Premier Living and Rehab Center

106 Cameron Street, Lake Waccamaw, NC 28450 (910) 646-3132
For profit - Individual 127 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#375 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Premier Living and Rehab Center in Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance and significant concerns about care quality. Ranking #375 out of 417 in the state means they are in the bottom half of all facilities, and #3 out of 3 in Columbus County suggests there are no better local options available. The facility's trend is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 29 in 2024 to 20 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a turnover rate of 0%, which is well below the state average, indicating that employees are staying long-term and likely know the residents well. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $443,620, higher than 99% of North Carolina facilities, which raises red flags about compliance. Specific incidents of concern include failures to administer prescribed medications, with some residents missing critical doses of gabapentin, leading to severe pain and complications. Additionally, the facility did not notify physicians about these missed doses, resulting in residents experiencing acute pain and requiring emergency care. While the staffing situation appears stable, the serious medication management issues highlight significant weaknesses that families should consider when researching this home.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In North Carolina
#375/417
Bottom 11%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
29 → 20 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$443,620 in fines. Lower than most North Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
56 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 29 issues
2025: 20 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $443,620

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 56 deficiencies on record

5 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Jun 2025 20 deficiencies 3 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from neglect when the Nurse Practitioner failed to provide...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from neglect when the Nurse Practitioner failed to provide a pain management treatment for a resident (Resident #62) who was reporting pain and demonstrating signs and symptoms of pain after he was assessed for pain on 03/17/25 and 06/16/25. This failure occurred for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for neglect. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F697: Based on observations, record review, staff, and Nurse Practitioner and Physician interviews the facility failed to provide pain management to include medications or non-pharmacological interventions for a resident who was observed by the Nurse Practitioner, the Nursing Aides and Occupational Therapist Assistant to have signs and symptoms of pain. This was for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #62) reviewed for pain. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner on 06/25/25 at 9:05 AM. The Nurse Practitioner stated in hindsight she should have ordered something for Resident #62's pain when she assessed him on 03/17/25. She stated he continued to demonstrate signs of pain on 06/16/25 according to her progress note and she should have ordered pain medication then as well. The Nurse Practitioner stated Resident #62 did not always demonstrate signs and symptoms of pain when she inquired with the nursing staff, but she did neglect to treat his pain when she observed it. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 06/26/25 at 10:25 AM revealed Resident #62's pain was neglected and he should have had pain medications ordered to treat his pain to help with his activities of daily living care and to participate in therapy.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, staff interviews, and Wound Care Physician interviews, the facility failed to obtain orders, and to provide treatment on admission for a Stage 2 pressure ulcer wound that progressed to an unstageable wound for 1 of 1 residents (Resident # 64) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Finding included: A review of Resident #64's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed no order for treatment to the right and left buttock and no documentation regarding the condition of the resident's skin upon discharge. Resident #64 was admitted to the facility from the hospital on 3/7/25 with diagnoses which included aftercare following femur (the long thigh bone) fracture, anemia, multiple myeloma (a severe form of cancer), and history of stroke. A nursing admission progress note completed by Nurse #2 on 3/7/25 at 3:43 PM indicated the resident had Stage 2 pressure ulcers (partial thickness skin loss) to the bilateral buttocks. The admission progress note did not indicate that the physician was notified of the pressure ulcers or that the physician was consulted for wound care treatment orders. A review of the admission skin assessment dated [DATE] by Nurse #2 revealed that Resident #64 was noted with the following areas on the skin: - left buttock pressure ulcer 1 centimeter (cm) length with 2 cm width - right buttock pressure ulcer 2 cm length with 2 cm width The admission skin assessment did not indicate that the physician was notified of the pressure ulcers or consulted regarding treatment of the Stage 2 pressure ulcers. A physician order in Resident #64's electronic health record dated 3/7/25 indicated to apply house barrier cream to the peri area after each incontinence episodes and as needed. A review of Resident #64's March 2025 electronic Medication and Treatment Administration Record revealed no entry for house barrier cream to the peri area after incontinence episodes and as needed. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 6/24/25 at 3:00 PM. Nurse #2 stated that the floor nurse was responsible for completion of the admission assessment including a full body audit when a resident was admitted or readmitted . Nurse #2 stated that she completed the initial admission skin assessment for Resident #64, and she recalled that the resident had Stage 2 wounds to bilateral buttocks that did not have dressings covering them on admission. Nurse #2 indicated she did not think she needed to notify the physician of the 2 Stage 2 wounds and did not need to consult the physician for a wound care treatment orders. Nurse #2 indicated that she did not think the wounds were that serious, so she did not think she needed to do anything further other than the order for barrier cream. Nurse #2 stated she did not alert anyone that Resident #64 should be evaluated by the Wound Care Physician and was unaware that Resident #64's wound on the right buttock progressed to an unstageable wound that required debridement. A skin observation tool dated 3/8/25 completed by Nurse #5 indicated Resident #64 had Stage 2 pressure wounds to the right and left buttock. A review of an undated facility Standing Treatment Orders for Wounds revealed that Stage 2 wounds were to be cleansed with normal saline, calcium alginate and an island dressing was to be applied. The physician and the Wound Care Physician were to be notified. A review of Resident #64's electronic health record revealed that the standing treatment order for Stage 2 ulcers to cleanse the area with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and cover with an island dressing was not initiated until 3/13/25. A review of Resident # 64's nursing progress notes from 3//8/25 through 3/13/25 revealed there was no entry noting that the right buttock wound was an unstageable deep tissue wound ( a wound where the full extent of tissue damage cannot be determined due to eschar or dead tissue). There was no further entry regarding the left buttock wound. The first Wound Care Physician note for Resident #64 dated 3/13/25 indicated Resident #64 was evaluated at the request of the physician due to a wound on the right buttock. The note indicated a thorough assessment and evaluation was performed with the wound exam revealing an unstageable deep tissue injury to the right buttock measuring 6.5 cm x 5.3 cm. The wound care physician note did not indicate a pressure ulcer was observed on Resident #64's left buttock. An interview was conducted with the Wound Care Physician on 6/26/25 at 12:30 PM. The Wound Care Physician stated he evaluated Resident #64 on 3/13/25 due to a wound on the right buttock and his exam revealed that the resident had an unstageable deep tissue wound. The Wound Care Physician stated that the nursing staff had assessed the wound as a Stage 2 on admission however when he evaluated it the wound was unstageable due to necrotic or dead tissue. The Wound Care Physician stated the nursing staff should have informed Resident #64's physician of the Stage 2 pressure ulcer noted on admission to implement orders to prevent worsening of the ulcer. A pressure injury assessment dated [DATE] signed on 3/18/25 by Nurse #4 indicated Resident #64 had an unstageable deep tissue injury to the right buttock measuring 6.5 cm x 5.3 cm. The assessment indicated this was the first pressure injury assessment with no other assessments to compare to evaluate the progress of the wound. An interview was conducted with Nurse #4 on 6/25/25 at 3:49 PM. Nurse #4 stated there was not currently a Wound Care Nurse for the facility. Nurse #4 stated she was assigned to accompany the Wound Care Physician on 3/13/25 on rounds and to document the pressure injury assessments for each resident that was evaluated. Nurse #4 stated Resident #64 was on the list to be evaluated on 3/13/25 but she did not know who added the resident to the list. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 6/25/25 at 10:30 AM. The NP stated that she evaluated Resident #64's skin but was unable to recall on what date. The NP stated that she recalled that Resident #64's skin was broken with pressure areas on bilateral buttock. The NP stated that the treatment of barrier cream was a prevention for a Stage 1 wound but once the skin was broken as in Stage 2, 3 or 4 wounds, a dressing was required. The NP indicated that if a topical treatment such as barrier cream was used, it must be applied after each incontinence episode and must be recorded on the Treatment Administration Record. The nurses must apply the barrier cream and assess the skin if it was used for a pressure ulcer treatment. The NP stated that given Resident #64's overall condition and boney body habitus, she would have expected a wound care treatment other than barrier cream. The Stage 2 area on the buttock that Resident #64 was admitted with could have progressed due to not obtaining an order for a wound care treatment. A cushioned foam island dressing would have been a more appropriate order and could have prevented the wound from progressing. The NP stated that she expected that wounds would be thoroughly assessed and appropriate wound care orders implemented. A physician order written by the Wound Care Physician dated 3/13/25 indicated to apply calcium alginate and cover with an island dressing every day to the right buttock. Resident #64's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had a severe cognitive impairment and had 2 Stage 2 pressure ulcers present on admission. Skin observation tools completed on 3/15/25 and 3/22/25 indicated Resident #64 had no new areas of concern. A Wound Care Physician note dated 3/27/25 indicated Resident #64 was evaluated and a surgical debridement procedure to remove necrotic tissue and establish margins of viable tissue was completed. A post debridement assessment of the wound indicated that the previously unstageable necrotic wound revealed underlying deep tissue at the muscle/fascia level which had been obscured by the necrotic tissue. With the removal of the necrotic tissue the wound now presented as a Stage 4 full thickness pressure wound measuring 1.9 cm length by 3.2 cm width and 0.1 cm depth. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that the physician would be notified on admission of a pressure ulcer and appropriate treatment orders would be initiated. The DON indicated that the facility had an interdisciplinary team daily morning meeting that reviewed new admissions and changes in resident conditions from the previous day. The DON indicated that Resident #64 was reviewed in the meeting following her admission and a referral was made for the resident to be evaluated by the Wound Care Physician. The DON indicated it was an oversight that the appropriate wound treatment orders were not initiated on admission and education of the nursing staff was required.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff, Nurse Practitioner and Physician interviews, the facility failed to provide pai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff, Nurse Practitioner and Physician interviews, the facility failed to provide pain management to include medications or non-pharmacological interventions for a resident who was observed by the Nurse Practitioner, the Nursing Aides and Occupational Therapist Assistant to have signs and symptoms of pain. This was for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #62) reviewed for pain. Findings included: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included stroke with right side weakness, aphasia (loss of ability to express speech), cognition deficit, vascular dementia, contracture to right elbow, anxiety, and depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 was moderately cognitively impaired, exhibited no behaviors, and was coded as not receiving any scheduled or as needed pain medication. A review of Resident #62's care plan dated 02/06/25 revealed a plan of care was in place for at risk for alteration in musculoskeletal status related to stroke with right side weakness with a goal that the resident would remain free of injuries or complications through next review. Interventions included, in part, to monitor/document/report as needed signs or symptoms of complications related to joint pain, joint stiffness, usually worse on wakening, swelling, decline in self-care ability, contracture formation or changes, and pain after exercise. Review of an Occupational Therapist Assistant (OTA) note written on 02/10/25 revealed, in part, the therapist provided passive range of motion to the right upper extremity to reduce contracture and prevent loss of range of motion. Resident tolerated well with extra time required due to pain. An Occupational Therapist Assistant note written on 02/26/25 revealed resident agreed to passive range of motion to right upper extremity but was very limited due to pain response causing resident to pull away during light passive range of motion. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #3 on 03/07/25 at 12:54 PM revealed this nurse was called to Resident's room by staff at 7:30 AM. Resident observed lying on the floor beside his bed, on his right side, possibly trying to transfer without assistance from staff. A head to toe assessment was completed and there were no injuries, bruising, or bleeding noted. The Nurse Practitioner was notified at 7:35 AM with a new order to send Resident to the emergency room for evaluation. The emergency room (ER) note dated 03/07/25 at 8:46 AM revealed in part, per Emergency Medical Services (EMS), the resident arrived to the emergency room due to an unwitnessed fall. Resident reportedly was trying to get out of bed and falling and demonstrated actual or suspected pain (headache but no other pain). A Computed tomography (CT) Scan (medical imaging technique used to obtain detailed internal images of the body) of the head was conducted and showed an old left stroke. The ER note indicated Resident #62 was discharged back to facility. A review of the Occupational Therapist Assistant's note written on 03/11/25 revealed Resident was seen today following a fall on 03/07/25. The note revealed the therapist provided passive range of motion to the right upper extremity to reduce contracture and protect skin integrity, but resident only tolerated less than 10 minutes before refusing to continue. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) note dated 03/17/25 revealed she was seeing Resident #62 due to complaints of right arm pain. Resident had fallen on 03/07/25 from the bed to the floor landing on his right side and refused an initial assessment and became very agitated and swung at the staff with his left arm and yelled loudly. Resident was sent to the hospital where he was evaluated. A CT scan was taken of his head which was negative for any new findings and he was returned to the facility. The note indicated the staff have reported the resident was having increased pain when any manipulation of his right arm was attempted during care. When the NP attempted to examine his right arm, resident pulled away and resisted any attempt at inspection and/or movement. He was noted to have mild edema of his right wrist and the top of his right hand. Resident has had an increase of pain since his fall. The plan was noted as pain in right arm - uncontrolled. Will obtain x-rays 2 views of right arm to include hand, wrist and lower arm. Treatment as indicated after results obtained. A physician's order was written 4 days later on 03/22/25 for x-ray of right extremity 2 views to rule out fracture due to increased pain on movement to include right hand, wrist and lower arm due to increased pain since fall on 03/07/25 and swelling for 2 days. There was no x-ray ordered for the right shoulder. Review of the physician orders for Resident #62 revealed there were no medications ordered to manage or treat pain. The facility had no standing orders in place to administer pain relievers. Review of the nursing progress notes since 03/07/25 revealed there were no non pharmacological interventions done to treat Resident #62's pain. The x-ray results for Resident #62's right shoulder dated 03/24/25 were reviewed. The findings indicated no gross fracture or dislocation. The osseous (bone) structures appeared grossly intact. The conclusion of the x-ray indicated no gross osseous abnormality, limited study for which a fracture is not excluded and recommend repeat study with diagnostic views. The x-ray results for Resident #62's right hand dated 03/24/25 was reviewed. The findings indicated no gross fracture or dislocation. The osseous structures appear grossly intact. The conclusion of the x-ray indicated no gross osseous abnormality, limited study for which a fracture is not excluded and recommend repeat study with diagnostic views. There were no x-ray results for Resident #62s right wrist or lower arm per the physician order. The MDS quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident was rarely or never understood and moderately cognitively impaired. He exhibited rejection of care behavior 1 to 3 days during this assessment. Resident had impairment to one side to upper extremity and no impairment to lower extremity. Resident #62 was not receiving scheduled or as needed pain medication. A progress note written by the Nurse Practitioner written on 06/16/25 revealed Resident has a contracture of his right arm and complaints of pain when right arm was moved or manipulated. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 06/23/25 at 3:45 PM revealed Resident #62 did not like to get out of bed and he would get very angry when she tried to get him out of bed. She stated when she repositioned him he would favor his right contracted arm and show signs of pain such as moaning and groaning and grimacing and guarding. She stated she had noticed that he used to keep his arm / elbow bent and rest across his abdomen but since the fall on 03/07/25 he has it raised (like drawn up) laying over his chest. NA #1 stated Resident #62 showed signs of pain whenever she would get him dressed and it was hard to put on his hospital gown; he would groan and pull away whenever she tried to put on his gown and she had to be very careful and ease it on his arm and shoulder very carefully. NA #1 stated he would refuse care a lot, but she did not know if that was because he was in pain. She stated as far as she knew he did not get pain medication and she did not tell the nurse that he was having pain during care because she thought it was related to the contracture and the nurses were already aware. NA #1 stated she had reported the observation of pain to the Nurse Practitioner a couple of times since his falls on 03/07/25 and 04/10/25 but she could not remember the exact dates. An interview with Nurse #3 on 06/24/25 at 2:30 PM revealed Resident #62 revealed Resident #62 was refusing to get out bed and did not want to be bothered since admission. She stated he wanted to be left alone. She stated he was cognitively aware and even though he was aphasic he could make his needs known by saying yes or no when asked and pointing to items/things. She stated he did not complain of pain and she would ask when she gave him his medications. Nurse #3 stated none of the Nurse Aides ever reported to her that Resident #62 was having pain. Nurse #3 stated on 03/07/25 at the beginning of the shift, she was notified that Resident #62 had a fall and was on the floor. Upon entering the room, she stated he was lying on the floor and she attempted to do a head to toe neurological assessment, but he was being very uncooperative and swung his arm at her and would not allow her to assess him. She stated she did not know if he was in pain or not, but he did not want to be touched. Nurse #3 stated it was an unwitnessed fall and since she could not do a neurological assessment she reported that to the EMS team and a CT scan of his head was done while he was at the hospital. Nurse #3 stated prior to the fall and after the fall she did not notice him having signs or symptoms of pain to his arm, but she knew that his right arm was contracted. An interview with the Rehabilitation (Rehab) Manager who was also the Occupational Therapist Assistant (OTA) on 06/24/25 at 4:00 PM revealed Resident #62 was nonverbal but he could make his need known with yes or no questions. She stated he was very difficult to evaluate since admission as he did not want to be touched and wanted to be left alone and would not allow her to do range of motion. She stated contractures can be very painful especially with movement, but not doing range of motion would cause more pain due to the joint and muscle stiffness that can occur with non-movement. The Rehab Manager/OTA stated Resident #62 refused care due to pain. The Rehab Manager/OTA stated the resident's refusal with therapy was discussed at the morning meetings and the nursing staff was made aware of his refusals due to pain. The Rehab Manager/OTA stated he demonstrated signs and symptoms of pain by wincing, groaning and pulling away and also verbally answering yes when asked if he was in pain. An interview with Nurse Aide #2 at 9:45 AM on 06/25/25 at 9:30 AM revealed since his admission, Resident #62 would refuse care often and would not allow her to touch him or change him at times. She stated whenever she would try to provide care, he would be combative and wince especially when trying to put on his hospital gown or getting him dressed. She stated his right arm was very tight and it was very difficult to get his gown on and he would try to pull away. NA #2 stated she did not report Resident #62's pain to the nurse because she thought the nurses were aware since he had a contracture to that right arm. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 06/25/25 at 11:00 AM. The NP stated she saw him on 03/17/25 related to his recent fall on 03/07/25. She stated Resident #62 was guarding his right arm and pushing her arm away and replied yes when asked if his right arm was in pain. The NP stated he was noted to have some swelling on his right wrist and hand and that was why she ordered the x-ray. The NP stated his pain could have been the reason he was refusing care and in hindsight she should have ordered something sooner for his pain. She stated up until 03/17/25, she had not been made aware he was having pain until NA #1 informed her that he was having pain whenever he was being provided care and was refusing to get up. The NP stated as far as she knew he always had that baseline pain due to his contracture since admission and it could have been the reason he was resistant to care and not participating in therapy, and that he did not want to be touched. It was reported to her again in June by NA #1 that Resident #62 was having pain and again she stated she should have ordered something for pain. The Nurse Practitioner stated she would start him right away on scheduled Tylenol (pain reliever). The Nurse Practitioner stated she would get another x-ray today on Resident #62's right arm to make sure a fracture could be ruled out. The emergency room note dated 06/25/25 revealed, in part, resident presented to the ER via EMS for right arm pain from contracture. The Medical Decision Making note revealed the physician was able to extend the right arm a little bit further down the chest so that it is was not in the way of neck and face after the baclofen and the diazepam (an antianxiety medication) were administered. The note indicated he would be sent back to the facility with a prescription for baclofen for muscle spasticity. Review of the x-ray of the right humerus (arm) revealed bone demineralization (reduction of minerals in tissue) and no evidence of acute fracture of dislocation. X-ray result of the right elbow and lower arm revealed a contracted elbow with no fracture or dislocation and mild osteoarthritis. A follow up interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner on 06/26/25 at 9:05 AM. The NP stated Resident #62 was sent to the ER on [DATE] to get an x-ray of his arm since the last x-ray did not get a full picture of his wrist and arm as ordered on 03/22/25 and that there was a recommendation for further diagnostic views. She stated when Resident #62 was sent back to the facility on [DATE] from the ER, the ER physician had ordered Baclofen (a medication to treat muscle spasticity) which she felt was a good idea for Resident #62. The Nurse Practitioner stated the Baclofen and the Tylenol may help him to be able to participate in therapy and be able to move his right arm more with less pain and he may not refuse care as much. An interview with the facility's Physician was conducted via phone on 06/26/25 at 2:15 PM. The Physician stated if Resident #62 was demonstrating signs and symptoms of pain when the Nurse Practitioner assessed him, then he would have expected the Nurse Practitioner to order a pain reliver for this resident and for the pain to be assessed. He stated 3 months or possibly longer of not getting pain medication was a long time and perhaps the resident would have been participating in his therapy and ADLS if he were medicated for his pain. The Physician also stated he would have expected the Nurse Aides to communicate with the Nurses of the signs and symptoms or pain they observed on this resident during care and for the Nurse to complete an assessment. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/26/25 at 2:35 PM revealed she was not made aware Resident #62 was having any pain. The DON stated she would have expected the Nurse Aides to report the pain to the Nurses and for the Nurses to assess the resident, document the assessment and notify the Physician for any new orders if there was pain. The DON stated she knew that Resident #62 was refusing care, but she did not remember the Rehab Manager/OTA reporting pain.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's right to maintain dignity for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's right to maintain dignity for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for dignity. Resident #35, a bedbound cognitively intact resident was transported to a physician appointment in a urine soiled brief, wearing a hospital gown rather than her personal clothing as was her preference and without her hair brushed. This resulted in the resident feeling bad and embarrassed. Findings included: Resident #35 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of chronic pain, diabetes and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #35's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident was cognitively intact and exhibited no behaviors. Resident #35 required substantial/maximum assistance with toileting, was dependent for transfers and toileting, was incontinent of bowel and bladder and was non-ambulatory. Review of a grievance dated 3/10/25 filed by Resident #35 revealed that the resident reported she had an appointment on 3/7/25, and she did not have her hair brushed and had on a soiled brief and a hospital gown. The findings of the grievance revealed that it was confirmed that Resident #35 was soiled and not dressed in personal clothing when she was taken out for the appointment. The response/resolution was that the Director of Nursing (DON) spoke with the staff member (Nursing Assistant #9) about making sure residents were ready for appointments in a timely manner. Review of Resident #35's medical record revealed that Resident #35 had presented at the orthopedic office on 3/7/25 at 11:30 AM for a follow up appointment. An interview with Resident #35 on 6/23/25 at 9:26 AM revealed she was taken to an appointment in March in a hospital gown, didn't have her hair brushed and was incontinent of urine. Resident #35 stated she was embarrassed and felt like people at the doctor's office were looking at her and it made her feel bad. She stated that the staff did not have time to get her ready for the appointment. An interview was conducted with the Business Office Manager (BOM) on 6/25/25 at 10:00 AM. The BOM stated that she arranged the appointments and the transportation for residents. The BOM stated the Transportation aide puts a schedule out at the nurses' station daily of the appointments. The nurses were to check the schedule daily to ensure that the residents were ready for the appointments each day. The BOM stated that Resident #35 was scheduled for an orthopedic appointment on 3/7/25 and ambulance transport was arranged. The BOM indicated that she was not informed that Resident #35 was not ready and the appointment needed to be rescheduled. An interview was conducted on 6/25/25 at 1:20 PM with Nurse #2. Nurse #2 was assigned to Resident #35 on 3/7/25 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Nurse # 2 stated that the Transportation Aide put out a schedule of appointments daily, so the staff knew which residents were going out and ensured they were ready. Nurse #2 stated that on 3/7/25 she checked the appointment schedule and informed NA #9 to have Resident #35 ready. Nurse #2 stated she was not sure what happened that morning but recalled that Resident #35 returned from the appointment and was upset about how she was sent. Nurse #2 stated she observed that Resident #35 was wearing a hospital gown and did not have her hair brushed when the ambulance transport arrived to take the resident to the doctor's appointment. Nurse #2 indicated that she should have rescheduled the appointment since Resident #35 was not ready instead of sending in a hospital gown instead of her personal clothing, without her hair brushed and without her brief checked for incontinence. Nurse #2 did not indicate that she was aware Resident #35's brief was soiled with urine when she transported to the appointment. An interview was conducted on 6/25/25 at 4:19 PM with the Transportation Aide. The Transportation Aide stated that she was responsible for transporting residents to appointments and prepared a schedule of residents with appointments each day. The Transportation Aide stated she gave a copy of the schedule of appointments to the nurses to ensure that the residents were ready for the appointments. The Transportation Aide stated that the nurses were responsible for ensuring that the residents received personal care, incontinence care and were dressed appropriately but she also tried to make sure the resident needs were met prior to transporting them to an appointment. The Transportation Aide stated on 3/7/25 she was assigned to work on the floor and Resident #35 was transported to the appointment by ambulance. Attempts were made to interview Nursing Assistant (NA) #9 on 6/25/25 at 9:40 AM, 6/25/25 at 4:30 PM and 6/26/25 at 12:50 PM were unsuccessful. Voice messages were left and text messages sent with no return call. A follow up interview was conducted with Resident #35 on 6/26/25 at 2:30 PM. Resident #35 stated that on the day of the appointment, the nursing assistant was very busy, that it was a heavy assignment and she (the NA) did not provide her personal care before she had to leave for the appointment. Resident #35 stated she was incontinent of urine and the NA did not come in to check on her, so she was unable to tell the NA that she required incontinence care. Resident #35 stated the ambulance arrived to take her to the appointment, and she was told by the nurse that she needed to go since it was too late to cancel the appointment. Resident #35 stated it was a 45-minute ride each way and the doctor's office was large and busy with a full waiting room that she was wheeled through on the gurney by the emergency personnel. Resident #35 stated she felt like everyone in the waiting room looked at her and she was embarrassed. Resident #35 stated that although she had a sheet over her, her chest and shoulders were exposed revealing she was wearing a hospital gown and she was afraid she smelled of urine. An interview with the DON on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that residents would be treated with dignity and respect. The DON further stated that she expected that residents would receive personal care and were dressed appropriately when leaving the facility for an appointment. The DON stated that her investigation of the grievance filed by Resident #35 revealed that NA # 9 knew she had not provided care to the resident prior to her being transported to the appointment. The DON stated she counseled the NA and expected this would not occur again.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety, anxiety disorder, and rec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety, anxiety disorder, and recurrent moderate depressive disorder. The physician's orders revealed an order dated 4/30/25 for the psychotropic medication Depakote tablet delayed release 125 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for generalized anxiety. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #23 dated 5/10/25 revealed he was severely cognitively impaired and received an antidepressant on a regular basis. A review of Resident #23's electronic medical record (EMR) indicated no documentation that the resident representative was informed in advance of the risks or benefits of initiating Depakote. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 4/30/25 through 6/25/25 indicated Resident #23 was administered Depakote as ordered. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/24/25 at 2:00 PM. Revealed the facility had not been obtaining consent for psychotropic medications. The DON stated she was looking for a consent form to be used for psychotropic medications, but they did not currently have one in place. The DON indicated that she thought sometimes the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) obtained consent prior to initiation or changes in the psychotropic medications. She indicated that she expected consents, including a discussion of the risks and benefits would be obtained prior to initiating or changing the psychotropic medication An interview with the Psychiatric NP on 6/25/25 at 4:00 PM indicated that the nursing staff were supposed to call the Responsible Party to discuss the treatment and the possible side effects when the medication was initiated. The Psychiatric NP indicated that her discussion with Resident #23 involved counseling and adjustment of medications. Based on record review and Nurse Practitioner, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain consent and inform the resident or resident representative in advance of the risks and benefits of psychotropic medications prior to initiation of the antianxiety medication lorazepam (Resident #50) and the initiation of a medication used to treat anxiety (Resident #23) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident # 50), Findings included: 1. Resident # 50 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of schizophrenia, history of traumatic brain injury and depressive disorder. Resident #50's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident received an antipsychotic medication on a routine basis. Resident #50 had moderate cognitive impairment with verbal behaviors and rejection of care was exhibited. A Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner progress note dated 6/11/25 indicated Resident #50 had delayed thought processes, confusion and forgetfulness with delusions and resident was oriented to person only. Resident #50 exhibited poor memory, concentration, attention, fund of knowledge and judgement and insight. The plan indicated a trial of lorazepam to be initiated for anxiety and the staff were to call Resident #50's responsible party to make aware of treatment and possible side effects. Resident #50's physician orders revealed an order dated 6/12/25 for the psychotropic medication lorazepam 0.5 milligram (mg) give 1 tablet by mouth three times per day for anxiety. Hold for sedation and notify the psychiatric service. A review of Resident # 50's medical record indicated no information whether Resident # 50's representative was informed in advance of the risks and benefits of initiating lorazepam. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 6/12/25 through 6/23/25 indicated Resident #50 was administered lorazepam as ordered. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/24/25 at 2:00 PM revealed that the facility had not been obtaining consents on psychotropic medications. The DON stated that she was looking for a consent form to use for psychotropic medications, but they did not currently have one in place. The DON stated she thought that sometimes the psychiatric Nurse Practitioner obtained consent prior to the initiation or changes in psychotropic medications. An interview with the Nurse Practitioner on 6/25/25 at 10:30 AM revealed she deferred to the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner regarding psychotropic medications and did not obtain consents for these medications from the resident or responsible party. An interview with the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner on 6/25/25 at 4:00 PM indicated the nursing staff were supposed to call the responsible parties to discuss the treatment and the possible side effects when the medication was initiated. The Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner indicated that her discussion with Resident #50 consisted of asking the resident if she felt irritable and if she would like to take medication for this. A follow up interview with the DON on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that consent including a discussion of the risks and benefits would be obtained prior to initiating or changing a psychotropic medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff, and Wound Care Physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of pressure u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff, and Wound Care Physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of pressure ulcers that were identified on admission and to notify the responsible party when a stage 2 pressure ulcer worsened to an unstageable pressure ulcer for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #64). Findings included: Resident #64 was admitted on [DATE]. A nursing admission progress note completed by Nurse #2 on 3/7/25 at 3:43 PM indicated the resident had Stage 2 pressure ulcers (partial thickness skin loss) to the bilateral buttocks. The admission progress note did not indicate that the physician was notified of the pressure ulcers. A review of the admission skin assessment dated [DATE] by Nurse #2 revealed that Resident #64 was noted with the following areas on the skin: - left buttock pressure ulcer 1 centimeter (cm) length with 2 cm width - right buttock pressure ulcer 2 cm length with 2 cm width The admission skin assessment did not indicate that the physician was notified of the pressure ulcers. The assessment did not indicate that the physician was consulted regarding treatment of the Stage 2 pressure ulcers. A physician order in Resident #64's electronic health record dated 3/7/25 indicated to apply house barrier cream to the peri area after each incontinence episode and as needed. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 6/24/25 at 3:00 PM. Nurse #2 stated that the floor nurse was responsible for completion of the admission assessment including a full body audit when a resident was admitted or readmitted . Nurse #2 stated that she completed the initial admission skin assessment for Resident #64, and she recalled that the resident had Stage 2 wounds. Nurse #2 indicated she did not notify the physician of the 2 Stage 2 wounds. Nurse #2 stated she didn't think she needed to notify the physician. A review of an undated facility Standing Treatment Orders for Wounds revealed that Stage 2 wounds were to be cleansed with normal saline, calcium alginate and an island dressing was to be applied. The physician and the Wound Care Physician were to be notified. A review of Resident #64's electronic health record revealed that the standing treatment order for Stage 2 ulcers to cleanse the area with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and cover with an island dressing was not initiated until 3/13/25. The first Wound Care Physician note for Resident #64 was dated 3/13/25. The note indicated Resident #64 was evaluated due to a pressure ulcer to the right buttock. Resident #64 was noted to have an unstageable deep tissue injury to the right buttock measuring 6.5 cm x 5.3 cm. The wound care physician note did not indicate that Resident #64's responsible party was notified of the wound and did not indicate a pressure ulcer was observed on the left buttock. An interview was conducted with the Wound Care Physician on 6/26/25 at 12:30 PM. The Wound Care Physician stated he evaluated Resident #64's unstageable deep tissue wound on 3/13/25. The Wound Care Physician stated he did not notify Resident #64's responsible party of the wound. The Wound Care Physician stated that the nursing staff should have informed Resident #64's responsible party of the wound. The Wound Care Physician stated that the Stage 2 pressure ulcer noted on admission should have been treated with a foam dressing for protection and the physician should have been notified to implement orders to prevent worsening of the ulcer. A pressure injury assessment dated [DATE] signed on 3/18/25 by Nurse #4 indicated Resident #64's responsible party and physician were notified of resident's unstageable deep tissue injury to the right buttock measuring 6.5 cm x 5.3 cm. An interview was conducted with Nurse #4 on 6/25/25 at 3:49 PM. Nurse #4 stated she was assigned to accompany the Wound Care Physician on 3/13/25 and to document the pressure injury assessments for each resident that was evaluated. Nurse #4 stated that she did not notify Resident #64's responsible party of the pressure ulcer to the right buttock since she assumed they already knew about it since it. Nurse #4 stated the information documented on the pressure injury assessment dated [DATE] was from the Wound Care Physician's evaluation and she did not know that the wound was a stage 2 on admission. Nurse #4 stated that she documented in error on the Wound assessment dated [DATE] that she had notified Resident #64's responsible party. A physician order dated 3/13/25 indicated to apply calcium alginate and cover with an island dressing every day to the right buttock. The electronic Treatment Administration Record for March 2025 indicated the entry to apply calcium alginate and cover with an island dressing every day to the right buttock was signed as completed. Resident #64's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had a severe cognitive impairment and had 2 Stage 2 pressure ulcers present on admission. The first physician progress note dated 3/19/25 indicated Resident #64 had an open area on the buttock managed by the Wound Care Physician. A Wound Care Physician note dated 3/27/25 indicated Resident #64 was evaluated and noted with a Stage 4 full thickness pressure ulcer to the right buttock measuring 1.9 cm x 3.2 cm x 0.1 cm. The note indicated that a surgical incision debridement procedures to remove necrotic (dead) tissue and establish margins of viable tissue was completed. A post debridement assessment of the wound indicated that the previously unstageable necrotic wound revealed underlying deep tissue at the muscle/fascia level which had been obscured by the necrotic tissue. With the removal of the necrotic tissue the wound now presented as a Stage 4 wound. A pressure injury assessment completed by Nurse #4 on 3/27/25 indicated the responsible party was notified of Resident #64's Stage 4 full thickness pressure ulcer to the right buttock. An interview was conducted with Nurse #4 on 6/25/25 at 3:49 PM. Nurse #4 stated she was assigned to accompany the Wound Care Physician on 3/27/25 and to document the pressure injury assessments for each resident that was evaluated. Nurse #4 stated that she did not notify Resident #64's responsible party of the pressure ulcer to the right buttock. Nurse #4 stated that she documented in error on the Wound assessment dated [DATE] that she had notified Resident #64's responsible party. A review of a grievance form dated 3/31/25 indicated a concern was filed by Resident #64's responsible party with the previous Social Worker. The grievance form indicated that Resident #64's responsible party called with a concern that she was not made aware that the resident had wounds upon discharge from the facility on 3/27/25. The summary of corrective action taken revealed that a plan of correction was implemented for responsible party notification of wounds. An interview was conducted with the previous Social Worker (SW) on 6/24/25 at 3:45 PM. The previous SW stated she left the position at the facility one month ago. The previous SW recalled that Resident #64's responsible party called the facility a few days after discharge and stated they were not aware that the resident had a pressure ulcer. The previous SW stated that Resident #64 was seen by the wound care specialist so she would have thought that he would have informed the family. The previous SW stated she did not know how the responsible party was informed of wounds. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that the responsible party would be informed of a pressure ulcer and the physician would be notified on admission of a pressure ulcer so treatment orders could be initiated. The facility provided a corrective action plan that was not acceptable to the State Agency due to no evidence that a monitoring system was implemented. The corrective action plan did not address notification of the physician regarding pressure ulcers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0627 (Tag F0627)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, Wound Care Physician, and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to implement an ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, Wound Care Physician, and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to implement an effective discharge plan by failing to inform the responsible party of a pressure wound and provide wound care instructions before discharging a resident home for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #64). Findings: Resident #64 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included femur fracture (a fracture of the long thigh bone), multiple myeloma (a cancer of the white blood cells), Covid, pneumonia and encephalopathy. A nursing admission progress note completed by Nurse #2 on 3/7/25 at 3:43 PM indicated Resident #64 was admitted with Stage 2 pressure ulcers to bilateral buttock. A care plan dated 3/7/25 indicated Resident #64's family preferred short term placement with a goal for resident to return home after completion of rehabilitation. The care plan indicated that Resident #64 will require 24 hour care upon discharge. Interventions indicated that the Social Worker will coordinator with family and all disciplines related to Resident #64's progress and care. A Wound Care Physician note dated 3/13/25 indicated Resident #64 was evaluated due to a wound to the right buttock. Resident #64 was noted to have an unstageable deep tissue injury (a pressure injury where the full extent of the tissue damage cannot be determined due to necrotic or dead tissue) to the right buttock. The Wound Care Physician note did not indicate that Resident #64's responsible party was notified of the wound and did not indicate a pressure ulcer was observed on the left buttock. A pressure injury assessment dated [DATE] signed on 3/18/25 by Nurse #4 indicated Resident #64's responsible party was notified of resident's unstageable deep tissue injury to the right buttock. An interview conducted with Nurse #4 on 6/25/25 at 3:49 PM revealed she documented in error that she notified Resident #64's responsible party of the unstageable deep tissue injury to the right buttock. A physician order dated 3/13/25 indicated to apply calcium alginate and cover with an island dressing every day to right buttock. Resident #64's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had a severe cognitive impairment and had 2 Stage 2 pressure ulcers present on admission. The treatments included a pressure-reducing device to the chair and the bed, a turning and repositioning program, nutrition to promote wound healing, and pressure injury care. The MDS indicated the overall goal was to discharge the community and active discharge plan in place for return to the community was coded No. A review of Resident #64's electronic Treatment Administration Record revealed an entry for right buttock wound care cleanse with normal saline and apply calcium alginate and cover with an island dressing every day was completed daily from 3/14/25 through 3/27/25. Review of an admission Summary note completed by the previous Social Worker dated 3/15/25 indicated Resident #64 had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent for all activities of daily living including bathing, dressing, transfers, toileting and eating. The note indicated Resident #64 was admitted for short term rehabilitation. Resident #64's responsible party expressed concerns due to the resident not progressing and unable to return to prior level of care. Resident #64 will require 24-hour care. The note indicated the Social Worker will follow up as needed. A review of a Nurse Practitioner discharge note dated 3/26/2025 at 9:29 AM indicated Resident #64 was seen regarding discharge. The note indicated Resident #64 was admitted for rehabilitation therapy following a femur fracture, made little progress with therapy and was dependent on others for activities of daily living. Resident #64 will be discharged home on [DATE] with Home Health, Nursing, nurse aide and physical and occupational therapy. The Nurse Practitioner discharge note did not indicate that Resident #64 had a wound that required daily wound care treatments. A Wound Care Physician note dated 3/27/25, the day of discharge, indicated Resident #64 was evaluated and a surgical debridement procedure to remove necrotic tissue and establish margins of viable (healthy) tissue was completed. Adherent black, necrotic eschar or dead tissue was removed from the wound bed. A post debridement assessment of the wound indicated that the previously unstageable necrotic wound revealed underlying deep tissue at the muscle/fascia level which had been obscured by the necrotic tissue. With the removal of the necrotic tissue the wound now presented as a Stage 4 (the most severe stage of a pressure ulcer characterized by full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle). An interview was conducted with the Wound Care Physician on 6/26/25 at 12:30 PM. The Wound Care Physician stated he evaluated Resident #64's unstageable deep tissue wound on 3/13/25. The Wound Care Physician stated he did not notify Resident #64's responsible party of the wound. The Wound Care Physician stated that the nursing staff should have informed Resident #64's responsible party of the wound. The Wound Care Physician stated he debrided, removed necrotic or dead tissue from Resident #64's wound on 3/27/25 the day of discharge and the nursing staff should have instructed Resident #64's responsible party on wound care upon discharge with instructions to observe for increased bleeding or pain. A review of the Home Discharge Plan of Care form completed by the previous Social Worker dated 3/27/25 indicated Resident #64 was to receive home health nursing, physical, occupation and speech therapy and home health aide services. Resident #64 had an appointment with her primary care physician on 4/7/25 at 3:40 PM and her medications were called into the pharmacy. The section of the form titled Medications and Treatments had a line drawn through it and indicated to see attached. A printed copy of the Resident's medication orders was attached. There was no indication on the form that Resident #64 had a pressure wound and required daily wound care to the wound on her right buttock. There was no documentation of precautions or potential complications to observe for including bleeding, increased pain or fever related to the surgical debridement procedure performed on Resident #64's wound earlier that day. