Universal Health Care/King

115 White Road, King, NC 27021 (336) 983-6505
For profit - Limited Liability company 96 Beds LIFEWORKS REHAB Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
14/100
#301 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Universal Health Care/King has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #301 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, while being #2 out of 4 in Stokes County means only one local option is better. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a notable weakness, with only 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 64%, which is significantly higher than the state average. While the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive aspect, it has critical issues in care delivery, including failing to notify a physician about a resident's reported oral pain and neglecting to schedule necessary dental follow-ups, resulting in untreated infections. Overall, families should weigh these serious concerns against the absence of fines when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
14/100
In North Carolina
#301/417
Bottom 28%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Carolina facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 64%

18pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: LIFEWORKS REHAB

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Apr 2025 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to refer a resident with a newly identified serious mental illn...

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 refer a resident with a newly identified serious mental illness for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for PASRR (Resident #55). Findings included: Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Level I PASRR determination notification letter dated 3/9/20 indicated No further PASRR screening is required unless a significant change occurs with the individual's status which suggest a diagnosis of mental illness or mental retardation or, if present, suggests a change in treatment needs for those conditions. A review of Resident #55's medical record indicated on 6/25/24 the diagnosis of bipolar disorder was added and on 12/24/24 the diagnosis of major depressive and generalized anxiety disorders was added. There was no evidence indicating a Level II PASRR referral had been completed for Resident #55 after the new diagnoses of serious mental illnesses had been identified. An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 4/14/25 at 11:25 a.m. revealed she was not aware Resident #55 had new serious mental illness diagnoses. She further stated it was her responsibility to complete a Level II PASRR screening for the residents. She revealed she would be notified by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse or Director of Nursing (DON) of new identified mental health diagnosis. In an interview with the DON on 4/15/25 at 11:23 a.m. she revealed the medical record system was configured to alert the SW of new identified mental health diagnoses and was not sure why the SW did not receive an alert in the instance of Resident #55. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/16/25 at 9:09 a.m. he revealed he was not aware Resident #55's Level II PASRR referral had not been completed and explained this was a problem. He revealed the SW will be retrained and complete an audit of all residents who may require a PASRR referral.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan from 12/27/24 through 3/13...

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 develop a comprehensive care plan from 12/27/24 through 3/13/25 for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #37). The facility also failed to update the care plan to reflect the change in the dialysis schedule for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dialysis (Resident #48) and failed to update the care plan to reflect the change in dietary status for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for tube feeding (Resident #79). The findings included: Resident #37 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included obstructive and reflux uropathy. She was hospitalized from [DATE] through12/4/24 and 3/11/25 through 3/13/25. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was cognitively intact and was coded as frequently incontinent of bladder. The Admission/readmission Nursing Collection Tool dated 12/4/24 and completed by Nurse #1 revealed that Resident #37 returned to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter. A care plan for Resident #37's indwelling urinary catheter was originally created on 12/4/24 and resolved on 12/27/24 by MDS Coordinator #1. Interventions included: maintain catheter anchor, maintain catheter privacy bag, observe for signs and symptoms of infection such as dark or cloudy urine or blockage and notify md as indicated, and provide catheter care each shift. The Provider Progress note dated 12/18/24 and completed by the Nurse Practitioner revealed that Resident #37 had an indwelling urinary catheter when genitourinary details were reviewed. The infection note dated 1/23/25 at 11:19 PM and completed by Nurse #3 revealed that Resident #37's indwelling urinary catheter was documented as patent and draining. In an interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #1 on 4/16/25 at 9:42 AM, they revealed that if a resident was readmitted with an indwelling urinary catheter, then the care plan should be updated within 14 days to include that focus. She stated she was normally notified in the morning clinical meeting of any changes in a resident's clinical status. Resident #37's care plan was updated on 12/4/24 to include the new indwelling urinary catheter from the hospital, but it was resolved on 12/27/24 because MDS Coordinator #1 did not see any orders in Resident #37's electronic medical record (EMR) or the hospital discharge summary on 12/4/24. MDS Coordinator #1 stated she could not provide a reason why she did not assess the resident visually and reconcile with the electronic medical record. She indicated that she saw so many residents, it was hard to keep track. The indwelling urinary catheter section in the care plan was readded on 3/13/24 when Resident #37 returned from another hospitalization. The care plan for Resident #37 updated on 3/13/25 revealed that the resident requires a urinary catheter related to: obstructive uropathy. Interventions included: change per physician order, empty as needed and record output, maintain catheter anchor, maintain catheter privacy bag, observe for signs and symptoms of infection such as dark or cloudy urine or blockage and notify md as indicated, and provide catheter care each shift. A joint interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant DON on 4/16/25 at 10:13 AM revealed that on 12/4/24, the admitting nurse should have entered urinary indwelling catheter orders. When entering documentation in the admission collection tool, the chosen answers automatically updated the care plan. They stated that the MDS nurses should have visually assessed Resident #37 and provided accurate support with record review. The Administrator was interviewed on 4/16/25 at 3:58 PM. He stated that MDS Coordinator #1, who resolved the catheter care plan on 12/27/24, should have completed a reassessment to see if the indwelling urinary catheter was still present or removed from Resident #37. 2. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included kidney transplant failure, end stage renal disease (ESRD) and dependence on renal dialysis. The quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #48 had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #48 was coded as receiving dialysis. The comprehensive care plan for Resident #48 was initiated 10/23/24 and last reviewed 2/10/25. The care plan included in part the focus area of Resident #48 was at increased risk for complications secondary to requiring hemodialysis secondary to ESRD. The interventions included Resident goes to dialysis Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday with an 11:00 AM chair time at the Dialysis Center. Review of a physician's order dated 2/19/25 revealed Resident #48's dialysis days were Monday, Wednesday, Friday with an 11:00 AM chair time at the Dialysis Center. An interview was conducted with MDS Coordinator #1 on 4/16/25 at 1:13 PM. She indicated changes to residents' care was communicated each morning during the clinical meeting. MDS Coordinator #1 stated the care plans were usually updated in the clinical meeting. She further stated the care plan was not updated because the information probably did not get communicated. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/15/25 at 3:11 PM. The DON stated information was pulled from the 24-hour report and reviewed each morning during the clinical meeting. She stated the nurse who entered the dialysis order was responsible for making sure changes to Resident #57's dialysis schedule was communicated in the 24-hour report. The DON stated the MDS nurse should have updated the care plan to reflect the change in resident's dialysis scheduled days. 3. Resident # 79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included oropharyngeal phase dysphagia and adult failure to thrive. The quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #79 had severe cognitive impairment with disorganized thinking and inattention. Resident #79 was coded for feeding tube and received more than 51% of her calories from feeding. The comprehensive care plan for Resident #79 was initiated 12/23/24 and last updated 3/18/25. The care plan included in part a focus area of Resident #79 was at risk for complications related to the need for an enteral tube feeding and for possible malnutrition with tube feeding. The interventions included Resident # 79 received a meal tray. Review of a physician's order dated 3/19/25 revealed Resident #79 had a diet order for nothing by mouth (NPO), NPO texture, NPO consistency. An interview was conducted with MDS Coordinator #1 on 4/16/25 at 1:13 PM. She indicated changes to residents' care was communicated each morning during the clinical meeting. MDS Coordinator #1 stated Resident #79 had two different care plans for tube feeding. She indicated the care plan should have been updated to reflect Resident #79's updated diet status of NPO. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/15/25 at 3:11 PM. The DON stated information was pulled from the 24-hour report and reviewed each morning during the clinical meeting. She stated the nurse who entered the NPO order was responsible for making sure changes to Resident #79's diet was communicated in the 24-hour report. The DON stated the MDS nurse should have updated the care plan to reflect the change in resident's diet to NPO.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the management of ...

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 obtain physician orders for the management of an indwelling urinary catheter for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #37). The findings included: Resident #37 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included obstructive and reflux uropathy. She was hospitalized from [DATE] through 12/4/24 and 3/11/25 through 3/13/25. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was cognitively intact and was coded as frequently incontinent of bladder. The care plan for Resident #37 was created on 12/4/24 and resolved on 12/27/24 revealed that the resident requires a urinary catheter. Interventions included: maintain catheter anchor, maintain catheter privacy bag, observe for signs and symptoms of infection such as dark or cloudy urine or blockage and notify md as indicated, and provide catheter care each shift. The Admission/readmission Nursing Collection Tool dated 12/4/24 and completed by Nurse #1 revealed that Resident #37 returned to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter. The Provider Progress note dated 12/18/24 and completed by the Nurse Practitioner revealed that Resident #37 had an indwelling urinary catheter when genitourinary details were reviewed. Review of Resident #37's electronic medical record from 12/4/24 until 3/11/25 revealed no physician orders regarding the care of her indwelling urinary catheter. The skilled note dated 1/14/25 at 3:50 PM and completed by Nurse #2 revealed that urine was obtained from Resident #37 for diagnostic testing. The infection note dated 1/23/25 at 11:19 PM and completed by Nurse #3 revealed that Resident #37's indwelling urinary catheter was documented as patent and draining. The care plan for Resident #37 created on 3/13/25 revealed that the resident requires a urinary catheter related to: obstructive uropathy. Interventions included: change per physician order, empty as needed and record output, maintain catheter anchor, maintain catheter privacy bag, observe for signs and symptoms of infection such as dark or cloudy urine or blockage and notify md as indicated, and provide catheter care each shift. Resident #37 had the following physician orders related to an indwelling catheter dated 3/14/25: - Check indwelling urinary catheter anchor placement each shift - Check indwelling urinary catheter anchor each week and as needed every day shift every 7 days for catheter care - Indwelling urinary catheter care each shift - Change indwelling urinary catheter as needed for clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when the closed system is compromised Multiple telephone attempts were made to contact Nurse #1, but she did not return the call. A telephone interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 4/14/25 at 1:52 PM. She revealed if a resident had an indwelling urinary catheter, then catheter care must be provided each shift or if they are incontinent, whenever they had a bowel movement. Also, it was important to make sure the bag was anchored and positioned correctly, and output was monitored. All catheter instructions should be included in the medication administration record (MAR), or treatment administration record (TAR). Nurse #3 stated that Resident #37 had a catheter when she was readmitted to her assigned hall on 12/4/24. She could not remember if the orders were entered at that time or not. Nurse #3 indicated that she knew how to care for an indwelling urinary catheter, even if there were no orders. During a telephone interview with Nurse #2 on 4/14/25 at 2:16 PM, she revealed that indwelling urinary catheters were monitored to make sure it was draining or had discoloration or sediment present. If the indwelling urinary catheter needed to be changed, then she would do so if it became clogged, not draining, or leakage/comes out. Indwelling urinary catheter care was mainly performed by the nurse aides. If she was helping with incontinence care, then she would assist with catheter care at the end. Nurse #2 stated that Resident #37 was readmitted from the hospital (12/4/24) with the indwelling urinary catheter. Catheter instructions/care were sometimes included on the TAR or on the MAR. Nurse #2 stated that there should always be an order for catheter care and when changing the indwelling urinary catheter. She indicated she had been a nurse for 30 years and if there were not any orders for an indwelling urinary catheter, then she would do what she normally does with catheters. She did not realize there was a lack of indwelling urinary catheter orders for Resident #37, but if she did, she should have notified her supervisor. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/15/25 at 8:06 AM. She revealed that she could not find any catheter care/changing orders for Resident #37 prior to 3/14/25, and she could not say the exact date when the indwelling urinary catheter was inserted for Resident #37. The DON stated that when the facility received Resident #37 on 12/4/24 with a newly inserted indwelling urinary catheter, orders for catheter care and changing of the catheter should have been entered immediately by the admitting nurse (Nurse #1). The DON indicated that the orders were not put in for Resident #37's catheter perhaps because nursing staff just assumed that catheter care/changing would be completed, even if the orders were not entered. The Administrator was interviewed on 4/16/25 at 3:56 PM. He stated that none of the nursing staff followed up on Resident #37's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] missing indwelling urinary catheter care orders. Regardless, Nurse #1 should have contacted the Medical Director for clarification orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to label a new tube feeding formula bottle when ...

