/01/24 and notified the Physician of the surplus. The DON stated the Bosulif was provided by a specialty pharmacy that was associated with the all-inclusive care program Resident #9 participated in. She stated the Physician for the all-inclusive care program came to the facility and she checked the medication cart with the Physician. The DON stated they found three bottles of Bosulif with varying amounts of medication in each bottle in the medication cart and one bottle indicated it was dispensed in December 2023, one bottle indicated it was dispensed in January 2024, and another bottle indicated it was dispensed in February 2024. She stated she wasn't sure why there would be a surplus of Bosulif. A telephone interview with the Physician at the all-inclusive care program on 08/21/24 at 2:49 PM revealed Resident #9 had been taking Bosulif for leukemia for approximately 2 years. He explained the medication was very expensive and was paid for by the all-inclusive care program in which Resident #9 was a member. The Physician stated Bosulif was prepared each month by a specialty pharmacy, was delivered to his office, and a nurse from his office delivered the medication to the facility. He stated that he received a telephone call from one of the nurses in his office around the first of August 2024, that delivered the Bosulif to the facility and she notified him there was a surplus of the medication in the medication cart. The Physician stated he came to the facility and found three bottles of Bosulif, each containing a differing amount of the medication, and there were 87 extra tablets. He stated the bottles indicated they were dispensed in January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024. The Physician stated the specialty pharmacy called his office every month to make sure Bosulif was still needed before they prepared the medication, and it was not possible they would send extra medication due to the cost. He stated there was no way to know for sure, but since Resident #9 had not been hospitalized in the past two years, it appeared there were days from January 2024 through March 2024 when she did not receive the two tablets of medication she was supposed to receive. The Physician stated the surplus of Resident #9's Bosulif on the medication cart would be considered a significant medication error. He stated he reached out to Resident #9's oncologist and explained the situation with Bosulif and he was informed that if her laboratory tests were unchanged, the resident did not suffer any harm. The Physician stated he checked Resident #9's laboratory work after the error occurred in August 2024, and her laboratory work was unchanged. An interview with the Administrator on 08/21/24 at 5:28 PM revealed she was aware of the concerns with Resident #9 not receiving her Bosulif as ordered. She stated she felt that since Resident #9 was alert and oriented she would have asked staff if her medication cup did not contain Bosulif and she felt that Resident #9 did receive her medication as ordered. An interview with Resident #9 on 08/22/24 at 9:25 AM revealed there was a time when she was not receiving her Bosulif as ordered (she was unsure of the time frame) and now she checked her medication cup each morning to make sure she received Bosulif. A telephone interview was conducted on 08/23/24 at 11:57 AM with Nurse Practitioner (NP) #2 from Resident #9's oncology office. NP #2 stated she was aware of concerns that Resident #9 had not received her Bosulif as ordered but her most recent laboratory work in August 2024 revealed she was almost in remission and did not suffer any harm from missing medication. 2. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility 04/10/19 with a diagnosis including schizophrenia. Review of Resident #13's Physician orders dated 02/24/24 revealed an order for Olanzapine 10 milligrams (mg) one tablet at bedtime for schizophrenia. Review of Resident #13's February 2024, Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed nursing staff initialed the MAR as administering the Olanzapine as ordered. Resident #13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was moderately cognitively impaired and had other behaviors 4 to 6 days during the look back period. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/23/24 at 7:53 AM revealed the facility became aware on 02/16/24 of Resident #13 receiving Olanzapine 20 mg once daily instead of Olanzapine 10 mg daily. She stated Resident #13 received Olanzapine 20mg daily from 02/05/24 until 02/16/24. The DON stated she could not recall how the facility became aware of Resident #13 receiving the incorrect dose of Olanzapine, but when it was brought to her attention she notified the Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Responsible Party (RP), removed Olanzapine 20 mg from the medication cart, and ordered the correct dose of Olanzapine from the pharmacy. The DON stated she was not sure how the incorrect dose was able to be requested from pharmacy or why the error occurred. A telephone interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 08/22/24 at 1:35 PM revealed Resident #13 had active orders for Olanzapine 20 mg and Olanzapine 10 mg in the computer and when staff requested a refill of Olanzapine in March 2024, they checked 20 mg needed to be refilled instead of 10 mg. She stated she was not sure why Resident #13 had two active orders in the computer for Olanzapine, but since the facility requested a 20 mg refill, they received a 20 mg refill. A telephone interview with Nurse Practitioner (NP) #3 on 08/23/24 at 12:13 PM revealed she was aware Resident #13 had received Olanzapine 20 mg daily for 11 days in February 2024, instead of the ordered Olanzapine 10 mg daily. She stated eleven days was a long time to receive the incorrect dose of Olanzapine and she considered that a significant medication error. NP #3 stated when she was notified of Resident #13 receiving the incorrect dose of Olanzapine, she wrote orders to gradually reduce the dose from 20 mg to 10mg. She stated Resident #13 had taken Olanzapine 20 mg in the past and did not suffer any harm.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement Special Droplet Contact Precautions when Nurse #1 and Nurse Aide (NA) #1 entered Resident #4's room without ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement Special Droplet Contact Precautions when Nurse #1 and Nurse Aide (NA) #1 entered Resident #4's room without donning Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); failed to ensure staff implemented their infection control policy for hand hygiene when Nurse #2 failed to wear gloves during insulin administration and perform hand hygiene after insulin administration for Resident #28; and when Unit Manager #1 failed to perform hand hygiene after removing dirty gloves and before donning clean gloves during wound care for Resident #12. These failures occurred during a COVID-19 outbreak at the facility for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for infection control practices (Resident #4, Resident #28, Resident #12). Findings included: The Special Droplet Contact Precautions (SDCP) signage, with a revised date of 02/09/2022, noted staff should follow the instructions on the signage before entering the resident's room which included, All healthcare personnel must: 1) clean hands before entering and when leaving the room, 2) wear a gown when entering room and before leaving, 3) wear N-95 or higher level respirator before entering the room and remove after exiting, 4) wear protective eyewear (face shield or goggles), and 5) wear gloves when entering room and remove before leaving. The facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene last revised 10/26/23 read in part as follows: All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. Hand hygiene is a general term for cleaning your hands by handwashing with soap and water or the use of an antiseptic hand rub, also known as alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in the hand hygiene table. Hand Hygiene Table: 1) before and after handling clean or soiled dressings, 2) before performing resident care procedures, 3) before applying and after removing PPE, including gloves, and 4) after handling items potentially contaminated with blood or body fluids. The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, and immediately after removing gloves. 