Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center

1300 Don Juan Road, Hertford, NC 27944 (252) 426-5391
For profit - Limited Liability company 78 Beds SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#342 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #342 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina, it falls within the bottom half of facilities statewide, though it is the only option in Perquimans County. The facility is showing signs of improvement, with the number of issues decreasing from 11 to 8 over the past year. However, staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 and a high turnover rate of 71%, which is significantly above the state average. Additionally, the facility has incurred $208,566 in fines, which is higher than 97% of North Carolina facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues. While RN coverage is rated as average, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident developing a severe pressure ulcer due to inadequate monitoring and another resident experiencing unmanaged pain due to medication not being administered as ordered, leading to multiple emergency room visits. Overall, while there are some signs of improvement, the facility has critical weaknesses that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In North Carolina
#342/417
Bottom 18%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
71% turnover. Very high, 23 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$208,566 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
40 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 71%

25pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $208,566

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (71%)

23 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 40 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Jun 2025 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the areas of use of anticonvulsant medication (Resident #55) and use of anticoagulant medication (Resident #55 and Resident #26) for 2 of 22 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. The findings included: 1. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included convulsions, stroke, and nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Resident #55 had a physician order dated 12/17/24 for levetiracetam (anticonvulsant medication) oral tablet 1000 milligram (mg) give one tablet twice a day for seizure disorder. The Medication Administration Record for March 2025 and April 2025 revealed Resident #55 was administered the levetiracetam as ordered. Review of Resident #55's current and discontinued physician order for March 2025 through April 2025 revealed no orders for an anticoagulant medication. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 had severe cognitive impairment and was not coded for the use of anticonvulsant medication. The assessment further noted that Resident #55 was coded for the use of an anticoagulant medication. An interview was conducted on 6/04/25 at 12:02 pm with the MDS Nurse who confirmed Resident #55 did not have a physician order for an anticoagulant medication. The MDS Nurse revealed she must have mistakenly clicked anticoagulant medication instead of anticonvulsant medication for Resident #55 when she completed the assessment. During an interview on 6/05/25 at 4:20 pm with the Administrator she stated the MDS Nurse was responsible to ensure that Resident #55's MDS assessment was accurately coded. 2. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke. Review of Resident #26's current and completed physician orders for February 2025 through March 2025 revealed no orders for anticoagulant medication. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) end of Medicare Part A assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 had moderate cognitive impairment and was coded for use of an anticoagulation medication. During an interview on 6/04/25 at 12:02 pm with the MDS Nurse she confirmed Resident #26 was not prescribed an anticoagulant medication. The MDS Nurse stated she must have incorrectly coded Resident #26's MDS assessment in the area of anticoagulant medication. An interview was conducted on 6/05/25 at 4:20 pm with the Administrator. She stated the MDS Nurse was responsible to ensure that Resident #26's MDS assessment was accurately coded.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to provide an ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to provide an ongoing resident centered activities program that included one on one (1:1) activities to meet the interests of a resident who did not participate in group activities for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for activities (Resident #55). The findings included: Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cognitive communication deficit and nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (bleed in the brain tissue that occurs without any trauma). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 had severe cognitive impairment and no speech. Resident #55's assessment of daily and activity preferences revealed it was important for family or significant other to be involved in the care discussion and he enjoyed listening to music. There were no other activity preferences noted. Resident #55's care plan last reviewed on 4/09/25 revealed Resident #55 was dependent on staff for meeting emotional and social needs with a goal to maintain involvement in cognitive stimulation and social activities. The care plan had interventions which included providing the resident with materials for individual activities as desired, invite the resident to scheduled activities, and ensuring that the activities the resident is attending were compatible with physical and mental capabilities. Review of the Kardex (resident care guide) revealed Resident #55's activities were to include one to one (1:1) program, group events, group programs, and self-directed activity. Review of the activity participation record for the month of May 2025 revealed no documentation that Resident #55 participated in any facility activity. Review of the 1:1 program record for the month of May 2025 revealed no documentation that Resident #55 had participated in any 1:1 activity. Review of the group events, group programs, and self-directed activity record for the month of May 2025 revealed no documentation that Resident #55 had participated in any group events, group programs, or self-directed activity. Observations were conducted on 6/02/25 at 10:32 am and 11:28 am revealed Resident #55 was in bed with his head turned toward the window and the wall mounted television was turned on. Resident #55 turned and made eye contact with the surveyor upon entering the room but he was unable to participate in an interview. There was no radio observed in Resident #55's room. A telephone interview was conducted on 6/02/25 at 11:26 am with Resident #55's RP who revealed she was concerned that the facility did not include the resident in activity programs. The RP stated that Resident #55 was only in the room in bed when she or other family visited the facility and was not observed to be engaged in any activities. The RP stated Resident #55 enjoyed watching football and basketball and listening to music before he was admitted to the facility. The RP stated she did not recall being asked by anyone at the facility what Resident #55's interests were. Observations were conducted on 6/03/25 at 9:39 am, 12:37 pm, and 2:53 pm revealed Resident #55 was in bed with the wall mounted television turned on. There was no radio observed in Resident #55's room. An interview was conducted with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/03/25 at 12:37 pm who revealed she did not observe Resident #55 in any facility group activities or any activity staff in the room with him when she worked. NA #1 stated she was not aware of any particular activity that Resident #55 enjoyed but she stated the television in the room was on all the time. During an interview on 6/03/25 at 2:47 pm NA #2 revealed she did not see Resident #55 participate in any facility activities. NA #2 stated she believed he liked to listen to the television so she left the television on for him. The Activity Director was interviewed on 6/03/25 at 2:53 pm who reported that resident 1:1 activities were documented in the electronic health record when the activity was completed and she attempted to complete resident 1:1 activities at least once weekly for 10 minutes. The Activity Director stated Resident #55 had been to one facility activity that she was aware of in the past, but he had not been taken to any activities during the last few months. She was unable to recall when Resident #55 participated in a 1:1 visit, group activity, or group event. The Activity Director stated Resident #55 had a television in his room and she believed he had a radio in the room as well that could be turned on by her or floor staff when he wanted. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/05/25 at 1:06 pm who revealed the Activity Director was responsible for determining what 1:1 activities would be appropriate for Resident #55. During an interview with the Administrator on 6/05/25 at 4:24 pm she revealed the Activity Director was responsible to provide Resident #55 with activities that addressed the needs of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to have effective systems in place f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to have effective systems in place for the return of discontinued controlled medications to the pharmacy which resulted in the controlled medication being diverted from the medication storage cart for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for misappropriation of residents' property (Resident #44). The findings included: Review of the Disposal of Medications Policy dated 1/24 read in part: Discontinued medications and/or medications left in the nursing care center, are identified and removed from current medication supply in a timely manner according to state and federal regulations for disposition. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a physician's order for Resident # 44 dated 11/15/24 read, Oxycodone (a narcotic pain medication) 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. The order was discontinued on 11/29/24. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact and was on a scheduled pain medications regimen. He received opioid medication during the lookback period. A review of the December 2024 narcotic/control substance count sheet revealed on 12/9/24 Medication Aide #1 received the medication cart with 22 narcotic cards, and the count was validated by Nurse #3. Review of the pharmacy packing slip dated 11/26/24 revealed the facility received 8 doses of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg for Resident #44. Review of the November 2024 MAR revealed no doses of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg were administered to Resident #44 before it was discontinued on 11/29/24. A review of the initial allegation report dated 12/9/24 revealed the facility became aware of the misappropriation of facility property on 12/9/24 at 2:45 PM when the Director of Nursing (DON) reconciled the narcotic medications and found that the counts were not correct as documented. An allegation of misappropriation of resident property was submitted for Resident #44 and Medication Aide #1 was suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. The initial report was submitted by the previous Administrator. A review of the 5-day investigation report dated 12/13/24 revealed the allegation of misappropriation of facility property was substantiated. Medication Aide #1 was terminated on 12/10/24. The DON noted the number of narcotic sheets, and the number of narcotic cards was off by two. Resident #44 was found to be missing a medication card containing 8 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 (milligram) mg tablets. This medication had been discontinued and the medication card had not been removed by the Nursing Administration from the medication cart. An attempt to interview Medication Aide #1on 6/5/25 at 3:45 PM was unsuccessful. An attempt to contact Nurse #3 on 6/5/25 at 3:48 PM was unsuccessful. An interview was conducted with the facility Pharmacist on 6/5/25 at 4:04 PM. The Pharmacist verified Resident #44's Oxycodone had not been returned to the pharmacy. The Pharmacist stated the facility was supposed to remove the medication from the medication cart and return the medication back to the pharmacy. The Pharmacist stated a medication disposition was sent back with all medications returned for pharmacy disposal. She added that narcotic medications were placed in a bag and sealed in addition to their being locked in the plastic bin they were sent back in. The Pharmacist stated the facility had a contract with the pharmaceutical company and they did monthly checks of the medication carts to include checking for discontinued medications. An interview was conducted with the previous Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/5/25 at 4:47 PM. She confirmed she was the DON at the time of the medication diversion incident. The DON stated she had come out of the clinical meeting and checked her mailbox outside her door. The previous DON indicated she noticed there was one individual controlled drug record placed in her mailbox on her office door. The previous DON stated she became suspicious because the controlled drug record appeared randomly. The previous DON stated she immediately went to the medication cart to reconcile the narcotics. The previous DON stated the count was off by two narcotic count cards on the 200 Hall Medication Cart on 12/9/24. The previous DON stated one of the two missing narcotic count cards was located during the audit of the 200 Hall medication cart. The previous DON indicated there were 21 narcotic control sheets documented instead of 22 which were verified at the beginning of the shift by Nurse #3. The previous DON further stated she determined the narcotic medication card that belonged to Resident #44 which contained 8 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg tablets was missing. The previous DON stated at the time of the incident that Nursing Administration was to remove the narcotic medication from the medication cart when the medication were discontinued but there was no specific time frame as to when the discontinued medications were removed from the medication cart. Two nurses were to verify and sign off the amount of medication that was left on the medication card that was being returned to the pharmacy. The amount being returned was documented on to the return medication disposition document (a document that tracks the final location of a medication). The previous DON stated the medication was placed in a sealed pharmacy bag and the sealed bag was then placed in a locked tote with the pharmacy return medication disposition. The previous DON stated the transporter picked up the medication and documentation of the receipt of medication was handed to the nurse for the return. The previous DON stated Medication Aide #1 was terminated on 12/13/24 and charges were filed related to the allegation. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/5/25 at 6:08 PM. The Administrator stated the previous Administrator submitted the investigation report. She stated she had no concerns about misappropriation of resident property since becoming Administrator of the facility.
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 F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest contr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by the presence of flies that affected resident rooms 5 of 12 rooms observed on the 300 Hall (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER]). The findings included: Review of the pest control service inspection report dated 5/14/25 revealed the interior and exterior of the facility for general pests as well as spreading granular around the exterior of the foundation of the building. The service inspection report further noted that rodent stations were inspected and baited, the attic was baited for roaches, and a wasp nest was removed on the exterior of the building. There was no mention of a fly program service. a. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/02/25 at 10:41 am was conducted. Multiple flies were visible in the room and were observed landing on the residents beds, over bed tables, heads and arms. The three residents present at the time of the observation were able to swat the flies away. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/03/25 at 12:30 pm was conducted and flies were visible in the room on resident beds and overbed tables. Resident #4, who had moderate cognitive impairment, stated the flies were horrible. b. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/02/25 at 10:52 am was conducted. Many flies were visible in the room on resident beds, residents head, upper body, and bedside table. The two residents present at the time of the observation were able to swat the flies away. c. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/02/25 at 11:11 am was conducted. Many flies were visible in the room and were observed to land on the residents head and arms. The two residents present at the time of the observation were able to swat the flies away. d. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted on 6/02/25 at 11:28 am and flies were observed landing on the blanket, hands, face, and head. Two of the three resident present during the observation were able to swat the flies away. Resident #1 was observed waving his hands by his head to remove flies. Resident #1, who was cognitively intact, reported the flies were always in the room and bothered him. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/03/25 at 2:45 pm was conducted and flies were observed around the resident's head and face. One of the two residents present during the observation was able to swat the flies away. e. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/05/25 at 11:24 am was conducted. The resident was observed in bed sleeping with multiple flies on his legs, back, head, and arms. The resident was able to swat away the flies. An observation of the smoking area was conducted on 6/05/25 at 3:45 pm with the Maintenance Director. The Residents were observed to be sitting outside the smoking exit door under a gazebo with a raised garden bed to the right of the exit door. The smoking area was clean and without debris or garbage. The Maintenance Director lifted the insect trap located at the smoking entrance and it was observed to have some flies attached to the glue strips but the glue strips were not completely covered. The smoking exit door was opened by the Maintenance Director and the blower fan, located on the wall at the smoking exit door, turned on automatically when the door was opened. No flies were observed to enter the facility at the time of the observation when the door was opened and the blower fan was on. During an interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #2 on 6/03/25 at 2:45 she revealed flies have been pretty bad and she stated they are in most rooms on the 300 Hall. NA #2 stated she believed the flies got in by the smoking door area because the residents go out so often to smoke. An interview was conducted on 6/05/25 at 11:26 am with Housekeeper #1 who revealed he did not spray any chemicals for flies at the facility. He stated the Maintenance Director was responsible for the treatment of flies. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/05/25 at 1:04 pm who revealed the flies had never been as bad as they were right now. The DON stated she believed the flies were entering the facility from the smoking area door because the door was opened for extended periods of time to allow for all the residents to exit and enter. The DON stated the smoking exit door had a blower that would turn on when the door opened to reduce the amount of flies and an insect trap (a wall-mounted fixture with a blue light and glue strips that attracted and trapped flies) was right at the smoking area entrance. She stated the flies were still getting in the facility because of the amount of time it took to get the residents in the door. An interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director on 6/05/25 at 3:24 pm. The Maintenance Director revealed that he was responsible to maintain the insect traps in the facility by changing out the light bulbs and replacing the glue traps. He stated the facility had 6 large wall mounted insect traps in the resident halls and he had started to place smaller insect traps in resident rooms but had not yet gotten to the 300 Hall. The Maintenance Director stated he changed the insect traps by the smoking entrance about every 2 weeks and the other insect traps lasted longer, like once a month. The Maintenance Director stated he did not maintain documentation for how often he changed the glue traps and lights for the insect traps. During an interview on 6/05/25 at 4:31 pm with the Administrator she revealed the facility had identified the need for insect traps in resident rooms and the facility had been working on getting insect traps ordered and installed. The Administrator stated with the weather warming up the number of flies in the facility had increased.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours per day seven days a week for 1 of 34 days reviewed for suffi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours per day seven days a week for 1 of 34 days reviewed for sufficient staffing. The findings included: A review of the daily posted nursing staff forms, daily nursing staff assignment sheets, and staff clock-in sheets from 5/01/25 through 6/03/25 was conducted. A review of the daily census posting sheets for 5/25/25 revealed no RN coverage for eight consecutive hours on 5/25/25. In an interview on 6/05/25 at 2:52 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated for staff call out, they would call the staffing agency for a nurse to fill an open position. She indicated as it was the Memorial holiday weekend, no facility or agency staff were available to fill the position on 5/25/25. In an interview on 6/05/25 at 11:54 AM the Clinical [NAME] President revealed they did not have a RN on 5/25/25 due to call out.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to ensure the staffing plan considered specific staffing needs for each unit and shift as required and failed to eva...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to ensure the staffing plan considered specific staffing needs for each unit and shift as required and failed to evaluate contracted services utilized by the facility to provide necessary care for its residents during normal operations and emergencies which had the potential to affect 64 of 64 residents. The findings included: Review of the Facility Assessment revealed that the staffing plan listed the number of Nurses (Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse) and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) noted as the desired number FTE (full-time equivalent, the total number of full-time employees working in an organization) of staff and the professional requirement for those staff members. However, the staffing plan did not address staffing needs for each shift and weekends, or address staffing needs in these areas based on changes to the resident population as required. In addition, the Facility Assessment did not note if a contract or other agreement was in place related to the provider who was responsible for the provision of goods, facility management services, emergency services, transportation, and dialysis services for the facility. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/05/25 at 2:24 PM who indicated she was not aware of the requirement to specifically address the nurse staff shift information according to each unit. She reported she was not aware they needed to list the contract services used at the facility in the Facility Assessment. She indicated she would expect all the contract services to be listed and reviewed annually.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the resident and Resident Representative in writing...