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 label a new tube feeding formula bottle when it was hung for 1 of 2 residents with a feeding tube (Resident #245). The findings included: Resident #245 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included failure to thrive, dysphagia, and gastrostomy status (surgical procedure for inserting a tube through the abdomen wall and into the stomach. The tube is used for feeding or drainage). Gastrostomy, feeding tube, and enteral tube feeding are interchangeable descriptions. Review of Resident #245's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact and was dependent on staff with most activities of daily living (ADL). Resident #245 received all nutrition and hydration through the feeding tube. Review of Resident #245's care plan dated 4/3/25 revealed she was at risk for complications related to the need for a feeding tube. Interventions included: administer tube feedings and flushes per order, head of bed elevated during feedings per order, pause feedings during personal care as indicated, residual checks per order, and tube insertion site care per order. Review of a physician order dated 4/11/25 revealed an order for Resident #245 to receive Glucerna 1.5 at 65 milliliters (ml) per hour (hr) administered continuously over 12 hours (6:00 PM - 6:00 AM) with all shifts required to document in the medication administration record (MAR). Check tube placement prior to administration. Review of the April 2025 MAR revealed that Nurse #2 signed off Resident #245's enteral tube feeding of Glucerna 1.5 at 65 ml/hr was started at 6:00 PM on 4/12/25. An observation of Resident #245's tube feeding formula bottle was conducted on 4/13/25 at 11:52 AM. There were no date, time, or flow rate on the tube feeding bottle. An observation and interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was conducted on 4/13/25 at 11:53 AM. She stated that when nurses hang a new tube feeding formula bottle, they needed to label it with the resident's name, date, time, and flow rate per hour. The ADON stated that Resident #245's tube feeding was started at 6:00 PM on 4/12/25 and completed at 6:00 AM this morning. Nurse #2 was interviewed via telephone on 4/14/25 at 2:25 PM. She revealed that when hanging a new tube feeding bottle, she was supposed to label it with the resident's name, date and time of administration, and the flow rate per hour. Nurse #2 was not sure why she had not labeled Resident #245's tube feeding formula bottle at 6:00 PM on 4/12/25. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/15/25 at 12:01 PM, she revealed that when a new tube feeding bottle was hung, the nurses should label the bottle with their name, the resident's name, the date and time of administration, and the rate of the tube feeding formula administration. The DON stated that the tube feeding bottle in Resident #245's room should have been properly labeled when hung at 6:00 PM on 4/12/25 by Nurse #2. The Administrator was interviewed on 4/16/25 at 3:59 PM. He stated that Resident #245's tube feeding bottle hung on 4/12/25 by Nurse #2 should have been properly labeled.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a staff member followed facility policy to sign off a controlled medication immediately aft...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a staff member followed facility policy to sign off a controlled medication immediately after administering on the controlled medication count sheet. This occurred for 1 of 4 staff observed during medication administration (Nurse #1). The findings included: Review of the facility policy entitled: Pharmacy Preparation and General Guidelines: IIA6 -Controlled Substances Policy read in part: When a controlled substance is administered, the licensed nurse immediately enters the following information on the accountability record and the medication administration record (MAR): 1) Date and time of administration 2) Amount administered 3) Remaining quantity 4) Initials of the nurse administering the dose, completed after the medication is actually administered. During an observation of medication pass on 4/15/25 at 8:40 AM, Nurse #1 was observed administering one controlled medication to Resident #57: Oxycodone 10mg - Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain. Nurse #1 removed the Oxycodone medication from the bubble pack and administered it to Resident #57. Nurse #1 did not document (sign out) the medication on the controlled medication count sheet. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 with the Assistant Director of Nursing present on 04/15/25 at 10:22 AM. Nurse #1 confirmed she had not completed the narcotic medication count sheet immediately for the controlled medication she administered to Resident #57. Nurse #1 acknowledged she should have pulled the narcotic medication, administered, and signed out the medication as soon as she administered it. An interview was conducted with the DON on 4/15/25 at 3:30 PM. The DON stated Nurse #1 should have pulled the narcotic medication, administered, and immediately signed the medication out on the controlled medication count sheet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired medications 2 of 3 medication carts (D Hall Medication Cart and E Hall Medication Cart) reviewed for medication stora...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired medications 2 of 3 medication carts (D Hall Medication Cart and E Hall Medication Cart) reviewed for medication storage. The findings included: a. An observation of the D Hall medication cart with Medication Aide #1 on 04/16/25 3:55 PM revealed an opened box of Bisacodyl Suppositories (medication used to cause a bowel movement) with an expiration date of 3/31/25. An interview with Medication Aide #1 on 4/16/25 at 4:01 PM revealed she thought the nurses were responsible for checking the medication carts for expired medications. b. An observation of the E Hall medication cart with Nurse #2 on 4/16/25 at 4:06 PM revealed: an opened bottle of CoQ10 (a dietary supplement used in some people with certain conditions)100 with an expiration date of 2/2025 and an opened bottle of Antacid Antigas liquid (medication used to help sooth or relieve heartburn, acid indigestion and sour stomach) with an expiration date of 2/2025. An interview with Nurse #2 on 4/16/25 at 4:09 PM revealed the nurse assigned to the medication cart was responsible for checking the cart for expired medication. Nurse #2 stated she had missed the medications during her cart check. An interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 4/16/24 at 4:13PM. The ADON stated the nurses assigned to the medication cart were responsible for checking the cart. The ADON further stated nurses on the management team check the medication carts as well as the pharmacist comes in monthly and does a thorough check of the medication carts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment clean and in a sanitary condition to prevent cross contamination by failing to clean under ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment clean and in a sanitary condition to prevent cross contamination by failing to clean under the shelf of 1 of 1 steam tables observed. This practice had the potential to affect residents. The findings included: A review of the Live Well Healthcare Solutions Food Service Closing Checklist read as: All plate warmers, pellet warmers, tray racks and steam tables cleaned and turned off. During the kitchen observation on 04/15/25 at 3:09 PM the steam table was observed. The 5-foot steamtable shelf was observed with dark brown dried food debris. On 4/16/25 at 10:18 AM the 5-foot steamtable shelf was observed with dark brown dried food debris and was sticky to touch. In an interview on 4/16/25 at 10:20 AM the Corporate Dietary Supervisor stated staff should clean the steamtable shelf. In an interview on 4/16/25 at 12:10 PM the Administrator stated the kitchen staff would scrub the steamtable shelf clean. He reported they would add the shelf to the daily sanitation checklist and inspection.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect the rights of 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) to be ...