1.a. A continuous observation of Resident #4's room on 08/19/24 from 12:29 PM to 12:30 PM revealed SCDP signage posted and PPE supplies on the room door. NA #1 entered the room with a lunch meal tray wearing only a surgical mask without donning any PPE per the instructions on the signage. NA #1 placed the meal tray on the overbed table, sanitized her hands with ABHR, and exited the room. An interview with NA #1 on 08/19/24 at 1:06 PM revealed she did not realize Resident #4 was on SDCP until she was already in the room. She stated she had been trained to read and follow signage on resident room doors and it was an oversight. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Infection Preventionist (IP) on 08/19/24 at 2:12 PM revealed she expected all nursing staff to follow posted signage on resident room doors by donning and doffing all PPE as instructed. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/23/24 at 7:53 AM revealed she expected staff to follow posted signage on resident room doors by using PPE as instructed. b. A continuous observation of Resident #4's room on 08/19/24 from 12:32 PM through 12:34 PM revealed SCDP signage posted and PPE supplies on the room door. Nurse #1 entered Resident #4's room wearing only a surgical mask without donning any PPE per the instructions on the signage. Nurse #1 checked Resident #4's blood glucose, removed her gloves, performed hand hygiene with (ABHR), picked up the glucometer, and exited the room. An interview with Nurse #1 on 08/19/24 at 12:34 PM revealed she did not don the PPE listed on the signage for Resident #4 because she thought the sign was for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (a type of TBP that doesn't require full PPE with each entry to a resident room). She stated she should have looked at the sign more closely and it was an oversight. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Infection Preventionist (IP) on 08/19/24 at 2:12 PM revealed she expected all nursing staff to follow posted signage on resident room doors by donning and doffing all PPE as instructed. An interview with the DON on 08/23/24 at 7:53 AM revealed she expected staff to follow posted signage on resident room doors by using PPE as instructed. 2. A continuous observation of Nurse #2 on 08/20/24 from 8:16 AM through 8:18 AM revealed she gathered Resident #28's insulin pen and an alcohol swab, entered his room, opened the alcohol swab, swabbed his right upper arm with the alcohol swab, administered the insulin injection into his right upper arm, collected the insulin pen and exited the room. Nurse #2 did not apply gloves to administer Resident #28's insulin injection and did not perform hand hygiene after administering the insulin. An interview with Nurse #2 on 08/20/24 at 8:18 AM revealed she got in a hurry and that's why she did not wear gloves when she administered Resident #28's insulin injection and she should have performed hand hygiene after administering the insulin. An interview with the DON on 08/23/24 at 7:53 AM revealed she expected staff to wear gloves when administering insulin and perform hand hygiene after removing gloves. An interview with the ADON/IP on 08/23/24 at 10:59 AM revealed gloves should be worn when insulin was administered, and hand hygiene should be performed after removing gloves. 3. A continuous observation of Unit Manager #1 on 08/20/24 from 4:40 PM through 5:00 PM revealed with gloved hands she cleaned Resident #12's ischial (the curved bone forming the base of the pelvis) wound with wound cleanser, removed her gloves, opened a clean gauze dressing, applied clean gloves, measured the wound, applied calcium alginate (an absorbent dressing) and a dry dressing to the wound, removed her gloves, and sanitized her hands with ABHR. Unit Manager #1 did not perform hand hygiene after removing dirty gloves and before touching a clean dressing. An interview with Unit Manager #1 at 5:07 PM revealed she usually performed hand hygiene each time she removed her gloves and before touching other items and she did not when providing wound care for Resident #12 due to an oversight. An interview with the DON on 08/23/24 at 7:53 AM revealed hand hygiene should be performed after gloves were removed and before putting on clean gloves. An interview with the ADON/IP on 08/23/24 at 10:59 AM revealed hand hygiene should be performed each time gloves are removed and before putting on clean gloves.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) for oxy...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) for oxygen use (Resident #1, #6, and #8) and hospice services (Resident #1 and Resident #4) for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The findings included: a. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order dated 1/26/24 for oxygen to be administered continuously via nasal cannula at 3 liters per minute (lpm). A review of Resident #1's medical record indicated she was admitted to hospice services on 2/8/24. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was not coded for receiving hospice services or oxygen. b. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included COPD, emphysema, and chronic respiratory failure. A review of Resident #6's physician orders revealed an order dated 5/20/24 for oxygen to be administered via nasal cannula at 2 lpm as needed. A review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #6 was not coded for receiving oxygen. c. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (stroke from brain bleeding not caused by trauma) and obstructive sleep apnea. A review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed an order dated 6/14/24 for oxygen delivered via nasal cannula at 2 lpm as needed. A review of the admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #8 was not coded for receiving oxygen. An interview was conducted with the MDS Coordinator on 8/22/24 at 1:25 PM. She stated Resident #6's and Resident #8's MDS assessments should have been coded to reflect they were receiving oxygen and Resident #1's MDS assessment should have been coded to reflect she was receiving hospice services and oxygen. She further stated the coding inaccuracies were an oversight on her part. An interview conducted with the Administrator on 8/22/24 at 3:10 PM revealed she expected the MDS assessment to be coded accurately. d. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility 01/09/24 with a diagnosis including non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed she was admitted to hospice services on 08/01/24. A significant change in condition Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 was not coded as receiving hospice services. An interview with the MDS Coordinator on 08/23/24 at 11:39 AM revealed Resident #4's significant change MDS should have been coded to reflect she was receiving hospice services, and it was an oversight. A telephone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/26/24 at 10:29 AM revealed she expected MDS to be coded accurately.
