Signature Healthcare of Kinston

907 Cunningham Road, Kinston, NC 28501 (252) 527-5146
For profit - Limited Liability company 106 Beds SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#282 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Signature Healthcare of Kinston has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's care and operations. With a state rank of #282 out of 417, they are in the bottom half of nursing homes in North Carolina, and a county rank of #2 out of 3 suggests only one local option is better. The trend is improving slightly, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 7 to 6 over the past year. Staffing is a major weakness, with a rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a concerning turnover rate of 67%, which is significantly higher than the state average. The facility has also faced critical incidents, including a nursing assistant feeding a resident who was supposed to be on a liquid diet, leading to hospitalization, highlighting serious gaps in staff training and competency. Despite some average health inspection scores, these issues suggest families should proceed with caution when considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In North Carolina
#282/417
Bottom 33%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$11,638 in fines. Higher than 59% of North Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
32 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
2023: 7 issues
2024: 6 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: 67%

21pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $11,638

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (67%)

19 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Oct 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the ability of a re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the ability of a resident to self-administer medications prior to leaving the resident's medications on the overbed table in the resident's room for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pharmacy services (Resident #18). Resident #18 indicated she could not take a lot of medications together at one time and the medications were left on her overbed table to take when she wanted to. Findings included: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact. Physician orders included the following medication orders for Resident #18 that were active on 10/14/24: - Acetaminophen 325 milligram (mg) tablets give two tablets for pain or fever every six hours as needed. - Augmentin 875-125 mg tablet give twice a day ending 10/15/2024. - Ciprofloxacin HCL 500 mg tablet give one tablet twice daily for seven days. There was no documentation in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) that Resident #18 had been assessed to self-administer her medications, there was no physician's order for self-administration, and there was no care plan that addressed self-administration of medication. On 10/14/2024 at 10:48 am, two medication cups were observed on Resident #18's overbed table located between the Resident #18's open door and the right side of Resident #18's bed. There were two round white tablets in one medication cup and two white broken oblong tablets in the other medication cup. Residents were observed outside Resident #18's open door in the hallway self-propelling their wheelchairs. On 10/14/2024 at 10:48 am in an interview with Resident #18, she stated the two white, broken oblong tablets in the medication cup were her antibiotic, and the two white round tablets in the other medication cup were her pain medication. She said she could not take a lot of medications together at one time and the medications were left on her overbed tablet to take when she wanted to. An observation and an interview were conducted on 10/14/2024 at 10:50 am with Nurse #1. He was observed at a medication cart in the hallway and walked into Resident #18's room. Nurse #1 explained the two round tablets in one medication cup located on Resident #18's overbed table were Acetaminophen tablets, and the two broken white tablets in the other medication cup located on Resident #18's overbed table were an antibiotic. Nurse #1 explained he saw Resident #18 with the medication cup up at her mouth when he was in room to administer Resident #18 her medications before exiting the room. He stated he should have stayed in Resident #18's room and watched her swallow the medications. Nurse #1 was observed removing the two medications cups from the overbed table when exiting Resident #18's room. On 10/17/2024 at 10:15 am in a follow up phone interview with Nurse #1, he clarified the medications observed on the overbed table were Ciprofloxacin and Acetaminophen. He explained Resident #18 requested to visualize her antibiotic and pain medication separately in medication cups and her other morning medications were crushed in pudding and administered. Nurse #1 stated he observed Resident #18 take the medications administered in the pudding, and the Ciprofloxacin was at her mouth when he walked out of the Resident's room. On 10/17/2024 at 11:47 am in an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing, she stated Resident #18's medications should not have been left on the overbed table, and Nurse #1 should have stayed with Resident #18 when administering her medications to ensure Resident #18 had taken her medications. On 10/17/2024 at 12:34 pm in an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing, she explained Resident #18 had not been assessed to perform self-administration of her medication. She stated Nurse #1 should have watched Resident #18 take her medication before leaving Resident #18's room when administering medications to Resident #18.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

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 provide the required Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Servi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the required Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) (form 10123) and the and failed to provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review (Resident #75). The findings included: Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with Medicare Part A skilled services. Resident #75's admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #75's Medicare Part A skilled services ended on 4/12/24 and her Medicare Part A Skilled Nursing Facility benefit was not exhausted. She remained in the facility. Record review revealed no evidence that Resident #75 or the resident's responsible party were provided the NOMNC notice or the ABN. During an interview with the Business Office Manager on 10/16/24 at 11:24 AM she stated she had trained the former weekday Receptionist to do the required forms. She stated the Receptionist was no longer employed by the facility. The Business Office Manager stated the forms were not uploaded to the facility system and when she searched Resident #75's folder there were blank forms in the folder. The former Receptionist was unable to be contacted. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 10/18/24 at 9:45 AM who indicated Resident #24 should have received the CMS-10123-NOMNC and the CMS-ABN as required by federal guidelines.
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 resident and staff interviews the facility failed to refer a resident with a new diagnosis of mental ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to refer a resident with a new diagnosis of mental illness for a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) evaluation for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for PASARR (Resident #33). Findings included: Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included adjustment disorder. A physician progress note revealed Resident #33 was newly diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder on 6/27/24. Resident #33's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed she was cognitively intact. She was not coded as being screened for a PASARR evaluation. A review of Resident #33's care plan last reviewed 7/29/24 revealed she was care planned for behaviors such as nervousness, fears, and a general feeling of uneasiness related to history of a traumatic event. The interventions included encouraging the resident to voice fears and referral to a physician. During an interview with Resident #33 on 10/16/24 at 12:41 PM she stated she had not previously been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She was assaulted in the past by a family member. Resident #33 stated she began having nightmares after the family member began calling her at the facility in July 2024. An interview with the facility Social Worker on 10/16/24 at 11:29 PM was conducted. She stated she did not refer Resident #33 to NC MUST (North Carolina Medical Uniform Screening Tool, a tool used to complete PASARR applications) because she felt Resident #33 was doing well. The Social Worker stated she was unaware that Resident #33 was having nightmares. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 11:00 AM the Administrator indicated if a new psychiatric diagnosis required a new referral to NC MUST for a PASARR application the Social Worker should have followed the correct referral process.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete an accurate medical record in document...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete an accurate medical record in documenting the administration of medication for 1 of 29 residents whose medical records were reviewed (Resident #18). Findings included: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease. Physician orders dated 2/14/2024 included Acetaminophen 325 milligram (mg) tablets give two tablets for pain or fever every six hours as needed for Resident #18. On 10/14/2024 at 10:52 am, Nurse #1 was observed administering Resident #18 Acetaminophen 650 mg in applesauce to Resident #18. There was no record of Resident #18 receiving Acetaminophen 650 mg on 10/14/2024 on Resident #18's October 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR). There was no nursing documentation in Resident #18's medical record that Acetaminophen 650 mg was administered by Nurse #1 on 10/14/2024. On 10/17/2024 at 10:15 am in a phone interview with Nurse #1, he stated pain medications ordered as needed were to be documented on Resident #18's MAR after administration of the medication to the resident. He explained he thought he had documented the dose of Acetaminophen administered to Resident #18 on 10/14/2024 on Resident #18's MAR. On 10/17/2024 at 12:34 pm in an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing, she stated Nurse #1 should have documented the administration of Acetaminophen on Resident #18's MAR after administering the medication to the resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included colostomy. Resident #2's most recent quarterl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included colostomy. Resident #2's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had moderate cognitive impairment and was not coded for an ostomy. Resident #2's care plan dated 9/27/24 revealed a focus for a colostomy for elimination. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 10:35 am with the MDS Coordinator, she stated the ostomy section for Resident #2 should have been coded for her colostomy and it was an error. In an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/17/24 at 10:51 am, she stated Resident #2's MDS assessment should have been coded correctly for her colostomy. Based on record review, observations, resident Interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum data Set (MDS) assessment in the areas of medications, smoking, elimination and behaviors for 4 of 28 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed (Resident #14, #17, #13, and #33). Findings included: 1. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus. There was a physician order for the following hypoglycemic medications on Resident #14's electronic medical record (EMR): * On 11/23/2023, Novolin Regular flex pen insulin 100 units per milliliter, give 11 units subcutaneous three times a day * On 11/23/2023, Novolin Regular flex pen insulin 100 units per milliliter per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime. * For blood glucose reading 200-250, give 3 units subcutaneous. * For blood glucose reading 251 -300, give 5 units subcutaneous. * For blood glucose reading 301-350, give 7 units subcutaneous. * For blood glucose reading 351-400, give 10 units subcutaneous. * For blood glucose reading 401-450, give 12 units subcutaneous. * For blood glucose reading 451-500, give 14 units subcutaneous. * For blood glucose reading 501-550, give 16 units subcutaneous. * For blood glucose reading 551-600, give 18 units subcutaneous. * On 3/10/22024, Empagliflozin (medication used to treat Diabetes Mellitus) 25 milligrams tablet once a day. * On 3/20/2024, Insulin Glargine solution 100 units per milliliter, give 65 units subcutaneous once a day in the morning. * On 3/20/2024, Insulin Glargine solution 100 units per milliliter, give 60 units subcutaneous once a day at bedtime. A review of the September 2024 Medication Administration Record recorded the hypoglycemic medications were given as ordered. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #14 was not coded for Resident #14 receiving hypoglycemic medications. Resident #14's care plan last reviewed 9/6/2024 included a focus for Diabetes Mellitus. Interventions included to administer medication as ordered by the physician. In an interview with MDS Nurse #1 on 10/17/24 at 10:32 pm, she stated Resident #14's annual MDS dated [DATE] should have been coded for the use of hypoglycemic medications. She explained the MDS worksheet used in the MDS department noted Resident #14 was receiving insulin and hypoglycemic medications. She stated it was human error in not coding Resident #14's annual MDS for hypoglycemic medications. In an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing on 10/17/24 at 12:34 pm, she stated Resident #14's annual MDS should have been coded accurately for the use of hypoglycemic medications based on Resident #14's assessment for the use of insulin. In an interview with the Administrator on 10/17/2024 at 1:05 pm, he stated Resident #14's MDS assessment should be an accurate assessment for the use of hypoglycemic medications. 2. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a stroke. Resident #17 care plan initiated on 1/28/2020 indicated Resident #17 was a smoker. A quarterly smoking assessment dated [DATE] reported Resident #17 was a smoker. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #17 was cognitively intact and did not use tobacco products. On 10/15/2024 at 8:30 am in an interview with Resident #17, she stated she was a smoker and used the facility's designated smoking area during the facility's designated times. On 10/15/2024 at 1:24 pm, Resident #17 was observed in the facility's designated smoking area supervised by the Activities Assistant #1 smoking a cigarette. On 10/17/2024 at 10:24 am in an interview with MDS Nurse #1, she stated she was aware Resident #17 was a smoker, and the annual MDS dated [DATE] should have been coded to reflect Resident #17 used tobacco products. She said she clicked the wrong answer on the MDS screen for the use of tobacco products and could not provide a specific reason why the MDS was coded incorrectly for the use of tobacco products for Resident #17. On 10/17/2024 at 12:34 pm in an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing, she stated the MDS assessment should have been coded accurately based on the smoking assessments for Resident #17. On 10/17/2024 at 1:05 pm in an interview with the Administrator, he stated Resident #17's annual MDS assessment should have been coded accurately for smoking. 4. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia. Resident #13's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a gradual dose reduction for antipsychotic medication had not been attempted. Resident #13's care plan dated 10/4/24 revealed a gradual dose reduction of antipsychotic medication was attempted on 6/27/24. Review of a Pharmacy Consultant Report dated 7/5/24 revealed a contraindication for a gradual dosage reduction of antipsychotic medication signed by the physician. An interview was conducted with MDS (Minimum Data Set) Nurse #1 on 10/16/24 at 10:36 AM who stated it was an oversight and should have coded Resident #13's assessment to reflect the gradual dose reduction attempt for antipsychotic medication. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 10:30 AM the Interim Administrator stated Resident #13's assessment dated [DATE] should have been coded to reflect a gradual dosage reduction attempt for antipsychotic medication.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide maintenance to the bathroom door and keep the grout on the floor at the base of the bathroom doorway clean from buil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide maintenance to the bathroom door and keep the grout on the floor at the base of the bathroom doorway clean from buildup of debris for 1 of 2 resident rooms (Resident #63's room) reviewed for environment. The findings included: a. Observation of Resident #63's room on 10/14/24 at 10:40 AM revealed the surface of the bathroom door approximately three quarters from the top of the doorframe, and as well as the sides of the doorway were scuffed. A large area, approximately 3 inches in height, and across the length of the bathroom door revealed peeling paint which exposed what appeared to be a wood-like color underneath. b. Observation of Resident #63's room on 10/14/24 at 10:40 AM revealed the bathroom doorway had what appeared to be a buildup of debris, black in color, on the grout in the right and left spaces at the base of the bathroom doorway. An interview was conducted on 10/14/24 at 10:40 AM and on 10/15/24 at 8:59 AM with Resident #63. During both interviews Resident #63 expressed how unhappy she felt about the condition of her bathroom door and doorway. She stated in each interview she reported the issues with her bathroom door and doorway to staff several times, however, she could not remember the names of the staff members or when she noticed the damaged door or dirty areas at the base of the bathroom doorway. An interview with the Assistant Maintenance Director was conducted on 10/16/24 at 8:46 AM. He stated room inspections were done monthly; random resident rooms were selected. He stated there was a maintenance logbook that was kept at the nurse's station for maintenance issues that needed to be addressed. He added this logbook was checked weekly. He also utilized an electronic work order system. This system was checked weekly. He was unable to find a pending or completed work order for Resident #63's room. He stated he was not aware of any issues with the bathroom door or bathroom doorway in Resident #63's room. On 10/16/24 at 9:24 AM the Assistant Maintenance Director conducted an observation of the areas of concern in Resident #63 room in conjunction with an interview with Resident #63 who resided in the room. Resident #63 showed the Assistant Maintenance Director the issues with her bathroom door, doorway, and floor area. Resident #63 informed the Assistant Maintenance Director she reported her concerns to staff many times, however, she could not remember the names of the staff members. A review of the maintenance logbook at nurses' station was conducted on 10/16/24. There was no work order request for Resident #63's room found. An interview was conducted with the Housekeeping Supervisor on 10/16/24 at 9:31 AM. He stated he was not aware of the blackened discoloration on both sides of the floor in Resident #63's room bathroom doorway. He added Resident #63's room was last deep cleaned on 10/8/24 and he was not notified of discoloration on the floor in the bathroom doorway. An interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director on 10/17/24 at 9:36 AM. He stated the facility conducted ambassador rounds where resident rooms were assessed. He added the Administrator was responsible for ambassador rounds for Resident #63's room. In an interview with the Administrator on 10/17/24 at 9:47 AM he stated he conducted ambassador rounds daily for Resident #63's room. He stated he did not notice any issues with the bathroom door or discoloration on the bathroom doorway floor. He added Resident #63 did not tell him about any concerns. An interview was conducted with the interim Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/17/24 at 10:38 AM. She stated nursing staff were expected to notify housekeeping if a resident's room needed cleaning, as well as notify maintenance for anything in need of repair. The DON further stated the facility also conducted ambassador rounds daily.
Jul 2023 7 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident (Resident #40) in a di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident (Resident #40) in a dignified manner as evidenced by searching her room without permission on 6/24/23. Staff removed money found in her room and this caused Resident #40 to cry and to feel helpless and powerless. The money was later returned to the resident. This was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dignity. The findings included: Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included depression and anxiety. Resident #40's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated severe cognitive impairment. She had no mood symptoms and no indication of psychosis. The assessment indicated she had rejection of care daily. An interview was conducted with Resident #40 on 7/11/23 at 9:51 AM. She was oriented to person, place, time and situation. Resident #40 stated she was watching television while sitting in her wheelchair when two staff members came in and started going through her room on Saturday 6/24/23 after supper while she was watching television. She reported she believed it was two nurse aides but she was not sure. She reported they located cigarettes in a blue bag in her closet. The resident stated she is an occasional smoker and forgot the cigarettes were in her bag. She stated she did not care if the cigarettes were returned and had no issue with the facility keeping the cigarettes locked up. Resident #40 stated they discovered approximately $7,000 in her makeup bag which was in a drawer of her bedside table. Resident #40 stated she tried to get her makeup bag back but was unsuccessful. Resident #40 stated the staff member counted the money while on the phone with the Administrator. She further stated she became very upset and cried because the money in question was her life savings. Resident #40 stated she went out in the hall and begged staff who were in the hall to give her the money back. She was unable to recall the specific staff members. She reported one of the staff members stated if she did not get back in her room and stop crying, she would be sent to a psychiatric ward. Resident #40 stated she could not remember which staff member threatened to send her to a psychiatric ward. Resident #40 stated she was scared due to this threat and returned to her room. She reported the staff told her they were taking her money to ensure it was not stolen. Resident #40 expressed frustration because she stated it was her money and it should be her decision if she kept the money in her room. Resident #40 reported the staff reminded her she was not allowed to have the cigarettes and lighter. She stated she felt very depressed at the thought of losing her money. Resident #40 stated she had this money so when she discharged , she would be able to have remodifications done to her home and pay for assistance as she just had a leg amputation. She stated she felt very hopeless and powerless in this situation. Resident #40 further stated she did not think it was right they (the staff) went into her room and began going through her things. She stated they did not ask her permission. She stated her money was returned to her by the Administrator on 6/26/23 and she was given a lockbox by Nurse #7 on 6/24/23. She pointed out the key to the lockbox on a stretchy cord on her wrist. Resident #40 stated she was her own Responsible Party. During a phone interview with Resident #40's family member on 7/11/23 at 4:30 PM she stated she spoke with Resident #40 on 6/26/23, and she told her staff went in to check for drugs in her room. She stated Resident #40 reported two staff members took money from her. The family member further stated the resident reported she was told to stop crying or she would be sent to a psychiatric hospital. The family member stated she spoke with the Administrator on 6/29/23 and the Administrator admitted they should not have taken Resident #40's money. She stated she was not aware Resident #40 had $6400 in the facility. During an interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #20 on 7/11/23 at 12:00 PM she reported on 6/24/23 a cup with zinc oxide (a cream utilized by staff when changing resident briefs) was found at Resident #12's bedside. It was inadvertently left at the resident's bedside. She reported staff completed room searches for all residents and were looking for medications and/or lotions at bedside. She stated Nurse #5 went in Resident #40's room. NA #20 stated Nurse #5 called her in Resident #40's room because she had found 6 lighters and 3 packs of cigarettes. Residents were not allowed to have lighters and cigarettes in their possession. She further stated Resident #40 had a wad of cash in her room which was in a pencil case. NA #20 stated Nurse #5 called the Administrator and the Administrator stated to remove the cash from her room. She further stated Nurse #5 counted the money out loud with the Administrator on the phone. NA #20 stated Nurse #5 tried to explain to Resident #40 they were taking the money and locking it up her money to ensure nothing happened to it. She stated Resident #40 did not seem to understand. She stated Resident #40 became upset and was screaming and crying. She stated they attempted to calm Resident #40 down without success. She further stated the Unit Coordinator was not scheduled to work that evening but she came in after the search was completed. She stated she witnessed the Unit Coordinator lock the money in her desk drawer. NA #20 stated the weekend charge nurse got a lock box and gave it to Resident #40. She reported she did not hear anyone threaten Resident #40 with psychiatric hospitalization. An interview was conducted with Nurse #5 on 7/11/23 at 5:42 PM. She stated she came in to work on 6/24/23 and was told to search rooms by the Administrator and remove items residents were not supposed to have such as medications, illicit drugs and other contraband. Nurse #5 reported she and the two medication aides were instructed to perform the search. She stated they searched 100% of resident rooms and consent was not secured from residents or their responsible parties. Nurse #5 stated she was working based on the instructions given by the Administrator. Nurse #5 stated she found cigarettes and lighters in Resident #40's room. Nurse #5 reported residents were not allowed to have cigarettes and lighters in their room. She further stated she found a pouch in Resident #40's bedside table and looked in it when searching for medications. Nurse #5 stated she found $6400 in the pouch and contacted the Administrator. The Administrator instructed her to remove any contraband and the money from Resident #40's room. She reported she counted the money while the Administrator remained on the phone. Nurse #5 stated Resident #40 hit her and tried to run her over with her wheelchair. She stated Resident #40 was very upset and crying. Nurse #5 stated she was no knowledge of anyone threatening her with psychiatric hospitalization. An interview was conducted with Nurse Aide (NA) #19 on 7/11/23 at 11:55 AM who stated she recalled the night of the search of resident rooms on 6/24/23. She stated she witnessed Nurse Aide #20, and a nurse (Nurse #5) go into Resident #40's room and was searching for cream. She explained Resident #12 had a cream inadvertently left at his bedside and they wanted to ensure no other residents had medications at bedside. An interview was conducted with the Unit Coordinator on 7/11/23 at 1:00 PM. She stated she was not in the building when the search happened on 6/24/23. She reported she was called in afterwards by the Administrator to help count Resident #40's money. She further stated she believed the money was counted over the phone with the Administrator. The Unit Coordinator stated she placed $6400 in her desk drawer. The Unit Coordinator stated she was in the building from approximately 10:01 PM until 10:45 PM. She reported Resident #40 was very upset and was calling staff derogatory names. The Unit Coordinator stated she did not hear anyone threaten Resident #40 with psychiatric hospitalization. She indicated the cigarettes and lighters were locked in the nurses' station because residents were not allowed to keep smoking materials. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 7/11/23 at 2:45 PM who stated he was not involved with the searching of resident rooms on 6/24/23. He stated Resident #40 was very upset when he entered the building after 9:00 PM on 6/24/23. Nurse #7 reported he spoke with her and she stated staff forcibly took her money. He stated he took Resident #40 outside to smoke to calm down. Nurse #7 stated he provided her with a lockbox and showed her how to use it. During an interview with the Administrator on 7/11/23 at 2:15 PM she reported on 6/24/23 she instructed staff were to search resident rooms for medications at residents' bedside and other contraband. She explained she was notified on 6/24/23 a resident had become ill and they located a zinc oxide cream at his bedside. The Administrator stated she instructed Nurse #5 and two medication aides to search 100% of resident rooms. She stated no consents were obtained. She stated any actions taken by staff members were at her instruction. The Administrator stated when she spoke with the Regional Nurse Consultant after the search on 6/24/23, she was told it should have not been a full search but just to check on room surfaces that no medications were at bedside. An interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 7/11/23 at 3:15 PM who stated she spoke with the Administrator by phone on the evening of 6/24/23 and was told about staff confiscating Resident #40's money. She indicated she told the Administrator the money had to be returned. She reported earlier in the day on 6/24/23 when she was informed of a resident possibly ingesting zinc oxide cream she instructed the Administrator for staff to check resident rooms for medications. The Regional Nurse Consultant stated it was her expectation staff would check surfaces for similar medications, not search closets and drawers. She indicated that the staff should not have conducted full room searches without consent unless there was reasonable suspicion of contraband or property belonging to another person. She further indicated it is a resident rights' issue to enter a resident's room and begin a search without permission. During an interview with the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations on 7/11/23 at 3:30 PM she reported Resident #40's money should not have been taken from her without her permission. She indicated she believed the Administrator did not understand the facility policy. The [NAME] President of Clinical Operations indicated the situation of medications at a resident's bedside did not warrant a 100% search for contraband in resident rooms according to facility protocol. She indicated residents have the right to possessions and the facility cannot search without a reasonable suspicion of contraband or another resident's property. The [NAME] President of Clinical Operations reported Resident #40's money should not have been removed from her possession.
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 record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 1 resident whose MDS was reviewed for the use of restraints (Resident #61). Findings included: Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included dementia and use of gastrostomy tube. Nursing documentation dated 7/24/2022 recorded Resident #61's representative provided consent for the use of an abdominal binder and was educated on the use of restraints and side effects from the use of the abdominal binder. Physician orders dated 12/1/2022 included an enteral feeding at 60 milliliters an hour from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. twice a day, and phsyican orders dated 3/23/2023 included abdominal binder release and assess skin every two hours. If any change of condition, notify physician. Surgical progress notes for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement date 3/21/2023 due to self-removal of gastrostomy tube stated it was essential that the abdominal binder remain in place. An observation assessment dated [DATE] indicated implementation use of an abdominal binder, a restrictive device, for Resident #61 as an enabler and consent for use from Resident #61's representative. The June 2023 Medication Administration Record recorded the abdominal binder was released every 2 hours and skin was assessed daily. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #61 was severely cognitively impaired with no limitations in upper body movements. The MDS also indicated Resident #61 required total assistance with eating and received greater than 51% of dietary calories and greater than 501 milliliters of fluids through tube feedings. The MDS was not marked for the use of a restraint. On 7/12/2023 at 8:18 a.m., when Nurse Aide (NA) #1 uncovered Resident #61's abdominal (stomach) area, a white abdominal binder was observed wrapped front and back and closed by Velcro (hoop and loop fastener used to adhere and secure items) around the abdominal area. NA #1 stated the abdominal binder was used to prevent Resident #61 from pulling the gastrostomy tube. In an interview with the MDS Nurse #2 on 7/13/2023 at 4:54 p.m., she stated the abdominal binder was being used for medical reasons. She said it was a medical device, not a restraint, used to keep Resident #61 from self-pulling out the gastrostomy tube ordered by the physician. She stated the use of the abdominal binder had never been coded as a restraint in the MDS assessment. In an interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 7/13/2023 at 5:47 p.m., she stated an abdominal binder was a restraint, and when Resident #61 was assessed for the use of the abdominal binder, it was determined to be an enabler and not a restraint. In an interview with Regional [NAME] President (VP) #1 and Regional [NAME] President #2 on 7/13/2023 at 6:14 p.m., VP #1 stated the abdominal binder was not a restraint if Resident #61 could remove the abdominal binder, and he wasn't aware a medical device used to prevent Resident #61 from pulling the gastrostomy tube was a restraint. Regional [NAME] President #2 stated the MDS assessment should be coded accurately, and he did not think the abdominal binder was a restraint.
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 F0658 (Tag F0658)