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 protect the rights of 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) to be free from misappropriation of a narcotic medication (Oxycodone) prescribed to treat pain. Findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses which included: surgical aftercare following surgery on the nervous system, spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, chronic pain, and post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 was cognitively intact and received opioid medication. Review of Resident #2's physician cumulative orders included an order dated 2/2/24 for Oxycodone hydrochloride, immediate release 5 milligrams (mg), one tablet every four hours as needed for pain for seven days (stop date 2/9/24). On 2/29/24 the Administrator was away from the facility and unavailable for interview. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/29/24 at 3:00 p.m. and review of the initial allegation report submitted to the state agency on 2/4/24 revealed that the hall nurse made the weekend supervisor and the DON aware that approximately 16 Oxycodone IR 5mg were missing. The contracted agency nurse who worked the night before had documented that a narcotic bubble card was removed from the medication cart, but the bubble card and the narcotic sheet were not turned in. Initial efforts made to contact the nurse were unsuccessful by the facility and the contracted agency at that time. Full audits were completed of all the medication carts to ensure no other narcotics were missing. The medication room was also searched for missing narcotics. Staff were educated about misappropriation of medication. The police were notified. During the survey on 2/29/24 at 3:58 p.m., attempts made to contact the accused contracted agency nurse via telephone were unsuccessful. The facility's investigation report submitted to the state agency on 2/9/24 included the return telephone call from the contracted agency nurse insisting she was not sure what happened to the missing bubble card of Oxycodone and the narcotic sheet. The contracting agency also notified the facility that the contracting agency nurse was immediately suspended, pending investigation, and the nurse submitted to a drug test the next morning of which the results were negative. The police were notified, and statements were gathered from other staff members. Summary of the facility's investigation documented Resident #2 received her medications and had an adequate supply until the missing medication was replaced by the pharmacy. The contracted agency was notified and the contracted agency nurse responsible for the incorrect count was suspended by the contracting agency pending investigation. The contracted agency nurse was designated do not return by the facility. The medication (Oxycodone) was not located. Law enforcement, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Department of Social Services (DSS), and the North Board of Nursing were notified. A Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Action Plan of the identified misappropriation of the 16 Oxycodone IR 5mg tablets was reviewed and signed by the Administrator, DON, and the Medical Director on 2/5/24. The facility's corrective actions following the incident included: nurses, medication aides, including contract associates were educated on misappropriation of resident property/narcotic medications. The contracted agency was notified to take disciplinary action. The pharmacy was notified. The DON conducted a 100% review of all the facility's medication carts' narcotic drawers (carts on Hall A, 2 on Hall B, Hall C, Hall D, and Hall E) paired with the residents' individual narcotic count sheets, medication containers, and the change of shift-controlled substance count sheets. All medication carts and medication rooms were audited by the DON to ensure all medication counts were accurate. No further discrepancies were identified. The DON would report all findings of audits to the QAPI Committee monthly for 3 months for any needed improvement to prevent a reoccurrence. The date of completion was 2/6/24. The action plan was validated by reviewing the education provided to the staff, reviewing the interviews with staff and residents, and reviewing the daily Controlled Substance Count Sheet/Card Audits. Staff were interviewed and confirmed receiving education on misappropriation of residents' property/medications. Resident #2 was discharged from the facility on 2/20/24.
Jan 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to secure medications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #44) observed with medications at bedside. Findings Included: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included, in part, dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety and major depressive disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 had mild cognitive impairment. A review of the medical record revealed there was no order for Resident #44 to self-administer medication. An observation and interview with Resident #44 were conducted on 01/21/24 at 12:13 PM. The Resident was alert and sitting up in bed. A medication cup that contained eight pills was clearly visible on the overbed table next to the Resident's bed. There were four white pills. two blue pills, and two pink pills in the cup. She revealed the nurse often leaves her pills for her to take when she is ready. She further revealed she took two of the pills earlier but did not have enough orange juice to take the rest. She said she yelled out and asked the nurse for more juice to take the pills with, but the nurse did not bring her anything else to drink. She stated she was not sure what the names of the pills in the were or for what they were prescribed. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 01/21/24 12:33 PM. She explained when she gave medications to a resident, she watched the resident swallow the medication before she left the room. She added there were no residents on Hall B who had an order to self-administer. She verified she was Resident #44's nurse and shared when she brought the medications to Resident #44 earlier, the resident asked for more orange to finish taking her medications. Nurse #1 stated she left the medications in the cup on the Resident's overbed table and went to get more juice. She added when she went to get the juice, she got called away to help with a resident trying to get out of bed and then called to another resident who was verbally aggressive with another staff member. She said she due to being called away, she forgot to return to Resident #44 with the orange juice. She stated the Resident could have taken her medications with the water in her cup, but she preferred the orange juice. She further stated she should not have left the medications on the Resident's overbed table unattended. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/21/24 at 1:17 PM, she stated if a resident self-administered medications there had to be a physician order and an assessment that indicated a resident was able to self-administer medication. If a resident was not able to self-administer medication, the nurse watched a resident swallow the medications before they left the room. The DON verified Resident #44 was not able to safely self-administer medications and did not have an order to self-administer. She said Nurse #1 was educated not to leave medications in a resident's room. She added, if Resident #44 did not take all her medications while the nurse was administering them, Nurse #1 should have removed the medications from her room and returned with them when she had the orange juice. The DON stated a nurse should never leave medications unattended with a resident who did not have an order to self-administer their medications.
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, record review, and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the recertification survey completed on 9/2/22. This was for 1 deficiency that was cited in the area of Label and Medication Storage (F761) and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of 1/24/24. The QAA committee additionally failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put in place following the onsite revisit following the recertification on 10/19/22. This was evident for 1 deficiency in the area of Label and Medication Storage (F761) originally cited on the recertification and complaint survey on 9/2/22 and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of 1/24/24. The continued failure of the facility during two federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program. The findings included: This citation is cross referred to: F761: During the facility's recertification survey on 1/24/24, the facility failed to secure medications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #44) observed with medications at bedside. During the facility's recertification survey of 9/2/22, the facility failed to discard expired medications from 1 of 1 medication storage room reviewed for medication storage. During the facility's onsite follow-up survey on 10/19/22, the facility failed to date an opened tubersol (vial of injectable medication to test for tuberculosis) multi-dose vial in the medication storage refrigerator for 1 of 1 refrigerator observed. During an interview on 1/24/24 at 3:15 PM with the facility's administrator. He stated that the QA members were made up of Administrator, the Director of Nursing, Dietary Manager, Business office manager, Maintenance Director, Social Worker, Activities Director, and Housekeeping Director. The Nurse Practitioner and the Medical Director were always invited to attend. He stated that both he and the director of nursing have been made aware of the concerns regarding this survey and the repeat of several citations. He stated that all of the issues will be looked into, and a thorough plan of correction will be drawn up and implemented to ensure these citations would not be repeated again in the future.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, interview with the Resident Representative and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, interview with the Resident Representative and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the Resident Representative a written notification for the reason for transfer to the hospital for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #1) reviewed for hospitalization. Findings included: 1. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She discharged to the hospital on 2/15/23 and was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record revealed Resident #4's contact person was a family member. The medical record demonstrated the resident was transferred to the hospital on 2/15/23 due to a change in condition. Resident #4 returned to the facility on 2/20/23. No written notice of transfer was documented to have been provided to the Resident Representative. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 had moderately impaired cognition. An attempt to interview Nurse #1, the nurse on duty when Resident #4 was transferred to the hospital, was unsuccessful. During an interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 6/13/23 at 2:31 PM, she explained when a resident transferred to the hospital, a copy of the transfer/discharge notice was sent with the resident. She stated the business office then sent a copy of the notice to the resident's representative. The Business Office Manager was interviewed on 6/13/23 at 2:19 PM. She said when a resident transferred to the hospital, a copy of the transfer/discharge notice was sent with the resident. She thought a copy of the notice was also sent to the Resident Representative, but it was not anyone in the business office who typically sent the written notification. On 6/13/23 at 11:55 AM an interview was completed with the Director of Nursing (DON). She shared when a resident was transferred to the hospital, the facility sent the following paperwork with the resident: medication administration record, face sheet, a transfer summary that included clinical information, bed hold policy and transfer/discharge notice. The DON added she didn't think written notification was provided to the Resident Representative, but that the business office called and verbally notified the Resident Representative. Resident #4's Representative was interviewed by telephone on 6/14/23 at 10:27 AM. She recalled the facility notified her by telephone when Resident #4 was sent to the hospital. She said after the resident went to the hospital, the facility had not sent a written notice of transfer/discharge to her. On 6/14/23 at 11:15 AM an interview was completed with the Administrator. He shared nursing staff sent a transfer/discharge notice with the resident when the resident was transferred to the hospital. The facility had not sent a written notification for transfer/discharge to a Resident Representative when a resident went to the hospital and was expected to return to the facility. He was unable to demonstrate that a notice was sent to Resident #4's Representative and said he didn't think nursing staff made a copy of the notice when they sent a resident to the hospital. 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He discharged to the hospital on 4/3/23 and had not returned to the facility. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 had severely impaired cognition. The medical record revealed Resident #1's family member was listed as a contact person. The medical record demonstrated the resident was transferred to the hospital on 4/3/23 due to a change in condition. No written notice of transfer was documented to have been provided to the Resident Representative. On 6/13/23 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Nurse #2. She stated she was the nurse on duty when Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital. She revealed Resident #1 demonstrated a change of condition and the nurse practitioner gave an order for him to be sent to the hospital. Nurse #2 said when she sent a resident to the hospital, she typically sent a copy of the medication administration record, face sheet, advance directives information, transfer/discharge notice and bed hold policy. She recalled Resident #1 had a family member whom she spoke to regarding his care. She was unable to recall if she contacted Resident #1's family member when he transferred to the hospital but added she normally would call a representative when a resident was sent to the hospital. During an interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 6/13/23 at 2:31 PM, she explained when a resident transferred to the hospital, a copy of the transfer/discharge notice was sent with the resident. She stated the business office then sent a copy of the notice to the resident's representative. The Business Office Manager was interviewed on 6/13/23 at 2:19 PM. She said when a resident transferred to the hospital, a copy of the transfer/discharge notice was sent with the resident. She thought a copy of the notice was also sent to the Resident Representative, but it was not anyone in the business office who typically sent the written notification. On 6/13/23 at 11:55 AM an interview was completed with the Director of Nursing (DON). She shared when a resident was transferred to the hospital, the facility sent the following paperwork with the resident: medication administration record, face sheet, a transfer summary that included clinical information, bed hold policy and transfer/discharge notice. The DON added she didn't think a written notification was provided to the Resident Representative, but that the business office called and verbally notified the Resident Representative. Attempts to interview Resident #1's Representative by telephone were unsuccessful. On 6/13/23 at 2:41 PM and 6/14/23 at 11:15 AM interviews were completed with the Administrator. He shared nursing staff sent a transfer/discharge notice with the resident when the resident was transferred to the hospital. He added, if there was a responsible party, the facility made a copy of the notice and sent it to the family member. He recalled Resident #1's family member was called after he transferred to the hospital and informed of the discharge notice but wasn't sure the family member was provided with a written notification of the transfer/discharge.