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 notify the resident and Resident Representative in writing of the reason for transfer/discharge to the hospital. The deficient practice affected 5 of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #28, Resident #24, Resident #2, Resident #47, and Resident #8). The following included: a.Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #28's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #28's nursing progress note dated 5/26/25 revealed she was discharged to the hospital on 5/26/25 due to a critical low hemoglobin and altered mental status. Review of the medical record revealed no written notification of transfer for the Responsible Party or the resident for 5/26/25. b. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #24's nursing progress notes revealed she was discharged to the hospital on 4/10/25 gastrointestinal bleeding and returned on 4/16/25. Review of the medical record revealed no written notification of transfer for the Responsible Party or the resident for 4/10/25. c. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #2's nursing progress notes revealed he was discharged to the hospital on 8/8/24 to have a tunneled catheter inserted for antibiotic administration and returned on 8/9/24. Review of the medical record revealed no written notification of transfer for the Responsible Party or the resident for 8/8/24. d. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had moderate cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #47's nursing progress notes revealed he was discharged to the hospital on 7/13/24 due to increases shortness of breath with difficulty breathing and returned on 7/17/24. Review of the medical record revealed no written notification of transfer for the Responsible Party or the resident for 7/13/24. e. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident # 8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #8's nursing progress notes revealed she was discharged to the hospital on 8/16/24 due to vomiting up blood and returned on 8/19/24. Review of the medical record revealed no written notification of transfer for the Responsible Party or the resident for 8/16/24. An interview conducted with the Social Worker on 6/4/25 at 3:35 PM revealed she had not been sending a written notification of transfer/discharge to the resident or Resident Representative. The Social Worker stated she had been placing a follow-up phone call about the transfer to hospital and notifying the Resident Representative verbally. The Social Worker further stated she sometimes documented the conversation in her personal notebook or in the resident chart. An interview conducted with the Administrator on 6/5/25 at 06:08 PM revealed she was aware a follow-up phone call was to be made to the resident or Resident Representative to inform them of the transfer to the hospital. The Administrator stated she expected that written notification of transfer/ discharge would be sent to the resident and Resident Representative when residents discharge to the hospital. The Administrator further stated that going forward all hospital discharges would be reviewed each day during the morning meeting to make sure the written notifications were sent out.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to document accurate information on the daily nurse staffing sheets for 34 of 34 days (5/01/25 through 6/03/25) reviewed. The findings...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to document accurate information on the daily nurse staffing sheets for 34 of 34 days (5/01/25 through 6/03/25) reviewed. The findings included: A review of the Staff Schedule/Assignment Sheets and daily Posted Nurse Staffing Information sheets for 5/01/25, 5/02/25, 5/03/25, 5/04/25, 50/5/25, 5/06/25, 5/07/25, 5/08/25, 5/09/25, 5/10/25, 5/11/25, 5/12/25, 5/13/25, 5/14/25, 5/15/25, 5/16/25, 5/17/25, 5/18/25, 5/19/25, 5/20/25, 5/21/25, 5/22/25, 5/23/25, 5/24/25, 5/25/25, 5/26/25, 5/27/25, 5/28/25, 5/29/25, 5/30/25, 5/31/24, 6/01/25, 6/02/25 and 6/03/25 revealed discrepancies in the areas of number of unlicensed staff (including Medication Aides (MAs) actual hours worked and actual nursing staff who worked. The Daily Posted Staffing for licensed staff and unlicensed staff documented staff were scheduled to work 2 twelve-hour shifts, when the actual hours worked by unlicensed staff were 3 eight-hour shifts. The number of unlicensed staff and actual hours worked of unlicensed staff (including Medication Aides (MAs) on 1st shift (7:00 AM - 3:00 PM) were incorrect for the following days: for 5/01/25, 5/02/25, 5/03/25, 5/04/25, 50/5/25, 5/06/25, 5/07/25, 5/08/25, 5/09/25, 5/10/25, 5/11/25, 5/12/25, 5/13/25, 5/14/25, 5/15/25, 5/16/25, 5/17/25, 5/18/25, 5/19/25, 5/20/25, 5/21/25, 5/22/25, 5/23/25, 5/24/25, 5/25/25, 5/26/25, 5/27/25, 5/28/25, 5/29/25, 5/30/25, 5/31/24, 6/01/25, 6/02/25 and 6/03/25. The Daily Posted Staffing for licensed staff and unlicensed staff documented staff were scheduled to work 2 twelve-hour shifts, when the actual hours worked by unlicensed staff were 3 eight-hour shifts. The number of unlicensed staff and actual hours worked of unlicensed staff on 2nd shift (3:00 PM - 11:00 PM) (including MAs) were incorrect for the following days: for 5/01/25, 5/02/25, 5/03/25, 5/04/25, 50/5/25, 5/06/25, 5/07/25, 5/08/25, 5/09/25, 5/10/25, 5/11/25, 5/12/25, 5/13/25, 5/14/25, 5/15/25, 5/16/25, 5/17/25, 5/18/25, 5/19/25, 5/20/25, 5/21/25, 5/22/25, 5/23/25, 5/24/25, 5/25/25, 5/26/25, 5/27/25, 5/28/25, 5/29/25, 5/30/25, 5/31/24, 6/01/25, 6/02/25 and 6/03/25. The Daily Posted Staffing for licensed staff and unlicensed staff documented staff were scheduled to work 2 twelve-hour shifts, when the actual hours worked by unlicensed staff were 3 eight-hour shifts. The number of unlicensed staff and actual hours worked of unlicensed on 3rd shift (11:00 PM - 7:00 AM) were incorrect for the following days: for 5/01/25, 5/02/25, 5/03/25, 5/04/25, 50/5/25, 5/06/25, 5/07/25, 5/08/25, 5/09/25, 5/10/25, 5/11/25, 5/12/25, 5/13/25, 5/14/25, 5/15/25, 5/16/25, 5/17/25, 5/18/25, 5/19/25, 5/20/25, 5/21/25, 5/22/25, 5/23/25, 5/24/25, 5/25/25, 5/26/25, 5/27/25, 5/28/25, 5/29/25, 5/30/25, 5/31/24, 6/01/25, 6/02/25 and 6/03/25. The Daily Posted Staffing for licensed staff and unlicensed staff documented staff were scheduled to work 2 twelve-hour shifts, when the actual hours worked by unlicensed staff were 3 eight-hour shifts. An interview was conducted with the Staffing Scheduler on 6/05/25 at 2:53 PM who revealed she was responsible for completing the Daily Staffing Hours data sheets and confirmed the assignment data sheets were the actual staff that worked on a specific date. She reported she was trained to document the staffing hours for licensed and unlicensed staff for 2 twelve-hour shifts for all licensed and unlicensed staff. In an interview on 6/05/25 at 2:27 PM the Clinical [NAME] President stated the daily staffing information was documented as 2 twelve-hour shifts versus 3 eight-hour shifts for unlicensed staff. In an interview on 6/05/25 at 2:24 PM the Administrator reported with the way the daily staffing was listed, it looked like the actual unlicensed staff hours were off.
May 2024 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, Resident interview, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from neglect for 2 of 2 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, Resident interview, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from neglect for 2 of 2 resident reviewed for neglect (Resident #10 and Resident #217). The findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F677: Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, Resident interview, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to residents that were incontinent and dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #10 and Resident #217).
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #217 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, and pneumonitis. Review o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #217 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, and pneumonitis. Review of the baseline care plan initiated on 5/8/2024 revealed Resident #217 had an ADL self -care performance deficit related to limited range of motion of lower extremities. The care plan revealed Resident #217 required extensive assistance to total care by staff. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #217 was cognitively impaired. He was coded with limited range of motion function of the lower extremities. Resident #217 was coded as always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on staff for ADLs. During an interview with Resident #217's Representative on 5/13/2024 at 11:56 a.m. she stated she found Resident #217 in bed in a urine soaked brief and blanket when she visited on 5/8/2024 at about 1:27 p.m. In an interview with Nurse #4 on 5/14/2024 3:39 p.m. she revealed she was approached by Resident #217's Representative to provide incontinence care for Resident #217 about 1:30 p.m. on 5/8/2024. She further revealed Resident #217 had last been changed during the morning nursing rounds but was not sure of the time. Nurse #4 stated incontinence care should be provided every two hours and as needed throughout a shift. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #4 on 5/14/2024 at 3:16 p.m. revealed on 5/8/2024 she worked on both 100 and 400 halls when she was called by Nurse #4 at 1:30 p.m. to change Resident #217. NA #4 revealed she had 20 residents assigned to her which delayed incontinent care for Resident #217. NA #4 revealed she found Resident #217's brief and linen saturated in urine when she provided incontinence care to him. She further revealed the facility was short-staffed at that time. A review of the daily nurse staff assignment sheet dated 5/8/2024 revealed NA #4 was assigned a total of 14 residents on halls 100 and 400. During an interview with NA #5 on 5/15/24 8:34 a.m. she revealed she was pulled from her assignment on hall 300 on 5/8/2024 at 1:33 p.m. by Nurse #4 to help provide incontinence care for Resident #217. She further revealed Resident #217's brief, bed pad and the bed linen were soaked in urine. During an interview on 5/15/2024 at 11:01 a.m. the Administrator revealed he observed Resident #217 receiving incontinence care before 8:30 a.m. on 5/8/2024. He further revealed Nurse #4 was responsible for ensuring that Resident #217's care was provided. Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, Resident interview, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to residents that were incontinent and dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #10 and Resident #217). The findings included: 1. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included multiple sclerosis (MS-a chronic disease of the nervous system), and stroke with right sided hemiplegia (paralysis). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 was cognitively intact, was coded with limited range of motion function of the upper and lower extremities, and the skin was intact. Resident #10 was coded as always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the care plan last revised on 4/29/24 revealed Resident #10 had an ADL self -care performance deficit related to MS and stroke with interventions that included the resident was dependent upon staff for bathing, bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene. A care plan was in place for bowel and bladder incontinence related to MS and stroke with interventions which included checking frequently and as required for incontinence, and to change frequently. An interview was conducted on 5/13/24 at 12:17 pm with Resident #10 who reported she had asked Nure Aide (NA) #3 to change her brief and clothing at 8:30 am and the care had not yet been provided. Observations and interviews conducted with Resident #10 on 5/13/24 at 1:15 pm, 1:45 pm, and 2:00 pm revealed Resident #10 was still in the same shirt, and she reported she had not been provided personal care or incontinence care as requested in the morning. An interview was conducted with NA #3 on 5/13/24 at 2:07 pm who revealed she was prepared to provide incontinence care for Resident #10 at this time. NA #3 stated she left Resident #10 until this time because she was not a heavy wetter, and she knew Resident #10 could wait until the end of the shift. She stated she did introduce herself in the morning, but she did not provide any care at that time, and she was unable to remember if Resident #10 reported she needed care. NA #3 reported she assisted Resident #10 with the lunch meal but had not provided any other care during her shift. She stated she was assigned to provide care to ten residents on her shift and she was able to get her work done by the end of the shift. NA #3 stated she worked slow and had not had time to provide care to Resident #10 until the end of the shift but stated Resident #10 would be okay to wait until the end of the shift. An observation of Resident #10's incontinence and personal care was conducted on 5/13/24 at 2:10 pm with NA #3. Resident #10's yellow incontinence brief was noted to be saturated and dark in color from the groin to midway up the brief toward the waistline in the front. Resident #10 was turned on her right side by NA #3 and the bottom of the yellow incontinence brief was noted to be dark in color and saturated from groin area up to mid buttock area. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 11:23 am with the Director of Nursing (DON) who revealed Resident #10 should have had the incontinence care and personal care provided when she asked NA #3 in the morning. The DON stated incontinence care should be provided every two hours and as needed throughout a shift. The DON reported NA #3 had not reported she did not have time to complete Resident #10's care or that she was unable to manage her assignment. During an interview on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm the Administrator revealed the DON was responsible to ensure that Resident #10's care was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, Resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident wit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, Resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with reported hearing difficulties was evaluated for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for vision and hearing (Resident #24). The findings included: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke. Review of Resident #24's care plan last reviewed on 4/24/24 revealed no care plan related to hearing difficulty. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was cognitively intact and was coded for adequate hearing without the use of a hearing aid. Review of the nursing progress notes revealed no documentation regarding Resident #24's reported hearing difficulties. Review of the active physician orders revealed no orders for an evaluation of Resident #24's reported hearing difficulty. An interview and observation were conducted on 5/13/24 at 2:05 pm with Resident #24. This surveyor had to move close and speak loudly within one to two inches of the right ear for Resident #24 to hear questions. Resident #24 reported to staff that she had a hearing problem and she needed people to get close and talk loudly so she could hear, but she stated no one had checked to see if she needed a hearing aid. An interview was conducted on 5/15/24 at 12:16 pm with Nurse Aide (NA) #2 who revealed she often provided care to Resident #24, and she stated in order to communicate with Resident #24 she needed to get close to her ear or she could read her lips. She stated Resident #24 would put her hand up to her ear and tell you she could not hear and that you needed to be closer, but she did not think that meant she was hard of hearing. NA#2 stated she just thought that was normal that she needed to speak a little louder and get close to communicate with Resident #24. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 9:20 am with the Unit Manager who revealed Resident #24 did not report she had hearing difficulty, but the Unit Manager stated she did need to get close to Resident #24 when she spoke. A telephone interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 5/16/24 at 12:49 pm who revealed she was not aware of Resident #24's reported hearing difficulties until she was notified by the Director of Nursing (DON) today while at the facility. The NP stated she saw Resident #24 today and an otolaryngologist (ear, nose, and throat) consultation was ordered. During an interview on 5/15/24 at 12:03 pm with the DON she revealed that she was unable to locate any further documentation regarding audiology consultations for Resident #24. She stated Resident #24 would always say to come closer because she could not hear but she stated she never put it together to have her seen by the audiologist. The DON stated Resident #24 would tell you to come closer when talking so she could hear us, but she did not ask for a hearing aid. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed he was able to communicate with Resident #24 without difficulty and he was not aware of the reported hearing difficulties, but it will be addressed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, Resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain a physician order f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, Resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #7). The findings include: Review of Resident #7's hospital discharge oxygen therapy order requisition dated 11/15/21 revealed an order for non-invasive ventilation CPAP. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included obstructive sleep apnea (when the throat muscles relax and block the airway during sleep causing your breathing to be interrupted). Review of Resident #7's care plan last reviewed on 3/7/24 revealed no care plan for the CPAP machine. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was cognitively intact and was not coded for CPAP use. A record review conducted on 5/13/25 of Resident #7's active physician orders revealed there was no order for his CPAP. An interview and observation were conducted on 5/13/24 at 11:15 am with Resident #7 who had a CPAP machine on his bedside table. Resident #7 stated his CPAP machine was used every night, but he stated he thinks he needs a new one because it was blowing a lot of air. A telephone interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 8:16 am with Nurse #3 who revealed she often provided care for Resident #7 during the 7:00 pm-7:00 am shift. Nurse #3 stated Resident #7 used the CPAP machine every night and that he was able to put on the mask independently and he would ask her to turn it on. Nurse #3 stated she could not recall if there was a physician order for the CPAP, but she stated she thought the order was there. During an interview on 5/16/24 at 9:17 am with the Unit Manager she revealed she was aware Resident #7 had a CPAP machine and that he used it at night. She stated the CPAP machine required a physician order which would at least include when to put it on and when to take it off. The Unit Manager stated physician orders were reviewed during the morning clinical meeting, but she was unable to state why Resident #7 did not have a physician order for his CPAP machine. A telephone interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 5/16/24 at 12:45 pm who revealed she was aware Resident #7 used a CPAP machine at night. She stated he did report to her today that he needed to have his CPAP checked so she wrote an order for a new CPAP machine and equipment for Resident #7. The NP stated Resident #7's CPAP machine should have had a physician order. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 9:46 am with the Director of Nursing (DON) who revealed Resident #7 had used his CPAP for a long time and she thought the order was there. The DON stated the physician order for Resident #7's CPAP may have fallen off during a monthly physician order recapitulation (summary) and was missed during the review by nursing. The DON stated a physician order was required for Resident #7's CPAP but she was unable to state how it was missed. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm who revealed the DON was responsible to ensure Resident #7 had a physician order for his CPAP machine.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement infection prevention program polici...

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 implement infection prevention program policies and procedures when Nurse Aide (NA) #3 failed to perform hand hygiene after performing incontinence care for 1 of 1 resident observed for incontinence care (Resident #10), and NA #1 failed to perform hand hygiene between resident rooms when passing meal trays (room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]) for 1 of 1 NA observed during meal tray delivery. The findings included: The facility policy titled Infection Prevention Program last revised in 2009 revealed the Infection Prevention Program was a comprehensive program that addresses detection, prevention, and control of infections among residents and personnel. The facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene last revised in August 2019 revealed that hand hygiene was the primary means to prevent the spread of infections and that all staff shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. The policy further stated that hand hygiene was to be performed before and after assisting a resident with meals, and before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care. 1. An observation on 5/13/24 at 2:10 pm revealed NA #3 prepared to provide incontinence care to Resident #10. NA #3 donned her gloves and prepared a water basin and wash cloths and proceeded to clean Resident #10 on the front side and then turned the resident on her left side and cleaned her back side and in between her buttocks. NA #3 then placed a clean brief and a clean shirt on Resident #10 without removing her gloves and performing hand hygiene. NA #3 removed her gloves and performed hand hygiene before exiting the room with the trash and linen bags in her hand. An interview was conducted with NA #3 on 5/13/24 at 2:25 pm who reported she did not realize she did not change her gloves after cleaning Resident #10. She stated she normally would put on several pairs of gloves and after cleaning a resident she would remove the dirty gloves and then use the clean gloves that were under the ones she just took off to put on the clothes. NA #3 stated she should have washed up and changed her gloves before she put the new brief and clothes on Resident #10. During an interview on 5/16/24 at 11:23 am with the Infection Preventionist (IP) she revealed NA #3 should have removed the soiled gloves and performed hand hygiene after Resident #10's incontinence care was completed. The IP stated NA #3 should have performed hand hygiene and put on clean gloves before she put the clean brief and clothing on Resident #10. 2. During a continuous observation on 5/15/24 from 8:13 am through 8:24 am on Hall 300, Nurse Aide (NA) #1 was observed to remove a meal tray from the meal cart and enter room [ROOM NUMBER]. She placed the breakfast tray on the overbed table next to the bed and exited the room without performing hand hygiene. A hand sanitizer dispenser was located on the wall to the left of the door frame of room [ROOM NUMBER] upon exiting the room and a bathroom was located in the room. NA #1 was observed to walk to the linen cart, which was down the hall from room [ROOM NUMBER], lift the linen cart cover and obtain a clothing protector and re-enter room [ROOM NUMBER]. NA #1 was not observed to perform hand hygiene by use of the hand sanitizer dispenser on the wall prior to entering room [ROOM NUMBER] with the clothing protector. She was then observed to place the clothing protector on the Resident, reposition the Resident in bed, she touched, and operated the bed control device to raise the head of the bed, and moved the overbed table close to the Resident. NA #1, without performing hand hygiene with soap and water in the bathroom or hand sanitizer located on the wall outside of the room, was then observed to pick up a slice of toast from the meal tray with her bare hands and proceeded to spread butter on the toast and then placed the toast on the meal tray for the Resident to eat. NA #1 then exited the room; she was not observed to have performed hand hygiene with soap and water in the bathroom or use the hand sanitizer dispenser on the wall outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] and retrieved a meal tray from the meal cart and entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. She was observed to place the meal tray on the overbed table for the Resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]and exited the room without performing hand hygiene with soap and water in the bathroom or by the hand sanitizer dispenser which was located on the right side of the door frame on the wall outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. NA #1 was observed to walk down the hall out of sight of this surveyor. An interview was conducted with NA #1 on 5/15/24 at 11:19 am who revealed she was new to the facility, and she felt busy trying to get the meals out and just forgot to use hand sanitizer or wash her hands. She stated she should have used hand sanitizer between rooms when passing out trays, and she should not have picked up the toast with her hand. She stated she had received education on hand hygiene and when it needed to be done, but she just forgot. During an interview with the Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist (IP) on 5/16/24 at 11:30 am she revealed NA #1 was new to the facility but had been provided with education regarding hand hygiene. The IP stated NA #1 should have performed hand hygiene between each meal tray, and she should not have touched the resident's food with her hand.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty at least 8 hours a day with a facility census of greater than 60 residents for 6 of 91 days rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty at least 8 hours a day with a facility census of greater than 60 residents for 6 of 91 days reviewed (6/11/2023, 6/18/2023, 6/22/2023, 6/25/2023, 6/28/2023, and 6/29/2023). The findings included: A record review of the schedules for June 2023, revealed there was no RN who worked at least 8 hours on 6/11/2023, 6/18/2023, 6/22/2023, 6/25/2023, 6/28/2023, and 6/29/2023. The daily nurse staff postings revealed the census was 67 on 6/11/2023, 70 on 6/18/2023, 70 on 6/22/2023, 68 on 6/25/2023, 68 on 6/28/2023, and 69 on 6/29/2023. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/16/2024 at 9:25 a.m. she revealed she was the scheduler at the facility. She revealed she had scheduled an RN for 6/11/2023, 6/18/2023, 6/22/2023, 6/25/2023, 6/28/2023, and 6/29/2023 but the RN called out and she was not able to find coverage. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/16/2024 at 10:22 a.m. He revealed there should be an RN scheduled with a census of more than 60 residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to remove expired medication, date open medications, and failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to remove expired medication, date open medications, and failed to refrigerate medication according to the manufacturer's recommendations for 1 of 2 medications cart reviewed (Hall 300). The findings included: During an observation of the Hall 300 medication cart with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nurse #1 on [DATE] at 1:44 pm the following was observed. The DON and Nurse #1 confirmed all findings before the removal of the items. One glargine insulin injector pen with an expiration date of [DATE] written on the label. One glargine insulin injector pen open, with no open date noted and approximately 60 units of the 100 units of insulin remaining. The manufacturer's recommendations for insulin glargine (a long-acting insulin) recommended should be discarded 28 days after first use. One glargine insulin injector pen unopened with 100 units of the 100 units of insulin remaining. The sticker on the bag which held the unopened glargine insulin injector pen noted, keep in refrigerator. The manufacturer's recommendations for insulin glargine recommended that unopened insulin be stored in the refrigerator at approximately 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit. One vial of haloperidol (an antipsychotic medication) 5 milligram/milliliter per injection open, with no open date noted on the vial. One tube of nystatin antifungal cream open, with no open date noted on the on the tube. One tube of ketoconazole antifungal cream open, with no open date noted on the tube. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on [DATE] at 1:46 pm who revealed she was agency staff, that was her first day back at the facility and she would clean the cart after her medication pass was completed. A telephone interview was conducted on [DATE] at 8:35 am with Nurse #4, who was assigned to Hall 300 medication cart during the overnight shift prior to the observation, revealed she did not go through the medication cart to look for expired or undated items. Nurse #4 stated she would remove items from the medication cart if she saw they were expired when she passed medications, but she was not aware she was supposed to go through the entire cart. An interview was conducted with the Unit Manager who reported she tried to go through the medication carts weekly to look for expired and undated medications and she stated she would remove any identified items from the medication carts. The Unit Manager stated she believed the Hall 300 medication cart was last checked about a week ago. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:47 pm the DON stated the medication carts were to be checked for expired and undated medications every night by the nurse assigned to the medication cart during the overnight shift. She stated the Unit Manager and the pharmacy consultant completed monthly audits of the medication carts and she had not received information about issues with the medication carts.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, resident interviews, Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility's...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, resident interviews, Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions the committee put into place following the 2/24/22 focused infection control and complaint survey, and the 10/26/21 and 1/31/23 recertification and complaint survey. This was for 7 recited deficiencies on the current complaint and recertification survey of 5/16/24 in the areas of Care Plan Timing and Revision (F657), Activities of Daily Living Care Provided for Dependent Residents (F677), Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care and Suctioning (F695), Registered Nurse (RN) 8 hours/7 Days a Week, Full Time DON (F727), Posted Nurse Staffing Information (F732), Label and Store Drugs and Biologicals (F761), and Infection Prevention and Control (F880). The continued failure during two or more federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. The findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F657: Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to update the care plan in the area of contracture management for 1 of 1resident reviewed for limited range of motion (Resident #39). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 1/31/23, the facility failed to update a resident's individualized care plan related to discharge and failed to hold a quarterly care plan meeting for residents reviewed for care plans. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed the previous administrative team completed the education and auditing and resolved the plan of correction for the deficient practice. The Administrator stated the nursing department was responsible for the initial care plan, but the MDS Nurse was responsible for updating the care plan when the splint was ordered. F677: Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, Resident interview, and Responsible Party (RP) interview, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to residents that were incontinent and dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #10 and Resident #217). During the focused infection control and complaint survey of 2/24/22, the facility failed to provide incontinence care for residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 1/31/23, the facility failed to provide nail care to residents who needed extensive assistance and/or were dependent for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed the previous administrative team completed the education and auditing and resolved the plan of corrections for the deficient practices. The Administrator stated the Director of Nursing was ultimately responsible for ensuring care was provided, but he stated the facility needed a more robust plan of education and thorough monitoring to ensure the deficient practice did not occur again. F695: Based on observation, record review, Resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #7). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 1/31/23, the facility failed to ensure emergency equipment was present at the bedside for residents with tracheostomies. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed the previous administrative team completed the education and auditing and resolved the plan of correction for the deficient practice. The Administrator stated he expected that the deficient practice remained resolved, however it was clear the facility needed a more solid plan to ensure compliance. F727: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty at least 8 hours a day with a facility census of greater than 60 residents for 6 of 91 days reviewed (6/11/2023, 6/18/2023, 6/22/2023, 6/25/2023, 6/28/2023, and 6/29/2023). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 1/31/23, the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 53 days of 135 days reviewed for staffing. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed the previous administrative team completed the education and auditing and resolved the plan of correction for the deficient practice. The Administrator stated the Director of Nursing (DON) was currently the acting staffing coordinator, but he stated the previous staffing coordinator should have informed her of the need for RN coverage. F732: Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to post nurse staffing information in a location that was readily accessible to residents and visitors on 4 of 4 days during the survey (5/13/2024, 5/14/2024, 5/15/2024, and 5/16/2024). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 1/31/23, the facility failed to post accurate nurse staffing information for Registered Nurses (RN) for 23 of 43 days reviewed and observed for posted staffing. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed the prior deficient practice was resolved by the previous administrative team and the posted nursing staffing location was an area he identified but he did not follow up with the location of the nurse staff posting. F761: Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to remove expired medications, date open medications, and failed to refrigerate medications according to the manufacturer's recommendations for 1 of 2 medications cart reviewed (Hall 300). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 1/31/23, the facility failed to discard expired medication, date opened insulin and store medication per manufacturers recommendation. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed the previous administrative team completed the education and auditing and resolved the plan of correction for the deficient practice. The Administrator stated the DON was responsible for ensuring the carts were checked, but he stated he was not aware of any concerns prior to the current survey. F880: Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement infection prevention program policies and procedures when Nurse Aide (NA) #3 failed to perform hand hygiene after performing incontinence care for 1 of 1 resident observed for incontinence care (Resident #10), and NA #1 failed to perform hand hygiene between resident rooms when passing meal trays (room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]) for 1 of 1 NA observed during meal tray delivery. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 10/26/21, the facility failed to use an approved procedure to clean and disinfect a shared glucometer used for residents reviewed for fingerstick blood glucose tests. The facility also failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene when passing trays to resident rooms. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 1/31/23, the facility failed to maintain a sterile field while performing tracheostomy care. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm with the Administrator who revealed the previous administrative team completed the education and auditing and resolved the plan of correction for the deficient practice and the facility had not identified any concern prior to the current survey.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written notice of discharge or transfer to the Respo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written notice of discharge or transfer to the Responsible Party (RP) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #1). The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. The change in condition assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was sent to the hospital due to chest pain. Record review of the nursing progress notes revealed there was no documentation that the Responsible Party (RP) received written notice of discharge or transfer when the resident was sent to the hospital. Review of the progress notes revealed Resident #1 returned to the facility on 4/15/2024. In an interview with the RP on 5/16/2024 at 1:06 p.m. he revealed he did not receive a written notice of discharge or transfer for Resident #1 for the hospitalization that occurred on 4/13/2024. During an interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 5/16/2024 at 9:44 a.m. she revealed she could not remember if the written notice of discharge or transfer was sent to the RP. She revealed she would usually provide the notice of discharge or transfer to the resident during a discharge or transfer. During an interview with the Administrator on 5/15/2024 at 9:32 a.m. he revealed it was the responsibility of the SW to send a written notice of discharge or transfer to the RP when there is a discharge or transfer.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Minor procedural issue · 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 update the care plan in the area of contractu...

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 update the care plan in the area of contracture management for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for limited range of motion (Resident #39). The findings included: Resident # 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke with hemiplegia (paralysis) of the right side. Review of the care plan last revised on 3/05/24 revealed Resident #39 had an activities of daily living (ADLs) self-care deficit related to hemiplegia with interventions which included physical and occupational therapy evaluation and treatment. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had severe cognitive impairment and had functional limitations of range of motion of the upper and lower extremities. A physician order dated 4/01/24 revealed occupational therapy splinting hand roll to right hand. A physician order dated 4/01/24 indicated to remove splint (hand roll) right hand at 2:00 pm. Skin checks around area of splint after removal one time a day for contracture management. A physician order dated 4/02/24 stated to apply splint (hand roll) to right hand at 10:00 am. Skin checks around area of splint prior to application one time a day for contracture management. Resident #39's care plan did not reflect the use of hand splint for contracture management. Observations on 5/14/24 at 1:44 pm and 5/15/24 at 2:14 pm revealed Resident #39 was observed with a hand roll in the right hand. An interview was conducted on 5/15/24 at 12:16 pm with Nurse Aide (NA) #2 who revealed Resident #39 used the hand roll in the right hand and it was placed in her hand after morning care was completed. A telephone interview was conducted with the MDS Nurse on 5/16/24 at 11:47 am who reported she received an email (unsure of the date) from the Therapy Manager with a list of residents that used splints to develop a care plan, but she stated she may not have gotten to Resident #39's yet. The MDS Nurse confirmed Resident #39 was listed on the email from the Therapy Manager regarding the right-hand splint for contracture management, but she just had not gotten the care plan done yet. An interview was conducted with the Therapy Manager on 5/16/24 at 12:35 pm who revealed he sent the MDS Nurse information regarding Resident #39's right-hand splint when the order was placed so a care plan could be developed. An interview was conducted on 5/16/24 at 9:46 am with the Director of Nursing (DON) who reported the MDS Nurse was responsible to develop Resident #39's care plan for the right-hand splint. During an interview on 5/16/24 at 1:49 pm the Administrator revealed the MDS Nurse was responsible for development of the care plan for Resident #39's contracture management.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to post nurse staffing information in a location that was readily accessible to residents and visitors on 4 of 4 days during the survey (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to post nurse staffing information in a location that was readily accessible to residents and visitors on 4 of 4 days during the survey (5/13/2024, 5/14/2024, 5/15/2024, and 5/16/2024). The findings included: During an initial observation on 5/13/2024 at 10:16 a.m., the Daily Nursing Staff posting could not be located at the lobby and all nursing halls. A further observation on 5/13/2024 at 1:17 p.m., and on 5/13/2024 at 3:17 p.m. revealed the daily nursing staff posting could not be located either in the nursing halls or the lobby. During an observation on 5/14/2024 at 11:42 a.m., the daily nursing staff posting could not be located either in the nursing halls or the lobby. An observation on 5/15/2024 at 9:40 a.m. revealed the daily nurse staff posting was hung on the wall past the nursing station on hall 200 by the Rehab Service entrance which was accessible for staff and residents on hall 200 only. The daily nurse staffing sheet was a white, landscaped 8x10-inch piece of paper inside a folder strapped to the wall. The daily nurse staff posting was not visible or accessible for all residents or visitors to view. Additional observations on 5/16/2024 at 10:15 a.m. and on 5/16/2024 at 12:35 p.m. of the facility's daily nurse staff posting revealed it was hung on the wall past the nursing station on hall 200 by the Rehab Service entrance which was accessible for staff and residents on hall 200 only. The daily nurse staffing sheet was a white, landscaped 8x10-inch piece of paper inside a folder strapped to the wall. The daily nurse staff posting was not visible or accessible for all residents or visitors to view. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/15/2024 at 9:40 a.m. she revealed she is the scheduler and thought the daily nursing staff posting was in the right location. She stated it should have been posted in a more visible place. She revealed she will move the daily nursing staff posting to an area where all residents and visitors can access it. An interview with the Administrator on 5/16/2024 at 1:20 p.m. revealed the facility's daily staff posting was to be placed in an area that was visible for all residents and visitors to view. He revealed he was aware it was placed in Hall 200 past the nursing station.
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews with resident, resident caregiver, Ombudsman, Adult Protective Services (APS) Social Worker, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews with resident, resident caregiver, Ombudsman, Adult Protective Services (APS) Social Worker, staff, home care agency, home health agency, and Physician Assistant, the facility failed to comprehensively assess a resident's home environment and ensure caregivers and resources were in place prior to discharge to ensure Resident #1 was discharged to a safe environment where her needs were met. Resident #1, who was diagnosed as legally blind, was discharged on 5/10/23 to her home in the community where she resided independently. On 5/11/23 a home visit was conducted by APS who assessed the environment as unsafe due to the resident having no phone for emergency use, no working refrigerator or means to obtain meals/nutrition, no hot water, and the resident had not taken her medication since discharge the previous day as the resident could not tell which medications were required due to her impaired vision. Resident #1 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. This was for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for discharge. The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included legal blindness, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and left tibia plateau fracture. Review of a nursing admission note date 8/18/22 revealed Resident #1 was admitted for discharge after the surgical repair of a left tibia/fibula (the two long bones in the lower leg) fracture following a fall with fracture sustained when she resided in the community. Resident #1 was admitted for short term rehabilitation therapy due to her limited resources and support at home. Resident #1 ' s care plan initiated 1/11/23 had a focus that Resident #1 wished to return home, however it was not safe for her to do so, and family was attempting to find her assistance with caregivers. The resident ' s discharge goal was to go home safely and remain in her trailer. Interventions for discharge planning included: - I want a list of important information to take with me when I am discharged including appointments. - I want a list of important information to take with me when I am discharged including contacts. - I want a list of important information to take with me when I am discharged including home health services. - I want a list of important information to take with me when I am discharged including physicians. - I want to participate actively in my discharge plan. - Talk with me often about discharge plan so that I know what is happening and when it will happen. During an interview with the Ombudsman on 5/22/23 at 3:00 PM she indicated that a care plan meeting was conducted on 4/6/23 to discuss preparation for Resident #1 ' s discharge. The meeting consisted of the Administrator, Regional Clinical Director, Social Services Director, Therapy Director and Caregiver #1. During the meeting the barriers to Resident #1 discharging home were discussed and a virtual tour of her home was reviewed. At that time, the team was waiting for Resident #1 to complete her intravenous antibiotic and an update on her weight bearing status. The medical record included no documentation of the 4/6/23 care plan meeting to discuss preparation for Resident #1 ' s discharge as referenced by the Ombudsman. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 ' s vision was moderately impaired, and her cognition was intact. She required limited assistance of 1 for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and bathing. Resident #1 required supervision with the assistance of 1 for dressing and personal hygiene. Resident #1 was coded as lower extremity impairment on both sides. She used a walker and wheelchair for mobility. She was receiving Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational Therapy (OT). Resident #1 was coded as having a diabetic foot ulcer. During an interview with the Ombudsman on 5/22/23 at 3:00 PM she stated when she was at the facility on 5/7/23 and at the time the facility had not come up with a definite date for Resident #1 to be discharged . The Physician Assistant (PA) who assessed Resident #1 on 5/9/23 at 1:00 PM documented in the resident ' s medical record she saw the resident for discharge planning. For disposition the PA documented the following: Patient is seen sitting in wheelchair, happy to be going home tomorrow. Patient states she is eager to go home and get herself a new fridge as she stated it had broken since her time at the facility. The patient was informed she would be discharged with 30 days of medication and home health. Patient was encouraged to follow up with her primary care physician and specialists. Review of a Request for Independent Assessment for Personal Care Services (PCS) Attestation of Medical Need with a request date of 5/9/23 was signed by the Physician Assistant. The document indicated Resident #1 currently resided at the facility, was medically stable, and needed 24-hour caregiver availability to ensure her safety. Review of a Report of Consultation dated 5/9/23 revealed Resident #1 had a left lateral foot ulcer that measured 0.4 centimeters (cm) x 0.4 cm x 0.2 cm. Resident #1 also had a left anterior leg ulcer that measured 14 cm x 14.8 cm x 0.1 cm and was described as measuring smaller with granulation tissue. The recommendations for the report were for Resident #1 to continue current plan of treatment, pressure relief to left lateral foot and return in one week to wound care clinic on 5/16/23 at 9:30 AM. A review of the Discharge Plan and Summary completed on 5/10/23 by the Social Services Director revealed Resident #1 was ready to return to the community and lived independently prior to admission. Resident #1 ' s initial discharge goals were to return to the community and barriers to discharge goal were physical challenges and the resident was legally blind. There had been no changes to the resident ' s initial goal and the expected goal. Resident #1 did have an interest in receiving information regarding returning to the community. Resident #1 ' s intended discharge location was to her private residence. The document indicated Resident #1 did not have a caregiver at the time of admission but would need a caregiver after discharge. Resident #1 needed Home Health Services that included a Home Health nurse/aide (the resident needed nursing care and nurse aide services) and Home Health Therapy. Medication reconciliation was completed, and a post-discharge medication list was reviewed and sent home with Resident #1. There was no resident signature on the Discharge Plan and Summary. There was no evidence in the medical record of a referral for home health services. A review of the discharge medication list revealed the following medications: -Amlodipine Besylate 10 milligrams (mg) -Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for hypertension. -Aspirin 81 mg Oral Tablet Chewable- Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for blood thinner. -Atorvastatin Calcium 80 mg Oral Tablet- Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for cholesterol. -Brimonidine Tartrate Ophthalmic Solution 0.2%- Instill 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for eye care. - Combigan Ophthalmic Solution 0.2-0.5%- Instill 1 drop in right eye two times a day for eye care. - Dorzolamide HCL Ophthalmic Solution 2% - Instill 1 drop in right eye two times a day for eye care. - Escitalopram Oxalate Oral Tablet 10 mg- Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for depression/anxiety. - Furosemide Oral Tablet 40 mg- Give 1 tablet by mouth n the morning for diuretic. - Gabapentin Oral Capsule 300 mg- Give 2 capsule by mouth two times a day for neuropathy. - Glipizide 10 mg tablet- Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for diabetes. - Ketorolac Tromethamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.5%- Instill 1 drop in right eye one time a day for eye care. - Lactulose Oral Solution 10grams (GM)/15milliliters(ml)- 30ml by mouth two times a day for take with breakfast and lunch. - Latanoprost Ophthalmic Solution 0.005%- Instill 1 drop in both eyes in the evening for eye care - Linagliptin Oral Tablet 5mg- Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for diabetes. - Loratadine Oral Tablet 10mg- Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for allergies. - Losartan Potassium Oral Tablet 25mg -Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for hypertension. - Plavix Oral Tablet 75mg - Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for SFA Stenosis (Narrowing of the deep femoral artery) of Left Leg - Potassium Chloride Extended Release (ER) 20 milliequivalents (MEQ)- Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for hypokalemia (low potassium). - Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution 0.5%- Instill 1 drop in both eyes two ties a day for eye care. - Vitamin-B Complex Oral Tablet- Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for supplement. On 5/23/23 at 2:43 PM an interview was conducted with Nurse #1 who was the resident ' s nurse on 5/10/23 when she was discharged from the facility. Nurse #1 stated she did not review the medications with Resident #1. Nurse #1 indicated she was down the hall working with another resident when Resident #1 left. She stated she was informed Resident #1 was gone when she went back to the room and was not sure who had pushed Resident #1 in her wheelchair up to the front. During an interview on 5/22/23 at 1:03 PM with the Social Services Director, she stated Resident #1 wanted to be discharged for a while. The Social Services Director stated Resident #1 was blind and she lived alone prior to admission to the facility and the discharge plan was for her to return to her independent home. The Social Services Director indicated she had completed an application for CAP (Community Alternative Program) services (multiple services that are provided for persons with disability or seniors 65 years and older) back in March and had not received notification of approval at the time of Resident #1 ' s discharge on [DATE]. An interview was conducted with APS SW on 5/23/23 at 11:10 AM. The APS SW stated she received a report. She was unable to disclose who she received the report from. that