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #5 on 3/27/25 at 3:42 PM indicated Resident #64's responsible party arrived at facility at 2:05 PM for resident's discharge home. The note indicated Nurse #5 reviewed the discharge form that was prepared by the Social Worker with the responsible party who stated understanding. Resident #64 exited the facility at 2:29 PM with the responsible party for discharge home. The progress note did not indicate that the wound or the required wound care was reviewed with Resident #64's responsible party. An interview with Nurse #5 on 6/25/25 at 12:10 PM revealed that she was assigned to Resident #64 on 3/27/25 and discharged the resident home with her responsible party. Nurse #5 stated she did not discuss Resident #64's wound or the required daily wound care with the responsible party when she discussed her discharge home that day. Nurse #5 stated there was nothing on the discharge form that the Social Worker prepared about wound care so she did not think about discussing it. A discharge note dated 3/27/2025 at 3:01 PM by the previous Social Worker stated Resident #64 was discharged home with the responsible party via family car. Discharge instructions were reviewed by the nurse and sent with the resident. The note indicated that the Social Worker met with Resident #64's responsible party on admission and 2 other times to discuss the resident's care. An interview was conducted with the previous Social Worker on 6/24/25 at 3:45 PM. The previous SW stated she left the position at the facility one month ago. The previous SW stated when a resident was discharged , she sent the referral to the home health agency if ordered and completed the Home Discharge Plan of Care form. The previous SW stated she prepared the Home Discharge Plan of Care form for Resident #64 and did not include information regarding the resident's pressure wound or daily wound care instructions. She stated that she prepared the discharge form and gave it to the nursing staff prior to a resident's discharge. She stated she did not know how the resident or responsible party was informed of wounds or wound care upon discharge as this was not information that she included when she completed the Discharge Plan of Care form. She stated that she just assumed that the nursing staff would know to review wound care with the resident or responsible party prior to discharge and that no one had reported to her that Resident #64 had a Stage 4 wound that required daily care. The previous SW recalled that Resident #64's responsible party called the facility a few days after discharge and stated they were not aware that the resident had a pressure wound or that daily wound care was required. A review of a grievance form dated 3/31/25 indicated a concern was received by the previous Social Worker from Resident #64's responsible party. The grievance form indicated that Resident #64's responsible party called with a concern regarding not being made aware that resident had a wound upon discharge from the facility on 3/27/25. The finding of the grievance form indicated that a discussion of Resident #64's wound was not reviewed with the resident's responsible party upon discharge. The summary of corrective action taken revealed that a new plan of correction was implemented for responsible party notification of wounds upon discharge. Nursing staff education was provided. An interview with the current Social Worker (SW) was conducted on 6/24/25 at 1:00 PM. The SW stated she was in the position for one month. The SW stated she had a process she completed when a resident was discharged home to ensure that all orders were obtained and the resident had the equipment and services required. The SW stated that prior to discharge, she discussed the resident care needs with the interdisciplinary team including therapy, nurses, wound care nurse and the Nurse Practitioner. The SW stated she checked the last skin assessment and wound care assessments prior to discharge to obtain care for the resident upon discharge and to ensure this information was included on the discharge paperwork that she prepared for the nurse to review with the resident and the responsible party. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner on 6/25/25 at 10:30 AM. The Nurse Practitioner indicated she completed Resident #64's discharge summary progress note on 3/26/25, the day prior to discharge. The Nurse Practitioner stated she was not aware that Resident #64's wound was debrided by the Wound Care Specialist on 3/27/25 and that if she was aware of the debridement and the changes to the wound, she would have ensured that the discharge orders were updated and listed on the discharge paperwork that was reviewed with the responsible party. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that wounds and wound care would be discussed with the resident and responsible party upon discharge. The DON stated it was important for the resident and responsible party to receive wound care instructions to ensure a safe discharge, and the facility was planning on working on improving the discharge process to ensure this did not occur again.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included major joint replacement with right femur fracture. A...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included major joint replacement with right femur fracture. A progress note written on 04/11/25 by Nurse #10 revealed Resident #32 had a fall and an order was obtained to send Resident #32 to the emergency room for further evaluation. A nursing progress note written on 04/11/25 by Nurse #10 revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the hospital for right femur fracture. An admission summary note written by the Director of Nursing on 04/15/25 revealed that the resident arrived at the facility via Emergency Medical Services, had a right femur fracture and had an open reduction internal fixation (a type of surgical procedure used to repair a bone break or facture) done on 04/14/25. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was moderately cognitively impaired and she had no impairments to her lower extremities. An interview with Resident #32 on 06/22/25 at 1:10 PM revealed she had a right femur fracture in April and she was getting therapy for strengthening. An interview with the [NAME] President of MDS Services Nurse on 06/25/25 at 4:00 PM revealed Resident #32 was coded inaccurately on the MDS admission assessment and that she should have been coded to reflect a lower extremity impairment due to her femur fracture. She stated it was an oversight. An interview with the Administrator on 06/26/25 at 3:35 PM revealed that it was important that MDS assessments were completed accurately to reflect the residents' care. 3. Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included stroke with right side weakness and contracture to right elbow. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed there was no assessment completed for activities of daily living. The documentation indicated not assessed / no information. An interview with the [NAME] President of MDS Services Nurse on 06/25/25 at 4:00 PM revealed Resident #62 was receiving therapy services per her documentation and stated that the MDS consulting nurse should have completed the assessment since there was information to support he was participating in activities of daily living. She stated this was a comprehensive assessment and should have been completed in its entirety. An interview with the Administrator on 06/26/25 at 3:35 PM revealed that it was important that MDS assessments were completed accurately to reflect the residents' care. Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 of 19 residents (Resident #4, Resident #32, Resident #62) reviewed. Findings included: 1. Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] under Hospice services with medical diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. Review of Resident #4's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] did not indicate Hospice services had been received while a resident. A late entry admission summary note by the Social Worker dated 2/26/25 indicated Resident #4 was admitted from home with Hospice services. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 6/26/25 at 9:00 AM who stated Resident #4 was admitted on Hospice services. An interview was conducted with the [NAME] President of MDS Services Nurse on 6/26/25 at 1:00 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the admission MDS, stated it had been completed by the Corporate MDS Nurse Consultant, and Hospice should have been coded yes. The MDS Nurse stated that it was an error due to an oversight, and it was important to accurately complete the MDS assessments. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that residents MDS assessments would be accurate and reflect the resident care needs. An interview with the Administrator on 6/26/25 at 4:00 PM revealed that it was important that MDS assessments were completed accurately and that was her expectation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff, the Registered Dietitian, Nurse Practitioner, and Physician interviews the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff, the Registered Dietitian, Nurse Practitioner, and Physician interviews the facility failed to provide an enteral tube feeding (nutrition provided directly into the digestive system through a tube inserted through the nose, stomach, or small intestine) according to the physician's order. This occurred for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #48). Findings included. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral vascular accident, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and gastrostomy tube placement (tube placed into a surgically created opening in the stomach). A care plan dated 9/19/24 revealed Resident #48 required tube feedings. Interventions included to maintain adequate nutrition and hydration status and provide the diet as ordered. A physician's order dated 1/6/25 for Resident #48 revealed enteral feeding in the evening for nutrition. Infuse the fortified nutritional supplement at 55 milliliters (ml) per hour for 10 hours for nocturnal (during the night) feeding. The order was scheduled on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for infusion nightly at 9:00 PM. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was severely cognitively impaired. She received tube feedings and had no rejection of care. A progress note dated 6/25/25 at 11:00 PM documented by Nurse #7 revealed Resident #48 was noted to have gastrostomy tube leakage during routine care. The site was leaking with no visible dislodgement. The on- call physician was notified and ordered Resident #48 to be sent to the hospital for evaluation. A hospital admission note dated 6/25/25 at 11:48 PM revealed Resident #48 was sent to the emergency department (ED) for a clogged feeding tube, there were concerns of leaking around the stoma. The gastrostomy tube was easily unclogged by the ED nurse. The tube was flushed and the plunger retracted. There was no leaking around the stoma with testing. The dirty bandage was changed, and Resident #48 was discharged back to the nursing facility. Review of Resident #48's progress notes from 6/25/25 through 6/26/25 revealed no documentation of when Resident #48 returned to the facility or the status of the gastrostomy tube. During an observation on 6/26/25 at 9:45 AM Resident #48 was observed lying in bed in her room. She was oriented to self but due to aphasia (difficulty speaking) she could not voice her needs. She was able to respond to yes or no questions by nodding her head. When asked if she received her tube feeding during the night or this morning she nodded no. When asked if she was hungry she nodded yes. A 1000 milliliter (ml) bag of the fortified nutritional supplement dated 6/24/25 was hanging at the bedside with 500 milliliters of the nutritional supplement that remained in the bag. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 9:50 AM Nurse #2 stated she was Resident #48's assigned nurse today. She stated according to the report she received from Nurse #7 the night shift nurse, Resident #48 was sent to the hospital around 11:00 PM last night (6/25/25) due to the gastrostomy tube being clogged and returned to the facility shortly after around midnight with no new orders. Nurse #2 stated she had not administered any tube feeding to Resident #48 since she arrived for her shift this morning at 7:00 AM. She was not certain if Nurse #7 had given Resident #48 any of the tube feeding supplement after returning from the hospital. When Nurse #2 was asked, shouldn't the nutritional supplement be infusing at this time if it was to run for 10 hours and Resident #48 returned from the hospital around midnight. Nurse #2 stated she did not realize that the tube feeding was not infusing. Nurse #2 observed the old bag of the fortified nutritional supplement dated 6/24/25 hanging at the bedside. She stated that was the bag from two nights ago and should not be hanging there. Nurse #2 stated she would notify the Nurse Practitioner immediately. During a phone interview on 6/26/25 at 10:0 AM Nurse #7 the night shift nurse stated Resident #48 was sent to the hospital at 10:50 PM last night on 6/25/25 due to her gastrostomy tube leaking. Resident #48 retuned to the facility around 12:50 AM two hours later with no new orders. Nurse #7 stated emergency medical services (EMS) personnel reported that the hospital was able to unclog and flush the gastrostomy tube. Nurse #7 stated she did not administer the order for the fortified nutritional supplement to infuse 55 milliliters over 10 hours even though the gastrostomy tube flushed fine, but she did administer Resident #48's pain medications through her gastrostomy after returning from the hospital. When asked why she didn't infuse the fortified nutritional supplement according to the physician's order to Resident #48 after returning from the hospital Nurse #7 stated she didn't because she thought since the tube had leaked requiring Resident #48 having to go to the hospital she thought it was okay not to give the tube feeding continuously over 10 hours. She later stated she did give Resident #48 a bolus of 237 milliliters of the fortified nutritional supplement around 1:30 AM instead of the continuous feeding. Review of Resident 48's physician orders revealed no order to provide a 237-milliliter bolus of the fortified nutritional supplement to Resident #48 in place of the continuous infusion of the nutritional supplement over 10 hours during the night. Review of Resident #48's electronic medical record from 6/25/25 through 6/26/25 revealed no documentation that Nurse #7 administered a 237-milliliter bolus feeding of the fortified nutritional supplement to Resident #48. During a phone interview on 6/26/25 at 11:30 AM the Registered Dietitian (RD) stated she last evaluated Resident #48 on 5/22/25. The RD reported that Resident #48 had weight loss over the last few months. They had started pleasure feedings of 4 ounces of pudding at breakfast and at lunch and to provide a bolus feeding after breakfast and lunch only if Resident #48 did not consume the 4 ounces of pudding. The RD stated an order was in place for a fortified nutritional supplement to infuse at 55 milliliters continuous over night to meet Resident #48's dietary needs of 1600 kilocalories (measurement of the energy content of food) per day and there were no orders to replace the continuous feeding over 10 hours with a bolus feeding. The RD indicated Resident #48 should have received the continuous infusion of the nutritional supplement after returning from the hospital. During a phone interview on 06/26/25 at 2:00 PM the Physician stated Resident #48 should have received the continuous infusion of the fortified nutritional supplement through the gastrostomy tube according to the order after returning from the hospital on 6/26/25. He stated Resident #48 should have received the continuous infusion and not a bolus feeding. The Physician stated that Resident #48 would have no significant outcome from not receiving one feeding of the fortified nutritional supplement, but he expected the order to be followed. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 3:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Nurse #7 should have provided Resident #48 with the fortified nutritional supplement to be infused over 10 hours after returning from the hospital on 6/26/25. The DON stated there was no order in place to provide a bolus feeding in place of the continuous feeding over 10 hours each night. She stated the fortified nutritional supplement should have been administered according to the physician's order.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff, Nurse Practitioner and Physician interviews the facility failed to 1.) follow t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff, Nurse Practitioner and Physician interviews the facility failed to 1.) follow the physician's order to obtain an x-ray of a resident's right wrist and lower arm due to swelling and signs and symptoms of pain and failed to acknowledge recommendations on the x-ray results for further diagnostic reviews indicating a fracture could not be excluded for Resident #62. 2.) provide a TLSO (thoraco-lumbo-sacral orthosis, a type of spinal brace that supports the spine from the thoracic region down to the sacrum. It is used to limit movement, provide support and stabilization to the spine, and promote healing after injury) which was ordered by the hospital following a T3 (third thoracic vertebra) compression fracture for a resident (Resident #38) who experienced a fall in the facility. 3.) administer the full course of antibiotic therapy prescribed to a resident (Resident #48) for the treatment of a urinary tract infection. This occurred for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Residents #62, #38 and #48). Findings included: 1.) Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included stroke with right side weakness, aphasia (loss of ability to express speech), cognition deficit, vascular dementia, contracture to right elbow, anxiety, and depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 and was moderately cognitively impaired. A review of Resident #62's care plan dated 02/06/25 revealed a plan of care was in place for at risk for alteration in musculoskeletal status related to stroke with right side weakness with a goal that the resident would remain free of injuries or complications through next review. Interventions included, in part, to monitor/document/report as needed signs or symptoms of complications related to joint pain, joint stiffness, usually worse on wakening, swelling, decline in self-care ability, contracture formation or changes, and pain after exercise. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #3 on 03/07/25 at 12:54 revealed this nurse was called to Resident's room by staff at 7:30 AM. Resident was observed lying on the floor beside his bed, on his right side, possibly trying to transfer without assistance from staff. A head to toe assessment was completed and there were no injuries, bruising, or bleeding noted. The Nurse Practitioner was notified at 7:35 AM with a new order to send Resident to the emergency room for evaluation. The emergency room (ER) note dated 03/07/25 at 8:46 AM revealed in part, per Emergency Medical Services, the resident arrived due to an unwitnessed fall. Resident reportedly was trying to get out of bed and falling and demonstrated actual or suspected pain (headache but no other pain). A Computed Tomography (CT) Scan (medical imaging technique used to obtain detailed internal images of the body) of the head was conducted and showed an old left stroke. Resident #62 was discharged back to facility on 03/07/25. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) note dated 03/17/25 revealed she was seeing Resident #62 due to complaints of right arm pain. Resident had fallen on 03/07/25 from the bed to the floor landing on his right side and refused an initial assessment becoming very agitated and swung at the staff with his left arm and yelled loudly. Resident was sent to the hospital where he was evaluated. A CT scan was taken of his head which was negative for any new findings and he was returned to the facility. The NP note indicated the staff have reported the resident was having increased pain when any manipulation of his right arm was attempted during care. When the NP attempted to examine his right arm, resident pulled away and resisted any attempt at inspection and/or movement. He was noted to have mild edema of his right wrist and the top of the right hand. Resident has had an increase of pain since his fall. The Nurse Practitioner's plan was noted as pain in right arm - uncontrolled. Will obtain x-rays 2 views of right arm to include hand, wrist and lower arm. Treatment as indicated after results obtained. A physician's order entered by the Nurse Practitioner was written 4 days later on 03/22/25 for x-ray of right extremity 2 views to rule out fracture due to increased pain on movement to include right hand, wrist and lower arm due to increased pain since fall on 03/07/25 and swelling for 2 days. There was no x-ray ordered for the right shoulder. Review of the physician orders revealed there were no medications ordered to manage or treat pain. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 06/25/24 at 11:00 AM. The NP stated she saw Resident #62 him on 03/17/25 related to his recent fall on 03/07/25. She stated Resident #62 was guarding his right arm and pushing her arm away and replied yes when asked if his right arm was in pain. The NP stated he was noted to have some swelling on his right wrist and hand and that was why she ordered the x-ray. The Nurse Practitioner stated she did not realize the order was not carried out to include Resident #62's right wrist and lower arm and she did not know why the x-ray included the right shoulder when she did not order that. The NP stated she did not follow through with the recommendations because she did not read the result of the x-ray in its entirety. She stated her eyes stopped at where the result read no gross fracture or dislocation. The NP stated she would get another x-ray today at the hospital. The NP stated the reason the x-ray was done 4 days after she originally ordered it on 03/17/25, was because she realized she had entered the order in the electronic record the wrong way and the nurses could not see the order. The NP stated when she realized the x-ray was not done, she reentered the order on 03/22/25 the correct way in the electronic record so the nurses could view the order and obtain the x-ray. The x-ray results for Resident #62's right shoulder dated 03/24/25 was reviewed. The findings indicated no gross fracture or dislocation. The osseous (bone) structures appeared grossly intact. The conclusion of the x-ray indicated no gross osseous abnormality, limited study for which a fracture is not excluded and recommend repeat study with diagnostic views. The x-ray results for Resident #62's right hand dated 03/24/25 was reviewed. The findings indicated no gross fracture or dislocation. The osseous structures appear grossly intact. The conclusion of the x-ray indicated no gross osseous abnormality, limited study for which a fracture is not excluded and recommend repeat study with diagnostic views. There were no x-ray results for Resident #62's right wrist or lower arm per the physician order on 03/22/25. The MDS quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident was rarely or never understood and moderately cognitively impaired. He exhibited rejection of care behavior 1 to 3 days during this assessment. A progress note written by the Nurse Practitioner written on 06/16/25 revealed Resident has a contracture of his right arm and complaints of pain when right arm was moved or manipulated. A follow up interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner on 06/25/25 at 9:05 AM. She stated she agreed that another x-ray should be taken today to rule out any kind of fracture and it should have been done when the x-ray resulted on 03/24/25. A Nurse Practitioner order was written on 06/25/25 to be sent to the emergency room for x-rays of the lower right arm due to pain and contracture. The emergency room note dated 06/25/25 revealed, in part, resident presented to the ER via EMS for right arm pain from contracture. The Medical Decision Making note revealed the physician was able to extend the resident's right arm a little bit further down the chest so that it is was not in the way of neck and face after Baclofen (a medication to treat muscle spasms) and Diazepam (an antianxiety medication) were administered. The note indicated he would be sent back to the facility with a prescription for Baclofen for muscle spasticity. Review of the x-ray of the right humerus (arm) revealed bone demineralization (reduction of minerals in tissue) and no evidence of acute fracture of dislocation. X-ray result of the right elbow and lower arm revealed a contracted elbow with no fracture or dislocation and mild osteoarthritis. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/26/25 at 2:35 PM revealed she did not read the x-ray result from 03/24/25 in its entirety and she stopped reading the x-ray when she read no fracture or dislocation. She stated she should have read the entire result of the x-ray and notified the physician to obtain an order to complete the recommendations for further diagnostic views. An interview with the facility's Physician was conducted via phone on 06/26/25 at 2:15 PM. The Physician stated he would have expected the nursing staff and the Nurse Practitioner to read any and all x-rays results in their entirety. The Physician stated although the result of the x-rays were not indicative of any fractures, there would be no way of knowing this for sure without obtaining the additional diagnostic views that were recommended. 2.) Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease and dementia. A new diagnosis of a wedge compression fracture of the third thoracic vertebra was added on 6/23/25. A care plan dated 4/14/25 revealed Resident #38 had an extensive history of falls prior to admission and had injuries from falls. She was at risk for further falls with injury related to impaired balance, weight bearing issues, medication use, and a history of falls. Interventions included in part; to have no further falls with injury. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was severely cognitively impaired and had no falls. A progress note dated 6/21/25 at 5:30 AM documented by Nurse #11 revealed Resident #38 was heard yelling from her bedroom. Resident #38 was found on the floor by the nurse and nurse aide. She had a laceration on her right eye which was bleeding. Resident #38 was confused and stated she was looking for her pillow. Resident #38 was transferred to the hospital with Emergency Medical Services. A hospital admission note dated 6/21/25 at 6:43 AM revealed Resident #38 was evaluated for an unwitnessed fall with an abrasion to the right temple. Resident #38 was at the nursing facility and was walking and slipped on a mat and fell onto her right cheek. There was no loss of consciousness, or blood thinner use, and no other pain or trauma reported during the evaluation. Resident #38 had a normal neurological exam and was stable to return to the nursing home. An order will be written for a TLSO brace. The discharge diagnoses included T3 (third thoracic vertebra) compression fracture. A written order dated 6/21/25 signed by the hospital physician for Resident #38 revealed TLSO for T3 compression fracture. An order dated 6/21/25 signed by the hospital physician for Resident #38 revealed Ultracet 37.5 milligrams (mg)/325 mg oral tablets. Give one tablet every six hours for 5 days as needed for pain. A progress note dated 6/21/25 at 11:18 AM documented by Nurse #4 revealed Resident #38 returned from the hospital this morning at approximately 11:00 AM following a fall during the night. Resident #38 was noted to have hit the right side of her head while walking in her room in the dark per report from the night shift nurse. Dried blood and bruising was noted above the right eye. Resident #38 was assisted into bed and was currently lying in bed with her eyes closed at this time. Resident #38 rated her pain as 6 out of 10 and pain medication was given. A new order was written for a TLSO brace for a 60% T3 compression fracture. The TLSO order was brought to the facility by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Director of Nursing (DON) was notified of the order. A phone interview was conducted on 6/26/25 at 3:30 PM with Nurse #4. She stated she was the admitting nurse when Resident #38 returned to the facility on Saturday 6/21/25 around 11:00 AM after a fall during the night. Nurse #4 stated the hospital sent the TLSO order with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel. Nurse #4 stated she called the Director of Nursing (DON) once she received the order, and the DON instructed her to call the hospital to clarify the order. Nurse #4 called the hospital at that time and stated the hospital personnel did not communicate to her very well regarding who provided the TLSO but stated to her that they did not provide it indicating it was the responsibility of the facility. The hospital personnel instructed Nurse #4 that the TLSO was to be worn 24 hours a day and to follow up with the Orthopedist. Nurse #4 stated she notified the DON after speaking with the hospital and indicated they didn't know how to get the TLSO. Nurse #4 stated Resident #38 did return from the hospital with a pain medication order which she received during her shift on 6/21/25 and had also required pain medication during the week. She stated the pain medication administered for Resident #38 was effective in managing her pain. A progress note dated 6/23/25 at 10:37 AM written by the Nurse Practitioner revealed Resident #38 was evaluated for follow up after an emergency room visit on 6/21/25. Resident #38 was sent to the hospital after an unwitnessed fall. Staff entered the room after hearing Resident #38 yelling. She was found on the floor at the foot of her roommate's bed. She had bleeding from an area lateral to her right eye. Resident #38 told staff she was looking for her pillow. She was observed lying in bed this morning with a large ecchymosed (bruised) area surrounding the right eye with swelling, and a small abrasion on the right cheek. Resident #38 was at baseline regarding mentation, and was confused, and oriented to self only. Resident #38 denied pain. Diagnostics at the hospital showed a 60% T3 compression fracture of the spine with mild compromise to the adjacent spinal canal. The examination revealed Resident #38 was able to move all extremities without verbal or non-verbal indicators of pain. Resident #38 is at high risk for falls due to dementia and Parkinson's disease. Resident #38 was stable and denied pain at this time. She has Ultracet (pain medication) every 6 hours as needed for pain. Follow up with neurosurgery. TLSO brace to be worn while out of bed. During an observation on 6/26/25 at 9:30 AM Resident #38 was observed sitting up on the side of her bed. She was oriented to person. She was observed with a large, bruised area around her right eye with facial grimacing. There was no TLSO in place. When the surveyor asked her if she had pain, Resident #38 stated yes her back and her head hurt. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 9:35 AM Nurse #2 stated she was the assigned nurse. Nurse #2 stated Resident #38 had pain medication ordered after having the fall on 6/21/25 and she continued to receive the pain medication as needed. Nurse #2 stated Resident #38 had complaints of back pain or pain all over at times, but the medication was effective in relieving her pain. She stated she would administer pain medication at this time. Nurse #2 stated Resident #38 did not have a TLSO that she was aware of, and she did not know the reason she didn't have the brace. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 10:33 AM the Rehabilitation Director stated she was surprised that Resident #38 came back from the hospital without the TLSO which was a brace that covered the entire torso. The Rehabilitation Director stated therapy was not equipped to fit Resident #38 for the TLSO and that would have to be done from an outside service and required proper fitting. She stated the TLSO for Resident #38 was discussed in the Monday morning meeting on 6/23/25 following the fall over the weekend and the Director of Nursing was informed during the meeting that the therapy department could not provide the TLSO. The Rehabilitation Director stated Resident #38 was seen by the Orthopedist yesterday 6/25/25 and she thought maybe they would fit her there, but they didn't. She reported therapy services had been held for Resident #38 pending the results from the Orthopedist appointment to clear her for further services. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 1:24 PM the Nurse Practitioner stated she evaluated Resident #38 on Monday 6/23/25 following the fall over the weekend. She stated she was aware that the hospital wrote an order for the TLSO but thought the facility had obtained it. The Nurse Practitioner stated she was not aware Resident #38 still did not have the TLSO but stated she should have had it in place by now because it had been 5 days without one. During a phone interview on 06/26/25 at 2:00 PM the Physician stated he was made aware today of Resident #38's fall with compression fracture that occurred on 6/21/25. He indicated the Nurse Practitioner would have followed up with Resident #38 following the fall on 6/21/25 and therefore he was not aware of the fall or the order for the TLSO. The Physician stated he spoke with the DON today and ordered Resident #38 to be sent back to the hospital today due to having continued complaints of pain and until the hospital could get the TLSO placed. He stated the order for the TLSO should have been obtained sooner than 5 days following hospitalization. The Physician stated the TLSO was used for stabilization of the spine and Resident #38 should have had one provided upon return from the hospital or sent back to the hospital until she could get one. The Physician indicated that once the facility realized they could not obtain the TLSO upon return from the hospital they should have sent Resident #38 back to the hospital at that time. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 3:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Nurse #4 notified her of the TLSO for Resident #38 upon return from the hospital on 6/21/25. She stated she had Nurse #4 call the hospital back, but they did not get clear information as to how to get the TLSO. She stated on Monday 6/23/25 the Nurse Practitioner was notified and evaluated Resident #38. The DON stated Resident #38 had a follow up appointment scheduled on Thursday 6/25/25 and the Orthopedist wrote to continue the TLSO and follow up with neurosurgery. She stated she just spoke with the facility Physician and was instructed to call a medical supply company today to come out and fit for the brace and if the medical supply company could not get there today to send Resident #38 back to the hospital. She indicated she was awaiting a call back from the medical supply company and would know something soon and if they could not come out today they would send Resident #38 back to the hospital until she could get the TLSO placed. 3.) Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of a gastrostomy tube placement and a history of urinary tract infections. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was severely cognitively impaired. She received medications through the gastrostomy tube and received antibiotics. A care plan revised 3/20/25 for Resident #48 included a history of urinary tract infections and Resident #48 remained at risk for further urinary tract infections. A nursing progress note dated 3/20/25 at 2:05 AM documented by the Unit Manager revealed a report was given from the off going nurse that Resident #48 had foul smelling urine and vaginal discharge. A urine sample was obtained per standing orders. The urine sample was sent to the lab for urinalysis with culture and sensitivity (a urine test obtained to identify the presence of bacteria. A urine culture identifies the presence and type of bacteria causing an infection. Sensitivity tests determine which antibiotics are effective against the bacteria per standing orders). A physician's order with a start date of 3/22/25 at 9:00 PM for Resident #48 revealed Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (antibiotic) oral suspension 800-160 milligrams per 20 milliliters (ml). Give 20 milliliters via gastrostomy tube two times a day for urinary tract infection for 7 days (Total of 14 doses). A progress note dated 3/23/25 at 5:27 PM documented by the Nurse Practitioner revealed Resident #48 was evaluated to follow up on a urinary tract infection. The recent culture and sensitivity grew greater than 100,000 cfu/mls (colony forming units per milliliter- a measurement used to quantify the number of viable bacteria in a sample. Greater than 100,000 is indictive of a urinary tract infection). Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #48 dated March 2025 revealed Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (antibiotic) oral suspension was scheduled for administration at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. Resident #48 received only 10 of the 14 doses. The dates and times of when the medication was not given were as follows: 3/22/25 at 9:00 PM the medication was documented as not administered by the Unit Manager. 3/23/25 at 9:00 AM the medication was documented as not administered by Nurse #8. 3/23/25 at 9:00 PM the medication was documented as not administered by the Unit Manager. 3/26/25 at 9:00 PM the medication was documented as not administered by Nurse #9. Review of Resident #48's progress notes from 3/22/25 through 3/26/25 revealed no documentation as to why the Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim was not administered. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 1:07 PM the Unit Manager stated the antibiotic was not administered to Resident #48 on 3/22/25 at 9:00 PM or 3/23/25 at 9:00 PM due to waiting for the liquid suspension to come from the pharmacy. She stated the liquid form was needed to administer through the gastrostomy tube and the liquid suspension would not have been available in the Omnicell (the medication dispensing system in the facility). The Unit Manager stated she he had a resident assignment on 3/22/25 and 3/23/25 on night shift and indicated she did not call the pharmacy regarding the medication due to it being after hours. She did not attempt to get the medication from the back up pharmacy. She indicated that she did not notify the Nurse Practitioner or the Physician that the antibiotic was not available. Attempts were made on 06/27/25 at 1:15 PM to contact Nurse #9. There was no response. During a phone interview on 6/26/25 at 5:00 PM Nurse #8 stated the antibiotic was not administered to Resident #48 by her on 3/23/25 at 9:00 AM due to waiting for the medication to come from the pharmacy. Nurse #8 stated she did not recall reaching out to the pharmacy regarding the medication. She stated the medication would not have been available in the Omnicell and indicated she did not try to get it from the back up pharmacy. Nurse #8 confirmed she did not notify the Nurse Practitioner or the Physician regarding not having the medication available for administration. During a phone interview on 6/26/25 at 3:30 PM the Nurse Practitioner stated she was not aware that the full course of the antibiotic Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim was not administered to Resident #48. She stated Resident #48 had a history of urinary tract infections and should have received the full course totaling 14 doses. The nursing staff had not reported any further signs or symptoms of a urinary tract infection to her since that time. The Nurse Practitioner stated there had been no significant outcome from not receiving the missed doses but indicated it was important that she received the full course of treatment to effectively treat the infection. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 3:08 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was not aware that Resident #48 did not receive the full course of the prescribed antibiotic (Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim). The DON stated when it was realized that the medication was not available in the facility and nursing staff were waiting on the pharmacy to send the medication, the administration dates and times should have been extended in the electronic medical record so that the order wouldn't have been discontinued after 7 days. The nurse on duty when the medication was received in the facility should have accounted for the missed doses and extended the discontinue date on the MAR and that did not occur and that was why the full course of treatment was not administered. She stated education would be provided on ensuring the full course of antibiotic therapy was administered. The DON stated she expected the nurses to call the pharmacy if the medication was not delivered or utilize the backup pharmacy and that did not occur.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and report a medication irregularity d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and report a medication irregularity during the monthly medication regimen review. Resident #62 received the anticonvulsant medication Depakote 250 milligrams after the order was written for a gradual dose reduction and to discontinue after 14 days. Resident #62 received 25 additional tablets of Depakote and the wrong dose. There was no significant outcome. This occurred for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration. Findings included. Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 had moderately impaired cognition. He received anticonvulsant and antidepressant medications. A Psychiatrist's order dated 5/14/25 for Resident #62 revealed Depakote 250 milligrams (mg). Give one tablet by mouth twice a day for mood disorder. The Psychiatrist's note dated 5/29/25 for Resident #62 revealed to start a gradual dose reduction and discontinue Depakote for mood due to Resident #62 was currently receiving Keppra (an anticonvulsant) following recent hospitalization. The Psychiatrist's order dated 5/29/25 for Resident #62 revealed to start Depakote 125 milligram tablets. Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for recurrent major depressive disorder for 14 days then discontinue due to taking Keppra (discontinue 6/12/25). Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 5/29/25 through 6/25/25 revealed Resident #62 was administered Depakote 125 milligram tablets twice a day. Resident #62 continued to receive the medication twice a day from 6/13/25 through the morning dose administered on 6/25/25. Review of Resident #62's electronic medical record revealed the order for Depakote 125 milligram tablets was entered by the Director of Nursing on 5/29/25 at 4:36 PM. There was no 14 day stop date entered on the order. The Consultant Pharmacist's medication regimen review note dated 6/18/25 documented that Resident #62 had medication changes. On 5/29/25 Depakote was decreased to 125 milligrams twice a day due to recently starting Keppra. There were no recommendations made regarding the Depakote order. An attempt was made on 6/26/25 at 1:50 PM to contact the Consultant Pharmacist, with no response. The Director of Nursing reported the Pharmacist was on leave and unavailable for interview. A phone interview was conducted on 6/25/25 at 2:00 PM with the Psychiatrist who ordered Depakote. She stated the Depakote order dated 5/29/25 for Resident #62 should have been discontinued after 14 days. She stated Resident #62 was prescribed Keppra during a recent hospitalization due to seizure activity so therefore the Depakote dose was to be decreased to 125 milligrams for a 14-day period and then discontinued. She stated she was in the facility today and evaluated Resident #62 and there had been no outcome from continuing to receive the additional doses or the increased dose of the medication. She stated that a 250-milligram dose was considered a low dose, and it was prescribed to Resident #62 for mood and behaviors. The potential outcome would be increased sedation, and no adverse symptoms had been reported to her. She stated she would send an order to discontinue the Depakote today. She indicated the facility should have identified the medication error and she would continue to monitor Resident #62. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 3:04 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she entered the Depakote order on 5/29/25 and did not enter a 14 day stop date. Therefore, the order continued to remain active after the 14-day period. She stated the Consultant Pharmacist's monthly medication review was a part of their oversight to catch medication discrepancies. She stated the Consultant Pharmacist had completed her medication review for the facility for the month of June 2025 and there were no recommendations made regarding the Depakote order for Resident #62. She stated the medication error was missed by the staff and by the Consultant Pharmacist. During a phone interview on 06/26/25 at 3:15 PM the Physician stated the Depakote order for Resident #62 should have been entered correctly and then discontinued according to the Psychiatrist's order. He stated potential adverse symptoms would include increased sedation and there had been no reports of any adverse signs or symptoms reported to him. He indicated that the medication error should have been identified by the facility staff and the Consultant Pharmacist.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, the Psychiatrist, Nurse Practitioner, the Physician, and the dispensing pharmacy Quality A...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, the Psychiatrist, Nurse Practitioner, the Physician, and the dispensing pharmacy Quality Assurance Representative interviews, the facility failed to discontinue the anticonvulsant medication Depakote prescribed to a resident (Resident #62) for mood disorder. This resulted in the resident receiving 25 additional tablets of Depakote and the wrong dose. There was no significant outcome. This occurred for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration. Findings included. Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 had moderately impaired cognition. He received anticonvulsant and antidepressant medications. A Psychiatrist's order dated 5/14/25 for Resident #62 revealed Depakote 250 milligrams (mg). Give one tablet by mouth twice a day for mood disorder. The Psychiatrist's note dated 5/29/25 for Resident #62 revealed to start a gradual dose reduction and discontinue Depakote for mood due to Resident #62 was currently receiving Keppra (an anticonvulsant) following recent hospitalization. The Psychiatrist's order dated 5/29/25 for Resident #62 revealed to start Depakote 125 milligram tablets. Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for recurrent major depressive disorder for 14 days then discontinue due to taking Keppra. (discontinue 6/12/25) During a medication pass observation on 6/25/25 at 10:00 AM Nurse #3 administered one Depakote 250 milligram oral tablet to Resident #62. During an observation on 6/25/25 at 10:00 AM Resident #62 was observed lying in bed with his eyes closed. He aroused when his name was called. He was able to respond with yes or no appropriately. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 5/29/25 through 6/25/25 revealed Resident #62 was administered Depakote 125 milligram tablets twice a day. Resident #62 continued to receive the medication twice a day from 6/13/25 through the morning dose administered on 6/25/25. Review of Resident #62's electronic medical record revealed the order for Depakote 125 milligram tablets was entered by the Director of Nursing on 5/29/25 at 4:36 PM. There was no 14 day stop date entered on the order. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 12:00 PM Nurse #3 stated Resident #62 was aphasic (difficulty with speech) due to a history of stroke, but he could communicate his needs to staff. She stated she was not aware the Depakote should have been discontinued. She stated she administered the 250-milligram tablet in error although the order on the MAR was to administer 125 milligrams. She stated she was routinely assigned to Resident #62, and she was uncertain how long the 250 milligram tablets had been available for use on the medication cart. She stated Resident #62 had not had any symptoms such as increased sedation from receiving the additional doses including the wrong dose of Depakote. A phone interview was conducted on 6/25/25 at 2:00 PM with the Psychiatrist who ordered Depakote. She stated the Depakote order dated 5/29/25 for Resident #62 should have been discontinued after 14 days. She stated Resident #62 was prescribed Keppra during a recent hospitalization due to seizure activity so therefore the Depakote dose was to be decreased to 125 milligrams for a 14-day period and then discontinued. She stated she was in the facility today and evaluated Resident #62 and he had no outcome from continuing to receive the additional doses or the increased dose of the medication. She stated a 250-milligram dose was considered a low dose and there were no Depakote levels ordered during the time he received the medication because he was not Bipolar (a mental health condition causing severe mood swings) and she was not trying to reach a therapeutic range. It was prescribed to Resident #62 for mood and behaviors. She stated potential outcome would be increased sedation and no adverse symptoms had been reported to her. She stated she would send an order to discontinue the Depakote today and there would be no need to check his Depakote level at this time due to him being on a low dose. She stated she would continue to monitor Resident #62. A phone interview was conducted on 6/25/25 at 2:30 PM with the facility's dispensing Pharmacy Quality Assurance Representative. She stated the pharmacy dispensed 60 tablets of Depakote 250 milligrams on 5/14/25 and 28 tablets of Depakote 125 milligrams (14-day supply) on 5/29/25. She stated no other Depakote tablets had been dispensed since that time. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 3:00 PM Nurse #1 stated she routinely provided care to Resident #62. She stated she had administered Depakote to Resident #62 daily and had never split the tablet therefore he received the full 250 milligram dose that was currently on the medication cart. She was not certain of how long he had been receiving the 250 milligram tablets. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 9:20 AM the Nurse Practitioner stated she was in the facility daily Monday through Friday. She was not aware the Depakote order should have been discontinued for Resident #62. The Nurse Practitioner stated Resident #62 was followed by the Psychiatrist who wrote the order. During the last evaluation on 6/16/25, her note included that Resident #62 had no signs of sedation. She stated there had been no reports of Resident #62 having any adverse symptoms from receiving the additional doses or the wrong dose of Depakote. An attempt was made on 6/26/25 at 1:50 PM to contact the Consultant Pharmacist, with no response. The Director of Nursing reported the Pharmacist was on leave and unavailable for interview. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 3:04 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she entered the Depakote order on 5/29/25 and did not enter a 14 day stop date. Therefore, the order continued to remain active after the 14-day period. She stated the 250 milligram tablets from the previous order on 5/14/25 should have been returned to the pharmacy when the new order was written on 5/29/25 for the lower dose. This would have prevented the 250-milligram dose being available for administration on the medication cart. She stated the order entry was done in error and education would be provided to all nursing staff. During a phone interview on 06/26/25 at 3:15 PM the Physician stated the Depakote order for Resident #62 should have been entered correctly and then discontinued according to the Psychiatrist's order. He stated potential adverse symptoms would include increased sedation. He stated there had been no reports of any adverse signs or symptoms reported to him.