Sept 2022 9 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff, Dentist, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Physician interviews the facility failed to immediately inform the physician when a resident (Resident #51) reported to the facility staff that he had oral pain and the facility staff observed a new onset of oral redness, during oral care. This was identified in 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dental care. Resident #51 was seen by a dentist on 10/28/2021 and received a recommendation for follow up dental care in 2 - 6 months. The facility failed to schedule the recommended appointment. Resident #51 reported oral pain and inflammation (redness and swelling) present for one week on 8/15/2022 (8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022) that Resident #51 and two Nursing Assistants (NA) (NA #4 and NA #5) stated was reported to the clinical staff. Interviews with two physicians (Medical Director and Physician #2) and the NP revealed they were not notified of the oral pain and inflammation during the week of 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022. The recommended follow up care, oral pain and inflammation was identified by the surveyor and brought to the facilities attention. The facility then scheduled a dental visit on 8/17/2022 that resulted in diagnoses of two gingival abscesses (infection), dental pain and a recommendation by the dentist for a full mouth extraction (the removal of the teeth). Physician orders were provided for Tramadol (an anti-inflammatory pain medication and two antibiotics (Cleocin and Rocephin). The failure to notify the physician immediately resulted in prolonged, unresolved oral pain and infection that was left untreated. The MD and Dentist revealed infection in the mouth could lead to pneumonia due to a bacterium, weaken the overall immune system, lead to a blood infection or sepsis and can cause severe pain. Immediate Jeopardy began on 8/15/2022 when unresolved oral pain and inflammation was noted in Resident #51's mouth by the surveyor and it was discovered the facility staff had been notified by the Resident during the week of 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022 and failed to notify the physician or NP. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 8/27/2022 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility will remain out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of D, that is not actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. The findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a tracheostomy, aphonia (the loss of the ability to speak through disease or damage to the larynx or mouth), protein calorie malnutrition, hemiplegia, and a gastrostomy. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #51 was assessed to have cognitive impairment, no issues with his teeth, no pain, and no refusal of care. A review of the staffing schedule for Resident #51, for the dates of 8/8/2022 through 8/25/2022, was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/25/2022. The nurses that worked during the dates were identified as Nurse #3 - Nurse #10. Phone numbers were provided for Nurse #4 - #7 and Nurse #9. Seventeen nursing assistants (NA) were identified to work with the Resident during the dates and phone numbers were provided for NA #2 - NA#10. A call was placed to NA#2, NA #10, Nurse #4, Nurse #6, and Nurse #9 without success. A telephone interview was conducted with NA #4 and NA #5. An interview was conducted with NA #4 on 8/25/2022 at 3:22 p.m. and she revealed she had worked with Resident #51 on multiple occasions and had worked with him over the past month. She stated she did oral mouth care each shift she worked and about two weeks ago, the week of 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022, the Resident began to shake his head and pull away when she tried to clean his mouth. She stated she reported this information to the hall nurse but did not recall the nurse's name because she was with an agency. An interview was conducted with NA #5 on 8/25/2022 at 3:44 p.m. and she stated she had worked with Resident #51 numerous times. She added that she swabbed his mouth, during oral care, with a lemon swab. She stated that recently he had begun to shake his head, No, or pull away when she tried to clean his mouth and she asked the Resident if he had pain and he nodded, Yes. She added that she observed a red area to the right side of his mouth and reported the redness to an agency hall nurse because the night shift supervisor had been out of work due to an injury. She revealed this had begun two weeks ago. An observation was conducted on 8/15/2022 at 10:54 a.m. of Resident #51's teeth and revealed the upper right half of the palette was red with an inflamed swollen area to a front tooth and gum area. A review of Resident #51's electronic medical record and nurse progress notes for 60 days, did not include documentation for oral pain or inflammation. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 3:20 p.m. with the MDS Director. The MDS Director reviewed the Resident's dental exam notes from the 10/28/2021 visit, that documented the Resident had multiple missing teeth, 7 teeth that were root tips, and two non-restorable teeth. The surveyor and the MDS Director walked to Resident #51's bedside for an observation of his oral cavity. The MDS Director requested the Resident open his mouth for an observation and then she stated she observed he had inflamed gums to the top right side with multiple tooth fragments and obvious black areas on his teeth. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 4:02 p.m. with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing (DON), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the MDS director, the social worker (SW) and the regional consultant present in the office. The administrative team was made aware of the concerns the surveyor had discovered during the investigation for Resident #51. The DON and Administrator revealed they both had not been aware the Resident had oral pain or inflammation in his mouth. The DON revealed the Resident can communicate his pain and had communicated his gastrointestinal pain in the past. The administrative staff all stated they will schedule a follow up dental appointment, ensure his pain was assessed, and as needed pain medication provided as ordered. A review of the nursing progress notes had been conducted on 8/25/2022 and revealed a nurse progress note written by the ADON on 8/17/2022 for the date of 8/16/2022. The progress note read Resident #51 was assessed for oral pain and denied the pain three times with a head shake. An interview was conducted with Dentist #1 on 8/26/2022 at 3:03 p.m. and he revealed he had conducted a dental assessment of Resident #51 on 8/17/2022 because the facility called his practice on 8/16/2022 to schedule the appointment. He stated the Resident had two areas with purulent exudate (any fluid or semisolid that has exuded out of a tissue because of injury or inflammation) and when the two areas were probed (pressed on with a device) the Resident squeezed his hand to indicate pain. He added, the concern with not being notified sooner about the dental pain, was that infection in the mouth could lead to pneumonia due to a bacterium, weaken the overall immune system, lead to a blood infection or sepsis and can cause severe pain. He revealed it was his expectation for the dentist or medical provider to be notified of oral changes that include redness or pain at the time the changes were identified. He revealed on 8/17/2022 he verbally ordered peridex (an antiseptic) oral rinse, swab the mouth twice a day x 14 days, Acetaminophen for pain in combination with ibuprofen intermittently and provided a referral to an oral surgeon for a full mouth extraction (removal of teeth). An interview was conducted on 8/25/2022 at 1:40 p.m. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) and she revealed each of her visits to Resident #51, in the past two months had been acute visits related to another health concern and she had not conducted an oral exam. She revealed Resident #51's dental situation had been reported to her on 8/25/2022. She revealed it was her expectation for the facility staff to report any clinical changes that included inflammation or pain at the time the Resident reported this to a staff member. An interview was conducted with Physician #2 on 8/25/2022 at 2:54 p.m. via telephone and he revealed he had been at the facility on 8/17/2022 and had been in to see Resident #51 just to check on him. He stated this was not a scheduled visit and he had not conducted an oral exam of the Resident because this was a visit to follow up for other conditions. He added that Resident #51 does not communicate with him and prefers other providers for care. He stated he had not been informed of the Resident's reported oral pain or inflammation during the week of 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022. An interview was conducted on 8/26/2022 at 1:37 p.m. with the Medical Director (MD) and He revealed he had not been informed of Resident #51's oral pain or inflammation during the week of 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022. He added, in relation to Resident #51's dental exam on 8/17/2022, that the concern with an abscess/dental infection, or any infection, would be that it can spread to the bloodstream and lead to sepsis. He stated the infection contains bacteria that could be a contributor to the Resident's possible aspiration pneumonia, diagnosed on [DATE]. He stated on the date of 8/16/2022, when the Resident expressed, he had pain of a 5 on a scale of 0 to 10, his expectation was for the Resident to be offered and provided his breakthrough, as needed medication or the provider notified for further instructions. He added, it was his expectation that when the pain and inflammation was reported to the facility staff, a provider should (physician, nurse practitioner, or dentist) be notified of the change in condition. An interview was conducted with the ADON on 8/25/2022 at 10:07 a.m. and she revealed she had been present during the meeting with the administrative team on 8/16/2022 at 4:02 p.m. She revealed the statement that this was when the facility first learned of the oral pain and the need to schedule a follow up appointment was accurate and on the date of 8/16/2022. An interview was conducted with the ADON on 8/25/2022 at 10:42 a.m. and she revealed she had written a late entry progress note after the survey team had exited the facility on 8/17/2022 that stated she had conducted an oral investigation on 8/16/2022. When asked why she conducted an oral investigation prior to learning the Resident had oral pain and inflammation she stated, but I did, I promise! The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 8/26/2022 at 4:45 p.m. The facility provided a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal dated 8/27/2022. Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome because of the non- compliance: The facility failed to immediately inform the physician or dentist when resident #51 reported to the staff that he had pain in his mouth with redness that resulted from two gingival abscesses. On 8/16/22 the in-house dental provider, was contacted by the Social Worker regarding resident #51 and the need for emergency dental services. The in-house dental provider conducted an on-site evaluation and developed a treatment plan on 8/17/22. The Dentist recommended that resident #51 be seen by oral surgeon for extraction of the remaining teeth. The Facility worked with the Medical Director from 8/17 until 8/25, to find a location for resident #51's tooth extractions, due to resident #51 having a tracheostomy tube and tubing feeding there are challenges involved with this procedure. On 8/25/22 the facility located an oral surgeon in [NAME], NC to schedule an appointment for tooth extraction. The resident was seen on 8/17 by in-house Dentist who ordered acetaminophen for pain and Peridex. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) saw resident #51 for possible pneumonia on 8/25/2022 and examine resident #51's mouth. Upon examination NP wrote orders for Tramadol 50 mg twice a day as needed for pain not controlled by acetaminophen, and the NP ordered: 1) Cleocin 300 mg four times a day x 7 days for potential aspiration pneumonia, and stated this would also cover a dental infection, and 2) Rocephin 1-gram IV everyday x 7 days for pneumonia. A chest x-ray on 8/26/2022 shows no signs of pneumonia. The antibiotic was continued for the dental issues. On 8/25/2022, the Director of Nursing and administrative nurses conducted an Oral Health visual observation and assessment for all current facility residents to identify if any other resident(s) that could be having any dental issues/concerns. The DON and administrative nurses also completed an Oral Health questionnaire, which included the following questions. 1) Are you having any issues with your teeth 2) Are you having dental pain 3) Are you having trouble eating. Any identified issues or concerns will be addressed, and dental consultations will be initiated to ensure residents are treated appropriately utilizing the in-house dental services if recommended by the attending physician. Director of Nursing and/or Nurse managers completed review of 24-hour reports for last 60 days for any other concerns that require physician notification as of 8/26/2022. 