May 2023 6 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer pain medication to 1 of 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer pain medication to 1 of 1 resident (Resident #97) reviewed for pain management when she complained of pain at a level of 9 on a scale of 0 to 10. The findings included: Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, diabetes mellitus and end stage renal disease. Resident #97's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact, required extensive to total assistance of 1 staff member with all activities of daily living except eating. The assessment also revealed Resident #97 received as needed pain medication for pain and non-verbal sounds of pain related to stage IV pressure ulcer on the resident's sacral region. Review of Resident #97's care plan dated 4/24/23 revealed a focus area for chronic pain. The interventions included evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions, review for compliance, alleviating of symptoms, dosing schedules and resident satisfaction with results, impact on functional ability and impact on cognition, identify and record previous pain history and management of that pain and impact on function, identify previous response to analgesia including pain relief, side effects and impact on function, identify, record and treat the resident's existing conditions which may increase pain and or discomfort, monitor/document for probable cause of each pain episode, remove/limit causes where possible, monitor/document for side effects of pain medication, observe for constipation, new onset or increased agitation, restlessness, confusion, hallucinations, dysphoria, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and falls, report occurrences to the physician, monitor/record/report to nurse loss of appetite, refusal to eat and weight loss, monitor/record/report to nurse resident complaints of pain or requests for pain treatment and notify physician if interventions are unsuccessful or if current complaint is a significant change from residents past experience of pain. Observation during medication pass on 05/01/23 at 10:38 AM revealed Resident #97 getting her morning medications. Nurse #2 was administering her medications including Aspirin and asked the resident what her pain level was at that time and Resident #97 stated it was a 9 on a scale of 0 to 10. Nurse #2 administered the Aspirin and proceeded to the next resident without offering Resident #97 any pain medication. Review of Resident #97's Medication Administration Record, revealed she had Oxycodone Hydrochloride (HCl) Oral tablet 5 milligrams (mg) - give 5 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain ordered. The MAR indicated the resident had not received the Oxycodone within the last 6 hours and the resident could have received the medication for her pain level of 9. Observation and interview on 05/01/23 at 11:51 AM with Resident #97 revealed her sitting up in her wheelchair in her room and she was shifting in her wheelchair to try and get comfortable. Resident #97 stated she had not received anything for pain since yesterday and she guessed they were trying to extend the time between dosages since it was a narcotic. Resident #97 further stated her pain was still between an 8 and 9 and her face was grimaced and she stated she was going to put on her light and ask for pain medication. Interview on 05/01/23 at 3:45 PM with Resident #97 revealed she had put her call light on earlier and requested pain medication but stated she had not received any yet. She stated her pain was still between 8 and 9 and said it was only relieved some when she took pain medication. Interview and observation on 05/01/23 at 3:59 PM with Nurse #2 revealed she was taking care of Resident #97 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and said she had not given her any pain medication because she had not asked for pain medication but said she had given her some Gabapentin at 2:00 PM. Nurse #2 stated she remembered Resident #97 had told her earlier in the day that her pain level was a 9 on a scale of 0 to 10 but said she had forgotten and had not given the resident pain medication. Nurse #2 stated she should have given her medication for pain when Resident #97 had said her pain level was a 9 but said she had forgotten and did not medicate the resident. Nurse #2 stated she was going to assess her pain level and get her something for pain if she needed it. An observation of her assessment revealed Resident #97 told Nurse #2 her pain level was an 8 and Nurse #2 stated she would get her medication for pain. Nurse #2 gave Resident #97 Oxycodone HCl 5 mg oral tablet by mouth at 4:05 PM. A follow up interview on 05/01/23 at 4:50 PM revealed Resident #97's pain level was now a 2 and she had some relief from the pain medication administered. Interview on 05/02/23 at 1:45 PM with Nurse Aide (NA) #3 revealed she was assigned to care for Resident #97 on 05/01/23 and 05/02/23 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM. NA #3 stated Resident #97 had complained about pain both days but had not asked her to tell the nurse that she needed pain medication. NA #3 further stated Resident #97 always complained about pain and had told NA #3 that her pain was constant. NA #3 stated she had been trained to let the nurse know when a resident requested pain medication but said she had not requested pain medication but had said she was having pain. NA #3 indicated she should have told the nurse Resident #97 was complaining of constant pain. Interview on 05/02/23 at 3:26 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Nurse #2 should have medicated Resident #97 when she told the nurse her pain level was a 9 on a scale of 0 to 10. The DON stated Resident #97 had chronic pain and should not have gone that long without being medicated for pain. She further stated it might be beneficial for Resident #97 to be on scheduled pain medication instead of as needed and said they could discuss with the physician and get her medication adjusted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident had been assessed to self-adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident had been assessed to self-administer medications (Resident #8). This occurred for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration. The findings included: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD and respiratory failure. Resident #8's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact and required set up assistance of one staff member for most activities of daily living (ADL). On 05/02/23 at 9:16 AM an observation was conducted of Nurse #1 preparing Resident #8's medication from the medication cart and put them into a cup. Nurse #1 then went into the room with the medication cup and the resident's Cyclosporine (immunosuppressant, used to increase tear production) eye drops. Nurse #1 then handed the medication to Resident #8. Resident #8 stated, I have already administered my eye drops to myself this morning. Nurse #1 stated to the surveyor that Resident #8 self-administered her nebulizer treatments and her eye drops. Nurse #1 stated she had brought the nebulizer treatment into the room earlier in the morning and handed the solution to Resident #8 in which the resident poured the solution into the machine and started her own breathing treatment. Resident #8's physician orders from 01/02/23 through 05/02/23 were reviewed and did not reveal an order to self-administer medication. Review of the medical record did not reveal an assessment for Resident #8 to self-administer medication. An interview was conducted on 5/2/23 at 9:20 AM with Nurse #1. During the interview she stated she always allowed Resident #8 to self- administer her own eye drops and nebulizer treatment. She stated she was unsure if the resident had been assessed to administer her own medication by the facility. An interview was conducted on 5/2/23 at 10:23 AM with Resident #8. She stated she felt she could take care of herself and she was able to dress herself and required limited assistance from staff. The interview revealed facility staff had asked her if she wanted to self-administer her medication and some nurses would not allow her to do so. She stated Nurse #1 was one of the only staff that would allow her to administer her eye drops and nebulizer treatment. Resident #8 stated Nurse #1 had brought her Albuterol nebulizer solution into the room that morning and handed it to her for her to start her own nebulizer treatment. She stated she wanted to administer her eye drops but did not want to be responsible for her pill medication or the nebulizer solution. An interview conducted on 05/02/23 at 10:04 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed no residents in the facility had orders to self-administer their medication. She stated she expected nurses to administer the resident's medication and remain in the room with the resident until they took all of the medication that was ordered. The DON stated if a resident were to request to self-administer their medication, they would need to sign a form prior to doing so and be assessed.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide shaving of resident's face and clipping of toenails for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living. The findings included: Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included hypertension and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of Resident #40's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was moderately cognitively impaired and required total assistance of 2 staff with bathing and extensive assistance of 1 staff with personal hygiene and had impairment of both sides of upper and lower extremities. Review of the shower schedule for Resident #40 revealed he received showers on Wednesday and Saturday on 1st shift (7:00 AM to 3:00 PM). Review of Resident #40's care plan dated 03/23/23 revealed a focus area for his inability to complete activities of daily living care related to his cognitive impairment. The interventions included assist with picking out and putting on clothes appropriate for season and comfort, explain all procedures and purposes in terms understood prior to performing tasks and encourage self-performance, praise efforts, not just successes, provide encouragement and praise daily, provide resident education and family support, report changes in ADL self-performance to nurse, and turn and reposition, shifting weight to enhance circulation as needed. Observation and interview with family member at bedside of Resident #40 on 04/30/23 at 3:11 PM revealed the resident resting in bed with covers pulled over him and his feet hanging out of the covers. The resident was noted to have ¼ inch stubble on his face and his toes on each foot other than his big toes had nails that were ¼ to ½ inch beyond the end of his toes. The family member at his bedside stated Resident #40 did not look like himself because he had always been clean shaven