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 manufacturer instructions, observations and staff interviews the facility failed to record an opened date on a multi-dose oral inhaler that had a shortened expiration date on 1 of 3 medicatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on manufacturer instructions, observations and staff interviews the facility failed to record an opened date on a multi-dose oral inhaler that had a shortened expiration date on 1 of 3 medication carts (300 hall) and to discard expired medications on 2 of 2 wound treatment carts (100/200 hall, 400/500 hall) and in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms (400/500 hall) and maintain a locked wound treatment cart (100/200 hall) that were reviewed for medication storage. Findings included. a.) An observation of the 300-hall medication cart on 6/23/25 at 1:00 PM revealed the following medications: Trelegy Ellipta oral inhaler 200 micrograms with no opened date. The manufacturer's instructions listed on the label read to discard 6 weeks after opening. During an interview on 06/23/25 at 1:03 PM Nurse #2 stated all nurses were responsible for checking the medication carts for expired medications. She indicated that she had not administered the Trelegy Ellipta inhaler today and had not checked for an expiration date. She stated the inhaler should have been labeled with a date when it was opened. b.) An observation of the 100/200 hall wound treatment cart on 6/23/25 at 1:30 PM revealed the following: The wound treatment cart was observed on the 100 hallway and was noted with the lock out which indicated the cart was unlocked. There were no staff members observed using the cart. An observation of the wound treatment cart on the 100 hallway revealed the following: Biofreeze pain relief spray with an expiration date of March 2025. During an interview on 06/23/25 at 1:35 PM Nurse #6 stated the nurses were responsible for wound care and for checking the treatment cart for expired medications. Nurse #6 stated she had not used the wound treatment cart and was uncertain who left the cart unlocked. She stated she was not aware of the expired medication on the cart. During an interview on 6/23/25 at 1:40 PM Nurse #1 the 100/200 hall assigned nurse stated she had not used the wound treatment cart. Nurse #1 reported she was uncertain who left the cart unlocked. She stated all nurses were responsible for checking expiration dates and she had not checked the cart today (06/23/25). c.) An observation of the 400/500 hall wound treatment cart on 6/23/25 at 1:50 PM revealed the following: Minerin cream (used to treat skin irritations) with instructions on the label to discard after 6/17/23. During an interview on 06/23/25 at 1:35 PM Nurse #6 stated the nurses were responsible for wound care and for checking the treatment cart for expired medications. Nurse #6 stated she was not aware of the expired Minerin cream on the cart. d.) An observation of the 400/500 hall medication storage room on 6/23/25 at 2:00 PM revealed the following expired medications: Potassium Chloride 20 milliequivalents (used to treat low potassium levels) 1000 milliliter intravenous (IV) solution with an expiration date of May 2025. 2 vials of Gentamicin (antibiotic) 80 milligrams per 2 milliliters for injection with an expiration on each vial of May 2025. One Normal Saline Syringe (used for flushing IV catheters) 10 milliliters with an expiration date of September 2024. Lisinopril (an antihypertensive) 2.5 milligram oral tablets labeled to discard after 4/29/25. During an interview on 6/23/25 at 2:15 PM Nurse #1 stated the IV supplies currently being used for residents were located in the medication storage room. Nurse #1 was not aware of any expired medications. She stated all nurses were responsible for checking expiration dates in the medication storage rooms. During an interview on 6/23/25 at 2:30 PM Nurse #6 stated all nurses were responsible for checking expiration dates as well as the Unit Manager who was responsible for restocking the medication storage room. Nurse #6 was not aware there were expired medications in the storage room. Nurse #6 stated there were currently no residents with orders for IV fluids. During an interview on 6/23/25 at 3:30 PM the Unit Manager stated she was also responsible for checking the medication storage rooms for expired medications. She stated she checked the medications rooms weekly. The Unit Manager was not aware of the expired medications and indicated it was an oversight. During an interview on 06/23/25 at 4:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the assigned nurse was responsible for checking medication carts for expired medications and to ensure all medications were labeled with an opened date. She stated the nursing staff including the Unit Manager were responsible for checking the medication storage rooms for expired medications. The assigned nurse performed wound care and should check the cart daily for expired medications, or creams prior to doing wound treatments, and ensuring the wound treatment cart was locked when not in use.
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 record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove expired food items stored for use in the reach-in refrigerator, the dry storage room and the walk-in refrigerat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to remove expired food items stored for use in the reach-in refrigerator, the dry storage room and the walk-in refrigerator, failed to remove dented cans that were in stock rotation stored for use in the dry storage room, and failed to maintain cold food temperatures at 41 degree Fahrenheit or less. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the food served to residents residing in the facility. Findings included: 1. An observation in the kitchen on 06/22/25 at 10:00 AM with the Dietary Aide revealed the following items were in the reach-in refrigerator: - an opened carton of honey thick tea with no opened date. - two cartons of honey thick tea with an open date of 05/29/25. - two cartons of thickened tea with an opened date of 05/19/25 and 05/29/25. The manufacturer label for the honey thick tea indicated the products were good for 10 days after they were opened if stored in the refrigerator. The manufacturer label for the thickened tea indicated the products were good for 7 days after they were opened if stored in the refrigerator. An interview was conducted with the Dietary Aide on 06/22/25 at 10:00 AM. The Dietary Aide stated the opened carton of honey thick tea should have been dated and she did not realize the thickened teas were only good for 7 or 10 days after opening. She stated she had never seen the instruction on the carton. The Dietary Aide removed the honey thick products from the reach-in refrigerator. An interview with the Dietary Manager on 06/22/25 at 10:30 AM revealed she did not realize about the instruction on the box that the product was only good for 7 or 10 days after opening. She also stated that the process in the kitchen was that anytime a packaged item was opened, it should be dated. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 06/26/25 at 4:00 PM. The Administrator indicated that she expected that all food items in the kitchen to be labelled and dated properly and that the kitchen staff should be reading all the food containers carefully for storage instructions. 2. An observation of the dry storage room was conducted with the Dietary Aide on 06/22/25 at 10:15 AM and then with the Dietary Manager at 10:30 AM. The following expired items were in the dry storage room: -8 boxes of creamy wheat 28 ounces. There was no expiration on the box and there was a handwritten label indicating the opened date was 01/02/24 and the use by date was 01/03/25. - 15 - 16 ounce boxes of rice with an expiration date of 02/26/24 - 6 - 12 ounce bottles of tartar sauce with an expiration date of 09/26/24 - 6 - 16 ounce cans vanilla pudding delivered on 10/19/23 with no expiration date An interview with the Dietary Manager on 06/22/25 at 11:07 AM revealed she would need to call the manufacturer to see what the expiration was for the creamy wheat boxes and the vanilla pudding. The Dietary Manager stated the other items were expired and should have been removed from the stock rotation. She stated she would have expected her dietary aides to ensure all the products on the shelf were within their expiration date and remove the items that were expired each week when the aides were putting the weekly truck delivery away. The Dietary Manager stated she had a lot of new staff and more education needed to be given A follow up interview with the Dietary Manager on 06/23/25 at 9:27 AM revealed she spoke with the manufacturer of the creamy wheat boxes and the vanilla pudding and the representative informed her that if the product did not have an expiration date, the product was good for one year. The Dietary Manager stated she would make sure to inquire about expiration dates upon delivery and label the products with the expiration date. An interview with the Administrator on 06/22/25 at 4:00 PM revealed she would have expected the Dietary Manager and the Dietary Aides to ensure all items that are in stock are within their expiration date and stored safely for use. She stated those expired items were over a year expired and should have been noticed. The Administrator stated more education needed to be given to the kitchen staff. 3. An observation of the dry storage room was conducted with the Dietary Manager on 0/22/25 at 10:30 AM and revealed the following: 4 - significantly dented cans in rotation for use included 2 / 6lbs. (pounds)/10 ounce cans of fruit cocktail, 1 6 lbs./10 ounce can of pineapple chunks, and 1 6 lbs./10 ounce can of sausage gravy. The Dietary Manager stated she should have removed the dented cans from the stock rotation. The Dietary Manager removed all the dented cans out of stock rotation. The Dietary Manager stated she would set up an area for dented cans to be placed until she discarded them or returned them back to the manufacturer. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 06/22/25 at 4:00 PM. The Administrator stated she would have expected a system to be in place to store all dented cans and to not have the dented cans in stock rotation. 4. An observation of the walk-in refrigerator was conducted with the Dietary Manager at 11:10 AM and revealed the following: 1-12 pound box of bacon was noted to be opened and there was no opened date. An interview with the Dietary Manager on 06/22/25 at 11:10 AM revealed whichever dietary aide opened the box of bacon should have put an opened date. She stated she did not serve bacon today and removed the product from the shelf. The Dietary Manager stated she would conduct in services with all her dietary staff again regarding dating products when they are opened. The Dietary Manager stated she had a lot of new staff members which she had provided training to during orientation, but she needed to provide more training. 5. An observation of the tray line was conducted on 06/24/25 at 11:30 AM. The steam table and cold tables were prepared for the lunch meal. The Dietary Manager was asked if the food was ready to be served to the residents and she replied yes. Temperatures were taken at this time with the Dietary Manager. The menu consisted of ham and cheese sandwiches, beets, potato salad, tossed salad, fruit cup and hot vegetable soup. The potato salad was prepared to be served in a small bowl with a covered lid and placed on a cold tray with ice. The potato salad temperature was taken by the Dietary Manager and noted to be recorded at 48 degrees Fahrenheit. The Dietary Manager checked the temperature of two more prepared potato salads from the same cold tray and the temperature both times was recorded at 47 degrees Fahrenheit. An interview with the Dietary Manager on 06/24/25 at 11:30 AM stated the potato salad temperature should be 41 degrees or below. The Dietary Manager reported the dietary staff had prepared the potato salad this morning, put it on ice and left it in the walk in refrigerator until lunch. She stated the food delivery truck came just before lunch and the staff pulled the cold tray out to put away their delivery. The Dietary Manager stated the potato salad cold tray must have been left out too long, and added, she could not serve the potato salad. She removed the entire potato salad cold tray from the food line and three potato salad bowls that were on residents' trays to be served. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 06/26/25 at 4:00 PM. The Administrator stated she expected food temperatures to be within the regulated guidelines at all times to prevent from any food born illnesses that could possibly occur.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records by 1.) not documenting the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records by 1.) not documenting the administration of narcotic pain medications (Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (mg) and oxycodone 10 mgs) on the residents Medication Administration Record (MAR). 2.) not accurately documenting notification of the resident's responsible party and the physician of a pressure wound. This occurred for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration, pressure wounds, and medical record review (Resident #40, Resident #64). Findings included. 1.) Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic pain. A physician's order for Resident #40 dated 9/20/24 with an end date of 11/15/24 read Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams three times a day as needed for pain. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #40 was cognitively intact. He received scheduled and as needed opioid pain medications. Review of the controlled drug record declining count sheet dated October 2024 revealed Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams was signed off on the declining count sheet on the following dates and times: 10/2/24 at 5:00 PM by Medication Aide #1 10/3/24 at 10:00 PM by Medication Aide #2 10/8/24 at 9:40 AM by Medication Aide #1 10/8/24 at 6:35 PM by Medication Aide #1 10/8/24 at 11:00 PM by Medication Aide #2 10/11/24 at 10:30 AM by Medication Aide #1 10/12/24 at 10:00 AM by Medication Aide #1 10/12/24 at 6:40 PM by Medication Aide #1 10/13/24 at 9:30 AM by Medication Aide #1 10/13/24 at 6:00 PM by Medication Aide #1 10/14/24 at 10:00 AM by Medication Aide #1 10/14/24 at 7:15 PM by the Unit Manager 10/22/24 at 6:33 PM by Medication Aide #1 10/26/24 at 6:30 PM by Medication Aide #1 Review of Resident #40's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated October 2024 revealed no documentation that Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams was signed off as administered on the dates listed above from 10/2/24 through 10/26/24 that correlated with the controlled drug record declining count sheet. A physician's order for Resident #40 dated 4/22/25 read oxycodone 5 milligram tablets. Take one tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for pain. Take two tablets every four hours as needed for severe pain. Review of the controlled drug record declining count sheet dated May 2025 revealed oxycodone 5 milligrams was signed off on the declining count sheet on the following dates and times: 5/1/25 at 6:20 PM 1 tablet was signed out by Nurse #6 5/7/25 at 5:35 PM 2 tablets were signed out by Nurse #3 5/13/25 at 6:45 PM 2 tablets were signed out by Nurse #3 5/21/25 at 2:51 PM 2 tablets were signed out by Nurse #6 5/28/25 at 4:30 PM 2 tablets were signed out by Nurse #3 Review of Resident #40's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated May 2025 revealed no documentation that oxycodone 5 milligrams was signed off as administered on the dates listed above from 5/1/25 through 5/28/25 that correlated with the controlled drug record declining count sheet. Review of the controlled drug record declining count sheet dated June 2025 revealed oxycodone 5 milligrams was signed off on the declining count sheet on the following dates and times: 6/13/25 at 11:00 AM 2 tablets were signed out by Medication Aide #1. 6/23/25 at 4:30 PM 2 tablets were signed out by Medication Aide #1. Review of Resident #40's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated June 2025 revealed no documentation that oxycodone 5 milligrams was signed off as administered on the dates listed above from 6/13/25 through 6/23/25 that correlated with the controlled drug record declining count sheet. During an interview on 06/24/25 at 1:57 PM Medication Aide #1 stated she did administer the Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg tablets during the month of October 2024 and the oxycodone 5 mg tablets during the month of June 2025 to Resident #40 after signing the medications out on the controlled drug record declining count sheet. The Medication Aide stated she was only allowed to pull the medication from the locked medication storage box on the medication cart and sign the declining count sheet and administer the medication to the resident, but she was not supposed to sign the medications off on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). Medication Aide #1 reported that signing the MAR was the responsibility of the overseeing nurse on duty and she has had to remind the nurses to sign off the controlled medications for her on the MAR. Attempts were made to contact Medication Aide #2 on 6/24/25. She was no longer employed by the facility, and there was no response. During an interview on 06/25/25 at 3:58 PM Nurse #3 stated she administered the oxycodone 5 milligram tablets to Resident #40 after signing it out on the declining count sheet but just didn't remember to sign it off on the MAR. Nurse #3 stated the hall she was typically assigned to was a busy assignment and it was done in error. An attempt was made to contact Nurse #6 on 6/24/25 with no response. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 5:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the Medication Aides were allowed to sign the controlled medications that they administer to residents on the Medication Administration Record, and they did not have to get the nurse to sign the MAR for them. She stated Medication Aide #1 was aware of this, but education would be provided. The DON stated the nurses get in a hurry at times and just forget to follow through and sign the controlled medications off on the MAR. The DON reported education would be provided and she expected that the controlled medications were accurately documented on the controlled count sheet and on the MAR. 2.) Resident #64 was admitted on [DATE]. A nursing admission progress note completed by Nurse #2 on 3/7/25 at 3:43 PM indicated the resident had Stage 2 pressure wounds (partial thickness skin loss) to the bilateral buttocks. The admission progress note did not indicate that Resident #64's responsible party or physician was notified of the pressure wounds. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 6/24/25 at 3:00 PM. Nurse #2 stated she did not notify Resident #64's responsible party or physician of resident's 2 Stage 2 pressure wounds to the bilateral buttocks. A pressure injury assessment dated [DATE] signed on 3/18/25 by Nurse #4 indicated Resident #64's responsible party and physician were notified of resident's unstageable deep tissue injury to the right buttock measuring 6.5 cm x 5.3 cm. A pressure injury assessment dated [DATE] completed by Nurse #4 indicated Resident #64's responsible party and physician were notified of resident's Stage 4 full thickness pressure wound to the right buttock. An interview was conducted with Nurse #4 on 6/25/25 at 3:49 PM. Nurse #4 stated she was assigned to accompany the Wound Care Physician on 3/13/25 and 3/27/25 and to document the pressure injury assessments for each resident that was evaluated. Nurse #4 stated that she did not notify Resident #64's responsible party, or the physician of the pressure wound to the right buttock since she assumed they already knew about it. Nurse #4 stated that she documented in error on the Wound Assessments dated 3/13/25 and 3/27/25 that she had notified Resident #64's responsible party and the physician. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that documentation in the medical record would be accurate and that included notification of the responsible party regarding pressure ulcers.
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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program established and implemented effective systems to monitor and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program established and implemented effective systems to monitor and evaluate action plans previously developed to correct identified deficiencies. This failure resulted in the facility being unable to sustain compliance at F686, F761, and F842. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 7/2/24 the facility failed to obtain and implement physician orders for treatment of pressure ulcers (F686), discard expired medications and record an opened date on medication (F761), and accurately document the administration of medications on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). During the revisit survey of 8/21/24 the facility again failed to record an opened date on medication (F761). On the current recertification and complaint investigation survey these identical deficient practices were repeated. The continued failure to sustain compliance during three federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program. Findings included: a. On the current recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility failed to obtain orders and to provide treatment on admission for a Stage 2 pressure ulcer wound that progressed to an unstageable wound. During the complaint investigation and recertification survey of 7/2/24, the facility failed to obtain and implement physician orders for treatment of a pressure ulcer. b. On the current recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility failed to record an opened date on a multi-dose inhaler and discard expired medications on the wound treatment carts and in the medication storage room. During the complaint and recertification survey of 7/2/24, the facility failed to record an opened date on a tube eye ointment and discard expired medications on medication carts. During the revisit survey of 8/21/24, the facility failed to record an opened date on medication. c. On the current recertification and complaint investigation survey the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record in the area of documentation of medication. During the recertification and complaint survey of 7/2/24, the facility failed to accurately document medication administration. During an interview with the Administrator on 6/26/25 at 4:30 PM she indicated she was responsible for the QAPI program in the facility and that she was the Administrator at the facility during the previous recertification and complaint investigation survey of 7/2/24. She revealed that the facility had not conducted quarterly QAPI meetings for review of audits, systems and procedures. She explained when the Medical Director was not able to attend the QAPI meetings she cancelled the meetings. She further revealed that she had attempted to implement previous plans of correction, however, due to not following through with the QAPI process, the plans were not successful. The Administrator spoke about the repeat deficiencies related to pressure ulcers, medication labeling/storage, and complete/accurate medical records. She stated that the facility had undergone changes in the Director of Nursing (DON), Medical Director, and both administrative nursing positions and direct care nurse positions in the past year which contributed to the facility's inability to sustain compliance.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit payroll data on the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for federal fiscal year Quarter 1 (October through December 2024) and Quarter 2 (January through March 2025). This was for 2 of 3 quarters reviewed. Findings included: A review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report for Quarter 1 for the reporting period October 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, revealed that the staffing data report identified an area of concern triggered for failed to submit data for the quarter. A review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report for Quarter 2 January 1, 2025, through March 31,2025 revealed that the staffing data report identified an area of concern triggered for failed to submit data for the quarter. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/24/25 at 10:00 AM. The Administrator stated she was responsible for submitting the payroll-based data on the PBJ report to CMS. The Administrator stated the last time she submitted data was November 2024. The Administrator stated that after that, she was unable to log in to the PBJ system and did not know how to correct this. The Administrator indicated that she had reached out for assistance with her log-in but did not receive a response and she had not followed up on this. The Administrator stated she knew she was required to submit PBJ data and she had not done so.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to meet at least quarterly to fulfill the respons...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to meet at least quarterly to fulfill the responsibilities of the committee to identify and correct deficient practices in the facility effectively for 2 quarters and failed to have the Medical Director attend the meeting for 1 quarter. This deficient practice was observed for 3 of 3 quarters reviewed and had the potential to impact all facility residents. Findings included: A review of the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI) policy last revised January 2025 revealed that the following individuals serve on the committee: Administrator or designee Director of Nursing (DON) Medical Director Infection Preventionist Representatives of the following departments as requested by the Administrator: pharmacy, Social Services, Activity Services, Environmental Services, Human Resources and medical records. The policy stated that the committee meets at least quarterly. A review of the facility QAPI meeting minutes revealed the following: A review of the quarterly QAPI meeting minutes dated 11/12/24 at 10:30 AM revealed the following staff members were in attendance: Administrator, Rehabilitation Director, DON, Social Worker, Assistant Director of Nursing, Dietary Manager, Activities Services and Staff Development Coordinator. The Medical Director and Pharmacist were not listed in attendance. 1st Quarter 2025 the QAPI meeting did not take place. 2nd Quarter 2025 the QAPI meeting did not take place. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 6/25/25 at 10:30 AM. The NP indicated that she was not involved in the QAPI program and had not been invited to attend a QAPI meeting. The NP stated the Medical Director was not involved in the QAPI program. An interview with the Administrator on 6/26/25 at 4:30 PM revealed that the previous Medical Director that was in the position until the beginning of June 2025, worked remotely in another state and was unable to attend QAPI meetings on site. The Administrator stated that she did not extend an invitation to the Nurse Practitioner that worked on site daily to attend the QAPI meetings in the Medical Director's absence. The Administrator indicated she did not attempt to have the Medical Director attend the meetings virtually, instead she cancelled the meetings, and the committee had not met since November. The Administrator indicated the facility held a weekly at risk meeting of the interdisciplinary team. The Administrator revealed that the facility had not met expectations regarding weights, falls and grievances. She stated she had attempted to implement plans of correction in these areas however due to not following through in these areas with the QAPI process, the plans were not successful. The Administrator indicated she was responsible for the QAPI program in the facility and moving forward, she will make sure the Medical Director or his designee is present at all the QAPI committee meetings. The facility provided a corrective action plan that was not acceptable to the State Agency due to no evidence that education or a monitoring system was implemented prior to the entrance of the survey team for the recertification survey on 6/22/25.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

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 complete the required Significant Change in Status Assessmen...

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 the required Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for assessments. Resident #32 required a SCSA due to changes in activities of daily living (ADL). Findings included: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included major joint replacement with right femur fracture. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with two staff physical assistance with bed mobility, supervision with one staff physical assistance with transfers, and eating, and extensive assistance with one staff physical assistance with toileting. Resident #32 used a wheelchair, had no impairments and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. A progress note written on 04/11/25 by Nurse #10 revealed Resident #32 had a fall and an order was obtained to send Resident #32 to the emergency room for further evaluation. A nursing progress note written on 04/11/25 by Nurse #10 revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the hospital for fracture of right femur. An admission summary note written by the Director of Nursing on 04/15/25 revealed that the resident arrived at the facility via Emergency Medical Services, had a right femur fracture and had an open reduction internal fixation (a type of surgical procedure used to repair a bone break or facture) done on 04/14/25. The MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was moderately cognitively impaired, and was dependent with bed mobility and toileting, and had no transfers out of bed due to a medical condition (femur fracture). Resident #32 was coded as having no impairment to the lower extremity, which was not accurate due to having a fractured femur. A review of the MDS assessments for Resident #32 indicated that a Significant Change in Status Assessment was not completed within 14 days of the identification of changes in two or more activities of daily living (ADL) including increased assistance with bed mobility and toileting, a change in transfer status and an impairment to the lower extremity. An interview with the [NAME] President of MDS Services Nurse on 06/25/25 at 4:00 PM revealed that she was aware of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument user's manual indications regarding identifying and completing significant change assessments. She stated that the significant change assessment for Resident #32 should have been completed based on a comparison of the current status to the prior assessment and that she would modify the assessment. The MDS nurse indicated that she did not know why the SCSA MDS assessment was not completed as a significant change assessment An interview with the Administrator on 06/26/25 at 3:35 PM revealed that it was her expectation that all MDS assessments were completed accurately and timely per the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument User's manual to reflect the resident's care needs.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for the focus area of hospice in the intial care plan for 1 of 19 residents (Resident # 4) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Findings included: Resident # 4 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. A review of Resident #4's census information in the electronic health record revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE] on hospice services. Review of Resident #4's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated hospice while a resident was coded No. Review of Resident #4's care plan revealed that a hospice care plan was added to the care plan on 5/26/25. The hospice care plan dated 5/26/25 indicated Resident #4 received Hospice services due to terminal prognosis with diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. Interventions included: give resident/family a working knowledge of diagnosis, prognosis & plan of care, provide resource materials on death and dying, assess resident's experience of pain, administer pain medication as ordered, provide environment conducive to comfort, reposition for comfort, encourage resident to be as active as able, monitor for skin issues and provide treatment to contain drainage, provide mouth care as needed, provide care with all activity of daily living tasks as needed. Review of Resident #4's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated hospice while a resident was coded as Yes. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 6/26/25 at 9:00 AM. The NP stated that Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] on hospice services. An interview was conducted with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Supervisor on 6/26/25 at 1:00 PM. The MDS Supervisor reviewed Resident #4's care plan and acknowledged that the resident was admitted on [DATE] on hospice services and hospice was not added to the care plan until 5/26/25. The MDS Supervisor stated that hospice should have been included in the initial care plan and that it was important that resident care plans were accurate and person centered. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/26/25 at 3:45 PM revealed that she expected that resident care plans would be person centered and accurate An interview with the Administrator on 6/26/25 at 4:00 PM revealed that resident care plans were to be person centered and address resident care needs including hospice services.
Jul 2024 29 deficiencies 5 IJ (5 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, and Physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician that the sche...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, and Physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician that the scheduled medication gabapentin, a medication ordered for nerve pain that is not to be stopped abruptly, was not administered. Resident #51 was prescribed gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) four times daily for nerve pain. Resident #51 missed a total of 21 doses of the medication from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24 and had complaints of constant pain up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms and the physician was not notified of this. Resident #46 was prescribed gabapentin 800 mg two times daily for nerve pain. The physician was not notified that Resident #46 missed 14 doses of the medication from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. Additionally, the facility failed to notify the physician that 14 doses of the antibiotic Amoxicillin 875 mg was administered to Resident #39 instead of the antibiotic Augmentin (Amoxicillin-Clavulanate 875 mg-125 mg) that was ordered by the physician on discharge from the hospital. This deficient practice affected 3 of 10 residents reviewed for notification. Immediate Jeopardy began for Resident #51 on 5/9/24 when the resident reported a pain scale of 10, had not been receiving gabapentin, and the physician was not notified, and on 5/12/24 for Resident #46 when the resident had increased pain, difficulty sleeping, had not been receiving gabapentin, and the physician was notified. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/16/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable plan of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. Example #3 was cited at scope and severity D. Findings included: 1. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included in part: chronic pain syndrome, chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, pressure ulcers, and spastic paraplegia (a disorder that causes progressive weakness, stiffness, tightness, pain and muscle spasms of the lower extremities). Review of Resident #51's physician orders revealed an 11/21/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 4 times per day for nerve pain. The May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #51's gabapentin was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed Resident #51's gabapentin was not administered on 5/8/24 at 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM and on 5/9/24, 5/10/24, 5/11/24, 5/12/24 and 5/13/24 at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM. A pain assessment dated [DATE] was completed by Nurse #9. The pain assessment indicated Resident #51 had pain almost constantly with a pain rating of 10 and the pain made it hard to sleep and day to day activities were limited due to pain. A nursing progress note by Nurse #9 on 5/9/24 indicated Resident #51 refused a shower due to too much pain. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #9 on 6/13/24 at 2:15 PM. Nurse #9 was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Nurse #9 stated Resident #51's gabapentin was not available on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM. Nurse #9 indicated Resident #51 refused her shower on 5/9/24 which was not normal for her, reporting she was in too much pain. Nurse #9 stated she was not aware that she should have notified the physician of Resident #51's increased pain and the ordered medication gabapentin that was not administered. An interview was conducted via phone on 6/13/24 at 5:12 PM with Nurse #8. Nurse #8 stated she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/8/24 and 5/9/24. Nurse #8 stated she was familiar with Resident #51. Nurse # 8 stated Resident #51 had increased pain when she did not receive her gabapentin. Nurse #8 indicated she did not notify the physician that Resident #51 had not received the scheduled gabapentin. Nurse #8 stated she did not realize that she should have notified the physician that the medication was not available and not administered as ordered. Nurse #8 stated she did not report Resident #51's increased pain to the physician. A nursing progress note by Nurse #13 on 5/10/24 at 3:24 AM stated Resident #51 reported her legs were numb. The note stated the nurse informed Resident #51 there were no interventions for that and offered emergency room evaluation. Resident #51 declined to be sent to the emergency room. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #13 via phone with messages left on 6/13/24 and 6/14/24 with no return call received. An in-person interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 revealed she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and she documented the medication gabapentin was not available for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Unit Manager #1 stated she did not notify the physician that the medication gabapentin was not available and not administered and had increased pain. Unit Manager #1 was unable to explain why she did not notify the physician that the ordered medication gabapentin was not administered to Resident #51. A progress note written by Nurse #2 on 5/12/2024 at 3:48 AM indicated Resident #51 complained of pain and spasming and requested to be sent to emergency room. Resident #51 was alert and oriented and stated that symptoms were due to gabapentin withdrawal. An Emergency Department (ED) Summary dated 5/12/24 at 6:11 AM indicated Resident #51 was evaluated due to acute pain and received gabapentin. The discharge instructions were to take prescription medications as ordered including gabapentin 800 mg 4 times per day and to not stop taking prescription medication for pain suddenly. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:24 PM. Nurse #2 stated she was an agency nurse at the facility and worked from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM and was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 into 5/12/24. Nurse #2 recalled sending Resident #51 to the hospital on 5/12/24 due to uncontrolled pain and not having her prescribed gabapentin on hand in the facility. Resident #51 kept complaining of pain during the shift and was shaking and stating she did not feel well. Resident #51 requested to be sent to the hospital for evaluation and to receive her prescribed medication gabapentin for pain. Nurse #2 stated she notified the provider of the resident's change in condition and requested to be sent to the hospital. Resident #51 was sent to the hospital per her request. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #14 via phone with messages left on 6/13/24 and 6/14/24 with no return call received. Nurse #14 worked at the facility through an agency. A progress note written by Nurse #8 on 5/13/24 at 2:40 AM revealed on 5/12/24 at 7:50 PM the nurse was called to resident's room. Resident #51 complained of worsening muscle spasms all over and requested to go to the emergency department. 911 was called for transfer to the emergency room. Resident #51 returned to the facility having received Gabapentin at the emergency room. Resident #51 told the emergency room staff that until she received her Gabapentin at the facility, she would continue to go to the emergency room every time she was supposed to get it or at least daily. emergency room physician sent a new prescription for Gabapentin 800mg four times per day to facility pharmacy. Resident #51 returned to the facility at 9:41 PM. An ED Summary dated 5/13/24 indicated Resident #51 was evaluated due to acute pain. Resident #51 received gabapentin in the emergency room and the emergency room physician sent a new prescription for gabapentin to the pharmacy. An in-person interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 2:00 PM. The DON stated she did not know why the medication gabapentin was not available for Resident #51 and why the physician was not notified. The DON stated she expected the nurses to notify the physician when medications were not available for administration. An in-person interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The Administrator stated she expected medications would be available and administered as ordered by the physician. The Administrator stated nursing staff did not have a comprehensive understanding of what to do when they identify that a medication was not available for administration. An interview via phone was conducted with the Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:20 PM. The Physician indicated she was in the position at the facility since 6/7/24. The Physician indicated the dose of gabapentin ordered, 800 mg 4 times per day was a high dose of medication and it was not recommended to abruptly stop taking the medication due to the potential for withdrawal and severe pain. The Physician stated increased pain was a definite concern due to not receiving the scheduled gabapentin as ordered and it could start within 12 hours. She stated it was the responsibility of the facility to obtain the medications so they could be administered as ordered and if the ordered medication was not obtained the physician should be notified. Attempts were made via phone to interview the previous physician with messages left on 6/12/24 at 3:33 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:00 PM with no return call received. 2. Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included diabetes and neuropathy. Review of Resident # 46's physician orders revealed a 12/6/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 2 times per day for nerve pain. Resident #46's May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated gabapentin 800 mg was to be administered at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The MAR revealed on 5/10/24 at 9:00 PM, and on 5/11/24, 5/12/24, 5/13/24, 5/14/24, 5/15/24, 5/16/24 and 5/17/24 at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM, the nursing staff documented the gabapentin was not administered. An interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 6/13/24 at 1:45 PM. Nurse #3 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/10/24, 5/11/24, and 5/12/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #3 stated she documented on 5/10/24, 5/11/24, and 5/12/24 at 9:00 PM for the scheduled doses of gabapentin the medication was not administered due to it being unavailable. Nurse #3 stated she did not notify the physician that she had not administered the prescribed medication gabapentin and was unaware that she should have done this. An interview was conducted with Nurse #6 on 6/13/24 at 12:30 PM. Nurse #6 stated she was an agency nurse that worked at the facility for several months. Nurse #6 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/12/24 and 5/13/24 and documented 9 on the electronic MAR for the scheduled 9:00 AM doses of gabapentin. Nurse #6 stated the medication was not available on the medication cart and she did not notify the physician that the gabapentin was not administered. Nurse #6 stated she was not aware that she was supposed to notify the physician. An interview was conducted on 6/13/24 at 3:47 PM with Nurse #17. Nurse #17 stated she worked at the facility through an agency for about 6 weeks. Nurse #17 indicated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/13/24, 5/14/24 and 5/15/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #17 stated she did not notify the physician that she did not administer the scheduled gabapentin on 5/13/24, 5/14/24 and 5/15/24. Nurse #17 did not have an explanation why she did not notify the physician. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 6/13/24 at 11:30 AM. Nurse #7 revealed she was an agency nurse at the facility since March. Nurse #7 was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/14/24 and 5/15/24 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Nurse #7 stated she did not administer the ordered dose of gabapentin on 5/14/24 and 5/15/24 at 9:00 AM due to it not being available. Nurse #7 recalled gabapentin was not available on the medication cart, but she did not notify the physician. Nurse #7 stated Resident #46 was upset and had increased pain when she did not receive the ordered gabapentin. Nurse #7 was unable to explain why she had not notified the physician of Resident #46's medication gabapentin not administered and resident's increased pain. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 6/13/24 at 8:15 AM. Unit Manager #2 indicated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/16/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM. Unit Manager #2 stated gabapentin was unavailable for Resident #46 on 5/16/24 at 9:00 AM as ordered, resident had increased pain and she did not notify the physician. An interview was conducted with Nurse #5 on 6/14/24 at 9:00 AM. Nurse #5 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/17/24 for the 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM shift. Nurse #5 stated she did not administer the scheduled gabapentin on 5/17/24 at 9:00 AM. Nurse #5 stated she did not notify the physician the medication was unavailable or of the missed doses. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:25 PM. Nurse #2 stated she was the nurse assigned to Resident #46 on 5/17/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #2 stated gabapentin was not available for the prescribed dose for Resident #46 on 5/17/24 and she did not notify the physician. Attempted to interview Nurse #11, nurse assigned to Resident #46 on 5/16/24 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Messages were left on 6/11/24 and 6/12/24 with no return call received. An interview was conducted with Resident #46 on 6/13/24 at 9:30 AM. Resident #46 stated she had gone without gabapentin for days at a time on several occasions. Resident #46 reported staff stated the medication was coming from the pharmacy and then it didn't come in. Resident indicated she was familiar with her medications and gabapentin was prescribed for nerve pain. Resident #46 stated she had increased pain, trouble sleeping, was anxious, irritable, nauseous and unable to get up out of bed or complete her usual routine during the time when she did not receive her gabapentin. Resident #46 stated it was horrible and the staff told her she would just have to wait it out until the medication came in. Resident #46 stated she was not aware if the physician was notified of her medication not being administered as ordered. An in-person interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 4:15 PM revealed the nurses on the medication cart were expected to notify the physician when a medication was not available and administered as ordered. The DON stated she started at the facility at the end of March 2024. The DON stated she was not aware the physician was not notified. The DON expected the nurses to notify the physician of changes in condition including uncontrolled pain, medications not administered, and residents transferred to the hospital for evaluation. An in-person interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The Administrator stated she expected the physician to be notified when medications were not available and administered as ordered. The Administrator stated nursing staff did not understand what to do when they identified a medication was not available for administration and this included notification of the physician for further orders. An interview was conducted by phone with the Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:20 PM. The Physician stated she had been in the position since 6/7/24. The Physician indicated the dose of gabapentin ordered, 800 mg twice per day was a high dose of medication and it was not recommended to abruptly stop taking the medication due to the risk of withdrawal and increased pain. Withdrawal symptoms can occur within 12 hours and can be severe. The Physician stated increased pain was a definite concern due to not receiving the scheduled gabapentin as ordered. She stated it was the responsibility of the facility to notify the physician when a scheduled medication was not available. Attempts were made via phone to interview the previous physician with messages left on 6/12/24 at 3:33 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:00 PM with no return call received. The Administrator was notified of Immediate Jeopardy on 6/13/24 at 2:15 PM. The facility provided the following credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal: Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance: The facility failed to notify the provider when two residents (Resident #51 and Resident #46) were not administered their ordered gabapentin for multiple doses. Resident #51 was not administered her routine order for gabapentin 800 mg 4 times a day from 05/08/2024 - 05/13/2024. A licensed nurse stated she did not notify the physician when the medication was not available. The nurse stated that if medication was not available for a few days, then she would call the pharmacy. The facility Unit Manager #1 was aware of the gabapentin not being available but did not recall what happened or what she did about obtaining the medication. The documentation in the electronic health record (EHR) showed no evidence that the physician was notified. On 05/09/2024 Resident #51 refused a shower due to too much pain. On 05/10/2024 Resident #51 complained of her legs feeling numb. On 05/12/2024 Resident #51 complained of pain and spasming in which Resident #51 requested to go to the emergency room (ER). Resident #51 returned from the ER where the resident was treated for acute pain and received gabapentin at the hospital. In the evening on 05/12/2024 Resident #51 complained of agitation and anxiety due to not receiving gabapentin and requested to go to the ER. Resident #51 received gabapentin in the ER. The physician in the ER sent a new prescription for gabapentin to the pharmacy. Resident #46 was not administered her routine order for gabapentin 800 mg 2 times a day from 05/10/2024 - 05/17/2024. Unit Manager #2 stated there had been delays in receiving refills of gabapentin and resident had been without the ordered gabapentin. She stated she did not notify the physician. Resident #46 had a pain level of 8 or 9 constantly during the time the facility failed to obtain and administer the medication. Resident #46 complained of not receiving pain medication which caused her more pain and made it hard to sleep. Resident #46 complained of irritability, being anxious, and nausea. Resident #46 had not felt well and had not been able to get out of bed to participate in activities and perform a daily routine due to pain in her legs. Residents with missed medications, changes in conditions, and residents who have had a documented risk management report are at a greater risk of the physician not being notified. Therefore, effective 06/13/2024, the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Unit Managers (UMs) completed an audit for the past 90 days of all residents in the facility who had missed medications, changes in conditions, and/or a documented risk management report to ensure the physician had been notified. On 06/15/2024 it was determined by this audit that the physician had not been notified of every missed medication, change in condition, and documented risk management report. The concerns were identified and reported to the physician to ensure the notification of change. A documented risk management report is a report that a nurse completes to document resident incidents such as medication errors, falls, skin tears, pressure ulcers, etc. Any resident incident that occurs in the facility is documented in the electronic health record. It includes general details of the incident, a description of the incident, any statements from the resident or witnesses and any follow-up action to be taken by the nursing staff. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or reoccurring and when the action will be complete: On 06/13/2024 the Director of Nursing educated Floor Nurses and Unit Managers (UMs) on the process to notify the physician when there are missed medications, changes in conditions, and/or a resident who has a documented risk management report. Nurses will notify the physician immediately via phone call to the on-call service provider that is posted at each nursing station. This process will happen if the nurse is working in the facility and witnesses a missed medication, change in condition, and/or if the nurse completes a documented risk management report on any resident. The Director of Nursing and Unit Managers (UMs) will begin in person education on 06/13/2024 with all nurses and medication aides which will include all full-time, part-time, as needed, and agency staff. This education will be on the importance of notifying the physician of any missed medications, changes in conditions, and documented risk management reports. No nurses or medication aides will work after 06/13/2024 until they have received the above noted education. The Director of Nursing will be responsible for keeping up with those nurses and medication aides who have and have not been educated. The Director of Nursing is responsible for completing the education or assigning the UM to complete the education for any staff who has not been educated by 06/13/2024. The UMs were notified of their responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing will be responsible for tracking the education and ensuring it is completed so that the facility has an effective system in place to ensure staff notify the provider when there are missed medications, changes in conditions, and/or if a resident has a documented risk management report. The Director of Nursing was notified of this responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Administrator. On 06/14/2024 the Director of Nursing and provider reviewed the facility provider communication log. Effective 06/13/2024 the Director of Nursing will provide education to ensure all nurses and medication aides (full-time, part-time, as needed, and agency) have comprehensive knowledge of how to utilize the provider communication log. The provider communication log is located in a white binder at each nursing station in the facility. The Floor Nurses and UMs will utilize this provider communication log daily to document any reason for why the provider should see a resident such as for a sick visit, readmission, new admission, orders to be signed, at the resident's request, at the resident's families request, medication refills, changes in conditions, and/or documented risk management reports. Effective as of 06/13/2024 Floor Nurses and UMs will be responsible for ensuring this provider communication log is updated daily. The Floor Nurses and UMs were notified of their responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing will be responsible for tracking the education and ensuring it is completed so that the facility has an effective system in place to ensure staff notify the provider when there are missed medications, changes in conditions, and/or a resident who has a documented risk management report. The Director of Nursing was notified of this responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Administrator. All newly hired nurses and medication aides, (full-time, part-time, as needed, and agency) will be educated as noted above. This will be completed by the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing will be responsible for keeping up with new hires who have and have not been educated. The Director of Nursing is responsible for completing the education with new hires. The Director of Nursing was notified of this responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Administrator. Alleged date of immediate jeopardy removal: 6/16/24 The removal plan of the Immediate Jeopardy was validated on 06/19/24. The audit conducted for all residents who had missed medications, changes in conditions, and/or a documented risk management report to ensure the physician had been notified was verified and confirmed any identified concerns were reported to the physician. A sample of staff including the Administrator, Unit Manager, nurses and medication aides were interviewed regarding in services they received related to the deficient practice. All staff interviewed stated they had been in serviced regarding the process of notifying the physician when there are missed medications or changes in condition. The IJ removal date of 06/16/24 was validated. 3. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of a urinary tract infection (UTI). The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed the following physician order: Amoxicillin-Clavulanate 875 mg-125 mg tablet oral every 12 hours for 7 days, (Augmentin). Amoxicillin-Clavulanate is a combination penicillin-type antibiotic used to treat a wide variety of bacterial infections. The facility MAR (Medication Administration Record) for May 2024 revealed Resident #39 was administered Amoxicillin 875 mg-give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for a UTI x 7 days. He received the Amoxicillin 875 mg on the following dates for a total of 14 doses: 05/03/24, 05/04/24, 05/05/24, 05/06/24, 05/07/24, 05/08/24, 05/09/24, and 05/10/24. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had intact cognition. He had an indwelling urinary catheter. He had undergone recent genitourinary surgery (refers to the urinary organs of the body) that required skilled nursing care. He was administered antibiotic medication. Review of the Consultant Pharmacist ' s Medication Regimen Review dated 05/27/24 revealed the following recommendation: This resident was admitted with an order for Amoxicillin/Clavulanate 875 MG BID (twice a day) for 7 days. This was entered into the computer as Amoxicillin 875 MG. This is what the pharmacy sent. Please notify the provider of the medication error to clarify if any additional treatment is needed. Please review with the nurses to ensure they read orders carefully and double check entries. In an interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/24 at 9:50 AM she stated the difference between Amoxicillin and Amoxicillin-Clavulanate was that the Clavulanate drug helped the Amoxicillin work better and more types of bacteria were affected by the addition of Clavulanate. She would have expected the provider to be notified to report the medication error and determine if additional treatment was necessary. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/12/24 at 4:40 PM she stated she had not followed up on the pharmacy recommendation and had not notified the provider that the wrong antibiotic had been administered to Resident #39 to determine if further treatment was necessary. In an interview with the facility physician on 06/19/24 at 9:30 AM she stated she had not been notified that Resident #39 was given the wrong antibiotic. She noted she started at the facility last week and was not his doctor when this occurred. However, she reported she had seen Resident #39 yesterday and he was not having any symptoms of a UTI at this time. She did not feel any further intervention was required. She stated she would expect to be notified whenever there was a pharmacy recommendation or a medication error so that it could be addressed when it occurred.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist, Psychi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist, Psychiatrist, Physician, and Wound Clinic Physician, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free of neglect when the facility failed to obtain significant medications (Resident #51, Resident #46, and Resident #8), administer significant medications (Resident #269, Resident #51, Resident #46, Resident #419, Resident #39, Resident #32, Resident #10, Resident #50, and Resident #8), notify the physician that scheduled medication for nerve pain that was not to be stopped abruptly was not administered (Resident #51 and Resident #46), and provide effective pain management (Resident #51 and Resident #46). Resident #269 was administered 6 doses of haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) 20 milligrams (mg) instead of the ordered dosage of 2 tablets of 2 mg at bedtime and was not administered carvedilol (a medication used to treat heart failure, high blood pressure and chest pain) for 25 of the ordered doses. Resident #269 experienced an elevated pulse and shortness of breath requiring Emergency Department (ED) evaluation on 3/14/24. Resident #51's scheduled gabapentin was not obtained and administered for 21 doses resulting in ineffective pain management as evidenced by complaints of constant pain up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms. The physician was not notified. Resident #51 was transferred to the ED twice on 5/12/24 where she was treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility. Resident #46's scheduled gabapentin was not obtained and administered for 14 doses resulting in ineffective pain management as evidenced by increased pain, trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. The physician was not notified. Resident #419 was not administered 6 doses of intravenous (IV) (delivered into the vein) Rocephin (antibiotic) and 7 doses of IV Daptomycin (antibiotic) for treatment of his infected stage 4 sacral (triangular bone at the base of the spine) pressure ulcer. The resident was hospitalized and the discharge summary indicated they suspected Resident #419's sepsis likely centered around his large stage 4 pressure ulcer with likely chronic osteomyelitis (bone infection). This deficient practice affected 9 of 10 residents reviewed for neglect. Immediate Jeopardy began on 3/14/24 when the facility neglected to administer Resident #269's haloperidol and carvedilol as ordered and the resident required ED evaluation due to shortness of breath and an elevated pulse. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/16/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable plan of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. Residents #8, #10, #32, #39, and #50 were cited at scope and severity E. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F580: Based on record review, and staff, resident, and Physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician that the scheduled medication gabapentin, a medication ordered for nerve pain that is not to be stopped abruptly, was not administered. Resident #51 was prescribed gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) four times daily for nerve pain. Resident #51 missed a total of 21 doses of the medication from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24 and had complaints of constant pain up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms and the physician was not notified of this. Resident #46 was prescribed gabapentin 800 mg two times daily for nerve pain. The physician was not notified that Resident #46 missed 14 doses of the medication from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. Additionally, the facility failed to notify the physician that 14 doses of the antibiotic Amoxicillin 875 mg was administered to Resident #39 instead of the antibiotic Augmentin (Amoxicillin-Clavulanate 875 mg-125 mg) that was ordered by the physician on discharge from the hospital. This deficient practice affected 3 of 10 residents reviewed for notification. F697: Based on record review, staff, resident, Consultant Pharmacist, and Physician interview, the facility failed to provide effective pain management and manage symptoms of withdraw for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #51 and Resident #46) reviewed for pain management. Resident #51 was prescribed gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) four times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not available to administer and resulted in a total of 21 doses of the prescribed medication not administered from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24. Resident #51 had complaints of constant pain at up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms. She was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) per her request on 5/12/24 in the middle of the night where she was treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility the same day. Resident #51 missed 3 more doses of gabapentin on 5/12/24 and returned to the ED that evening per her request for worsening muscle spasms. She was again treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility where she proceeded to miss 4 more doses of the medication prior to the facility obtaining the medication for administration. Resident #46 was prescribed gabapentin 800 mg two times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not available to administer on 5/10/24 and Resident #46 missed 14 doses of the medication from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in increased pain at a sustained 8-9 pain level, trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. F755: Based on record review, staff, resident, Consultant Pharmacist, Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist, and Physician interview, the facility failed to ensure scheduled medication was obtained and available for administration for 3 of 10 residents (Resident #51, Resident #46, and Resident #8) reviewed for medications. Resident #51 was prescribed gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) four times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not obtained from the pharmacy and Resident #51 missed a total of 21 doses of the medication from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24. Resident #51 had complaints of constant pain up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms. She was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) on 5/12/24 in the middle of the night after missing 14 doses of the medication. She was treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility the same day. Resident #51 missed 3 more doses of gabapentin on 5/12/24 and returned to the ED that evening for worsening muscle spasms. She was again treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility where she proceeded to miss 4 more doses of the medication prior to the facility obtaining the medication for administration. Resident #46 was prescribed gabapentin 800 mg two times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not obtained from the pharmacy and Resident #46 missed 14 doses of the medication from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. Additionally, Resident #8 was prescribed Oxycodone/Acetaminophen (opioid medication) 10/325 mg and this medication was not obtained from the pharmacy resulting in multiple missed doses of the medication. F760: Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist, Physician, and Wound Clinic Physician, the facility failed to prevent significant medication errors for 9 of 10 residents reviewed (Resident #269, Resident #51, Resident #46, Resident #419, Resident #39, Resident #32, Resident #10, Resident #50, and Resident #8). Resident #269 was administered 6 doses of haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) 20 milligrams (mg) instead of the ordered dosage of 2 tablets of 2 mg at bedtime and was not administered carvedilol (a medication used to treat heart failure, high blood pressure and chest pain) for 25 of the ordered doses. Resident #269 experienced an elevated pulse and shortness of breath requiring Emergency Department (ED) evaluation on 3/14/24. Resident #51 was not administered 21 doses of gabapentin (prescribed for nerve pain) 800 mg from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24 resulting in complaints of constant pain up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms. She was transferred to the ED twice on 5/12/24 where she was treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility. Resident #46 was not administered 14 doses of gabapentin (prescribed for nerve pain) 800 mg from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in increased pain, trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. Resident #419 was not administered 6 doses of intravenous (IV) (delivered into the vein) Rocephin (antibiotic) and 7 doses of IV Daptomycin (antibiotic) for treatment of his infected stage 4 sacral (triangular bone at the base of the spine) pressure ulcer. The resident was hospitalized on [DATE] and the 4/26/24 discharge summary indicated they suspected Resident #419's sepsis likely centered around his large stage 4 pressure ulcer with likely chronic osteomyelitis (bone infection). In addition, the facility: administered 14 doses of Amoxicillin (antibiotic) to Resident #39 instead of the ordered Amoxicillin-Clavulanate; did not administer 34 doses of Resident #32's ordered mirtazapine (antidepressant medication); did not administer 23 doses of Resident #10's ordered tetrabenazine prescribed for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia (involuntary movements such as tongue thrusting, rapid eye blinking, repetitive chewing, that can occur with long term psychotropic use); did not follow the parameters indicated in the physician's order for Resident #50's blood pressure medication resulting in 8 doses not administered as ordered; and did not administer 12 doses of Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen (opioid pain medication), 3 doses of Ozempic (anti-diabetic medication), 1 dose of Glipizide (anti-diabetic medication), and 1 dose of Rivaroxaban (anticoagulant). An interview was conducted via phone with the Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:20 pm. The Physician indicated it was the facility's responsibility to provide the services necessary for the residents. An interview was conducted in person with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The DON indicated that staff not providing services needed to the resident was a form of neglect. She indicated education was provided to nursing staff to educate them on providing services the residents required. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 6/13/24 at 5:00 PM. The facility provided the following immediate jeopardy removal plan: Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance: The facility failed to protect Residents #46, #51, #269, and #419 from neglect as evidenced by the following deficient practices: 580: The facility failed to notify the physician when two residents (Resident #51 and #46) were not administered their ordered gabapentin for multiple doses. 697: The facility failed to effectively manage Resident #51's and Resident #46's pain. 755: The facility failed to ensure routine pain medication was obtained and available for administration for Resident #51 and Resident #46. 760: The facility failed to prevent significant medication errors for Resident #269, Resident #419, Resident #51, and Resident #46. The facility became aware of this neglect allegation for Resident #51 on 06/13/2024. The neglect allegation was reported to the Health Care Personal Registry on 06/14/2024 and has been reported to law enforcement and Adult Protective Services on 06/16/2024. The facility became aware of this neglect allegation for Resident #46 on 06/13/2024. The neglect allegation was reported to the Health Care Personal Registry on 06/14/2024 and has been reported to law enforcement and Adult Protective Services on 06/16/2024. The facility became aware of this neglect allegation for Resident #269 on 06/13/2024. The neglect allegation was reported to the Health Care Personal Registry on 06/14/2024 and has been reported to law enforcement and Adult Protective Services on 06/16/2024. The facility became aware of this neglect allegation for Resident #419 on 06/13/2024. The neglect allegation was reported to the Health Care Personal Registry on 06/14/2024 and has been reported to law enforcement and Adult Protective Services on 06/16/2024. The Administrator and Director of Nursing identified that all current residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or reoccurring and when the action will be complete: On 06/13/2024 the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Social Worker, and Unit Managers (UMs) began educating all staff on the facility abuse and neglect policy. This education will be on the importance of staff understanding that all residents have a right to be free of neglect and that failing to provide the necessary care and services to residents constitutes neglect. All staff will have a comprehensive understanding that the following are necessary care and services: obtaining and administering medications as ordered by provider, effectively managing pain, and notifying the physician of significant changes to include any issues with administering significant medications as ordered. The Administrator, Director of Nursing, Social Worker, and Unit Managers (UMs) will begin in person education on 06/13/2024 with all staff which will include all full-time, part-time, as needed, contract staffing departments, and agency staff. No staff member will work after 06/13/2024 until they have received the education. The Social Worker and Director of Nursing will be responsible for keeping up with staff who have and have not been educated. The Social Worker, the Director of Nursing, and UMs are responsible for completing the education with all staff including any staff who have not been educated by 06/13/2024. The UMs were notified of their responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Director of Nursing. The Social Worker and the Director of Nursing will be responsible for tracking the education and ensuring it is completed so that the facility has an effective system in place to ensure the facility implements effective systems so that residents receive the necessary care and services that are needed. The Social Worker and the Director of Nursing were notified of this responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Administrator. All newly hired staff (full-time, part-time, as needed, contract staffing departments and agency) will be educated as noted above. This will be completed by the Social Worker, Human Resources Coordinator, and/or Director of Nursing. The Social Worker, Human Resources Coordinator, and the Director of Nursing will be responsible for keeping up with new hires who have and have not been educated. The Social Worker, Human Resources Coordinator, and the Director of Nursing are responsible for completing the education with new hires. The Social Worker, Human Resources Coordinator, and the Director of Nursing were notified of this responsibility on 06/13/2024 by the Administrator. Alleged date of immediate jeopardy removal: 6/16/24 The removal plan of the Immediate Jeopardy was validated on 06/19/24. A sample of staff including the Administrator, Unit Manager, nurses and medication aides were interviewed regarding in-services they received related to the deficient practice. All staff interviewed stated they had been in-serviced regarding the importance of staff understanding that all residents have a right to be free of neglect and understood that failing to provide the necessary care and services to residents constitutes neglect such as obtaining and administering medications as ordered, managing pain, and notifying the physician of significant changes. The IJ removal date of 6/16/24 was validated.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, resident, Consultant Pharmacist, and Physician interview, the facility failed to provide effectiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, resident, Consultant Pharmacist, and Physician interview, the facility failed to provide effective pain management and manage symptoms of withdraw for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #51 and Resident #46) reviewed for pain management. Resident #51 was prescribed gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) four times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not available to administer and resulted in a total of 21 doses of the prescribed medication not administered from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24. Resident #51 had complaints of constant pain at up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms. She was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) per her request on 5/12/24 in the middle of the night where she was treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility the same day. Resident #51 missed 3 more doses of gabapentin on 5/12/24 and returned to the ED that evening per her request for worsening muscle spasms. She was again treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility where she proceeded to miss 4 more doses of the medication prior to the facility obtaining the medication for administration. Resident #46 was prescribed gabapentin 800 mg two times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not available to administer on 5/10/24 and Resident #46 missed 14 doses of the medication from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in increased pain at a sustained 8-9 pain level, trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. Immediate Jeopardy began when the facility failed to provide effective pain management for Resident #51 on 5/9/24 resulting in a pain level of 10 out of 10, and for Resident #46 on 5/12/24 when the resident had increased pain and difficulty sleeping. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/16/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable plan of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. Findings included: Gabapentin is an anticonvulsant medication prescribed for seizures and nerve pain. Manufacturer instructions indicated gabapentin caused physical dependence and stopping the medication results in withdrawal symptoms. Within 12 hours after stopping gabapentin, withdrawal symptoms may start and may be severe. Withdrawal symptoms include nausea, insomnia, anxiety, tremors, body aches, increased pain, hallucinations and seizures. 1. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included in part: chronic pain syndrome, chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, pressure ulcers, and spastic paraplegia (a disorder that causes progressive weakness, stiffness, tightness, pain and muscle spasms of the lower extremities). Review of Resident #51's physician orders revealed an 11/21/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 4 times per day for nerve pain. Review of Resident #51's physician orders revealed an order dated 4/10/24 for methadone 5 mg 2 times per day for pain and an order dated 4/18/24 for baclofen 20 mg 3 times per day for muscle spasms. Review of Resident #51's care plan revealed a focus dated 11/7/23 of pain due to chronic back pain. The goal indicated resident's pain will be relieved with use of pain medications. Interventions included provide/ administer pain medications as ordered, monitor for complaint of pain and report the need for further interventions. Review of Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated resident was cognitively intact The MDS assessment was coded as received scheduled and as needed pain medication. The pain interview was not assessed. The pharmacy records indicated a supply of 120 gabapentin pills was sent to the facility for Resident #51 on 4/25/24. The pharmacy record indicated the 92 gabapentin pills from the 4/25/24 supply for Resident #51 were returned to the pharmacy while Resident #51 was in the hospital from [DATE] through 5/8/24. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated Resident #51 was hospitalized from [DATE] through the morning of 5/8/24. The hospital discharge summary indicated the order for gabapentin for Resident #51 was unchanged when she returned on 5/8/24. The May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated gabapentin 800 mg was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM and the documentation of a 9 indicated to see the nursing notes. This MAR did not include routine monitoring of pain using a 0-10 pain scale rating. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/8/24 - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 5:23 PM indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 5/9/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. A pain assessment dated [DATE] was completed by Nurse #9. The pain assessment indicated Resident #51 had pain almost constantly with a pain rating of 10 and the pain made it hard to sleep and day to day activities were limited due to pain. A nursing progress note by Nurse #9 on 5/9/24 indicated Resident #51 refused a shower due to too much pain. An interview was conducted via phone on 6/13/24 at 5:12 PM with Nurse #8. Nurse #8 stated she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/8/24 and 5/9/24. Nurse # 8 stated she was familiar with Resident #51. Nurse # 8 stated Resident #51 reported increased pain when she did not receive her gabapentin. Nurse # 8 stated Resident # 51 was frustrated about not receiving the medication gabapentin as order. Nurse #8 stated she did not report Resident #51's concerns about not receiving the medication gabapentin to administration and did not have an explanation for why she did not report the concerns. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #8 on 5/10/24 at 3:24 AM indicated Resident #51 reported her legs were numb. The note indicated the writer (Nurse #8) informed Resident #51 there were no interventions for this and offered emergency room evaluation. Resident #51 declined to be sent to the emergency room. The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/10/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse # 9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse # 9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse # 9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 13 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:12 PM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse # 9 on 6/13/24 at 2:15 PM. Nurse # 9 was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Nurse # 9 stated Resident # 51's gabapentin was not available on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM. Nurse # 9 revealed she documented 9 which indicated the medication was not available for the doses. Nurse # 9 stated she did not attempt to obtain medication for Resident #51 and the resident reported pain in her legs. Nurse #9 indicated it was normal for Resident #51 to refuse her shower. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #13 on 6/27/24 at 12:50 PM. Nurse #13 revealed she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/10/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #13 indicated the ordered medication gabapentin 800 mg was unavailable for the scheduled dose at 9:00 PM. Nurse #13 recalled that Resident #51 normally did not complain of pain other than discomfort from her suprapubic catheter (a tube inserted through the abdomen to drain urine from the bladder). The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/11/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Unit Manager #1 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Unit Manager #1 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #14 documented a 9 and the corresponding progress note on 5/11/24 at 4:15 PM indicated gabapentin 800 mg was pending from the pharmacy and the nurse pass on information to next shift to follow up. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #2 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 revealed she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and she documented the medication gabapentin was not available for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Unit Manager #1 stated she did not recall if she made any attempt to obtain the medication for Resident #51 and did not assess Resident #51 for pain. Unit Manager #1 stated she was in the role of Unit Manager for 3-4 weeks and prior to that she worked the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift. Unit Manager #1 stated she was aware that Resident #51 ran out of gabapentin and required emergency room evaluation due to increased pain but did not recall any further details of the situation. Unit Manager #1 stated she did not recall if she had been involved in obtaining the medication gabapentin for Resident #51. A progress note written by Nurse #2 on 5/12/2024 at 3:48 AM indicated Resident #51 complained of pain and spasming and requested to be sent to the emergency room. Resident #51 was alert and oriented and stated that symptoms were due to gabapentin withdrawal. An Emergency Department (ED) Summary dated 5/12/24 at 6:11 AM indicated Resident #51 was evaluated for a chief complaint that the facility had been out of her gabapentin for a couple of days and now she was experiencing full body cramps. The ED Summary stated Resident #51 presented to the ED on 5/12/24 at 4:22 AM and reported she had not had her gabapentin and thought she was in gabapentin withdrawal. While in the ED, at 4:43 AM on 5/12/24 Resident #51 was administered gabapentin 800 mg. The discharge instructions were to restart gabapentin 800 mg 4 times per day, to follow up with her primary care physician and to not stop taking prescription medication for pain suddenly. Resident #51 was discharged back to the facility on 5/12/24 at 6:11 AM. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:24 PM. Nurse #2 stated she was an agency nurse at the facility and worked from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #2 stated she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 into 5/12/24. Nurse #2 recalled sending Resident #51 to the hospital during the night on 5/12/24 due to uncontrolled pain and not having her prescribed gabapentin on hand in the facility. Resident #51 kept complaining of pain during the shift and was shaking and stating she did not feel well. Nurse #2 stated it looked like Resident #51 was exhibiting withdrawal symptoms. Resident #51 requested to be sent to the hospital for evaluation and to receive her prescribed medication gabapentin for pain. Nurse #2 stated she notified the provider and sent Resident #51 to the hospital. Nurse #2 stated medications were frequently not available in the facility, and she had been told by other nurses, although she was not able to recall which nurses, that they just had to wait until the medications came in from the pharmacy and there was nothing that could be done about the medications not being available. A progress note written by Nurse #14 on 5/12/24 at 10:09 AM indicated Resident #51 returned from the hospital at approximately 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 was made aware on 5/11/24 that Resident #51's gabapentin was not available in the facility and the resident was sent to the emergency room during the night on 5/12/24 to obtain it. The MAR for 5/12/24 revealed Nurse #14 inaccurately documented a 6 for the 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 5:00 PM doses of Resident #51's gabapentin which indicated the resident was in the hospital. (Resident #51 returned from the ED on 5/12/24 at approximately 8:00 AM [per Nurse #14's progress note] and the next scheduled dose of gabapentin was due at 9:00 AM). Attempts were made via phone to interview Nurse #14, a nurse that worked through an agency as needed. Messages left on 6/13/24 and 6/14/24 with no return call received. An ED Summary dated 5/12/24 at 8:50 PM indicated Resident #51 presented with muscle spasms and reported she was unable to get her gabapentin prescription refilled at the nursing facility and was having breakthrough pain. The Medication Administration Record for the ED indicated Resident #51 was administered gabapentin 800 mg on 5/12/24 at 9:12 PM. Resident #51 was discharged back to the facility on 5/12/24 at 9:41 PM with instructions to continue with gabapentin 800 mg 4 times per day. A progress note written by Nurse #8 on 5/13/24 at 2:40 AM revealed on 5/12/24 at 7:50 PM the nurse was called to resident's room. Resident #51 complained of worsening muscle spasms all over and requested to go to the emergency department. 911 was called for transfer to the emergency room. Resident #51 returned to the facility having received Gabapentin at the emergency room. Resident #51 told the emergency room staff that until she received her Gabapentin at the facility, she would continue to go to the emergency room every time she was supposed to get it or at least daily. The emergency room physician sent a new prescription for Gabapentin 800mg four times per day to facility pharmacy. Resident #51 returned to the facility at 9:41 PM. The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/13/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse # 15 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:05 AM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse # 15 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 1:41 PM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse # 15 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 11 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:52 PM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy Pharmacy records indicated a supply of 120 gabapentin pills was sent to the facility for Resident #51 on the night of 5/13/24. A 6/7/24 nursing progress note indicated Resident #51 was transferred to the hospital due to a change in condition. Resident #51 remained in the hospital as of 6/19/24 and was unavailable for interview. An in-person interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 6/13/24 at 8:15 AM. Unit Manager #2 stated there had been delays in receiving refills of gabapentin for the past several months and Resident #51 had gone without medication. Unit Manager #2 was unable to recall if Resident #51 reported pain due to not receiving gabapentin but stated gabapentin was ordered for pain so running out of the medication would cause increased pain. An interview was conducted via phone with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 on 6/27/24 at 4:17 PM. NA #1 stated she was familiar with Resident #51. NA #1 stated Resident #51 complained of pain at times, but this was not common for her. An interview was conducted via phone with NA #9 on 6/27/24 at 4:40 PM. NA #9 stated Resident #51 complained of leg pain at times. A follow up interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #8 on 6/27/24 at 6:15 PM. Nurse #8 stated she was aware of the potential for withdrawal and adverse effects that Resident #51 may sustain because of not receiving the ordered doses of gabapentin. Nurse #8 stated muscle aches and spasms were signs of withdrawal. An interview by phone was conducted with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/24 at 9:14 AM. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated not receiving gabapentin as ordered could cause increased pain, withdrawal symptoms, and tachycardia (a heart rhythm problem causing elevated heart rate). The Consultant Pharmacist indicated withdrawal symptoms may start within 12 hours and may be severe. An in-person interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 2:00 PM. The DON stated she did not know why the medication gabapentin was not available for Resident #51 resulting in missed doses of the medication ordered for pain. The DON indicated there was confusion regarding the requirements to order and reorder gabapentin and she did not understand the requirements herself. The DON revealed the Consultant Pharmacist had informed her of the problem with gabapentin running out but being new to the DON position, she had not investigated the problem. The DON stated a system was required in the facility to track medication refills, especially medications for pain. An in-person interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The Administrator stated she expected pain medication to be administered as ordered by the physician. The Administrator stated nursing staff did not have a comprehensive understanding of what to do when they identified a medication was not available for administration. An interview via phone was conducted with the Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:20 PM. The Physician indicated the dose of gabapentin ordered, 800 mg 4 times per day was a high dose of medication and it was not recommended to abruptly stop taking the medication due to the potential for withdrawal and severe pain. The Physician stated increased pain was a definite concern due to not receiving the scheduled gabapentin as ordered and it could start within 12 hours. The Physician further indicated it was not right to withhold medication from a resident and it had the potential for adverse outcome. The Physician revealed Resident #51 being sent to the hospital for evaluation due to increased pain was the outcome of not receiving the scheduled doses of the medication gabapentin as ordered by the physician. She stated it was the responsibility of the facility to obtain the medications, especially pain medications, so they could be administered as ordered. 2. Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included diabetes and neuropathy. Review of Resident # 46's physician orders revealed a 12/6/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 2 times per day for nerve pain. A physician order dated 1/18/24 indicated Resident #46 had a PRN (as needed) order for hydrocodone acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (mg) every 6 hours as needed for pain. Resident #46's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated resident was cognitively intact. Resident #46 received scheduled and as needed pain medication, pain interview should be conducted, and resident reported no pain in the previous 5 days. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 5/1/24 through 5/9/24 revealed Resident #46 was administered the PRN hydrocodone acetaminophen 10 doses with the highest pain level recorded as 8. Gabapentin 800 mg was administered twice per day from 5/1/24 through 5/9/24. An interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 6/13/24 at 1:45 PM. Nurse #3 stated she worked through an agency and was assigned to work at the facility on 5/6/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #3 stated she was assigned to Resident #46. Nurse #3 indicated a card of gabapentin was delivered for Resident #46 on 5/6/24 but the medication did not have a controlled substance sign out sheet, so she asked Nurse #2 what to do. Nurse #3 indicated Nurse #2 returned the card of gabapentin for Resident #46 to the pharmacy with the delivery driver. Nurse #3 stated she did not inform the Unit Manager, Director of Nursing (DON), or pharmacy that the medication was returned as she thought Nurse #2 would have done this. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:25 PM. Nurse #2 stated she worked on 5/6/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM but she was not assigned to Resident # 46. Nurse #2 recalled the gabapentin was delivered from the pharmacy for Resident #46 on 5/6/24 but it did not have a controlled drug sheet attached. Nurse #2 stated she was told by someone, but she could not recall who, to return the medication to the pharmacy with the delivery driver due to no controlled drug sheet. Nurse #2 indicated she did not inform the Unit Manager, DON or pharmacy that the medication was returned as she thought the nurse assigned to Resident #46 would do it. The May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated gabapentin 800 mg was to be administered at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The MAR specified the documentation of a 9 indicated to see the nursing notes. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #46's pain medication: 5/10/24 - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 3 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR at 9:51 PM indicated Nurse #3 administered a PRN dose of hydrocodone acetaminophen 5-325 mg for pain. Nurse #3 documented the PRN dose was effective. 5/11/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #6 documented as the medication was administered. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #3 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR indicated at 9:43 PM Nurse #3 administered a PRN dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen for a pain level of 7. Nurse #3 documented the PRN dose was effective. 5/12/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9. The corresponding nursing note at 9:09 AM indicated awaiting pharmacy delivery of gabapentin. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #3 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR indicated at 9:37 PM Nurse #3 administered a PRN dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen for a pain level of 9. Nurse #3 documented the PRN dose was effective. 5/13/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9. The corresponding nursing note at 9:44 AM indicated awaiting pharmacy delivery of gabapentin. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 17 documented a 9. A pain level of 8 was recorded at 10:50 PM. The corresponding nursing note at 10:53 PM indicated the medication on order from pharmacy. - The MAR indicated at 9:50 PM Nurse #17 administered a PRN dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen for pain. Nurse #17 documented the PRN dose was effective. 5/14/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse # 7 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 17 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR indicated at 9:25 PM Nurse # 17 administered an as needed dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen. Nurse #17 documented the PRN dose was effective. 5/15/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #7 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 17 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 5/16/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Unit Manager #2 documented a 9. The corresponding nursing note at 9:17 AM indicated waiting for delivery of gabapentin from pharmacy. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 11 documented a 9. The corresponding nursing note on 5/17/24 at 12:40 AM indicated awaiting medication delivery from pharmacy. 5/17/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #5 documented a 9. An administration note dated 5/17/24 at 10:09 AM indicated awaiting medication delivery of gabapentin from pharmacy. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #2 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. A pain level of 7 was recorded at 9:04 PM. An interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 6/13/24 at 1:45 PM. Nurse #3 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/10/24, 5/11/24, and 5/12/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #3 stated she documented 9 on 5/10/24, 5/11/24, and 5/12/24 at 9:00 PM for the scheduled doses of gabapentin and indicated the medication was not administered due to it being unavailable. Nurse #3 stated Resident #46 had pain and was unable to sleep when she did not receive the medication gabapentin. Nurse #3 reported she did not relay Resident #46's reports of increased pain to the physician. An interview was conducted with Nurse #6 on 6/13/24 at 12:30 PM. Nurse #6 stated she was an agency nurse that had worked at the facility for several months. Nurse #6 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/12/24 and 5/13/24 and documented 9 on the electronic MAR for the scheduled 9:00 AM doses of gabapentin. Nurse #6 stated the medication was not available on the medication cart. Nurse #6 indicated Resident #46 was upset about not receiving her scheduled gabapentin due to having increased pain. Nurse #6 did not report the resident's concerns about pain and did not have an explanation for why. An interview was conducted on 6/13/24 at 3:47 PM with Nurse #17. Nurse #17 stated she worked at the facility through an agency for about 6 weeks. Nurse # 17 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 5/13/24, 5/14/24, and 5/15/24. Nurse # 17 stated she looked for the medication on the medication cart and when she did not see it, she documented it 9, not available. Nurse #17 indicated medications were frequently missing and ran out from the medication cart. Nurse #17 revealed gabapentin was prescribed for pain and Resident #46 exhibited increased pain, irritability and anxiety from not receiving the medication. Nurse #17 did not report Resident #46's symptoms to the physician or administration and did not have an explanation for why. An interview was conducted on 6/13/24 at 3:47 PM with Nurse #16. Nurse #16 was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/13/24, 5/14/24 and 5/15/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #16 stated she worked at the facility through an agency for about 6 weeks. Nurse #16 stated 9 on the electronic MAR indicated the medication was not available. Nurse #16 indicated she documented 9 for unavailable on Resident #46's MAR on 5/13/24, 5/14/24 and 5/15/24 at 9:00 PM for the scheduled doses of gabapentin. Nurse #16 stated gabapentin was prescribed for pain and Resident #46 reported increased pain and inability to sleep from not receiving her scheduled pain medication. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 6/13/24 at 11:30 AM. Nurse #7 revealed she was an agency nurse at the facility since March. Nurse #7 was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/14/24 and 5/15/24 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Nurse #7 stated she did not administer the ordered dose of gabapentin on 5/14/24 and 5/15/24 at 9:00 AM due to it not being available. Nurse #7 stated she signed for the dose on the electronic MAR on 5/15/24 at 9:00 AM in error. Nurse #7 recalled gabapentin was not available on the medication cart, but she did not attempt to obtain it or notify the physician. Nurse #7 stated Resident #46 was upset and had increased pain when she did not receive the ordered gabapentin. Nurse #7 stated she was aware that gabapentin was prescribed for nerve pain and not receiving the medication would cause the resident to have increased pain. Nurse #7 was unable to explain why she did not report Resident #46's increased pain from not receiving the scheduled doses of gabapentin. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 6/13/24 at 8:15 AM. Unit Manager #2 indicated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/16/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM. Unit Manager #2 stated gabapentin was unavailable for Resident #46 on 5/16/24 at 9:00 AM as ordered, resident reported increased pain. Unit Manager #2 stated she did nothing about Resident #46's medication not being available and did not have an explanation for why. An interview was conducted with Nurse #5 on 6/14/24 at 9:00 AM. Nurse #5 stated there was a problem with running out of medications and administration was aware of the problem with medication not coming in from pharmacy. Nurse #5 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/17/24 for the 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM shift. Nurse #5 stated she did not administer the scheduled gabapentin on 5/17/24 at 9:00 AM and did not call the pharmacy to obtain it. Nurse #5 stated Resident #46 reported increased pain. Nurse #5 stated she the medication was on order, so she did not attempt to obtain it. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:25 PM. Nurse #2 stated she was the nurse assigned to Resident #46 on 5/17/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Nurse #2 stated gabapentin was not available for the prescribed dose for Resident #46 on 5/17/24 and the resident reported pain. Nurse #2 stated she did not call the pharmacy to obtain the prescribed gabapentin for Resident #46. Nurse #2 stated medications were frequently unavailable, and she was informed by other nurses, although she did not recall which nurses, that they just had to wait until the medications came in from the pharmacy and there was nothing that could be done. Attempted to interview Nurse #11, nurse assigned to Resident #46 on 5/16/24 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Messages were left on 6/11/24 and 6/12/24 with no return call received. An interview was conducted with Resident #46 on 6/13/24 at 9:30 AM. Resident #46 stated the facility frequently had trouble obtaining medications. Resident #46 stated she had gone without medications for days at a time on several occasions. Resident #46 reported staff would state the medication was coming from the pharmacy and then it didn't come in. Resident indicated she was familiar with her medications and gabapentin was prescribed for nerve pain. Resident #46 stated she had increased pain, trouble sleeping, was anxious, irritable, nauseous and unable to get up out of bed or complete her usual routine during the time when she did not receive her gabapentin. Resident #46 stated it was horrible and the staff told her she would just have to wait it out until the medication came in. An interview was conducted via phone with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 on 6/27/24 at 4:17 PM. NA #1 stated she was familiar with Resident #46. NA #1 stated Resident #46 complained of pain at times, but this was not common for her. An interview was conducted via phone with NA #9 on 6/27/24 at 4:40 PM. NA #9 stated Resident # 46 was pleasant, quiet and did not usually complain of pain. NA #9 stated Resident #46's normal routine was to get up out of bed to the wheelchair and attend activities daily. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #5 on 6/27/24 at 6:44 PM. Nurse #5 stated she was aware that suddenly stopping gabapentin could lead to withdrawal symptoms including insomnia, nausea, tremors and anxiety. Nurse #5 stated the symptoms Resident #46 reported could have been withdrawal symptoms.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and arthritis pain. Review of the Resident #8's physician orders revealed an 2/28/24 order for Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 milligrams (mg) - 1 tablet by mouth two times a day at 8:00 am and 8:00 pm for pain, Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg - 1 tablet by mouth once a day at 2:00 pm for pain, and Bio Freeze Professional External Gel 5% topical analgesic apply to area every 6 hours as needed for pain (PRN). A review of the pharmacy records indicated 30 tablets of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg was delivered to the facility on 3/28/24 and signed by Nurse #10 and Nurse #18. The April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am and 8:00 pm and specified the documentation of a 9 indicated to see the nursing notes. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen: 4/16/24 - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #2 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 4/18/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:06 am indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:36 pm indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy. 4/19/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 12:53 pm indicated Resident #8 was out of the facility with spouse and friend for lunch. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 8:42 pm indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy. 4/20/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated MA# 5 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 4/21/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated MA# 5 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 4/22/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:34 am indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 8:53 pm indicated the medication was on order. 4/23/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #19 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:46 am indicated the medication was not on hand and had been ordered. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 8:38 pm indicated the medication was on order from the pharmacy. 4/24/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. A review of the facility's narcotic count sheet (a document used to document and track the administration of controlled substances) for Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg revealed no nurse signatures for the following: - 4/16/24 8:00 pm Nurse #2 - 4/18/24 8:00 am Nurse #6 - 4/18/24 8:00 pm Nurse #8 - 4/19/24 8:00 am Nurse #9 - 4/19/24 8:00 pm Nurse #8 - 4/20/24 8:00 am MA #5 - 4/21/24 8:00 am MA# 5 - 4/22/24 8:00 am Nurse #6 - 4/22/24 8:00 pm Nurse #8 - 4/23/24 8:00 am Nurse #19 - 4/23/24 8:00 pm Nurse #8 - 4/24/24 8:00 am Nurse #9 Attempts were made to interview Nurse #9 via phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. Nurse #9 no longer worked at the facility. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #2 by phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. Nurse #2 worked at the facility through an agency. Attempts were made to interview Medication Aide #5 (MA #5) by phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. During a phone interview on 7/1/24 at 11:51 am with Nurse #8, she indicated Resident #8 did not have her scheduled 8:00 pm Oxycodone 10/325 mg available on 4/19/24 and 4/23/24. She indicated in her nursing documentation she was awaiting delivery from the pharmacy. She stated she did not know which nurse ordered the Oxycodone 10/325 mg. During a phone interview with Pharmacy Tech #1on 7/1/24 at 3:32 pm she stated the pharmacy sent the narcotics (Oxycodone/Acetaminophen) on 3/28/24. The Pharmacy Tech #1 indicated not enough Oxycodone/Acetaminophen was sent for Resident #8. She further stated the facility did not request a refill for the medication after 3/28/24 and prior to 4/25/24. Based on record review, staff, resident, Consultant Pharmacist, Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist, and Physician interview, the facility failed to ensure scheduled medication was obtained and available for administration for 3 of 10 residents (Resident #51, Resident #46, and Resident #8) reviewed for medications. Resident #51 was prescribed gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) four times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not obtained from the pharmacy and Resident #51 missed a total of 21 doses of the medication from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24. Resident #51 had complaints of constant pain up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms. She was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) on 5/12/24 in the middle of the night after missing 14 doses of the medication. She was treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility the same day. Resident #51 missed 3 more doses of gabapentin on 5/12/24 and returned to the ED that evening for worsening muscle spasms. She was again treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility where she proceeded to miss 4 more doses of the medication prior to the facility obtaining the medication for administration. Resident #46 was prescribed gabapentin 800 mg two times daily for nerve pain. The medication was not obtained from the pharmacy and Resident #46 missed 14 doses of the medication from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. Additionally, Resident #8 was prescribed Oxycodone/Acetaminophen (opioid medication) 10/325 mg and this medication was not obtained from the pharmacy resulting in multiple missed doses of the medication. Immediate Jeopardy began on 5/9/24 for Resident #51 when the facility failed to obtain the ordered medication gabapentin from the pharmacy resulting in a reported pain scale of 10 out of 10. Immediate Jeopardy began on 5/12/24 for Resident #46 when the facility failed to obtain the ordered medication gabapentin from the pharmacy resulting in increased pain and difficulty sleeping. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/16/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable plan of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. Example #3 was cited at scope and severity E. Findings included: 1. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included in part: chronic pain syndrome, chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, pressure ulcers, and spastic paraplegia (a disorder that causes progressive weakness, stiffness, tightness, pain and muscle spasms of the lower extremities). Review of Resident #51's physician orders revealed an 11/21/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 4 times per day for nerve pain. Review of Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated resident was cognitively intact and exhibited no behaviors. The MDS assessment was coded as received scheduled and as needed pain medication. The pain interview was not assessed. The pharmacy records indicated a supply of 120 gabapentin 800 mg pills was sent to the facility for Resident #51 on 4/25/24. The pharmacy record indicated 92 gabapentin pills from the 4/25/24 supply for Resident #51 were returned to the pharmacy while Resident #51 was in the hospital from [DATE] through 5/8/24. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated Resident #51 was hospitalized from [DATE] through the morning of 5/8/24. The hospital indicated the order for gabapentin for Resident #51 was unchanged when she was discharged on 5/8/24. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #8 on 5/8/24 at 4:22 PM revealed Resident #51 returned to the facility from the hospital on 5/8/24 at 2:40 PM. Resident #51's May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated there was no routine pain monitoring. The May 2024 MAR indicated Resident #51's gabapentin was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM and specified the documentation of a 9 indicated to see the nursing notes. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/8/24 - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 5:23 PM indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 5/9/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. Following readmission to the facility on 5/8/24, a pain assessment dated [DATE] was completed by Nurse #9. The pain assessment indicated Resident #51 had pain almost constantly with a pain rating of 10 and the pain made it hard to sleep and day to day activities were limited due to pain. A nursing progress note by Nurse #9 on 5/9/24 indicated Resident #51 refused a shower due to too much pain. An interview was conducted via phone on 6/13/24 at 5:12 PM with Nurse #8. Nurse #8 stated she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/8/24 and 5/9/24. Nurse #8 stated she was familiar with Resident #51. Nurse # 8 stated Resident #51 had increased pain when she did not receive her gabapentin. Nurse #8 stated 9 documented on the MAR indicated the medication was not available. If a medication was not available, she stated she would wait a few days and then notify Unit Manager #1. Nurse #8 indicated she did not know the process for obtaining medications from the pharmacy and had been informed by other nurses, although she did not recall which nurses, that if a medication was not available, they just had to wait for it to come in. Nurse #8 stated she did not recall when, but she knew she notified Unit Manager #1 that Resident #51's gabapentin was not available. Nurse # 8 stated frequently medications were not available. Nurse #8 stated a written or electronic prescription was not required to reorder gabapentin. Nurse # 8 stated Resident #51 was frustrated about not receiving the medication gabapentin as order. A nursing progress note by Nurse #13 on 5/10/24 at 3:24 AM indicated Resident #51 reported her legs were numb. The note indicated the nurse informed Resident #51 there were no interventions for this and offered emergency room evaluation. Resident #51 declined to be sent to the emergency room. The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/10/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #13 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:12 PM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from pharmacy. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #9 on 6/13/24 at 2:15 PM. Nurse #9 was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Nurse #9 stated Resident #51's gabapentin was not available on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM. Nurse #9 revealed she documented 9 which indicated the medication was not available for the doses. Nurse #9 indicated Resident #51 refused her shower on 5/9/24 which was not normal for her, reporting she was in too much pain. Nurse #9 stated the facility frequently ran out of medications and did not receive medications on time. Nurse #9 stated she did not attempt to obtain medication for Resident #51 and did not know the process for obtaining gabapentin. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #13 via phone with messages left on 6/13/24 and 6/14/24 with no return call received. The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/11/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Unit Manager #1 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Unit Manager #1 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #14 documented a 9 and the corresponding progress note on 5/11/24 at 4:15 PM indicated gabapentin 800 mg was pending from the pharmacy and the nurse pass on information to next shift to follow up. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #2 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. An in-person interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 revealed she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and she documented the medication gabapentin was not available for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Unit Manager #1 stated she did not recall if she made any attempt to obtain the medication for Resident #51. She stated she was unclear the requirements for reordering gabapentin and did not assess Resident #51 for pain. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #14 via phone with messages left on 6/13/24 and 6/14/24 with no return call received. A progress note written by Nurse #2 on 5/12/2024 at 3:48 AM indicated Resident #51 complained of pain and spasming and requested to be sent to emergency room. Resident #51 was alert and oriented and stated that symptoms were due to gabapentin withdrawal. An Emergency Department (ED) Summary dated 5/12/24 at 6:11 AM indicated Resident #51 was evaluated for a chief complaint that the facility had been out of her gabapentin for a couple of days and now she was experiencing full body cramps. The ED Summary stated Resident #51 presented to the ED on 5/12/24 at 4:22 AM and reported she had not had her gabapentin and thought she was in gabapentin withdrawal. While in the ED, at 4:43 AM on 5/12/24 Resident #51 was administered gabapentin 800 mg. The discharge instructions were to restart gabapentin 800 mg 4 times per day, to follow up with her primary care physician and to not stop taking prescription medication for pain suddenly. Resident #51 was discharged back to the facility on 5/12/24 at 6:11 AM. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:24 PM. Nurse #2 stated she was an agency nurse at the facility and worked from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM and was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 into 5/12/24. Nurse #2 recalled sending Resident #51 to the hospital on 5/12/24 due to uncontrolled pain and not having her prescribed gabapentin on hand in the facility. Resident #51 kept complaining of pain during the shift and was shaking and stating she did not feel well. Resident #51 requested to be sent to the hospital for evaluation and to receive her prescribed medication gabapentin for pain. Nurse #2 stated she notified the provider and sent Resident #51 to the hospital. Nurse #2 stated medications were frequently not available in the facility. Nurse #2 stated she had been told by other nurses, although she was not able to recall which nurses, that they just had to wait until the medications came in from the pharmacy and there was nothing that could be done about the medications not being available. A progress note written by Agency Nurse #14 on 5/12/24 at 10:09 AM indicated Resident #51 returned from the hospital at approximately 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 was made aware on 5/11/24 that Resident #51 had not received her medications from the pharmacy. Unit Manager #1 wrote down the medication that was needed from the pharmacy. The resident was sent to the emergency room last night to obtain gabapentin. The MAR for 5/12/24 revealed Nurse #14 inaccurately documented a 6 for the 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 5:00 PM doses of Resident #51's gabapentin which indicated the resident was in the hospital. (Resident #51 returned from the ED on 5/12/24 at approximately 8:00 AM [per Nurse #14's progress note] and the next scheduled dose of gabapentin was due at 9:00 AM). Attempts were made to interview Nurse #14 via phone with messages left on 6/13/24 and 6/14/24 with no return call received. Nurse #14 worked at the facility through an agency. A progress note written by Nurse #8 on 5/13/24 at 2:40 AM revealed on 5/12/24 at 7:50 PM the nurse was called to resident's room. Resident #51 complained of worsening muscle spasms all over and requested to go to the emergency department. 911 was called for transfer to the emergency room. Resident #51 returned to the facility having received Gabapentin at the emergency room. Resident #51 told the emergency room staff that until she received her Gabapentin at the facility, she would continue to go to the emergency room every time she was supposed to get it or at least daily. emergency room physician sent a new prescription for Gabapentin 800mg four times per day to facility pharmacy. Resident #51 returned to the facility at 9:41 PM. An ED Summary dated 5/12/24 at 8:50 PM indicated Resident #51 presented with muscle spasms and reported she was unable to get her gabapentin prescription refilled at the nursing facility and was having breakthrough pain. The Medication Administration Record for the ED indicated Resident #51 was administered gabapentin 800 mg on 5/12/24 at 9:12 PM. Resident #51 was discharged back to the facility on 5/12/24 at 9:41 PM with instructions to continue with gabapentin 800 mg 4 times per day. The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/13/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #15 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:05 AM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse #15 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 1:41 PM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #15 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #11 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:52 PM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy Pharmacy records indicated a supply of 120 gabapentin pills was sent to the facility for Resident #51 on the night of 5/13/24. A 6/7/24 nursing progress note indicated Resident #51 was transferred to the hospital due to a change in condition. Resident #51 remained in the hospital as of 6/19/24 and was unavailable for interview. An in-person interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 stated she was in the role of Unit Manager for 3-4 weeks. Unit Manager #1 stated she thought gabapentin required a written or electronic prescription to be refilled but it had been a while since she ordered it so she was not sure. Unit Manager #1 stated she knew gabapentin had to be kept in the narcotic locked box and signed for. Unit Manager #1 stated she was aware that Resident #51 ran out of gabapentin and required emergency room evaluation due to increased pain but did not recall when or how she became aware. Unit Manager #1 indicated she did not recall if she had been involved in obtaining the medication gabapentin for Resident #51. An in-person interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 6/13/24 at 8:15 AM. Unit Manager #2 stated she thought a written or electronic prescription was required to obtain a refill of gabapentin, but she was not sure. Unit Manager #2 stated there had been delays in receiving refills of gabapentin for the past several months and Resident #51 had gone without medication. Unit Manager #2 was unable to recall if Resident #51 had pain due to not receiving gabapentin. Unit Manager #2 stated she had not contacted the pharmacy to obtain the ordered medication gabapentin for Resident #51. An interview by phone was conducted with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/24 at 9:14 AM. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated there was a system process problem with the facility and the ordering and reordering of medications, including gabapentin. The Consultant Pharmacist stated there was confusion in the facility regarding the requirements for ordering and reordering gabapentin and this placed the residents at risk of adverse effects. The Consultant Pharmacist stated she discussed the problems with obtaining medications for administration when the current Director of Nursing (DON) came into the position at the facility (DON started position in the end of March) and made her aware of the concerns. Consultant Pharmacist indicated not receiving gabapentin as ordered could cause increased pain, withdrawal symptoms, and tachycardia (a heart rhythm problem causing elevated heart rate). The Consultant Pharmacist indicated withdrawal symptoms may start within 12 hours and may be severe. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated the pharmacy considered gabapentin a controlled medication for storage and accounting purposes but did not require a written or electronic prescription for refills. An interview was conducted by phone with the Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist on 6/12/24 at 11:50 AM. The Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist indicated the pharmacy treated gabapentin as a controlled medication in terms in the storage and accounting for it. She stated a written or electronic prescription was not required to obtain the medication from the pharmacy. The Pharmacy Assurance Specialist stated the process for obtaining a refill of the medication gabapentin was the facility sent the refill sticker via fax or completed a refill request in the computer. An in-person interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 2:00 PM. The DON stated she did not know why the medication gabapentin was not available for Resident #51. The DON indicated there was confusion regarding the requirements to order and reorder gabapentin and she did not understand the requirements herself. The DON revealed the Consultant Pharmacist had informed her when she started at the facility at the end of March of the problem with gabapentin not being available. Being new to the DON position, she had not investigated the problem. The DON stated a system was required in the facility to track medication refills. An in-person interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The Administrator stated she expected medications would be available and administered as ordered by the physician. The Administrator stated nursing staff did not have a comprehensive understanding of what to do when they identify that a medication was not available for administration. An interview via phone was conducted with the Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:20 PM. The Physician indicated the dose of gabapentin ordered, 800 mg 4 times per day was a high dose of medication and it was not recommended to abruptly stop taking the medication due to the potential for withdrawal and severe pain. The Physician stated increased pain was a definite concern due to not receiving the scheduled gabapentin as ordered and it could start within 12 hours. The Physician further indicated it was not right to withhold medication from a resident and it had the potential for adverse outcome. The Physician revealed Resident #51 being sent to the hospital for evaluation due to increased pain was the outcome of not receiving the scheduled doses of the medication gabapentin as ordered by the physician. She stated it was the responsibility of the facility to obtain the medications so they could be administered as ordered. 2. Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included diabetes and neuropathy. Review of Resident # 46's physician orders revealed a 12/6/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 2 times per day for nerve pain. Resident #46's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated resident was cognitively intact with no behaviors. Resident #46 received scheduled and as needed pain medication, pain interview should be conducted, and resident had no pain in the previous 5 days. A physician order dated 1/18/24 indicated Resident #46 had a PRN (as needed) order for hydrocodone acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (mg) every 6 hours as needed for pain. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 5/1/24 through 5/9/24 revealed Resident #46 was administered the PRN hydrocodone acetaminophen 10 doses with the highest pain level recorded as 8. An interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 6/13/24 at 1:45 PM. Nurse #3 stated she worked on 5/6/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM and was assigned to Resident #46. Nurse #3 indicated a card of gabapentin was delivered for Resident #46 on 5/6/24 but the medication did not have a controlled substance sign out sheet, so she asked Nurse #2 what to do. Nurse #3 indicated Nurse #2 returned the card of gabapentin for Resident #46 to the pharmacy with the delivery driver. Nurse #3 stated she did not inform the Unit Manager, Director of Nursing (DON), or pharmacy that the medication was returned as she thought Nurse #2 would have done this. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:25 PM. Nurse #2 stated she worked on 5/6/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM but she was not assigned to Resident #46. Nurse #2 recalled the gabapentin was delivered from the pharmacy for Resident #46 on 5/6/24 but it did not have a controlled drug sheet attached. Nurse #2 stated she was told by someone, but she could not recall who, to return the medication to the pharmacy with the delivery driver due to no controlled drug sheet. Nurse #2 indicated she did not inform the Unit Manager, DON or pharmacy that the medication was returned as she thought the nurse assigned to Resident #46 would do it. Review of a Controlled Drug Record for Resident #46 revealed the last dose from the supply of gabapentin delivered on 4/8/24 was signed out by Nurse #7 on 5/10/24 at 8:00 AM bringing the count to 0 pills remaining. Resident #46's May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated gabapentin 800 mg was to be administered at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The MAR further indicated there was no routine monitoring of Resident #46's pain level. The May 2024 MAR specified the documentation of a 9 indicated to see the nursing notes. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #46's pain medication: 5/10/24 - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #3 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR at 9:51 PM indicated Nurse #3 administered a PRN dose of hydrocodone acetaminophen 5-325 mg for pain. 5/11/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #6 documented as the medication was administered. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #3 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. A pain level of 7 was recorded at 9:43 PM. - The MAR indicated at 9:43 PM Nurse #3 administered a PRN dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen. 5/12/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9. The corresponding nursing note at 9:09 AM indicated awaiting pharmacy delivery of gabapentin. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #3 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. A pain level of 9 was recorded at 9:37 PM. - The MAR indicated at 9:37 PM Nurse #3 administered a PRN dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen. 5/13/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9. The corresponding nursing note at 9:44 AM indicated awaiting pharmacy delivery of gabapentin. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #17 documented a 9. A pain level of 8 was recorded at 10:50 PM. The corresponding nursing note at 10:53 PM indicated the medication on order from pharmacy. - The MAR indicated at 9:50 PM Nurse #17 administered a PRN dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen for pain. 5/14/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #7 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse # 17 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR indicated at 9:25 PM Nurse #17 administered an as needed dose of 5-325 mg hydrocodone acetaminophen. 5/15/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #7 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #17 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 5/16/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Unit Manager #2 documented a 9. The corresponding nursing note at 9:17 AM indicated waiting for delivery of gabapentin from pharmacy. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nur[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 9. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 9. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and pain. Resident #8's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact. a. Physician's orders for Resident #8 dated 2/28/24 indicated: - Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg - 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for pain. - Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg - 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for pain Resident #8's physician's orders did not include an order for routine pain monitoring. Resident #8's MAR from 2/28/24 through 6/12/24 revealed the resident received Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg as ordered by physician. A Nurse Practitioner note (NP) dated 4/16/24 at 8:00 am indicated Resident #8 had concerns about her pain medication refills. The note further indicated the NP explained and showed to the primary nurse an order from pharmacy indicating the medication was dispensed. An attempt was made to interview NP via phone with messages left on 7/1/24 at 3:45 pm with no return call received. The April 2024 MAR indicated Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am and 8:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg: The Medication Administration Record (MAR) specified the documentation of a 9 indicated to see the nursing notes. 4/16/24 - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #2 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 4/18/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:06 am indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:36 pm indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy 4/19/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 12:53 pm indicated Resident #8 was out of the facility with her husband and friend for lunch. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 8:42 pm indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy. 4/20/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Medication Aide (MA #5) documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 4/21/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated MA #5 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 4/22/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #6 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:34 am indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 8:53 pm indicated the medication was on order. 4/23/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #19 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 9:46 am indicated the medication was not on hand and had been ordered. - The MAR for 8:00 pm indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding record note at 8:38 pm indicated the medication was on order from the pharmacy. 4/24/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. During a phone interview on 7/1/24 at 11:51 am with Nurse #8, she indicated Resident #8 did not have her scheduled 8:00 pm Oxycodone 10/325 mg available on 4/19/24 and 4/23/24. She indicated in her nursing documentation she was awaiting delivery from the pharmacy. She further stated Resident #8 did not voice any complaints of pain. During an interview with Nurse #19 on 6/28/24 at 12:00 pm, she explained Resident #8's medication was not available on the medication cart. She indicated the medication had been ordered. She further stated Resident #8 did not voice any complaints of pain. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #9 via phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. Nurse #9 no longer worked at the facility. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #2 by phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. Attempts were made to interview MA #5 by phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. The June 2024 MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg: 6/2/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Medication Aide (MA #3) documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 12:39 pm indicated the medication was not on hand and had been ordered. During a phone interview with MA #3 on 6/28/24 at 12:21 pm she indicated the medication was not available in the narcotic drawer on the medication cart on 6/2/24 and she documented she was waiting for the medication to be delivered from the pharmacy. Resident #8 did not voice any complaints of pain. Resident #8 was interviewed on 6/12/24 at 8:30 am, she indicated she was unable to recall when she spoke to the DON regarding not receiving her pain medication. She stated she spoke to the previous NP on 4/16/24 regarding not receiving her pain medication. She indicated the previous NP explained the medication had been dispensed by the pharmacy. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 11:00 am, she indicated she was aware of Resident #8's concerns related to not receiving her pain medication. She further stated there was a problem with the medications not being available. She indicated she expected the nurses to administer the pain medications as ordered by the physician. During a phone interview with the Administrator on 6/28/24 at 4:10 pm, she stated she expected pain medication to be administered as ordered by the physician. b. A physician's order for Resident #8 dated 9/22/23 indicated Ozempic 0.25 or 0.5 milligrams (mg) - inject 1 mg subcutaneously (under the skin) one time a day every Friday for type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Ozempic was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am every Friday. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #8's Ozempic: 4/5/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:56 am indicated the medication had been ordered. 4/19/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 7:53 am did not indicate why the medication was not given. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #9 via phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. Nurse #9 no longer worked at the facility. The May 2024 MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #8's Ozempic: 5/17/24 - The MAR for 8:00 am indicated Nurse #7 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 9:17 am indicated the medication was on order. An interview with Nurse #7 on 6/12/24 at 2:50 pm revealed she ordered the Ozempic on 5/17/24 and was told it would be delivered to the facility that night. She further revealed she passed this information in report to the on-coming night nurse but was unsure if the injection was given by the night nurse. e. A physician's order for Resident #8 dated 8/19/23 indicated Rivaroxaban (anticoagulant)15 mg - 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for atrial fibrillation. The May 2024 MAR and the medication administration notes revealed on 5/30/24 MA#5 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding administration record note. Attempts were made to interview MA #5 by phone with messages left on 6/28/24 with no return call received. e. A physician's order for Resident #8 dated 8/19/23 indicated Glipizide 10 mg - 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The May 2024 MAR and the medication administration notes for 5/19/24 for Resident #8's 8:00 am dose of Glipizide indicated Unit Manager #2 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:41 am indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of Glipizide 10 mg from the pharmacy. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 11:00 am, she stated there was a problem with the medications not being available. She further stated she expected the nurses to administer all medications as ordered by the physician. A phone interview with the Medical Director on 6/17/24 at 11:21 am indicated missing diabetic medications was not optimal but had no serious adverse effects. She further stated missing anticoagulant medications adverse outcome would possibly be having a stroke. She also stated missing pain medication would possibly be having increased pain. Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, Consultant Pharmacist, Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist, Physician, and Wound Clinic Physician, the facility failed to prevent significant medication errors for 9 of 10 residents reviewed (Resident #269, Resident #51, Resident #46, Resident #419, Resident #39, Resident #32, Resident #10, Resident #50, and Resident #8). Resident #269 was administered 6 doses of haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) 20 milligrams (mg) instead of the ordered dosage of 2 tablets of 2 mg at bedtime and was not administered carvedilol (a medication used to treat heart failure, high blood pressure and chest pain) for 25 of the ordered doses. Resident #269 experienced an elevated pulse and shortness of breath requiring Emergency Department (ED) evaluation on 3/14/24. Resident #51 was not administered 21 doses of gabapentin (prescribed for nerve pain) 800 mg from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24 resulting in complaints of constant pain up to a 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10 with the 10 being the worst pain possible), numbness in her legs, and spasms. She was transferred to the ED twice on 5/12/24 where she was treated for acute pain with gabapentin and returned to the facility. Resident #46 was not administered 14 doses of gabapentin (prescribed for nerve pain) 800 mg from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 resulting in increased pain, trouble sleeping, anxiety, irritability, nausea, and being unable to complete her normal routine due to pain in her legs. Resident #419 was not administered 6 doses of intravenous (IV) (delivered into the vein) Rocephin (antibiotic) and 7 doses of IV Daptomycin (antibiotic) for treatment of his infected stage 4 sacral (triangular bone at the base of the spine) pressure ulcer. The resident was hospitalized on [DATE] and the 4/26/24 discharge summary indicated they suspected Resident #419's sepsis likely centered around his large stage 4 pressure ulcer with likely chronic osteomyelitis (bone infection). In addition, the facility: administered 14 doses of Amoxicillin (antibiotic) to Resident #39 instead of the ordered Amoxicillin-Clavulanate; did not administer 34 doses of Resident #32's ordered mirtazapine (antidepressant medication); did not administer 23 doses of Resident #10's ordered tetrabenazine prescribed for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia (involuntary movements such as tongue thrusting, rapid eye blinking, repetitive chewing, that can occur with long term psychotropic use); did not follow the parameters indicated in the physician's order for Resident #50's blood pressure medication resulting in 8 doses not administered as ordered; and did not administer 12 doses of Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen (opioid pain medication), 3 doses of Ozempic (anti-diabetic medication), 1 dose of Glipizide (anti-diabetic medication), and 1 dose of Rivaroxaban (anticoagulant). Immediate Jeopardy began on: 3/14/24 for Resident #269 when haloperidol and carvedilol were not administered as ordered and the resident required ED evaluation due to shortness of breath and an elevated pulse; 5/9/24 for Resident #51 when gabapentin not being administered as ordered resulted in a 10 out of 10 pain scale; 5/12/14 for Resident #46 when gabapentin not being administered as ordered resulted in increased pain and difficulty sleeping, and on 3/15/24 for Resident #419 when the resident's IV dislodged (came out of her vein) and the nurse was unable to restart the IV to administer the ordered antibiotic. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/15/24 when the facility implemented an acceptable plan of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of E (no harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put in place are effective. Examples #5, #6, #7, #8, and #9 were cited at scope and severity E. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #269's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated the resident was to receive haloperidol 2 tablets of 2 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for mood and carvedilol 12.5 mg twice per day. Resident #269 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation and toxic encephalopathy (a neurological disorder caused by exposure to toxic substances). Resident #269's admission physician orders entered on 3/7/24 included haloperidol 20 mg at bedtime for mood. The order was entered into the computer by the previous Director of Nursing (DON). Resident #269's admission physician orders entered on 3/7/24 did not include carvedilol 12.5 mg as indicated in his hospital discharge summary. Review of Resident #269's medical record revealed the admission assessment was completed by Nurse #9 on 3/7/24 at 3:22 PM. Review of Resident #269's March 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed haloperidol 20 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 PM. The MAR was blank on 3/7/24 for the scheduled 8:00 PM dose. The MAR revealed the medication was electronically signed as administered on 3/8/24, 3/9/24, 3/10/24, 3/11/24, 3/12/24, and 3/13/24. The MAR further revealed that Resident #269 did not receive carvedilol 12.5 mg twice daily from admission on [DATE] through the morning of 3/14/24 as indicated in the hospital discharge summary. This resulted in 14 missed doses of the medication from admission on [DATE] through the morning of 3/14/24. Resident #269's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated resident was cognitively intact and received antipsychotic medication. Review of Resident #269's March 2024 MAR revealed vital signs were to be obtained every shift. On 3/14/24 day shift (7:00 AM to 3:00 PM) the following were recorded: Blood pressure 162/90 (elevated), pulse 113 (elevated), respirations 20 and temperature 97.0 degrees Fahrenheit. Review of Resident #269's electronic health record revealed a nursing progress note written by Nurse #9 dated 3/14/24 at 12:10 PM which indicated resident complained of shortness of breath and stated he did not feel right. Resident #269's vital signs were: blood pressure 136/90, pulse 113 (elevated), respirations 22, temperature 97.5 and oxygen saturation of 98% on 3 liters of oxygen. Resident #269 requested to go to the hospital. On 3/14/24 at 12:25 PM Resident #269 went out of the facility to the emergency department. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #9 on 6/13/24 at 2:00 PM. Nurse # 9 stated she was no longer employed at the facility. Nurse #9 stated she was assigned to Resident #269 on 3/14/24 when he requested to be sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Nurse #9 stated Resident #269 was not doing well that day. Nurse #9 further stated Resident #269 complained of not feeling well, stating he knew something was wrong, his pulse was elevated, he was short of breath and reported he did not feel good all over. Nurse #9 stated after she sent Resident #269 to the hospital, she reviewed his medications and saw the dose of haloperidol was 20 mg. Nurse #9 stated she did not administer Resident #269 haloperidol on her shift as it was ordered to be given on night shift. Nurse #9 indicated if she saw a dose of 20 mg of haloperidol on the MAR to be given, she would not have given it since it was a higher dose than normally ordered. Nurse #9 stated she would clarify a dose that was higher than normal with the doctor. An Emergency Department (ED) Provider Report dated 3/14/24 at 4:24 PM indicated Resident #269 was evaluated with a chief complaint of shortness of breath. Chest x ray and laboratory tests were obtained with no further treatment required. Vital signs upon discharge from the emergency department were blood pressure 138/88, respirations 18 and oxygen saturation 94 percent. The discharge medication list indicated Resident #269 was to receive in part the medication haloperidol 2 tablets of 2 mg at bedtime and carvedilol 12.5 mg twice per day. There was no indication in the ED report of the significant medication errors with haloperidol or carvedilol. Review of the electronic health record for Resident #269 revealed the resident returned to the facility on 3/14/24 at 6:44 PM. Review of Resident #269's physician orders revealed an order dated 3/14/24 for haloperidol 2 mg give 1 tablet at bedtime for mood. The order was entered by the previous DON and was discontinued on 3/15/24. Review of the March 2024 MAR for Resident #269 revealed haloperidol 2 mg give 1 tablet at bedtime on 3/14/24 at 8:00 PM was documented with a 9 indicating to see nurses notes. Review of Resident #269's nursing progress notes revealed there was no corresponding note on 3/14/24 at 8:00 PM. Review of Resident #269's physician orders revealed an order dated 3/15/24 for haloperidol 2 mg give 2 tablets at bedtime for mood. Review of Resident #269's electronic health record revealed an incident note written by Nurse #4 on 3/15/2024 at 3:58 PM. The note indicated Resident #269's order for haloperidol was transcribed in the computer incorrectly. The progress note indicated Resident #269 received the incorrect dose of haloperidol on 3/8, 3/9, 3/10, 3/11, 3/12, and 3/13/24. Attempts were made to interview Nurse #4 via phone with messages left on 6/11/24 and 6/12/24 with no return call received. Nurse #4 no longer worked at the facility. The order for carvedilol 12.5 mg indicated in the 3/14/24 ED discharge summary was not entered into Resident #269's physician orders when the resident returned to the facility. The March 2024 MAR revealed that Resident #269 did not receive carvedilol 12.5 mg twice daily on the evening of 3/14/24 through the morning of 3/20/24 as indicated in the ED discharge summary. This resulted in 12 missed doses of the medication. A nursing progress note dated 3/20/24 at 11:50 AM written by Nurse #7 stated resident was discharged home. An interview was conducted with Nurse #13 via phone on 6/27/24 at 12:50 PM. Nurse #13 was assigned to Resident #269 on 3/8/24 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM and administered the haloperidol 20 mg on 3/8/24 at 9:00 PM. Nurse #13 stated she administered the medication as ordered and documented on the MAR. Nurse #13 did not recall any further information regarding the dose of haloperidol. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #8 on 6/13/24 at 5:12 PM. Nurse #8 confirmed she was assigned to Resident #269 from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM on 3/9/24 and she administered haloperidol 20 mg according to the physician order and as documented on the MAR. Nurse #8 stated she did not think about it at the time to clarify or hold the haloperidol due to an excessive dose. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 9:30 AM. Unit Manager #1 stated she was assigned to Resident #269 on 3/11/24, 3/12/24 and 3/13/24. Unit Manager stated she administered the ordered doses of haloperidol to Resident #269 at 9:00 PM on 3/11/24, 3/12/24 and 3/13/24. Unit Manager #1 stated she did not question the dose or obtain a clarification of the dose prior to administering it. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 6/13/24 at 8:15 AM. Unit Manager #2 indicated normally, the floor nurses entered the orders in the computer without verifying the orders with the Physician when a resident was admitted . Unit Manager #2 stated she was not sure who was supposed to fax the orders from the hospital, that she did not do it and she thought it must be someone from administration. Unit Manager #2 confirmed she was assigned to Resident #269 on 3/10/24 and her electronic signature on the MAR indicated she administered the 9:00 PM dose of haloperidol 20 mg. Unit Manager #2 stated it did not occur to her to clarify the dose or hold the haloperidol due to the dose of 20 mg ordered being higher than a usual dose ordered. An interview was conducted via phone with the previous Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/13/24 at 1:20 PM. The previous DON stated she entered the orders into the computer for Resident #269 on 3/7/24 when he was admitted to the facility from the hospital. She stated she entered the order for haloperidol incorrectly. She indicated she did not know why she put the order in incorrectly and couldn't say what happened. The previous DON revealed she was not aware she omitted the order for carvedilol and she did not have an explanation for why other than human error. The previous DON indicated she did not recall if she sent the discharge summary to the pharmacy. The previous DON stated she recalled Resident #269 went to the emergency room but did not know why or the outcome. The previous DON stated she left the position at the facility shortly after the resident was sent to the hospital. An interview was conducted via phone with the Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist on 6/12/24 at 11:50 AM. The Quality Assurance Specialist indicated the pharmacy dispensed 30 tablets of haloperidol 20 mg on 3/7/24 for Resident #269. The Quality Assurance Specialist indicated the pharmacy did not receive the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] for Resident #269. The Quality Assurance Specialist stated normally the pharmacist compared the discharge summary and the orders that were entered and would call the facility for clarification or to report discrepancies. The Quality Assurance Specialist indicated documentation in the pharmacy record indicated the pharmacy did not receive a discharge summary for Resident #269. The pharmacy record indicated the pharmacist called the facility on 3/7/24 and was informed by the previous Director of Nursing (DON) to send all Resident # 269's medications as they were entered into the computer. Precautions indicated to use haloperidol with extreme caution with residents with cardiac arrhythmia. The Quality Assurance Specialist stated there was no dosage warning in the computer for the haloperidol dosage. An interview was conducted via phone with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/24 at 9:15 AM. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated haloperidol 20 mg was a high dose which was usually only prescribed in an acute setting with a major psychiatric diagnosis. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated the high dose of haloperidol had the potential for adverse effects including harm and receiving the medication at that dose for a sustained period increased the likelihood of effects. The Consultant Pharmacist stated adverse effects could include but were not limited to sedation, somnolence, movement disorders, drooling and severe respiratory difficulty. The Consultant Pharmacist stated the haloperidol error was a significant medication error. The Consultant Pharmacist reported the omission of carvedilol could result in harm due to potential for exacerbation of atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate) and congestive heart failure. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated there was a systemic problem with medication administration in the facility for some time and she addressed this with the current DON when she started in March. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated the pharmacy was supposed to receive a copy of the discharge orders to reconcile that with what was entered into the computer by the facility. An interview was conducted via phone with the Physician on 6/11/24 at 1:00 PM. The Physician stated she was new to the facility having started on 6/7/24. The Physician stated in her career as a physician she had never prescribed a dose of 20 milligrams of haloperidol. The Physician indicated the recommended dose that she would prescribe was 2.5 milligrams to 5 milligrams as a one-time dose for an acute psychotic episode. The Physician further stated 6 doses of 20 mg of haloperidol had the potential for serious adverse effects such as sedation, increased tiredness, and respiratory difficulty. The Physician reported the omission of carvedilol from Resident #269's medication list from admission on [DATE] through discharge on [DATE] was concerning and had the potential for serious adverse effects including changes in blood pressure, heart rate, shortness of breath and worsening of congestive heart failure. An interview was conducted with the current Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 2:15 PM. The DON indicated the incorrect dose of haloperidol administered to Resident #269 was a significant medication error. The DON stated she was aware of the error with the transcription of Resident #269's orders and stated the error was made by the previous DON. The DON stated she did not recall how she was made aware of the error. The DON stated she expected orders to be transcribed correctly and the discharge summary to be faxed to the pharmacy by the floor nurse. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The Administrator stated it was her expectation that medications would be transcribed and administered correctly. She stated she was unaware of the error that occurred with the transcription of Resident #269's medications. 2. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included in part: chronic pain syndrome, chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, pressure ulcers, and spastic paraplegia (a disorder that causes progressive weakness, stiffness, tightness, pain and muscle spasms of the lower extremities). Review of Resident #51's physician orders revealed an 11/21/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 4 times per day for nerve pain. Review of Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated resident was cognitively intact and exhibited no behaviors. The MDS assessment was coded as received scheduled and as needed pain medication. The pain interview was not assessed. The May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #51's gabapentin was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM and specified the documentation of a 9 indicated to see the nursing notes. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/8/24 - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 5:23 PM indicated the facility was awaiting the arrival of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. 5/9/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #8 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. Following readmission to the facility on 5/8/24, a pain assessment dated [DATE] was completed by Nurse #9. The pain assessment indicated Resident #51 had pain almost constantly with a pain rating of 10 and the pain made it hard to sleep and day to day activities were limited due to pain. A nursing progress note by Nurse #9 on 5/9/24 indicated Resident #51 refused a shower due to too much pain. An interview was conducted via phone on 6/13/24 at 5:12 PM with Nurse #8. Nurse #8 stated she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/8/24 and 5/10/24. Nurse #8 stated she was familiar with Resident #51. Nurse # 8 stated Resident #51 had increased pain when she did not receive her gabapentin. Nurse #8 stated 9 documented on the MAR indicated the medication was not available. If a medication was not available, she stated she would wait a few days and then notify Unit Manager #1. Nurse #8 stated she did not recall when, but she knew she notified Unit Manager #1 that Resident #51's gabapentin was not available. Nurse #8 stated Resident # 51 was frustrated about not receiving the medication gabapentin as ordered. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #8 on 5/10/24 at 3:24 AM indicated Resident #51 reported her legs were numb. The note indicated the nurse informed there were no interventions for this and offered emergency room evaluation. Resident #51 declined to be sent to the emergency room. The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/10/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #9 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #13 documented a 9 and the corresponding administration record note at 10:12 PM indicated the facility was awaiting delivery of gabapentin 800 mg from the pharmacy. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #9 on 6/13/24 at 2:15 PM. Nurse # 9 was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Nurse # 9 stated Resident # 51's gabapentin was not available on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24 for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM. Nurse # 9 revealed she documented 9 which indicated the medication was not available for the doses. Nurse # 9 stated she did not attempt to obtain medication for Resident #51. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #13 on 6/27/24 at 12:50 PM. Nurse #13 stated Resident #51's gabapentin was unavailable, and she had not administered it. Nurse #13 stated she did not attempt to obtain the medication for Resident #51. The MAR and the medication administration notes revealed the following related to Resident #51's gabapentin: 5/11/24 - The MAR for 9:00 AM indicated Unit Manager #1 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 12:00 PM indicated Unit Manager #1 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. - The MAR for 5:00 PM indicated Nurse #14 documented a 9 and the corresponding progress note on 5/11/24 at 4:15 PM indicated gabapentin 800 mg was pending from the pharmacy and the nurse pass on information to next shift to follow up. - The MAR for 9:00 PM indicated Nurse #2 documented a 9 and there was no corresponding nursing note. An in-person interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 revealed she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and she documented the medication gabapentin was not available for the scheduled doses at 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Unit Manager #1 stated she did not recall if she made any attempt to obtain t[TRUNCATED]
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident (Resident #50) with dignity and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident (Resident #50) with dignity and respect when a nurse refused to leave the resident's room upon request and when the resident was not assisted out of the shower when requested. The resident expressed feelings of anger and frustration. This was for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dignity. Findings included: Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, in part, right below the knee amputation with prothesis. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident was cognitively intact and demonstrated no behaviors. 1a. Review of an investigation report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on 02/21/24 for an abuse allegation on 02/15/24 indicated Resident #50 reported that the nurse on night shift (Nurse #12) hit his leg three times and was verbally aggressive towards him while attempting to give him his medication. No physical or mental injury was reported. This was reported to the Police and Department of Social Services (DSS) on 02/15/24. Review of the police report dated 02/15/24 stated, Victim [Resident #50] stated that the offender [Nurse #12] struck him on the leg 3 times and then became verbally aggressive towards him. He did state that he got verbally aggressive with her after the fact. Offender stated that she shook the leg of resident to wake him up for his medications but did not strike him. No injuries were noted at time of reporting. A summary of the facility investigation dated 02/21/24 revealed Concerns were reported to the Social Worker by the resident [Resident #50]. It was determined that the allegation of physical abuse was unsubstantiated, however it was determined that the employee [Nurse #12] placed her hands on the resident [Resident #50] shaking him when asking if he would take his medications. It was determined the employee [Nurse #12] was verbally aggressive to the resident and provoked him before exiting room. Employee [Nurse #12] admitted to not leaving his room when asked and continued to provoke him. An interview with Resident #50 was conducted on 06/10/24 at 1:00 PM. Resident #50 stated Nurse #12 had come into his room on 02/15/24 at about 9:30 PM, had hit his leg and woke him and told him he needed to take his medications. Resident #50 told Nurse #12 to get out of his room and she hit his leg again, insisting she needed a yes or no answer if he was going to take his medications. Resident #50 stated he again told Nurse #12 to get out of his room and she hit his leg a third time and insisted again that she needed a yes or no answer if he was going to take his medications. Resident #50 stated he told her to get out and he covered his head with the bed covers. He stated he pressed the call light to get another staff member to come in and witness Nurse #12 hitting him and refusing to leave the room. He stated Nurse Aide (NA) #7 came into the room and was trying to get Nurse #12 to leave him alone, but she kept insisting on a yes or no answer. Resident #50 stated he did not give her a yes or no answer, but by him stating get out several times, Nurse #12 should have taken that as a refusal to take his medications. He stated he was very upset that Nurse #12 had woken him up to take his medications and he got increasingly angry when she was refusing to leave when he asked her to leave several times. Resident #50 stated he felt like Nurse #12 was treating him like a child. A phone interview with Nurse Aide #7 on 06/27/24 at 12:35 PM revealed on 02/15/24 she was standing at the nurse's station on the 100 hall and she had heard Nurse #12 arguing with Resident #50 and heard Resident #50 saying get out, get out, get out of my room. NA #7 stated she told NA #6 they needed to go down to his room and see what was going on. NA #7 stated she was standing at Resident #50's room and heard Resident #50 say I told you to leave my room, and Nurse #12 replied I am not going anywhere until you say yes or no. NA #7 stated Resident #50 continued to tell Nurse #12 to leave, and Nurse #12 continued to demand a yes or no answer. She stated Resident #50 had the covers over his head and she heard Nurse #12 say I am going to ask one more time and he said I told you to leave the room. NA #7 stated when she entered the room she tried to encourage Resident #50 to take his medications. She stated the refusal to leave the room as Resident #50 requested and the insistence of taking the medications went on for about 10 minutes. She stated she never saw Nurse #12 strike Resident #50. She added, Nurse #12 had a cup of water in one hand and the medication cup in another hand. NA #7 stated Resident #50 was angry and he was getting louder with Nurse #12 when she kept refusing to leave the room. NA #7 stated there was a lot of name calling between Nurse #12 and Resident #50 with each of them calling each other names such as crazy, liar and stupid. An interview with NA #6 on 06/19/25 revealed on 02/15/24 Nurse #12 went to Resident #50's room to give him his medications. She stated she could hear Nurse #12 and Resident #50 yelling at the nurse's station which was about 4 rooms away from the nursing station. She stated she could hear Resident #50 telling Nurse #12 to get out of the room and Nurse #12 saying Yes or no are you going to take your medications? NA #6 stated the back and forth arguing between Resident #50 and Nurse #12 went on for a few minutes. She and NA #7 went down to the room and she noticed Nurse #12 had a cup of water in one hand and the medication cup in the other hand. NA #6 stated she did not see Nurse #12 physically touch Resident #50, but she was refusing to leave the room when he asked her to and Resident #50 was getting angry and upset with Nurse #12 for not leaving when asked to. A phone interview was conducted with Nurse #12 on 06/14/24 at 4:27 PM. Nurse #12 stated on 02/15/24 she was trying to give Resident #50 his medications and he told me to leave. Nurse #12 stated he did not outwardly refuse, he just kept telling her to get out of his room. Nurse #12 stated the last time Resident #50 refused his medication he accused her of not giving him his medications when he actually refused to take them. She added, she wanted a yes or no answer to accurately document that he refused the medications. Nurse #12 stated she woke him up gingerly by shaking his leg one time and she did not touch him more than once. She stated he had the sheet over his head and was telling her to get out of his room. She stated he was upset when she arrived in the room and he did not change his demeanor while she was in the room, but he was yelling at her while she persisted for a yes or no answer and calling her a liar. She stated, in looking back, she should have left the room and accepted him stating get out of my room as a refusal and documented that instead of yes or no, but she was concerned he was going to report her to management stating she did not bring in his medications. Nurse #12 denied calling Resident #50 stupid or crazy. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 06/14/24 at 5:00 PM. The Administrator stated after she conducted the investigation it had been determined that Nurse #12 did not physically abuse Resident #50 but she did refuse to leave his room when asked several times and failed to treat the resident with dignity and respect by honoring his request. The Administrator added, she had three in services regarding dignity and respect since she started in early February 2024. The facility provided a plan of correction for this incident but it was not accepted as it did contain all the required components. 1b. Review of an incident report dated 05/17/24 revealed the resident [Resident #50] reported he asked to get a shower early because his family was visiting. Nurse Aide [NA #8] from another hall took resident to shower and then left. Resident stated he was left in shower room for 15 - 20 minutes before the same Nurse Aide [NA #8] came in and assisted him back to his wheelchair. Camera footage was reviewed and confirmed the call light sounded and was on for 15 minutes and 23 seconds before Nurse Aide [NA #8] came back to the shower to assist Resident in getting back into his wheelchair. Review of the camera footage time line on an incident report dated 05/17/24 revealed the following: 10:42 AM Resident #50 entered the shower room and NA #8 followed Resident #50 and entered the shower room 10:46 AM Nurse Aide #8 exited the shower room 10:48 AM Nurse Aide #8 reentered the shower room 10:49 AM Nurse Aide #8 exited the shower room 11:00 AM Call light in shower room sounds 11:16 AM Nurse Aide #8 entered the shower room 11:20 AM Nurse Aide #8 and Resident #50 exited shower room and went to Nurse #9 and were telling her something An interview with Resident #50 on 06/14/24 at 1:00 PM revealed on 05/17/24, he was left unattended in the shower for over 15 minutes. He stated prior to the shower he was on the smoking porch and stated he wanted to get a shower early on this day because he had family coming. Resident #50 stated Nurse Aide (NA) #8 said he was not on her assignment, but that she would get him started in the shower. He used the call bell to alert for help when he was done. He stated no one came after a few minutes so he turned the water again to keep himself warm and washed himself again while waiting for someone to answer the call bell. He stated he then started to yell for someone to come and help him, but no one came. Resident #50 stated the shower chair did not have wheels like his wheelchair so he was not able to move it easily, but he was able to reach a towel and dry off and reached his prosthetic leg and put it on. He stated he continued to yell, but still no one came. Resident #50 stated he then attempted to transfer himself from the shower chair to the wheelchair but he banged his leg and was not able to transfer himself safely. Resident #50 stated after about 15 minutes, NA #8 finally came back and helped him get out of the shower chair and transferred him to his wheelchair. Resident #50 stated he was very angry and frustrated that he was left unattended and had wait so long to get assistance. An interview was conducted with NA #8 on 06/14/24 at 2:35 PM. NA #8 reported on 05/17/24 she was on the smoking porch with Resident #50 and he reported he wanted a shower. He stated his aides from the 100 hall were busy so she told him she would get him in the shower. NA #8 stated she was assigned to the 200 hall, but she helped transfer Resident #50 to a shower chair from his wheelchair and assisted with removing his clothes and his prosthetic leg. She then turned on the water and he began to take his shower. NA #8 stated that she and Nurse #7 who was assigned to the 200 hall told Nurse #9 who was assigned to the 100 hall that they were going to the store to get soap which was located across the street and only minutes away. NA #8 stated they were back within 15 minutes or less and when they came back, they saw the shower light going off and Nurse #9 was sitting at the computer at the nurse's station. She stated she went into the shower room and saw Resident #50 was still in the shower. She assisted him with getting dressed and brought him out of the shower room. She stated Resident #50 was very angry and wanted to know why his aides left him in the shower room. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 06/13/24 at 11:45 AM. Nurse #7 reported on 05/17/24, Resident #50 was out on the smoking porch and stated he had family coming in to see him today and he wanted a shower and NA #8 said she would give him one. NA #8 assisted Resident #50 in the shower. She stated after he was in the shower, she and NA #8 told Nurse #9 that we were leaving the facility to go to the store across the street to get soap and that Resident #50 was in the shower and for her to let his aides know so they could get him out. Nurse #7 reported they were at store for about 15 minutes and when they came back, the call light was on to the shower room. Nurse #7 stated NA #8 went to the shower room to assist Resident #50 out of the shower. Nurse #7 reported when Resident #50 came out of the shower room, he was very upset because no one came to answer his light and assist him. An interview was conducted with Nurse #9 via phone on 06/13/24 at 2:19 PM. Nurse #9 reported she was the nurse assigned to the 100 hall on 05/17/24 where Resident #50 resided. She stated she was sitting at the nurse's station on 05/17/24 when Resident #50 came to the desk and asked where his aides were. She stated Resident #50 was very upset and frustrated about being left in the shower room and that no one was answering the call light to assist him. She stated Resident #50 told her that NA #8 had put him in the shower and left. Nurse #9 stated she had learned from NA #8 that she and Nurse #7 left the building to go to the store, but it was not until they returned. Nurse #9 stated neither NA #8 nor Nurse #7 reported to her that Resident #50 was in the shower or that they were going to the store. Nurse #9 stated she did not recall hearing the call light going off. An interview was conducted with NA #4 via phone on 06/18/24 at 10:39 AM. NA #4 reported she had worked at the facility as agency nurse aide for about 8 weeks. She stated she was assigned to Resident #50 on the 100 hall on 05/17/24. NA #4 reported she did not know what had actually happened on 05/17/24 but was told someone put Resident #50 in the shower, but they did not inform her or NA #5 who was also assigned to Resident #50. NA #4 reported Resident #50 and Nurse #9 approached her and NA #5 while they were doing resident care for another resident and Resident #50 was yelling at them for leaving him in the shower, but they had no idea he was even in the shower. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/14/24 at 11:00 AM. The DON reported that a nursing staff member should always be with a resident whenever they were getting a shower. The DON stated she did not know NA #8 and Nurse #7 left the building on 05/17/24 and it was not okay for them to leave without telling anyone. She stated her expectation of nursing staff was that the call bell in shower room should have been responded to when it was sounding. She stated Resident #50 needed assistance with getting dressed and having to wait in a shower room for 15 minutes unassisted and undressed was too long.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

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 transmit the quarterly Minimum Data Set within the required t...