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 follow a physician's order to call the physician for a blood...

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 follow a physician's order to call the physician for a blood glucose reading greater than 550 for two incidents of a high blood glucose reading on 6/25/2023 and to obtain physician orders to administration insulin coverage for the high glucose readings for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for the use of insulin. (Resident #82) Findings included: Resident #82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included Diabetes Mellitus. There was a physician order dated 6/20/2023 to check Resident #82's blood glucose four times a day before meals and at bedtime and to administer Tresiba 100 units per milliliter (mL) 6 units once a day at night. On 6/21/2023, Humalog sliding scale insulin 100 units per milliliter was ordered as the following: * Blood glucose reading less than 60; call the physician. * Blood glucose reading between 200-250; give 3 units Humalog insulin. * Blood glucose reading between 251-300; give 5units Humalog insulin. * Blood glucose reading between 301-350; give 7 units Humalog insulin. * Blood glucose reading between 351-400; give 10 units Humalog insulin. * Blood glucose reading between 401-500; give 14units Humalog insulin. * Blood glucose reading between 501-550; give 16 units Humalog insulin. * Blood glucose reading greater than 550; call physician. A review of the June 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #82 recorded the blood glucose reading as high on 6/25/2023 at 12:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. and 8: 00 p.m. Under comments on the June 2023 MAR, Nurse #7 documented late on 6/25/2023 at 6:31 p.m. Resident #82 was given 8 units of Humalog insulin at 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Nurse #5 documented on 6/25/2023 at 8:00 p.m., Resident #82 refused 16 units of Humalog insulin and only wanted 6 units Humalog insulin. Resident #82's next blood glucose reading recorded was 176 at 12:00 p.m. on 6/26/2023. There was no nursing documentation reporting the physician was notified of the high blood glucose readings on 6/25/2023 at 12:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. found in Resident #82's medical record. Nurse #7 created a physician telephone order for Humalog 100units per milliliter 8 units subcutaneous immediately on 6/25/2023 at 6:07 p.m. There were no other new physician orders for insulin coverage found on Resident #82's chart for 6/25/2023. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #82 was cognitively intact and had received seven injections of insulin in the seven-day look back period. Resident #82's care plan dated 7/1/2023 included a focus for the risk of unstable blood glucose. Interventions included monitoring the blood glucose as physician ordered, providing meals as ordered and encouraging diet compliance and notifying the physician with significant changes in sign and symptoms of hyperglycemia. In a phone interview with Nurse #7 on 7/13/2023 at 10:27 a.m., she stated she recalled Resident #82 would refuse his insulin and wanted to tell the nursing staff the amount of insulin to administer. She stated she did not recall Resident #82's blood glucose reading being high. She explained when a blood glucose level read high, the physician was called for orders, and new orders were placed in the computer. She said documentation of a high blood glucose reading and treatment, if not documented on the MAR, would be documented in the nursing notes or on a situation background assessment recommendation (SBAR) form. In a phone interview with Nurse #5 on 7/13/2023 at 12:30 p.m., she stated when Resident #82's blood glucose readings were high she was to call the physician. She explained when blood glucose readings read high she would give the maximum dose of insulin on the sliding scale while waiting for the physician to call. She stated when she worked the 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (night shift), it was difficult to reach the physician. When calling the physician, a nurse answered and asked multiple questions, or you left a message with no return call. She stated on 6/25/2023 she did not call the physician and used her own judgement to administer Resident #82 insulin for the high blood glucose reading. She said Resident #82 refused Humalog 16 units, the highest amount ordered on the Humalog sliding scale, and was given Humalog 6 units as resident requested. In a phone interview with Physician #1 on 7/13/2023 at 2:32 p.m., she stated she was unable to recall receiving a call from Nurse #7 and Nurse #5 on 6/25/2023 due to Resident #82's blood glucose reading being high. She explained there was a physician on-call every night, and there was an advice nurse that gathered information before calling the physician on-call. She stated based on the Humalog sliding scale order, the nursing staff was to call the physician for specific new orders for blood glucose readings greater than the Humalog sliding scale. In an interview with the interim Director of Nursing and Regional Nurse Consultant on 7/13/2023 at 5:30 p.m., the Regional Nurse Consultant stated Nurse #7 and Nurse #5 should had called the physician for each high blood glucose reading as ordered on the Humalog sliding scale order. She stated medications were to be administered as ordered by a physician, and new physician orders were to entered into the Resident #82's electronic medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired chocolate milk cartons from the walk-in refrigerator. On 7/10/2023, expired chocolate milk cartons dated 7/9/2023 wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired chocolate milk cartons from the walk-in refrigerator. On 7/10/2023, expired chocolate milk cartons dated 7/9/2023 were observed on 2 of 2 resident's breakfast meal trays (Resident #56 and Resident #22) when breakfast meal trays were returned to the kitchen. This practice had the potential to cause food borne illness. Findings included: On 7/10/2023 at 9:52 a.m. during an observation of the walk-in refrigerator in the kitchen with the Dietary Manager and Regional Dietary Manager, six chocolate milk cartons with an expiration date of 7/9/2023 were observed in the milk crate in the walk-in refrigerator. The Dietary Manager and Regional Dietary Manager were observed discarding the six cartons of expired chocolate milk into the trash. On 7/10/2023 at 9:52 a.m., the Regional Dietary Manager stated she was watched the breakfast serving line the morning of 7/10/2023, and none of the residents received chocolate milk at breakfast. The Dietary Manager stated the expiration date on the chocolate milk cartons was to be checked every morning before going out on the meal trays. On 7/10/2023 at 10:13 a.m. two chocolate milk cartons with expiration date of 7/9/2023 were observed on Resident #56's and Resident #22's breakfast tray on the meal cart returned to the kitchen. Resident #56's chocolate milk was observed opened and half emptied. Resident #22's chocolate milk was observed sealed and returned to the kitchen unopened. On 7/10/2023 at 10:13 a.m., the Regional Dietary Manager stated she did not think any residents got chocolate milk on the serving line that morning. On 7/10/2023 at 2:32 p.m. in an interview with Resident #56, she stated the chocolate milk she drank at breakfast on 7/10/2023 tasted good. On 7/10/2023 at 2:50 p.m. in an interview with Nurse Aide #3, she stated she delivered Resident #56 her breakfast tray on 7/10/2023 and helped set up the breakfast tray by opening the chocolate milk carton. She stated she did not look at the expiration date on the chocolate milk carton. On 7/12/2023 at 12:10 p.m. in an interview with Dietary Aide #1, she explained she was not assigned the beverages on the serving line on 7/10/2023. She stated expiration dates on milk products were to be checked before using and placing on the meal trays. On 7/13/2023 at 6:17 p.m. in an interview with Regional [NAME] President #1, he stated always check expirations on milk products before use and discard the milk item if expired.
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 record review and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previous...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previously put in place following the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 5/24/22. The deficiency is in the area of food procurement, storage and preparation (F812). The continued failure during two federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F812: Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired chocolate milk cartons from the walk-in refrigerator. On 7/10/2023, expired chocolate milk cartons dated 7/9/2023 were observed on 2 of 2 resident's breakfast meal trays (Resident #56 and Resident #22) when breakfast meal trays were returned to the kitchen. This practice had the potential to cause food borne illness. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 5/24/22 the facility was cited at F812 for failing to label and date left over food items and discard expired food items available for use in 2 of 2 kitchen refrigerators. Attempts to contact the Administrator on 7/13/23 by phone were not successful. The Director of Nursing was also unavailable for an interview during the survey. An interview with the Regional [NAME] President was conducted on 7/13/23 at 3:40 PM. He stated the Administrator was not answering her phone so he was unsure of the reason for the repeat deficiency.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and proced...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and procedure in the following areas: administration reporting allegations of abuse within two hours to the state agency from the time of notification of the alleged abuse incident (Resident #76 and Resident #40) and completing a thorough investigation that included assessments of all residents for abuse and statements from all residents and involved staff for an allegation of abuse (Resident #40, Resident #7, and Resident #15) for 4 of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings included: The facility's Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation of Property policy dated 10/17/2022 stated any abuse allegation must be reported to state within 2 hours from the time the allegation was received, and any reasonable suspicion of a crime plus serious bodily injury must be reported to the state and police. The investigation guidelines stated the facility's administrator will investigate all allegations, reports, grievances and incidents that potentially could constitute allegations of abuse and may delegate some or all of the investigation as appropriate but retains the ultimate responsibility to oversee and complete the investigation and to draw conclusions regarding the nature of the incident. The investigation should include interviews of involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses and others who might have knowledge of the allegations and to the extent possible and applicable, provide complete and thorough documentation of the investigation. The facility administrator will make reasonable efforts to determine the root cause of the alleged violation and will implement corrective action consistent with the investigation findings and take steps to eliminate any ongoing danger to the resident or residents. c substantiated allegation of abuse will be reviewed by the facility's quality assurance and performance improvement committee to detect potential patterns or trends and for consideration of further interventions or training opportunities. 1. Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #76 was moderately impaired cognitively and required assistance with toileting and bathing. Nursing documentation dated 7/6/2023 at 7:42 a.m. by Nurse #4 stated around 5:00 a.m. Resident #76 reported Nurse Aide (NA) #2 had assaulted her and closed the door when Resident #76 confronted her about not answering her call light. Nurse #4 assessed Resident #76 for injuries and recorded Resident #76 stated she was okay. Nurse #4 recorded she informed NA #2, she would answer Resident #76's call lights and provide care as needed. A review of the initial report alleging employee to resident abuse dated 7/7/2023 stated the facility became aware of the incident on 7/7/2023 at 8:35 a.m. and the local law enforcement agency was notified on 7/7/2023 at 8:35 a.m. The initial report was signed by the interim Director of Nursing, and there was a handwritten notation that the initial report was refaxed to the state agency on 7/7/2023 at 4:45 p.m. In an interview with Resident #76 on 7/10/2023 at 12:05 p.m. she stated she made a police report after NA #2 pushed her back onto the bed, turned off the light and shut the door last week. She stated someone got NA #2 out of the facility, and she had not spoken to anyone in Administration. In a follow up interview with Resident #76 on 7/12/2023 at 8:27 a.m., she stated the incident with NA #2 occurred last at night around 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. She explained she needed someone to come help her change the adult brief. The NA #2 and her were started fussing to each other, and NA #2 with her fingers extended pushed her right shoulder and pushed her down onto the bed into a sitting position. She stated NA #2 turned off the lights and shut the door. She explained when Nurse #4 entered and assisted her with changing her adult brief, she informed Nurse #4 what had happen between Resident #76 and NA #2. In an interview with [NAME] President of Operations #1 and [NAME] President of Operations #2 on 7/10/2023 at 1:00 p.m., they stated the Administration office was informed of the alleged employee to resident abuse on 7/7/2023 with Resident #76, and an initial report was submitted to the state agency and local law enforcement had been notified. In a phone interview with NA #2 on 7/10/2023 at 8:36 p.m., she stated at the beginning of the 7p.m.-7a.m. shift dinner meal trays were still out in residents' rooms. When entering Resident #76's room, she found Resident #76 naked waist down. She stated she provided Resident #76 perineal care and changed her bed linens. She stated Resident #76 sat on the side of the bed and didn't fall backwards on the bed after linens were changed. She stated after exiting the room Resident #76's call light was on. When asked if she was okay, Resident #76 asked why she came into her room and closed the door. She explained Resident #76 became combative, and she went and got Nurse #4. When they returned to Resident #76's room, she told Nurse #4 I had pushed her, and she had called the police. She stated this incident happened within the first hour of the 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and Nurse #4 informed her she would answer Resident #76's call light and provided care as needed. In a phone interview with Nurse #4 on 7/11/2023 at 9:58 p.m., she stated at the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift on 7/6/2023, Resident #76 was yelling out, and nurse aides were busy with other residents. She explained when she entered Resident #76's room, Resident #76 asked for other staff member, NA #2 that she had seen walking up and down the hall. Nurse #4 stated she explained to Resident #76 that NA #2 was busy with another resident and she was there to assist her. Nurse #4 stated she assisted Resident #76 in changing her adult brief and provided a gown and blanket to Resident #76. bed linens. Nurse #4 stated Resident #76's door was closed around 5:00 a.m. when she entered Resident #76's room during medication pass, and that was when Resident #76 informed her NA #2 had hit her and pushed Resident #76 onto the bed, turned light off and closed her door to the room. She explained she completed an assessment on Resident #76 with no injury observed. Nurse #4 stated she informed NA #2 to write a statement and not to go back into Resident #76's room. She stated she didn't not see NA #2 in the building the remaining of the shift. Nurse #4 stated she called could not recall the name of the person she called to report the incident of alleged abuse on 7/7/2023. She stated she called the number in the information book and left a voice message. She explained at the change of shift on 7/7/2023 7:00 a.m. she informed Nurse #6 of Resident #76's allegation of abuse and Nurse #6 called the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC). She explained since the incident, the SDC had provided abuse training with her because Administration did not receive a report of abuse from me on 7/7/2023. She stated the number for the interim Director of Nursing was posted at the nursing station now and stated it was not the number she called on 7/7/2023. In an interview with Nurse #6 on 7/11/2023 at 1:12 p.m., she stated about 7:30 a.m. on 7/7/2023 Nurse #4 inform her Resident #76 had alleged during the night shift that NA #2 called the police because NA #2 had hit her. She stated she immediately called the interim Director of Nursing (DON), who returned her call at 7:32 a.m. on 7/7/2023 and went to speak with Resident #76. In an interview with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) on 7/11/2023 at 12:46 p.m., she stated the interim DON called her at 6:50 a.m. on 7/7/2023 to report Resident #76 had alleged NA #2 had hit her. She explained she lived the closest to the facility and reported to the facility and began the abuse protocol for alleged abuse. She stated Nurse #4 working the 7 p.m.- 7 a.m. shift should had been the nurse to notify the interim DON of the incident. In an interview with the interim Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/11/2023 at 12:13 p.m., she stated she had been acting as interim for the last two weeks and could not recall receiving a phone call before 7:33 a.m. of the morning of 7/7/2023 to report an alleged employee to resident abuse for Resident #76. She explained Nurse #6 notified her of Resident #76's allegation, and she informed the SDC so she could start the abuse protocol until she arrived. The interim DON stated Nurse #4 should had reported the incident upon learning of the alleged abuse at 5:00 a.m. so the facility could send the initial report to the state agency within two hours of learning of an alleged abuse incident. She further explained the initial report was completed incorrectly as the reason for resubmitting the initial report to the state agency at 4:45 p.m. on 7/7/2023. The In an interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 7/12/2023 at 10:06 a.m., she stated the interim DON's name and number to contact after the departure of the Administrator from the facility on 7/7/2023 was placed throughout the facility but did not list her as the abuse coordinator. She stated Nurse #4 should had immediately reported the alleged abuse incident to the abuse coordinator so the initial report can be sent to the state agency within two hours. In a follow up interview on 7/13/2023 at 5:47 p.m., she stated contact information for all administration staff was available to the nursing staff, and Nurse #4 should had continued to call up the administrative chain of command if no response was received from leaving a voice mail to report an alleged abuse incident. In an interview with [NAME] President of Operations #1 and [NAME] President (VP) of Operations #2 on 7/13/2023 at 6:00 p.m., VP of Operations #2 stated the facility had a 24-hours care line and an administrative chain of command for Nurse #4 to call to report alleged abuse incidents if notification of the abuse coordinator went to voice mail. He stated the facility was to report the initial report to the state agency within 2 hours of Resident #76 alleging abuse. 2. a. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 7/9/2023. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #7 was moderately impaired cognitively with inattention and disorganized thinking was continuously present. The MDS also indicated Resident #7 experienced hallucinations and delusions and had displayed physical and verbal behaviors toward others in 1-3 days of the seven-day look back period. b. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #15 was moderately impaired cognitively. Nursing documentation dated 5/17/2023 at 2:41 a.m. by Nurse #5 revealed Resident #7 exhibited aggressive and combative behavior towards her roommate, Resident #15, and NA #4 witnessed Resident #7 walking away from Resident #15 who was lying in the bed. Resident #7 informed Nurse #5 she slept with my man, and Resident #15 informed Nurse #5, she hit me on my arm and hand. Nurse #5's assessment of Resident #15 found no injuries and moved Resident #15 to room [ROOM NUMBER]B for her safety. The facility's Initial Allegation Report to the state agency dated 5/17/2023 at 8:45 a.m. written by the Administrator documented staff reported that a resident hit another resident on her arm and hand. The facility's reported the census on 5/17/2023 was 77 residents. A review of the documented resident questionnaire for abuse dated 5/17/2023 revealed 19 residents in the facility were interviewed. There were 15 documented resident skin care assessments reviewed related to the resident- to-resident abuse investigation for 5/17/2023. Resident #7's skin assessment was documented completed on 5/17/2023. The remaining 14 skin assessments were dated prior to the resident-to-resident abuse incident on 5/17/2023: 12 residents skin assessment dated [DATE], 1 resident skin assessment dated [DATE] and on 1 resident skin assessment dated [DATE]. There was no documented skin assessment for Resident #15, and there were no other skin assessment documents provided by the facility to review. Review of written statements related to the resident-to-resident abuse incident on 5/17/2023 included one by Nurse #5. Nurse #5's statement dated 5/18/2023 stated at approximately 2:00 a.m. Resident #7 was exhibiting aggression and combative behaviors toward her roommate, Resident #15, while she was lying in bed. She wrote NA #4 heard yelling and screaming and witnessed Resident #7 walking away from Resident #15's bed when entering the room. She wrote Resident #7 was yelling out angrily, She slept with my man when she entered the room, and Resident #15 stated, She hit me on my arm and hand. Resident #15 was assessed with no injury identified and Resident #7 continued to show aggressive behaviors and refusing medications. Resident #15 was moved to room [ROOM NUMBER]-B for safety reasons. There were no written statements from nursing staff, Resident #15 and Resident #7 provided for review. The timeline for the resident-to-resident abuse incident on 5/17/2023 written by the Administrator on 5/22/2023 stated the resident-to-resident abuse incident between Resident #7 and Resident #15 was reported to the Administrator on 5/17/2023 at 8:45 a.m. The timeline reported Resident #7 was not interviewed due her cognitive and mental status at the time, and Resident #15 stated Resident #7 hit her on her hand and arm. The physician, resident representatives and police were notified. The timeline further stated head to toe skin assessments were completed on all other residents with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 7 or less and interviews with done on residents with BIMS of 8 or greater. There were witnesses agreeing with Resident #15, and the allegation of physical abuse by Resident #7 against Resident #15 was substantiated. The timeline further stated the facility's staff was and would continue to be educated on abuse and neglect and the importance of timely notification for abuse and neglect. The facility's 5-day Investigation report dated 5/22/2023 by the Administrator indicated the allegation of abuse between Resident #7 and Resident #15 was substantiated. In an interview with Resident #15 on 7/13/2023 at 1:00 p.m., she stated she didn't know why Resident #7 hit her on 5/17/2023. She said the nursing staff came into the room and stopped Resident #7 from hitting her and she wasn't hurt. She stated she was moved to another room and felt safe at the facility. In an interview with NA #4 on 7/11/2023 at 6:59 p.m., she stated on 5/17/2023 she heard someone hollering and when she got to Resident #15's room, she observed Resident #7 standing over Resident #15's bed and hitting her with a fist hand. She stated she could not see where she was sitting her and Resident #7 returned to her bed when instructed by the staff. She explained she went to get Nurse #5 when another nurse aide, who she was unable to recall by name, came into the room and moved Resident #15 to room [ROOM NUMBER]-B. She recalled it was late in the night when the abuse incident occurred. In a phone interview with Nurse #5 on 7/11/2023 at 5:42 p.m., she stated on 5/17/2023, Nurse Aide #4 reported Resident #15 was screaming and yelling, and Resident #7 was observed standing over Resident #15. Upon enter Resident #15 and Resident #7 's room, Resident #7 stated Resident #15 had slept with her man. NA #4 stated Resident #7 had hit Resident #15 and when asked, Resident #15 stated, Yes, on my arm. Nurse #5 stated she assessed Resident #15 and found no redness or bruising to the hand and arm area. She stated for the safety of Resident #15, she moved the resident to room [ROOM NUMBER]B. She explained the resident-to-resident incident occurred after the night medication pass between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., and she called the Administrator right after the incident occurred after transferring Resident #15 to another room and to inform the Administrator of the incident. In a phone interview with the former Administrator on 7/11/2023 at 6:13 p.m., she stated the time on the initial report (5/17/2023 at 8:45 a.m.) was the time she was notified of the resident-to resident abuse between Resident #7 and Resident #15. She stated the nursing staff didn't always report abuse immediately and sometimes she was not notified. She explained an investigation of abuse incidents included interviewing the nursing staff and residents and conducting resident skin assessments or resident interviews based on the BIMS of the resident for all residents. She stated the resident skin assessments dated prior to 5/17/2023 was not right and resident skin assessments should have been conducted after the resident-to resident abuse incident. In an interview with Regional Nurse Consultant on 7/12/2023 at 10:26 a.m., she explained that investigations of abuse should include statements from the residents involved, all staff involved, the initial report, the 5-day report, assessments of abuse for all residents (resident skin assessments and interviews). She stated based on the information provided on the resident-to-resident abuse incident on 5/17/2023, a complete investigation was not completed. In another interview on 7/13/2023 at 5:47 p.m., she stated there was no other information to provide for the resident-to-resident investigation between Resident #7 and Resident #15. She stated all residents did not receive a skin assessment or interview. In an interview with [NAME] President of Operations #1 and [NAME] President (VP) of Operations #2 on 7/13/2023 at 6:00 p.m., VP of Operations #1 stated after an allegation of abuse staff and residents involved were interviewed and all residents were to be assessed by an interview or skin assessments. 3. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #40's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated severe cognitive impairment. An interview was conducted with Resident #40 on 7/11/23 at 9:51 AM. She was alert to person, place, time and situation. Resident #40 stated that on 6/24/23 she informed staff held her wrists and caused her bruises when they removed money from her room after a room search was completed that she didn't consent to. She stated her wrist was bruised during the altercation. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 7/11/23 at 2:45 PM who stated on 6/24/23 Resident #40 stated staff forcibly removed money from her room and there was a struggle. Nurse #7 stated Resident #40 indicated staff were pulling on her and she was shaken up a bit. He stated Resident #40 initially stated staff struck her but when he further questioned Resident #40, she stated she struck herself during the altercation. He did not report this allegation to the Administrator on 6/24/23 because Resident #40 stated she had struck herself. During a phone interview with Resident #40's family member on 7/11/23 at 4:30 PM she stated she spoke with the Administrator on 6/29/23 about Resident #40's bruises she saw on 6/29/23. She stated she informed the Administrator that Resident #40 stated staff were aggressive and injured her when they removed her money from her room. She stated the Administrator got Nurse #7 to check Resident #40 for bruises. During an interview with the Administrator on 7/11/23 at 2:15 PM she reported she heard Resident #40 state she was being held down and hit by staff on 6/24/23 while she was on the phone with Nurse #5 as Resident #40's money was being counted following the room search. She recalled on 6/26/23 she spoke with Resident #40 and the resident stated staff had struck her on 6/24/23 and she had a bruise. The Administrator stated she was informed by Nurse #7 on 6/26/23 that when he spoke with Resident #40 on 6/24/23 about the incident her story changed a and she stated she struck herself. She stated Resident #40 never mentioned it to her again. The Administrator stated she met with Resident #40's family member on 6/29/23 and the family mentioned Resident #40 stated that she had been abused and had a bruise on her wrist. She stated she initially did not do a report to the State because she was unaware it needed to be reported. She explained when subsequent allegations were made on 6/26/23 by Resident #40 and her family member she had followed up with Nurse #7 who stated she recanted when he spoke with her on 6/24/23. She stated there was no investigation of Resident #40's allegations of abuse. An interview was conducted with Regional [NAME] President of Operations #1, Regional [NAME] President of Operations #2, and the Regional Nurse Consultant on 7/11/23 at 4:00 PM who stated they were not aware a report to the State was not made regarding Resident #40's allegations of abuse. Review of an initial report to the State dated 7/11/23 revealed an initial report was made related to Resident #40's allegation of abuse that occurred on 6/24/23.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a medication storage refrigerator within the recommended temperature range and failed to discard outdated oph...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a medication storage refrigerator within the recommended temperature range and failed to discard outdated ophthalmic solution bottles for 2 of 3 medication storage areas reviewed (#1 Medication Room and Medication Cart #2). Findings included: 1. An observation of the medication storage refrigerator located in the #1 Medication Room was made on 7/11/23 at 3:00 PM with Nurse #1. The refrigerator thermometer was observed at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Nurse #1 viewed the refrigerator thermometer and indicated it appeared to read between 32°F and 34 °F. The July 2023 temperature monitoring log for the medication storage refrigerator had been noted daily. Temperatures recorded included: 7/4/23 was 34 °F, 7/5/23 was 32 °F, 7/6/23 was 32 °F, 7/8/23 was 34 °F, 7/9/23 was 34 °F, and 7/10/23 was 30 °F. The instructions on the monitoring log indicated Temperature of refrigerator must be between 36-41 degree F, Freezer must be at or below freezing, If not contact maintenance immediately! Only maintenance is authorized to adjust refrigerator settings! The refrigerator contained: 15- Insulin glargine pens 100 units. The package instructions noted store 36-46 degrees, avoid freezing, discard if frozen. 8- Insulin glargine pens 100 units. The package instructions noted unopened [insulin glargine] devices should be stored in a refrigerator 36-46 degrees. Do not freeze, discard if frozen. 1- Insulin aspart 100 unit vial with package instructions to store between 36-46 degrees. 1- Insulin detemir 100 unit vial with package instructions store 36-46 degrees, do not freeze. 27- Dronabinol 5 mg capsules. No storage instructions were observed on the package. An interview with Nurse #1 was conducted on 7/11/23 at 3:09 PM. She explained she was unsure who checked the refrigerator temperature daily, but the temps should be within range or reported to maintenance. 2. An observation of Medication Cart #2 was made on 7/11/23 at 3:37 PM with Nurse #2. Two bottles of latanoprost ophthalmic solution were noted as opened on 4/11/23. Package instructions indicate to discard 6 weeks after opening. An interview with Nurse #2 was conducted on 7/11/23 at 3:45 PM. She explained the evening nurse administered this medication and she had not noticed the dates on the bottles. An interview with Medication Aide #1 was conducted on 7/11/23 at 3:54 PM. She stated she occasionally stayed over to help the evening shift administer medications. She explained she had checked the expiration date of the eye drops but did not realize they should be discarded 6 weeks after opening. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/11/23 at 5:19 PM. The DON indicated the nurse who checked the medication refrigerator should have contacted maintenance when the out of range temperatures had been discovered. The DON explained the outdated eye drops had an opened on date and the discard by date should have also been noted.
May 2022 19 deficiencies 4 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 8. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and her diagnoses included strok...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 8. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and her diagnoses included stroke and arthritis. A review of the census report revealed Resident #32 had resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]A since 4/26/2019. Resident #32's care plan dated 10/29/2019 indicated a risk for deterioration in activities of daily living. Interventions included use of rolling walker or wheelchair, providing set up assistance and allowing extra time to complete her activities of daily living. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was moderately cognitively impaired and independently performed all of her activities of daily living. The MDS further indicated Resident #32 was always continent of urine and stool. On 5/16/2022 at 10:00 a.m., the Assistance Maintenance Director checked hot water temperatures in bathroom sinks that were available to residents who had the ability to independently use the sink in the bathroom areas to perform self-care. The temperature of the hot water of the 200-hall bathroom registered 121.9 degrees Fahrenheit. The Assistance Maintenance Director stated the hot water temperatures were checked every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and the acceptable range was 108-116 degrees Fahrenheit. He stated the mixing values needed adjusting, and the Administrator and nursing staff was informed by the assistance maintenance director of the hot water temperatures. On 5/16/2022 at 11:47 a.m. in an interview with Resident #32, she stated due to having no bathroom inside room [ROOM NUMBER]A she used the 200-hall bathroom located in the hallway for elimination needs. She stated the water did not feel hot when she washed her hands in the 200-hall bathroom or when staff gathered her water to bath daily. On 5/16/2022 at 4:55 p.m., Resident #32 was observed exiting the 200-hall bathroom and voiced no concerns with the hot water burning when she washed her hands. The Maintenance Director accompanied the Assistant Maintenance Director to recheck the 200-hall bathroom sink hot water temperature, and it registered 121.7 degrees Fahrenheit. The Maintenance Director stated the mixing valve had been adjusted, the facility had called a plumber, and temperatures would be monitored throughout the evening. On 5/17/2022 at 2:34 p.m. the Maintenance Director stated the plumber had found rings in the mixing valve flattened and broken. The Director stated the mixing valve was repaired but water may require 24 hours to reach even temperatures, and the temperatures were being monitored. On 5/18/2022 at 8:59 a.m., the Assistant Maintenance Director checked the 200-hallway bathroom hot water temperature. The hot water temperature registered 108.6 degrees Fahrenheit. On 5/19/2022 at 4:38 p.m. in an interview with the Administrator with the Maintenance Director present, the Administrator stated hot water temperature were to be within regulatory normal range. The Maintenance Director stated the normal range for hot water temperature was 105 to 115 degrees Fahrenheit. Based on record review, staff and Physician interviews the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent accidents when residents (Resident #369 and Resident #61) who were ordered to have nothing by mouth (NPO) and enteral feeding (nutrition delivered by a tube into the digestive system as a liquid) were served regular textured meals by Nursing Assistant (NA) #1. NA #1 fed Resident #369 a regular textured meal. Resident #369 aspirated (breathed food/liquid into the lungs) and was hospitalized for 5 days. NA #1 provided a regular textured meal tray to Resident #61. There was a high likelihood of serious harm for Resident #61. The facility also failed to maintain safe water temperatures for residents who performed activities of daily living (ADLs) independently. This was for 8 of 10 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accident/hazards (Residents #369, #61, #47, #12, #35, #31, #171 and #32). Immediate Jeopardy for example #1 began on 5-11-22 when NA #1 fed Resident #369, who was NPO and on enteral feedings, a regular textured meal. Immediate Jeopardy for example #2 began on 5-11-22 when NA #1 provided Resident #61, who was NPO and on enteral feedings, a regular textured meal. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 5-20-22 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of an E (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to complete education, ensure monitoring systems put into place are effective, and to implement a plan of correction for examples 3 through 10. Findings included 1.Resident #369 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included gastrostomy status. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #369 was severely cognitively impaired and required total assistance with one person for feeding. The MDS also coded Resident #369 as receiving 51% or more of her calories from tube feeding and 501cc (cubic centimeters) or more water per day. The May 2022 active physician's orders included an order initiated 7-26-21 for Resident #369 to receive a fortified nutritional supplement at 55cc per hour continuously through enteral feedings. The May 2022 active physician's orders included an order initiated 8-1-21 for Resident #369 to be NPO (Nothing by mouth). Resident #369's active care plan as of 5-10-22 revealed a goal that she would remain free of complications related to the use of a feeding tube. The interventions for the goal were in part keep head of the bed elevated, observe for abdominal distention, lung sounds and check for residual. Resident #369 had a second goal that her weight would remain stable. The interventions for the goal were in part resident is NPO, diet as ordered- fortified nutritional supplement and water flushes per order. A nursing progress note dated 5-11-22 at 9:15am by Nurse #2 documented she was called into Resident #369's room by the Wound Care (WC) nurse. Nurse #2 documented she observed the resident with her eyes open, alert to tactile (physical touch) stimuli and coughing up blood-tinged fluid. The documentation indicated the Physician and family members were notified that Resident #369 was being sent to the emergency room for evaluation. The emergency room hospital records dated 5-11-22 revealed a diagnosis of aspiration of food. A CT scan (series of x-ray images) was ordered which showed Resident #369 also had pneumatosis (increased gastric pressure in the colon due to vomiting) along the right colon. The hospital records dated 5-16-22 indicated Resident #369 received intravenous fluids, intravenous antibiotics and was restarted on her enteral feedings. The resident was discharged back to the facility on 5-16-22 During a phone interview with NA #1 on 5-17-22 at 1:31pm, the NA explained 5-11-22 was her first day working at the facility. She added that it was only her 2nd time working in a long-term care facility. She discussed handing out breakfast trays on 5-11-22 and realizing Resident #369 and another resident (Resident # 61) had not received a meal tray. NA #1 stated she went to the kitchen and requested 2 meal trays (one for Resident #369 and one for Resident #61) from dietary staff. She said the dietary staff provided her 2 regular textured meal trays with eggs, French toast with apples, sausage patty and orange juice and commented the dietary staff had not mentioned to her the residents were NPO. NA #1 stated she went back to the unit, placed Resident #61's tray on the tray table and proceeded to Resident #369 where she began to feed the resident some of the eggs and orange juice. She stated Resident #369 began to turn red in the face and had trouble breathing, so she turned the resident on her side and retrieved help from a nurse that was in a meeting. She explained she did not see any nurses on the unit and had left the resident for approximately 1 minute to get help. NA #1 said she had received no orientation, training or computer access prior starting her shift. She stated she saw the enteral feeding pump for Resident #369 but did not know what it was and since she did not have access to the computer to check the resident's diet, she was unaware the resident was NPO. The WC nurse was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 2:12pm. The WC nurse discussed being in a morning meeting on 5-11-22 when NA #1 entered the meeting requesting help. She stated when she walked into Resident #369's room, she saw dark red mucous on the resident's face and sheets. The WC nurse said the resident was sitting up in the bed and NA #1 told her she had been feeding the resident breakfast when the resident became ill. Nurse #2 was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 12:39pm. The nurse explained she was called down to Resident #369's room on 5-11-22 and observed the resident sitting up in the bed, coughing with blood-tinged fluid coming out of her mouth. She further explained the WC nurse had informed her NA #1 had been trying to feed the resident a meal. She stated she called the Physician, 911 and the resident's family. The nurse stated the resident was sent to the emergency room for further evaluation. Dietary Aide #1 was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 1:20pm. The Dietary Aide stated she was working on 5-11-22 during breakfast but was assigned to the washroom and did not hand NA #1 any meal trays. She explained the Assistant Dietary Manager had spoken with and handed the meal trays to NA #1. A telephone interview occurred with the Dietary Assistant Manager on 5-17-22 at 1:56pm. The Dietary Assistant Manager stated NA #1 had come to the kitchen on 5-11-22 requesting meal trays for Resident #369 and Resident #61. He discussed checking the dietary orders for both residents and saw they were both NPO and received enteral feedings but explained he thought staff was trying to switch the residents back onto solid food, so he provided a regular meal tray for both Resident #369 and Resident #61 to NA #1. The Dietary Assistant Manager stated he could only see a resident's dietary order in the computer. He explained that sometimes the orders were not entered into the electronic medical record before trays were passed out, so he did not know if there had been an actual order to switch the residents back onto solid foods. He revealed he should have asked the Dietary Manager or the nursing staff before providing the trays to NA #1. The Medical Director was interviewed by telephone on 5-19-22 at 3:35pm. The Medical Director stated she was aware of the 5-11-22 incident for Resident #369. She indicated there was high potential for serious harm resulting from a resident aspirating. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 2:25pm. The DON stated the accident with Resident #369 could have been avoided if NA #1 had been oriented and educated regarding the resident's care prior to receiving her assignment. 2. Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included gastrostomy status. The May 2022 active physician's orders included an order initiated 7-31-21 for Resident #61 was to be NPO. The May 2022 active physician's orders included an order initiated 1-7-22 for Resident #61 to receive a fortified nutritional supplement at 45cc (cubic centimeters) per hour continuously through enteral feedings. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #61 was severely cognitively impaired and required total assistance with one person for eating. Resident #61 was also coded for tube feeding acquiring 51% or more of her calories per day with 501cc (cubic centimeter) or more of water per day. Resident #61's active care plan as of 5-10-22 revealed a goal that she would not exhibit overt signs and symptoms of complications related to her feeding tube. The interventions for the goal were in part administer feedings as ordered, resident is NPO (nothing by mouth) and elevate the head of the bed 30-35 degrees while feeding. During a phone interview with NA #1 on 5-17-22 at 1:31pm, the NA explained 5-11-22 was her first day working at the facility. She added that it was only her 2nd time working in a long-term care facility. She discussed handing out breakfast trays on 5-11-22 and realizing Resident #61 and another resident (Resident # 369) had not received a meal tray. NA #1 stated she went to the kitchen and requested 2 meal trays (one for Resident #61 and one for Resident #369) from dietary staff. She said the dietary staff provided her 2 regular textured meal trays with eggs, French toast with apples, sausage patty and orange juice and commented the dietary staff had not mentioned to her the residents were NPO. NA #1 stated she went back to the unit, placed Resident #61's tray on the tray table next to the residents bed. She commented Resident #61 would not have been able to reach the tray then stated she proceeded to Resident #369's room. NA #1 stated she had not fed Resident #61 but said another staff could have tried to feed Resident #61 since she left the meal tray in the room. NA #1 said she had received no orientation, training or computer access prior starting her shift. She stated since she did not have access to the computer to check the resident's diet and she was unaware the resident was NPO. A telephone interview occurred with the Dietary Assistant Manager on 5-17-22 at 1:56pm. The Dietary Assistant Manager stated NA #1 had come to the kitchen on 5-11-22 requesting meal trays for Resident #61 and Resident #369. He discussed checking the dietary orders for both residents and saw they were both NPO and received enteral feedings but explained he thought staff was trying to switch the residents back onto solid food, so he provided a regular meal tray for both Resident #61 and Resident #369 to NA #1. The Dietary Assistant Manager stated he could only see a resident's dietary order in the computer. He explained that sometimes the orders were not entered into the electronic medical record before trays were passed out, so he did not know if there had been an actual order to switch the residents back onto solid foods. He revealed he should have asked the Dietary Manager or the nursing staff before providing the trays to NA #1. The Medical Director was interviewed by telephone on 5-19-22 at 3:35pm. The Medical Director stated she was aware of the incident on 5-11-22. She indicated there was high potential for serious harm from a resident who was NPO and fed solid foods to aspirate. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 2:25pm. The DON stated the potential accident with Resident #61 could have been avoided if NA #1 had been oriented and educated regarding the resident's care prior to receiving her assignment. The Administrator was notified of Immediate Jeopardy on 5-17-22 at 6:05pm. Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance: Resident #369's diet order: NPO Resident #61's diet order: NPO Nurse Aide #1, an agency staff, began working at the facility on 5/11/22 at approximately 7:00 AM. On 5/11/2022 during breakfast meal tray delivery Nurse Aide #1 recognized that Residents #369 and #61 had not received meal trays. She went to the kitchen and requested meal trays for both residents and was provided trays with regular textured meals from the Dietary Assistant Manager. At approximately 8:40 am, Nurse Aide #1 delivered a breakfast tray to Resident #369's room and the breakfast tray was placed on the bedside table of Resident #61 (out of residents' reach). Resident #369's tray consisted of scrambled eggs, sausage patty, French toast, apples, and orange juice. Both residents had the same items on the trays. Nurse Aide #1 sat down to feed Resident #369. Shortly thereafter, resident appeared to have some difficulty and Nurse Aide #1 gave her orange juice. Resident's color appeared red. Nurse Aide #1 turned resident on her side and called out for nursing assistance. Arriving nurse reported resident began to vomit bloody emesis (vomit). Staff called MD and 911 and the resident was sent to the hospital at approximately 9:40 am, while alert and oriented, for further evaluation and treatment. At no time did Resident #369 stop breathing or lose consciousness during event. A staff member (unknown) immediately removed the meal tray from Resident #61's room when staff became aware of the concern with Resident #369. Resident #61 was not fed the regular textured tray. Post event: - Medical director notified, and in-depth ad hoc Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting for this event held 5/11/2022, with the Interdisciplinary Team, Medical Director and Regional Nurse Consultant. The QAPI committee consists of the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, the Medical Director, Regional Nurse Consultant, Special Projects DON, and the Unit Manager. - Plan developed. Root cause was determined to be the following: Nurse Aide #1's first day working at the facility was 5/11/2022 and she received no orientation or training prior to working on the floor. She had no long-term care experience and the failure to orient prior to working on the floor contributed to the deficiency. In addition, the facility failed to validate Nurse Aide #1's access to the electronic medical record. She had no access to the physician's orders or care plans to see what the diet orders were. Nurse Aide #1 failed to validate residents' diet with charge nurse prior to requesting a meal tray from dietary. The Dietary Assistant Manager failed to follow the policy to validate the tray card system and consult with the dietary manager and/or a licensed nurse to determine if there was a change in the residents' diet order prior to fixing a meal tray for two residents (Residents #369 and #61). - Nurse Aide #1 no longer works at the facility. Her last day was 5/11/2022. Nurse Aide #1 did not return to the floor after the incident. - Dietary Assistant Manager was suspended on 5/11/2022. He remains on suspension, but termination was recommended on 5/17/2022. - This event was submitted to the state as a reportable on 5/11/2022. The allegation of neglect was substantiated, and the final investigative summary was submitted on 5/18/2022. All residents are at risk for the current deficient practice. Plan developed: - Diets of all current residents will be reviewed for physician's diet order, diet care plans to match, and dietary tray cards to match; this will be completed by 05/13/2022 by the Interim DON, Unit Managers, or Dietary Director. There were three resident diets corrected. - All resident care plans and CNA care guides will be reviewed for matching level of meal assistance (set-up; supervision; encourage/cue; dependent on staff); this will be completed 05/16/2022 by the Interim DON, Unit Managers, or Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse. No discrepancy noted. - Audit of past 30 days of grievances, events, and progress notes will be reviewed by the interim administrator and/or Regional Nurse Consultant by 05/13/2022, for purposes of assessing other events during resident meals and/or residents receiving improper diets/meal trays, to ensure appropriate steps. One grievance was identified related to the way the diet was ordered to ensure the correct meal consistency was provided to the resident. Diet has been corrected and clarified. There was no harm to the resident affected. - Resident council meeting will be held by 5/17/2022 for any additional concerns meal/dietary concerns. Residents had no concerns regarding their food. - Clinical licensed and unlicensed and dietary staff will be reeducated by the DON and/or SDC on (i) locating and verifying resident diet information if in question, (ii)proper set-up of resident meal trays: proper positioning of residents at mealtime (whether in dining room, resident room, wheelchair, and in bed), (ii) proper consistency of diets and liquids (e.g., regular, mechanical soft, pureed, nectar/pudding/honey thickened liquid), and (iii) checking resident tray cards when setting up resident meal tray to ensure matching. Reeducation will be completed by the IDT by 05/18/2022. No staff including agency staff will work on the floor after 5/18/22 until education has been received. Education provided by the DON and/or SDC on the facility's Assistant with Meals policy, ensuring residents are served the correct meal as ordered by validation of residents' diets using the CNA care guides, what NPO means, and how giving a resident the wrong diet could cause choking episodes, aspiration into the lungs, or subsequent death of the resident. - The facility staff development coordinator immediately educated all staff on the need to provide a diet as ordered and the serious adverse outcomes that could result from providing an incorrect diet. This education was initiated on 5/17/2022 and completed on 5/19/2022. Education was also provided by the DON and/or SDC to agency staff and a post-test provided to validate understanding starting on 5/17/2022 and completed on 5/19/2022. All staff will complete and score 100% on the written post-test. This written test was completed on 5/18/2022 and included validation of the diet report, notification of the dietary manager if unsure of a diet request, training on diet textures including NPO diet, and reviewing all diet orders for accuracy in the meal tracking system. No staff including agency staff will work on the floor after 5/17/2022 until education has been received. - The dietary staff were re-educated on the protocol in place to ensure meal trays are not provided to NPO residents unless ordered by the physician. A list of resident diets is printed and posted as a second reference for the dietary staff to validate a residents' diet. This education was provided by the Regional Dietary Manager on 5/18/2022. The list of resident diets was posted on the bulletin board in the kitchen. The dietary manager will keep the posting updated if changes are made. - Additional education was provided to Dietary staff by the Director of Nursing that providing a diet not ordered for a resident could result in serious adverse outcomes. Re-education and a verbal re-test completed on 5/18/2022. Dietary staff required to attain a 100% by 5/18/2022 or they will not be allowed to work. - Facility Staff Development Coordinator, Wound Nurse and/or Regional Nurse Consultant will ensure all staff have access to the electronic medical records system prior to the beginning of their first assigned work shift as of 5/16/2022. The on- call clinical team member or weekend manager will be responsible for the EMR access validation as stated above for the agency orientation process. No nursing staff will work on the floor after 5/16/2022 without access to the electronic medical records system. Orientation on the electronic medical record will be completed with the agency staff by the facility wound nurse, staff development coordinator, and/or the regional nurse consultant. The Agency Orientation Checklist includes education on how to use the medical records system. In addition, the Clinical Team Member or Weekend Manager are responsible to audit agency staff and validating staff are accessing the electronic medical record for resident care needs. The agency staff are also instructed on the use of the care delivery guides for information on each resident's care needs prior to working on the floor. - The facility has provided the staffing agencies a copy of the agency orientation guide on 5/12/22. Agency staff will present to the facility with a signed orientation packet. Agency staff will not be permitted to work until this agency orientation material has been completed. The number to the on-call phone has been posted at each nurse's station for agency staff to receive this education over the phone and complete agency orientation guides have been placed at each nurse's station for reference. A Clinical Team Member rotation, consisting of either the Director of Nursing, Wound Care Nurse, or Staff Development Coordinator, will have the on-call phone on off hours and weekends and will be available to staff to conduct training and other assistance as needed. Should the agency staff arrive to the facility without the orientation packet completed, the agency staff will be directed to contact the on-call phone/Clinical team member for the orientation process to be completed prior to beginning their assignment. The on-call clinical team member will be responsible to be in the facility at the beginning of day shift and available on off hours and will be responsible to collect the agency staff orientation paperwork at the start of the shift or assist with the orientation process. In the afternoon hours of weekend days, approximately 2:45 pm - 7:00 pm, the Manager on Duty will be responsible to collect the agency staff orientation paperwork at the start of the afternoon shift, as previously established, or assist the agency staff in contacting the on-call clinical team member to complete the orientation process. The Clinical Team will be responsible to review the schedule daily, specifically on the weekend days, to determine who will be an agency staff person working at the facility for the first time and who will need to have validation of the orientation packet being completed prior to their arrival, or if it must be done on site prior to beginning their job duties. Education will also include information on residents who are NPO and/or fed by a tube. Additional education was provided by the Director of Nurses and Unit Manager for the nursing staff, going over the list of residents who are NPO, and adding list to the CNA care guide notebook located at each nurse's station. Centralized scheduling has been educated by Clinical Information Technology Nurse Technologist on providing agency staff access to the electronic medical record prior to arrival to the facility. If the access is not obtained prior to arrival, the agency staff will call the on-call phone number and access will be provided along with steps to access the system. Validation will be completed that electronic medical record access is successful prior to the staff working their shift. The on- call clinical team member or weekend manager will be responsible for the EMR access validation as stated above for the agency orientation process. This was implemented on 5/18/2022. Any staff, to include agency staff, who were not educated by 5/18/2022 will receive education prior to working on the floor. Alleged date of IJ removal: 5/20/2022. The facility's credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy was validated onsite on 5-24-22 through interviews with facility staff including nursing staff and dietary staff as well as the Regional Consultant. The nursing staff verbalized receipt of education prior to starting their shift in the facility. The staff education documentation, audits and monitoring were reviewed. Nursing staff education included completing the orientation checklist and obtaining access to the facility's electronic medical record system prior to providing resident care, and the use of the resident care guides to locate resident care information including diets. Nurse aides were observed using resident care guides, located at the nursing station, to confirm resident's diets and stated resident diets were verified with nursing staff before requesting a diet tray from the kitchen. Dietary staff education included use of resident diet list to confirm a resident's diet and to clarify resident diets with the dietary manager or nurse as needed. Dietary staff stated resident dietary list was printed daily and used as a reference when nursing staff requested diet trays for residents, and a list of residents with nothing by mouth (NPO) diets and the resident diet list was posted in the kitchen. All resident diets were audited for accuracy, and daily meal audits indicated no issues with residents receiving the correct diets. Signage with contact information was posted at the time clock and both nursing stations reminding agency nursing staff not to provide resident care until obtaining access to the facility's electronic medical record and receiving the Orientation Checklist. Interviews with the nursing staff and a review of staffing audits revealed new agency staff were receiving access to the facility's electronic medical record and the orientation checklist information prior to or on the first day working in the facility and providing resident care. The facility's date of immediate jeopardy removal of 5-20-22 was validated. 3. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #47 was admitted on [DATE]. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] noted Resident #47 was cognitively intact and needed extensive to total assistance for all daily care with the help of one person. Resident #47 could feed himself with altered utensils. Resident was in a motorized wheelchair when out of bed and could propel himself throughout the facility. The care plan dated 4/29/22 noted a focus of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) function with interventions of: Resident has preferred routine of bath and out of bed by 7 AM. Provide assistance for toileting and hygiene. On 5/16/22 at 10:30 AM, the Assistant Maintenance Director took hot water temperatures in bathroom sinks available to residents who had the ability to use the sink in the bathroom areas to perform self-care. There were residents in these rooms that were unable to perform self-care. On 5/16/22 at 10:30 AM, accompanied by the Assistant Maintenance Director, the temperature in the bathroom area of Resident #47's room registered 118.9. The Assistant stated that was too high, and the mixing valve needed to be adjusted. Resident #47 was in the room and was asked if he went into the bathroom area to wash his hands and he stated yes, I can take my chair in the bathroom and wash my hands. The Resident was encouraged by the Assistant Maintenance Director to turn on the cold water first with the hot water so he would not burn his hands. At 4:55 PM on 5/16/22, Resident #47's sink hot water temperature was 121.5. The Assistant Director of Maintenance stated the mixing valve had been adjusted, the plumber was in the facility and the temperatures would be monitored throughout the evening. On 5/17/22 at 2:00 PM, the Maintenance Director stated the plumber came, found rings in the mixing valve were flat and broken. The Director stated the mixing valve was repaired but water may require 24 hours to reach even temperatures, and the temperatures were being monitored. On 5/18/22 at 9:20 AM, the temperature of the hot water in the bathroom area of Resident #47's room was 107.2. 4. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #12 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus, debility, pain. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] noted Resident #12 was cognitively intact and needed supervision to extensive assistance for all daily care with the help of one person. The MDS indicated Resident #12 could feed herself independently after tray set up. The care plan dated 2/15/22 noted a focus of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) with an intervention of only do what is needed so resident can maintain ability. On 5/16/22 at 10:30 AM, hot water temperatures were taken in bathroom sinks available to residents who had the ability to use the sink in the bathroom areas to perform self-care. On 5/16/22 at 10:35 AM, accompanied by the Assistant Maintenance Director, who took the temperatures, the temperature of the hot water in the bathroom area sink was 119.9. The Assistant Maintenance Director stated the mixing valve needed to be adjusted. On 5/16/22 at 4:55 PM, hot water temperatures were rechecked. Resident #12's bathroom sink r[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and Physician interview, the facility failed to train and orient new agency nursing st...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and Physician interview, the facility failed to train and orient new agency nursing staff and verify competency to deliver care in accordance with the resident's assessed care needs. Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 was not oriented to the protocol for determining residents' dietary orders resulting in the NA feeding a regular textured meal on 5-11-22 to a resident (Resident #369) who had enteral feedings (nutrition delivered by a tube into the digestive system as a liquid) and a physician's order to be nothing by mouth (NPO). Resident #369 aspirated and was hospitalized for 5 days. NA #1 also provided a regular textured meal tray to another resident (Resident #61) who had enteral feedings and a physician's order to be NPO creating a high likelihood of serious harm. This occurred for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #369 and Resident #61) reviewed for enteral feedings. Immediate Jeopardy for example #1 began on 5-11-22 when NA #1 fed Resident #369, who was NPO and on enteral feedings, a regular textured meal. Immediate Jeopardy for example #2 began on 5-11-22 when NA #1 provided Resident #61, who was NPO and on enteral feedings, a regular textured meal. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 5-19-22 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of a D (no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) to complete education and ensure monitoring systems put into place are effective. Findings included: a. Resident #369 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included gastrostomy status The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #369 was severely cognitively impaired and required total assistance with one person for feeding. The MDS also coded Resident #369 as receiving 51% or more of her calories from tube feeding and 501 cubic centimeters (cc) or more water per day. The May 2022 active physician's orders included an order for Resident #369 to be NPO and to receive a fortified nutritional supplement at 55cc per hour continuously through enteral feedings. Resident #369's active care plan as of 5-10-22 revealed a goal that she would remain free of complications related to the use of a feeding tube. The interventions for the goal were in part keep head of the bed elevated, observe for abdominal distention, lung sounds and check for residual. Resident #369 had a second goal that her weight would remain stable. The interventions for the goal were in part resident is NPO, diet as ordered- fortified nutritional supplement and water flushes per order. A nursing progress note dated 5-11-22 at 9:15am by Nurse #2 documented she was called into Resident #369's room by the Wound Care (WC) nurse. Nurse #2 documented she observed the resident with her eyes open, alert to tactile (physical touch) stimuli and coughing up blood-tinged fluid. The documentation indicated the Physician and family members were notified that Resident #369 was being sent to the emergency room for evaluation. The emergency room hospital records dated 5-11-22 revealed a diagnosis of aspiration of food. A CT scan (series of x-ray images) was ordered which showed Resident #369 also had pneumatosis (increased gastric pressure in the colon due to vomiting) along the right colon. The hospital records dated 5-16-22 indicated Resident #369 received intravenous fluids, intravenous antibiotics and was restarted on her enteral feedings. The resident was discharged back to the facility on 5-16-22. b. Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included gastrostomy status. The May 2022 active physician's orders indicated Resident #61 was to be NPO and was to receive a fortified nutritional supplement at 45 cubic centimeter (cc) per hour continuously through enteral feedings. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #61 was severely cognitively impaired and required total assistance with one person for eating. Resident #61 was also coded for tube feeding acquiring 51% or more of her calories per day with 501cc or more of water per day. Resident #61's active care plan as of 5-10-22 revealed a goal that she would not exhibit overt signs and symptoms of complications related to her feeding tube. The interventions for the goal were in part administer feedings as ordered, resident is NPO and elevate the head of the bed 30-35 degrees while feeding. During a phone interview with NA #1 on 5-17-22 at 1:31pm, the NA explained 5-11-22 was her first day working at the facility. She added that it was only her 2nd time working in a long-term care facility. She discussed handing out breakfast trays on 5-11-22 and realizing Resident #369 and Resident #61 had not received a meal tray. NA #1 stated she went to the kitchen and requested 2 meal trays (one for Resident #369 and one for Resident #61) from dietary staff. She said the dietary staff provided her 2 regular textured meal trays with eggs, French toast with apples, sausage patty and orange juice. NA #1 stated she went back to the unit, placed Resident #61's tray on the tray table and proceeded to Resident #369 where she began to feed Resident #369 some of the eggs and orange juice. She stated Resident #369 began to turn red in the face and had trouble breathing, so she turned the resident on her side and retrieved help from a nurse that was in a meeting. She explained she did not see any nurses on the unit and had left the resident for approximately 1 minute to get help. NA #1 said she had received no orientation, training or computer access prior starting her shift. She stated she saw the enteral feeding pump for Resident #369 but did not know what it was and since she did not have access to the computer to check the resident's diet, she was unaware the resident was NPO. She added that she did not feed Resident #61 but said another staff member could have tried to feed the resident since she left the meal tray in the resident's room. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 2:25pm. The DON stated she was not aware if NA #1 had received training/orientation prior to accepting her work assignment. The DON explained the Staff Development Coordinator would have provided the education. During an interview with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) on 5-18-22 at 9:56am, the SDC confirmed she was responsible for the orientation/training of NA #1 on her first day working at the facility (5-11-22). The SDC revealed she had not provided NA #1 any education/orientation or computer access until after the incident with Resident #369. She explained NA #1 started her shift at 7:00am on 5-11-22 and she did not arrive to work until later and she did not want to pull NA #1 off the floor to provide the orientation/education and computer access. The SDC stated she was unaware NA #1 did not have long term care experience. She indicated NA #1 would not have been able to know what her assigned residents' diet orders were or what their care needs were without having orientation. The SDC also discussed new agency staff scheduled off hours and weekends did not receive training/orientation prior to starting their assignment. She added she was concerned for the residents' well-being but did not know how to correct the problem. She also said this was only a problem for agency staff as facility staff received scheduled orientation prior to beginning their first shift. The Medical Director was interviewed by telephone on 5-19-22 at 3:35pm. The Medical Director stated she was not involved in the training or orientation of staff but expected staff to have the education to care for the residents in the facility. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated he expected all staff to be educated and oriented in the care needs of the residents. The Administrator was notified of Immediate Jeopardy on 5-18-22 at 12:56pm. Resident #369's diet order: NPO Resident #61's diet order: NPO On 5/11/2022 during breakfast meal tray delivery Nurse Aide #1 recognized that Residents #369 and #61 had not received meal trays. She went to the kitchen and requested meal trays for both residents and was provided trays with regular textured meals from the Dietary Assistant Manager. At approximately 8:40 am, Nurse Aide #1 delivered a breakfast tray to Resident #369's room. Nurse Aide #1 sat down to feed Resident #369. Shortly thereafter, resident appeared to have some difficulty and Nurse Aide #1 gave her orange juice. Resident's color appeared red. Nurse Aide #1 turned resident on her side and called out for nursing assistance. Arriving nurse reported resident began to vomit bloody emesis (vomit). Staff called MD and 911 and the resident was sent to the hospital at approximately 9:40 am, while alert and oriented, for further evaluation and treatment. At no time did Resident #369 stop breathing or lose consciousness during event. Resident #61 was provided a meal tray. Resident #61 was not fed, and the meal tray was left on the bedside table. The meal tray was not accessible to Resident #61. The meal tray was removed from Resident #61's room as soon as staff were aware Nurse Aide #1 had placed a tray in the room. Upon review of this event, administrative staff immediately implemented the process of dietary staff not issuing a food tray without the resident name being listed on the census diet report audit sheet to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring. Additionally, dietary staff are to consult with the dietary manager and/or the licensed nurse if additional diet clarification is needed. The licensed nurse will validate the correct diet by using the electronic medical record. The dietary manager will validate the correct diet by using the electronic meal tracking system. Post event: 1) Medical director notified, and in-depth ad hoc Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting for this event held 5/11/2022, with the Interdisciplinary Team, Medical Director and Regional Nurse Consultant. The QAPI committee consists of the Administrator, the Medical Director, Director of Nursing (DON), Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), Special Projects DON, Interim Unit Manager, and Regional Nurse Consultant. 2) Plan developed. Root cause was determined to be the following: Nurse Aide #1's first day working at the facility was 5/11/2022 and she received no orientation or training prior to working on the floor. She had no long-term care experience and the failure to orient prior to working on the floor contributed to the deficiency. In addition, the facility failed to validate Nurse Aide #1's access to the electronic medical record. She had no access to the physician's orders or care plans to see what the diet orders were. Nurse Aide #1 failed to validate residents' diet with charge nurse prior to requesting a meal tray from dietary. The Dietary Assistant Manager failed to follow the policy to validate the tray card system, and to consult with the dietary manager and/or a licensed nurse to determine if there was a change in the residents' diet order prior to fixing a meal tray for two residents (Residents #369 and #61). 3) Nurse Aide #1 was provided agency orientation immediately after the incident by the Staff Development Coordinator. 4) Nurse Aide #1 no longer works at the facility. Nurse Aide #1's last day was 5/11/2022. Nurse Aide #1 did not return to the floor after the incident. 5) This event was submitted to the state as a reportable on 5/11/2022. The allegation of neglect was substantiated, and the final investigative summary was submitted on 5/18/2022. All residents are at risk for the current deficient practice. Plan developed: 1) The facility has provided the staffing agencies a copy of the agency orientation guide on 5/12/22. Agency staff will present to the facility with a signed orientation packet. Agency staff will not be permitted to work until this agency orientation material has been completed. The number to the on-call phone has been posted at each nurse's station for agency staff to receive this education over the phone and complete agency orientation guides have been placed at each nurse's station for reference. A Clinical Team Member rotation, consisting of either the Director of Nursing, Wound Care Nurse, or Staff Development Coordinator, will have the on-call phone on off hours and weekends and will be available to staff to conduct training and other assistance as needed. Should the agency staff arrive to the facility without the orientation packet completed, the agency staff will be directed to contact the on-call phone/Clinical team member for the orientation process to be completed prior to beginning their assignment. The on-call clinical team member will be responsible to be in the facility at the beginning of day shift and available on off hours and will be responsible to collect the agency staff orientation paperwork at the start of the shift or assist with the orientation process. In the afternoon hours of weekend days, approximately 2:45 pm - 7:00 pm, the Manager on Duty will be responsible to collect the agency staff orientation paperwork at the start of the afternoon shift, as previously established, or assist the agency staff in contacting the on-call clinical team member to complete the orientation process. The Clinical Team will be responsible to review the schedule daily, specifically on the weekend days, to determine who will be an agency staff person working at the facility for the first time and who will need to have validation of the orientation packet being completed prior to their arrival, or if it must be done on site prior to beginning their job duties. Education will also include information on residents who are NPO and/or fed by a tube. Additional education was provided by the Director of Nurses and Unit Manager for the nursing staff, going over the list of residents who are NPO, and adding list to the CNA care guide notebook located at each nurse's station. Centralized scheduling has been educated by Clinical Information Technology Nurse Technologist on providing agency staff access to the electronic medical record prior to arrival to the facility. If the access is not obtained prior to arrival, the agency staff will call the on-call phone number and access will be provided along with steps to access the system. Validation will be completed that electronic medical record access is successful prior to the staff working their shift. The on- call clinical team member or weekend manager will be responsible for the EMR access validation as stated above for the agency orientation process. This was implemented on 5/18/2022. Any staff, to include agency staff, who were not educated by 5/18/2022 will receive education prior to working on the floor. 2) Facility Staff Development Coordinator, Wound Nurse and/or Regional Nurse Consultant will ensure all staff have access to the electronic medical records system prior to the beginning of their first assigned work shift as of 5/16/2022. The on- call clinical team member or weekend manager will be responsible for the EMR access validation as stated above for the agency orientation process. No nursing staff will work on the floor after 5/16/2022 without access to the electronic medical records system. Orientation on the electronic medical record will be completed with the agency staff by the facility wound nurse, staff development coordinator, and/or the regional nurse consultant. The Agency Orientation Checklist includes education on how to use the medical records system. In addition, the Clinical Team Member or Weekend Manager are responsible to audit agency staff and validating staff are accessing the electronic medical record for resident care needs. The agency staff are also instructed on the use of the care delivery guides for information on each resident's care needs prior to working on the floor. 3) The Agency Orientation Checklist has been reviewed by the Regional Nurse Consultant on 5/18/22 and approved for education purposes for agency staff and is designed to be completed at the start of the shift for new agency staff. The orientation checklist covers nursing processes, as well as emergency preparation for newcomers to the facility. 4) Additional education provided by the Director of Nursing and Unit Manager on the CNA care guide located at each nurse's station which contains resident diet orders. Any staff, to include agency staff, who were not educated by 5/18/2022 will receive education prior to working on the floor. 5) Agency orientation guides have been placed at each nurse's station as an additional resource. The guides were placed at the nurses on 5/17/2022. The staff have been re-educated by the Regional Nurse Consultant and Director of Nurse on the placement of the agency orientation guides at each nurses' station as an accessible resource. Any staff, to include agency staff, who were not educated by 5/18/2022 will receive education prior to working on the floor. 6) Agency staff will be educated on the CNA care report cards located at each nurse's station to include the residents' current diet orders and the definition of NPO (nothing by mouth) by the Director of Nursing, Staff Development Coordinator, and the Regional Nurse Consultant beginning 5/17/2022. No staff including agency staff will work on the floor after 5/17/2022 until education has been received. 7) Staff were provided education on the severity of what could happen to a resident if they were provided a diet that was not ordered by the physician and could result in serious adverse outcomes by the Director of Nursing and the Staff Development Coordinator. No staff including agency staff will work on the floor after 5/17/2022 until education has been received. Alleged date of IJ removal: 5/19/2022. The facility's credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy was validated onsite on 5-24-22 through interviews with facility staff including nursing staff as well as the Regional Consultant. The staff verbalized receipt of education prior to starting their shift in the facility. The staff education documentation, audits and monitoring were reviewed. Nursing staff education included completing the orientation checklist and obtaining access to the facility's electronic medical records system prior to providing resident care, and the use of the resident care guides to locate resident care information including diets. Nurse aides were observed using resident care guides, located at the nursing station, to confirm resident's diets and stated resident diets were verified with nursing staff before requesting a diet tray from the kitchen. Meal audits indicated no issues with residents receiving the correct diets. Signage with contact information was posted at the time clock and both nursing stations reminding nursing staff not to provide resident care until obtaining access to the facility's electronic medical record system and receiving the Orientation Checklist. Interviews with the nursing staff and a review of staffing audits revealed new agency staff were receiving access to the facility's electronic medical records and the orientation checklist information prior to or on the first day working in the facility and providing resident care. The facility's date of immediate jeopardy removal of 5-19-22 was validated.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed ensure that dietary staff were competent to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service in accordance with residents' diet...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed ensure that dietary staff were competent to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service in accordance with residents' dietary orders. The Dietary Assistant Manager provided Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 with a regular textured meal for 2 residents (Resident #369 and #61) who were ordered nothing by mouth (NPO) and on enteral feedings (nutrition delivered by a tube into the digestive system as a liquid) continuously resulting in Resident #369 aspirating and being hospitalized . Immediate Jeopardy began on 5-11-22 when the Dietary Assistant Manager provided regular meal trays for 2 residents (Resident #369 and Resident #61) who were NPO and on continuous enteral feedings. The Immediate jeopardy was removed on 5-19-22 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope/severity of a D (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to complete education and ensure monitoring systems put into place are effective related to competent dietary staff. Findings included: a. The May 2022 active physician's orders included an order for Resident #369 to be NPO and to receive a fortified nutritional supplement at 55 cubic centimeter (cc) per hour continuously through enteral feedings. b. The May 2022 active physician's orders indicated Resident #61 was to be NPO and was to receive a fortified nutritional supplement at 45 cubic centimeter (cc) per hour continuously through enteral feedings. During a phone interview with NA #1 on 5-17-22 at 1:31pm, the NA discussed handing out breakfast trays on 5-11-22 and realized Resident #369 and Resident # 61 had not received a meal tray. The NA stated she went to the kitchen and requested 2 meal trays for Resident #369 and Resident #61 from dietary staff. She said the dietary staff provided her 2 regular meal trays with eggs, French toast with apples, sausage patty and orange juice and commented the dietary staff had not mentioned to her the residents were NPO. She stated she saw the enteral feeding pump but did not know what it was and since she did not have access to the computer to check the resident's diet, she was unaware the residents were NPO. She added that she did not feed Resident #61 but said another staff member could have tried to feed the resident since she left the meal tray in the resident's room. During the interview, the NA explained on 5-11-22 she fed Resident #369 eggs and orange juice. The NA stated Resident #369 began to turn red in the face and had trouble breathing, so she turned the resident on her side and retrieved help from a nurse that was in a meeting. Resident #369 was sent to the emergency room and hospitalized for 5 days. A telephone interview occurred with the Dietary Assistant Manager on 5-17-22 at 1:56pm. The Dietary Assistant Manager explained he had been working at the facility for a few weeks but had received the new employee training that included the tray card print outs and how to verify orders in the computer. He stated Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 came to the kitchen on 5-11-22 during the breakfast meal and requested meal trays for Resident #369 and Resident #61. He discussed checking the dietary orders in the electronic medical record for both residents and saw they were both NPO and received enteral feedings but thought staff was trying to switch the residents back onto solid food, so he provided a regular meal tray consisting of eggs, French toast with apples, sausage patty and orange juice for both Resident #369 and Resident #61 to the NA. The Dietary Assistant Manager stated he could only see a resident's dietary order in the computer. He explained that sometimes the orders were not entered into the electronic medical record before trays were passed out, so he did not know if there had been an actual order to switch the residents back onto solid foods and should have asked the Dietary Manager or the nursing staff before providing the trays. The Dietary Manager (DM) was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 11:47am. The DM explained he was not in the kitchen when NA #1 requested 2 meal trays for Resident #369 and Resident #61 on 5-11-22. He stated the Dietary Assistant Manager was a new employee but received new employee training/orientation on the tray card print outs and how to verify diet orders in the computer. He said the Dietary Assistant Manager should have found him or clarified the order with the nurse prior to giving the trays to the NA. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated he expected dietary staff to follow dietary orders and seek clarification from management if there are any questions before providing a meal tray to any resident. The Administrator was notified of Immediate Jeopardy on 5-18-22 at 1:55pm. Resident #369's diet order: NPO Resident #61's diet order: NPO On 5/11/2022 during breakfast meal tray delivery Nurse Aide #1 recognized that Residents #369 and #61 had not received meal trays. She went to the kitchen and requested meal trays for both residents and was provided trays with regular textured meals from the Dietary Assistant Manager. At approximately 8:40 am, Nurse Aide #1 delivered a breakfast tray to Resident #369's room. Nurse Aide #1 sat down to feed Resident #369. Shortly thereafter, resident appeared to have some difficulty and Nurse Aide #1 gave her orange juice. Resident's color appeared red. Nurse Aide #1 turned resident on her side and called out for nursing assistance. Arriving nurse reported resident began to vomit bloody emesis (vomit). Staff called MD and 911 and the resident was sent to the hospital at approximately 9:40 am, while alert and oriented, for further evaluation and treatment. At no time did Resident #369 stop breathing or lose consciousness during event. Resident #61 was provided a meal tray. Resident #61 was not fed, and the meal tray was left on the bedside table. The meal tray was not accessible to Resident #61. The meal tray was removed from Resident #61's room as soon as staff were aware Nurse Aide #1 had placed a tray in the room. Post event: - Medical director notified, and in-depth ad hoc Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting for this event held 5/11/2022, with the Interdisciplinary Team, Medical Director and Regional Nurse Consultant. The QAPI committee consists of the Administrator, the Medical Director, Director of Nursing (DON), Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), Special Projects DON, Interim Unit Manager, and Regional Nurse Consultant. - Plan developed. Root cause was determined to be the following: Nurse Aide #1's first day working at the facility was 5/11/2022 and she received no orientation or training prior to working on the floor. She had no long-term care experience and the failure to orient prior to working on the floor contributed to the deficiency. In addition, the facility failed to validate Nurse Aide #1's access to the electronic medical record. She had no access to the physician's orders or care plans to see what the diet orders were. Nurse Aide #1 failed to validate residents' diet with charge nurse prior to requesting a meal tray from dietary. The Dietary Assistant Manager failed to follow the policy to validate the tray card system, and to consult with the dietary manager and/or a licensed nurse to determine if there was a change in the residents' diet order prior to fixing a meal tray for two residents (Residents #369 and #61). - Dietary Assistant Manager was suspended on 5/11/2022. He remains on suspension, but termination has been recommended on 5/17/2022. - This event was submitted to the state as a reportable on 5/11/2022. This event was submitted to the state as a reportable on 5/11/2022. The allegation of neglect was substantiated, and the final investigative summary was submitted on 5/18/2022. All residents are at risk for the current deficient practice. Plan developed: - Dietary staff educated that providing a diet not ordered for a resident could result in serious adverse outcomes by the Director of Nursing and the Regional Dietary Manager on 5/18/2022. No dietary staff will work after 5/18/2022 until education has been completed. - Dietary manager reviewed the census diet report (a roster of residents and diet orders) with the dietary staff and re-education provided on the validation process to follow prior to giving out any food/drinks on 5/17/2022. The dietary staff will refer to the census dietary report prior to issuing a meal tray to a resident. No dietary staff will work after 5/18/2022 until education has been completed. - Dietary manager will provide validation with dietary staff to ensure understanding resident diets, texture, and restrictions. Dietary staff will be able to state the process to follow if they are unsure about a residents' diet. A copy of the facility's dietary provider's Diet Cross Walk (dietary conversion list provided a comparable diet or meal plan), and the National Dysphagia diet level and Consistency modified diet control panel will be posted as a dietary staff resource. This validation was started and completed on 5/17/2022. The information was posted on the board in the kitchen for staff review on 5/17/2022. No dietary staff will work after 5/17/2022 until validation has been completed. - Dietary staff will not issue a food tray without the resident name being listed on the census diet report audit sheet. Dietary staff has been educated by the Regional Dietary Manager to consult with the dietary manager and/or the licensed nurse if additional diet clarification is warranted. The licensed nurse will validate the correct diet by using the electronic medical record. The dietary manager will validate the correct diet by using the electronic meal tracking system. This action was completed 5/18/2022. Alleged date of IJ removal: 5/19/2022. The facility's credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy was validated onsite on 5-24-22 through interviews with facility staff including dietary staff. The dietary staff verbalized receipt of education including the importance of providing resident with the correct diet as ordered. The staff education documentation, audits and monitoring were reviewed. All resident diets were audited for accuracy, and daily meal audits indicated no issues with residents receiving the correct diets. Dietary staff education included the use of resident diet list to confirm a resident's diet and to clarify resident diets with the dietary manager or nurse as needed. Dietary staff stated resident dietary list was printed daily and referenced to when nursing staff requested diet trays for residents, and a list of residents with nothing by mouth (NPO) diets, resident diet list, diet terminology conversion list and national dysphagia diet levels were posted in the kitchen to reference for diet information. Daily meal audits indicated no issues with residents receiving the correct diets. The facility's date of immediate jeopardy removal of 5-19-22 was validated.