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. As of 8/26/22 the Director of Nursing and Administrative Nurses, were educated by the Regional Nurse Consultant regarding the responsibility of physician notification regarding the resident change of condition, related to dental concerns. The Director of Nursing and/or Administrative Nurses will be responsible for notification of the residents' attending physician of dental recommendations and any emergent dental care needs. As of 8/26 the Director of Nursing and Administrative Nurses provided education to the licensed nurses and nursing assistants, including the contract nursing staff, on completing oral cavity observations for red swollen gums, foul odor, and/or other abnormal teeth issues on admission, during routine care, and when residents complain of mouth pain. They were instructed to report any identified concerns to the attending physician for future treatment orders. Additionally, any identified concerns will be reported to the Director of Nursing and/or administrative nurses, by documenting on the 24-hour report. Employees who have not received training from the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, or designee will not be permitted to work until education has been completed. The Staff Development Nurse and RN Weekend Supervisor will track and monitor staff training for completeness. As of 8/26/22, Regional Nurse Consultant also completed education with Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and administrative nurses, related to their responsibility to review twenty-four-hour report daily Monday- Friday during the clinical meeting for any noted concerns for physician notification. Alleged Date of IJ removal: 8/27/2022 Validation of the Credible Allegation occurred on 9/2/2022 and was evidenced by Resident, Dentist, and Physician interviews, observation, and facility training. The resident interviews and observations included an oral assessment of all residents that identified 6 additional residents in need of dental care. The notification of the dentist and medical provider was verified. The facility training included an Inservice for the responsibility of physician notification regarding a change in condition and focused on dental concerns. The facility policies for notification of changes, and dental services were reviewed with all clinical staff. The Resident had an oral surgery appointment scheduled. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 8/27/2022.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff, Dentist, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Physician interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident's well-being by not providing care and services to prevent oral abscesses and unresolved dental pain for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #51) reviewed for dental care. Resident #51 was seen by the dentist on 10/28/2021 and received a recommendation for follow up dental care in 2 - 6 months. The facility failed to schedule the recommended appointment. Resident #51 reported oral pain and inflammation (redness and swelling) present for one week on 8/15/2022 (8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022) that Resident #51 and two Nursing Assistants (NA) (NA #4 and NA #5) stated was reported to the clinical staff. Resident #51 reported pain to facility staff on 8/16/2022 and did not receive a dose of his ordered, breakthrough as needed, pain medication. The recommended follow up care, oral pain and inflammation was identified by the surveyor and brought to the facilities attention. The facility then scheduled a dental visit on 8/17/2022 that resulted in diagnoses of two gingival abscesses (infection), dental pain and a recommendation by the dentist for a full mouth dental extraction (the removal of teeth). Immediate Jeopardy began on 8/15/2022 when unresolved oral pain and inflammation was noted in Resident #51's mouth by the surveyor and it was discovered the follow up dental appointment had not been scheduled in the timeframe recommended, that resulted in two gingival abscesses, pain, and a recommendation for a full mouth dental extraction. 0Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 8/27/2022 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility will remain out of compliance at a lower scope and level of D-that is not actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. The findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a tracheostomy, aphonia (loss of ability to speak through damage to the larynx or mouth), protein calorie malnutrition, hemiplegia, and a gastrostomy. A review of the dental exam notes for the past 12 months revealed Resident #51 was seen by Dentist #1 on 10/28/2021, the facility Dental Service Provider. Resident #51 was assessed to have heavy calculus (a form of hardened dental plaque) and heavy inflammation. He was missing several teeth, had 7 root tips, 3 restorations and 2 non-restorable teeth present. A recommendation was made for a cleaning in 2-6 months and to receive oral dental exams. The 10/28/2021 dental exam was his only dental visit and he had not been seen by the hygienist. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #51 was assessed to have no issues with his teeth, cognitive impairment, no speech, and no pain present. The assessment indicated the Resident had no behaviors or rejection of care. A review of Resident #51's care plan, dated 4/6/2022, revealed a focused area that read, Resident required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) related to limited mobility due to a cerebrovascular accident with left hemiplegia, use of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy {PEG) tube and a tracheostomy with a speech impairment. The interventions included oral care daily and as needed, routine dental assessment and dental consults as needed. A review of the physician orders for Resident #51 revealed: 1) Scheduled Acetaminophen 325 milligram (mg), take two tablets by PEG tube three times a day for pain ordered on 7/18/2022 and 2) Acetaminophen 160 mg/5 milliliters (ml) liquid, take 20 ml via peg tube every 4 hours as needed for pain, ordered on 7/4/2022. A review of the staffing schedule for Resident #51, for the dates of 8/8/2022 through 8/25/2022, was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/25/2022. The nurses that worked during the dates were identified as Nurse #3 - Nurse #10. Phone numbers were provided for Nurse #4 - #7 and Nurse #9. Seventeen nursing assistants (NA) were identified to work with the Resident during the dates and phone numbers were provided for NA #2 - NA#10. A call was placed to NA#2, NA #10, Nurse #4, Nurse #6, and Nurse #9 without success. A telephone interview was conducted with NA #4 and NA #5. An interview was conducted with NA #4 on 8/25/2022 at 3:22 p.m. and she revealed she had worked with Resident #51 on multiple occasions and had worked with him over the past month. She stated she did oral mouth care each shift she worked and about two weeks ago, the week of 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022, the Resident began to shake his head and pull away when she tried to clean his mouth. She stated she reported this information to the hall nurse but did not recall the nurse's name because she was with an agency. An interview was conducted with NA #5 on 8/25/2022 at 3:44 p.m. and she stated she had worked with Resident #51 numerous times. She added that she swabbed his mouth, during oral care, with a lemon swab. She stated that recently he had begun to shake his head, No, or pull away when she tried to clean his mouth and she asked the Resident if he had pain and he nodded, Yes. She added that she observed a red area to the right side of his mouth and reported the redness to an agency hall nurse because the night shift supervisor had been out of work due to an injury. She revealed this had begun two weeks ago. An interview and observation were conducted with Resident #51 on 8/15/2022 at 10:24 a.m. The Resident responded through a nod and required lip reading when he mouthed a response. When asked if he received dental visits, he shook his head no multiple times. The Resident then opened his mouth and pointed at the front right side and to a tooth. When asked if this area hurt, he nodded yes, several times. When asked if he had reported the oral pain, he shook his head yes and mouthed to the nurses. An observation was conducted on 8/15/2022 at 10:54 a.m. of Resident #51's teeth and revealed the upper right half of the palette was red with an inflamed swollen area to a front tooth and gum area. A review of Resident #51's electronic medical record and nurse progress notes for July and August 2022 did not include documentation for oral pain or inflammation. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 3:20 p.m. with the MDS Director. The MDS Director reviewed the Resident's dental exam notes from the 10/28/2021 visit, that documented the Resident had multiple missing teeth, 7 teeth that were root tips, and two non-restorable teeth. The surveyor and the MDS Director walked to Resident #51's bedside for an observation of his oral cavity. The MDS Director requested the Resident open his mouth for an observation and then she stated she observed he had inflamed gums to the top right side with multiple tooth fragments and obvious black areas on his teeth. The MDS Director was not observed to offer anything for pain. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 3:21 p.m. with Resident #51. The MDS Director was present at the bedside. The Resident indicated his pain was a 5 on a scale of 0-10 with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain ever. A review of the August Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed there was no administration documented for the ordered as needed Acetaminophen 1) when the NA's reported this to the hall nurses the week of 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022 or 2) when the Resident reported to the MDS Director that he had pain at a 5 out of 10, on the date, 8/16/2022. On the date of 8/16/2022 the last dose of scheduled acetaminophen had been provided at 1:00 p.m. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 4:02 p.m. with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing (DON), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the MDS director, the social worker (SW) and the regional consultant present in the office. The administrative team was made aware of the concerns the surveyor had discovered during the investigation. The DON and Administrator revealed the facility had not been aware Resident #51 had a dental recommendation for follow up in 2-6 months. They both stated the facility had not been aware the Resident had oral pain or inflammation in his mouth. The DON revealed the Resident can communicate his pain and had communicated his gastrointestinal pain in the past. The administrative staff all stated they will schedule a follow up dental appointment, ensure his pain was assessed, and as needed pain medication provided as ordered. An interview was conducted with the Dentist #1 on 8/17/2022 at 12:00 p.m. and he revealed his practice received a call on 8/16/2022 to schedule the visit due to the Resident reporting pain in his mouth. He said an assessment was completed on 8/17/2022 with Resident #51 and there was a change from the previous visit in October 2021. He stated the Resident now had two gingival abscesses, located on the upper right and lower left of the mouth. He revealed the failure to schedule a follow up visit per his recommendation on 10/28/2021 was very concerning to him. A review of the August MAR for the date of 8/17/2022 revealed Resident #51 had not been provided his breakthrough as needed pain medication as ordered and his last dose of scheduled Acetaminophen, prior to the dental exam had been at 9:00 a.m. The Resident was documented to receive his next dose of Acetaminophen at 1:00 p.m. A review of the nursing progress notes had been conducted on 8/25/2022 and revealed a nurse progress note written by the ADON on 8/17/2022 for the date of 8/16/2022. The progress note read Resident #51 was assessed for oral pain and denied the pain three times with a head shake. An interview was conducted with Resident #51 on 8/25/2022 at 1:06 p.m. and he revealed he had pain in his jaw and the pain had been present for a week before the first interview with the surveyor on 8/15/2022. An interview was conducted with the MDS Director on 8/25/2022 at 10:22 a.m., with the Director of Nursing present, and she was read the 8/16/2022 interview statement of her observation of Resident #51 and what was reported to her. She acknowledged the statement was accurate. When asked what she did with the information that the Resident had pain a 5 out of 10 she revealed she did not offer or provide Resident #51's ordered as needed pain medication. She added she reported this information, regarding the oral redness and pain to the administrative nursing team during the time the surveyor revealed the multiple concerns discovered during the investigation. She stated she was unaware of what the administrative nursing team did with the reported information. She revealed she had not written a progress note, as of 8/25/2022, to document what she observed or what the Resident reported. She added she would document a late entry progress note to reflect what she observed, what was reported to her and the staff she reported to about the pain. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/25/2022 at 10:31 a.m., in reference to the MDS Director interview on 8/25/2022 at 10:22 a.m. The DON stated to the MDS Director she did not recall the MDS director reporting the Resident had pain a 5 out of 10 that had not been reported to the hall nurse for pain medication to be provided. She stated this had not been clearly communicated to the team. She then stated it was the hall nurse that should receive this information with a follow up report to the administrative nursing team that there was a change of condition to a resident. The DON was read the summarized statement from 8/16/2022 at 4:02 p.m. and she revealed the statement was accurate that this was when the team first learned the Resident had oral pain and redness and had a recommendation that had not been scheduled. A second interview was conducted with Dentist #1 on 8/26/2022 at 3:03 p.m. and he revealed on 8/17/2022 Resident #51 had two areas with purulent exudate (any fluid or semisolid that has exuded out of a tissue because of injury or inflammation) and when the two areas were probed (pressed on with a device) the Resident squeezed his hand to indicate pain. He stated facility staff had been present at the bedside when Resident #51 expressed he had pain. He revealed he recommended Acetaminophen for pain in combination with ibuprofen intermittently. He stated the reason he had previously, on 8/17/2022, stated the failure to schedule a recommended follow up visit was concerning to him was because the lack of care can lead to dental issues that included infection. He added when taking care of dental infection, the concern was that it could lead to pneumonia due to bacteria, weaken the overall immune system, and lead to a blood infection or sepsis. He revealed dental abscesses cause severe pain. An interview was conducted on 8/25/2022 at 1:37 p.m. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) and she revealed each of her visits to Resident #51 in the last two months had been acute visits related to another health concern and she had not conducted an oral exam. The NP then walked, with the Surveyor, to the Resident's room to assess Resident #51's mouth. She asked the Resident if he hurt and where the pain was located. The Resident pointed to the right side of his jaw and when asked about his pain he indicated his pain was a 5 out of 10 on a 0-10 pain scale. When asked if the pain was in his mouth, he nodded yes. She revealed the dental situation had been reported to her on 8/25/2022, by the administrative nursing team. She ordered Tramadol 50 mg twice a day as needed for pain not controlled by acetaminophen and ordered 1) Cleocin, an anti-infective medication, 300 mg four times a day x 7 days for aspiration pneumonia and stated this would also cover a dental infection and 2) Rocephin, an antibiotic, 1 gram intravenous (IV) everyday x 7 days for pneumonia. She stated she preferred the Dentist make a recommendation and add for a follow up visit with the primary care physician within a time frame to reevaluate the gums and pain. An interview was conducted with Physician #2 on 8/25/2022 at 2:54 p.m. via telephone and he revealed he had been at the facility on 8/17/2022 and had been in to see Resident #51 just to check on him. He stated this was not a scheduled visit and he had not conducted an oral exam of the Resident because this was a visit for other conditions. He added that Resident #51 does not communicate with him and prefers other providers for care. A telephone interview was conducted with the Dental Provider services, [NAME] President (VP) of operations and the Director of Dental Services on 8/25/2022 at 4:53 p.m. and a referral was made by the Dentist #1 on 8/17/2022 that read, Patient (Resident #51) had pain and an abscess present with infection. A recommendation was made for a full mouth extraction at an outside oral surgeon. An interview was conducted on 8/26/2022 at 1:37 p.m. with the Medical Director (MD) and he revealed, in relation to Resident #51's dental exam on 8/17/2022, that the concern with an abscess/dental infection, or any infection would be that it can spread to the bloodstream and lead to sepsis. He stated the infection contains bacteria that could be a contributor to the Resident's possible aspiration pneumonia, diagnosed on [DATE]. He stated on the date of 8/16/2022, when the Resident expressed, he had pain of a 5 on a scale of 0 to 10, his expectation was for the Resident to be offered and provided his breakthrough, as needed medication or the provider notified for further instructions. He added the lack of dental care that was recommended could be a contributor to the infection the Resident had been diagnosed with. An interview was conducted with the ADON on 8/25/2022 at 10:07 a.m. and she revealed she had been present during the meeting with the administrative team on 8/16/2022 at 4:02 p.m. She revealed the statement that this was when the facility first learned of the oral pain and the need to schedule a follow up appointment was accurate and on the date of 8/16/2022. An interview was conducted with the ADON on 8/25/2022 at 10:42 a.m. and she revealed she had written a late entry progress note after the survey team had exited the facility on 8/17/2022 that stated she had conducted an oral investigation on 8/16/2022. When asked why she conducted an oral investigation prior to learning the Resident had oral pain and inflammation she stated, but I did, I promise! An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 8/25/2022 at 5:58 p.m. and he stated it was his expectation that the facility policy and procedures overcome human error. This error with not getting the hygienist scheduled per the dental recommendation 10/28/2021 was an error from an outside agency. He stated it was his expectation that agency nurses and outside organizations meet the facility policy and protocols in place for the delivery of care at the facility. He revealed if a nurse received a new report of pain, he expected this information to be passed on to the MD and the administrative nursing team along with documentation. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 8/26/2022 at 4:45 p.m. Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome because of the non- compliance: The facility failed to ensure that a resident (Resident #51) received treatment and care, when the facility failed to schedule the recommended follow up dental care which resulted in two gingival abscesses (infection) and pain. There was a delay in reporting a change in condition of a resident (Resident #51) when the facility failed to report pain, changes, or redness to the Dentist or Medical Director when it was first discovered by the clinical staff. The resident was seen on 8/17 by in-house Dentist who ordered acetaminophen for pain and Peridex. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) saw resident #51 for possible pneumonia on 8/25/2022 and examine resident #51's mouth. Upon examination NP wrote orders for Tramadol 50 mg twice a day as needed for pain not controlled by acetaminophen, and the NP ordered: 1) Cleocin 300 mg four times a day x 7 days for potential aspiration pneumonia, and stated this would also cover a dental infection, and 2) Rocephin 1-gram IV everyday x 7 days for pneumonia. A chest x-ray on 8/26/2022 shows no signs of pneumonia. The antibiotic was continued for the dental issues. On 8/16/2022 Assistant Director of Nursing completed an oral assessment of resident #51 after the Director of Nursing informed her of resident prior complaint of pain. The Assistant Director of Nursing, on 8/16/2022, ask resident #51 3 times if he had any mouth pain, and resident # 51 responded no with a head nod. On 8/17/2022 the physician was contacted by the Director of Nursing to see resident #51 regarding the dental examination, and the residents' complaint of oral pain. Resident #51 refused to allow the physician to examine him at that time 8/17/22. What are we doing about this part This resident often refuses treatment from the attending physician. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was asked by the Director of Nursing on 8/25/2022 to examine resident #51 regarding for this resident's complaint of pain during her weekly visit. Upon examination the NP wrote an order for Tramadol 50 mg twice a day as needed for pain not controlled by acetaminophen and ordered: 1) Cleocin 300 mg four times a day x 7 days for potential aspiration pneumonia, and stated this would also cover a dental infection, and 2) Rocephin 1-gram IV everyday x 7 days for pneumonia. On 8/25/2022 the Director of Nursing and Unit Managers conducted an Oral Health observation via visual inspection, and assessment for all current residents to identify if any other resident was having any dental issues/pain. The DON and administrative nurses also completed an Oral Health questionnaire, which included the following questions. 1) Are you having any issues with your teeth 2) Are you having dental pain 3) Are you having trouble eating. Any identified issues or concerns will be addressed, and a dental consultation will be initiated to ensure residents are treated appropriately utilizing the in-house dental services or community dentist if recommended by the attending physician 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. As of 8/26 the Director of Nursing and Administrative Nurses provided re-education to licensed nurses and nursing assistants, including contract nursing staff which included reporting pain, signs of infections, notifying physician, as well as the monitoring of pain and the effectiveness of the pain treatment. Any identified concerns will be reported to the Director of Nursing and/or administrative nurses, by documenting on the 24-hour report. Employees who have not received training from the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing or Unit Manager/designee will not be permitted to work until education has been completed. The Staff Development Nurse and RN Weekend Supervisor will track and monitor staff training for completeness. As of 8/26/22, Regional Nurse Consultant also completed education with Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and administrative nurses, related to their responsibility to review the twenty-four-hour report daily, Monday-Friday, during the clinical meeting for any noted concerns to include reports of any dental issues. Alleged IJ Removal Date 8/27/22 Validation of the Credible Allegation occurred on 9/2/2022 and was evidenced by Resident, Dentist, and Physician interviews, observation, and facility training. The resident interviews and observations included an oral assessment of all residents that identified 6 additional residents in need of dental care. The notification of the dentist and medical provider was verified. The facility training included an Inservice for the responsibility of physician notification regarding a change in condition and focused on dental concerns. The facility policies for notification of changes, and dental services were reviewed with all clinical staff. A review of the August MAR was conducted to verify the ordered medication were being administered to Resident #51, as ordered, with no concerns identified. The Resident had an oral surgery appointment scheduled. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 8/27/2022.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff, Dentist and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to schedule a dental cl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff, Dentist and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to schedule a dental cleaning and examination for Resident #51 after he had a recommendation from Dentist #1 on 10/28/2021 for a routine follow up in 2-6 months. Ten months after the recommendation, an 8/17/22 dental assessment identified two gingival abscesses, infection, and pain. A week later, a diagnosis of possible aspiration pneumonia was added. This was present in 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dental care. Immediate Jeopardy began on 8/15/22 when dental pain and swollen areas were noted in Resident #51's mouth and it was discovered the follow-up dental appointment had not been schedule in the timeframe recommended. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 8/28/22 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility will remain out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of D to implement corrections for Resident #51, ensure the monitoring of the systems put into place and to complete facility employee training. The findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a tracheostomy, aphonia, protein calorie malnutrition, hemiplegia, and a gastrostomy. A review of the Dental exam notes for the past 12 months revealed Resident #51 was seen by Dentist #1 on 10/28/2021, the facility Dental Service Provider. Resident #51 was assessed to have heavy calculus (a form of hardened dental plaque) and heavy inflammation. He was missing several teeth, had 7 root tips, 3 restorations and 2 non-restorable teeth present. A recommendation was made for a cleaning in 2-6 months and to receive oral dental exams. The 10/28/2021 dental exam was his only dental visit and he had not been seen by the hygienist. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #51 was assessed to have no issues with his teeth, cognitive impairment, no speech and no pain present. A review of the physician orders for Resident #51 revealed: 1) Scheduled Acetaminophen 325 milligram (mg), take two tablets by peg tube three times a day for pain ordered on 7/18/2022 and 2) Acetaminophen 160 mg/5 milliliters (ml) liquid, take 20 ml via peg tube every 4 hours as needed for pain, ordered on 7/4/2022. An interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) #4 on 8/25/2022 at 3:22 p.m. and she revealed she had worked with Resident #51 on multiple occasions and had worked with him over the past month. She stated she did oral mouth care each shift she worked and about two weeks ago, the Resident began to shake his head and pull away when she tried to clean his mouth. She stated she reported this information to the hall nurse but did not recall the nurse's name because she was with an agency. An interview was conducted with NA #5 on 8/25/2022 at 3:44 p.m. and she stated she had worked with Resident #51 numerous times. She added that she swabbed his mouth, during oral care, with a lemon swab. She stated that recently he had begun to shake his head, No, or pull away when she tried to clean his mouth and she asked the Resident if he had pain and he nodded, Yes. She added that she observed a red area to the right side of his mouth and reported the redness to an agency hall nurse because the night shift supervisor had been out of work due to an injury. She revealed this had begun two weeks ago. An interview and observation were conducted with Resident #51 on 8/15/2022 at 10:24 a.m. The Resident responded through a nod and required lip reading when he mouthed a response. When asked if he received dental visits, he shook his head no multiple times. The Resident then opened his mouth and pointed at the front right side and to a tooth. When asked if this area hurt, he nodded yes, several times. An observation was conducted on 8/15/2022 at 10:54 a.m. of Resident #51's teeth and revealed the upper right half of the palette was red with an inflamed swollen area to a front tooth and gum area. A review of Resident #51's electronic medical record and nurse progress notes July and August 2022 did not include documentation for oral pain or inflammation. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 3:21 p.m. with Resident #51. The MDS director was present at the bedside. The Resident indicated his pain was a 5 on a scale of 0-10 with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain ever. The MDS Director was not observed to offer anything for pain. A review of the August Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed there was no administration documented for the as needed Acetaminophen on the date, 8/16/2022, when the Resident indicated he had pain at 5 out of 10. An interview was conducted with the Dentist #1 on 8/17/2022 at 12:00 p.m. and he revealed his practice received a call on 8/16/2022 to schedule the visit due the Resident reporting pain in his mouth. He said an assessment was completed on 8/17/22 with Resident #51 and there was a change from the previous visit in October 2021. He stated the resident now had two gingival abscesses, located on the upper right and lower left of the mouth. He added his expectation would be for the follow up to occur as recommended last October and then to receive follow up information, as needed, from the hygienist. He added the lack of scheduling of the recommendation follow up visit was a concern to him. A second interview was conducted with Dentist #1 on 8/26/2022 at 3:03 p.m. and he revealed on 8/17/2022 Resident #51 had two areas with purulent exudate and when the two areas were probed (pressed on with a device) the Resident squeezed his hand to indicate pain. He revealed he recommended Acetaminophen for pain in combination with ibuprofen intermittently. He added when taking care of dental infection, the concern was that it could lead to pneumonia due to bacteria, weaken the overall immune system, and lead to a blood infection or sepsis. He revealed dental abscesses cause severe pain. An interview was conducted with Resident #51 on 8/25/2022 at 1:06 p.m. and he revealed he had pain in his jaw and the pain had been present for a week before the first interview on 8/15/2022. An interview was conducted on 8/25/2022 at 1:37 p.m. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) and she revealed each of her visits to Resident #51 in the last two months had been acute visits related to another health concern and she had not conducted an oral exam. The NP then walked to the Resident's room to assess Resident #51's mouth. She asked the Resident if he hurt and where the pain was located. The Resident pointed to the right side of his jaw and when asked about his pain he indicated his pain was a 5 out of 10 on a 0-10 pain scale. When asked if the pain was in his mouth, he nodded yes. She revealed the dental situation had been reported to her on 8/25/2022. She ordered Tramadol 50 mg twice a day as needed for pain not controlled by acetaminophen and ordered 1) Cleocin, an anti-infective medication, 300 mg four times a day x 7 days for aspiration pneumonia and stated this would also cover a dental infection and 2) Rocephin, an antibiotic, 1 gram intravenous (IV) everyday x 7 days for pneumonia. She stated she preferred the Dentist make a recommendation and add for a follow up visit with the primary care physician within a time frame to reevaluate the gums and pain. An effort to interview the agency nurses that worked with Resident #51 8/8/2022 through 8/15/2022 via telephone was conducted, without success. A telephone interview was conducted with the Dental Provider services, [NAME] President (VP) of operations and the Director of Dental Services on 8/25/2022 at 4:53 p.m. and a referral was made by the Dentist #1 on 8/17/2022 that read, Patient (Resident #51) had pain and an abscess present with infection. A recommendation was made for a full mouth extraction at an outside oral surgeon. The VP added their company was responsible for scheduling all follow up visits but stated they had been unable to obtain consent to treat for Resident #51. The Director of Dental Services stated a letter to acquire consent to treat had been mailed to the Resident at the facility. An interview was conducted on 8/26/2022 at 1:37 p.m. with the Medical Director (MD) and he revealed, in relation to Resident #51's dental exam on 8/17/2022, that the concern with an abscess/dental infection, or any infection would be that it can spread to the bloodstream and lead to sepsis. He stated the infection contains bacteria that could be a contributor to the Resident's possible aspiration pneumonia, diagnosed on [DATE]. He stated on the date of 8/16/2022, when the Resident expressed, he had pain of a 5 on a scale of 0 to 10, his expectation was for the Resident to be offered and provided his breakthrough, as needed medication or the provider notified for further instructions. He added the lack of dental care that was recommended could be a contributor to the infection the Resident had been diagnosed with. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 8/26/2022 at 4:45 p.m. The facility provided a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal dated 8/28/2022. Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome because of the non- compliance: The facility must ensure all residents receive dental services as required to meet their needs. Facility failed to schedule a follow up dental appointment for resident # 51 following dental consult on 10/28/21. On 8/16/22 the inhouse dental provider, was contacted by the Social Worker regarding resident #51 and the need for emergency dental services following identification needed services. The in-house dental provider conducted an on-site evaluation and treatment plan on 8/17/22. In-house dental consultant recommended the resident be seen by an oral surgeon for the remaining teeth to be extracted. The Facility worked with the Medical Director to locate an oral surgeon for resident #51's recommended tooth extraction from August 17 to August 25, 2022. Due to resident #51 having a tracheostomy tube and tubing feeding there are challenges with this procedure. On 8/25/22 the facility working with the Medical Director located an oral surgeon in [NAME], NC. The Facility completed all required paperwork to schedule the appointment 8/25/22 for tooth extraction. The paperwork for the oral surgeon was completed by nurse practitioner and family then returned to the oral surgeon so that the appointment can be scheduled on 8/25/2022. On 8/25/2022 the Director of Nursing, Nurse Managers and administrative nurses conducted Oral Health observations, visual examinations and assessments for all current residents to identify if any other residents that were having any dental issues/concerns. The DON and Unit managers also completed an Oral Health questionnaire, which included the following questions. 1) Are you having any issues with your teeth 2) Are you having dental pain 3) Are you having trouble eating. Any identified issues or concerns that will be addressed, and dental consultations will be initiated to ensure residents are treated appropriately utilizing the in-house dental services if recommended by attending physician As of 8/27/2022 the facility social worker completed a review of dental consultant recommendations for follow up appointments and outside dental referrals for October 2021, through August 2022 to ensure that residents follow up appointments were scheduled. 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. As of 8/17/22, the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing or designee will review the consultations to ensure they have been addressed and the appointments have been scheduled with the dental provider. The appointment schedule and, schedule book, as well orders, recommendations, consultations, and follow ups will be brought to the clinical meeting by the Director of Nursing or Assistant Director of nursing. They will be compared, to validate that the orders, recommendations, consults, and follow ups are accounted for, and match the scheduled appointments. The schedule list for the in-house dental provider will be maintained and updated by the social worker, and the outside appointment book will be maintained and updated by the transportation aide under the supervision of the Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing. As of 8/26/22 the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and the administrative nurses were educated by the Regional Nurse Consultant regarding the responsibility of physician notification regarding the results of the dental questionnaires. On 8/26/22 the Director of Nursing determined the Unit Manager would be accountable for physician notification. The physician will determine if an emergent dental consultation is needed, or if routine dental services are sufficient. As of 8/26/22 the Director of Nursing and nurse managers are accountable for inputting the order for consultation into the electronic medical record and will oversee the schedule process which will be completed by the transportation aide. Emergent dental consultations will be sent to In-house Dental Services by Social Worker or Director of Nursing following recommendation by physician, or the resident will be sent to an appropriate outside dental service provider as determined by the medical provider. On 8/26/22 the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and administrative nurses provided education to nurses and nursing assistants, including contract nursing staff, to complete oral cavity observations for red swollen gums, foul odor, and/or other abnormal teeth issues on admission, during routine care, and with residents that complain of mouth pain. Any identified concerns will be reported to the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing or Unit Manager by the nurse or nursing assistant. Assessments completed with any identified issues will be reported to physician by charge nurse for further recommendations related to treatments. Employees who have not received training from the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing or Unit Manager/designee will not be permitted to work until education has been completed. The Staff Development Nurse and RN Weekend Supervisor will track and monitor staff training for completeness. The Administrator will validate current employees and agency staff have been educated on 8/26/22. The Administrator will also validate all clinical employees, including agency staff, are educated prior to working. As of 8/26/22 Regional Nurse Consultant also completed education to include, the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and Unit Manager, related to their responsibility to review Dental Consults and recommendations daily Monday- Friday during the clinical meeting Alleged Date of IJ Removal: 8/28/2022 Validation of the Credible Allegation occurred on 9/2/2022 and was evidenced by Resident, Dentist, and Physician interviews, observation, and facility training. The resident interviews and observations included an oral assessment of all residents that identified 6 additional residents in need of dental care. The notification of the dentist and medical provider was verified. The facility training included an Inservice for the responsibility of physician notification regarding a change in condition and focused on dental concerns. The facility policies for notification of changes, and dental services were reviewed with all clinical staff. A review of the August MAR was conducted to verify the ordered medication were being administered to Resident #51, as ordered, with no concerns identified. The Resident had an oral surgery appointment scheduled. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 8/28/2022.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. An observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #23's room, on 11/15/2022 at 10:37 AM. The resident was observed lyin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. An observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #23's room, on 11/15/2022 at 10:37 AM. The resident was observed lying in her bed alert and looking at a magazine. It was observed the bedside nightstand had a broken handle on the top drawer. An interview was conducted with Resident #23 at that time. She explained she couldn't open the drawer because the handle was broken and because of her tremor and muscle weakness she could not pull the drawer out from the sides. She stated she was scared to use the drawer for fear of cutting herself on the broken metal. The Resident further stated she was unable to recall to whom she had reported the broken handle. She said it would be nice to be able to use the top drawer without fear of being injured. On 08/17/2022 at 2:26 PM the Maintenance Director was interviewed. He stated he had been in position of Maintenance Director for two months. He further stated he had hired a new helper two weeks ago. He explained he did daily environmental rounds to assess for needed repairs but must have missed the broken drawer handles. He further explained when Corporate visited, they assessed the need to replace bedside nightstands and they had ordered eighty new ones. He revealed he did not know when the tables would be delivered. On 08/17/2022 at 2:35 PM during an observation of Resident #23's with the Maintenance Director he agreed the drawer handle needed to be repaired. He also observed missing drawer handles to bed A's bedside table and a malfunctioning fluorescent light. He stated he was going to repair the issues immediately. On 08/17/2022 at 2:49 PM Executive Director was interviewed. He stated he was made aware of the environmental concerns in Resident #23's room. He explained it was his expectation that the facility policies and procedures were sufficient to overcome human error. He stated the issues would be repaired immediately. Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain 1. furniture in good repair (room [ROOM NUMBER]A and B) and 2. failed to maintain a clean floor in a resident room for 2 of 8 resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]A room [ROOM NUMBER]) and reviewed for environment. The findings included: 1. On 8/14/22 at 12:11 PM, an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]A revealed the floor in the resident ' s room and bathroom appeared dirty and dull. The area around the toilet in the bathroom had a large, blackened area. The floor of the residents room appeared dirty and the corners were observed to have a buildup of dirt and debris. On 8/14/22 at 12:11 PM, the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]A was interviewed. She stated the housekeeper came in and drug the broom and the mop around the room. She stated there was no pressure applied and the dirt would not come up anything because it was ground in. On 8/17/22, the Housekeeping Director was interviewed. She stated room [ROOM NUMBER] is on the B hall and that is the worst in the facility. She stated the facility doesn ' t have anyone on staff to do the floors right now; their last employee quit. She stated they are in the process of hiring someone. On 8/17/22 at approximately 4:00 PM, the Administrator was interviewed. He stated the facility was having a hard time hiring staff but he did expect the resident rooms to be clean, including the floors.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurate for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #51) reviewed for dental care. The findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the facility dental visits for the past 12 months revealed Resident #51 had a comprehensive dental visit on 10/28/2021. The Dental progress note documented the Resident was missing 16 teeth and had only root tips present on tooth 6, 7, 14, 23, 24 and 26 with heavy plaque and heavy inflammation. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the dental assessment documented Resident #51 had no cavities or broken natural teeth, An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 3:20 p.m. with the MDS Director. The MDS Director reviewed the Resident's dental exam notes from the 10/28/2021 visit, that documented the Resident had multiple missing teeth, 7 teeth that were root tips, and two non-restorable teeth. The surveyor and the MDS Director walked to Resident #51's bedside for an observation of his oral cavity. The MDS Director requested the Resident open his mouth for an observation and then she stated she observed he had inflamed gums to the top right side with multiple tooth fragments and obvious black areas on his teeth. She added, the dental exam visit from 10/28/2021, that stated he had multiple missing teeth and broken teeth matched the oral assessment conducted on 8/16/2022 and she would create a correction to the 4/6/2022 MDS. An interview was conducted on 8/25/2022 at 3:03 p.m. with the Responsible Party (RP) for Resident #51 and she revealed the resident had issues with his teeth prior to the facility admission on [DATE], that included several broken teeth.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to apply a bunny boot as ordered by ...