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 transmit the quarterly Minimum Data Set within the required time frame for 1 of 26 resident assessments reviewed (Resident #5). Findings included: Resident #5 was admitted into the facility on [DATE]. Resident #5's medical record revealed his quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] was signed as completed on 04/15/24 with a transmission date of 06/11/24. An interview was conducted on 06/17/24 at 1:37 PM with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator. She stated she was aware that the quarterly Minimum Data Set for Resident #5 had not been transmitted within the designated time frame. She stated she knew Resident #5's MDS was transmitted late. An interview was conducted on 06/14/24 at 11:15 AM with the Administrator. She indicated that all Minimum Data Sets should be transmitted in a timely manner as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #319 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, aphasia, and a r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #319 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, aphasia, and a recent history of a cerebral vascular accident (stroke) with hemiplegia (loss of strength or almost complete weakness on one side of the body). A review of Resident #319's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed no baseline care plan. Review of Resident #319's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed admission assessment completed on 5/1/24. During an interview with the Remote MDS nurse on 6/17/24 at 10:08 am she revealed that assessments were completed late because the previous nurse could not get caught up. She further indicated she was completing MDS assessments remotely. During a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/18/24 at 11:14 am she stated the MDS nurse was responsible for developing the baseline care plan within 48 hours. She further stated she did not know why this was not completed upon Resident #319's admission. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 6/18/24 at 9:03 am she stated Resident #319's admission MDS assessment should have been completed within the regulatory time frame. Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized person-centered baseline care plan within forty-eight hours of admission for 2 of 26 residents reviewed for care planning (Resident #16 and Resident #319). Findings included: 1. a. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke. The physician's orders dated 4/26/2024 included an order for rivaroxaban (an anticoagulant medication that prevents or break down blood clots) 20 milligrams(mg) via gastrostomy tube (G-Tube) in the evening for anticoagulation. Resident #16's April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded rivaroxaban 20 milligrams (mg) was administered 4/27/2024, 4/28/2024 and 4/29/2024. There was no individualized person-centered baseline care plan located in Resident #16's medical record for the 4/26/2024 admission. Nursing documentation dated 4/29/2024 at 8:25 p.m. reported Resident #16 was coughing up blood and bleeding profusely from the nose. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called to transport Resident #16 to the hospital. b. Resident #16 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 5-day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 was severely impaired cognitively and was not coded for receiving anticoagulants. Resident #16's May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded rivaroxaban 20 milligrams (mg) was restarted on 5/9/2024 and administered every evening from 5/9/2024 to 5/31/2024 except for 5/29/2024. Resident #16's June 2024 MAR recorded rivaroxaban 20 mg was administered every evening from June 1, 2024, to June 13, 2024 except on 6/5/2024 and 6/9/2024 when Resident #16 was out of the facility. There was no individualized person-centered baseline care plan located in Resident #16's medical record for the 5/9/2024 admission. On 6/19/2024 at 11:19 a.m. in a phone interview with the Remote MDS Nurse for the facility, she explained she was hired by the facility to work remotely and to complete MDS assessments. She stated the nursing staff at the facility were responsible for completing individualized person-centered baseline care plans for residents and the individualized person-centered baseline care plan was active until the MDS Nurse completed the comprehensive care plan. She stated Resident #16 was receiving anticoagulants on admission, and an individualized person-centered baseline care plan should have been completed within the first forty-eight hours of admission. On 6/19/2024 at 10:22 p.m. during a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated the MDS Nurse located at the facility was responsible for completing the individualized person-centered baseline care plans. The DON explained there had not been a consistent MDS Nurse at the facility since before March 2024. She stated there was only one MDS Nurse, and individualized person-centered baseline care plans were not being completed because the MDS Nurse was working on completing the back log of MDS assessments. The DON stated Resident #16 should have had an individualized person-centered baseline care plan started within two hours of admission to the facility. On 6/19/2024 at 12:25 p.m. during a phone interview with the Administrator, she explained although the MDS Nurse at the facility was the responsible person to complete the individualized person-centered baseline care plan after admission, licensed nurses could start an individualized person-centered baseline care plan. She further explained the administration team decided since March 2024 to transition the licensed nursing staff to start resident's individualized person-centered baseline care plans and was just realizing the transition had not occurred.
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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, the facility failed to assess, obtain physician orders...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, the facility failed to assess, obtain physician orders for treatment, and communicate about the new pressure ulcer so assessments and treatments could be provided for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #119). Findings included: Resident #119's Hospital admission note dated 03/02/24 revealed resident with pressure ulcer of coccygeal region that was present on admission. Resident #119 was admitted from the hospital to the facility on [DATE]. The diagnoses included diabetes, congestive heart disease, end stage renal disease, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. Review of the head-to-toe skin assessment for Resident #119 dated 04/04/24 done by Nurse #2, identified and documented a Sacrum - small, reddened area to bony prominence, pressure absorbent bandage in place. A nursing note dated 04/05/24 at 2:37 AM by Nurse #10 revealed Resident #119 admitted to facility via stretcher from hospital during day shift. Resident was alert and oriented with some confusion noted and was able to verbalize needs. She had an open area noted to bony prominence of coccyx, and area was cleansed with normal saline and new dressing applied. A telephone interview was conducted with Nurse #10 on 06/12/24 at 10:35 AM. Nurse #10 stated she completed the initial admission skin assessment for Resident #119 on 04/04/24. Nurse #10 explained she noticed Resident #119 had a dressing in place from the hospital on her coccyx covering what looked like an open split skin area on her buttock crack near the sacrum. There was no drainage or odor. She said she removed the old dressing, cleaned the site with normal saline. She also said she did not recall documenting a description of her observation, but she was certain she informed the day nurse of her observation and dressing change and let the wound treatment nurse know of the site. A nursing note dated 04/05/24 at 1:36 PM by Nurse #1 revealed nurse went to assess Resident #119's skin, but she had left facility to go to dialysis and would be back later this PM. Review of the April 2024 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #119 revealed the resident received treatment Calmoseptine to buttock with each incontinent episode, apply every day at night shift and to start 04/06/24 at 7:00 PM. The TAR had no documented treatment for the coccyx pressure ulcer. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #119 had no cognitive impairments. She required substantial/maximal physical assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and activities of daily living. She was always incontinent of bowel and frequently incontinent of bladder. Resident #119 was discharged to her home on [DATE]. An interview was conducted on 06/12/24 at 10:00 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated Nurse #119 documented an observation of an open area noted to bony prominence of coccyx and she cleaned the area with normal saline and applied a new dressing. She acknowledged there was no documenation about Resident #119's coccyx ulcer from admission [DATE] through discharge on [DATE]. An interview was conducted on 06/12/24 at 3:45 PM with Unit Manager #2 (previous treatment nurse). The Unit Manager stated on 04/05/24 the day nurse who received report from Nurse #10 should have reported Resident #119's sacral pressure ulcer to her for evaluation and possible treatment which she did not. An interview was conducted on 06/13/24 at 10:50 AM with the Administrator. She said it was her expectation that Resident #119's admission coccyx pressure ulcer should have been identified, treated, and tracked more closely by nursing staff. An interview was conducted on 06/14/24 at 10:20AM with the Nurse Practitioner (NP). She stated it was her expectation that on 04/05/24 the day nurse assigned to Resident #119 should have reported the coccyx pressure ulcer to the wound treatment nurse that same morning it was reported to her and did not. The NP said all nursing staff are responsible for reporting all wounds timely to the treatment nurse so she can obtain appropriate orders and start treatment. NP stated it was important to her and the treatment nurse to know what wounds were in the facility and what treatments were being utilized, which had not happened in this case.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to supervise a dependent resident (Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to supervise a dependent resident (Resident #50) when he was left alone in the shower room on the shower chair and waited for staff to answer the call light and provide assistance for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for accidents. Findings included: Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included right below the knee amputation with prothesis, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident was cognitively intact and demonstrated no behaviors. He required supervision with one person physical assistance with transfers, had impairment one side to lower extremity, used a wheelchair and had limb prosthesis. Resident #50 required partial to moderate assistance with showering and bathing, lower body dressing below the waist, getting in and out of shower, and transferring from chair to wheelchair. He required substantial to maximal assistance with taking off and putting on footwear. Review of Resident #50's care plan dated 10/23/23 revealed a plan of care was in place for resident being independent on meeting emotional, intellectual, and social needs, however, at this time he is dependent on staff to meet some physical needs due to limitations. Interventions included, in part, to converse with resident while providing care, ensure adaptive equipment that the resident needs is provided and present and functional. Additionally, a plan of care was in place for at risk for falls related to gait and balance problems with an interventions to include, in part, call light within reach and requires a prompt response to all requests for assistance. Review of the camera footage timeline on an incident report dated 05/17/24 revealed the following: 10:42 AM Resident #50 entered the shower room. NA #8 followed Resident #50 and entered the shower room. 10:46 AM Nurse Aide #8 exited the shower room 10:48 AM Nurse Aide #8 reentered the shower room 10:49 AM Nurse Aide #8 exited the shower room 11:00 Call light in shower room sounds 11:16 AM Nurse Aide #8 entered the shower room 11:20 AM Nurse Aide #8 and Resident #50 exited shower room and went to Nurse #9 and were telling her something. An interview with Resident #50 on 06/14/24 at 1:00 PM revealed on 05/17/24, he was left unattended in the shower for over 15 minutes. He stated he was on the smoking porch and stated he wanted to get a shower early on this day because he had family coming. Resident #50 stated Nurse Aide (NA) #8 said he was not on her assignment, but that she would get him started in the shower. Resident #50 stated NA #8 took him to the shower and assisted with transferring him to the shower chair from his wheelchair and assisted him with getting undressed, removed his prosthetic leg and turned the shower on. Resident #50 stated he proceeded to bathe himself and washed his hair. He used the call bell to alert for help when he was done. He stated no one came after a few minutes so he turned the water again to keep himself warm and washed himself again while waiting for someone to answer the call bell. He stated he then started to yell for someone to come and help him, but no one came. Resident #50 stated the shower chair did not have wheels like his wheelchair so he was not able to move it easily, but he was able to reach a towel and dry off and reached his prosthetic leg and put it on. He stated he continued to yell, but still no one came. Resident #50 stated he then attempted to transfer himself from the shower chair to the wheelchair but he banged his leg and was not able to transfer himself safely. Resident #50 stated after about 15 minutes, NA #8 finally came back and helped him get out of the shower chair and transferred him to his wheelchair. An interview was conducted NA #8 on 06/14/24 at 2:35 PM. NA #8 reported she was on the smoking porch with Resident #50, and he reported he wanted a shower. He stated his aides from the 100 hall were busy so she told him she would get him in the shower. NA #8 stated she was assigned to the 200 hall, but she helped transfer Resident #50 to a shower chair from his wheelchair and assisted with removing his clothes and his prosthetic leg. She then turned on the water and he began to take his shower. NA #8 stated that she and Nurse #7, who was also assigned to the 200 hall, told Nurse #9 who was assigned to the 100 hall that they were going to the store to get soap which was located across the street and only minutes away. NA #8 stated they were back within 15 minutes or less and when they came back, they saw the shower light going off and Nurse #9 was sitting at the computer at the nursing station. NA #8 stated she went into the shower room and saw Resident #50 was still in the shower. She assisted him with getting dressed and brought him out of the shower room. She stated Resident #50 wanted to know why his aides left him in the shower room. NA #8 stated she was told by the Director of Nursing after it all happened that if she could not stay with a resident while in the shower, then do not give the shower to the resident and to leave it to the assigned nurse aides to do the shower. NA #8 stated she should not have left Resident #50 alone in the shower because no resident should be left alone while they were getting a shower for safety reasons. She stated Resident #50 could wash and dress himself, but he needed assistance with dressing, and he needed assistance pulling himself out of the shower chair to his wheelchair. NA #8 added, Resident #50 needed someone there to get him out of the shower and he was not safe to be left alone. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 06/13/24 at 11:45 AM. Nurse #7, who was not assigned to Resident #50, reported on 05/17/24, Resident #50 was out on the smoking porch and stated he had family coming in to see him today and he wanted a shower and NA #8 said she would give him one. NA #8 assisted Resident #50 in the shower. She stated after he was in the shower, she and NA #8 told Nurse #9 that they were leaving the facility to go to the store across the street to get soap and that Resident #50 was in the shower and for her to let his aides know so they could get him out. Nurse #7 reported they were at store for about 15 minutes and when they came back, the call light was on to the shower room and Nurse #9 was sitting at the nurse's station not answering the light. Nurse #7 stated NA #8 went to the shower room to assist Resident #50 out of the shower. Nurse #7 stated Nurse #9 did not tell the aides that were assigned to Resident #50 that he was in the shower and she did not answer the light when it rang. Nurse #7 stated anytime any resident was getting a shower, the nursing staff was to supervise the resident while in the shower to prevent any accidents and she should have made sure someone was supervising Resident #50 before she left for the store. An interview was conducted with Nurse #9 via phone on 06/13/24 at 2:19 PM. Nurse #9 reported she was the nurse assigned to the 100 hall on 05/17/24 where Resident #50 resided. She stated Resident #50 was upset about being left in the shower room and that no one was answering the call light to assist him. She stated Resident #50 told her that NA #8 had put him in the shower and left. Nurse #9 stated she had learned from NA #8 that she and Nurse #7 left the building to go to the store, but it was not until they returned. Nurse #9 stated neither NA #8 nor Nurse #7 reported to her that Resident #50 was in the shower or that they were going to the store. Nurse #9 stated she did not recall hearing the call light going off. An interview was conducted with NA #4 via phone on 06/18/24 at 10:39 AM. NA #4 reported she had worked at the facility as agency nurse aide for about 8 weeks. She stated she was assigned to Resident #50 on the 100 hall on 05/17/24. NA #4 reported she did not what had actually happened on 05/17/24 but was told someone put Resident #50 in the shower, but they did not inform her or NA #5 who was also assigned to Resident #50. NA #4 reported Resident #50 and Nurse #9 approached her and NA #5 while they were doing resident care for another resident and Resident #50 was yelling at us for leaving him in the shower, but they had no idea he was even in the shower and did not hear the call light because they were in another room down another hall. NA #4 stated whenever she gave Resident #50 a shower, she would assist him getting undressed, removing his prosthetic, and transferring him from the wheelchair to the shower chair. She stated she would provide privacy while he would bathe himself, but that in order to provide safety for the resident, she would not leave the shower area and leave the resident unattended. She stated no resident should be left in the shower area alone because they could fall and hurt themselves. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/14/24 at 11:00 AM. The DON reported that a nursing staff member should always be with a resident whenever they were getting a shower. The DON stated she did not know NA #8 and Nurse #7 left the building and it was not okay for them to leave without telling anyone. She stated her expectation of nursing staff was that residents should not be left in the shower alone because of the potential for an accident. The DON added Resident #50 had a mobility risk due to his impairment and he required supervision while in the shower.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

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 ensure a physician visit occurred for a resident within 30 d...

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 ensure a physician visit occurred for a resident within 30 days from admission for 1 of 8 sampled residents reviewed for physician visits (Residents #48). Findings included: Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included congestive heart failure, dementia, depression, anxiety, pain, seizures, hallucinations, and edema. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #48 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #48's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed she was not seen by the attending physician. Review of Resident #48's EMR revealed she was seen by Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 05/14/24. An interview was conducted on 06/14/24 at 11:15 AM with the Administrator. She stated their past Medical Director (MD) was not personally visiting their facility as often as he should have. The Administrator the stated reason for switching MD companies, was for that reason, MD was not visiting on site as often as needed. An interview was conducted on 06/14/24 at 3:45 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated the previous Medical Director (MD) was not visiting their facility as often as he should have. The DON revealed Resident #48 was admitted on [DATE] and had only been seen by a NP on 05/14/24, but never personally by her attending physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a performance review every 12 months for 1 of 5 nursing assistants (NAs) reviewed to ensure in-service education was design...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a performance review every 12 months for 1 of 5 nursing assistants (NAs) reviewed to ensure in-service education was designed to address the outcome of the performance reviews (Medication Aide #5). Findings included: Medication Aide #5's personnel file was reviewed and revealed a date of hire of 11/8/2019. The personnel file for Medication Aide #5 did not include evidence a performance review had been completed since the Medication Aide #5's date of hire. A phone interview was conducted on 7/1/2024 at 1:23 pm with Medication Aide #5. During the interview, Medication Aide #5 stated her annual performance evaluation was due in November 2023 and had not received a performance evaluation in the last year. A phone interview was conducted on 6/19/24 at 10:22 am with the Director of Nursing (DON). During the interview, the DON stated since starting at the facility in March 2024, she had not conducted a performance review for Medication Aide #5. The DON did not provide a reason as to why she had not conducted an annual performance review for Medication Aide #5. A phone interview was conducted on 6/19/24 at 12:25 pm with the Administrator who stated the DON was responsible for conducting the annual performance review for Medication Aide #5 and did not know the DON had not conducted the annual performance review.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and hospice staff interviews the facility failed to maintain communication and coordin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and hospice staff interviews the facility failed to maintain communication and coordination of services provided by hospice in the medical record complete with hospice admission documentation, hospice plan of care, and hospice visit notes in the facility's electronic medical record and failed to obtain physician orders for hospice services for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospice (Resident #48). Findings included: Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, dementia, seizures, and edema. Review of Resident #48's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #48 was coded as receiving Hospice services while a resident. A review of Resident #48's medical record revealed no evidence of the following: physician order for hospice services, hospice plan of care, facility hospice care plan, hospice certification statement, hospice nursing visit record forms, and no election of hospice form. The only documented hospice record found for Resident #48 were seven (7) notes written by facility nurses regarding hospice visits, but no hospice notes were present in resident's medical record. An interview was conducted on 06/13/24 at 9:35 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She revealed that it was her expectation that Hospice should have communicated more fully to facility staff. She said hospice failed to provide them with Resident #48's complete hospice record complete with hospice admission documentation, hospice plan of care, hospice visit notes, and documented hospice physician order. The DON said it was her expectation that there be a complete verbal and paper communication process between hospice and her nursing staff, and there was not. The DON then said she was ultimately responsible for not following up with Hospice as she should have, and for the facility not having a clear process in place to obtain and scan resident's Hospice medical records timely into their electronic medical record. An interview was conducted on interview with Medical Records on 06/13/24 at 10:10 AM. Medical Records confirmed Resident #48 was under Hospice care since 05/03/24. Medical Records stated she had not received: a resident hospice comprehensive care plan, hospice admission documentation, and hospice physician's order for hospice services. She indicated these documents should have been provided by the Hospice and were not. An interview was conducted on 06/13/24 at 10:24 AM with Hospice Nurse #12. She stated Resident #48 was visited by her weekly. She said she kept all her documentation on her electronic-pad and when she left, she did not provide copies of the notes to the nursing staff but gave a verbal report to a nursing staff member. She said she had visited the facility the day before and did not know the nurse she verbally reported off to. Hospice Nurse #12 did not know what happened to her verbal report information once the facility nurse left her shift. She said the resident was being well cared for by her and the facility's nursing staff. Hospice Nurse #12 revealed that not all Hospice documentation had been provided to the facility to scan into their electronic medical record. She said it was her expectation that Resident #48's complete Hospice medical records be available to facility staff. An interview on 06/14/24 at 10:20 AM with the facility Nurse Practitioner (NP) revealed that it was her expectation that Hospice provide to the facility all the Hospice documentation timely, which was not being done. The NP stated it was important to her and the attending physician to know what Hospice physicians were ordering and what their nursing staff were doing, so that Hospice and facility staff were communicating well and following the same plan of care, which had not happened in this case. An interview was conducted on 06/13/24 at 10:50 AM with the Administrator. She said it was her expectation that Resident #48's complete Hospice medical records be available to facility staff.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit a report of an allegation of neglect to Adult Protective Services (APS) and law enforcement within the required time frame fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit a report of an allegation of neglect to Adult Protective Services (APS) and law enforcement within the required time frame for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #46, #51, #269 and #419) reviewed for neglect. The facility was officially notified of neglect on 06/13/24 at 2:15 PM when an immediate jeopardy template was issued. The facility did not notify APS or law enforcement within the required time frame following notification. Findings included: Review of the facility provided initial allegation report dated 06/14/24 regarding Residents #46, #51, #269, and #419 revealed no documentation of APS being notified and no record of law enforcement notification. During an annual recertification survey and complaint investigation, the facility was officially notified of neglect on 06/13/24 at 2:15 PM and an immediate jeopardy template was issued to the Administrator. The immediate jeopardy template was signed by the Administrator and the Administrator was verbally informed of the information regarding the situation involving neglect. Review of the state agency records revealed the facility submitted an initial report to the State Agency within the required time frame following the notification of neglect, however documentation supported that the facility did not notify law enforcement or APS until 06/16/24. During a phone interview with the facility Administrator on 06/17/24 at 4:30 PM, she stated she submitted an initial allegation report to the State Agency regarding the neglect information provided on the template which she had received on 06/13/24. She stated since the neglect was identified by the state surveying staff and she received a template for the immediate jeopardy she was confused as to whether or not she would still have to notify APS and law enforcement. She stated it was not until she was reviewing the template and the initial allegation report on 06/16/24 when she realized she should notify law enforcement and APS and on 06/16/24 she notified both.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the required timeframe for 5 of 29 residents reviewed for MDS assessments (Resident #269, Resident #17, Resident #9, Resident #24 and Resident #16). Findings included: a. Resident #269 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #269's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] was completed on 5/15/24. An interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #2 on 6/11/24 at 1:57 PM. MDS Nurse #2 stated she had been in training since she started in May taking online MDS courses to learn the requirements for the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated since she was still learning it was the Remote MDS Nurse that completed the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated she was told the MDS assessments were behind. An interview with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:41 PM revealed there had been personnel changes in the role of MDS Nurse several times since she started in February. The Administrator stated she was aware MDS assessments were not completed within the regulatory timeframe, and she was looking for a solution. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM revealed she was aware that the MDS assessments were not completed in a timely manner due to staffing changes. The DON stated the expectation was that MDS assessments would be completed in a timely manner. b. Resident #17 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #17's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/12/24. An interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #2 on 6/11/24 at 1:57 PM. MDS Nurse #2 stated she had been in training since she started in May taking online MDS courses to learn the requirements for the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated since she was still learning it was the Remote MDS Nurse that completed the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated she was told the MDS assessments were behind. An interview with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:41 PM revealed there had been personnel changes in the role of MDS Nurse several times since she started in February. The Administrator stated she was aware MDS assessments were not completed within the regulatory timeframe, and she was looking for a solution. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM revealed she was aware that the MDS assessments were not completed in a timely manner due to staffing changes. The DON stated the expectation was that MDS assessments would be completed in a timely manner. c. Resident #9 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #9's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/12/24. An interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #2 on 6/11/24 at 1:57 PM. MDS Nurse #2 stated she had been in training since she started in May taking online MDS courses to learn the requirements for the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated since she was still learning it was the Remote MDS Nurse that completed the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated she was told the MDS assessments were behind. An interview with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:41 PM revealed there had been personnel changes in the role of MDS Nurse several times since she started in February. The Administrator stated she was aware MDS assessments were not completed within the regulatory timeframe, and she was looking for a solution. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM revealed she was aware that the MDS assessments were not completed in a timely manner due to staffing changes. The DON stated the expectation was that MDS assessments would be completed in a timely manner. d. Resident #24 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #24's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/12/24. An interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #2 on 6/11/24 at 1:57 PM. MDS Nurse #2 stated she had been in training since she started in May taking online MDS courses to learn the requirements for the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated since she was still learning it was the Remote MDS Nurse that completed the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated she was told the MDS assessments were behind. An interview with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:41 PM revealed there had been personnel changes in the role of MDS Nurse several times since she started in February. The Administrator stated she was aware MDS assessments were not completed within the regulatory timeframe, and she was looking for a solution. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM revealed she was aware that the MDS assessments were not completed in a timely manner due to staffing changes. The DON stated the expectation was that MDS assessments would be completed in a timely manner. e. Resident #16 was readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #16's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 5/27/24. An interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #2 on 6/11/24 at 1:57 PM. MDS Nurse #2 stated she had been in training shince she started in May taking online MDS courses to learn the requirements for the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated since she was still learning it was the Remote MDS Nurse that completed the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated she was told the MDS assessments were beind. An interview with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:41 PM revealed there had been personnel changes in the role of MDS Nurse several times since she started in February. The Administrator stated she was aware MDS assessments were not completed within the regulatory timeframe, and she was lokking for a solution. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM revealed she was aware that the MDS assessments were not completed in a timely manner due to staffing changes. The DON stated the expectation was that MDS assessments would be completed in a timely manner.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly assessments within the required 14-day ti...

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 quarterly assessments within the required 14-day timeframe for 14 of 29 residents reviewed for quarterly MDS assessments. (Resident #20, Resident #36, Resident #51, Resident #22, Resident #38, Resident #61, Resident #63, Resident #5, Resident #21, Resident #47, Resident #7, Resident #14, Resident #26, and Resident #58). Findings included: a. Resident #20 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #20's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was listed as in progress and was incomplete. b. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #36's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/11/24. c. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/4/24. d. Resident #22 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #22's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 5/30/24. e. Resident #38 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #38's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/11/24. f. Resident #61 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #61's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/11/24. g. Resident #63 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #63's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/13/24. h. Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/11/24. i. Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/4/24. j. Resident #47 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #47's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/13/24. k. Resident #7 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/5/24. l. Resident #14 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #14's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/13/24. m. Resident #26 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #26's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 6/11/24. n. Resident #58 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #58's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] was listed as in progress and was not completed. An interview was conducted on 06/17/24 at 1:37 PM with the Remote MDS Nurse. She stated she was aware that MDS assessments were not completed within the state designated time frame. The Remote MDS Nurse stated she was contracted on 04/30/24 to complete MDS assessments and the facility was behind on assessments when she started. An interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #2 on 6/11/24 at 1:57 PM. MDS Nurse #2 stated she started in May and was training taking online MDS courses to learn the requirements for the assessments. MDS Nurse #2 stated since she was still learning it was the Remote MDS Nurse that completed assessments since she started. MDS Nurse #2 stated she was told the MDS assessments were behind. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/11/24 at 1:42 PM. The Administrator stated she had been in the position since February of this year. The Administrator stated there had been changes in the role of MDS Nurse several times since she started. The Administrator stated due to the changes in personnel, the MDS assessments were behind and were not completed in a timely manner. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM revealed there was a problem with the MDS Assessments not being completed in a timely manner due to staffing changes.