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide leadership and oversight to ensure effective systems were in place for training, orienting, and verifying competencies for ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide leadership and oversight to ensure effective systems were in place for training, orienting, and verifying competencies for new agency staff which resulted in Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 providing a regular meal tray to two residents (Resident #369 and Resident #61) who were to receive nothing by mouth (NPO) and received continuous enteral feedings (nutrition delivered by a tube into the digestive system as a liquid). Immediate Jeopardy began on 5-11-22 when the facility failed to ensure NA #1 was trained, oriented and competent to care for residents who were NPO and on enteral feedings. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 5-19-22 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope/severity of an D (no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) to complete education and ensure monitoring systems put into place are effective. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F726 Based on record review, staff interviews, and Physician interview, the facility failed to train and orient new agency nursing staff and verify competency to deliver care in accordance with the resident's assessed care needs. Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 was not oriented to the protocol for determining residents' dietary orders resulting in the NA feeding a regular textured meal on 5-11-22 to a resident (Resident #369) who had enteral feedings (nutrition delivered by a tube into the digestive system as a liquid) and a physician's order to be nothing by mouth (NPO). Resident #369 aspirated and was hospitalized for 5 days. NA #1 also provided a regular textured meal tray to another resident (Resident #61) who had enteral feedings and a physician's order to be NPO creating a high likelihood of serious harm. This occurred for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #369 and Resident #61) reviewed for enteral feedings. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator discussed it was the Staff Development Coordinators (SDC) position to ensure all agency staff were trained and oriented prior to starting their shift and the Director of Nursing (DON) was to oversee the training and orientation was complete as well as being available for any questions the agency staff may have. The Administrator stated the management in the facility were agency/contract staff which led to a lack of consistency and poor communication. The Administrator was notified of Immediate Jeopardy on 5-18-22 at 2:51pm. Resident #369's diet order: NPO Resident #61's diet order: NPO On 5/11/2022 during breakfast meal tray delivery Nurse Aide #1 recognized that Residents #369 and #61 had not received meal trays. She went to the kitchen and requested meal trays for both residents and was provided trays with regular textured meals from the Dietary Assistant Manager. At approximately 8:40 am, Nurse Aide #1 delivered a breakfast tray to Resident #369's room. Nurse Aide #1 sat down to feed Resident #369. Shortly thereafter, resident appeared to have some difficulty and Nurse Aide #1 gave her orange juice. Resident's color appeared red. Nurse Aide #1 turned resident on her side and called out for nursing assistance. Arriving nurse reported resident began to vomit bloody emesis (vomit). Staff called MD and 911 and the resident was sent to the hospital at approximately 9:40 am, while alert and oriented, for further evaluation and treatment. At no time did Resident #369 stop breathing or lose consciousness during event. Resident #61 was provided a meal tray. Resident #61 was not fed, and the meal tray was left on the bedside table. The meal tray was not accessible to Resident #61. The meal tray was removed from Resident #61's room as soon as staff were aware Nurse Aide #1 had placed a tray in the room. Post event: - Medical director notified, and in-depth ad hoc Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting for this event held 5/11/2022, with the Interdisciplinary Team, Medical Director and Regional Nurse Consultant. The QAPI committee consists of the Administrator, the Medical Director, Director of Nursing (DON), Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), Special Projects DON, Interim Unit Manager, and Regional Nurse Consultant. - Plan developed. Root cause was determined to be the following: Nurse Aide #1's first day working at the facility was 5/11/2022 and she received no orientation or training prior to working on the floor. She had no long-term care experience and the failure to orient prior to working on the floor contributed to the deficiency. In addition, the facility failed to validate Nurse Aide #1's access to the electronic medical record. She had no access to the physician's orders or care plans to see what the diet orders were. Nurse Aide #1 failed to validate residents' diet with charge nurse prior to requesting a meal tray from dietary. The Dietary Assistant Manager failed to follow the policy to validate the tray card system, and to consult with the dietary manager and/or a licensed nurse to determine if there was a change in the residents' diet order prior to fixing a meal tray for two residents (Residents #369 and #61). All residents are at risk for the current deficient practice. - Administration staff, consisting of the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Staff Development Director, and Regional Nurse Consultant, immediately reviewed the facility's protocol for orienting, training, and verifying competencies of new staff prior to allowing the staff to work on the floor. Root Cause Analysis review completed and determined staff were not consistent in completing new agency staff orientation at the start of their shift, leaving the potential for significant issues to arise with resident care. Based on this review, it was determined additional oversite was required with completing the first-time agency staff orientation to remove the potential for significant issues with resident care. The administrative team is ultimately responsible to attain and maintain the implementation of the revised plan to ensure orientation is completed and competencies verified at the time of agency staff's initial shift in the building prior to the staff working on the floor. The revised plan was fully implemented on 5/18/22. - Education was provided on 5/18/22 by the Regional Nurse Consultant to the administrator reviewing thoroughly F835 at §483.70 Administration from Appendix PP of the State Operations Manual. This education focused on the regulatory requirement that a facility must be administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Alleged date of IJ removal: 5/19/2022. The facility's credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal was validated onsite on 5-24-22 through interviews with facility staff including nursing staff and dietary staff as well as the Regional Consultant. The staff verbalized receipt of education prior to starting their shift in the facility. The staff education documentation, audits and monitoring were reviewed. The dietary manager education dated 5/11/2022 included different types of diets, nothing by mouth (NPO) and the importance of the accuracy of resident diets, and these topics were included in the re-education of the dietary staff. Dietary staff education also included use of resident diet list to validate resident's diet and confirmation with dietary manager or nurse as needed. Assistance with meals education conducted on 5/11/2022 to the nursing staff included checking meal tray card for correct resident and diet and verifying physician diet order with nurse. The administrative team education dated 5/18/2022 included administration regulation, ensuring expected practices were followed and overseeing as necessary on the floor to assist staff in resident care. Nursing education also included providing resident care before receiving access to the facility's electronic resident record and the orientation checklist information. Staffing audits and interviews revealed centralized scheduling or management staff were providing the orientation checklist and access to the facility's electronic medical record prior to the agency staff reporting to work and prior to providing resident care. Nursing staff were using resident care guides for resident care information including diet orders and were verifying resident diets with the assigned nurse before requesting a diet tray from the kitchen, and dietary staff used the daily printed resident diet list, NPO list, dietary manager and nurse to confirm resident's diet. Daily meal audits indicated residents were receiving diets as ordered. The facility's date of immediate jeopardy removal of 5-19-22 was validated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor a residents choice related to showers for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for choices (Resident #5). Findings included: Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's Disease and diabetes. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had moderate cognitive impairment. She needed limited assistance with transfers and was dependent on staff for bathing. It was very important for Resident #5 to choose between and bed bath and shower. Resident #5's care plan included resident's ability to perform activities of daily living: for example, transfer, walk in room, walk in corridor, dress, eat, toilet, maintain personal hygiene had deteriorated related to debility and Parkinson's Disease. On 5/19/22 at 8:53 AM Resident #5 stated she has had 4 showers in 5 weeks. She stated she had been asking to get a shower, but she was not getting them. During this interview resident was observed to have greasy hair and no odor. A review of the shower schedule indicated Resident #5 was supposed to be showered on Tuesday and Friday. An interview with Nursing Assistant (NA) #11, who was assigned to Resident #5, was conducted on 5/19/22 at 2:50 PM and she stated she did not offer showers to her residents today. She stated assignments were not given out until 8:00 AM and there was no time to do them. She also stated she didn't know there was a shower schedule. An interview was conducted with NA #10 at 2:55 PM on 5/19/22 and she stated she didn't know there was a shower schedule. She stated baths were given to her residents. NA #4 was interviewed on 5/19/22 at 3:00 PM and she stated she did not offer showers to any her residents today but they were given baths. On 5/19/22 at 4:20 the Administrator stated he expected resident to get their showers if they want one.
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #321 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #321 had...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #321 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #321 had severe cognitive impairment. An interview was conducted a Resident #321's family member on 5/16/22 at 6:10 PM and she stated she had talked to someone at the facility regarding concerns with the resident's care. She didn't recall who she spoke with at the facility. On 5/17/22 at 4:45 PM the Social Worker was interviewed, and she stated she was responsible for filling out the grievance form with the concern to be addressed and dispersing them to the appropriate staff for investigation. She remembered filling out a grievance form for Resident #321's family in March or April of 2022. The Social Worker explained the grievances filed were maintained in a hard copy grievance book and there was no grievance for Resident #321 in this book. The Social Worker stated on 5/18/22 at 10:45 AM after searching the facility for the grievance she was unable to locate it. On 5/19/22 at 4:22 PM an interview was conducted with the Administrator, and he stated he expected a copy of the grievances to remain in the grievance book until there was a resolution. Once there was a resolution, the original was kept in the grievance book. Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to document if a grievance was investigated and resolved, the results of the actions taken, if the complainant was satisfied and the complainant remarks. The facility also failed to address the complaint of the resident and failed to maintain documented evidence of a grievance that was filed by a resident. This occurred for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #17, Resident #370, and Resident #321) reviewed for grievances. Findings included: Review of the facility's Investigate complaint/Grievance Policy dated 3-24-22 documented in part that grievances/complaints and the corrective action would be documented on the grievance/complaint report form. Grievances/complaints would be investigated to include the nature of the grievance/complaint and all grievances/complaints would be resolved and reviewed by the Administrator within 3 working days of the receipt of the grievance/complaint. 1.Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 was cognitively intact. Resident #17 was interviewed on 5-16-22 at 8:40am. The resident stated she had filed a grievance in April 2022 related to not receiving baths and incontinence care. Resident #17 said she had not received any information regarding her concern. Review of grievances for April 2022 revealed a grievance from Resident #17 dated 4-28-22. The grievance documented Resident #17 did not want a specified care giver because her care was not being provided. The form had the facility's Social Worker (SW) as the person completing the form and the name of the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and the name of the Unit Manager as the staff responsible for investigating the grievance. The areas of investigation, plan to resolve, results of actions taken, was the grievance resolved, complainant satisfaction and complainant remarks did not have any documentation. During an interview with the SDC on 5-18-22 at 9:15am, the SDC stated she was not aware she had been assigned a grievance to investigate. She explained the SW would receive the concern from the resident and then assign the grievance to which ever department the grievance pertained to. The SDC stated she had not been made aware of Resident #17's grievance dated 4-28-22. The Unit Manager was interviewed on 5-18-22 at 10:12am. The Unit Manager stated she had never seen Resident #17's grievance dated 4-28-22 and was not aware she was responsible for following up on the grievance. She stated the SW would assign the grievance to the department relevant to the grievance but again stated she was not made aware. An interview with the SW occurred on 5-18-22 at 10:14am. The SW explained she presented the grievances in the department head meeting at 8:30am and then in the clinical meeting at 9:30am she would hand out the grievances to be followed up on to the correct discipline. The SW stated she remembered Resident #17's grievance dated 4-28-22 and said she had handed the grievance to the SDC to follow up with Resident #17. She said the SDC must have left it on the table and the grievance was placed back in the grievance book without being completed. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator explained the SW was responsible to ensure all grievances were followed up and completed. He stated he did not know why Resident #17's grievance was not completed but expected all resident grievances to be followed up and completed within 3 working days. 2. Resident #370 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #370 was cognitively intact. Review of grievances from June 2021 through May 2022 revealed Resident #370 had a grievance dated 12-8-21. The document showed the grievance was received by the former Administrator and the contents was a concern by Resident #370 that a former nurse accused him of refusing his dressing changes. Resident #370 stated in the grievance he was not refusing his dressing changes, but the former nurse was refusing to change his dressing. The resident also stated in the grievance he had text messages between him and the former nurse as proof she was refusing to change his dressing. The grievance indicated the concern was investigated by the former Administrator and the documentation for the investigation only included the concern of the resident texting with the former nurse. There was no documentation if Resident #370 was satisfied with the resolution or any remarks from the resident. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 2:28pm. She explained she was not employed at the facility at the time of Resident #370's grievance but after reviewing the grievance dated 12-8-21, the SW confirmed Resident #370's concerns were not addressed, and the grievance form should have been completed with the resident's satisfaction and remarks documented. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated investigations of grievances should focus on the complainants concerns and how the facility would resolve the concern.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with assisted living staff and facility staff, the facility failed to have an effective di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with assisted living staff and facility staff, the facility failed to have an effective discharge planning process and to ensure a resident's recommendations for Occupational Therapy (OT) and Durable Medical Equipment (DME) were ordered and communicated to the assisted living facility where the resident discharged to for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for discharge to the community. Findings included: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #32 was moderately cognitively impaired and was actively planning to be discharged to return to the community. Social services documentation dated 7/15/2022 indicated Resident #32's representative was informed of discharge plans for Resident #32 to an assisted living facility on 7/20/2022. There was no further social services documentation in the medical record related to the discharge. A review of Resident #32's care plan did not include a care plan focus related to discharge planning for Resident #32. A review of the Occupational Therapy (OT) discharge notes dated 7/19/2022 recommended Resident #32 to continue occupational therapy and encourage active participation in activities of daily living. A review of the Physical Therapy (PT) Discharge summary dated [DATE] recommended Resident #32 have an assisted device for safe functional mobility and an elevated toilet seat/three in one commode. Nursing documentation dated 7/19/2022 revealed Resident #32 was discharge from the facility to an assisted living facility on 7/19/2022. There was no documentation related to the recommendations made by OT and PT. A review of Resident #32's discharge documentation and Discharge summary dated [DATE] did not include any information related to recommendations for OT and PT as indicated in OT and PT discharge notes dated 7/19/22. In a phone interview with Interim Social Worker on 7/29/2022 at 12:53 p.m., she stated equipment and therapy were not arranged for Resident #32 because the therapy department did not share the information with her. In a phone interview with the Director of Therapy on 7/29/2022 at 1:00 p.m., she stated the normal protocol was for therapy recommendations to be communicated to the social worker by email. She stated the social worker then contacted the physician for OT and PT orders based on the recommendations. The Director of Therapy stated she was responsible for sending emails to the social worker, and she could not find any emails communicating therapy discharge recommendations for Resident #32 to the social worker. In a phone interview on 8/9/2022 at 2:49 p.m. with the Resident Care Coordinator at the assisted living facility (ALF), she stated no DME equipment was sent with Resident #32, and no orders for continuation of therapy or DME equipment was sent with Resident #32 from the facility. She stated after the ALF physician visited Resident #32 last week, orders for OT, PT and DME equipment (rolling walker and raised toilet seat) were received, and the ALF had obtained the DME equipment. In a phone interview with the Director of Nursing on 7/29/2022 at 1:52 p.m., she stated Resident #32's care plan should had included a plan of care for a lesser level of care. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 7/29/2022 at 3:08 p.m. she stated discharge planning was an interdisciplinary team approach, and each team member should complete their part prior to the resident ' s discharge from the facility. She stated there was a breakdown with the therapy department in communicating therapy recommendations for Resident #32.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary that included a recapitulation ...