Resident #1 had been discharged from the facility on 5/10/23 after the resident had already been discharged from the facility. The APS SW indicated the facility was supposed to notify the Department of Social Services (DSS) prior to discharging Resident #1 to ensure an 8-hour CAP aide was in place. DSS helped to coordinate CAP services which was an extension of Personal Care Services. Personal Care Services benefited individuals that required assistance with activities of daily living to include eating, dressing, bathing, toileting and mobility. Personal Care Services were determined by an independent assessment that was conducted by North Carolina Medicaid. CAP services and benefited individuals that had a disability or seniors (65 years and older) and were at risk for nursing home placement. Resident #1 had CAP services when she resided in her home previously. The CAP aide provided Resident #1 with daytime supervision, homemaker services (light housecleaning, laundry, shopping for essentials) chore services (removal of garbage, clutter from one ' s home for safety purposes) meal preparation or meal delivery, and nonmedical transportation. The APS SW stated she was informed by the Social Services Director on 5/10/23 that Resident #1 was supposed to have an aide from Personal Care Services come out to her home that afternoon (5/10/23) or the next day (5/11/23). The APS SW stated when she arrived at Resident #1 ' s home on the morning of 5/11/23 at approximately 9:00 AM Resident #1 had not eaten at all that day, had not taken any medication since discharge from facility, there was no working refrigerator in the house, there was no hot water, and the telephone did not work so Resident #1 had no way of contacting 911 in an emergency. The facility had placed all of Resident #1 ' s in one box and the resident was unable to tell which medications were required due to her impaired vision. The APS SW stated she reached out to Caregiver #1 on 5/11/23 and was informed that she had not been made aware of Resident #1 discharging home on 5/10/23. The APS SW stated Caregiver #1 (a neighbor to Resident #1 ' s home in the community) stated she was willing to assist Resident #1 with filling her medication tray as she had filled her medication tray previously when she resided independently in the community. The APS SW stated if she had known Resident #1 was being discharged , she would have connected her with at home meal delivery resources. The APS SW indicated Resident #1 had meal delivery services previously when she resided at home. Review of an admission note dated 5/11/23 revealed Resident #1 was readmitted to the facility from the hospital emergency department after APS assessed her home environment as unsafe. During an interview with Resident #1 on 5/22/23 at 12:10 PM she stated she was told by the Social Services Director that a nurse aide would be at the house the evening of discharge (5/10/23) or the next day (5/11/23). Resident #1 stated the Social Services Director had packed up all her belongings. She stated she did not recall anyone going over her medications with her. Resident #1 stated that she was pushed by wheelchair to the front of the facility where she was assisted to the car by the Social Services Director. Resident #1 stated Caregiver #2 (a friend to Resident #1) had picked her up from the facility. Resident #1 stated she and Caregiver #2 went out to eat and she attempted to get her cell phone activated but was unsuccessful due to the phone number she previously had being unavailable. She indicated that she was not concerned about not having a phone overnight because Caregiver #4 (a neighbor to Resident #1 ' s home in the community who resided with Caregiver #1) usually checked on her every morning. Caregiver #4 had not been made aware that Resident #1 been discharged and was at home. Resident #1 stated when she got home later that evening Caregiver #2 assisted her into the house. Caregiver #2 brought in the resident ' s belongings and placed her medication box in her bedroom. Resident #1 stated she was expecting that the nurse aide would come in the next day, and she could assist her with putting away her things. Resident #1 stated that she had planned to ask Caregiver #1 to come over to fill her medication tray the next day. Resident #1 stated she was going out the next day to get a new phone so she could contact Caregiver #1. She stated she had not taken her medications the previous evening because they were all packed up in 1 box and she couldn ' t tell which was which. Resident #1 stated she was looking forward to getting another refrigerator and did not know about there being an issue with the hot water until she arrived the evening of 5/10/23. Resident #1 stated she planned to get Caregiver #3 to take her to pick up something to eat when they went out to get her another phone on 5/11/23. She stated that she did have meal delivery services prior to going to the facility and a Personal Care Services aide that came in 7 days a week to assist her with medication, meals, and light housework. Resident #1 was upset that she had to return to the facility and stated that she had managed independently at home before and was eager to get back to her home. Resident #1 further stated she was asleep when DSS knocked on the door on 5/10/23, so she had not eaten nor taken her medication yet. Resident #1 was unable to explain what she would have done in the case of emergency being that she had no working phone. A telephone interview was conducted on 5/24/23 at 2:21 PM with Caregiver #2 who picked up Resident #1 on 5/10/23 when she was discharged from the facility. Caregiver #2 stated she did not participate in any decisions related to care and was not involved in discharge planning for Resident #1. She stated that she did not enter the facility to pick up Resident #1 on 5/10/23, she (Resident #1) was brought to the front in a wheelchair by the Social Services Director. Caregiver #2 explained that her relationship with Resident #1 was as a friend, and she ran errands for Resident #1 from time to time. An interview was conducted with Caregiver #3 (a friend to Resident #1) on 5/23/23 at 12:34 PM. Caregiver #3 stated she assisted Resident #1 by running errands and taking her out to take care of personal business. Caregiver #3 stated she had some safety concerns about Resident #1 going home and not being notified ahead of time. During an interview on 5/22/23 at 1:03 PM with the Social Services Director, she stated she did a referral to the Home Care Agency the week prior to Resident #1 discharging. She stated she sent the staffing coordinator of the Home Care Agency a referral for Resident #1 ' s Personal Care Services. The Social Services Director stated Resident #1 was to have two different types of services. She stated that she thought the Personal Care Services would start immediately once the resident was in the home and that PT/OT services required a nurse assessment prior to services starting so those would not start right away. The Social Services Director revealed she followed up with the Home Care Agency on 5/10/23 and she learned a nurse could not come out to assess Resident #1 until she had been discharged from the facility and the assessment would have to be made at the resident ' s home. The Home Care Agency indicated they had to send the referral to their corporate office and the corporate office would schedule a nurse to go out to assess the resident in the home prior to Personal Care Services beginning. They indicated the process could take about 2 weeks before a Personal Care aide would be in the home. The Social Services Director stated she was not aware there would be a waiting period for Personal Care Services to start when she sent in the referral, and she learned this information on the day of discharge. The Social Services Director revealed she was confused about the services provided by the Home Care Agency. She explained she did not realize that the referral she submitted to the Home Care Agency was only for Personal Care Services until this survey. She revealed she had not completed a referral for Home Health Services for PT/OT. An interview was conducted with the Staffing Coordinator of the Home Care Agency on 5/22/23 at 11:55 AM. She stated Resident #1 had been a patient of theirs prior to going to the skilled nursing facility. The Staffing Coordinator stated the agency had received a referral for Resident #1 on 5/9/22. She indicated the referral was sent to the agency ' s corporate office to check to see if Resident #1 had coverage for services. The Staffing Coordinator stated that a 3051 form (Form used to request personal care services based on medical need) had to be completed by the facility. The facility had completed the form and submitted it on 5/9/23. She revealed once this form was received it could take up to 2 weeks for there to be services in the home. The Staffing Coordinator indicated once the forms were reviewed, corporate would send a nurse to Resident #1 ' s home to complete an assessment and determine which Personal Care Services the resident required. The Personal Care Services included assistance with personal care, medication reminders, meal assistance, and light housekeeping. An interview was conducted on 5/24/23 at 12:57 PM with the Intake Supervisor of the Home Health Agency Resident #1 had prior to entering the skilled nursing facility. The supervisor indicated Resident #1 was not a patient of theirs. The Home Health Agency received their most recent referral for Resident #1 on 2/17/21 prior to the resident ' s admission to the facility. The Home Health Agency had been following Resident #1 and were told by the Social Services Director she was staying at the rehab facility long term on 3/17/23. The Social Services Director told the Home Health Agency she would contact Home Health when Resident #1 was going home, to set up PT/OT services. The supervisor stated no one had contacted then at that point to say Resident #1 was being discharged . During interview on 5/22/23 at 1:03 PM the Social Services Director stated the facility did not do a home assessment but had the Therapy Director review a recorded video that was submitted April by resident Caregiver #4 to assure the facility that the property was safe. The Social Services Director stated Resident #1 did not have any relatives in the area and would depend on caregivers to assist. The Social Services Director stated she had no knowledge of there not being any hot water, no refrigerator and no telephone for emergency use. The Social Services Director stated Resident #1 assured her that she had caregivers and friends who would assist her with getting something to eat and taking her medications. She further stated Resident #1 had indicated that Caregiver #3 assisted her with going to her medical appointments. The Social Services Director revealed she did not verify this information with the caregivers. The Social Services Director stated she did make an APS (Adult Protective Services) call as soon as Resident #1 left the facility to have them check on the resident since she was blind and going home alone. She indicated she also called the Sheriff ' s Department on 5/10/23 to do a wellness check on Resident #1. She stated when the Sheriff ' s Department got to the home Resident #1 had not gotten home yet. The Social Services Director verified Resident #1 did not leave against medical advice (AMA). It was a planned discharge. Caregiver #1 was notified the day of her discharge. The Social Services Director stated she called Caregiver #1 to make sure that Resident #1 ' s utilities were working. The Social Services Director stated a meeting that included Caregiver #1 along with the Ombudsman was held in April prior to Resident #1 being discharged . She was unsure of the date. An interview was conducted with Caregiver #1 on 5/22/23 at 12:13 PM. Caregiver #1 stated she was notified of Resident #1 ' s discharge on [DATE] when the Social Services Director left a message to ensure Resident #1 ' s utilities were on. Caregiver #1 stated Resident #1 had already been discharged when she received the message. Caregiver #1 indicated Resident #1 needed a lot of help and there was no one to check on her daily. Caregiver #1 stated she had been involved in a care plan meeting back in April 2023 to discuss Resident #1 ' s possible discharge but no estimated date was given. Caregiver #1 stated she was unable to be at Resident #1 ' s home when she arrived there on 5/10/23 because she was at work and did not receive a notification in advance so that she could plan. Caregiver #1 stated she was very concerned about Resident #1 ' s safety at home overnight without a way to contact someone in case of an emergency. Caregiver #1 stated she had assisted Resident #1 with filling her pill tray each week prior to her going to the facility. Caregiver #1 stated she would take the resident to pick up a meal occasionally and sometimes run an errand for her when she resided at home previously. During an interview with the Rehab Director on 5/22/23 at 1:19 PM she stated she was responsible for making sure the Social Services Director was aware of any type of assistive equipment needed by the residents. She stated therapy assesses how residents get in and out of their homes and in Resident #1 ' s case she had a ramp. The Rehab Director stated she did not go out to do a safe home assessment. She asked a family member to send a video of the home in April. The Rehab Director stated she saw the bedroom, the bathroom, and the den and door entrance way. Caregiver #4 who made the video of the home did not inform the Rehab Director that there were any issues with the water. The Rehab Director indicated Resident #1 had modified independence due to her blindness. The Rehab Director further indicated they had spoken with Resident #1 about being at home alone and she was insistent that she would be alright. She stated Resident #1 had impaired vision prior to being admitted to the nursing home and she had been living on her own for years. The Rehab Director stated Resident #1 assured her that her family member lived across the street, and they would check on her early in the morning. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing on 5/22/23 at 12:01 PM. The DON stated the Social Services Director discussed residents that were to be discharged in the daily morning meeting. She indicated the Social Services Director was responsible for arranging home care and home health services. The DON further stated the Social Services Director worked alongside the nursing team to get prescriptions/medications to send home with the residents. The DON stated a discharge assessment was completed when residents were discharged . The DON stated if a resident was their own responsible party, then the facility did not have to notify anyone of the discharge. The DON stated she was not aware that the Social Services Director did not arrange for home health services for Resident #1. The DON stated the Social Services Director did not understand the referral process for Home Health Services and failed to verify the resident ' s statements of who would help care for her. The DON stated the Social Services Director needed to verify each aspect of a resident ' s discharge to include the dates and times when an aide would be coming out to the home. An interview was conducted with the Physician Assistant (PA) on 5/23/23 10:28 AM. The PA indicated Resident #1 had been discussing going home for about a month. She stated that Resident #1 ' s stay at the facility had been prolonged due to her being on intravenous antibiotic and her non weight bearing status. The PA stated Resident #1 was cleared by the orthopedist and she was told there was a person available to do a wellness check. The PA indicated she was aware the refrigerator was broken but felt that Resident #1 was competent and could care for herself. The PA stated she was not aware there was an issue with the hot water, telephone, or meals. She reported she was told by the Social Services Director Resident #1 had someone nearby that could provide the resident with meals. The PA further indicated she felt that it was not a requirement that someone be at home with Resident #1 if she had a phone. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/23/23 at 2:00 PM. The Administrator indicated the interdisciplinary team had a care conference in April with Caregiver #1 on the telephone to discuss Resident #1 ' s discharge. She stated there was no definite date of discharge at the time of the April meeting and the facility was working on getting things ready for the resident to discharge at a later date. The Administrator stated Resident #1 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] after the APS SW went to the home and determined the home environment was not safe.
Jan 2023 20 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff, Wound Care Physician, and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to provide ongoing skin assessments, monitor consistently, and ensure treatments and interventions were implemented to prevent pressure ulcer development and worsening for a resident at risk for pressure ulcers who was admitted to the facility without pressure ulcers. On 10/02/22 Resident #67 was identified with a stage 2 pressure ulcer on his sacrum that worsened to a stage 4 pressure ulcer on 11/9/22. On 12/25/22 Resident #67 was diagnosed with osteomyelitis on admission to the hospital. In addition, the facility had a lower level of deficient practice when the facility failed to provide ongoing skin assessments, consistent wound monitoring, and to implement interventions of a low air-loss mattress and turning and repositioning as recommended by the wound care physician for Resident #5. This deficient practice affected 2 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #67 and #5). Immediate Jeopardy began on 11/09/22 when the facility failed to assess and identify a stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer for Resident #67. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 1/28/23 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity level E (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure that the education and the monitoring systems put in place are effective and to address deficient practice for Resident #5. Findings included: 1. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included traumatic brain dysfunction and respiratory failure. The head-to-toe skin assessment dated [DATE] at 8:28 AM revealed Resident #67 had no pressure ulcers present on the 7/11/22 admission. Resident #67's care plan initiated on 7/13/22 had a focus for potential impairment to skin integrity related to fragile skin, immobility, and incontinence. The interventions included weekly skin assessments and use caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking arms, legs, and hands against any sharp or hard surface. A pressure sore scale for predicting pressure sore risk dated 7/18/22 at 4:28 PM assessed the resident was at high risk. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 had severe cognitive impairment and was totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living including bed mobility. The assessment noted no pressure ulcers, always incontinent of bowel and bladder, was on a scheduled pain medication regimen, received no as needed pain medication, had no weight gain or loss and received 100% nutrition through a feeding tube. The resident had no behaviors or refusal of care. He was coded to have a pressure reducing device for bed. The weekly skin assessments from 7/11/22 through 8/30/22 revealed no pressure ulcers present. The weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed a stage 2 neck pressure ulcer which was treated and resolved on 9/28/22. The weekly skin assessment completed by Nurse #10 dated 9/28/22 revealed moisture associated skin damage to the sacrum. The September 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the 8/16/22 treatment order for skin protectant ointment to be applied to buttocks three times per day. The weekly skin assessment completed by Nurse #2 dated 10/02/22 revealed a stage 2 pressure ulcer to the sacrum. An interview on 1/27/23 at 2:04 PM with Nurse #2 revealed she was not currently employed at the facility but had been assigned to provide care for Resident #67 three nights per week for the three months she worked at the facility. She stated that wound care treatments were completed during the day and did not remember completing the weekly skin assessment. The care plan was not updated when the sacral pressure ulcer was identified. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 had severe cognitive impairment and was totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living including bed mobility. The assessment noted one unstageable pressure ulcer which was not present on admission, always incontinent of bowel and bladder, was not on a scheduled pain medication regimen, received no as needed pain medication, had no weight gain or loss and received 100% nutrition through a feeding tube. The resident had no behaviors or refusal of care. He was coded to have a pressure reducing device for bed, received pressure ulcer/injury care, and application of ointments/medications to other than feet. The October 2022 TAR revealed a continuation of the 8/16/22 treatment order for skin protectant ointment to be applied to buttocks three times per day. An additional treatment order dated 10/14/22 read in part for Collagenase (used to remove dead tissue) ointment applied to sacrum every day. This treatment was not signed as completed on 10/19/22 and 10/22/22. An interview on 1/27/23 at 8:52 AM with Nurse #9 revealed she had obtained the order dated 10/14/22 for Collagenase. She stated she did not remember if the physician assessed the sacral wound or if she called him. She stated she observed the wound when assisting the Nursing Assistant (NA) with resident care on 10/14/22. Nurse #9 also stated she did not complete wound measurements or notify management about this wound. She stated that if she completed the wound care treatments, she signed the TAR. There were no weekly skin checks or pressure ulcer assessment notes after 10/02/22 until 11/09/22. Resident #67 was first assessed and treated by the Wound Care Physician for his sacral pressure ulcer on 11/09/22. His wound evaluation and management summary dated 11/09/22 read, in part, that Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum. The sacral pressure ulcer measured 6.5 centimeters (cm) by 5.0 cm by 0.1 cm. The ulcer had moderate serous exudate with 80% necrotic tissue and 20% granulation tissue. His ulcer detail note read, in part, that the resident was seen for initial evaluation and management of recent development of unstageable necrosis pressure injury of the sacrum. His plan of care recommendations included to off-load wound, turn side to side and front to back in bed every 1-2 hours if able, and a low air-loss mattress. His dressing treatment plan recommendations were for an absorbent, antimicrobial dressing applied daily for 30 days and Collagenase ointment applied daily for 30 days. Resident #67's wound evaluation and management summary dated 11/16/22 read, in part that Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum. The sacral pressure ulcer measured 7.0 cm by 5.0 cm by 1.5 cm. The ulcer had moderate serous exudate with 60% necrotic tissue, 30% slough, and 10% granulation tissue. Resident #67's wound evaluation and management summary dated 11/23/22 read, in part that Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum. The sacral pressure ulcer measured 7.0 cm by 5.0 cm by 1.9 cm. The ulcer had moderate serous exudate with 70% necrotic tissue, and 30% slough. Resident #67's wound evaluation and management summary dated 11/30/22 read, in part that Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum. The sacral pressure ulcer measured 7.0 cm by 5.0 cm by 1.8 cm. The ulcer had moderate serous exudate with 20% necrotic tissue, 50% slough, and 30% granulation tissue. Resident #67's wound evaluation and management summary dated 12/07/22 read, in part that Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum. The sacral pressure ulcer measured 7.0 cm by 5.0 cm by 1.8 cm. The ulcer had moderate serous exudate with 70% necrotic tissue and 30% slough. Resident #67's wound evaluation and management summary dated 12/14/22 read, in part that Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum. The sacral pressure ulcer measured 7.0 cm by 5.0 cm by 1.9 cm. The ulcer had moderate serous exudate with 60% necrotic tissue and 40% slough. Resident #67's wound evaluation and management summary dated 12/21/22 read, in part that Resident #67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum. The sacral pressure ulcer measured 7.0 cm by 5.0 cm by 1.9 cm with undermining of 4.3 cm at 3 o'clock. There was a deep tissue injury (DTI) noted within the wound bed area. The ulcer had moderate serous exudate with 60% necrotic tissue, 30% slough, and 10% granulation tissue. An interview with the Wound Care Physician on 1/11/23 at 3:00 PM revealed he made recommendations in his wound care notes. He stated he had recommended a low air-loss mattress for Resident #67 on his 11/09/22 recommendations. He also stated that a low air-loss mattress and turning and repositioning were vital to wound healing. Another interview with the Wound Care Physician on 1/27/23 at 11:44 AM revealed he was consulted by the facility to see Resident #67. He stated he could not say how the resident's wound developed, but confirmed it was a stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer when he initially assessed it on 11/09/22. He stated the resident was at high risk for wound development due to his medical comorbidities. The Wound Care Physician stated that he followed the resident weekly and when he saw him on 12/21/22 he noted no signs or symptoms of infection, but the resident had a high biofilm (thin, slimy film of bacteria that adheres to a surface) and necrotic burden (dead tissue that is a physical barrier and is a medium for bacterial growth), so he was at high risk of developing an osteomyelitis infection. The November 2022 TAR revealed a continuation of the 8/16/22 treatment order for skin protectant ointment to be applied to buttocks three times per day. The treatment order dated 10/14/22 for Collagenase to the sacrum was discontinued on 11/09/22. This treatment was not signed as completed on 11/2/22 and 11/4/22. The November 2022 TAR also had an order dated 11/09/22 for Collagenase ointment with an absorbent, antimicrobial dressing to be applied every day. This order was discontinued on 11/16/22. This treatment was not signed as completed on 11/11/22. The November 2022 TAR had an order dated 11/16/22 for Collagenase ointment with an absorbent, antimicrobial dressing to be applied every day. This treatment was not signed as completed on 11/18/22, 11/23/22, and 11/26/22. Resident #67's care plan was updated on 11/29/22 with an additional focus area notation that the resident had a pressure wound to inner buttocks. The goals and interventions were not updated. The weekly skin assessment completed by Nurse #11 dated 12/07/22 revealed a stage 4 pressure