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 #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #8's Physician Orders revealed an order for Rivaroxaban (a blood thinner) 5 mg every day for chronic atrial fibrillation written on 8/19/23. Resident #8's Medication Administration Record 8/19/23 was reviewed and indicated she received Rivaroxaban 5 mg by mouth daily since she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #8 was not coded as receiving anticoagulants on a scheduled or routine basis. During an interview with the MDS nurse on 6/17/24 at 10:08 am she further indicated she was completing MDS assessments remotely. She also indicated it could have been not coded for anticoagulant use in error. In an interview with the Administrator on 6/17/24 at 11:07 am she indicated the MDS should be coded and processed accurately. 2. Resident #61 was admitted on [DATE] to the facility. Diagnoses included a condition in which the immune system attacks the nerves and pain. A review of the physician's orders recorded an order for Methadone HCL (a long acting opioid medication) 5 milligrams (mg) two tablets twice a day for pain was written on 2/1/2024 for Resident #61. The April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded Resident #61 was receiving Methadone HCL twice a day. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #61 was cognitively intact and was not receiving opioids (pain relieving medications). Resident #61's care plan dated 6/11/2024 included a focus for pain. Interventions included administering analgesics (medications that relieve pain) per physician orders and to evaluate the effectiveness in relieving pain. The June 2024 MAR recorded Resident #61 continued to receive Methadone HCL 5 mg twice a day. On 6/19/2024 at 11:19 a.m. in a phone interview with the Remote MDS Nurse for the facility, she explained based on her notes from reviewing Resident #61's electronic medical record (EMR) when completing the MDS assessment, Resident #61 was not on any opioids. After the Remote MDS Nurse reviewed Resident #61's EMR, she stated Resident #61 was receiving Methadone, an opioid, daily when the quarterly assessment dated [DATE] was completed. She said she missed coding Resident #61's MDS assessment for opioid. She explained it was an oversight or a stroke of the computer key error. On 6/19/2024 at 10:22 a.m. in a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained due to the inconsistency of having a MDS nurse in the facility, the facility was using a Remote MDS nurse to complete MDS assessments. She explained the Remote MDS Nurse used information in the EMR that could lead to inadequate MDS assessment of Resident #61 use of opioids. The DON stated she had not conducted any monitoring related to the accuracy of completed MDS assessments by the Remote MDS Nurse. On 6/19/2024 at 12:25 p.m in a phone interview with the Administrator, she stated the DON oversaw MDS assessments to ensure completed correctly, and Resident #61's MDS assessment should had included the use of opioids. Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 of 26 residents reviewed (Resident #50, Resident #61, and Resident #8 ). Findings included: 1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included peripheral vascular disease, and diabetic foot ulcer. Review of pharmacy consultant notes written on 01/22/24 and 02/15/24 revealed the resident had a diagnosis of diabetic foot infection and chronic inflammatory polyneuropathy. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] did not have Resident #50 coded as having a venous or arterial ulcer or as having a diabetic foot ulcer. Review of the care plan dated 03/08/24 revealed Resident #50 had a plan of care for diabetes mellitus with interventions to include inspect feet daily for open areas, sores, pressure areas, blisters, edema or redness; and a plan of care for potential pressure area related to decreased mobility and peripheral vascular disease with interventions to include monitor/document location, size and treatment of skin injury, report abnormalities, failure to heal, signs or symptoms of infection to physician and weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown, width, length, depth, type of tissue and exudate and other notable changes or observations. A review of the physician's order written on 10/23/23 revealed an order to cleanse left heel topically with a topical medication every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for wound healing. This was discontinued on 05/10/24. A phone interview was conducted with the remote MDS nurse on 06/18/24 at 12:59 PM revealed she was a contract employee and had been at the facility since April 30, 2024. She stated she worked remotely and she had access to the electronic medical records so she could complete the assessments based on the documentation in the look back period. She stated she reviewed physician orders, diagnoses, nursing progress notes and nursing assessments in order to accurately code the MDS. She added, she did not do any actual face to face assessments. She stated she was able to retrieve the information about the resident by reviewing the documentation. The remote MDS nurse reviewed Resident #50's medical record at this time and confirmed that he was admitted with a diabetic foot ulcer and was receiving treatments for this wound since admission. The remote MDS nurse stated she should have coded him as having a diabetic foot ulcer. A phone interview was conducted on 06/19/24 at 4:00 PM with the Administrator. The Administrator stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She reported the MDS nurse was responsible for accurately coding the MDS assessments.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke. Physician's orders dated 4/26/2024 inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke. Physician's orders dated 4/26/2024 included an order for Xarelto (an anticoagulant medication that prevents or break down blood clots) 20 milligrams (mg) via gastrostomy tube (G-Tube) in the evening for anticoagulation. Resident #16's April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded Xarelto 20 mg was administered 4/27/2024, 4/28/2024 and 4/29/2024. Nursing documentation dated 4/29/2024 at 8:25pm reported Resident #16 was coughing up blood and bleeding profusely from the nose. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called to transport Resident #16 to the hospital. Resident #16 was discharged to the hospital on 4/29/2024 and was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 5-day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 was severely impaired cognitively. The Resident #16's MDS was not coded for receiving anticoagulants. Resident #16's comprehensive care plan dated 5/15/2024 did not include a focus for the use of anticoagulants. Resident #16's MAR from 5/9/2024 through 6/13/2024 revealed Resident #16 received Xarelto 20 mg as ordered. On 6/19/2024 at 11:19 am in a phone interview with the Remote MDS Nurse, she explained she was responsible for completing the comprehensive care plans after completing the MDS assessment. She stated based on the physician's order and documentation of administration of the Xarelto daily, the use of anticoagulants should have been included on the comprehensive care plan for Resident #16. She said it was an oversight on her part. On 6/19/2024 at 10:22 am in a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained the Remote MDS nurse or MDS Nurse at the facility was responsible for updating Resident #16's comprehensive care plan to include the use of anticoagulants and stated Resident #16 should have been care planned for the use of anticoagulants. The DON explained due to resignations of previous MDS nurses since March 2024 and a back log of MDS assessments to complete, the MDS nurses were unable to dedicate sufficient time in developing a comprehensive care plan for Resident #16. On 6/19/2024 at 12:25 pm in a phone interview with the Administrator, she stated the Director of Nursing was responsible to ensure the MDS nurses completed Resident #16's comprehensive care plan to included anticoagulants. Based on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan as indicated by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) care area assessment to include: the areas of psychosocial wellbeing, falls, nutrition, vision, communication, pressure ulcers, dental, pain, activities of daily living, and dehydration (Resident #11), at risk for nutritional status (Resident #219 and Resident #34), assistance with activities of daily living, nutrition, and urinary incontinence (Resident #52); and for not developing a comprehensive care plan for a resident receiving anticoagulant medication (blood thinner) (Resident #16). This was for 5 of 26 residents reviewed. Finding included: 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including in part; dementia, hearing loss, and cerebral vascular accident (CVA). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 had moderately impaired cognition. He had moderate difficulty hearing, and difficulty communicating some words or thoughts. He had impaired vision and used corrective lenses. He had no falls and was at risk for falls. No pressure ulcers and at risk of pressure ulcers. He had broken teeth and received pain medication. He required assistance with activities of daily living. The care area assessment dated [DATE] indicated to initiate care plans in the following areas: psychosocial wellbeing, falls, nutrition, vision, communication, pressure ulcers, dental, pain, activities of daily living, and dehydration. Review of Resident #11's electronic medical record from admission on [DATE] through 06/19/24 revealed no care plan in place for Resident #11 to address psychosocial wellbeing, falls, nutrition, vision, communication, pressure ulcers, dental, pain, activities of daily living, or dehydration. During a phone interview on 06/19/24 at 2:05 PM the MDS nurse stated she worked for an agency that was contracted with the facility and completed MDS assessments and care plans remotely. She began working for the facility on 04/30/24. She indicated although she was not the person that was responsible for creating the initial comprehensive care plan for Resident #11, the care plans should have been completed from the care areas that triggered on the MDS admission assessment. She reviewed the MDS and care plan for Resident #11 and agreed a care plan should have been implemented in the areas of psychosocial wellbeing, falls, nutrition, vision, communication, pressure ulcers, dental, pain, activities of daily living, or dehydration. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 4:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was not aware that care plans were not implemented for Resident #11. She stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She indicated care plans should be developed and implemented according to the required CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid) guidelines. During a phone interview on 06/19/24 at 4:00 PM the Administrator stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She reported the MDS nurse was responsible for developing care plans and care plans should have been initiated for Resident #11. She reported they currently utilized an agency MDS nurse who worked remotely, and she planned to get an MDS nurse back in the facility as soon as possible. 2. Resident #219 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including cellulitis of the left lower limb and diabetes. The MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #219 was cognitively intact. She received wound care and a therapeutic diet. The care area assessment dated [DATE] indicated to initiate a care plan that included nutritional status. Review of Resident #219's electronic medical record from admission on [DATE] through 06/19/24 revealed no care plan in place for Resident #219 to address Nutritional status with measurable goals and interventions. During a phone interview on 06/19/24 at 2:05 PM the MDS nurse stated she was responsible for initiating the comprehensive care plan for Resident #219. She reported that she missed initiating the care plan as indicated on the MDS admission assessment in the area of nutrition. She stated it was done in error. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 4:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was not aware that care plans were not implemented for Resident #219. She stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She indicated care plans should be developed and implemented according to the required CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid) guidelines. During a phone interview on 06/19/24 at 4:00 PM the Administrator stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She reported the MDS nurse was responsible for developing care plans and care plans should have been initiated for Resident #219. She reported they currently utilized an agency MDS nurse who worked remotely, and she planned to get an MDS nurse back in the facility as soon as possible. 3. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, in part, dementia, seizures, syncope and chronic kidney disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 was severely cognitively impaired and required assistance with activities of daily living and was occasionally incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. Resident #52's weight was recorded as 193 pounds and there were no nutritional approaches indicated. The care area assessment dated [DATE] indicated to initiate care plans in the following areas: activities of daily living, urinary incontinence, and nutritional status. Review of Resident #52's electronic medical record from admission on [DATE] through 06/19/24 revealed there were no care plans in place to address nutritional status, activities of daily living, or urinary incontinence. An interview was conducted on 06/14/24 at 4:00 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was not aware that care plans were not implemented for Resident #52. She stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She indicated care plans should be developed and implemented according to the required CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid) guidelines. A phone interview was conducted on 06/19/24 at 2:05 PM with the MDS nurse. The MDS nurse stated she worked for an agency that was contracted with the facility and completed MDS assessments and care plans remotely. She began working for the facility on 04/30/24. She indicated although she was not the person that was responsible for creating the initial comprehensive care plan for Resident #52, the care plans should have been completed from the care areas that triggered on the MDS admission assessment. She reviewed the MDS and care plan for Resident #52 and agreed a care plan should have been implemented in the areas of nutritional status, activities of daily living and urinary incontinence. A phone interview was conducted on 06/19/24 at 4:00 PM with the Administrator. The Administrator stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She reported the MDS nurse was responsible for developing care plans and care plans should have been initiated for Resident #52. She reported they currently utilized an agency MDS nurse who worked remotely, and she planned to get an MDS nurse back in the facility as soon as possible. 4. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, in part, cancer, anxiety and depression, acquired absence of kidney, and dementia. The MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 was moderately cognitively impaired; weight was recorded as 155 pounds and he was on a mechanically altered diet. The MDS quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #34 was coded as coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications and weight was recorded as 139 pounds. Resident #34 had a weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or a loss of 10% or more in last 6 months and was on a mechanically altered diet. Review of Resident #34's electronic medical record from admission on [DATE] through 06/19/24 revealed there was no care plan in place to address nutritional status. An interview was conducted with the DON on 06/14/24 at 4:00 PM. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was not aware that the nutritional care plan was not implemented for Resident #34. She stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She indicated care plans should be developed and implemented according to the required CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid) guidelines. A phone interview was conducted on 06/19/24 at 2:05 PM with the MDS nurse. The MDS nurse stated she worked for an agency that was contracted with the facility and completed MDS assessments and care plans remotely. She began working for the facility on 04/30/24. She indicated although she was not the person that was responsible for creating the initial comprehensive care plan for Resident #34, the care plans should have been completed from the care area that triggered on the MDS admission assessment. She reviewed the MDS and care plan for Resident #34 and agreed a care plan should have been implemented for nutritional status. A phone interview was conducted on 06/19/24 at 4:00 PM with the Administrator. The Administrator stated there had been staff turnover with the MDS nurses. She reported the MDS nurse was responsible for developing care plans and the care plan should have been initiated for Resident #34. She reported they currently utilized an agency MDS nurse who worked remotely, and she planned to get an MDS nurse back in the facility as soon as possible.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #319 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, aphasia, and a r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #319 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, aphasia, and a recent history of a cerebral vascular accident (stroke) with hemiplegia (loss of strength or almost complete weakness on one side of the body). Review of Resident #319's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed the admission assessment completed on 5/1/24. A review of Resident #319's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed no care plan was intiated until 6/13/24. During an interview with the Remote MDS nurse on 6/17/24 at 10:08 am she revealed that assessments were completed late because the previous nurse could not get caught up. She further indicated she was completing MDS assessments remotely. During a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/18/24 at11:14 am she stated the MDS nurse was responsible for developing the care plans. She further stated she did not know why this was not completed for Resident #319. In an interview with the Administrator on 6/17/24 at 11:07 am she indicated the care plans should be completed within the regulatory timeframe. Based on record review, resident interviews, resident representative interviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or the responsible party was involved in the care planning process (Resident #61 and Resident #16), to revise a resident's care plan with new fall interventions (Resident #47), and to develop a care plan within 7 days after completion of the comprehensive assessment (Resident #319). This deficient practice affected 4 of 26 residents reviewed for care planning. Findings included: 1. a. Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #61 was cognitively intact. There was no documentation of the facility having a care plan meeting with Resident #61 or Resident #61's Representative in Resident #61's medical record. On 6/10/2024 at 2:00pm in an interview with Resident #61, he stated since his admission to the facility he had not had a care plan meeting with the different disciplines involved in his care to discuss a plan of care to prepare him for a discharge to the community. On 6/14/2024 at 11:23 am in an interview with the Social Worker, she explained she and the former MDS Nurse in the facility provided dates each month to the receptionist to schedule initial care plan meetings after residents were admitted to the facility. She stated she could not recall having a care plan meeting with Resident #61 and did not know why Resident #61's initial admission care plan meeting was not conducted in January 2024. She explained the facility did not have a process established indicating who was responsible for resident care plan meetings and stated not having a MDS Nurse located in the facility served as a barrier in communicating when care plan meetings were to be conducted. She said Resident #61's quarterly care plan meeting had not occurred because care plan meetings were not being conducted at the facility due to not having a consistent MDS Nurse. On 6/14/2024 at 3:14 pm in an interview with the Director of Nursing, she said she could not recall attending a care plan meeting for Resident #61 and was unable to locate documentation in Resident #61's medical record that a care plan meeting was conducted. b. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], discharged from the facility on 4/29/2024 to the hospital, and readmitted on [DATE] to the facility. The 5-day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 was severely cognitively impaired. There was no documentation of a care plan meeting with Resident #16's Representative in Resident #16's medical record. On 6/10/2024 at 3:33 pm in a phone interview with Resident #16's Representative, she said the facility had not conducted a care plan meeting to discuss a plan of care with Resident #16's Representatives. She reported that Resident #16 was not able to communicate his needs. On 6/14/2024 at 11:23 am in an interview with the Social Worker, she explained she and the former MDS Nurse in the facility provided dates each month to the receptionist to schedule initial care plan meetings after residents were admitted to the facility. She stated she could not recall having a care plan meeting with Resident #16 or Resident #16's Representatives. She explained the facility did not have a process established indicating who was responsible for resident care plan meetings and stated not having a MDS Nurse located in the facility served as a barrier in communicating when care plan meetings were to be conducted. She said Resident #16's initial admission care plan meeting had not occurred because care plan meetings were not being conducted at the facility due to not having a consistent MDS Nurse. On 6/14/2024 at 3:14 pm in an interview with the Director of Nursing, she said she could not recall attending a care plan meeting for Resident #16 or with Resident #16's Representative and was unable to locate documentation in Resident #16's medical record that a care plan meeting was conducted to develop a individualized plan of care for Resident #16. On 6/13/2024 at 5:55 pm in an interview with the Social Worker, Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator present, the Social Worker stated care plan meetings were recorded in the resident's medical record by herself (Social Worker) or the MDS Nurse, and the Remote MDS Nurse was not at the facility to conduct care plan meetings. The DON stated due to the MDS Nurse working remotely, care plan meetings were not held. The Administrator stated the DON was responsible for ensuring care plan meeting were conducted as scheduled. In a follow-up interview conducted with the DON by phone on 6/19/2024 at 10:22 am, she explained since March 2024 when she started at the facility, there had not been a MDS Nurse in the facility consistently to coordinate care plan meetings with the Social Worker. On 6/19/2024 at 12:25 pm in a phone interview with the Administrator, she explained the MDS coordinator was responsible for coordinating, scheduling and communicating to the interdisciplinary team members, residents and resident representatives when care plan meetings were to be conducted for residents. She stated when she started at the facility in February 2024, there was not a clear process for conducting care plan meetings. She reported she had been busy searching for staff to fill the MDS vacant position since she had not been able to find a permanent MDS Nurse. She said the Director of Nursing was responsible for the MDS department and ensuring care plan meetings were conducted to discussed with residents and/or residents' representatives the development and implementation of an individualized person centered residents' care plans. 2. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #47 was cognitively intact, required assistance from a sitting to a standing position and independently could walk up to fifty feet and self-propel a manual wheelchair. A review of Resident #47's fall incident reports dated 4/16/2024 and 5/29/2024 indicated the following: - On 4/16/2024 the resident sustained a fall and a new intervention was implemented to request for Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) to perform a medication review. - On 5/29/2024 the resident sustained a fall and a new intervention was implemented to remind resident not to stand from the wheelchair alone without two-person assist. On 6/11/2024, the quarterly MDS assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/3/2024 was recorded as still in process. Resident #47's care plan dated 12/14/2021 and last reviewed on 6/11/2024 indicated Resident #47 had a history of falling and was at risk for falling that could result in an injury due to impaired mobility and use of psychotropic medications (medications that affect the brain chemicals involved in mental health disorders). Interventions included keeping the bed in lowest position, keeping the call bell within reach and encouraging Resident #47 to use the call bell to request assistance to get out of the bed. The goals for falls included free of injury and free of falls until next review date. The interventions indicated on the incident reports for the 4/16/2024 and 5/29/2024 falls were not included on this care plan that was last reviewed on 6/11/2024. On 6/13/2024, the new interventions from the 4/16/1024 and 5/29/2024 falls were added to Resident #47's care plan. On 6/19/2024 at 11:19 am in a phone interview with Remote MDS Nurse, she stated she updated or completed comprehensive care plans after the MDS assessment was completed, and Resident #47's comprehensive care plan for falls was updated on 6/13/2024 after the quarterly assessment with an ARD date of 5/3/2024 was completed and sent for processing. She explained Resident #47's comprehensive care plan was a live documentation tool and nursing staff at the facility was responsible for updating Resident #47's care plan to record falls and new interventions. The Remote MDS Nurse stated she didn't see where Resident #47's care plan had been updated and based on the documentation in Resident #47's electronic medical record, she had updated the care plan for falls on 6/13/2024. On 6/19/2024 at 10:22 am in a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated the MDS Nurse in the facility attended a risk meeting held after the clinical morning meetings to discuss falls, and the MDS Nurse was responsible for updating Resident #47's care plan after a fall was reported and new interventions implemented. She said the MDS Nurse and herself (the DON) updated resident care plans. She explained that due to the inconsistency of a MDS Nurse in the facility and with the back log MDS assessments that needed completed, the MDS Nurse had not been able to make revisions in Resident #47's care plan. She stated she had not updated Resident #47's care plan with the new interventions on 4/16/2024 and 5/29/2024 and did not provide a reason for not updating the care plan. She also stated she had not communicated with the Remote MDS Nurse to make revisions to Resident #47's fall care plan On 6/19/2024 at 12:25 pm in a phone interview with the Administrator, she stated the Director of Nursing and the MDS nurse were responsible for developing and updating Resident #47's care plan to prevent falls. She explained the MDS Nurse assigned to work in the facility was learning the MDS process and working on the back log of MDS assessments that needed to be completed and she thought the DON was transitioning the staff nurses to help with the development and revision of resident care plans, but the transition had not occurred.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #419 was admitted to the facility most recently on 08/07/23. Diagnoses included, in part, a sacral stage 4 pressure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #419 was admitted to the facility most recently on 08/07/23. Diagnoses included, in part, a sacral stage 4 pressure ulcer, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke (cerebral infarction) affecting his dominant right side. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment date 02/09/24 revealed Resident #419 had severely impaired cognition. Both upper and lower extremities on one side were impaired. He had one stage 4 pressure ulcer and one deep tissue injury that were not present on admission. He had received pressure ulcer care. The care plan for Resident #419 revised on 03/05/24 documented a focus area of antibiotic therapy. The goal was for the resident to be free of any discomfort or adverse side effects of antibiotic therapy through the review date. Interventions included administering antibiotic medication as ordered by the physician and to monitor and document any side effects, the effectiveness, and any signs of secondary infection related to the antibiotic therapy. 2a. The March 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician order: Change IV (intravenous) site every day shift every 3 day(s) for infection control-Start date 03/01/24; End date 03/23/24. The MAR was coded 5 on 03/04/24 (indicating the IV site change was held) and was left blank on 03/10/24. Review of the progress notes dated 03/04/24 revealed Agency Nurse #6 documented the IV site change was to be held and that another nurse would change the IV site the following day. In an interview with Agency Nurse #6 on 06/26/24 at 12:10 PM she stated she was told on 03/04/24 not to change Resident #419's IV site because a Registered Nurse would be at the facility the next day and she would change the IV site. She could not remember who told her to hold the IV site change and did not know if the site had been changed the next day. Review of the progress notes and MAR for 03/05/24 revealed no documentation that the IV site for Resident #419 had been changed. In an interview with Nurse #5 on 06/26/24 she stated she was familiar with Resident #419 but could not remember taking care of him on 03/10/24 or changing his IV site on that date. She stated that she was not normally on his assignment, and it was too long ago to recall. 2b. Resident #419 had physician orders dated 2/23/24 for IV antibiotic daily for 4 weeks. A progress note written by Agency Nurse #2 on 3/15/24 at 3:38 pm documented Resident #419's IV had infiltrated (came out of the vein and leaked fluid into the surrounding tissue) and she was not able to give the 1:00 pm dose of antibiotic. She made two unsuccessful attempts to restart the IV. A progress note written by Nurse #13 on 03/16/24 at 12:28 am documented she attempted one time to place an IV in Resident #419's left forearm and was unsuccessful. Progress notes written by Medication Aide #5 on 03/16/24 at 11:24 am and 12:14 pm documented Resident #419 did not receive his antibiotic medications because he did not have an IV. A progress note written by Agency Nurse #2 on 03/17/24 at 4:36 pm documented an IV site was acquired and the antibiotics restarted. The MAR for 03/17/24 indicated Resident #419's antibiotics were not documented with a check mark that would have indicated the medications had been administered. A progress note written by Agency Nurse #3 on 03/20/24 at 6:49 pm documented Resident #419 ' s IV had not been working since the beginning of the shift. She attempted to restart the IV three times and the charge nurse tried to restart the IV two times, but all 5 attempts were unsuccessful. In an interview with Nurse #3 on 6/12/24 at 1:55 PM she stated while she was working the IV site stopped working and she tried to restart the IV but could not. She commented that Resident #419 was a hard stick (meaning it was difficult to start his IV). Another agency nurse on duty tried and could not get the IV started. She passed on in report to the next nurse the unsuccessful attempts to restart the IV. She noted the nursing supervisor on duty also tried to start the IV and could not. She did not know the names of the other two nurses but thought they were also from an agency. She cared for Resident #419 on 03/19/24 and 03/20/24. A progress note written by Agency Nurse #2 on 03/22/24 at 3:51 pm documented she had tried to start an IV for Resident #419, but the attempt was unsuccessful. In an interview with Agency Nurse #2 on 6/12/24 at 1:50 PM she stated she was not sure if she had tried to restart his IV access or not. She cared for Resident #419 on 03/15/24 and 03/22/24. A progress note written by Nurse #13 on 03/23/24 documented Resident #419 did not receive his antibiotics because he had no IV access. In an interview with the Wound Care Nurse on 06/12/14 at 12:30 PM she stated the Nurse Practitioner (NP) was aware the IV was out. She noted the NP was supposed to come to the facility and restart the IV. She cared for Resident #419 on 03/23/34. In an interview with Nurse #20 on 07/01/24 at 10:10 am she stated she had cared for Resident #419 on 03/16/24, 03/19/24, and 03/21/24. She recalled when she assessed him to start an IV site, she could not find a vein. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to contact the NP on 06/12/14 at 1:48 PM and 3:36 PM. She had been employed at the facility in March 2024. An additional attempt was made on 06/13/24 at 3:07 PM with no response. Other attempts were made to contact the NP by different surveyors on the team throughout the survey week with no response. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made on 06/12/14 at 1:50 PM and 3:33 PM to contact the physician employed at the facility in March 2024. An additional attempt was made on 06/13/24 at 3:00 PM with no response. Other attempts were made to contact the physician by different surveyors on the team throughout the survey week with no response. In an interview with the current Agency DON (Director of Nursing) on 06/12/24 at 1:05 PM she stated she became employed at the facility on 03/25/24. She commented if she had been employed when the facility nurses could not establish IV access, she would have first tried to start the IV herself and if unsuccessful she would have called the provider, obtained an order for a PICC line and would have sent the resident out to have IV access established within 24 hours of the first unsuccessful attempt to re-establish IV access. Based on observations, record review, and resident, staff, and Wound Care Physician's interviews the facility failed to 1) perform daily wound care treatments to a non-pressure diabetic foot ulcer and implement a hind off-loading boot (a specific boot to reduce pressure on a specific part of the foot to allow a wound to heal) according to the Wound Care Physicians' orders for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #50) observed for wound care; and 2) follow physician orders to change an intravenous (IV) site every 3 days and to provide an intervention to establish IV access for a resident ordered to receive long term antibiotic therapy for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for IV medication administration (Resident #419). Findings included: 1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included right below the knee amputation, peripheral vascular disease, left leg cellulitis, and diabetic foot ulcer. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident was cognitively intact and demonstrated no behaviors. Resident #50's was not coded as having a pressure ulcer, venous and arterial ulcer or as having a diabetic foot ulcer. Review of the care plan updated on 05/09/24 revealed Resident #50 had a plan of care for diabetes mellitus with interventions to include, in part, inspect feet daily for open areas, sores, pressure areas, blisters, edema or redness, and a plan of care for potential pressure area related to decreased mobility and peripheral vascular disease with interventions ton include monitor/document location, size and treatment of skin injury, report abnormalities, failure to heal, signs or symptoms of infection to physician and weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown, width, length, depth, type of tissue and exudate and other notable changes or observations. Review of the wound treatment assessments revealed the following measurements and wound orders for the diabetic wound of the left heel for Resident #50: On 04/30/24 the measurements to the left heel were recorded as 2.0 X 2.0 X 0.2 centimeters (cm) with indication the wound was improving. The treatment was silva sorb gel (antimicrobial agent), and xeroform (a pad applied to a wound to promote healing and protect the wound from harm) and wrap with kerlix. . On 05/07/24 the measurements to the left heel were recorded as 2.6 X 2.6 X 0.2 (cm) with indication that the wound was unchanged. The treatment was to apply Medi honey (helps prevent bacteria from growing), silver alginate (antimicrobial) and cover with gauze daily. Review of the Wound Care Physicians' wound evaluation and management summary for diabetic wound of left foot dated 05/20/24 revealed the measurements to the left heel were recorded as 2.8 X 2.8 X 0.3 (cm) with 40% slough and 60 % granulation tissue (healthy tissue) with a surface area of 7.84 (cm). The note indicated the wound was surgically debrided at this time and as a result of the procedure the wound bed decreased from 40 percent to 10 percent. The recommendations were to order a hind off-loading boot and apply Santyl (helps remove dead skin tissue and aides in wound healing) with xeroform and cover with gauze daily. A review of the physician's orders written on 05/21/24 revealed to cleanse wound with normal saline, apply Santyl with xeroform and secure with gauze daily. There was no order for a hind off-loading boot to the left heel wound. Review of the Treatment Administration Record for May 2024 revealed on 05/25/24, the wound treatment order was not signed off as evidenced by nursing initials or a check mark. Additionally, there was no order on the Treatment Administration Record for a hind off-loading boot to left heel wound. Record review revealed there was no documentation to support the dressing to the left heel wound was changed on Saturday 05/25/24. Review of the Wound Care Physicians' wound evaluation and management summary for diabetic wound of left foot dated 05/27/24 revealed the measurements to the left heel were recorded was 3.0 x 2.2 X 0.1 (cm) with 100 % granulation tissue (healthy tissue) with a surface area of 6.60 (cm). The note indicated the wound was improving as evidenced by decreased surface area. A recommendation for a hind off-loading boot was indicated. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager (UM) #1 on 06/14/24 at 1:17 PM. UM # 1 revealed she was assigned to the hall Resident #50 resided on 05/25/24. She stated if a there was nothing charted in the treatment administration record on 05/25/24 then it meant that the treatment was not done. UM #1 reported she was not aware of an order for a hind off-loading boot for Resident #50. Review of the Wound Care Physicians' wound evaluation and management summary for diabetic wound of left foot dated 06/03/24 revealed the measurements to the left heel were recorded as 3.6 X 2.8 X 0.1 (cm) with indication the wound was unchanged. The treatment was changed to cleanse left heel with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and Medi honey and wrap with gauze daily. The note indicated the wound was surgically debrided at this time and as a result of the procedure the wound bed decreased from 20 percent to 0. The recommendation was to order a hind off-loading boot. A review of the physician orders dated 06/03/24 revealed an order to cleanse left heel with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and Medi honey and wrap with gauze daily. Review of the Treatment Administration Record for June 2024 revealed on 06/09/24 the wound treatment order was not signed off as evidenced by nursing initials or a check mark. An interview and observation was conducted with Resident #50 on 06/10/24 at 1:00 PM. Resident #50 reported he was never given an off loading boot and when he inquired about it to the Director of Nursing she stated she did not know how to order the boot. Resident #50 also reported that in May, during the holiday weekend, his dressing to his left heel did not get changed. At this time, Resident #50 revealed the dressing to his left heel and added, the nurse had not changed the dressing since 06/08/24. The wound dressing was dated 06/08/24. Observation of the wound dressing to the left heel on Resident #50 with the Wound Treatment Nurse was conducted on 06/12/24 at 2:30 PM. The wound was not measured at this time. There were no signs or symptoms of infection such as odor or drainage. Resident #50 had no complaints of pain. An interview was conducted with the Wound Treatment Nurse on 06/12/24 at 2:30 PM. The Wound Treatment Nurse stated the wound to Resident #50's left heel was debrided by the Wound Care Physician on 06/03/24 and the treatment was changed. She stated whenever a wound was debrided, the wound may appear that it was worsening with increased measurement size which was due to the debridement opening up the wound bed. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 06/14/24 at 2:00 PM. UM #2 reported she was assigned to Resident #50 on 06/09/24 and she should have changed the dressing as ordered to his left heel. She stated she was the nurse overseeing the medication aide and it was her responsible to do wound care since the medications aides were not allowed to perform wound care. Unit Manager #2 reported she was not aware of an order for a hind off loading boot for his left heel. A phone interview was conducted with the previous Wound Care Physician on 06/17/24 at 1:00 PM revealed he was familiar with Resident #50 and his chronic heel wound. He stated he would have to refer back to his records but he stated based on what he could recall he felt that the wound was chronic and it was the same or slightly better but not getting worse. The Wound Care Physician was not able to complete the interview and stated he would return the call after he reviewed the medical record. A follow up phone interview was conducted with the Wound Treatment Nurse on 06/17/24 at 2:11 PM. The Wound Treatment Nurse reported that when the Wound Care Physicians put in recommendations, they were considered orders and she would enter the orders into the electronic medical record. The Wound Treatment Nurse stated she was aware that Resident #50 had an order for the hind off-loading boot, but she was not sure why it was not ordered. The Wound Treatment Nurse stated the physician had classified the left heel wound as a diabetic ulcer since he was admitted to the facility and was acquired from his uncontrolled diabetes and peripheral vascular disease. The Wound Treatment Nurse added, she recalled letting the Director of Nursing (DON) know about the recommendation for the hind off-loading boot, but she did not follow up with the Director of Nursing to see what the status of the hind off-loading boot was or when it was going to be ordered. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/14/24 at 5:00 PM. The DON revealed she would expect wound treatments to be getting according to the physician's order to prevent infection or further debilitating a declining wound. The DON stated she did not know what a hind off-loading boot was and was working on trying to figure out where to order this type of boot with local wound supply companies. A follow up call was placed to the previous Wound Care Physician on 06/18/24 at 1:57 PM. A message was left for a returned call. Review of the Wound Care Physicians' wound evaluation and management summary for diabetic wound of left foot dated 06/20/24 revealed the measurements to the left heel were recorded as 2.6 X 2.1 X 0.1cm with a surface area of 5.46 cm. Granulation tissue was noted to be at 100% with a note indicating the wound was healing as evidenced by a 45.8% decrease in surface area and 100% decrease in nonviable tissue within the wound bed and a recommendation was noted for a hind off-loading hind boot for left heel. A phone interview was conducted with the Nursing Supervisor on 06/26/24 at 11:00 AM. The Nursing Supervisor stated she was made aware from the Wound Treatment Nurse about 2 weeks ago that a hind off loading boot was needed for Resident #50. She stated she and the previous DON were trying to figure out what type of boot this was by researching on line with local wound supply companies because they had never heard of it. She stated she spoke to the current Wound Care Physician on 06/25/24 to clarify the order for the hind off-loading boot and this physician sent her a link as to what the boot was and where to order it. She stated the current DON who started on 06/19/24 will be ordering the boot. An interview with the current Director of Nursing via phone on 06/26/24 at 3:10 PM revealed she had started on 06/19/24 and it was brought to her attention on 06/25/24 from the Nursing Supervisor that Resident #50 needed the hind off-loading boot. The DON stated it should have been ordered by the previous DON. She added, she ordered the hind off-loading boot today and it will be in the facility on 06/28/24. A phone interview with the current Wound Care Physician on 06/27/24 at 9:30 AM revealed she had been attending the facility since 06/14/24 and she did mention to the Wound Treatment Nurse that the hind off loading boot should be ordered for Resident #50. She stated it was not a unique type of boot or difficult to find and she could not speak to as to why it took so long for the boot get ordered. The Wound Care Physician stated she sent a link to the Nursing Supervisor of where to purchase the boot. She added, not having the boot would not contribute to the wound worsening, it was ordered as a protective device. She stated despite the resident not having the boot for the past month, his wound was healing but it should be ordered and utilized to add that extra protection. Additionally, the Wound Care Physician stated Resident #50's wound dressing was ordered daily and she would expect the dressing to get changed daily for continued wound healing.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, Registered Dietitian and Facility Physician interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, Registered Dietitian and Facility Physician interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician ordered weekly weights for 4 of 6 residents reviewed for nutrition and wound care evaluation (Resident #36, Resident #38, Resident #219, Resident #52) and failed to address a Registered Dietitian recommendation for a medication to stimulate appetite for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #36, Resident #38). Findings included: 1. Resident # 36 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes. Resident # 36's electronic health record included a 2/8/24 physician order for weight on admission then weekly for 3 weeks (4 weights total); then monthly or as specified by the physician. Resident # 36's weight record contained the following: 2/9/2024 10:13 AM 118.7 pounds (lbs.) 2/16/2024 No weight recorded. 2/23/2024 No weight recorded. 3/3/2024 7:06 PM 121.0 lbs. A 3/12/24 Registered Dietitian (RD) note indicated Resident #36 was reviewed. Resident # 36 consumed 25-100 percent of a carbohydrate-controlled diet. RD recommended providing supervision and cueing with meals and a fortified foods diet. A physician order dated 4/4/24 indicated weekly weights for weight monitoring and regular fortified food diet. A 4/9/2024 Registered Dietitian (RD) note indicated Resident #36 was reviewed for weight loss. The note stated resident's current weight on 4/5/24 was 98 lbs. Resident #36's weight was 121 lbs. on 3/3/24 which was a weight loss of 19 percent in 1 month. The RD indicated Resident #36 consumed 0-75% of a mechanical soft diet with supervision. The following recommendations were made obtain a reweigh to verify current weight, weekly weight x 4 weeks, medication to increase appetite and add protein supplement three times per day. Resident #36's weight record indicated the following weights: 4/5/2024 98.0 Lbs. 4/12/2024 No weight recorded. 4/19/2024 No weight recorded. 4/20/2024 98.2 Lbs. 4/27/2024 No weight recorded. 5/4/2024 106.4 Lbs. 5/11/2024 No weight recorded. 5/18/2024 No weight recorded. 5/25/2024 No weight recorded. 6/1/2024 No weight recorded. 6/9/2024 No weight recorded. A 5/7/2024 Registered Dietitian note stated in part Resident # 36's weights were reviewed with a gain of 8.5% in 1 month and a loss of 10.3% in 3 months. The note did not indicate a reason for the weight fluctuations. Resident # 36's care plan revised on 5/14/24 indicated a nutrition at risk problem related to weight loss with interventions to obtain weights per orders, fortified foods, and monitor intake and record. Resident # 36's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident had a severe cognitive impairment, weight of 106 lbs. and was on a physician prescribed weight gain program. An interview was conducted on 6/12/24 at 2:15 PM with the Agency Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated weights were not consistently obtained. The DON stated the facility required a better system for obtaining weights and addressing nutritional recommendations. The DON stated she expected staff to obtain weights on admission and weekly for 3 weeks following admission. The DON further indicated she expected physician ordered weights would be obtained. Without the monitoring of weights, the RD and physician are not able to evaluate the root cause of weight changes in the residents. An interview was conducted on 6/12/24 at 2:45 PM with the Registered Dietician (RD). The RD stated weights were supposed to be obtained within the first ten days of the month and that was not being done. The RD stated she informed the Administrator and DON several times over the past 3 months that resident weights were a problem, were not being obtained and this had not improved. The RD indicated Resident # 36's weights were not obtained weekly on admission and as ordered. The RD stated weights were necessary to make recommendations, evaluate the resident's nutritional needs and evaluate current interventions. Without accurate weights and obtaining weekly weights as ordered, the RD stated it was difficult to determine the cause of Resident # 36's weight changes. A follow up interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The DON stated weights were not obtained timely and accurately. The DON stated she was hired through an agency a few months ago and had not implemented a process for obtaining weights yet but indicated it was an important part of the resident's care and was necessary to evaluate the resident's condition. An interview was conducted with the Facility Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:24 PM. The Facility Physician stated she started in the position on 6/7/24 and indicated monitoring of weights was the facility's responsibility and was important to evaluate the resident's nutritional status. The Facility Physician further stated weights were to be obtained as ordered and the recommendations made by the Registered Dietitian should be evaluated and addressed. The Facility Physician stated Resident #36's weights should have been obtained as ordered and the Registered Dietitian recommendations should have been addressed. Attempts were made to interview the previous Physician who was in the position at the facility until 6/6/24. Messages were left on 6/12/24 at 3:33 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:00 PM with no return call received. Attempts were made to interview the previous Nurse Practitioner (NP) who was in the position at the facility until 6/6/24. Messages were left on 6/12/24 at 3:36 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:07 PM with no return call received. 2. Resident #38 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included stroke and dementia. Resident # 38's care plan dated 12/15/23 indicated a problem of at nutritional risk for weight loss with the following interventions included physician or Nurse Practitioner to evaluate for failure to thrive, fortified foods, protein supplement and consult with physician regarding order for vitamin or other appetite stimulant and RD consult. Resident # 38's weight record indicated: 12/30/23 91.2 pounds (lbs.). 1/8/2024 89.0 lbs. 1/21/2024 102.0 lbs. 2/5/2024 105.0 lbs. 3/3/2024 89.5 lbs. Resident # 38's physician orders indicated an order for regular diet with fortified foods. A 3/12/24 Registered Dietitian progress note indicated Resident # 38 was reviewed for weight loss trend. A weight of 113.5 Lbs. was recorded on 9/6/23 which indicated a 21.3 percent weight loss over 6 months. Recommendation was made to obtain a reweigh due to weight loss and obtain weekly weight for 4 weeks. Resident # 38's physician orders indicated a 3/18/24 order for weekly weights for weight monitoring until 04/15/2024. Resident # 38's weight record indicated: 3/19/2024 89.0 lbs. 3/26/24 no weight recorded. 4/5/2024 93.0 lbs. 4/12/24 no weight recorded. 4/20/2024 83.0 lbs. Resident # 38's 4/22/24 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated a weight of 83 lbs. and weight loss of 5 percent or more in the last month or loss of 10 percent in the last 6 months. An RD progress note dated 4/23/2024 indicated Resident # 38 was reviewed for weight loss. Current weight 4/20/24 83 lbs. A weight of 113 lbs. on 10/11/23 indicated a loss of 18.6 percent over 3 months, and a loss of 26.5 percent over 6 months. Resident # 38 consumed 0-50 percent of a regular fortified foods diet and received a protein supplement. Recommendations included: medication to help increase appetite, obtain weekly weights for 4 weeks and evaluate for failure to thrive and protein calorie malnutrition due to weight loss and decreased appetite. The RD did not indicate a root cause analysis of Resident # 38's weight loss. Resident # 38's physician orders revealed no order dated 4/23/24 or later was entered for weekly weights. Resident # 38's physician orders revealed no order dated 4/23/24 for a medication to help increase appetite. A physician note dated 5/3/24 indicated Resident # 38's weight loss and the 4/23/24 Registered Dietitian recommendation for medication to increase appetite were not addressed. Resident # 38's weight record indicated: 5/2/2024 92.0 lbs. 5/9/24 no weight recorded. 5/17/24 no weight recorded. 5/24/24 no weight recorded. Review of a Nurse Practitioner progress note dated 5/20/24 indicated resident's weight and the 4/23/24 Registered Dietitian recommendation for medication to increase appetite were not addressed. Resident # 38's electronic health record included a Registered Dietitian progress note dated 5/30/2024. The progress note indicated Resident # 38 was reviewed for weight loss trend. Current weight 5/2/24 92 lbs. Weight on 11/2/23 was 112 lbs. which indicated a 12.3 lbs. weight loss in 3 months and 17.8 percent loss over 6 months. Recommendations included: medication to help increase appetite and physician evaluation for failure to thrive or protein calorie malnutrition diagnosis. Resident #38's physician orders revealed no order dated 5/30/24 or later was entered for a medication to help increase appetite. Resident #38's electronic health record revealed no physician progress note addressing the 5/30/24 Registered Dietitian recommendation for a medication to increase appetite or evaluation for diagnosis of failure to thrive or protein calorie malnutrition. Attempts were made to interview the previous Physician who was Medical Director until 6/6/24. Messages were left on 6/12/24 at 3:33 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:00 PM with no return call received. Attempts were made to interview the previous Nurse Practitioner (NP) who was employed at the facility until 6/6/24. Messages were left on 6/12/24 at 3:36 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:07 PM with no return call received. An interview was conducted on 6/12/24 at 2:45 PM with the Registered Dietitian (RD). The RD stated weights were to be obtained within the first ten days of the month and that was not being done. The RD indicated she had a concern regarding the accuracy of the weights and reweights were not obtained when there was a weight change. The RD stated she informed the Administrator and the Director of Nursing several times over the past 3 months that resident weights were not obtained and there was no improvement. The RD indicated Resident #38's weights were not obtained as ordered or as recommended and this made it difficult to make recommendations, evaluate the resident's nutritional needs and evaluate current interventions. The RD stated that the nutritional recommendations were not addressed for Resident #38. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 06/14/24 at 2:00PM. Unit Manager #2 stated she was responsible for ensuring the weekly and monthly weights were obtained. She stated the order for weekly weights was entered into the computer system for all new admissions. She stated when she selected the order type, she did not select Medication Administration Record (MAR),, but instead selected other orders, no documentation required. She stated by selecting the other orders option, the order would not carry over to the MAR to inform the nursing staff that a weekly weight was due. She stated the weekly weight order also did not populate on the weekly weight order report and that was why the weights were not done. Unit Manager #2 stated she gave a list of weights that were needed to the Nursing Assistants (NAs), but she did not follow up with them to ensure they were obtained. A follow up interview was conducted with the Agency Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The DON stated weights were not being done due to a breakdown in the process. The DON stated she expected weights would be obtained timely and accurately. The DON further indicated she was hired through an agency, had only been in the position of DON at the facility for a few months and had not yet implemented a process to obtain weights. The DON indicated nutrition was an important part of the resident's care and weights were necessary to evaluate the resident's condition. An interview was conducted with the Facility Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:24 PM. The Facility Physician stated she had only been in the position since 6/7/24. The Facility Physician stated obtaining weights was the facility's responsibility and was important to evaluate the resident's nutritional status. The Facility Physician further indicated that weights were to be obtained as ordered and the recommendations made by the Registered Dietitian should be evaluated and addressed. The Facility Physician stated Resident #38's weight changes and the recommendation for a medication to stimulate appetite should have been evaluated and addressed. 3. Resident #219 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including cellulitis of the left lower limb and diabetes. A physician's order dated 05/22/24 for Resident #219 revealed to obtain weight on admission then weekly for three weeks, then monthly or as specified by the physician. A physician's order dated 05/28/24 for Resident #219 revealed to obtain weekly weights for nutrition and wound evaluation. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #219 was cognitively intact. She received wound care and a therapeutic diet. The weight was 191.8 lbs. (pounds). There was no weight loss or gain. The care area assessment indicated to initiate a care plan with interventions for nutritional status. Review of Resident #219's electronic medical record from admission on [DATE] through 06/19/24 revealed an admission weight recorded on 05/22/24. The weight was 191.8 lbs. (pounds). There were no other weights recorded. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 10:23 AM Nurse Aide #3 stated she recently started working in the facility and was the assigned Nurse Aide for Resident #219. She stated she was given a list at the beginning of the month of residents that needed monthly weights. She stated if a weekly or daily weight was needed the nurse would let her know. She stated she had not been told to obtain Resident #219's weight. She indicated she had not received a list of residents who needed weights so far this month. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 10:53 AM Nurse #6 stated she was routinely assigned to the 400 hall and to Resident #219. She stated the nurse aides obtained monthly weights and the weights were given to the nurse to enter into the electronic medical record. She stated she was not aware Resident #219 had an order for weekly weights because nothing populated in the electronic medical record to notify her that a weekly weight was needed for Resident #219. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 11:30 AM Nurse Aide #4 stated the unit manager gave them a list of names each month of residents that needed weights. She stated they received the list of names at different times during the month. At times she would get the list of names at the beginning of the month, other times she received the list of names for weights later in the month. She stated she didn't know which residents received weekly weights and the nurse would inform her if a weight was needed. She stated when weights were obtained each month the weights were given to the assigned nurse and the nurse entered the weight into the electronic medical record. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 11:30 AM Nurse Aide #5 stated the unit manager gave them a list of names each month of residents that needed weights. She stated she didn't know which residents received weekly weights and the nurse would inform her if a weight was needed. She indicated when weights were obtained each month the weights were given to the assigned nurse and the nurse entered the weight into the electronic medical record. She stated she didn't typically work the 400 hall and was not aware Resident #219 had orders for weekly weights. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 12:30 PM the Registered Dietician stated there had been issues with getting weights. She stated the Director of Nursing, and the Administrator were aware of the issue, and it was being discussed in their Quality Assurance meetings. She reported that Resident #219 was admitted on [DATE] with cellulitis and an abscess on the groin. She received daily wound care to the area and received nutritional supplements three times a day. She reported Resident#219's BMI (body mass index) was elevated, and the weekly weights were ordered to evaluate her nutrition for wound assessments. She stated she was aware the weekly weights were not getting done and had reported this to Administration. She expected weights to be obtained according to the physician's order. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 1:18 PM the Wound Nurse indicated she was not aware Resident #219 had an order for weekly weights to assess her nutritional needs for wound evaluation. She stated Resident #219 was followed by the wound care physician weekly in the facility and the wound was improving. She indicated the weekly weight order was not on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) or the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and therefore she was not aware of the order. During an interview on 06/14/28 at 2:00 PM Unit Manager #2 indicated she had not followed up on weights. She stated she printed a list of names each month and gave the list to the nurse aides. She stated she did not follow up to ensure weights were obtained and reported to the nurses each month because the Registered Dietician reviewed weights. She indicated that she had not given the list of resident names to the nurse aides to obtain weights for the current month and she was not aware that Resident #219 had orders for weekly weights. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 4:08 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated monthly weights were to be done by the 5th of each month and weekly weights should be obtained on the first day of the week. She indicted she was aware that obtaining weights was an issue. She reported staff responsible for obtaining weights had developed bad habits and there had been no accountability. She stated more work was needed and staff education would be provided. A phone interview was conducted with the Physician on 6/18/24 at 1:24 PM. The Physician stated monitoring of weights was the facility's responsibility and was important to evaluate the resident's nutritional status. The Physician indicated that weights were to be obtained as ordered and the recommendations made by the Registered Dietitian should be evaluated and addressed. 4. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A physician's order dated 05/02/24 for Resident #52 revealed to obtain weights on admission then weekly for three weeks, then monthly or as specified by the physician. Review of Resident #52's electronic medical record from admission on [DATE] through 06/14/24 revealed an admission weight recorded on 05/02/24 which was 192.6 pounds. There were no other weights recorded. The Minimum Data Set admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 was severely cognitively impaired and required set up or clean up assistance with eating. Resident #52 was on a regular diet and her weight was recorded as 193 pounds. There was no weight loss or gain. The care area assessment indicated to initiate a care plan with interventions for nutritional status. An interview was conducted with the Registered Dietitian (RD) on 06/12/24 at 2:45 PM. The RD indicated Resident #52's weights were not obtained weekly as ordered. The RD stated weights were necessary to make recommendations, evaluate the resident's nutritional needs and evaluate current interventions. The RD stated it was difficult to determine the cause of Resident # 52's weight changes without obtaining weekly weights as ordered. The RD stated she was aware the weekly weights were not getting done and had reported it to Administration. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 06/13/24 at 11:45 AM. Nurse #7 reported the nurse aides obtained the monthly weights and the weights were given to the nurse to enter into the electronic medical record. She stated she was not aware Resident #52 had an order for weekly weights because nothing populated in the electronic medical record to notify her that a weekly weight was needed. She stated any newly admitted residents should have weekly weights for one month and then changed to monthly thereafter. An interview was conducted with Nurse Aide (NA) #8 on 06/14/24 at 1:11 PM. NA #8 reported she was usually given a list at the beginning of the month of residents who needed a monthly weight. NA #8 added, if a nurse needed a weekly or daily weight she would let her know. NA #8 stated she had not been told to obtain Resident #52's weight and had not received a list of residents who needed monthly weights as of this time. She stated when the weights were obtained she would give them to the assigned Nurse and she believed they would enter them in the electronic medical record. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager (UM) #2 on 06/14/24 at 2:00 PM. UM #2 stated she was responsible for ensuring the weekly and monthly weights were obtained. She stated with new admissions, part of the admission process was to initiate batch orders for weekly weights. She stated the order for the weekly weights that she entered into the electronic record was not entered correctly to populate to the medication administration record to alert nursing staff that a weight was due. UM #2 added due to this error, the weekly weight order also did not populate on to her weekly weight report so she was not aware that Resident #52 needed weekly weights for 3 weeks and that was why they were not done. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/14/24 at 4:10 PM. The DON stated weights were not obtained timely and accurately. The DON stated she was hired through an agency a few months ago and had not implemented a process for obtaining weights yet but indicated it was an important part of the resident's care and was necessary to evaluate the resident's condition. An interview was conducted with the Facility Physician on 06/18/24 at 1:24 PM. The Facility Physician stated she started in the position on 06/07/24 and indicated monitoring of weights was the facility's responsibility and was important to evaluate the resident's nutritional status. The Facility Physician further stated weights were to be obtained as ordered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff were trained and competent in the process to obt...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff were trained and competent in the process to obtain medications from the pharmacy for 10 of 10 staff (Nurse #8, Nurse #9, Nurse #3, Nurse #6, Nurse #17, Nurse #16, Nurse #7, Unit Manager #1, Unit Manager #2, and the Director of Nursing) reviewed for pharmacy procedures for obtaining medications. Findings included: 1a. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident #51's physician orders revealed an 11/21/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 4 times per day for nerve pain. The May 2024 MAR indicated Resident #51's gabapentin was not administered as ordered from 5/8/24 through 5/13/24 due to the medication not being obtained from the pharmacy. An interview was conducted via phone on 6/13/24 at 5:12 PM with Nurse #8. Nurse #8 stated she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/8/24 and 5/9/24. Nurse #8 indicated she did not know the process for obtaining medications from the pharmacy and had been informed by other nurses, although she did not recall which nurses, that if a medication was not available, they just had to wait for it to come in. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #9 on 6/13/24 at 2:15 PM. Nurse #9 was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/9/24 and 5/10/24. Nurse #9 stated she did not attempt to obtain medication for Resident #51 and did not know the process for obtaining gabapentin. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 revealed she was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24. Unit Manager #1stated she was unclear about the requirements for reordering gabapentin. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:24 PM. Nurse #2 stated she was an agency nurse at the facility and was assigned to Resident #51 on 5/11/24 into 5/12/24. Nurse #2 stated she had been told by other nurses, although she was not able to recall which nurses, that they just had to wait until the medications came in from the pharmacy and there was nothing that could be done about the medications not being available. Nurse #2 indicated she was not familiar with the process at the facility for ordering and reordering medications. 1b. Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident # 46's physician orders revealed a 12/6/23 order for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) 2 times per day for nerve pain. Resident #46's May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated gabapentin was not administered as ordered from 5/10/24 through 5/17/24 due to the medication not being obtained from the pharmacy. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #3 on 6/13/24 at 1:45 PM. Nurse #3 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/10/24, 5/11/24, and 5/12/24. Nurse #3 stated she was unaware of the process to obtain the medication and she did not inquire about how to obtain it. An interview was conducted with Nurse #6 on 6/13/24 at 12:30 PM. Nurse #6 stated she was an agency nurse that had worked at the facility for several months. She worked with Resident #46 on 5/11/24, 5/12/24, and 5/13/24. Nurse #6 stated she was not aware of the process for obtaining a medication that was not available. An interview was conducted via phone on 6/13/24 at 3:47 PM with Nurse #17. Nurse #17 stated she worked at the facility through an agency for about 6 weeks. Nurse # 17 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/13/24, 5/14/24, and 5/15/24. Nurse #17 stated was not aware of the process for obtaining medications for residents. An interview was conducted via phone on 6/13/24 at 3:47 PM with Nurse #16. Nurse #16 was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/13/24, 5/14/24 and 5/15/24. Nurse #16 stated she worked at the facility through an agency for about 6 weeks. Nurse #16 stated she was not aware of the process to obtain medications. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 6/13/24 at 11:30 AM. Nurse #7 revealed she was an agency nurse at the facility since March. Nurse #7 was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/14/24 and 5/15/24. Nurse #7 stated she was unaware of the process for obtaining a medication that was not available. An interview was conducted with Nurse #5 on 6/14/24 at 9:00 AM. Nurse #5 stated she did not know the process for obtaining gabapentin and did not know if a written or electric prescription was needed to reorder gabapentin. Nurse #5 stated she was assigned to Resident #46 on 5/17/24. An interview was conducted via phone with Nurse #2 on 6/14/24 at 2:25 PM. Nurse #2 stated she was the nurse assigned to Resident #46 on 5/17/24. She indicated she did not know the process for ordering and reordering medications. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/13/24 at 8:00 AM. Unit Manager #1 stated she was in the role of Unit Manager for 3-4 weeks. Unit Manager #1 stated she thought gabapentin required a written or electronic prescription to be refilled but it had been a while since she ordered it, so she was not sure. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #2 on 6/13/24 at 8:15 AM. Unit Manager #2 stated she thought a written or electronic prescription was required to obtain a refill of gabapentin, but she was not sure. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 2:00 PM. The DON indicated there was confusion regarding the requirements to order and reorder gabapentin and she did not understand the requirements herself. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:10 PM. She stated nursing staff did not have a comprehensive understanding of what to do when they identified a medication was not available for administration.