and did not typically have stubble on his face. She further stated he needed to be shaved and his toenails needed to be clipped because they were way too long. The family member indicated Resident #40 usually kept himself well groomed. Observation of Resident #40 on 05/01/23 at 8:48 AM revealed him lying in bed and he still had ¼ inch stubble on his face and his toenails on each foot were ¼ to ½ inch beyond the end of his toes. Interview on 05/01/23 at 2:08 PM with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 revealed Resident #40 had been going to the shower but since his decline he had been getting bed baths. NA #1 stated bed baths or showers usually included bathing resident from head to toe or assisting them, shaving men, and women with facial hair, shampooing their hair and clipping their fingernails unless they were diabetic and then the nurses clipped their nails. NA #1 further stated she didn't trim toenails but residents who needed their toenails trimmed were either done by the nurse or referred to the podiatrist for their nails to be trimmed. NA #1 stated she had not noticed Resident #40 had not been shaved or needed his toenails trimmed. Interview on 05/01/23 at 3:02 PM with NA #2 revealed she took Resident #40 on the shower bed to the shower on his bath days. She stated his shower included cleaning him from head to toe, shampooing his hair, shaving him if needed and clipping and cleaning his fingernails as needed. NA #2 further stated the NAs typically did not cut resident's toenails but referred them to the nurse to be trimmed or to the podiatrist as needed. NA #2 stated she had not noticed Resident #40's toenails and whether they needed trimming and had not noticed he needed to be shaved. Interview on 05/02/23 at 1:13 PM with Nurse #3 who was assigned to Resident #40 on 1st shift (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) revealed she had not noticed his facial hair and that he needed to be shaved and had not noticed his toenails and said no one had reported to her they needed to be trimmed. Nurse #3 observed Resident #40's facial hair and agreed he needed to be shaved and observed his toenails and agreed they needed to be trimmed and said she would take care of shaving him and clipping his toenails today on her shift. Interview on 05/02/23 at 3:19 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she expected the NAs and Nurses to observe the resident's full body when providing care, bathing them, and providing skin inspections. She said she would have expected the NAs and the Nurses to have noticed the resident's toenails needed to be trimmed and clipped prior to their getting so long. The DON indicated they would need to do education on assessing residents need for shaving and trimming nails.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3.Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Review ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3.Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #29's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated dressing, eating, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing did not occur or her family and/or non-facility staff had provided the care 100% of the time for those activities during the entire look back period. Resident #29 was observed on 05/01/23 at 2:29 PM sitting up in her wheelchair in her room. Resident #29 was dressed and well groomed. The MDS nurse was not available for an interview. An interview on 05/02/23 at 3:26 PM with the Director of Nursing revealed she would have expected the MDS nurse to have included the functional status of Resident #29 to reflect she required extensive assistance of two staff members for activities of daily living. She stated it was an error in coding on the part of the MDS nurse. 4. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, coronary artery disease and renal insufficiency. Review of her quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] under Section J. Health Conditions, J1700C, the assessment was marked Resident #24 had experienced no falls resulting in a fracture in the last six months. Review of the facility incident log revealed Resident #24 had experienced falls on the dates of 10/18/22, 10/29/22, 2/26/23 and 3/13/23. The falls on the dates of 2/26/23 and 3/13/23 resulted in a major injury. Interview on 05/02/23 at 3:26 PM with the Director of Nursing (the MDS Nurse was out of the building and unavailable by phone) revealed she would have expected the MDS nurse to have marked Resident #29's falls on the MDS assessment. She stated it was an error in coding on the part of the MDS nurse. Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of urinary catheter (Resident #97), discharge disposition (Resident #43), activities of daily living (Resident #29), and falls (Resident #24) for 4 of 18 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The findings included: 1. Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, end stage renal disease and diabetes mellitus. Resident #97 was observed on 04/30/23 at 1:09 PM sitting up in her wheelchair in her room and had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #97's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], under Section H. Bladder and Bowel, H100 Appliance, the assessment was marked at A. Indwelling catheter due to the resident's urinary catheter. Under Section H300 Urinary Continence, the assessment was marked at 3. Always incontinent (no episodes of continent voiding) instead of 9. Not rated, resident had a catheter (indwelling, condom), urinary ostomy or no urine output for entire 7 days. Interview on 05/02/23 at 3:26 PM with the Director of Nursing (the MDS Nurse was out of the building and unavailable by phone) revealed she would have expected the MDS nurse to have marked the urinary catheter as not rated instead of always incontinent of urine. She stated it was an error in coding on the part of the MDS nurse. 2. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malnutrition, and muscle weakness. According to her nursing discharge note, Resident #43 was discharged home on [DATE]. Review of her discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] under Section A. Identification Information, A2000, the assessment was marked with discharge date as 02/23/2023. Under Section A2100, Discharge Status, the assessment was marked 03. Acute Hospital instead of 01. Community. Interview on 05/02/23 at 3:26 PM with the Director of Nursing (the MDS Nurse was out of the building and unavailable by phone) revealed she would have expected the MDS nurse to have marked the discharge status as community instead of acute hospital. She stated it was an error in coding on the part of the MDS nurse.
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, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure leftover food items stored for use in the reach-in freezer were labeled, dated and sealed. The failure occurred...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure leftover food items stored for use in the reach-in freezer were labeled, dated and sealed. The failure occurred in 1 of 3 cold storage units and had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included: An observation occurred on 04/30/23 at 12:10 PM with Dietary Aide #1, of the kitchen's reach-in freezer revealed the following leftover food items stored for use: - an opened undated bag half full of frozen chicken tenders - an opened undated bag half full of frozen diced chicken - two opened undated bags three-fourth full of frozen chicken breast - two opened undated bags half full of frozen chicken drumettes and wings An interview conducted with Dietary Aide #1 on 04/30/23 at 12:20 PM revealed all items in the reach in freezer should be sealed and have a label on them with the date the items were opened. An interview conducted with [NAME] #1 on 4/30/23 at 12:25 PM revealed all items in the reach in freezer should be sealed and have a label on them with the date the items were opened. An interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 04/30/23 at 1:00 PM revealed she expected staff to label foods after opening with the date opened and store in sealed containers. She stated that dietary staff were expected to round daily during their shift to monitor all cold storage units for unlabeled, undated foods. The DM also stated she believed the opened undated items found had been overlooked by staff. An interview with the Administrator on 05/02/23 at 3:40 PM revealed she expected dietary staff to label, date and seal all foods before storage.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions previously p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions previously put in place following the complaint investigation survey of 06/23/22 and a recertification survey of 07/14/21. The repeated deficiency was in the area of accuracy of assessments. The facility's continued failure during three Federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. The findings included: This tag was cross referenced to: F-641: Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of urinary catheter (Resident #97), discharge disposition (Resident #43), activities of daily living (Resident #29), falls (Resident #24) and antipsychotic medications (Resident #21) for 5 of 18 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. During the complaint investigation of 6/23/22 the the facility failed to obtain a resident's weight within 30 days of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment Reference Date (ARD, the last day of the look back period) for 1 of 4 MDS assessments reviewed (Resident #10). During the recertification survey of 07/14/21 the facility failed to accurately code a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II and failed to code a resident accurately in the area of diagnoses and range of motion. During the revisit and complaint investigation survey of 06/23/22 the facility failed to obtain and record a resident's weight within 30 days of the assessment. F-677: Based on observations, record review, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide shaving of resident's face and clipping of toenails for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living. During the recertification and complaint survey of 2/7/20 the facility failed to provide incontinence care to keep residents clean and dry (Resident #20 and Resident #12) and failed to provide nail care (Resident #26) for 3 of 3 dependent residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). An interview on 05/02/23 at 3:26 PM with the Director of Nursing and Administrator revealed they would have expected the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse to have coded all assessments accurately and said it was an error in documentation on the part of the MDs Nurse. The Administrator felt like the failure of the QAA was due to the high rate of turnover in the position of the MDS Nurse and as the position stabilized so would the issues with the program.