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 complete a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of stay for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #32, Resident #51) and clinical assessments and post discharge plans for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #32 and #401) reviewed for planned discharges from the facility to the community. Findings included: 1. a. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarter Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #32 was moderately cognitively impaired and was actively planning to be discharged to return to the community. A review of Resident #32's care plan did not include a care plan focus related to discharge planning for Resident #32. Nursing documentation dated 7/19/2022 revealed Resident #32 was discharge from the facility to an assisted living facility on 7/19/2022. Resident #32's Discharge summary dated [DATE] included a discharge destination, diagnoses, vital signs and a care plan goal. There was no recapitulation of stay in the facility on the discharge summary. A review of Resident 32's medical record revealed no evidence the facility completed a recapitulation of stay in the facility that included a course of illness and treatments, laboratory and radiology test and consultation results. In a phone interview with the interim social worker on 7/29/2022 at 12:53 p.m., she stated she made referrals to local facilities for Resident #32's discharge from the facility. She stated the discharge summary was completed by different members of the interdisciplinary team members, and the nursing staff and therapy were to complete Resident #32's recapitulation of stay. In a phone interview with Nurse #4 on 7/29/2022 at 1:29 p.m., she stated she discharge Resident #32 from the facility to an assisted living facility and was not aware she was to complete Resident #32's recapitulation of stay in the facility on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with Director of Nursing on 7/29/2022 at 1:52 p.m., she stated Resident #32's recapitulation of stay should had been completed on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 7/29/2022 at 3:08pm, she stated the discharge planning was an interdisciplinary team approach and each member should had conducted their part of Resident #32's recapitulation of stay in the facility on the discharge summary. b. Social services documentation dated 7/15/2022 indicated Resident #32's representative was informed Resident #32 was to be discharged to an assisted living facility on 7/20/2022. There was no further social services documentation in the medical record related to the discharge. A review of the Occupational Therapy (OT) discharge notes dated 7/19/2022 recommended Resident #32 to continue occupational therapy and encourage active participation in activities of daily living. A review of the Physical Therapy (PT) Discharge summary dated [DATE] recommended Resident #32 had an assisted device for safe functional mobility and an elevated toilet seat/three in one commode. Resident #32's Discharge summary dated [DATE] included a discharge destination, diagnoses, vital signs and a care plan goal. There was no recapitulation of stay in the facility on the discharge summary discharge summary. Nursing documentation dated 7/19/2022 revealed Resident #32 was discharge from the facility to an assisted living facility on 7/19/2022. Resident #32's Discharge summary dated [DATE] included a discharge destination, diagnoses, vital signs and a care plan goal. The clinical assessment and post discharge plan were not included on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with Interim Social Worker on 7/29/2022 at 12:53 p.m., she stated she did not have access to the discharge summary to complete the post discharge plan and was not informed by the therapy department of the OT and PT recommendations for Resident #32 to included into the post discharge plan. In a phone interview with Nurse #4 on 7/29/2022 at 1:29 p.m., she stated the MDS nurse completed the clinical assessment on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (former MDS Nurse) on 7/29/2022 at 1:52 p.m., she stated the nursing staff or MDS nurse should complete the clinical assessment on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 7/29/2022 at 3:08 p.m. she stated completion of the discharge summary was an interdisciplinary team approach, and each team member should complete their part prior to the resident's discharge from the facility. 2. Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The annual Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #51 was moderately cognitively impaired, and there was an active discharge plan for Resident #51 to return to the community. Social services documentation dated 5/31/2022 indication Resident #51 was an elopement risk, and the facility did not have a gated community. Resident #51's representative was informed an assisted living facility didn't have a bed available or offer to accept Resident #5 due to her need for a secure unit. Resident #51's representative was informed a skilled nursing facility with a secure unit was willing to accept Resident #5. There was not further social service documentation on the discharge of Resident #51. Nursing documentation dated 7/12/2022 indicated Resident #51 was discharged from the facility to another skilled nursing facility. Resident #51's Discharge summary dated [DATE] included a discharge destination, a clinical assessment, diagnoses. Resident #51 was discharged to a secured unit at another skilled nursing facility. There was no recapitulation of stay in the facility completed on Resident #51's discharge summary. A review of Resident 51's medical record revealed no evidence the facility completed a recapitulation of stay in the facility that included a course of illness and treatments, laboratory and radiology test and consultation results. On 7/27/2022 at 11:47 a.m. in a phone interview with the Interim Social Worker, she stated she was not familiar with the recapitulation of stay process, and nursing staff were responsible for recapping Resident #51's stay in the facility. On 7/27/2022 at 3:25 p.m. in a phone interview with Nurse #4, she stated she did not complete Resident #51's recapitulation of stay and did not know she was responsible for completing Resident #51's recapitulation of stay on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with the former Director of Nursing on 7/28/2022 at 1:08 p.m., she stated the Resident #51's recapitulation of Resident #51's stay in the facility was a responsibility of each member of the interdisciplinary team. She stated resident #51's recapitulation stay in the facility should had been completed on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 7/29/2022 at 3:08pm, she stated discharge planning was an interdisciplinary team approach, and each member should had conducted their part of Resident #51's recapitulation of stay in the facility. 3. Resident #401 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #401 was cognitively intact and expected to return home to the community upon discharge from the facility. Physician's discharge orders dated 6/21/2022 for Resident #401 included a skilled nursing assessment, physical therapy evaluation and treatment and discharge home with home health. Resident #401's Discharge summary dated [DATE] included a discharge destination, recapitulation of stay, diagnoses, vital signs and a discharge goal. The clinical assessment was not completed on the discharge summary, and no there was no post discharge plan for home health services recorded on the discharge summary. Nursing documentation dated 6/24/2022 indicated no discussion related to receiving outpatient service with Resident #401 or his representative when discharged to the community. A review of Resident #401's medical record revealed no social services documentation related to his discharge to the community or home health services. In a phone interview with Interim Social Worker on 7/27/2022 at 11:47 a.m., she stated she was out of work at the time of Resident #401's discharge to the community. In a phone interview with the admission Coordinator on 7/27/2022 at 12:06 p.m., she stated she arranged Resident #401's home health services and communicated the arrangements to the nursing staff. She stated she did not have access to document the arrangements with home health on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with Nurse #4 at on 7/27/2022 at 3:25 p.m., she stated she did not complete the clinical assessment for Resident #401. She stated she did not know nursing completed the discharge clinical assessment on the discharge summary. In a phone interview with the former Director of Nursing on 7/28/2022 at 1:08 p.m., she stated discharge summary required documentation from the interdisciplinary team, and the nursing staff should had completed the clinical assessment on Resident #401's discharge summary. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 7/29/2022 at 3:08pm, she stated discharge planning was an interdisciplinary team approach, and each member should document their part on Resident #401's discharge summary.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to attach catheter tubing to a secure device to pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to attach catheter tubing to a secure device to prevent tension and possible injury to the resident for one of one resident reviewed for catheters (Resident #56). Findings included: A review of the medical record revealed Resident #56 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and obstructive and reflux neuropathy (kidney damage from backflow of urine into the kidney.) The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] noted Resident #56 was cognitively intact and needed extensive to total assistance for all daily care with the help of one to two persons. The MDS noted an indwelling urinary catheter. The care plan dated 4/19/22 indicated a focus of an indwelling urinary catheter, and the interventions included: Use a catheter strap and document refusal. On 5/15/22 at 4:04 PM Resident #56 was in bed. His catheter bag was covered, and urine was draining. The Nursing Assistant (NA) #14 removed the bed cover, with Resident #56's permission, and there was a securing device attached to Resident #56's leg, but the catheter tubing was not attached. The NA stated it was supposed to be attached and she would tell the nurse. On 5/17/22 at 5:30 PM, the NA #14 again removed the cover to view the securing device. The catheter tubing was attached to the securing device. In an interview with the facility Administrator on 5/19/22 at 4:15 PM, the Administrator stated the tubing was supposed to the attached and secure.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, staff, and Registered Dietician interview the facility failed to address Registered Dietician ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, staff, and Registered Dietician interview the facility failed to address Registered Dietician recommendations for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #68) reviewed for dietary needs. Findings included: Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included diabetes and dementia. Review of Resident #68's medical record revealed a weight of 188.3 on 3/1/22 and a weight of 178.8 on 4/7/22. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, a quarterly dated 5/9/22 revealed Resident #68 was cognitively intact. A registered dietician progress note dated 5/10/22 recommended adding health shakes three times daily with meals to help halt weight loss. Record review revealed no order for health shakes. During an observation on 5/15/22 at 1:05 PM there was no health shake on Resident #68's tray. An observation on 5/17/22 at 8:33 AM revealed no health shake on Resident #68's breakfast tray. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/17/22 at 9:07 AM she stated when the registered dietician made recommendations for a resident, they were emailed to her and the Staff Development Coordinator. She reported the resident's responsible party and the physician are notified. She reported the order was then processed. An interview was conducted with the Registered Dietician (RD) on 5/17/22 at 2:01 PM who stated when she has recommendations, she sends an email to the DON and the Staff Development Coordinator. She reported the DON placed the order and contacted the physician. The RD stated she was not aware her recommendation was not followed. No further weights had been obtained for Resident #68. An interview was conducted with the DON on 5/17/22 at 4:35 PM who stated she was unaware of an order for health shakes for Resident #68. After checking her email, she located the Registered Dietician's email discussing Resident #68 which was dated 5/10/22. During an interview with the Staff Development Coordinator on 5/17/22 at 4:40 PM she reported she was not in the facility the day the email was sent and did not recall the email. After checking her email, she located the Registered Dietician's email dated 5/10/22 discussing Resident #68. During an interview with the Administrator on 5/18/22 at 11:30 AM he stated it was his expectation staff members follow up on recommendations from the Registered Dietiican.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for personal protective equipment (PPE) for enhanced droplet precaution...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for personal protective equipment (PPE) for enhanced droplet precautions when Nurse #1 was observed entering Resident #319's room without eye protection and wearing a disposable face mask instead of an N95 mask and failed to remove mask when exiting Resident 319's room and the Transportation Aide was observed exiting Resident #28's room after retrieving a meal tray wearing a disposable face mask instead of an N95 mask also failed to discard the disposable face mask for 2 of 2 staff members observed for infection control practices. This occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings included: The facility COVID-19 policy updated 3/18/22 stated, Approved respirators (such as N95 respirators) should be used in accordance with CDC recommendations in appropriate transmission-based precaution settings and requiring eye protection (face shield or goggles) to be worn by Stakeholders (in addition to masks) in resident/patient care areas should be based on requirements by local and/or state health departments, in accordance with CDC, state and/or federal regulations. Based on the CDC Data Tracker website on 5/15/22, the community transmission level at the time of the survey was moderate. An interview was conducted with the interim Director of Nursing on 5/15/22 at 12:00 PM and she stated there were no staff or resident COVID-19 positive cases at the facility. 1.a. On 5/15/22 at 1:00 PM, Nurse #1 was observed entering Resident #319's room wearing a gown, gloves, disposable face mask, and no eye protection. Signage for enhanced droplet precautions was noted on Resident #319's door and instructed staff to wear gown, gloves, eye protection and an N-95 mask before entering the room. At 1:05 PM on 5/15/22, Nurse #1 was observed exiting Resident #319's room wearing the same face mask. Nurse #1 had removed her gown and gloves before she exited the room and sanitized her hands in the hallway using the wall hand sanitizer. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 5/15/22 at 1:06 PM. When she was asked if she was required to apply a new mask after exiting Resident #319's room on enhanced droplet precautions, she stated she was supposed to get a new mask but felt flustered and forgot. Nurse #1 stated she was supposed to wear eye protection when entering a room on enhanced droplet precaution but she forgot. b. On 5/18/22 at 1:05 PM, the Transportation Aide was observed exiting Resident #28's room wearing goggles and a disposable face mask carrying a meal tray and placing the meal tray on the food cart located in the hallway. She was observed sanitizing her hands using the wall hand sanitizer in the hallway. The enhanced droplet precaution sign on the door instructed gowns, gloves, eye protection and N-95 mask be worn before entering the room. At the time of the observation the Transportation Aide was asked if she needed to remove her mask and replace with a new mask when exiting an enhanced droplet precaution room and she stated Yes. She stated she just forgot. An interview was conducted with the interim Infection Control Nurse on 5/19/22 at 2:00 PM and she stated staff entering rooms on enhanced droplet precautions should be wearing a gown, gloves, N95 mask, and eye protection. She stated a new mask should be put on when exiting those rooms. On 5/19/22 at 4:25 PM an interview was conducted with the Administrator, and he stated he expected staff to don and doff PPE per the CDC guidelines.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #270 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) as...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #270 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #270 was cognitively intact and required assistance with personal hygiene and bathing. Resident #270's care plan dated 10/19/2021 included a focus in assisting him with his activities of daily living (ADL) due to left sided weakness. Interventions included providing assistance with person hygiene and bathing. A review of the facility's shower schedule revealed Resident #270 ' s showers were scheduled for Monday and Thursdays. Documentation of Resident's #270 ADL care in October 2021 revealed no showers, bed baths or any other bathing was provided for the following dates: October 2021: 10/6, 10/7, 10/8, 10/9, 10/10, 10/16, 10/17, 10/18, 10/19, 10/21, 10/22,10/23, 10/24, 10/25, 10/26, 10/27, 10/29, 10/30, 10/31 Resident #270 was discharged from the facility on 11/8/2021. In a phone interview with Nurse Aide #12 on 5/18/2022 at 4:25 p.m., when asked if she provided Resident #270 a bath as the assigned NA on 10/7/2022, she stated she was unsure of the dates she assisted Resident #270 with baths, and she documented resident's baths in the electronic medical record. NA#12 had not documented assisting Resident #270 with bath on 10/7/2022 or was able to recall why a bath was not documented as given. In a phone interview with Nurse Aide #13 on 5/18/2022 at 8:18 p.m., she stated she remembered providing Resident #270 a bed bath on 10/11/2021, and Resident #270 informed her that was his first bath since admission to the facility. She stated due to three to four nurse aides working on a shift, the nursing staff was unable to provide resident showers. On 5/19/2022 at 4:32 p.m. in an interview with the interim Director of Nursing, she stated resident's baths and showers were based on the resident's preference, and nursing staff were to provide showers and baths as requested by the resident. Based on record review, observations, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care to dependent residents. This occurred for 5 of 8 residents (Resident #53, #17, #46, #52 and #270) reviewed for ADL care. Findings included: 1.Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 was severely cognitively impaired with no refusal of care and required extensive assistance with 2 people for bed mobility, total assistance with one person for dressing and toileting, total assistance with 2 people for personal hygiene and bathing did not occur. Resident #53's care plan dated 5-13-22 revealed a goal that he would be appropriately groomed and dressed. The interventions for the goal were in part provide ADL care to ensure daily needs were met. Review of Resident #53's ADL care documentation revealed no documentation that he had received any bathing for the following dates: - October 2021: 10/1, 10/2, 10/5, 10/7 - 10/10, 10/15 - 10/17, 10/19, 10/22 - 10/24, 10/27, 10/28, 10/20, 10/31 - November 2021: 11/2, 11/4, 11/6, 11/7, 11/11 - 11/13, 11/18, 11/20, 11/21, 11/24 - 11/29 - April 2022: 4/1, 4/2, 4/4, 4/11, 4/13, 4/16, 4/19, 4/22 - 4/30 - May 2022: 5/2, 5/10, 5/11, 5/13 ADL care for Resident #53 was observed on 5-17-22 at 9:15am with Nursing Assistant (NA) #4. Resident #53's skin was noted to be intact, however his brief was observed to be saturated through onto the beds under pad. The under pad was noted to have dried areas as well as wet areas. During an interview with NA #4 on 5-17-22 at 9:40am, the NA stated she had not provided incontinence care upon starting her shift or before breakfast and was not sure when Resident #53 had last received care. She stated she tried to check on her residents assigned to her every 2 hours for incontinence care. She revealed she did not perform a bed bath on all her residents assigned to her if the facility was short staffed. NA #4 explained she often had 18-20 residents assigned to her and could not perform ADL care on all of them. NA #5 was interviewed on 5-18-22 at 8:12am. The NA stated she was familiar with Resident #53 and had been assigned to provide ADL care to Resident #53 on 10-24-21 and 11-25-21. She said if she had not documented a bed bath was provided then she did not complete the task. She added Resident #53 had not refused ADL care. NA #5 explained the facility was often short staffed and she was not able to provide ADL care to all the residents she was assigned. A telephone interview occurred with NA #6 on 5-18-22 at 7:45pm. NA #6 confirmed she had worked the 11:00pm to 7:00am shift ending on 5-17-22. She stated she completed her last incontinence rounds between 4:00am and 5:00am but she stated she could not remember if she had provided incontinence care to Resident #53. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated residents should have a bath every day and be provided incontinence care when it was needed. He stated he was aware the residents were sometimes not receiving bed baths prior to 4-25-22 but was unaware the problem had continued. 2. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and peripheral vascular disease. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 was cognitively intact, had not refused care and required extensive assistance with 2 people for bed mobility, toileting and personal hygiene, and total assistance with 2 people for bathing. Resident #17's care plan dated 5-13-22 revealed a goal that she would not have a decline with Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The interventions for the goal were in part provide extensive assistance for ADLs. Review of Resident #17's bathing documentation revealed no documentation that a bed bath or any other bathing was provided for the following dates: - October 2021: 10/2, 10/4, 10/22 - 10/24, 10/30, 10/31 - November 2021: 11/6, 11/14, 11/23, 11/25, 11/27, 11/28 - April 2022: 4/1 - 4/3, 4/7, 4/16, 4/20, 4/21, 4/24, 4/26, 4/30 - May 2022: 5/1, 5/3, 5/5, 5/8, 5/10, 5/13 - 5/15 Resident #17 was interviewed on 5-16-22 at 8:40am. The resident discussed not receiving a bed bath every day. The resident reported she did not want a shower but would like to have at least a complete bed bath daily. Resident #17 was observed to have a slight odor and the top of her gown was observed to have a dried substance. NA #5 was interviewed on 5-18-22 at 8:12am. The NA stated she was familiar with Resident #17 and had been assigned to provide ADL care on 10-24-21, 11-23-21 and 11-25-21. NA #5 said if she had not documented that she had completed a bed bath on Resident #17, then she had not completed the task. The NA added Resident #17 had not refused ADL care. She explained the facility was often short staffed and she was not able to complete ADL care on all the residents she was assigned. During an interview with NA #9 on 5-18-22 at 9:10am, the NA stated she was familiar with Resident #17 and had been assigned on 5-11-22 to provide ADL care. She stated if the care was not documented as completed then she was not able to complete a bed bath. She added Resident #17 had not refused ADL care. NA #9 explained the facility was short staffed at times and she was not always able to complete ADL care on all the residents assigned to her. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated residents should have a bath every day. He stated he was aware the residents were sometimes not receiving bed baths prior to 4-25-22 but was unaware the problem had continued. 3. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included heart failure and peripheral vascular disease. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 was cognitively intact, did not refuse care and required extensive assistance with one person for bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene and total assistance with one person for toileting and bathing. Resident #46's care plan dated 5-13-22 revealed a goal that she would maintain a clean, neat and odor free appearance while being cared for by staff. The interventions for the goal were in part help with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. Review of Resident #46's bathing documentation revealed no documentation a bed bath or any other bathing was provided for the following dates: - October 2021: 10/1, 10/3 - 10/10, 10/14, 10/16, 10/17, 10/19, 10/20, 10/23 - 10/25, 10/28, 10/31 - November 2021: 11/3, 11/4, 11/6 - 11/9, 11/11, 11/12, 11/15 - 11/17, 11/19 - 11/24, 11/26, 11/28 - 11/30 - April 2022: 4/2, 4/3, 4/6, 4/13, 4/15, 4/16, 4/19, 4/23, 4/24, 4/26, 4/28 - 4/20 - May 2022: 5/1, 5/7, 5/8, 5/10, 5/12, 5/14, 5/15 Resident #46 was interviewed on 5-16-22 at 9:45am. Resident #46 stated she did not receive ADL care every day but when she did the care was provided to her satisfaction. She explained she would prefer to have a bed bath every day, but she stated she understands the NAs are short staffed. Resident #46 was observed to have on a hospital gown that had a dried substance at the top of the gown. NA #4 was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 9:30am. The NA stated she was familiar with Resident #46 and was assigned to her on 11-13-21 and 11-28-21 to provide ADL care. She said if there was not documentation on the days she was assigned to provide a bed bath, then the care was not provided. She added Resident #46 had not refused care. NA #4 explained the facility was often short staffed and she was not able to provide ADL care to all the residents she was assigned. NA #5 was interviewed on 5-18-22 at 8:12am. The NA stated she was familiar with Resident #46 and had been assigned to provide ADL care on 4-24-22. NA #5 said if she had not documented that she had completed a bed bath on Resident #46, then she had not completed the task. The NA added Resident #46 had not refused ADL care. She explained the facility was often short staffed and she was not able to complete ADL care on all the residents she was assigned. During an interview with NA #7 on 5-18-22 at 4:10pm, The NA stated she was familiar with Resident #46 and stated she had been assigned to her for ADL care on 11-6-21. She said if there was not documentation of a bed bath on the days, she worked, then she did not complete the task. She added Resident #46 had not refused ADL care. NA #7 explained some days there were only 3 NAs for approximately 83 residents and she was not able to complete ADL care on all the residents she was assigned. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated residents should have a bath every day. He stated he was aware the residents were sometimes not receiving bed baths prior to 4-25-22 but was unaware the problem had continued. 4. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included muscle weakness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident # 52 was cognitively intact, did not refuse care and required extensive assistance with 2 people for bed mobility, personal hygiene, total assistance with 2 for toileting and total assistance with one for bathing. Resident #52's care plan dated 5-13-22 revealed a goal that she would be appropriately groomed and dressed. The interventions for the goal were in part provide total assistance with 2 staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care, provide ADL care to ensure daily needs are met. Review of Resident #52's bathing documentation revealed no documentation a bed bath or any other bathing was provided for the following dates: - October 2021: 10/1, 10/3 - 10/10, 10/14, 10/16, 10/19, 10/20, 10/23, 10/24, 10/29, 10/31 - November 2021: 11/2 - 11/4, 11/6-11/13, 11/15 - 11/26, 11/28 - 11/30 - April 2022: 4/1 - 4/4, 4/6, 4/13, 4/19, 4/23, 4/24, 4/26, 4/28 - 4/30 - May 2022: 5/1, 5/7, 5/10, 5/12, 5/15 Resident #52 was interviewed on 5-16-22 at 9:20am. The resident stated she was not receiving a bath daily and had to wait over an hour for incontinence care several times a week. She explained staff had told her they could not provide a bed bath to her some days and had to wait for care because there were not enough staff working. Resident #52 was observed to have an odor and colored liquid with a dried substance on the top of her hospital gown. During a follow up interview with Resident #52 on 5-17-22 at 9:45am, the resident was in her bed and stated she needed her brief changed. She explained she asked a nursing assistant before breakfast at approximately 7:45am, but the nursing assistant told her she had to wait until after breakfast. Resident #52 stated she could not remember which nursing assistant she spoke with. Observation of ADL care for Resident #52 occurred on 5-17-22 at 10:05am with Nursing Assistant (NA) #8. The observation revealed Resident #52's brief was saturated with urine through to the under pad on the bed. An interview with NA #8 occurred on 5-17-22 at 10:30am. The NA stated she had checked Resident #52 for incontinence when she started her shift or prior to breakfast. She said she was unaware Resident #52 was assigned to her until the unit manager informed her at 10:00am. NA #8 stated she had not received a report about her residents assigned to her, so she did not know the last time Resident #52 had received care. During a telephone interview with NA #6 on 5-18-22 at 7:45pm, the NA confirmed she worked the 11:00pm to 7:00am shift ending on 11-17-22. She stated she completed her incontinence rounds between 4:00am and 5:00am but she said she could not remember if she had provided incontinence care to Resident #52. NA #4 was interviewed on 5-17-22 at 9:30am. The NA stated she was assigned to Resident #52 on 11-28-21. She stated if there was not a bed bath documented then she did not complete the task. She added Resident #52 had not refused care. NA #4 explained the facility was often short staffed and she could not complete bed baths on all the residents she had been assigned. NA #5 was interviewed on 5-18-22 at 8:12am. The NA stated she was familiar with Resident #52 and had been assigned to provide ADL care on 4-24-22. NA #5 said if she had not documented that she had completed a bed bath on Resident #52, then she had not completed the task. The NA added Resident #52 had not refused ADL care. She explained the facility was often short staffed and she was not able to complete bed baths on all the residents she was assigned. An interview with NA #7 occurred on 5-18-22 at 4:10pm. NA #7 stated she had been assigned to Resident #52 on 11-6-21. She stated if there was not documentation that the resident received a bed bath then she had not completed the task. She added Resident #52 had not refused care. The NA explained the facility was short staffed and she was not able to complete bed baths on all the residents she was assigned. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated residents should have a bath every day and be provided incontinence care when it was needed. He stated he was aware the residents were sometimes not receiving bed baths prior to 4-25-22 but was unaware the problem had continued.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for residents (Resident #53, #17, #46, #52 and #270...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for residents (Resident #53, #17, #46, #52 and #270) who were dependent on facility staff for ADL care. This affected 5 of 8 residents reviewed for staffing. Findings included: This citation is cross referenced to: F677 Based on record review, observations, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care to dependent residents. This occurred for 5 of 8 residents (Resident #53, #17, #46, #52 and #270) reviewed for ADL care. Review of the daily staffing sheets for January 2022 revealed on 1-2-22 there were 4 Nursing Assistants (NA) scheduled for the 3:00pm to 11:00pm shift for approximately 78 residents. On 1-4-22 documentation showed 1 NA at 7:00am until 8:00am when the staffing sheet showed 2 more NAs totaling 3 NAs for the 7:00am to 3:00pm shift for approximately 78 residents and on 1-18-22 the daily staffing sheet revealed 4 NAs were scheduled for the 7:00am to 3:00pm for approximately 73 residents. The facility's daily staffing sheet for 4-26-22 was reviewed and showed 4 NAs were scheduled for the 7:00am to 3:00pm shift for approximately 76 residents. A phone interview was conducted on 5-20-22 at 2:54pm with the facility's scheduler. The scheduler stated there were days when there were only 3-4 NAs scheduled for the entire facility. She stated she would attempt to find help from the agencies and facility staff but somedays there was not any help available. During an interview with the Administrator on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm, the Administrator stated he was unaware there were days when there were only 3-4 NAs working in the building. He also said that could have affected the residents receiving ADL care.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 12 of 60 days (10-31-21, 10-30-21, 10-24-21, 10-23-21, 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 12 of 60 days (10-31-21, 10-30-21, 10-24-21, 10-23-21, 12-19-21, 12-18-21, 1-2-22, 1-1-22, 4-17-22, 5-15-22, 5-8-22 and 5-7-22) reviewed for staffing. Findings included: Review of the facility's daily staffing sheets revealed there was not an RN scheduled for at least 8 consecutive hours on the following dates: 10-31-21, 10-30-21, 10-24-21, 10-23-21, 12-19-21, 12-18-21, 1-2-22, 1-1-22, 4-17-22, 5-15-22, 5-8-22 and 5-7-22. A phone interview occurred with the centralized scheduling supervisor on 5-20-22 at 9:02am. The supervisor explained the facility switched to centralized scheduling 4-25-22 and she did not have access to any schedules prior to 4-25-22. She discussed on 5-7-22, 5-8-22 and 5-15-22 there was a RN scheduled for 8 hours but had only worked 7.5 hours each day. During a phone interview with the facility's scheduler on 5-20-22 at 9:50am, the scheduler confirmed she would have been the one to schedule an RN on 10-31-21, 10-30-21, 10-24-21, 10-23-21, 12-19-21, 12-18-21, 1-2-22, 1-1-22, and 4-17-22. She stated some days she could not find an RN to work, and she said she was unaware the RN had to work 8 consecutive hours. The Administrator was interviewed on 5-19-22 at 5:35pm. The Administrator stated the facility had difficulty getting RN's to work but stated he was unaware there had not been an RN scheduled a full 8 hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date left over food items and discard expired food items available for use in 2 of 2 kitchen refrigerators. This practice h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date left over food items and discard expired food items available for use in 2 of 2 kitchen refrigerators. This practice had the potential to affect the food served to 58 of 70 residents. Findings included: On 5/15/2022 at 9:30 a.m. the initial tour of the kitchen with Dietary Aide (DA) #1 revealed the following food items not labeled, dated or expired in the refrigerators: From the reach-in refrigerator: -Two sandwiches with no label or date. These were discarded by DA #1. - Italian dressing dated open on 3/22/2022 with no manufacturer ' s expiration date on the container was discarded by DA #1. - A storage container ½ full of cooked field peas with no label or date was discarded by DA #1. From the walk-in refrigerator: - A tray of clear bowls with non-sealing cup lids laying on top of tomatoes and peaches with no label or date were discarded by DA #1. - Thawed turkey breast wrapped in plastic wrap with no label or date in a box dated 5/10/2022 was discarded by DA #1. - Thawed turkey breast with a cut in the original package exposing the turkey breast to the air in a box dated 5/10/2022 was discarded by DA #1. - Four large unopened containers of Horseradish with expiration dates 12/29/2021 were discarded by DA #1. - Pears in a storage container dated 5/10/2022 were discarded by DA #1. On 5/15/2022 at 10:15 a.m. in an interview with DA #1, she stated food items were covered, labeled and dated when placed in the kitchen refrigerators, and food items were good for three days from the date placed in the refrigerators or the expiration date. On 5/16/2022 at 5:00 p.m. in an interview with the Administrator, he stated food items in the kitchen refrigerators were to be labeled, dated and discarded after expiration. On 5/17/2022 at 4:01 p.m. in an interview with the Dietary Manager, he stated he checked the reach-in and walk-in refrigerators for expired food items daily, and the dietary cook was responsible for checking the refrigerators for food items expired on Saturday and Sunday. He stated opened and prepared food items were to be labeled and dated when placed in refrigerators and expired after seven days or the marked expiration date on the container. On 5/20/2022 at 1:29 p.m. in an interview with Dietary [NAME] #1, he stated the cook was responsible for checking the date on food items stored in the reach-in and walk-in refrigerators at the beginning of the shift for expired foods. He stated food items were to be covered, labeled and dated when opened or cooked and placed in the refrigerators. He stated he was the cook scheduled on 5/15/2022 and did not recall checking the food items in the refrigerators for expirations and labeling of food items.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implement procedures and monitor for interven...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implement procedures and monitor for interventions the committee put into place following the recertification and complaint survey conducted on 5/24/2022. This was for nine deficiencies cited in the areas of Residents Rights (F561), Comprehensive Resident Care Plans (F660, F661), Quality of Life (F677), Quality of Care (F690), Nursing Services (F725, F727), Infection Control (F880), and Food and Nutrition Services (F812). The duplication of citation during the two federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. Findings included: This tag is cross reference to: 1. F-561: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor residents' preferences for a shower for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for choices. (Resident #28 and Resident #53) 2. F-660: Based on record review and interviews with assisted living staff and facility staff, the facility failed to have an effective discharge planning process and to ensure a resident's recommendations for Occupational Therapy (OT) and Durable Medical Equipment (DME) were ordered and communicated to the assisted living facility where the resident discharged to for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for discharge to the community. 3. F-661: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of stay for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #32, Resident #51) and clinical assessments and post discharge plans for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #32 and #401) reviewed for planned discharges from the facility to the community. 4. F-677: Based on record review, observations, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide baths for 6 of 8 dependent residents reviewed for activities of daily living. (Residents #20, #52, #62, #46, #53, and #28) 5. F-690: Based on record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to attach the urinary catheter tubing to a secure device to prevent tension and possible injury for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #400) reviewed for urinary catheters. 6. F-725: Based on record review, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to ensure activities of daily living (ADL) were performed for 6 of 8 residents reviewed for ADL care (Resident #20, #52, #62, #46, #53, #28) 7. F-727: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to record registered nurse (RN) coverage for eight consecutive hours on daily nursing assignments sheets and RN coverage was not indicated on posted daily staffing sheets for 17 of 34 (6/22/22, 6/24/22, 6/25/22, 6/26/22, 6/27/22, 6/29/22, 6/30/22, 7/4/22, 7/5/22, 7/6/22, 7/8/22, 7/11/22, 7/14/22, 7/15/22, 7/18/22, 7/22/22, 7/26/22) days, and failed to provide RN coverage from other resources than by the Director of Nursing when resident census was greater than 60 residents for 1 of 34 days (7/4/22) reviewed for RN coverage. 8. F-880: Based on record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement contact precautions for Resident #52 with extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) in the urine and follow Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for personal protective equipment (PPE) for 2 of 2 staff members when Nurse Aide (NA) #1 was observed not wearing a gown while providing perineal care to Resident #52 with ESBL in the urine and when NA #2 was observed not wearing goggles when providing incontinent care to Resident # 53. The facility was located in a county with a high COVID transmission level. This occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. 9. F-812: Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date ready for use food items in 1 of 2 kitchen refrigerators (reach in refrigerators). This practice had the potential to affect the food served to 49 of 55 residents. In an interview with the Administrator on 7/29/2022 at 3:08 p.m., she stated the QAA committee met on 7/21/2022, and audit and monitoring information for each plan of correction was discussed. She stated any problem identified in the audits and monitoring was corrected immediately, and there was no need to change any plan of corrections. She stated the facility continued to monitor for compliance of each plan of correction, and she would need to address the workflow to meet the needs of resident care with the nurse aides. In an interview with the Administrator on 7/29/2022 at 3:08 p.m., she stated the QAA committee met on 7/21/2022, and audit and monitoring information for each plan of correction was discussed. She stated any problem identified in the audits and monitoring was corrected immediately, and there was no need to change any plan of corrections. She stated the Director of Nursing started in her role on 7/25/2022, and the facility continued to monitor for compliance of each plan of correction. She stated she would need to address the workflow to meet the needs of resident care with the nurse aides.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the required Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Servi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the required Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) (form 10055) for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review (Resident #5 and Resident #2). The findings included: 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with Medicare Part A skilled services. Resident #5's admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #5's Medicare Part A skilled services ended on 3/8/22. She remained in the facility. Record review revealed no evidence that Resident #5 or the resident's responsible party were provided the CMS-10555 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF-ABN). The Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (Form CMS 10123-NOMNC) was provided. During an interview with the Business Office Manager on 5/19/22 at 8:41 AM she stated there was an error in processing the notifications and Resident #5 received the NOMNC but did not receive the SNF-ABN. She reported she was responsible for providing the forms. She indicated Resident #5 had benefit days remaining. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/19/22 at 10:45 AM who indicated Resident #5 should have received the CMS-10555 as required by Federal guidelines. He further stated he was unsure why the form was not provided by the Business Office Manager. 2. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was admitted to Medicare Part A skilled services on 1/18/22. Resident #2's Medicare Part A skilled services ended on 1/25/22. She remained in the facility. Resident #2's annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had severe cognitive impairment. Record review revealed no evidence that Resident #2 or the resident's responsible party were provided the CMS-10555 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF-ABN). The Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (Form CMS 10123-NOMNC) was provided. During an interview with the Business Office Manager on 5/19/22 at 8:41 AM she stated there was an error in processing the notifications and Resident #2 received the NOMNC but did not receive the SNF-ABN. She reported she was responsible for providing the forms. She indicated Resident #2 had benefit days remaining. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/19/22 at 10:45 AM who indicated Resident #2 should have received the CMS-10555 as required by Federal guidelines. He further stated he was unsure why the form was not provided by the Business Office Manager.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, Ombudsman and staff interviews the facility failed to provide written notice of the reason for transfer to the resident and/or responsible party (RP) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #41) reviewed for hospitalization and failed to send notice of transfers to the Ombudsman. Findings included: Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 2/9/22 Resident #41 was discharged to the hospital and was readmitted on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 had severe cognitive impairment. An interview was conducted with the Social Worker on 5/17/22 at 11:47 AM and she stated she started in November 2021 and was unaware a notice with the reason for transfer was needed for the resident or RP. She also stated she had not been sending the notice of transfers to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was interviewed on 5/17/22 at 11:55 AM and she stated she had not received notice of transfers from the facility since January 2022. Nurse #6 was interviewed on 5/17/22 at 12:32 PM and she stated she was not aware a notice with the reason for the transfer was to be given to the resident or the resident's RP. On 5/17/22 at 4:45 PM and interview was conducted with Nurse #1, and she stated she discharged Resident #41 to the hospital on 2/9/22. She stated she called the family to let them know about the discharge but did not send a notice with the reason for transfer to the hospital. The Administrator was interviewed on 5/19/22 at 4:19 PM and he stated he expected a notice with the reason for the transfer to be sent to the resident or their RP and the Ombudsman to be notified.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide the bed hold policy to the resident and the Responsib...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide the bed hold policy to the resident and the Responsible Party (RP) when the resident was discharged to the hospital for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #41) reviewed for hospitalization. This practice had the potential to effect other residents. Findings included: Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 had severe cognitive impairment. On 2/9/22 Resident #41 was discharged to the hospital and was readmitted on [DATE]. Nurse #5 was interviewed on 5/17/22 at 12:10 PM and she stated she does not send the bed hold policy with the resident to the hospital or give it to the RP. On 5/17/22 at 12:32 PM Nurse #6 was interviewed, and she stated she was not sending the bed hold policy with the resident to the hospital or giving it to the RP. The interim Director of Nursing was interviewed on 5/17/22 at 3:00 PM and she stated she was unaware if the bed hold policy was being sent out when a resident is discharged or being provided to the RP. On 5/17/22 at 4:45 PM and interview was conducted with Nurse #1, and she stated she discharged Resident #41 to the hospital on 2/9/22. She stated she did not send the bed hold policy with Resident #41 to the hospital. She stated she didn't know the Resident and the RP needed to be notified of the bed hold policy when a resident was sent to the hospital. The Administrator stated on 5/19/22 at 4:20 PM he expected the bed hold policy to go with the resident when they are discharged to the hospital.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 32 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $11,638 in fines. Above average for North Carolina. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Signature Healthcare Of Kinston's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Signature Healthcare of Kinston 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 Signature Healthcare Of Kinston Staffed?

CMS rates Signature Healthcare of Kinston's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 21 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 81%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Signature Healthcare Of Kinston?

State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at Signature Healthcare of Kinston during 2022 to 2024. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 23 with potential for harm, and 4 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 Signature Healthcare Of Kinston?

Signature Healthcare of Kinston 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 SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 106 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Kinston, North Carolina.

How Does Signature Healthcare Of Kinston Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Signature Healthcare of Kinston's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (67%) 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 Signature Healthcare Of Kinston?

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 Signature Healthcare Of Kinston Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Signature Healthcare of Kinston has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 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 Signature Healthcare Of Kinston Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Signature Healthcare of Kinston is high. At 67%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 81%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Signature Healthcare Of Kinston Ever Fined?

Signature Healthcare of Kinston has been fined $11,638 across 1 penalty action. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,195. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Signature Healthcare Of Kinston on Any Federal Watch List?

Signature Healthcare of Kinston 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.