ulcer to the sacrum. The wound measurements were 7.0 cm x 5.0 cm x 1.8 cm. An interview with the Nurse #11 on 1/27/23 at 11:23 AM revealed she was an agency nurse and had worked at the facility for a couple of months mostly as the wound care nurse. She stated she rarely saw the resident in a different position and did not feel he was turned or repositioned as he should have been to prevent his pressure ulcers from getting worse or not healing. She stated the hall nurse was responsible for completing the residents' weekly skin assessments. She also stated that they were responsible for completing the residents' wound care treatments if there was no wound care nurse. The Wound Care Physician's wound evaluation and management summary dated 12/21/22 did not indicate concerns about infection and noted moderate serous drainage. The wound was debrided to remove necrotic tissue and biofilm and health bleeding tissue was observed. The wound measurements were 7.0 cm x 5.0 cm x 1.9 cm. The December 2022 TAR revealed a continuation of the 8/16/22 treatment order for skin protectant ointment to be applied to buttocks every shift which was three times per day. This treatment order was discontinued on 12/30/22. The December 2022 TAR had an order dated 11/16/22 for Collagenase ointment with an absorbent, antimicrobial dressing to be applied every day. This order was discontinued on 12/20.22. This treatment was not signed as completed on 12/01/22, 12/09/22, 12/13/22, and 12/17/22. The December 2022 TAR had an order dated 12/20/22 for Collagenase ointment and collagen powder with an absorbent, antimicrobial dressing to be applied every day. This order was discontinued on 12/21/22. The December 2022 TAR had an order dated 12/21/22 for Collagenase ointment and collagen powder and to pack the wound with wound cleanser moistened gauze with an absorbent, antimicrobial dressing every day. This order was discontinued on 12/30/22. This treatment was not signed as completed on 12/23/22. Review of nurses' progress note completed by Nurse #12 dated 12/22/22 revealed Resident #67 tested positive for COVID. Review of nurses' progress note completed by Nurse #2 dated 12/25/22 revealed the resident was sent to the hospital for fever and respiratory distress. Resident #67's care plan initiated on 12/30/22 had a focus for multiple pressure injuries related to incontinence and decreased mobility and was at risk for worsening of wounds and additional breakdown. The interventions included to reposition and/or turn at frequent intervals to provide pressure relief and complete a full body check weekly and document. Review of Resident #67's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] included admission diagnoses of Covid pneumonia and stage 4 decubitus ulcer with osteomyelitis. He was treated with intravenous (IV) antibiotics with a discharge medication list to continue two antibiotics for 32 days. Resident #67's admission skin assessment dated [DATE] indicated he had a stage 4 sacrum pressure ulcer which measured 6.4 cm by 4.0 cm by 2.1 cm. Multiple observations were made on 1/10/23 at 10:00 AM, 11:15 AM, 12:27 PM and 1:09 PM. Resident #67 was observed to lie in the same position with the head of bed at about 45 degrees, face to the right, lying on his back, pillow under left arm, pillow under right side arm/side, feet wearing protective boots, and legs straight. The resident was not observed to make any independent movements and was not interviewable. The resident was observed to be on a low air-loss mattress. An interview with Nursing Assistant (NA) #3 on 1/10/23 at 2:13 PM revealed she was assigned to provide care for Resident #67. She also revealed she was scheduled to work from 7:00 AM until 3:00 PM. She stated she had turned him one time that day during his bath right before lunch. She stated that the resident did not get turned every 2 hours today because she was trying to give other residents their baths. She stated she was familiar with the resident, and she knew he was supposed to be turned every 2 hours. An interview with NA #6 on 1/26/23 at 3:11 PM revealed she was regularly assigned to provide care for Resident #67. She stated she did not turn him completely on his side but used pillows or wedges under his buttocks to reposition him. She also stated she turned him as often as possible but was unable to always turn him every 2 hours. An interview with NA #4 on 1/27/23 at 9:51 AM revealed she had been assigned to provide care for Resident #67 occasionally. She stated that she tried to turn and reposition the resident every 2 hours but that was not always possible if she got busy. An interview with Nurse #8 on 1/10/23 at 1:36 PM revealed she was the assigned nurse for Resident #67. She stated she was his assigned nurse frequently but had only been employed at the facility a short time. She did not provide wound care as there was a wound care nurse. She stated she had never seen him fully turned from one side to the other. She stated she saw pillows placed under one hip then the other to offload pressure on the sacral wound. She stated that he coughed more if turned onto his side. An interview with Nurse #10 on 1/27/23 at 12:02 PM revealed she had been employed at the facility as the wound care nurse for approximately 1 year and no longer worked at the facility. She stated when she first started working at the facility, she often worked 7 days per week, but then worked 3-5 days per week. She stated she completed weekly assessments and provided wound care treatments to Resident #67. She stated that if the TAR wasn't signed, then the treatment had not been done. She stated when she was the wound care nurse, she completed the weekly skin assessments and wound assessments. A wound care observation was completed with Nurse #11 and the Wound Care Physician on 1/11/23 at 3:17 PM revealed Resident #67's sacrum pressure ulcer was 6.5 cm (centimeters) x 4.4 cm x 1.9 cm with moderate serosanguinous exudate. The wound had 3.4 cm undermining (when the wound edges become eroded and a pocket forms beneath the wound edge) at the 3 o'clock position and contained 40% slough and 60% granulation. An interview with the Medical Director on 1/12/23 at 11:11 AM revealed he believed lack of turning and repositioning could contribute to pressure ulcer decline. He also stated he relied on the facility to ensure the wound physician recommendations in their notes were completed. A further interview with the Medical Director on 1/27/23 at 7:58 PM, he revealed he had seen and assessed Resident #67's sacral wound when it was a stage 2 but did not specify a date. He stated that the resident had multiple comorbidities which included his cerebrovascular disease, chronic respiratory failure, and tube feeding nutrition but that the lack of care he received played a part in his sacral wound development. He specified the lack of care as the resident not being turned or repositioned as frequently as necessary to prevent the sacral pressure ulcer from developing and worsening and noted that the resident did not have a pressure ulcer on admission. He also felt that weekly skin checks were important. An interview with the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations on 1/12/23 at 1:45 PM revealed the facility should adhere to the standards of wound management which included turning and repositioning. She also revealed that Resident #67 had significant comorbidities for pressure ulcer development. The Administrator was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 1/27/23 at 1:10 PM. The facility provided the following plan for immediate jeopardy removal: - Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance: Inconsistent nursing leadership led to the compliance failure. The [NAME] President of Quality Assurance completed this root cause analysis on 1/12/2023. Resident #67's skin assessment was completed on 01/27/2023 by the Unit Manager. The braden scale assessment was completed on 01/13/2023 by staff Registered Nurse and scores a 10, which indicates at risk for skin breakdown. Skin assessment shows sacrum stage IV and left heel deep tissue injury. Orders were entered for weekly skin assessments and weekly pressure wound observations, that were not previously in place. Assessments were scheduled for weekly skin and weekly pressure wound observations, that were not previously in place. Turning and repositioning as needed, not previously in place, was added to plan of care tasks, to be signed by Nursing Assistants, indicating the completion of turning and repositioning task occurred each shift. Resident continues on an air mattress. These updates were entered by the Director of Nursing 1/20-1/27/23. Interventions are in place to address pressure ulcers for Resident #67. - Heel protector boots-1/19/23 ordered, Occupational Therapy 1/5/23, turning and positioning, as needed 01/20/23, air mattress- 11/9/22, the facilty's wound care provider's recommendations were reviewed entered as physician's orders on 01/26/23, by the Director of Nursing. Residents with a high risk braden score, were audited on 01/27/2023 by the Director of Nursing. Interventions will be reviewed and implemented, as appropriate. No new residents were identified. Braden assessments were audited for residents triggering to be at risk for skin breakdown. Plans of care will be reviewed for those residents that trigger at risk, by the Director of Nursing, Unit Manager and MDS nurse on 01/27/23, to ensure interventions are current and appropriate. - Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete: Nurses are being educated by the Unit Manager, regarding documentation of skin assessments, and braden assessments upon admission, with ongoing weekly skin assessments, weekly pressure wound observations, and quarterly braden assessments. Nurses not currently available for education, will receive education by the Unit Manager or Wound Care Nurse prior to assuming their next shift assignment. Nursing education was completed on 1/27/23, and included staff nurses and agency nurses, that are on our current schedules. New hires will receive this education by the Nursing Management team, as part of their nursing orientation. The wound nurse is responsible for the wound management, Monday- Friday, and a nurse will be scheduled on the weekends, for wound care continuity. Should the wound nurse be absent, then the Unit Manager will assume responsibility for wound care. A staff nurse has been identified as the primary wound care nurse effective January 27, 2023 and has been enrolled in a wound care certification program. Date of alleged IJ removal: 01/28/2023 The credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal was validated by onsite verification on 1/31/23. Interviews conducted with nursing staff revealed they had attended training on Wound Management- Skin and Wound Protocol. The education included Braden scale, weekly skin review which was to be completed by the licensed nurse for each resident weekly. Weekly pressure wound observation tool- to be completed by clinical managers/designee when the weekly assessment is not completed by the Wound NP. Weekly non-pressure wound observation tool -for diabetic ulcers, arterial or vascular ulcers, surgical wound, excoriations, lacerations, abrasions, bruises , or skin tears- to be completed weekly by Clinical Manager/designee if the Wound NP did not access the area. The education also included steps to take if there were changes to the resident's skin integrity or wound outside the scheduled observations. Inservice forms were reviewed and indicated the dates, topics discussed, and the trainer, and included attending staff signatures. A review of the weekly wound observation dated 1/25/23 revealed the resident was seen by the facility's wound clinic and new orders provided. A review of the physician's orders for the month of January 2023 revealed that new orders and recommendations were included on the MAR. A review of the plan of care NA task list report last updated 1/27/23 included skin care, positioning, and skin integrity. A review of the Braden scale audit and verification log revealed 100 % of the residents were reviewed on 1/27/23. The facility had appointed a nurse as Wound Nurse Monday thru Friday and the individual has been signed up for a 2-part wound care certification program effective 1/27/23. An Interview conducted with new wound nurse on 1/31/23 revealed that his schedule would be from 11AM-7PM Monday through Friday. The wound nurse stated when he was not present, there was a backup nurse or another agency nurse that would complete the treatments/wounds. He stated his job entailed being responsible for all the treatments, weekly skin checks, weekly wound assessments, and Braden scales. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/31/23 at 3:00 PM. The DON stated that the wound care nurse would be responsible for wound care management documentation and validation. An observation of Resident #67 on 1/31/23 at 12:35 PM revealed that he was wearing heel protector boots and a pressure relieving mattress was in place. The facility's Immediate Jeopardy removal date of 1/28/23 was validated. 2. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident and seizure disorder. The baseline care plan dated 8/29/22 had a focus for pressure ulcers present upon admission 8/26/22 and is at risk for further pressure injury development. Resident #5 was initially evaluated and treated by the Wound Care Physician on 8/31/22 for three deep tissue injuries (DTI) and one unstageable sacral pressure ulcer. The Wound Care Physician's evaluation and management summary dated 8/31/22 included recommendations to off-load wound, turn side to side and front to back in bed every 1-2 hours if able, and a low air-loss mattress. Review of Resident #5's electronic medical record census indicated he was sent to the hospital on 9/01/22 and returned to the facility on 9/14/22. Review of Resident #5's head to toe skin check dated 9/14/22 revealed the resident returned to the facility with an additional wound and changes to the previous wounds. The Wound Care Physician's evaluation and management summary dated 9/21/22 had additional wound detail which read in part that the resident returned to the facility after hospitalization for sepsis due to presumed endocarditis complicated by wound infection and strong suspicion for osteomyelitis underlying stage 4 pressure wound of the sacrum. Resident's overall prognosis is poor. There were no weekly skin checks or pressure ulcer assessment notes from 10/06/22 until 10/26/22. Resident #5's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed he had 1 stage 3 pressure ulcer which was present on admission. He had 3 stage 4 pressure ulcers, 2 of which were present on admission. He had 2 unstageable pressure ulcers, none of which were present on admission. He also had 8 unstageable suspected deep tissue injury pressure ulcers, 1 of which was present on admission. Review of Resident #5's head to toe skin check dated 12/30/22 revealed he had eleven pressure areas. The Wound Care Physician's Wound Evaluation and Management Summary note dated 1/04/23 for Resident #5 included staging, measurements, notations of exudate, etiology and the treatment plan for each wound. The summary included that the resident returned to the facility after hospitalization for sepsis likely secondary to urinary tract infection/possible aspiration pneumonia complicated by heart attack likely secondary to sepsis/acute on chronic anemia, acute hypoxic respiratory failure likely secondary to aspiration pneumonitis and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of left subclavian vein. As such, resident has returned to facility with deterioration in surface area and/or depth, and/or increase DTI/slough/necrosis in several wound. Multiple observations were made on 1/10/23 at 10:02 AM, 12:27 PM and 1:09 PM. Resident #5 was observed lying in the same position with the head of bed about 30 degrees, facing upright, lying on his back, arms crossed over lower body, towel under left arm, legs contracted with knees bent. The resident was not interviewable. The was no low air-mattress observed on the resident's bed. An interview with Nursing Aide (NA) #3 on 1/10/23 at 2:13 PM revealed she was assigned to provide care for Resident #5. She stated she had turned him one time that day during his bath right before lunch. She stated that the resident did not get turned every 2 hours today because she was trying to give other residents their baths. She stated she was familiar with the resident, and she knew he was supposed to be turned at least every 2 hours. An interview with Nurse #8 on 1/10/23 at 1:36 PM revealed she was assigned to the hall for Resident #5. She did not provide wound care as there was a wound care nurse. She stated he did not like to be moved and she did not know if the physician was aware of this. She confirmed that Resident #5 did not have a low air-loss mattress and stated his low air-loss mattress was on order and did not know the status. An interview with the Supply Clerk on 1/11/23 at 1:59 PM revealed she ordered a low air-loss mattress when she received a physician's order. She stated she had received an order today for a low air-loss mattress. An interview with the Wound Care Physician on 1/11/23 at 3:00 PM revealed he made recommendations in his wound care notes. He stated he had recommended a low air-loss mattress for Resident #5 and did not know why he did not have one at this time. He also stated that a low air-loss mattress and turning and repositioning were vital to wound healing. He also stated that the resident had multiple medical comorbidities and contractures which contributed to his pressure ulcers. An interview with the Medical Director on 1/12/23 at 11:11 AM revealed he relied on the staff to obtain the low air-loss mattress. He also revealed that Resident #5 had contractures and general decline which contributed to his pressure ulcers. An interview with the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations on 1/12/23 at 1:45 PM revealed the facility should adhere to the standards of wound management which includes turning and repositioning. She also revealed that Resident #5 had significant comorbidities for pressure ulcer development.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff, and physician interviews the facility failed to obtain and administer Oxycodone/acetaminophen ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff, and physician interviews the facility failed to obtain and administer Oxycodone/acetaminophen (a controlled substance medication ordered to treat pain) as ordered for a resident who was newly admitted to the facility with a recent fracture of the upper and lower left humerus (a long bone located in the upper arm between the shoulder joint and elbow joint). The resident was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) for unmanaged pain on two occasions (12/24/22 and 12/30/22) where he was provided with Oxycodone/acetaminophen as ordered which was effective in relieving the resident's pain. The resident reported a pain level on 12/24/22 at an 8 out of 10 (with 10 representing the worst pain imaginable) and on 12/30/22 a 10 out of 10 and he expressed he felt like he was being hit with a hammer. This was for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for pain management. Findings included: Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His active diagnoses included fracture of the upper and lower left humerus. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed he was ordered Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (a medication which is a combination of oxycodone and acetaminophen) every 4 hours as needed for pain. Resident #66's admission note dated 12/22/22 completed by Nurse #1 revealed he was alert and oriented and admitted for a fracture to the left arm due to a fall. Resident #66 had bruising noted to arms and chest, left flank area. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 2:15 PM Nurse #1 stated Resident #66 was admitted late on 12/22/22 around 7:00 PM. This was when her shift ended and Unit Manager #1 the took over for her when he arrived at the facility. She concluded that all she did was write the admitting note and did not put the resident's orders into their electronic medical records system. She stated this facility did not allow orders to be entered until the resident physically arrived in the facility, so the unit manager put Resident #66's orders in. Resident #66's orders revealed on 12/22/22 he was ordered Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Review of a text conversation between Physician #1 and Unit Manager #1 on 12/22/22 from 6:06 PM to 6:14 PM revealed the unit manager notified the physician via text message that Resident #66 had admitted from the hospital and the hospital had not sent any hard script for Resident #66's Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours as needed. Unit Manager #1 faxed a hard script to be signed to Physician #1 and Physician #1 texted and indicated he would send the hard script to the pharmacy. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 2:39 PM Unit Manager #1 stated when Resident #66 arrived at the facility on 12/22/22 the first question the resident asked was if his pain medication had arrived at the facility yet. Unit Manager #1 explained to him that the medications had not been entered into their system yet, therefore the pharmacy had not filled any of his prescription at that time. He informed the resident that if there was a medication due for him, they had a backup system in the facility to pull the medication for him to cover the break between the hospital and arrival of the medications from the pharmacy to the facility. After speaking with the resident, the Unit Manager began to enter the resident's orders on their electronic records system. He noted Resident #66's order for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams required a hard script at their pharmacy since it was a controlled substance, and a hard script was not sent from the hospital. At that point, on 12/22/22, he texted the physician to explain the situation and informed him that they needed the hard script. The doctor sent the order to the pharmacy that evening. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated no Oxycodone/acetaminophen was administered to Resident #66 on 12/22/22. Resident #66's baseline care plan dated 12/23/22 revealed he was care planned for pain. The interventions included to evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions, dosing schedules and resident satisfaction with results, impact on functional ability and impact on cognition, and notify physician if interventions are unsuccessful or if current complaint is a change from past experience of pain. Review of a text conversation between Physician #1 and Unit Manager #1 on 12/23/22 from 4:35 PM to 5:34 PM revealed Unit Manager #1 again texted the physician regarding Resident #66's pain medication not yet being received. The resident was noted to be complaining of pain as well as the family complaining on his behalf. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 2:39 PM Unit Manager #1 stated on 12/23/22 he was made aware by Resident #66 that he had not received his pain medication. He then sent Physician #1 another text requesting the hard script for the pain medication for Resident #66. Resident #66's MAR for 12/23/22 revealed he received Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth on 12/23/22 at 4:51 PM and again at 10:30 PM. These medications were pulled from the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine. A nursing note dated 12/24/22 at 3:32 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 had complaints of pain in his left shoulder which he rated an 8 out of 10. Nurse #2 called the pharmacy for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams as the medication for Resident #66 from the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine had run out. Physician #1 was messaged for other options. The pharmacy told the nurse that the Oxycodone/acetaminophen was on the way. A nursing note dated 12/24/22 at 5:00 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 stated he wanted to go to the hospital because he was in pain and couldn't wait for his pain medication to arrive. He was sent to the emergency department. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 8:03 AM Nurse #2 stated in the early morning on 12/24/22, Resident #66 requested pain medication and she identified the Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams had not arrived at the facility yet. She indicated when she informed Resident #66 that his pain medication had not arrived, the resident requested to be sent to the hospital for pain management as his pain level was 8 out of 10. She stated she sent him to the hospital as he requested for pain management. A nursing note dated 12/24/22 at 10:42 AM revealed Nurse #3 documented Resident #66 returned to facility around 9:15 AM. Resident #66 was alert and oriented with no signs or symptoms of distress and he was ambulatory in his room. The hospital sent 2 Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams via emergency medical services. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 9:07 AM Nurse #3 stated Resident #66 had a blister pack of Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams in the medication cart during her shift when he returned from the hospital on [DATE]. She reported his pain medication was available and provided as needed per orders during her shift and his pain was under control at that time. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 9:45 AM Physician #1 stated Resident #66 was prescribed Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams every 4 hours as needed for pain on admission to the facility. He indicated on 12/23/22 he was made aware by a nurse that Resident #66 did not have a hard script, there was no Oxycodone/acetaminophen in the building available for him, and they did not have an emergency kit to pull the medication from. Physician #1 sent the hard script to the pharmacy via fax on 12/23/22 which was a Friday. On the morning of 12/24/22 Physician #1 was notified that Resident #66 had not received his pain medication from the pharmacy and had been in enough pain that he requested to be sent to the hospital due to pain. He indicated the resident received his pain medication at the hospital and returned to the facility the same day. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 10:32 AM the Director of Nursing stated the resident came to the facility on [DATE]. She verified there was an issue with obtaining a hard script for Oxycodone/acetaminophen which resulted in this medication not arriving from the pharmacy until 12/24/22. She indicated prior to the arrival of the Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams from the pharmacy, in the early morning of 12/24/22 Resident #66 requested pain medication and was told the medication was on the way. Resident #66 requested to be sent to the hospital for pain management as his pain level was 8 out of 10. He was sent to the hospital and during the time he was at the hospital, a blister pack with 18 Oxycodone/acetaminophen arrived at the facility. When he returned from the hospital his pain was under control. Resident #66's MAR for December 2022 revealed he received Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth on the following dates and times: - 12/24/22 at 11:42 AM, 3:43 PM, and 9:13 PM - 12/25/22 at 4:30 AM, 3:55 PM, and 10:04 PM. - 12/26/22 at 3:03 AM, 8:26 AM, and 6:07 PM - 12/27/22 at 12:46 AM, 5:09 AM, 3:30 PM, and 8:23 PM - 12/28/22 at 1:20 AM, 5:30 AM, 9:31 AM, and 2:23 PM - 12/29/22 at 1:21 AM A nursing note dated 12/29/22 written at 7:43 PM as late entry for 12/29/22 at 10:00 AM revealed Nurse #4 documented Resident #66 was upset that his Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams was not available at the time requested. Nurse #4 informed Resident #66 they were waiting on the delivery of medication from the pharmacy. As needed Acetaminophen was offered, however, Resident #66 refused. Resident #66's family member arrived at bedside around 10:00 AM and started demanding medication for the resident related to left shoulder pain. During an interview on 1/12/23 at 8:56 AM Nurse #4 stated on 12/29/22 she was informed during change of shift when she came to work that Resident #66's pain medication had run out, but the refill was expected that morning. Resident #66 requested pain medication at some point that morning, but she did not know what time it was. It was later in the morning she believed as therapy was coming to work with the resident, and he stated he would not do therapy without his pain medications. She offered him Acetaminophen which he refused. She indicated he was agitated which she stated was understandable as he indicated his pain was at a 10 out of 10. His medication did not arrive that morning, so the nurse requested the Director of Nursing's assistance to contact the physician and pharmacy. A nursing note dated 12/29/22 at 12:05 PM revealed the Director of Nursing documented Resident #66 had complaints of pain. Resident #66 was noted with no more narcotics in the medication cart or available in the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine. A phone call was made to Physician #1 with a request for a new order for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams as 2 tabs were available in the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine and would be available to dispense until his prescription refill arrived that evening. An order dated 12/29/22 revealed Resident #66 was ordered Oxycodone/acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Resident #66's MAR revealed he received Oxycodone/acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams by mouth on 12/29/22 at 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM. Resident #66's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired. His active diagnoses included unspecified fracture of upper and end of left humerus. He was assessed to have frequent pain that had not disrupted his sleep in the past five days but had, over the past 5 days, limited his day-to-day activities because of pain. The worst pain he had experienced in the past 5 days had been a 7 out of 10. He received an opioid 7 of the 7 day look back period. A progress note dated 12/30/22 at 12:38 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 had complaints of severe pain and he no longer had any Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligram or 10-325 milligram tablets available in the facility. Resident #66 reported 10 out of 10 pain in left arm and shoulder and current pain management was insufficient at that time. Resident #66 requested to go to the hospital for pain management. A nursing note dated 12/30/22 at 3:48 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 arrived back in facility from the hospital with his pain under control. The medical record indicated Resident #66 discharged home on [DATE]. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 8:03 AM Nurse #2 stated in the early morning on 12/30/22, Resident #66 requested pain medication and she did not have any Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams or 10-325 milligrams. She stated she informed the resident she had Acetaminophen and was going to seek other options with the physician as well, and the resident requested to be sent to the hospital for pain management again as his pain level was at a 10 out of 10 and he told her it felt like he was being hit with a hammer. She stated she sent the resident to the hospital and notified the physician. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 9:45 AM Physician #1 stated on 12/29/22 he was called by the Director of Nursing, and she informed him that his 18 Oxycodone/acetaminophen pills had run out. She informed him she had two 10-325 milligram Oxycodone/acetaminophen in the facility, and she requested an order to give the resident this dose of the Oxycodone/acetaminophen while waiting for the pharmacy to deliver the medication. He indicated around 3:00 AM on 12/30/22 a nurse called to inform him that Resident #66 was back in the emergency department due to pain because his Oxycodone/acetaminophen still had not arrived at the facility. Physician #1 reported he was working at the hospital that night and called the emergency department to discuss the resident and the emergency department gave the resident pain medication and sent him back to the facility. The resident was scheduled to discharge home that day and he did discharge home as planned. He stated it was not acceptable to let a resident go without his pain medication. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 10:32 AM the Director of Nursing stated it was not acceptable for a resident to be in severe pain at the facility due to the lack of ordered pain medication in the facility. She revealed this was why they sent him to the hospital both times as there were no other options and his pain needed to be controlled in that moment.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff, pharmacy, and physician interviews the facility failed to obtain Oxycodone/acetaminophen (a co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff, pharmacy, and physician interviews the facility failed to obtain Oxycodone/acetaminophen (a controlled substance medication ordered to treat pain) from their pharmacy for a resident who was newly admitted to the facility with a recent fracture of the upper and lower left humerus (a long bone located in the upper arm between the shoulder joint and elbow joint). The resident was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) for unmanaged pain on two occasions (12/24/22 and 12/30/22) due to the facility not having Oxycodone/acetaminophen available to the resident in the facility. The resident reported a pain level on 12/24/22 at an 8 out of 10 (with 10 representing the worst pain imaginable) and on 12/30/22 a 10 out of 10 and he expressed he felt like he was being hit with a hammer. This was for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pharmacy services. Findings included: Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His active diagnoses included fracture of the upper and lower left humerus. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed he was ordered Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (a medication which is a combination of oxycodone and acetaminophen) every 4 hours as needed for pain. Resident #66's admission note dated 12/22/22 completed by Nurse #1 revealed he was alert and oriented and admitted for a fracture to the left arm due to a fall. Resident #66 had bruising noted to arms and chest, left flank area. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 2:15 PM Nurse #1 stated Resident #66 was admitted late on 12/22/22 around 7:00 PM. This was when her shift ended and Unit Manager #1 the took over for her when he arrived at the facility. She concluded that all she did was write the admitting note and did not perform any assessments and did not put the resident's orders into their electronic medical records system. She stated this facility did not allow orders to be entered until the resident physically arrived in the facility, so the unit manager put Resident #66's orders in. The unit manager would take the orders and put them in their system to order the medications from their pharmacy which would arrive on the next day, and they would use their backup medication system to bridge the gap. Resident #66's physician orders revealed on 12/22/22 he was ordered Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours for pain. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 2:39 PM Unit Manager #1 stated when a new admission came into the facility, he waited until the resident arrived with his discharge summary from the hospital. He waited for the resident to arrive from the hospital and utilized the physical discharge summary because there was always a chance that the medication was changed last minute by the hospital. He stated he took the physical paperwork including the discharge summary provided by emergency medical services upon the resident's arrival. He further stated once he had the orders in the discharge summary, he entered the orders in and once they are saved the order is automatically sent to the pharmacy. He stated if they had a medication that was due but had not arrived from the pharmacy or if the resident was asking for an as needed medication which they were able to receive at that time, they would go to the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine system which was a large, locked emergency medications kit. He stated when Resident #66 arrived at the facility on 12/22/22 the first question the resident asked was if his pain medication had arrived at the facility yet. Unit Manager #1 explained to him that the medications had not been entered into their system yet, therefore the pharmacy had not filled any of his prescription at that time. He informed the resident that if there was a medication due for him, they had a backup system in the facility to pull the medication for him to cover the break between the hospital and arrival of the medications from the pharmacy to the facility. After speaking with the resident, the Unit Manager began to enter the resident's orders on their electronic records system. He noted Resident #66's order for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams required a hard script at their pharmacy since it was a controlled substance, and a hard script was not sent from the hospital. At that point, on 12/22/22, he texted the physician to explain the situation and informed him that they needed the hard script. The physician sent the order to the pharmacy that evening. Review of a text conversation between Physician #1 and Unit Manager #1 on 12/22/22 from 6:06 PM to 6:14 PM revealed the unit manager notified the physician via text message that Resident #66 had admitted from the hospital and the hospital had not sent any hard script for Resident #66's Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours as needed. Unit Manager #1 faxed a hard script to be signed to Physician #1 and Physician #1 texted and indicated he would send the hard script to the pharmacy. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated no Oxycodone/acetaminophen was administered to Resident #66 on 12/22/22 or on 12/23/22 until 4:51 PM. Review of a text conversation between Physician #1 and Unit Manager #1 on 12/23/22 from 4:35 PM to 5:34 PM revealed Unit Manager #1 again texted the physician regarding Resident #66's pain medication not yet being received. The pharmacy had told Unit Manager #1 they had not received the hard script for Oxycodone/acetaminophen, and the resident was complaining of pain. Unit Manager #1 requested the physician send the hard script to a pharmacy nearby for staff to pick up the medication quickly. The physician replied that he would send the script directly to the main pharmacy again and that there had not been a hard script on his fax machine that morning (faxed from Unit Manager #1 the evening prior). During a follow-up interview on 1/10/23 at 2:39 PM Unit Manager #1 stated on 12/23/22 he was made aware by Resident #66 that he had not received his pain medication. He then sent Physician #1 another text requesting the hard script for the pain medication for Resident #66. He asked if this could be sent to a backup local pharmacy nearby to be picked up. Physician #1 asked him where the patient was and if someone had faxed him the hard script. The unit manager told the doctor he had faxed the hard script last night but could fax it to him again. The doctor physician said there wasn't a hard script on his fax machine that morning. Physician #1 sent the script directly to the pharmacy himself. Resident #66's MAR for 12/23/22 revealed he received Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth on 12/23/22 at 4:51 PM and again at 10:30 PM. These medications were pulled from the emergency backup medicine supply machine. A nursing note dated 12/24/22 at 3:32 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 had complaints of pain in his left shoulder which he rated an 8 out of 10. Nurse #2 called the pharmacy for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams as the medication for Resident #66 from the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine had run out. Physician #1 was messaged for other options. The pharmacy told the nurse that the Oxycodone/acetaminophen was on the way. A nursing note dated 12/24/22 at 5:00 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 stated he wanted to go to the hospital because he was in pain and couldn't wait for his pain medication to arrive. He was sent to the emergency department. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 8:03 AM Nurse #2 stated in the early morning on 12/24/22, Resident #66 requested pain medication and the nurse identified the Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams had not arrived at the facility yet and did not know why. She called the pharmacy and was told the medication was on the way and would arrive sometime that morning. She indicated when she informed Resident #66 that his pain medication had not arrived yet, the resident requested to be sent to the hospital for pain management as his pain level was 8 out of 10. She stated she sent him to the hospital as he requested for pain management. A nursing note dated 12/24/22 at 10:42 AM revealed Nurse #3 documented Resident #66 returned to facility around 9:15 AM. Resident #66 was alert and oriented with no signs or symptoms of distress and he was ambulatory in his room. The hospital sent 2 Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams via emergency medical services. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 9:45 AM Physician #1 stated Resident #66 was prescribed Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams every 4 hours as needed for pain on admission to the facility. He indicated on 12/23/22 he was made aware by a nurse that Resident #66 did not have a hard script, there was no Oxycodone/acetaminophen in the building available for him, and they did not have an emergency kit to pull the medication from. Physician #1 sent the hard script to the pharmacy via fax on 12/23/22 which was a Friday. On the morning of 12/24/22 Physician #1 was notified that Resident #66 had not received his pain medication from the pharmacy and had been in enough pain that he requested to be sent to the hospital due to pain. He indicated the resident received his pain medication at the hospital and returned to the facility the same day. He indicated he saw the resident on 12/26/22 and the resident was fine and did not complain of pain. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 9:40 AM the Director of Client Services for the pharmacy stated the pharmacy received an order for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours as need for pain on 12/23/22 ordered by Physician #1. This order requested 20 pills and two pills had been pulled from the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine so the pharmacy dispensed 18 pills to the facility on [DATE] and this order arrived at the facility on 12/24/22 after the resident went to the hospital. On 12/23/22, after they had received the first order, they also received an order for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours as need for pain, but this order requested 180 pills and was ordered by Physician #1. Because the pharmacy could only fill one of the prescriptions as it was a controlled substance, they filled the 20 pills prescription which had arrived first and did not fill the 180 pills prescription. He stated when a nurse requested to refill any prescription through their electron medical records system at the facility, it would send the request to the pharmacy. Oxycodone/acetaminophen required a hard script for the prescription to be filled so the Pharmacy would request a new order from the facility and then fill the prescription. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 10:32 AM the Director of Nursing stated the resident came to the facility on [DATE]. She verified there was an issue with obtaining a hard script for Oxycodone/acetaminophen which resulted in this medication not arriving from the pharmacy until 12/24/22. She indicated prior to the arrival of the Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams from the pharmacy, in the early morning of 12/24/22 Resident #66 requested pain medication and was told the medication was on the way. Resident #66 requested to be sent to the hospital for pain management as his pain level was 8 out of 10. He was sent to the hospital and during the time he was at the hospital, a blister pack with 18 Oxycodone/acetaminophen arrived at the facility. When he returned from the hospital his pain was under control. Resident #66's MAR for December 2022 revealed he received Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams by mouth in the following dates and times: - 12/24/22 at 11:42 AM, 3:43 PM, and 9:13 PM - 12/25/22 at 4:30 AM, 3:55 PM, and 10:04 PM. - 12/26/22 at 3:03 AM, 8:26 AM, and 6:07 PM - 12/27/22 at 12:46 AM, 5:09 AM, 3:30 PM, and 8:23 PM - 12/28/22 at 1:20 AM, 5:30 AM, 9:31 AM, and 2:23 PM - 12/29/22 at 1:21 AM A nursing note dated 12/29/22 written at 7:43 PM as late entry for 12/29/22 at 10:00 AM revealed Nurse #4 documented Resident #66 was upset that his Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-milligrams was not available at time requested. Nurse #4 called the Pharmacy to inquire on status of medication delivery. Nurse #4 informed Resident #66 they were waiting on the delivery of medication from the pharmacy. As needed Acetaminophen was offered, however, Resident #66 refused. During an interview on 1/12/23 at 8:56 AM Nurse #4 stated on 12/29/22 she was informed during change of shift when she came to work that Resident #66's pain medication had run out, but the refill was expected that morning. Resident #66 requested pain medication at some point that morning, but she did not know what time it was. It was later in the morning she believed as therapy was coming to work with the resident, and he stated he would not do therapy without his pain medications. She offered him Acetaminophen which he refused. She indicated he was agitated which she stated was understandable as he indicated his pain was at a 10 out of 10. His medication did not arrive that morning, so the nurse requested the Director of Nursing's assistance to contact the physician and pharmacy. A nursing note dated 12/29/22 at 12:05 PM revealed the Director of Nursing documented Resident #66 had complaints of pain. Resident #66 was noted with no more narcotics in the medication cart or available in the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine. The Director of Nursing called the pharmacy and discovered the hospital initially sent a prescription for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams for a quantity of 20 tablets. Physician #1 also sent a prescription for 180 tablets. The pharmacy only sent the 20 tablets as they could not fill both prescriptions. The other prescription was available at the pharmacy and was now filled and will be delivered that evening. A phone call was made to Physician #1 with a request for a new order for Oxycodone/acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams as 2 tabs were available in the facility emergency backup medicine supply machine and would be available to dispense until his prescription refill arrives this evening. Normally an order would be refilled by the nurse when it ran out and she did not have a way to show if a refill was requested or not by the nurse. She stated the only answer she got from the pharmacy of why the refill had not arrived was because they had two orders and only filled one. An order dated 12/29/22 revealed Resident #66 was ordered Oxycodone/acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Resident #66's MAR revealed he received Oxycodone/acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams by mouth on 12/29/22 at 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM. A progress note dated 12/30/22 at 12:38 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 had complaints of severe pain and he no longer had any Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligram or 10-325 milligram tablets available in the facility. Resident #66 reported 10 out of 10 pain in left arm and shoulder and current pain management was insufficient at that time. Resident #66 requested to go to the hospital for pain management. A nursing note dated 12/30/22 at 3:48 AM revealed Nurse #2 documented Resident #66 arrived back in facility from the hospital with his pain under control. The medical record indicated Resident #66 discharged home on [DATE]. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 8:03 AM Nurse #2 stated in the early morning on 12/30/22, Resident #66 requested pain medication and she did not have any Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams or 10-325 milligrams. She stated she informed the resident she had Acetaminophen and was going to seek other options with the physician as well, and the resident requested to be sent to the hospital for pain management again as his pain level was at a 10 out of 10 and he told her it felt like he was being hit with a hammer. She stated she sent the resident to the hospital and notified the physician. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 9:45 AM Physician #1 stated on 12/29/22 he was called by the Director of Nursing, and she informed him that his 18 Oxycodone/acetaminophen pills had run out. She informed him she had two 10-325 milligram Oxycodone/acetaminophen in the facility, and she requested an order to give the resident this dose of the Oxycodone/acetaminophen while waiting for the pharmacy to deliver the medication. He indicated around 3:00 AM on 12/30/22 a nurse called to inform him that Resident #66 was back in the emergency department due to pain because his Oxycodone/acetaminophen still had not arrived at the facility. Physician #1 reported he was working at the hospital that night and called the emergency department to discuss the resident and the emergency department gave the resident pain medication and sent him back to the facility. The resident was scheduled to discharge home that day and he did discharge home as planned. He stated it was not acceptable to let a resident go without his pain medication. During an interview on 1/11/22 at 9:40 AM the Director of Client Services for the pharmacy stated on 12/29/22 the Director of Nursing called the pharmacy to check why the prescription had not been filled. The pharmacy explained that because they had filled the order for the 20 pills, they did not fill the order for 180 pills. The Director of Nursing informed the pharmacy that Resident #66 did not have any Oxycodone/acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams available in the facility and the pharmacy indicated they would fill the 180 pill order at that time. The medication would be on the 9 PM run from the pharmacy which meant it would arrive sometime in the early morning. The order for the 180 pills was dispensed on 12/29/22 and arrived at the facility on the morning of 12/30/22. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 10:32 AM the Director of Nursing stated it was not acceptable for a resident to be in severe pain at the facility due to the lack of ordered pain medication in the facility. She concluded this was why they sent him to the hospital both times as there were no other options and his pain needed to be controlled in that moment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to honor resident choice to receive a shower for 1 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to honor resident choice to receive a shower for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #14) reviewed for choices. Findings included: Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 was moderately cognitively impaired and required total assistance with one person for bathing. There was no documentation in the MDS of Resident #14 refusing care. Resident #14's care plan dated 12-13-22 revealed a goal that she would maintain current level of function in Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The interventions were Resident #14 required limited assistance with one staff for bathing. During an interview with Resident #14 on 1-9-23 at 10:40am, the resident discussed not receiving showers. She stated she has asked to have a shower but has not received one. Resident #14 stated I would like to have a shower sometimes instead of taking bird baths. Observation of Resident #14 occurred on 1-9-23 at 10:40am. The resident's hair was noted to be unkempt and matted. Review of the Nursing Assistant (NA) documentation for ADL care on Resident #14 from November 2022 through January 2023 revealed no documentation of Resident #14 receiving a shower. The documentation showed Resident #14 had received a bed bath daily. NA #1 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 8:30am. The NA stated she had been assigned to Resident #14 on 1-10-23. She explained the resident's shower days were Tuesday and Friday and that the resident had requested a shower. The NA stated she had not provided a shower to Resident #14 yesterday (1-10-23) because I did not get around to it. NA #1 stated she had provided a bed bath to the resident. An interview occurred with NA #2 on 1-11-23 at 9:45am. NA #2 stated she had been assigned to Resident #14 on 12-30-22 and that she had attempted to provide the resident with a shower but explained the resident was already in the bathroom starting to wash and refused the shower. A further interview occurred with NA #1 on 1-11-23 at 10:07am. The NA stated she had been assigned to Resident #14 on 11-15-22, 11-25-22, 12-6-22 and 1-6-23. She said she could not remember if she had provided a shower to Resident #14 on 11-15-22, 11-25-22 and 12-6-22 but stated if she had documented a bed bath than the resident received a bed bath not a shower. NA #1 stated she remembered Resident #14 requesting a shower on 1-6-23 but explained she did not have time to provide a shower to the resident, so the resident received a bed bath. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services discussed the facility having enough staff to provide resident care and showers should be provided to residents on their shower days and at their request. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated request for showers should be followed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate advanced directive (code status) informati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate advanced directive (code status) information throughout the medical record for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #35). Findings included: Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included coronary artery disease and hypertension. Her quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #35's physician orders revealed an order dated [DATE] for the resident to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Resident #35's care plan last revised on [DATE] revealed a focus area that the resident chooses to have CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation). The focus intervention was to provide CPR. An interview on [DATE] at 9:17 AM with the MDS nurse revealed she had been employed at the facility for about 1 month. She stated the code status on the care plan was in error as the resident had a DNR status and the care plan should have been updated when changes to her advance directives were made. An interview on [DATE] at 10:36 AM with the Administrator revealed that he expected care plans to be accurate and updated in a timely manner. Based on record review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident's advanced directive was documented in the resident's medical record for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) reviewed for advance directives. Findings included: Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] Review of Resident #53's Physician orders from time of admission to 1-11-23 revealed no Physician orders for a code status. Review of Resident #53's electronic medical record from admission to 1-11-23 revealed no documentation for advance directives. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #53's care plan dated 1-2-23 revealed a goal that he would have his wishes and advance directives honored. The intervention for the goal was to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 11:50am. The SW stated she was responsible for speaking with the resident/resident representative regarding the advance directives. She reviewed Resident #53's medical record and stated she could not find any documentation that his advance directives had been discussed. The SW explained she was not employed at the facility when Resident #53 was admitted and was unaware the resident did not have any documented advance directives. She further stated she did not know how he had a goal and interventions for advance directives when there was no documentation that his wishes were discussed with him or his representative. Resident #53 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 3:22pm regarding his advance directives. The resident stated no one had discussed his wishes for his advance directives. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services discussed advance directives should be addressed upon admission and the Social Worker was responsible for follow up. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated each resident should have their advance directives documented so each staff member could be aware of the resident's wishes.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain a clean-living environment and maintain resident furn...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain a clean-living environment and maintain resident furniture in good repair for 5 of 13 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 308, 310, 303, 306) reviewed for environment. Findings included: Observation of hall 300 and hall 400 revealed the following. a. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 1-9-23 at 3:05pm. The observation showed the residents over the bed table had been broken in one corner allowing the sharp edge of the plastic cover exposed, the ceiling vent in the bathroom was hanging from the ceiling covered with dust, the windowsill had large areas of a brown substance and there was a brown/orange substance on the floor next to the bed. During a second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] occurred on 1-12-23 at 9:09am with the Administrator who was also serving as the Environmental Manager and the Maintenance Director, the observation revealed the residents over the bed table had been broken in one corner allowing the sharp edge of the plastic cover exposed, the ceiling vent in the bathroom was hanging from the ceiling covered with dust, the window sill had large areas of a brown substance and there was a brown/orange substance on the floor next to the bed. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:05am. He explained he had ordered new over the bed tables and had replaced some but was not aware of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s table. He stated he would have the table replaced. He also stated he was unaware of the bathroom vent dislodging from the ceiling. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:11am. The Administrator stated the substance on the floor and windowsill was from the resident's tube feeding. He explained he was aware of the cleaning issues but said he felt the changes he had made had not been able to make an impact. b. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 1-9-23 at 10:33am. The observation showed a brown and yellow substance on the wall next to the door, the wall heating and cooling unit had white and black particles in the vent and the light fixture above the resident's bed had a reddish/brown substance around the frame of the fixture and the popcorn ceiling was peeling off. A second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] occurred on 1-12-23 at 9:00am with the Administrator who was also serving as the Environmental Manager and the Maintenance Director. The observation showed a brown and yellow substance on the wall next to the door, the wall heating and cooling unit had white and black particles in the vent and the light fixture above the resident's bed had a reddish/brown substance around the frame of the fixture and the popcorn ceiling was peeling off. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:05. He stated he was responsible for cleaning the wall heating and air vents. The Maintenance Director stated he tried to do this monthly but said he had been preoccupied with other issues in the facility. He also stated the popcorn ceiling peeling off was a new problem and he would address the issue. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:11am. The Administrator stated the housekeepers assigned to the room should be cleaning any substances off the walls and light fixtures. c. During an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 1-9-23 at 10:45am, the observation revealed a brown substance on the light switch by the door, the wall heating and air unit had white, brown and black particles in the vent and the light fixture above the resident bed had a reddish-brown substance around the frame of the fixture. A second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] occurred on 1-12-23 at 9:05am with the Administrator who was also serving as the Environmental Manager and the Maintenance Director. The observation revealed a brown substance on the light switch by the door, the wall heating and air unit had white, brown, and black particles in the vent and the light fixture above the resident bed had a reddish-brown substance around the frame of the fixture. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:05am. He stated he was responsible for cleaning the wall heating and air vents. The Maintenance Director stated he tried to do this monthly but said he had been preoccupied with other issues in the facility. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:11am. The Administrator stated the housekeepers assigned to the room should be cleaning any substances off light switches and light fixtures. d. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 1-9-23 at 3:00pm. The observation revealed a brown substance on the floor next to the bed and the ceiling light cover in the bathroom contained a black residue and the end cap of the cover was coming off. A second observation was made on 1-12-23 at 8:45am with the Administrator who was also serving as the Environmental Manager and the Maintenance Director. The second observation revealed a brown substance on the floor next to the bed and the ceiling light cover in the bathroom contained a black residue and the end cap of the cover was coming off. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:05am. The Maintenance Director explained he made room rounds weekly and was not aware of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom light fixture. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 10:11am. The Administrator explained the facility did not have an Environmental Manager because the facility had changed services. He also stated he made room rounds almost daily and had been aware of the issue in room [ROOM NUMBER]. e. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] occurred on 1-9-23 at 10:30am. The observation revealed a brown substance smeared on the door frame. During a second observation on 1-12-23 at 8:49am with the Administrator who was also serving as the Environmental Manager and the Maintenance Director, the observation revealed a brown substance smeared on the door frame. An interview with the Administrator occurred on 1-12-23 at 10:11am. The Administrator stated housekeeping was responsible for ensuring resident door frames were clean.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included traumatic brain dysfunction. Resident #57's...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included traumatic brain dysfunction. Resident #57's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] noted she was rarely/never understood and a staff assessment for mental status should be conducted, but it was not completed. It further noted she required total dependence on staff for her care. Review of Resident #57's record did not indicate a care plan meeting had been conducted since admission. During an interview with Resident #57's Responsible Party (RP) on 1/09/23 at 4:20 PM she revealed she had been invited to a care plan meeting and had been in the Resident #57's room, but no one came to find her or let her know where she was supposed to go. She stated she never heard anything else about a care plan meeting. During an interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 1/11/23 at 8:46 AM she revealed she had been aware of an invitation to Resident #57's care plan meeting had been sent to the RP. She stated the meeting had been scheduled for 11/15/22 but was not held and had not been rescheduled. An interview with the Administrator on 1/12/23 at 10:37 AM revealed the care plan meeting should have been rescheduled if staff were unable to participate. He explained he did not know why that had not been done. Based on record review, staff, resident, and resident representative interviews the facility failed to (1) update a resident's individualized care plan related to discharge (Resident #14) and (2) hold a quarterly care plan meeting for (Resident #57) for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for care plans. Findings included: 1. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #14's care plan dated 12-13-22 revealed a problem for adjustment issues related to need to remain in the facility long term. The goal documented for the problem was resident would receive daily opportunities for social contact. The interventions for the goal were to encourage family involvement and encourage the resident to participate in activities. Resident #14 was interviewed on 1-9-23 at 10:40am. The resident discussed wanting to be discharged . She stated during her last discussion with the facility Social Worker (SW) the plan was for her to go home but she stated she had not heard anything else from the SW. The MDS nurse was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 11:44am. The MDS nurse stated she wrote the care plan on 12-13-22 for the resident to stay in the facility long term. She said she wrote this care plan based on the length of time Resident #14 had been in the facility and the information on the quarterly MDS of no active discharge planning back to the community. The MDS nurse stated she had not discussed the care plan with the resident, resident representative, or the SW. She also stated she was not aware of the care plan meeting that was held in December 2022 with the goal of active discharge planning back into the community for Resident #14. An interview with the SW occurred on 1-11-23 at 11:50am. The SW stated a care plan meeting was held in December 2022 with the resident and the resident family where it was decided that Resident #14 would be discharged back into the community. The SW explained there were several goals for Resident #14 to complete before discharge into the community could occur. She also explained she had been working with Resident #14 on the proper after care follow up that will be needed such as home health or a higher level of care to meet her needs. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated there had been some confusion between what Resident #14 wanted and what the family wanted but said the care plan should reflect the resident's intent. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated he expected the care plan process to be followed and timely.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide nail care to residents who needed extensive assistance and/or dependent for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #47 and Resident #27) and failed to rinse soap off a resident's skin during a bed bath for 1 of 3 resident (Resident #67) reviewed for ADL care. Findings included: 1. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting right dominant side and diabetes. Resident #47's care plan dated 12-13-22 revealed a goal that Resident #47 would improve current level of functioning in ADLs. The interventions for the goal were check nail length, trim and clean on bath day. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 was cognitively intact and required total assistance with one person for bathing and personal hygiene. Resident #47 was observed and interviewed on 1-9-23 at 10:55am. Resident #47 was observed to have approximately half inch fingernails that had a black substance caked underneath. The resident stated he did not like having long dirty fingernails and explained he had asked staff to cut them several times but could not remember who he asked. An observation of Resident #47 occurred on 1-11-23 at 8:05am. The observation revealed the resident continued to have long fingernails with a black substance caked underneath. Nursing Assistant (NA) #4 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 8:20am. The NA stated she had recently been assigned to Resident #47 but could not remember the day. She stated she had observed Resident #47's fingernails being long and dirty and explained she could not cut them because the resident was diabetic and only a nurse could cut his nails. NA #4 stated she did not inform the nurse on duty that Resident #47's nails needed cut. An interview with NA #3 occurred on 1-11-23 at 8:25am. NA #3 stated she was assigned to Resident #47 yesterday (1-10-23). She said the resident had requested his fingernails be cut and stated she had observed the resident's fingernails to be long and dirty. NA #3 explained she was not allowed to cut Resident #47's fingernails because he was a diabetic and only a nurse could cut them. She stated she did not inform the nurse of Resident #47's request to have his fingernails cut because I forgot to tell her. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated the NAs could cut Resident #47's fingernails and should have been cut when he requested. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated the NAs need to be trained and knowledgeable in resident nail care. 2. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included heart failure, vascular dementia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Resident #27's care plan dated 9-12-22 revealed a goal that he would improve his current level of functioning in Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The interventions for the goal were Resident #27 required extensive assistance with one person for bathing. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #27 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with one person for personal hygiene. Resident #27 was observed and interviewed on 1-9-23 at 11:00am. Resident #27's fingernails were observed to be approximately half an inch long. The resident stated he did not like to have his fingernails long and had asked staff to cut them but could not remember who he asked. An observation was made on 1-11-23 at 8:05am of Resident #27. The observation revealed Resident #27's fingernails remained long. Nursing Assistant (NA) #4 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 8:20am. NA #4 stated she was assigned to Resident #27 today (1-11-23) and had observed his fingernails to be long. She stated she could not remember if the resident had asked for his fingernails to be cut or if she offered to cut his fingernails but said she had not cut his fingernails. An interview with NA #3 occurred on 1-11-23 at 8:25am. NA #3 stated she had been assigned to Resident #27 yesterday (1-10-23) and had observed his fingernails being long. She also stated Resident #27 had requested for his fingernails to be cut but said she did not cut them because I did not have time. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated the NAs could cut Resident #47's fingernails and should have been cut when he requested. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated the NAs need to be trained and knowledgeable in resident nail care. 3. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, locked in state. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 was severely cognitively impaired and required total assistance with one person for bathing. Resident #67's care plan dated 12-30-22 revealed a goal that he would improve his level of functioning in Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care. The intervention for the goal was the resident was totally dependent on staff for bathing. An observation of ADL care for Resident #67 occurred on 1-10-23 at 11:43am with Nursing Assistant (NA) #3. The NA was observed to use a shampoo and body wash with the directions to rinse the soap off the resident. NA #3 was observed to soap the washcloth, clean the resident, and then take a towel to dry the resident without rinsing the soap off first. NA #3 was interviewed on 1-10-23 at 11:48am. The NA stated she always used the shampoo and body wash to bath Resident #67 and stated she was unaware the soap she was using needed to be rinsed off Resident #67 before she dried the resident. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:415pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated the NA should have read the directions and rinsed the soap off Resident #67 as directed. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated the NAs need to be trained and knowledgeable in the bathing process.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services of a urinar...

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 provide necessary care and services of a urinary catheter when a Nursing Assistant (NA #3) cleaned a resident's catheter tubing by wiping the tubing towards the insertion site. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #67) reviewed for catheter care. Findings included: Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included retention of urine. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 was severely cognitively intact and required total assistance with two people for toileting. The MDS also documented Resident #67 had an indwelling catheter. Resident #67's care plan dated 12-30-22 revealed a goal to not develop infections or trauma due to having an indwelling catheter. The interventions for the goal were care for catheter as appropriate. Observation of catheter care occurred on 1-10-23 at 11:43am with NA #3. NA #3 was observed to use a soapy washcloth and wipe the catheter tubing up towards the insertion site. The NA was observed to do this three times and then used a clean washcloth to rinse the soap off the tubing by wiping the tubing towards the insertion site. An interview with NA #3 occurred on 1-10-23 at 11:48am. The NA explained she usually did not have a resident assignment because she was the transportation driver. She explained she was a certified nursing assistant and had education on catheter care. NA #3 explained she was not aware she should not clean catheter tubing by wiping towards the insertion site and was not aware of the potential of infection when cleaned in that manner. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated staff were educated to clean catheter tubing away from the insertion site and did not know why the NA would have cleaned the tubing towards the insertion site. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated he expected staff to perform catheter care correctly.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and Physician interview the facility failed to ensure emergency equipment was present at the bedside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and Physician interview the facility failed to ensure emergency equipment was present at the bedside for residents with tracheostomies. This occurred for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #67 and Resident #57) reviewed for tracheostomy care. Findings included: a. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included tracheostomy status. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 was severely cognitively impaired and required oxygen, suctioning and tracheostomy. Resident #67's care plan dated 12-20-22 revealed a goal that Resident #67 will not have any signs or symptoms of infection. The interventions for the goal were keep extra tracheostomy tube and obturator (equipment used to insert a tracheostomy tube) at bedside. Observation of Resident #67 occurred on 1-9-23 at 3:00pm. The resident was observed laying in the bed with a tracheostomy. Observation of the resident room revealed there was no emergency equipment in the room to include tracheostomy tube/obturator. Another observation of Resident #67's room on 1-10-23 at 9:15am revealed no emergency equipment in the room to include tracheostomy tube/obturator. The facility's Medical Director was interviewed by telephone on 1-10-23 at 9:32am. The Medical Director stated Resident #67 should have emergency equipment present in his room that would include an extra tracheostomy tube and obturator. He also stated he was aware Resident #67 did not have any emergency equipment in his room and said he had asked staff to place the emergency equipment in Resident #67's room. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 9:30am, the VP of Clinical Services stated the facility did not have a policy regarding tracheostomy care. She explained the facility had specific respiratory policies, but they did not include tracheostomy care. Resident #67's room was observed on 1-11-23 at 10:00am. The observation revealed no emergency equipment in the room to include tracheostomy tube/obturator. Nurse #1 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 1:27pm. Nurse #1 stated she has been assigned to Resident #67. She said she had never seen emergency equipment in the resident room and explained if an emergency occurred with Resident #67's tracheostomy she would send the resident to the emergency room. During an interview with Nurse #5 on 1-11-23 at 1:37pm, the nurse stated she had been assigned to work with Resident #67. She explained she had never seen any emergency equipment in the resident room and was unaware a tracheostomy resident needed to have emergency equipment at their bedside. An interview occurred with Nurse #6 on 1-11-23 at 1:41pm. Nurse #6 stated she had been assigned to Resident #67 a while ago. She said she did not recall the resident having any emergency equipment in his room and was not aware a tracheostomy resident needed emergency equipment at their bed side. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated all tracheostomy residents should have emergency equipment at their bed side and said Resident #67 has had his emergency equipment placed at his bed side. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated appropriate equipment should be available for the level of care being provided. b. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included tracheostomy status. Resident #57's care plan dated 10-5-22 revealed a goal that she would not develop any signs or symptoms of infection. The interventions for the goal were keep extra tracheostomy tube and obturator at bedside. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #57 was severely cognitively impaired and required oxygen, suctioning and tracheostomy. Observation of Resident #57's room on 1-9-23 at 3:10pm revealed no emergency equipment such as a tracheostomy tube or obturator was present in her room. Another observation of Resident #57's room [ROOM NUMBER]-10-23 at 8:10am revealed no emergency equipment was present in her room. The facility's Medical Director was interviewed by telephone on 1-10-23 at 9:32am. The Medical Director stated Resident #57 should have emergency equipment present in her room that would include a n extra tracheostomy tube and obturator. He also stated he was aware Resident #57 did not have any emergency equipment in her room and said he had asked staff to place the emergency equipment in Resident #57's room. Resident #57's room was observed on 1-11-23 at 10:05am and revealed no emergency equipment was present in her room. Nurse #1 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 1:27pm. Nurse #1 stated she has been assigned to Resident #57. She said she had never seen emergency equipment in the resident room and explained if an emergency occurred with Resident #57's tracheostomy she would send the resident to the emergency room. During an interview with Nurse #5 on 1-11-23 at 1:37pm, the nurse stated she had been assigned to work with Resident #57. She explained she had never seen any emergency equipment in the resident room and was unaware a tracheostomy resident needed to have emergency equipment at their bedside. An interview occurred with Nurse #6 on 1-11-23 at 1:41pm. Nurse #6 stated she had been assigned to Resident #57 a while ago. She said she did not recall the resident having any emergency equipment in her room and was not aware a tracheostomy resident needed emergency equipment at their bed side. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated all tracheostomy residents should have emergency equipment at their bed side and said Resident #57 has had her emergency equipment placed at her bed side.