Jul 2021 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmon...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was dependent on oxygen therapy. Her quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. She required limited assistance of one person for personal hygiene and bathing. Observations on 7/12/21 at 9:30 AM revealed a personal resident fan utilized in room [ROOM NUMBER]. A noticeable temperature difference could be felt between the 100-hall hallway temperature of that of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The wall-mounted hallway thermostat read 76 degrees on 7/12/21 at 9:50 AM. An interview with Resident #30 (room [ROOM NUMBER]) on 7/12/21 at 10:36 AM revealed the room temperature had been too hot for her since her admission. She stated she had told the Nurse Aides (NA) and the Administrator about the warmth of the room. Resident #30 stated the Administrator told her the problem had been fixed. She could not tell the difference herself. She pointed to a standing oscillating fan with her name on it and said, my son had to go buy me that so I could stand to be in here. Resident #30 was wearing oxygen via a nasal cannula. She stated the temperature made it more difficult to breathe. A telephone interview with Resident #30's family member on 7/12/21 at 10:40 AM revealed he had complained to the facility about the heat since the resident's admission in May 2021. He could not recall the name of the person he spoke to. He informed he was first told a part was on order to repair the air conditioning and was later told the facility was looking to hire someone to install the part. After complaining again, the family member was informed the air conditioner had been fixed in June 2021. The temperature was still not cool enough for the resident, so the family purchased a fan for her. Observation on 7/12/21 at 11:00 AM of facility thermostats on the 100-hall revealed a temperature reading of 75 degrees. Large suspended ducts in the hallway blew cool air into the hallways. Ceiling vents were present in resident rooms with slight air felt coming from the vents. There were no individual heating or air units in resident rooms. An entry into Resident #30's room on 7/13/21 at 8:30 AM revealed the room continued to be noticeably warmer than the hallway. An interview with NA #3 at 2:46 PM revealed Resident #30 had complained since her admission about her room being too hot. An interview with NA #2 on 7/13/21 at 3:58 PM revealed Resident #30 had complained to her about the temperature in her room since she was admitted . NA # 2 stated the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) knew the room was uncomfortably warm. She stated she had been told that the problem was fixed. An interview with the facility Administrator on 7/13/21 at 9:00 AM revealed the facility had been without a maintenance director since May 2021. He stated a new maintenance director had been hired on 7/12/21. The Administrator indicated the Regional Maintenance Director (RMD) had been filling in when he could. The Administrator was aware of Resident #30's complaint but thought the issue had been resolved. The Administrator was observed checking the 100-hall room air temperatures on 7/13/21 at 9:55 AM. The wall mounted thermostat in the hallway read 76 degrees. Using a hand-held air temperature monitor, the air temperature was checked from the doorway of Resident #30's room and read 73.8 degrees. The Administrator was asked to check temperature in center of room without the resident's fan on. The air temperature monitor read 73.8 degrees. The Administrator acknowledged the noticeable increased temperatures when crossing the threshold of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The Administrator could not explain why the hallway temperature read 76 degrees and felt cooler than the resident rooms. He also could not explain why the hand-held air temperature monitor consistently read 73.8 degrees when there was a noticeable temperature variance between the hallway and the rooms. During the air-temperature check in Resident #30's room, the resident stated the room was so warm it was hard for her to breathe. A telephone interview with the RMD on 7/13/21 at 9:33 AM revealed he was responsible for 9 facilities in different states. He presented to facilities when there was a problem that could not be fixed by on-site maintenance. He was aware there had been no maintenance coverage for approximately 3 months. The RMD was aware of previous complaints of temperatures being too hot. He stated the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) had been broken and needed a part at the beginning of June. He disclosed that the part had been installed in early June and he was not aware the rooms were still too hot. He stated the room temperatures would be checked today and tomorrow and he would fix the issue. An interview with the DON on 7/14/21 at 2:50 PM revealed she was aware there had been complaints about the temperature in room [ROOM NUMBER]. She was under the impression that the issue had been fixed. The DON stated there had been a recommendation that the whole system be replaced, but she did not know the status of the recommendation. Based on record reviews, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain the air conditioning system to provide a comfortable room temperature for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #33 and Resident #30) reviewed for a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The findings included: 1. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea and seizure disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #33 was cognitively intact. An interview with Resident #33 on 7/12/21 9:52 AM revealed she was disappointed at the facility because she felt it was falsely advertised when she was at the hospital. Resident #33 remembered looking at a brochure about the facility being newly renovated but when she was admitted , she noticed that there was no air conditioning inside her room. She stated air conditioning was only present in the hallways and in the common areas. Resident #33 stated she had to get her family member to bring her a portable electric fan just so she could get air in the room. Resident #33 further stated she needed her electric fan because she had difficulty breathing at night if she couldn't feel any air in her room. During the interview, an observation of Resident #33's room on 7/12/21 at 10:00 AM revealed no air was felt coming out from the vent inside the room. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 7/13/21 at 4:00 PM revealed she had worked with Resident #33 and that her room was warm, and Resident #33 had to keep her fan running all the time. An interview with Nurse #3 on 7/13/21 at 11:36 AM revealed she knew they had been working on the air conditioning system since the beginning of June but was aware that Resident #33 continued to have an issue with air not getting into her room. An interview with Nurse #1 on 7/14/21 at 6:57 AM revealed the lack of air conditioning had been an ongoing issue in some of the rooms on the hall where Resident #33 resided. Nurse #1 stated they had fixed a part that was broken because the hallways used to be hot as well. A phone interview with the Regional Maintenance Director (RMD) on 7/13/21 at 9:34 AM revealed he had been covering for the facility's maintenance needs because the facility did not have a Maintenance Director. The RMD admitted that the whole air conditioning system broke in the beginning of June 2021 when there was no air going into the whole facility. The RMD stated a part of the air conditioning system broke and he ordered the part. After he replaced the broken part, he thought that the air conditioning system had been fixed. The RMD stated he did not check the individual rooms but only walked through the hallways and was not aware that air conditioning was still an issue with some of the rooms. The RMD denied that Resident #33 complained about the lack of air conditioning in her room. A follow-up interview with Resident #33 on 7/13/21 at 9:55 AM revealed the RMD did fix her electrical issue in her room but she also told him about her concern related to the air conditioning system. Resident #33 stated the RMD just laughed and said to her that there was nothing he could do about it. The RMD further told her that they would need to replace the whole air conditioning system and that wasn't going to happen because it was an old building. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 2:51 PM revealed she thought that the air conditioning system had been fixed. The DON knew they had ordered a part to get it fixed. She also knew that they had two different companies come and check if they could fix the air conditioning system. One company said the whole system needed to be replaced but it was just replaced three years ago so there was no way the facility would get a new air conditioning system. A follow-up interview with the RMD on 7/14/21 at 4:25 PM revealed he had checked on the temperature in the hallways and in the rooms and found out that some of the rooms on the hall where Resident #33 resided were hotter than the hallway temperature. The RMD stated when the whole air conditioning system broke down in June 2021, he had two contractors assess the situation and one of them had recommended that the whole system needed to be replaced. The RMD stated the quote was outrageous and there was no way the facility would be able to get the whole air conditioning system replaced. The RMD stated the residents had the option of bringing in their own personal electric fans or they could try to pull cold air from the halls by using an electric fan. An interview with the Administrator on 7/14/21 at 7:23 AM revealed he had talked to the owner on 7/8/21 about concerns at the facility and had brought up to him the problem regarding the air conditioning system. The Administrator knew there had been an issue with the air conditioning system and admitted that it used to be worse when even the hallways were hot and there was completely no air going into the whole facility. They experienced a delay in getting the issue fixed because they had ordered the wrong unit and had to order another one. He agreed that the facility needed to do some duct work to try to fix the air conditioning issue.