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 apply a bunny boot as ordered by the physician for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #70). The findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a physician ' s order dated 6/16/22 read: bunny boot to right foot to use in bed to keep toes from pushing against bed. A review of the MAR for August 2022 revealed the order for bunny boot to right foot to use in bed to keep toes from pushing against bed was signed off as completed for 8/1/22 to 8/14/22 and 8/17/22. An observation 8/14/22 10:45 AM revealed Resident #70 lying in bed. Resident #70 ' s feet were observed lying flat on the mattress and there was not a bunny boot on Resident #70 ' s right foot. An observation on 8/17/22 at 8:30 AM revealed Resident #70 lying in bed. He did not have a bunny boot in place to his right foot. During an interview with Resident #70, he stated he did not have a bunny boot for the right foot and the staff never offered to put it on. On 8/17/22 at 8:42 AM, an interview was conducted with Nurse #1. She stated she worked Sunday 8/14/22 and signed off on the MAR that she put on Resident #70 ' s bunny boot but did not. She stated she signed on the MAR for 8/17/22 that she applied the bunny boot to Resident #70 ' s right foot because she just got in a hurry and signed it off, but she had not applied it. On 8/17/22 at 8:28 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing. She stated when a nurse signs or checks off the MAR that indicated the task was completed. She stated the nurse should not sign that she complete something if she did not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a communication board to m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a communication board to maintain communication during activity of daily living care in 1 of 1 resident (Resident #51) reviewed for communication. The findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included protein calorie malnutrition, tracheostomy, aphonia (an absence of speech related to disease or injury to the larnyx or mouth), hemiplegia, and gastrostomy. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #51 had no speech, was limited to making concrete request only but understood speech with clear comprehension. The Resident required extensive assistance of two staff members with bed mobility and total assistance of one staff member with dressing, eating, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. A review of the care plan dated 7/11/2022 identified focused areas that read Resident #51 had difficulty expressing his needs related to being nonverbal and required assistance with activity of daily living (ADL) needs related to limited mobility due to a recent cardiovascular accident with left hemiplegia, the use of a gastrostomy tube and a tracheostomy with speech impairment. The interventions included a communication board. An interview was conducted with Resident #51 on 8/15/2022 at 10:27 a.m. and the Resident used gestures and nodded for communication and required lip reading to understand. When asked if he had a communication board, he shook his head no. An observation of Resident #51's room on 8/15/2022 at 10:28 a.m. was conducted and a communication board was not present in the closet, bedside table, end table or on the walls. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 8/16/2022 at 9:42 a.m. and she revealed communication for Resident #51 takes time and causes frustration and anxiety for the Resident. She denied ever seeing a communication board or device to be used with the Resident while providing daily care. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 1:52 p.m. with Nursing Assistant #1, assigned to Resident #51. She revealed she had been assigned to the Resident many times and had not seen a communication board for the Resident and had not utilized one during his daily care. An observation of Resident #51's room on 8/16/2022 at 1:57 p.m. was conducted and a communication board was not present. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2022 at 2:02 p.m. with Speech Therapist #1 and she revealed she had worked with Resident #51 intermittently since his admission. She stated a communication board was recommended, and provided at the bedside, for communication on 5/12/2021, again on 10/1/2021 and in July 2022. She revealed the Resident had moments of anxiety when the communication board was not used. She added all recommendations were provided to the nursing team and to the interdisciplinary team. She stated the communication board should have been added to the care plan when first recommended. She conducted a room observation at 2:23 p.m. and revealed she did not see the communication board that she had provided. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 8/16/2022 at 4:02 p.m. and he revealed his expectation was for all residents and staff to be provided with the necessary tools for communication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interviews the facility failed to discard expired medications from 1 of 1 medication storage room reviewed for medication storage. The findings included: On 8/17/2022 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews the facility failed to discard expired medications from 1 of 1 medication storage room reviewed for medication storage. The findings included: On 8/17/2022 at 3:24 p.m. a review of the medication storage room was conducted with the Nurse Supervisor #1. An observation of the cabinets revealed a store grocery bag that contained four home medications prescribed to a discharged resident. Two of the four medications were expired. Medication #1 was Oxycodone 5 mg with 30 tablets inside the bottle with an expiration date printed on the prescription label of 5/5/2022. Medication #2 was valacyclovir with an expiration date printed on the prescription label to discard after 5/5/2022. An interview was conducted with Nurse Supervisor #1 on 8/17/2022 at 3:26 p.m. and she revealed the medications were from a discharged Resident. She stated it was the facility practice to request a family member take home medications with them or to lock them up for the Resident until discharge if they did not have family to take the medications home. She added the narcotics should not have been in the cabinet but locked in an area designated for controlled medications. She stated it was her expectation that all expired medications be discarded according to the current recommended practice. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 8/17/2022 at 4:02 p.m. and he revealed it was his expectation for medications to be stored per the facility protocols and for expired medications to not be stored in the medication room.
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, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the recertification and complaint surveys conducted on 2/25/21, and 1/17/20. This was for one deficiency that was cited in the areas of Accuracy of Assessments (F641) cited on 2/25/21 and 1/17/20 and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of 9/2/22. The duplicate citation during three federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. Findings Included: This tag is cross referenced to: F641 - Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurate for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #51) reviewed for dental care. During the recertification and complaint survey of 2/25/21, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the area of skin conditions for 1 of 1 resident. During the recertification and complaint survey of 1/17/20, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the area of medications for 2 of 5 residents. An interview with the Administrator on 08/17/22 at 6:10 PM revealed the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee met at least quarterly but usually monthly. Some of the issues reviewed during the monthly meetings were identified through rounds, trends with grievances and quality measures as well as MDS issues. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 9/2/2022 at 11:00 a.m. and he revealed: The inaccuracies occurred prior to the Administrator being assigned to this facility and he stated he would need to review the citations before speaking on what the previous concerns had been. Regarding the MDS inaccuracy with the dental/oral assessment on the 4/6/2022 annual MDS, He stated the nursing staff and MDS coordinator will be reeducated on how to conduct a proper dental assessment.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Carolina facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (14/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Universal Health Care/King's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Universal Health Care/King an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within North Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Universal Health Care/King Staffed?

CMS rates Universal Health Care/King's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Universal Health Care/King?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at Universal Health Care/King during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 16 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Universal Health Care/King?

Universal Health Care/King 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 LIFEWORKS REHAB, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 96 certified beds and approximately 90 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in King, North Carolina.

How Does Universal Health Care/King Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Universal Health Care/King's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Universal Health Care/King?

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 Universal Health Care/King Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Universal Health Care/King has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Universal Health Care/King Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Universal Health Care/King is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. 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 Universal Health Care/King Ever Fined?

Universal Health Care/King has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Universal Health Care/King on Any Federal Watch List?

Universal Health Care/King 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.