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) process failed to implement, monitor, and revise as needed the action plans developed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) process failed to implement, monitor, and revise as needed the action plans developed for the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 10/26/21, the focused infection control and complaint investigation survey of 2/24/22, and the revisit and complaint investigation survey of 4/25/22 in order to achieve and sustain compliance. This was for 3 recited deficiencies on the current recertification survey of 1/31/23. The deficiencies were in the areas of infection control (F880), activities of daily living care (F677), and catheter care (F690). The continued failure during these federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QA program. The findings included: This tag is cross-referenced to: F880 - Based on record review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain a sterile field while performing tracheostomy care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #57) reviewed for tracheostomy care. In addition, the facility failed to develop a policy for tracheostomy care that had the potential to affect 2 residents (Resident #57 and Resident #67) who had tracheostomies. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 10/26/21 the facility was cited for failing to use an approved procedure to clean and disinfect a shared glucometer. F677 - Based on observations, record reviews and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide nail care to residents who needed extensive assistance and/or dependent for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #47 and Resident #27) and failed to rinse soap off a resident's skin during a bed bath for 1 of 3 resident (Resident #67) reviewed for ADL care. During the focused infection control and complaint investigation survey of 2/24/22 the facility was cited for failing to provide incontinence care for residents. F690 - Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services of a urinary catheter when a Nursing Assistant (NA #3) cleaned a resident's catheter tubing by wiping the tubing towards the insertion site. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #67) reviewed for catheter care. During the focused infection control and complaint investigation survey of 2/24/22 the facility was cited for failing to remove an indwelling urinary catheter that was not medically justified when ordered. During the revisit and complaint investigation survey of 4/25/22 the facility was cited for failing to secure indwelling urinary catheter tubing to prevent tugging or pulling. During an interview on 1/12/23 at 1:43 PM the Administrator stated staffing turnover was extraordinary. He had never seen the amount of staffing turnover he experienced in the last two years. They recently changed ownership to a different company which brought different processes to review the areas of concern from the previous tags which could contribute to the repeated deficiencies.
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 review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain a sterile field while performing tracheostomy care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #57) reviewed for tracheostomy...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain a sterile field while performing tracheostomy care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #57) reviewed for tracheostomy care. In addition, the facility failed to develop a policy for tracheostomy care that had the potential to affect 2 residents (Resident #57 and Resident #67) who had tracheostomies. Findings included: Observation of tracheostomy care on Resident #57 with Nurse #5 occurred on 1-11-23 at 2:15pm. Nurse #5 was observed to be wearing sterile gloves while suctioning Resident #57. When the nurse finished suctioning, he remained wearing his sterile gloves while moving a plastic bag, picking up the box that contained the inner canula of the trach, opened the box, removed the sterile inner canula by touching the tube and then placing the inner canula into the trach. Nurse #5 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 2:40pm. The nurse explained the tube for the inner canula was supposed to remain sterile to prevent possible infection. Nurse #5 stated he had contaminated his sterile gloves when moving the plastic bag and touching the inner canula box. He explained he usually did not remove the inner canula from the box by the tube but rather the button that does not enter the tracheostomy. Nurse #5 stated he was nervous and touched the tubing to the inner canula by mistake contaminating the tubing. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Operations stated Nurse #5 should have followed the procedure for tracheostomy care. She said the inner canula was sterile and Nurse #5 should have inserted the inner canula using a sterile procedure. The VP of Clinical Services also stated the facility did not have a policy regarding tracheostomy care. She explained the facility had specific respiratory policies, but they did not include tracheostomy care. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated nurses needed to follow infection control practices when providing care to tracheostomy residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and responsible party (RP) and staff interviews, the facility failed to have systems in place to assess t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and responsible party (RP) and staff interviews, the facility failed to have systems in place to assess the residents for eligibility for the Covid-19 vaccination, provide education or offer the vaccination upon admittance into the facility for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Residents #57). Findings included: The facility policy on Vaccination of Residents dated July 2022 read in part Covid-19 vaccination will be offered to all residents and administered per physician orders. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #57's vaccination records revealed no documentation of any Covid-19 vaccines. Further review of the medical record revealed there was no documentation of contraindications for Resident #57 to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, education provided to the resident/RP or the facility offering to provide the vaccination to the resident. An interview on 1/09/23 at 4:20 PM with Resident #57's Responsible Party (RP) revealed she had not been asked about the Covid-19 vaccine and the resident had not had any Covid-19 vaccines. The RP stated that she wanted to discuss the resident receiving the Covid-19 vaccine. An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 1/11/23 at 10:30 AM revealed she was new to the position and had no information about the Covid-19 vaccines. She was unaware of the monitoring or tracking system for residents to receive vaccines. An interview on 1/12/23 at 10:33 AM with the Administrator revealed the facility did not have a monitoring and tracking process in place to ensure the residents receive the appropriate vaccines. The Administrator stated the Infection Control nurse was new to her position and had not been monitoring or tracking the residents to ensure they received the required Covid-19 vaccines.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide required dementia management training for 2 of 5 staff (Nursing Assistant (NA) #3 and NA #5) reviewed for education requireme...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide required dementia management training for 2 of 5 staff (Nursing Assistant (NA) #3 and NA #5) reviewed for education requirements. Findings included: 1a. NA #3 was hired on 8-26-05. The facility provided NA #3's education for the past year. Review of the NAs education revealed she had not received dementia management training within the last year. b. NA #5 was hired on 5-23-22. The facility provided all the training and education the NA had since her hire date. Review of the education revealed the NA had not completed the dementia management training. A telephone interview occurred with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1-12-23 at 11:11am. The DON stated she was currently responsible for the training and education of staff at the facility. She stated she had not provided any education on dementia management. She explained the electronic training also covered dementia management, but she had not reviewed what staff had not completed their annual training which would have included dementia management training. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated he and corporate monitor the electronic training system and he was not aware staff had not completed their required dementia management training.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Physician interviews the facility failed to educate 3 of 3 nurses (Nurse #1, Nurse #5, Nurse #...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Physician interviews the facility failed to educate 3 of 3 nurses (Nurse #1, Nurse #5, Nurse #6) to ensure competency and demonstrate skills in providing care to 2 of 2 residents (Resident #67 and Resident #57) reviewed for tracheostomy care. Findings included: 1. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included tracheostomy status. 2. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included tracheostomy status. The facility's Medical Director was interviewed by telephone on 1-10-23 at 9:32am. The Medical Director stated the facility nursing staff have not been trained on caring for tracheostomy residents and that he received several calls from staff stating Resident #67 or Resident #57 had a mucous plug in their tracheostomy and they did not know what to do for the resident. An interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Operations occurred on 1-11-23 at 12:31pm. The VP of Operations stated the facility did not have any training or skills check off for nursing during orientation on how to care for a resident with a tracheostomy. Nurse #1 was interviewed on 1-11-23 at 1:27pm. Nurse #1 stated she had not received any training or perform skills check off before being assigned residents with a tracheostomy. During an interview with Nurse #5 on 1-11-23 at 1:37pm, the nurse stated he had not received any training or performed skills check off at the facility prior to being assigned residents with a tracheostomy. An interview with Nurse #6 occurred on 1-11-23 at 1:41pm. Nurse #6 stated she had signed a piece of paper today (1-11-23) indicating she had read the procedures on tracheostomy care. The nurse said prior to today (1-11-23) she had not received any training and had not received skills check off regarding caring for a resident who had a tracheostomy. During an interview with the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Services on 1-11-23 at 4:15pm, the VP of Clinical Services stated education on tracheostomy care should be provided in orientation along with competency. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated he would have to review the facility's electronic education system to find out why tracheostomy education was not being completed. He also stated nurses needed to have a competency completed prior to working with residents who have tracheostomies.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review observation and staff interviews the facility failed to discard expired medication, date opened insulin and store medication per manufacturers recommendation. This occurred for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review observation and staff interviews the facility failed to discard expired medication, date opened insulin and store medication per manufacturers recommendation. This occurred for 3 of 4 medication carts (hall 100, hall 200 and hall 300 carts) reviewed for medication storage. Findings included: 1. Observation of hall 100 medication cart occurred on 1-9-23 at 4:13pm with Nurse #7. The observation revealed a Lantus (insulin) pen that had been opened but not dated. The manufacturers recommendation stated the Lantus would expire 28 days after the pen had been opened. An interview with Nurse #7 occurred on 1-9-23 at 4:14pm. The nurse stated she was unaware the insulin pen had been opened and undated. 2. Hall 200 medication cart was observed with Nurse #1 on 1-9-23 at 4:21pm. The observation revealed the following. - Glargine (insulin) pen that had expired 12-18-22 - Lispro (insulin) pen that expired 12-27-22 - Lispro pen that was unopened and not refrigerated as required by manufacturer - Novolog (insulin) was opened and not dated - Lispro pen was open and not dated and per manufacturer the pen would expire 28 days after being opened. - Novolog (insulin) pen expired 12-7-22 - Glargine pen was unopened and not refrigerated as required by manufacturer. Nurse #1 was interviewed on 1-9-23 at 4:25pm. The nurse stated she had not checked her medication cart for expired, unopened, or undated insulins. She further stated she did not know who was responsible for checking the medication carts. 3. The medication cart for hall 400 was observed with Nurse #7 on 1-9-23 at 4:09pm. The observation revealed Thiamine (vitamin) 100mg bottle had expired on 8-2022. Nurse #7 stated she was not aware the vitamin bottle had expired because of the written date of when the bottle was opened. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated nursing staff need to follow the guidelines for medications and should not have expired medications in their medication carts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the residents for eligibility and ensure residents we...

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 assess the residents for eligibility and ensure residents were offered the pneumococcal vaccinations upon admittance into the facility and offer annual influenza vaccine for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Residents #19, #52, #53, #57, and #67). Findings included: The facility policy for Pneumococcal Vaccine with the revised date October 2019 read in part All residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections. It further read Administration of the pneumococcal vaccines or revaccinations will be made in accordance with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations at the time of the vaccination. The facility policy for Influenza Vaccine with the revised date October 2019 read in part All residents who have no medical contraindications to the vaccine will be offered the influenza vaccine annually to encourage and promote the benefits associated with vaccinations against influenza. It further read in part Between [DATE]st and March 31st each year, the influenza vaccine shall be offered to residents. 1. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #19's immunization record revealed he had refused the pneumococcal vaccine in 2020. The immunization record revealed he had no other pneumococcal consent forms and no documentation of being offered, given, or refused any other pneumococcal vaccines. An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 1/11/23 at 10:30 AM revealed she was new to the position and had no information about the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines. She was not sure what the process was for ensuring residents were offered or received immunizations. An interview with the Administrator on 1/12/23 at 10:33 AM revealed that due to staffing turnover, the facility did not have a monitoring and tracking process in place to ensure the residents received the appropriate vaccines. 2. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #52's immunization record revealed no documentation that he had been offered, given, or refused the pneumococcal vaccine. An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 1/11/23 at 10:30 AM revealed she was new to the position and had no information about the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines. She was not sure what the process was for ensuring residents were offered or received immunizations. An interview with the Administrator on 1/12/23 at 10:33 AM revealed that due to staffing turnover, the facility did not have a monitoring and tracking process in place to ensure the residents received the appropriate vaccines. 3. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #53's immunization record revealed no documentation that he or his Responsible Party (RP) had been offered, given, or refused the pneumococcal vaccine. An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 1/11/23 at 10:30 AM revealed she was new to the position and had no information about the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines. She was not sure what the process was for ensuring residents were offered or received immunizations. An interview with the Administrator on 1/12/23 at 10:33 AM revealed that due to staffing turnover, the facility did not have a monitoring and tracking process in place to ensure the residents received the appropriate vaccines. 4. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included traumatic brain dysfunction. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #57 had cognitive impairment was undetermined. Review of Resident #57's immunization record revealed no documentation that she or her RP had been offered, given, or refused the pneumococcal vaccine. An interview on 1/09/23 at 4:20 PM with Resident #57's RP revealed she had not been asked about the resident's immunization status. She stated she had not been asked about the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines for the resident. An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 1/11/23 at 10:30 AM revealed she was new to the position and had no information about the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines. She was not sure what the process was for ensuring residents were offered or received immunizations. An interview with the Administrator on 1/12/23 at 10:33 AM revealed that due to staffing turnover, the facility did not have a monitoring and tracking process in place to ensure the residents received the appropriate vaccines. 5. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included traumatic brain dysfunction. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #67's immunization record revealed no documentation that he or his RP had been offered, given, or refused the pneumococcal vaccine. An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 1/11/23 at 10:30 AM revealed she was new to the position and had no information about the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines. She was not sure what the process was for ensuring residents were offered or received immunizations. An interview with the Administrator on 1/12/23 at 10:33 AM revealed that due to staffing turnover, the facility did not have a monitoring and tracking process in place to ensure the residents received the appropriate vaccines.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 53 days of 135 days ( 7-1-22, 7-2-22, 7-3-22, 7-6-22, 7-7...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 53 days of 135 days ( 7-1-22, 7-2-22, 7-3-22, 7-6-22, 7-7-22, 7-8-22, 7-11-22, 7-12-22, 7-15-22, 7-16-22, 7-17-22, 7-20-22, 7-21-22, 7-22-22, 7-25-22, 7-26-22, 7-29-22, 7-30-22, 8-13-22, 8-14-22, 8-17-22, 8-18-22, 8-19-22, 8-20-22, 8-21-22, 8-23-22, 8-27-22, 9-1-22, 9-5-22, 9-6-22, 9-9-22, 9-10-22, 9-11-22, 9-12-22, 9-13-22, 9-16-22, 9-21-22, 9-26-22, 9-28-22, 9-30-22, 9-29-22, 12-1-22, 12-6-22, 12-7-22, 12-8-22, 12-9-22, 12-12-22, 12-16-22, 12-20-22, 12-25-22, 12-27-22, 1-11-23) reviewed for staffing. Findings included: Review of the daily staffing sheets for July 2022, August 2022, September 2022, December 2022 and January 2023 revealed there was no RN scheduled on the following days: - July 2022: 7-1-22, 7-2-22, 7-3-22, 7-6-22, 7-7-22, 7-8-22, 7-11-22, 7-12-22, 7-15-22, 7-16-22, 7-17-22, 7-20-22, 7-21-22, 7-22-22, 7-25-22, 7-26-22, 7-29-22, 7-30-22. - August 2022: 8-13-22, 8-14-22, 8-17-22, 8-18-22, 8-19-22, 8-20-22, 8-21-22, 8-23-22, 8-27-22 - September 2022: 9-1-22, 9-5-22, 9-6-22, 9-9-22, 9-10-22, 9-11-22, 9-12-22, 9-13-22, 9-16-22, 9-21-22, 9-26-22, 9-28-22, 9-30-22, 9-29-22 - December 2022: 12-1-22, 12-6-22, 12-7-22, 12-8-22, 12-9-22, 12-12-22, 12-16-22, 12-20-22, 12-25-22, 12-27-22 - January 2023: 1-11-23 During an interview with the facility's scheduler on 1-12-23 at 1:40pm, the scheduler discussed being the staffing coordinator since before July 2022. She explained she did not have any training when she took the position and was unaware there had to be RN coverage for at least 8 consecutive hours a day. The scheduler stated there were times when she was unable to find RN coverage. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated he felt there was a submission error and that there was an RN working in the facility. He said he did not know why the RN would not have been on the schedule.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record reviews, observation, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional. This deficient practice h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observation, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 64 residents in the facility. Findings included: Review of the list of key personal provided by the facility on 1/9/23 revealed there was no staff member identified to be the Activities Director. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 10:10 AM Activities Assistant #1 stated he had been working for the facility since July 2021. He stated there was no activities director at that time. He stated he believed they had not had an activities director for about a month prior to his starting his employment and they reached out to him because of his extensive nursing home experience as a dietary manager at a different facility. He stated he did not have the qualifications to be the activities director, so he took an as needed position as an activities assistant and came to the facility about three times a week on average. In September of 2021 the facility promoted a housekeeping staff member to the activity's director position, and she received the activities certificate to be a qualified activities director. This activities director remained in that position from September 2021 through 1/2/23. The activities director quit without notice on that date due to a family emergency. He stated he believed the facility was looking for a new activities director at this time but had not confirmed this. He stated he was continuing in his role as the activities assistant and comes to the facility as needed on days the facility did not have an available staff member to set up and provide activities for the residents. The facility was providing activities to the residents and continuing the activities program, however there was no activities director now. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 10:50 AM the Administrator stated in 2021 a housekeeping staff member was promoted to the position of activities director, and she received her certification as a certified activities director in 2021. She continued in this role until she quite without warning on 1/2/23. She came to the morning meeting that day and informed them that it was going to be her last day and she would not be returning to work. He stated they immediately advertised a job opening for a qualified activities director. He stated they made some networking inquiries and had researched past applicants and prior activities directors as well. No candidates had surfaced or become available to the facility yet and the search for a qualified activities director was ongoing.
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, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to post accurate nurse staffing information for Registered Nurses (RN) for 23 of 43 days (12-1-22, 12-6-22, 12-7-22, 12-8-2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to post accurate nurse staffing information for Registered Nurses (RN) for 23 of 43 days (12-1-22, 12-6-22, 12-7-22, 12-8-22, 12-9-22, 12-12-22, 12-16-22, 12-20-22, 12-25-22, 12-27-22, 1-1-23 through 1-12-23) reviewed and observed for posted staffing. Findings included: Review of the daily posted staffing sheets for December 2022 and January 2023 revealed there was no Registered Nurse (RN) included on the posting sheets for the following days: - December 2022: 12-1-22, 12-6-22, 12-7-22, 12-8-22, 12-9-22, 12-12-22, 12-16-22, 12-20-22, 12-25-22, 12-27-22. - January 2023: 1-1-23 through 1-8-23. Observation of the daily posted staffing sheets occurred on the following dates and times and the observation revealed there was no RN included on the posted staffing sheets. - 1-9-23 at 10:15am - 1-10-23 at 7:45am - 1-11-23 at 9:15am - 1-12-23 at 12:30pm The facility scheduler was interviewed on 1-12-23 at 1:40pm. The scheduler stated she was unaware the daily posted staffing sheets had to include an RN. She explained she had not had any training prior to accepting the scheduler position but had been in the scheduler position before July 2022. The Administrator was interviewed on 1-12-22 at 1:57pm. The Administrator stated he had not distinguished between a Licensed Practical Nurse and a Registered Nurse daily but said all disciplines should be included on the daily posted staffing sheets.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $208,566 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 40 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $208,566 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center 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 Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 71%, which is 25 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 40 deficiencies at Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 30 with potential for harm, and 7 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 Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 78 certified beds and approximately 64 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Hertford, North Carolina.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (71%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

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

Is Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center is high. At 71%, the facility is 25 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 62%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

Hertford Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has been fined $208,566 across 1 penalty action. This is 5.9x the North Carolina average of $35,165. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Hertford Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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