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete the Care Area Assessment (CAA) that addressed the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete the Care Area Assessment (CAA) that addressed the underlying causes and contributing factors for psychotropic drug use for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #15). The findings included: Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #15 was cognitively intact, exhibited no behaviors and had an active diagnosis of manic depression (bipolar disease). The MDS further indicated Resident #15 received antipsychotic and anti-anxiety medications for 7 days during the assessment period. The Care Area Assessment (CAA) for psychotropic drug use dated 5/30/21 stated Resident #15 was at risk of side effects of medications due to use of anti-anxiety medications and antipsychotic medications for diagnosis of bipolar disorder. There was no analysis of how she reacted or any benefits from the medications or how they impacted her day to day function. An interview with the MDS Nurse on 7/14/21 at 12:48 PM revealed she had started working for the facility in June 2021 but had only been there for a matter of days due to her always being pulled to another sister facility. The MDS Nurse admitted she hadn't really looked at Resident #15's assessment and when she filled out the CAA for psychotropic drug use, all the information she had was that she was receiving anti-anxiety and antipsychotic medications. The MDS Nurse stated this was the way she had been doing the CAA and that nobody had ever said anything to her to do it differently. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 2:51 PM revealed Resident #15's CAA for psychotropic drug use should have included more information reflective of Resident #15 such as having anxiety, insomnia, verbal aggression, name-calling, short-term memory loss, withdrawn behaviors, depression and decline in mood. The DON added the MDS Nurse should have also included any potential indicators of side effects from psychotropic medications that Resident #15 was receiving such as episodes of lethargy and occasional slurred speech especially in the mornings. An interview with the Administrator on 7/14/21 at 4:33 PM revealed Resident #15's CAA for psychotropic drug use should have included more information specific to Resident #15 and each area checked off should have had supporting documentation of the basis/reason it was checked and the location of the source of information.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of paraplegia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) asse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of paraplegia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #25 was cognitively intact and was totally dependent on two persons for transfers, personal hygiene, and bathing. The MDS further indicated Resident #25 had no impairment in range of motion in bilateral lower extremities. An interview with Resident #25 on 7/12/21 at 9:15 AM revealed he could not use his legs and required assistance for just about everything. He stated he could not get into or out of bed or transfer from bed to chair or chair to bed without assistance. Resident #25 stated he could maneuver somewhat once he was in his chair. An observation of Resident #25 on 7/12/21 at 9:30 AM showed he was transferred from the bed to a wheelchair with a mechanical lift and two persons. He was observed to operate the manual wheelchair with footrests by pushing the wheels with his hands. An interview with the MDS Coordinator on 7/14/21 at 12:55 PM revealed she was brought to the building in June to do MDS, but she was since pulled to another facility in another state, then went on vacation, and had not gotten to everything yet. She stated coding no impairment in range of motion in bilateral lower extremities as well as paraplegia was incorrect. When asked about the discrepancy in the MDS, she stated she had seen the resident in a wheelchair and assumed he could use his legs. She stated she did not verify the information with nursing staff or documentation. She voiced knowledge that she should have reviewed the documentation or spoken with nursing prior to coding the MDS. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 3:18 PM revealed there had been no MDS staff since October 2020. The DON stated the facility had been sharing an MDS person with other sister facilities. The DON voiced Resident #25's MDS should have been coded impairment on lower extremities and paraplegia. Her expectation of the MDS was that it was coded correctly. An interview with the interim Administrator on 7/14/21 at 4:46 PM revealed there had been no consistent MDS staff since October 2020. He stated the current MDS Coordinator was shared between facilities and was not in the building regularly. He specified he expected the MDS to be coded correctly. Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the area of Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for PASRR (Resident #15). The facililty also failed to code a resident accurately in the areas of active diagnoses and range of motion for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for accidents. The findings included: 1. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder. A review of Resident #15's medical record indicated Resident #15 had PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) Level II that started on 3/12/21 and ended on 6/10/21 for a mental illness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated a No to question A1500 which asked if Resident #15 had been currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 7/14/21 at 8:47 AM revealed she did not realize that Resident #15 had a PASRR Level II when she was admitted to the facility. The SW stated she did not remember seeing a diagnosis for a severe mental illness except for bipolar disorder in Resident #15's medical record. The SW confirmed that Section A with regards to level II PASRR in Resident #15's admission MDS was coded incorrectly because she had a level II PASRR at the time of her admission. An interview with the MDS Nurse on 7/14/21 at 12:48 PM revealed she had started working for the facility in June 2021 but had only been there for a matter of days due to her always being pulled to another sister facility. The MDS Nurse stated she had not been aware that Resident #15 was admitted to the facility with a level II PASRR and did not remember seeing a diagnosis for a severe mental disorder. The MDS Nurse added if she had known that Resident #15 had a level II PASRR when she was admitted to the facility, she would have done more research as to why before coding her as a level II PASRR on her admission MDS and she would not have answered No to question A1500. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 2:51 PM revealed Resident #15 should have been coded as a level II PASRR in her admission MDS because she was admitted to the facility with a level II PASRR.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to make a referral for re-evaluation after a Pre-admission Scr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to make a referral for re-evaluation after a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II expired for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #15) for PASRR. The findings included: Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder. A review of Resident #15's medical record indicated Resident #15 had PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) Level II that started on [DATE] and ended on [DATE] for a mental illness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #15 was cognitively intact, exhibited no behaviors and had an active diagnosis of manic depression (bipolar disease). Resident #15's History and Physical (H&P) note dated [DATE] by the Medical Director indicated since admission to the facility, Resident #15 pulled out her tracheostomy on [DATE] and refused to have it reinserted or to go to the ER (Emergency Room). Resident #15's H&P further indicated that Resident #15 had a prolonged hospital stay spending greater than 46 days in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) due to her agitation and aggression which required multiple days of a sedative infusion. An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on [DATE] at 1:59 PM revealed she did not realize that Resident #15 had a PASRR Level II when she was admitted to the facility and that it had expired on [DATE]. The SW stated this was the first case she had to get re-assessed for PASRR and admitted she did not know what she needed to do. The SW added she tried to get direction from the Social Worker at the local hospital and she was directed to call the NC (North Carolina) Tracks who forwarded her to the PASRR department. The SW shared she reached a dead end when she called the PASRR department and received a recorded message that they were not currently doing any training sessions due to COVID-19. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 2:51 PM revealed she was not sure about the process of renewing PASRR but agreed that a referral should have been made to get Resident #15 re-evaluated prior to her PASRR Level II expiring on [DATE]. An interview with the Administrator on [DATE] at 4:33 PM revealed Resident #15 should have been re-assessed for PASRR prior to it expiring and the Social Worker was responsible for submitting the referral for PASRR re-evaluation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard an expired medication available for use in 1 of 1 medication room. The findings included: An observation was made of the medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard an expired medication available for use in 1 of 1 medication room. The findings included: An observation was made of the medication room with Nurse #1 on 7/14/21 at 6:57 AM. A bottle of Hydromorphone, a narcotic used to treat moderate to severe pain, with approximately 45 ml (milliliters) in the bottle was observed inside the locked refrigerator in the medication room and was available for use. The bottle was labeled with Resident #85's name and was dispensed to the facility on 3/24/21. The label further indicated that it was supposed to be discarded after 5/23/21. An interview with Nurse #1 on 7/14/21 at 7:00 AM revealed the nurses forgot to return the bottle of Hydromorphone back to the pharmacy. Nurse #1 stated Resident #85 was no longer in the facility and the nurse who took care of Resident #85 when he died at the facility probably meant to return the bottle of Hydromorphone to the pharmacy but it was locked up in the refrigerator in the medication room so they probably forgot to take it out and put it in the box of medications to be returned to the pharmacy. Nurse #1 stated she worked the night before and she was supposed to check the medication room for expired medications but forgot to look in the locked medication refrigerator for controlled medications. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 7/14/21 at 2:51 PM revealed expired medications were supposed to be discarded but since the bottle of Hydromorphone was a controlled medication, it should have been sent back to the pharmacy when no longer needed. The DON stated the night shift nurses usually scanned or filled out the list of medications to be returned to the pharmacy and probably missed the bottle of Hydromorphone because it was locked up in the refrigerator. The DON stated the night shift nurses should have checked the medication room for expired medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policies and procedures when 2 of 2 staff members (Nurse #2 and Nurse #3) failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policies and procedures when 2 of 2 staff members (Nurse #2 and Nurse #3) failed to disinfect a glucometer according to manufacturer's recommendations after use on 2 of 2 residents (Resident #8 and Resident #14) reviewed for infection control. These failures occurred during a COVID-19 pandemic. The findings included: A review of the facility's policy entitled, Glucometer Use and Cleaning, dated 5/18/20 indicated the following direction after using the glucometer: * Use a Micro-Kill+ Bleach to wipe the glucometer of any visible materials covering all surfaces. * Use an additional wipe to allow the glucometer to remain moist for 3 minutes and allow to air dry and return to storage case. The manufacturer's Operator's Manual for the glucometer used at the facility indicated the following instructions regarding disinfecting procedures for the meter: * To disinfect the meter, clean the meter surface with one of the approved disinfecting wipes. Other EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) registered wipes may be used for disinfecting the glucometer; however, these wipes have not been validated and could affect the performance of the meter. Wipe all external areas of the meter including both front and back surfaces until visibly wet. Allow the surface of the meter to remain wet at room temperature for the contact time/kill time listed on the canister. The manufacturer's recommendations for the Solimo disinfectant wipes included the following disinfection/virucidal directions: * Wipe hard, non-porous surface with wipe until surface is visibly wet. Use enough wipes to keep surface visibly wet for 4 minutes. * Allow surface to remain wet for 4 minutes. Let air dry. 1. An observation was made on 7/13/21 at 7:21 AM of Nurse #2 checking Resident #8's blood sugar. After wiping Resident #8's right fourth finger with an alcohol wipe, she stuck it with a single use lancet and placed a drop of blood into the strip that was inserted in a glucometer. After the reading registered on the glucometer, she removed the strip and discarded it while placing the glucometer back into Resident #8's individual case. Nurse #2 walked back to the medication cart on the hall and placed the case which had Resident #8's glucometer inside the medication cart and locked it. An interview with Nurse #2 on 7/13/21 at 11:34 AM revealed glucometers were supposed to be cleaned and disinfected after using each time, but she did not have disinfectant wipes available in her medication cart earlier. Nurse #2 admitted that she just remembered that she was supposed to disinfect the glucometers in her medication cart and that she was going to get some disinfectant wipes. 2. An observation was made on 7/13/21 at 11:05 AM of Nurse #3 checking Resident #14's blood sugar. Nurse #3 cleaned Resident #14's left third finger with an alcohol wipe and then stuck it with a single use lancet. Nurse #3 applied a drop of blood into the strip that was inserted in a glucometer. After the reading registered in the glucometer, Nurse #3 removed her gloves and started walking towards the medication cart while holding the glucometer and other supplies used to check Resident #14's blood sugar. Nurse #3 discarded her gloves in the trash can and disposed of the lancet in the sharp's container. She then applied another set of gloves and pulled out a canister of Solimo disinfectant wipes from the bottom drawer of the medication cart. Nurse #3 pulled a disinfectant wipe from the Solimo canister and started wiping the front and back of the glucometer which took about five seconds. Nurse #3 placed the glucometer back into Resident #14's individual case and locked it in the medication cart. After reviewing with Nurse #3 the instructions on the Solimo disinfectant wipes canister that indicated to allow the surface to remain wet for 4 minutes and allow to air dry, an interview with Nurse #3 on 7/13/21 at 11:10 AM revealed she was aware that she was supposed to leave the glucometer to air dry but she forgot. An interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 7/14/21 at 8:24 AM revealed glucometers were supposed to be disinfected after each use. The IP added that glucometers were supposed to be only disinfected using Micro-Kill bleach wipes which were listed in the glucometer's manufacturer's recommendations as approved to be used on their glucometers. The IP stated Nurse #3 should not have used the Solimo disinfectant wipes because these were intended to be used only to disinfect frequently touched surfaces. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 2:51 PM revealed the facility had plenty of Micro-Kill bleach wipes available and both Nurse #2 and Nurse #3 should have had some in their medication carts. The DON stated the IP told her that she had just placed a new canister of Micro-Kill disinfectant wipes in each medication carts the week before and was not sure why they had run out in such a short time. The DON further stated the Micro-Kill bleach wipes were supposed to be used only to disinfect glucometers but might have been used to disinfect general surfaces which they should have used the Solimo wipes for. In any case, the nurses should have followed the instructions on the label regarding disinfection and contact/kill time.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and observations the facility failed to implement a care plan intervention for 2 of 4 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and observations the facility failed to implement a care plan intervention for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #13 and Resident #11) reviewed for accidents and failed to develop care plans that addressed cognitive loss/dementia, behavioral symptoms, and psychotropic drug use 1 of 1 resident (Resident #18) reviewed for dementia. The findings included: 1. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia. Review of Resident #13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with 2 people assist for all transfers. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised on 6/6/21 indicated that Resident #13 had a history of falls due to dementia. Interventions in place included Resident #13 needing a fall mat to the left side of bed and a call light within reach for Resident #13. An observation conducted on 7/12/21 at 11:29 AM revealed Resident #13 was in bed with no fall mat in place. Further observation revealed the resident's call light was not in reach and was placed on the floor between the left side of the bed and the side table. An observation conducted on 7/12/21 at 4:13 PM revealed Resident #13 was in bed with no floor mat and the call light was placed on the floor between the left side of the bed and the side table. An observation was conducted on 7/13/21 at 7:17 AM and revealed Resident #13 was in bed with no floor mat. An interview with Nurse Aide #4 on 7/13/21 at 2:20 PM revealed she assisted Resident #13 to bed and observed the resident's call light on the floor and was not in reach. Nurse Aide #4 further revealed she could not recall the last time Resident #13 had a fall mat. An interview with Nurse #4 on 7/13/21 at 3:30 PM revealed Resident #13 usually had a fall mat but could not recall why the resident didn't have one. Nurse #4 stated Resident #13 did have a fall mat but she did not recall why Resident #13 no longer had one. Nurse #4 did not know Resident #13's call light was on the floor but revealed that it should have been within reach of Resident #13. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 2:50 PM revealed Resident #13 did not have a fall mat and was expected to have a fall mat and the call light to be within reach of Resident #13. An interview with the Administrator on 7/14/21 at 4:33 PM revealed Resident #13 should have had a fall mat and a call light within reach. The Administrator further revealed all care plans were expected to be followed. 2. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included abnormal involuntarily movements, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, and repeated falls. Review of Resident #11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 was cognitively impaired and required limited assistance with one person assist for all transfers. Review of Resident #11's care plan revised on 6/6/21 indicated Resident #11 was at risk of falls with history of frequent falls. Interventions in place included Resident #11 needed falls mats on both sides of the resident's bed. An observation conducted on 7/12/21 at 9:40 AM revealed Resident #11 was in bed flipping through a magazine with a floor mat placed on the left side of the resident's bed. An observation conducted on 7/12/21 at 4:15 PM revealed Resident #11 was in bed with a floor mat placed on the left side of Resident #11's bed. An observation was conducted on 7/13/21 at 7:21 AM and revealed Resident #11 was in bed with a floor mat placed on the left side of Resident #11's bed. An interview with Nurse Aide #4 on 7/13/21 at 2:20 PM revealed Resident #11 had two falls mats, but a staff member took one of the mats for another resident. Nurse Aide #4 further revealed she could not recall what the resident was care planned for. An interview conducted with Nurse #4 on 7/13/21 at 3:30 PM revealed Resident #11 had multiple falls from her bed since admission. Nurse #4 further revealed Resident #11 had two fall mats at one time but could not recall why there was only one. An interview conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 2:50 PM revealed Resident #11 was care planned for two falls mats, but only had one. The DON further revealed she added a fall mat for Resident #11 on 7/14/21 around lunch time. The DON stated it was expected for Resident #11's care plan to be followed. An interview conducted with the Administrator on 7/14/21 at 4:33 PM revealed Resident #11 was expected to have two fall mats and the care plan to be followed as revised. 3. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia with behavioral disturbance and diabetes. Her admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed she was moderately cognitively impaired with episodes of disorganized thinking and inattention. She was coded as having behaviors of rejection of care and wandering. Resident #18 required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, toileting, and personal hygiene. Resident #18's Care Area Assessment (CAA) identified the need of care plans for cognitive loss/dementia, behavioral symptoms, and psychotropic drug use. A review of the medical record on 7/13/21 at 9:18 AM revealed no focused care plans for dementia with behaviors, use of psychotropic medications, or diabetes. The medical record further showed Resident #18 was prescribed an antipsychotic medication as well as oral medication and insulin for diabetes. The record showed a psychiatric evaluation was completed on 6/21/21 with medication adjustments recommended and completed. Review of the 7/2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed Resident #18 had one episode of refusing insulin. An interview with the Rehabilitation Director (RD) on 7/13/21 at 10:36 AM revealed Resident #18 was impulsive and often packed up items (a book, a teddy-bear, and a blanket) to carry with her when moving from her room to the therapy department. The RD indicated he had not observed Resident #18 loitering near doors or any other exit-seeking behaviors from the resident. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #3 on 7/13/21 at 2:46 PM revealed Resident #18 had not been combative or aggressive but was intermittently cooperative from day to day. An interview with the MDS Coordinator on 7/14/21 at 12:55 PM she had not checked all the care plans yet. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 3:18 PM revealed the facility had not had a MDS or care plan staff since October 2020. The DON stated a shared MDS Coordinator was sent to the facility in June but had been sent to another facility shortly after her arrival. The DON stated a care plan should have been initiated as all nurses were able to edit care plans. An interview with the interim Administrator on 7/14/21 at 4:44 PM revealed he expected a baseline care plan to be initiated immediately after admission. He stated he expected a full comprehensive care plan to be completed within a week.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to post daily nurse staffing information on 3 of 3 days during the survey. The findings included: A tour of the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to post daily nurse staffing information on 3 of 3 days during the survey. The findings included: A tour of the facility was made on 7/12/21 at 10:00 AM. The daily nurse staffing information was located on a table in the front lobby of the facility. The date on the daily nurse staffing sheet read 6/14/21. An observation of the daily nurse staffing information was completed on 7/13/21 at 11:55 AM. The date on the daily nurse staffing sheet read 6/14/21. An observation was made on 7/14/21 at 10:27 AM. The date on the daily nurse staffing sheet was 6/14/21. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/14/21 at 10:30 AM revealed she thought the person responsible for completing the form had written 6/14/21 instead of 7/14/21. A comparison review of the daily nurse staffing information and the daily schedule was completed by the DON. The DON acknowledged the schedule did not match the posted daily nurse staffing information. The DON stated the scheduler responsible for maintaining the daily posting was on vacation and another person was covering her duties. The DON revealed the person filling in for the scheduler had not been instructed to complete the sheet. A review of the daily nurse staffing sheets from April through July 2021 revealed the daily nurse staffing sheet had been completed on 13 days. A subsequent interview with the DON on 7/14/21 at 3:24 PM revealed she expected the daily nurse staffing sheet to be completed and posted daily. An interview with the facility Administrator on 7/14/21 at 3:30 PM revealed he expected the daily nurse staffing to be updated and posted daily. He stated he expected the posting to include changes such as callouts and any staff schedule changes.
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
  • • 45% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $60,781 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 21 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $60,781 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 1/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within North Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat Staffed?

CMS rates Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat?

State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 16 with potential for harm, and 2 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 Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat?

Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 39 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Gastonia, North Carolina.

How Does Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat?

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 Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat Stick Around?

Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat Ever Fined?

Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat has been fined $60,781 across 4 penalty actions. This is above the North Carolina average of $33,687. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Juniper Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilitat on Any Federal Watch List?

Juniper Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitat 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.