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 reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours per day seven days a week for 17 of 130 days reviewed for suf...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to schedule a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours per day seven days a week for 17 of 130 days reviewed for sufficient staffing ( 2/18/2024, 3/10/2024, 3/12/2024, 3/16/2024, 3/17/2024, 3/23/2024, 3/24/2024, 3/30/2024, 3/31/2024, 4/13/2024, 4/14/2024, 4/20/2024, 4/21/2024, 5/4/2024, 5/5/2024, 6/8/2024 and 6/9/2024). Finding included: The Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report for the first quarter of 2024 (January, February, March) reported the facility without RN coverage for eight consecutive hours per day. A review of the daily census posting sheets for the months of February 2024 to June 9, 2024, reported a constant census greater than 60 residents in the facility and no RN coverage for eight consecutive hours for the following dates: 2/18/2024, 3/10/2024, 3/12/2024, 3/16/2024, 3/17/2024, 3/23/2024, 3/24/2024, 3/30/2024, 3/31/2024, 4/13/2024, 4/14/2024, 4/20/2024, 4/21/2024, 5/4/2024, 5/5/2024, 6/8/2024 and 6/9/2024. A review of the daily nursing staffing sheets for the months of February 2024 to June 9, 2024, indicated there was no RN scheduled for at least eight consecutive hours for the following dates: 2/18/2024, 3/10/2024, 3/12/2024, 3/16/2024, 3/17/2024, 3/23/2024, 3/24/2024, 3/30/2024, 3/31/2024, 4/13/2024, 4/14/2024, 4/20/2024, 4/21/2024, 5/4/2024, 5/5/2024, 6/8/2024 and 6/9/2024. There was no RN recorded as working eight consecutive hours on the timecard records reviewed for the following dates: 2/18/2024, 3/10/2024, 3/12/2024, 3/16/2024, 3/17/2024, 3/23/2024, 3/24/2024, 3/30/2024, 3/31/2024, 4/13/2024, 4/14/2024, 4/20/2024, 4/21/2024, 5/4/2024, 5/5/2024, 6/8/2024 and 6/9/2024. In a phone interview with Unit Manager #2 on 6/19/2024 at 11:57 am, she explained she had been responsible for the schedule since April 30, 2024 and knew there was to be a RN scheduled daily for eight consecutive hours. She explained she tried to ensure a RN was scheduled for at least eight hours a day and would call staff to attempt to cover the days when a RN was not scheduled. She stated when she was unable to schedule an RN for eight consecutive hours for a day, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator were informed, and the unit managers (who were not RNs) covered shifts if needed. In a phone interview with the DON on 6/19/2024 at 10:22 am, she stated when she started at the facility in March 2024 there was not a sufficient number of registered nurses on the schedule to cover the required eight consecutive hours per day of RN coverage. She said due to the census greater than 60 residents consistently, she was not able to serve as the RN coverage and there was an RN on-call daily when not in the facility. She stated the administrative team was aware of not having RN coverage for the eight consecutive hours daily at times due to not having a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse in the facility and RN not scheduled on the weekends. She explained the facility recognized the problem and had worked on hiring registered nurses and had been using agency RN staff. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 6/19/2024 at 12:25 pm, she explained the daily nursing schedule was ultimately the DON responsibility to ensure there was a RN that worked eight consecutive hours daily in the facility and stated since February when she started at the facility, she was aware there was an issue with providing a RN eight consecutive hours daily in the facility. She further explained the resignation of MDS Nurses and the DON's inability to serve as the RN coverage due to a constant daily census greater than 60 residents impacted the facility's inability to provide RN coverage for eight consecutive hours daily. The Administrator stated she hired a MDS Nurse, registered nurses and agency registered nurses to help cover the RN for eight consecutive hours issue and continued to use newspaper ads, fliers and job fairs to recruit RN staff due to resignations of RN staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 7. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 7. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and pain. A review of Resident #8's electronic medical record (EMR) included the following physician orders: 9/22/23: Ozempic 0.25 or 0.5 mg - inject 1 mg subcutaneously one time a day every Friday for type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 8/19/23: Rivaroxaban 5 mg - 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for atrial fibrillation 8/19/23: Glipizide 10 mg - 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for type 2 Diabetes Mellitus A Pharmacy Consultant Medication Regimen Review (MRR) report dated 5/26/24 read Ozempic weekly dose marked out of stock x 2 doses in April and 1 in May. That is 3 weeks without medication and 6:00 pm meds Montelukast, Rivaroxaban (considered significant med error), Zotrix, Glipizide (significant med error) not charted 6 days so far in May. The pharmacist consultant recommended reporting the errors and reviewing with the nurses. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 11:00 am, stated she was aware of the Pharmacist Consultant Medication Regimen Review (MRR) dated 5/24/24 and did not ignore it. She further stated she felt this report was incorrect and therefore she did not report the medication errors or review the errors with the nurses. During a phone interview with the Pharmacy Consultant on 6/12/24 at 10:15 am revealed the medications were available during April, May and June 2024 and indicated there was a systemic problem with medication administration. She further stated she discussed the problems with medications with the current Director of Nursing (DON) and made her aware of the concerns. She indicated her concerns regarding Resident #8's omissions of the ordered medications was hyperglycemia, increased risk for formation of blood clots, and increased pain. 5. Resident # 22 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #22's electronic health record revealed a diagnoses report which included a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the physician orders for Resident #22 revealed an order dated 3/7/24 for Ativan 0.5 milligrams (mg) give one tablet via gastrostomy tube (a tube surgically placed in the abdomen to provide nourishment, liquids and medications) every 8 hours as needed for anxiety. Review of the March 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 3/21/24 the resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident # 22 had moderately impaired cognition and received an antianxiety medication. Review of the April 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 4/5/24 the resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. Review of the May 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 5/12/24 and 5/21/24 resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. Review of Resident # 22's electronic health record revealed a Consultant Pharmacist recommendation titled Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber dated 5/27/24 which indicated in part: the resident had an order for a PRN psychotropic medication and Hospice is not exempt. If the resident requires a PRN psychotropic after 14 days, the physician must provide rationale and indicate the duration for the PRN order. The note was checked to continue Ativan PRN x 90 days with a rationale of Hospice. The note was signed by the previous Physician on 5/30/24. Review of the June 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 6/3/24, 6/16/24 and 6/23/24 resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. In an interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 06/12/24 at 9:15 AM she stated she notified the facility through a pharmacy recommendation to discontinue the PRN psychotropic medication or provide a rationale and indicate the duration for the medication. The Consultant Pharmacist stated residents receiving Hospice services were not exempt from this regulation. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated there had been problems in the facility under the previous Director of Nursing with the recommendations not being addressed. The Consultant Pharmacist stated when she completed her medication regimen review, she emailed a copy of her review to the Director of Nursing (DON) within a day after she finished. The Consultant Pharmacist stated she expected the DON to review the medication regimen review and address the recommendations right away. Attempts were made via phone to interview the previous Physician on 6/12/24 at 3:33 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:00 PM with messages left. No return call was received. In an interview was conducted with the current Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/13/24 at 4:33 PM. The DON stated she was in the position at the facility since the end of March 2024. The DON stated she was aware of the 14-day regulation for PRN psychotropic medication, and she was aware of the pharmacy recommendations but had not been able to communicate with the previous physician to get the medication discontinued. The DON indicated the Consultant Pharmacist sent her the recommendations via email after her monthly reviews were completed. The DON stated she was responsible for reviewing and addressing the Consultant Pharmacist recommendations. The DON stated she saw the 5/27/24 recommendation for Resident #22 and was aware that the previous physician indicated Hospice on the recommendation and did not provide a stop date or discontinue the as needed psychotropic medication. The recommendation was given to the previous physician to address but the DON indicated she had not had a conversation with him regarding this. An interview was conducted with the current Physician via phone on 6/18/24 at 1:15 PM. The Physician stated she started working at the facility on 6/7/24 and was not familiar yet with the residents, their orders and the systems in the facility. The Physician stated she was aware of the 14-day regulation for PRN psychotropics and that this applied even if the resident was on Hospice services. She expected the facility to notify her of pharmacy recommendations, address the recommendations as indicated and notify her of an as needed psychotropic medication that did not have a stop date. The Physician stated she was not made aware the pharmacy had recommended Resident #22's medication be stopped or reviewed with justification and given a stop date. 6. Resident #46 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of the electronic health record for Resident #46 revealed a diagnosis report which included the diagnosis of diabetes and diabetic nerve pain. Review of the electronic health record for Resident #46 revealed a physician order dated 12/6/23 for gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) twice per day for nerve pain. Review of Resident #46's May Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the medication Gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg.) twice per day was recorded as 9 which indicated to see nursing administration progress notes for both scheduled doses on 5/10/24, 5/11/24, 5/12/24, 5/13/24, 5/14/24, 5/15/24, 5/16/24, 5/17/24. Review of Resident #46's electronic health record revealed administration notes were made on 5/12/24, 5/13/24, 5/16/24 and 5/17/24 which indicated awaiting pharmacy delivery of medication gabapentin. Review of a 5/27/24 Medication Record Review by the Consultant Pharmacist indicated a medication error was identified in Resident #46's electronic health record. The note indicated gabapentin was marked out of stock for 13 doses in May 2024. Please review with staff. An interview was conducted via phone with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/24 at 9:15 AM. The Consultant Pharmacist stated when she completed her medication regimen review, she emailed a copy of her review to the Director of Nursing (DON) within a day after she finished. The Consultant Pharmacist stated she expected the DON to review the medication regimen review and address any medication errors right away. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/13/24 at 4:33 PM. The DON was unable to explain any action that was taken as a result of the Consultant Pharmacist's report dated 5/27/24 that indicated a medication error had been made with Resident #46's gabapentin. The DON stated she had not reviewed the medication error with staff, nor had she completed a medication error incident report. The DON stated the Pharmacist Consultant sent her the May pharmacy recommendations after her review on 5/27/24. The DON stated she did not know the actual date she received it in May. The DON stated as of this date, she had reviewed some of the May pharmacy recommendations but not all of them and she had not notified the physician about the medication error that occurred. The DON indicated she should have addressed this recommendation and that she was responsible for reviewing the pharmacy recommendations. An interview was conducted with the current Physician via phone on 6/18/24 at 1:15 PM. The Physician stated she started working at the facility on 6/7/24. The Physician stated she expected the facility to notify her of pharmacy recommendations. The Physician further stated that all pharmacy recommendations that indicated a medication error occurred should be addressed to ensure that the error does not occur again. 4. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a bipolar disorder (a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings that include emotional highs and lows) and schizophrenia (a serious mental health condition that affects how people think, feel and behave). Resident #47's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the last assessment for Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), a scale that measures the severity of involuntary movements caused by neuroleptic medications (medications known for their ability to attenuate hallucinations and delusions), was dated 11/06/2023 and reported Resident #47 was not experiencing involuntary movements, an adverse side effect to psychotropic medications. A review of Resident #47's EMR included a physician order dated 2/24/2024 Ingrezza (a medicine that treats body movement disorders) 80 milliigrams (mg) at bedtime for tardive dyskinesia (a drug induced movement disorder that causes involuntary facial tics), and a physician order dated 3/27/2024 for Ziprasidone HCL (an antipsychotic medication used to treat bipolar disorders and schizophrenia) 80 mg twice a day for bipolar disorder. The monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) dated 5/25/24 conducted by the Consultant Pharmacist revealed a recommendation for an AIMS assessment for Resident #47. A review of the May and June 2024 Medication Administration Records (MARs) indicated Resident #47 had received the medications Ingrezza and Ziprasidone HCL daily as prescribed by the physician. In a phone interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/2024 at 10:44 am, she explained AIMS assessments were to be completed on residents receiving antipsychotics every six months, and she communicated the pharmacy recommendations for a AIMS assessment for Resident #47 through an email to the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/25/2024. In an interview with Unit Manager #1 on 6/14/2024 at 11:18 am, she stated pharmacy recommendations were sent to the Director of Nursing (DON), and she had not received a pharmacy recommendation for Resident #47 to receive an AIMS assessment from the DON. She stated there was a communication gap between the DON and herself and understood recommendations not received were left on the fax machine, shredded or lost. She explained AIMS assessments should automatically populate in the EMR for nurses to complete, and she was not aware Resident #47 needed an AIMS assessment In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/12/2024 at 10:04 am, she explained due to experiencing internet outages in May 2024, she had not reviewed the May 2024 pharmacy recommendation for Resident #47. When asked why AIMS assessment had not been completed, the DON explained AIMS assessments were generated through the EMR and stated she had just learned how to migrate this information to the EMR. She said she had not provided the unit managers training on the process of adding AIMS assessments as she was planning a training for the week this recertification survey began. Based on record review and interviews with Consultant Pharmacist, Physician, and staff, the facility failed to act on pharmacy recommendations for 7 of 10 residents (Resident #39, Resident #18, Resident #50, Resident #47, Resident #22, Resident #46 and Resident #8) reviewed for medications. Findings included: 1. Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] for Resident #39 revealed the following physician order: Amoxicillin-Clavulanate 875 MG (Milligram)-125 MG oral one tablet every 12 hours for 7 days for diagnoses of sepsis related to a perirectal abscess and a urinary tract infection (UTI). Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of a UTI. Review of the physician orders for Resident #39 revealed the following order was entered into the computer system on admission: Amoxicillin 875 MG give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for UTI for 7 days. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had intact cognition. He had an indwelling urinary catheter. He was administered antibiotic medications. Review of the facility MAR (Medication Administration Record) for May 2024 revealed Resident #39 was administered Amoxicillin 875 MG on 05/03/24, 05/04/24, 05/05/24, 05/06/24, 05/07/24, 05/08/24, 05/09/24, and 05/10/24 for a total of 14 doses. Review of the Consultant Pharmacist ' s Medication Regimen Review dated 05/27/24 revealed the following recommendation as a Priority: High: This resident was admitted with an order for Amoxicillin/Clavulanate 875 MG BID [twice a day] for 7 days. This was entered into the computer as Amoxicillin 875 MG. This is what the pharmacy sent. Please notify the provider of the medication error to clarify if any additional treatment is needed. Please review with the nurses to ensure they read orders carefully and double check entries. There was no documentation that this pharmacy review was reviewed by nursing or the physician. In an interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/24 at 9:50 AM she stated the difference between Amoxicillin and Amoxicillin-Clavulanate was that the addition of Clavulanate helped the Amoxicillin work better and more types of bacteria were affected. She would have expected the provider to be notified to report the medication error and determine if additional treatment was necessary. During an additional interview on 06/26/24 at 1:17 PM with the Consultant Pharmacist she explained during a monthly review before she left the building, she emailed the complete pharmacy report and recommendations to the Agency Director of Nursing (DON). Routinely, she expected recommendations to be addressed before she returned to complete the next monthly review. If she found a recommendation had not been addressed, she would write another recommendation and speak to the DON directly to try and get the recommendation addressed. This recommendation was identified as Priority: High on the Medication Regimen Review and she would have expected the Agency DON to call the physician when she received the report to determine if any additional treatment was needed. In an interview with the current Agency DON on 06/12/24 at 4:40 PM she stated she had not followed up on the pharmacy recommendation and had not notified the provider that the wrong antibiotic had been administered to Resident #39 to determine if further treatment was necessary. She stated she had been aware of the recommendation and was responsible for acting on the recommendation when it was received in May 2024. In an interview with the facility's current physician on 06/19/24 at 9:30 AM she stated she had not been notified that Resident #39 was given the wrong antibiotic. She noted she had just started at the facility last week and was not his doctor when this occurred. However, she reported she had seen Resident #39 yesterday and he was not having any symptoms of a UTI at this time. She did not feel any further intervention was required. She stated she would expect to be notified whenever there was a pharmacy recommendation on her next routine visit to the facility or called if the situation required immediate attention. 2. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility most recently on 06/23/23. Diagnoses included a generalized anxiety disorder. The physician order for Resident #18 dated 11/08/23 indicated Ativan (antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg every 6 hours as needed for anxiety or agitation. This order had no stop date. Review of a pharmacy recommendation titled, Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber, dated 04/25/24, documented: CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] regulations state that PRN [as needed] psychotropics can only be given x 14 days. If the resident requires a PRN psychotropic after 14 days, the physician must provide rationale and indicate the duration for the PRN order. Hospice is not exempt. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had moderately impaired cognition. She received Hospice services and had a life expectancy of less than six months. She did not receive antianxiety medication during this assessment look back period. The active physician orders for Resident #18 as of 6/12/24 indicated the PRN Ativan order initiated on 11/8/23 remained in place. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from January 2024 through June 2024 for Resident #18 revealed PRN Ativan had been administered on 01/27/24, 04/09/24 and 04/23/24. In an email received on 6/26/24 at 3:23 pm from the Consultant Pharmacist she explained she had notified the facility through pharmacy recommendations month after month on 12/19/23, 1/26/24, 2/18/24, 3/25/24, 4/25/24 and 5/27/24 to discontinue the PRN psychotropic Ativan or provide a rationale and indicate the duration for the medication. She wrote that she had communicated to the previous DON every month that the report had medication issues that were urgent and needed to be addressed. She also spoke with the previous DON monthly regarding the pharmacy reports. She stated the previous DON never had the reports available when she spoke with her. She had emailed the current Agency DON on 4/29/24 regarding the PRN Ativan order, spoke with her in person in May 2024 and sent her another email on 05/28/24 regarding the Ativan order. She noted hospice was not exempt from this regulation. In an interview with the current Agency DON on 06/13/24 at 4:33 PM she stated she was aware of the 14 day rule for PRN psychotropic medication. She stated she was aware of the pharmacy recommendations regarding the PRN Ativan but had not been able to communicate effectively with the previous physician to get the medication discontinued because there was a personality conflict between them. She stated she had not documented that attempts had been made to discontinue the medication and follow the pharmacy recommendation. She was aware the Consultant Pharmacist had made the request to discontinue the Ativan order in April and May 2024. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made on 06/12/14 at 1:50 PM and 3:33 PM to contact the previous physician. An additional attempt was made on 06/13/24 at 3:00 PM with no response. Other attempts were made to contact the physician by different surveyors on the team throughout the survey week with no response. In an interview with the facility's current physician on 06/19/24 at 9:30 AM she stated she started working at the facility last week. She was aware of the 14 day rule for PRN psychotropics that applied even if the resident was on hospice services. She was not aware the Consultant Pharmacist had recommended the medication be stopped or reviewed with justification and given a stop date. She expected the facility to notify her of pharmacy recommendations and of PRN psychotropic medications that did not have a stop date during her routine visits to the facility or to be called if a recommendation needed immediate attention. 3. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, in part, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure. A review of a physician's order written on 10/06/23 revealed give one tablet of Carvedilol (a medication to treat coronary artery disease) 12.5 milligrams twice daily and to hold medication for a heart rate less than 60 beats per minute (bpm) or systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 110 milligrams per mercury (mg/Hg) and administer with meals. A review of Resident #50's medication administration record (MAR) for May 2024 to administer the Carvedilol 12.5 milligrams revealed the following: 05/11/24 the blood pressure recording was 100/59 mm/Hg and the heart rate recording was 59 bpm at 9:00 AM and was signed off by Unit Manager #1 05/15/24 the blood pressure recording was 106/68 mm/Hg at 9:00 AM and was signed off by Nurse #9 05/26/24 the blood pressure recording was 109/63 mm/Hg at 5:30 PM and was signed off by Unit Manager #1 05/27/24 the blood pressure recording was 103/69 mm/Hg at 5:30 PM and was signed off by Unit Manager #1 Review of the Consultant Pharmacist's medication regimen reviewed from 05/01/24 through 05/27/24 revealed this resident has order to hold Carvedilol for SBP less than 110 or heart rate less than 60. This dose was not held as ordered. Please report medication error and review with nurses. An interview was conducted with the Pharmacist Consultant on 06/11/24 via phone at 11:20 AM. The Pharmacist Consultant stated when she completed her medication regimen review she would email the Director of Nursing (DON) the review within a day after she finished her review. She added, she would expect the DON to review the regimen to address any high risk medication concerns right away. The Pharmacist Consultant stated a blood pressure medication is a high risk medication and if there were parameters given in an order, the expectation was that the blood pressure medication would be held according to the physician's order if the reading was outside the parameters. She stated the resident would be at risk for increased hypotension (low blood pressure) or bradycardia (decreased heart rate) if the medication was given. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/14/24 at 5:00 PM. The DON stated the Pharmacist Consultant sent her the May pharmacy recommendations when she had finished. She stated she did not know the actual date she received it in May. She stated as of this date, she had not reviewed all of the May's pharmacy recommendations and had not notified the physician about the medication error that occurred and she should have addressed this recommendation since it was a high risk medication and warranted attention as soon as possible. A phone interview with the facility Physician on 06/19/24 at 9:30 AM revealed she would have expected to be notified whenever there was a medication error so the error could be addressed when it occurred.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident # 22 was admitted to the facility most recently on 06/22/23. Review of the diagnosis report revealed Resident #22 h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident # 22 was admitted to the facility most recently on 06/22/23. Review of the diagnosis report revealed Resident #22 had a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the physician orders for Resident #22 revealed an order dated 3/7/24 for Ativan 0.5 milligrams (mg) give one tablet via gastrostomy tube every 8 hours as needed for anxiety. Review of the March 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 3/21/24 the resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident # 22 had moderately impaired cognition and received an antianxiety medication. Resident #22 was not coded as received Hospice services. Review of the April 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 4/5/24 resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. Review of the May 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 5/12/24 and 5/21/24 resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. Review of Resident # 22's electronic health record revealed a Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber dated 5/27/24 which indicated in part: the resident had an order for a PRN psychotropic medication and Hospice is not exempt. If the resident required a PRN psychotropic after 14 days, the physician must provide rationale and indicate the duration for the PRN order. The note was checked to continue Ativan PRN x 90 days with a rationale of Hospice. The note was signed as a telephone order by the previous Physician on 5/30/24. Review of the June 2024 MAR for Resident #22 revealed on 6/3/24, 6/16/24 and 6/23/24 resident was administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 3/7/24. In an interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 06/12/24 at 9:15 AM she stated she notified the facility through a pharmacy recommendation to discontinue the PRN psychotropic medication or provide a rationale and indicate the duration for the medication. The Consultant Pharmacist stated residents receiving Hospice services were not exempt from this regulation. Attempts were made via phone to interview the previous Physician on 6/12/24 at 3:33 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:00 PM with messages left. No return call was received. In an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/13/24 at 4:33 PM. The DON stated she was aware of the 14-day regulation for PRN psychotropic medication, and she was aware of the pharmacy recommendations but had not been able to communicate with the physician who was the Medical Director at the time to get the medication discontinued. In an interview was conducted with the Physician via phone on 6/1824 at 1:15 PM. The Physician she stated she started working at the facility on 6/7/24. The Physician stated she was aware of the 14-day regulation for PRN psychotropics and that this applied even if the resident was on Hospice services. She expected the facility to notify her of pharmacy recommendations and of PRN psychotropic medications that did not have a stop date. 3. Resident #269 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident #269's diagnosis report in the electronic health record revealed a diagnosis of toxic encephalopathy (a neurological disorder caused by exposure to toxic substances). Review of Resident #269's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated the resident was to receive haloperidol 2 tablets of 2 milligrams (mg) at bedtime. Resident #269's admission physician orders entered in the computer system on 3/7/24 included haloperidol 20 mg at bedtime for mood. The dose of 20 mg was entered into the computer in error. The order was entered into the computer by the Previous Director of Nursing (DON). Review of a Medication Regimen Review (MRR) dated 3/8/24 for Resident #269 indicated an admission review was completed with no pharmacy recommendations. Review of Resident #269's March 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed haloperidol 20 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 PM. The MAR was blank on 3/7/24 for the scheduled 8:00 PM dose. The MAR revealed the medication was electronically signed as administered on 3/8/24, 3/9/24, 3/10/24, 3/11/24, 3/12/24, and 3/13/24. Resident #269's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident was cognitively intact, exhibited no behavioral symptoms and had no diagnosis of a psychiatric or psychotic disorder. The medical record indicated Resident #269 was sent to the emergency room on 3/14/24 and returned with orders to continue haloperidol 2 tablets of 2 mg at bedtime. Review of Resident #269's physician orders revealed an order dated 3/14/24 for haloperidol 2 mg give 1 tablet at bedtime for mood. The order was entered by the previous DON and was discontinued on 3/15/24. Review of the March 2024 MAR for Resident #269 revealed haloperidol 2 mg give 1 tablet at bedtime on 3/14/24 at 8:00 PM was documented with a 9 indicating to see nurses notes. Review of Resident #269's nursing progress notes revealed there was no corresponding note on 3/14/24 at 8:00 PM. Review of Resident #269's physician orders revealed an order dated 3/15/24 for haloperidol 2 mg give 2 tablets at bedtime for mood. Review of the March 2024 MAR for Resident #269 revealed haloperidol 2 mg give 2 tablets at bedtime for mood was administered on 3/15/24, 3/16/24, 3/17/24, 3/18/24 and 3/19/24. Review of a nursing progress note dated 3/20/24 indicated Resident #269 was discharged home. Review of a Home Discharge Plan of Care indicated dated 3/20/24 indicated haloperidol 2 mg take 2 tablets at bedtime for mood was included in the list of discharge medications. An interview was conducted with the Physician on 6/11/24 at 1:15 PM. The physician stated she was in the position at the facility since 6/7/24. The Physician indicated antipsychotic medications including haloperidol were only to be prescribed for specific psychiatric diagnoses. The Physician further stated mood was not an appropriate indication for prescribing an antipsychotic medication and this should have been clarified with the provider when the order was written. An interview was conducted with the Consultant Pharmacist on 6/12/24 at 9:15 AM. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated haloperidol was usually only prescribed in an acute setting with a major psychiatric diagnosis. The Consultant Pharmacist indicated mood was not an appropriate diagnosis for an antipsychotic medication. The Consultant Pharmacist stated the order for haloperidol should have been clarified upon admission on [DATE] and return from the emergency room on 3/14/24. An interview was conducted via phone with the Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist on 6/12/24 at 11:50 AM. The Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist indicated the pharmacy did not receive the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] for Resident #269. The Quality Assurance Specialist stated normally the pharmacist compared the discharge summary and the orders that were entered into the computer and would call the facility for clarification or to report discrepancies. The Pharmacy Quality Assurance Specialist indicated the pharmacist that completed the medication regimen review for Resident #269 on 3/8/24 was no longer employed by the pharmacy. An interview was conducted with the previous Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/13/24 at 1:20 PM via phone. The previous DON stated she entered the orders for Resident #269 when he was admitted to the facility from the hospital on 3/7/24. The previous DON stated she entered the order for haloperidol with the incorrect dose. The previous DON indicated she was not aware mood was not an appropriate diagnosis for haloperidol. In an interview with the DON on 06/13/24 at 4:33 PM she stated she had been in the position since the end of March 2024. The DON stated she was aware of the regulation for an appropriate diagnosis for psychotropic medication, but she was not in the position when Resident #269 was in the facility. The DON stated mood was not an appropriate diagnosis for an antipsychotic medication. Attempts were made via phone to interview the previous Physician on 6/12/24 at 3:33 PM and 6/13/24 at 3:00 PM with messages left. No return call was received. 4. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a bipolar disorder (a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings that include emotional highs and lows) and schizophrenia (a serious mental health condition that affects how people think, feel and behave). The last Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), a scale that measures the severity of involuntary movements caused by neuroleptic medications (medications known for their ability to attenuate hallucinations and delusions), assessment dated [DATE] in Resident #47's electronic medical record (EMR) reported Resident #47 was not experiencing involuntary movements, an adverse side effect to psychotropic medications. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #47 was cognitively intact and received antipsychotic (medications used to treat mental health conditions) medications on a regular basis. A review of Resident #47's EMR included a physician order dated 2/24/2024 Ingrezza (a medicine that treats body movement disorders) 80 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for tardive dyskinesia (a drug induced movement disorder that causes involuntary facial tics), and a physician order dated 3/27/2024 for Ziprasidone HCL (an antipsychotic medication used to treat bipolar disorders and schizophrenia) 80 mg twice a day for bipolar disorder. Resident #47's monthly Medication Regimen Reviews (MRRs) conducted by the Pharmacist Consultant on 5/25/24 revealed a recommendation for an AIMS assessment for Resident #47. A review the May and June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded Resident #47 had received the medications Ingrezza and Ziprasidone HCL daily as prescribed by the physician. In a phone interview with the Pharmacist Consultant on 6/12/2024 at 10:44 am, she explained AIMS assessments were to be completed on residents receiving antipsychotics every six months, and she communicated the pharmacy recommendations for a AIMS assessment for Resident #47 through an email to the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/25/2024. In an interview with Unit Manager #1 on 6/14/2024 at 11:18 am, she stated the AIMS assessment for Resident #47 populated onto the EMR screen when due and she had not observed a message to complete an AIMS assessment or received the pharmacy recommendation for an AIMS assessment dated [DATE] from the DON. In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/12/2024 at 10:04 am, she stated due to Resident #47 receiving antipsychotic medications the nursing staff should be completing an AIMS assessment every three months. When asked why an AIMS assessment had not been completed since 11/6/2023 the DON stated she had not reviewed Resident #47's pharmacy recommendation date 5/25/2024 for an AIMS assessment due to experiencing internet outages in May 2024. The DON explained she had just recently learned how to migrate the AIMS assessments to auto-populate on the EMR and stated she had not provided the unit managers training on the process of auto-populating the AIMS assessments due to the start of this recertification survey the week she planned the training. Based on record review, and Consultant Pharmacist, staff and Physician interviews the facility failed to limit an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication to 14 days (Resident #18 and Resident #22), provide an appropriate diagnosis for an antipsychotic medication (Resident #269), and monitor for abnormal involuntary movements on a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication (Resident #47) for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: 1. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility most recently on 06/23/23. Diagnoses included, in part, generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the physician orders for Resident #18 revealed the following order that started on 11/08/23: Ativan 0.5 mg (Milligram)-give one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety or agitation. Review of the January 2024 MAR (Medication Administration Record) for Resident #18 revealed on 01/27/24 she had been administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 11/08/23. Review of the April 2024 MAR for Resident #18 revealed on 04/09/24 and 04/23/24 she had been administered PRN Ativan 0.5 mg that had a start date of 11/08/23. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had moderately impaired cognition. She had received scheduled and as needed pain medications during the assessment look back period. She received Hospice services. In an interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 06/12/24 at 9:50 AM she stated she had notified the facility through pharmacy recommendations month after month to discontinue this PRN psychotropic or provide a rationale and indicate the duration for the medication. She noted residents who received Hospice services were not exempt from this regulation. An additional interview was conducted with the Consultant Pharmacist on 06/26/24 at 1:17 pm. She had filed recommendations on 12/19/23, 01/26/24, 02/18/24, 03/25/24, 04/25/24, and 05/27/24 regarding the ongoing PRN Ativan order. Each month she communicated to the Director of Nursing (DON) that the pharmacy reports had medication issues that were urgent and needed to be addressed. She had spoke with the previous DON monthly through March 2024. She had emailed the Agency DON on 04/29/24 and in May she spoke with the Agency DON in person and sent an email on 05/28/24 regarding the use of the PRN Ativan. In an interview with the DON on 06/13/24 at 4:33 PM she stated she was aware of the 14 day regulation for PRN psychotropic medication, and she was aware of the pharmacy recommendations but had not been able to communicate with the physician who was the Medical Director at the time to get the medication discontinued because she stated he would not listen to her. She explained she had not documented any attempts to discontinue the medication. In an interview with the facility physician on 06/19/24 at 9:30 AM she stated she started working at the facility last week. She was aware of the 14 day regulation for PRN psychotropics that applied even if the resident was on Hospice services. She was not aware the pharmacy had recommended the medication be stopped or reviewed with justification and given a stop date. She expected the facility to notify her of pharmacy recommendations and of PRN psychotropic medications that did not have a stop date.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to: discard 10 doses of COVID-19 vaccine and a bottle of senna syrup (a liquid laxative medication) that were expired in the South statio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to: discard 10 doses of COVID-19 vaccine and a bottle of senna syrup (a liquid laxative medication) that were expired in the South station medication room for 1 of 2 medication rooms reviewed. The facility failed to store an unopened bottle of eye drops in the refrigerator per manufacturer's instructions on the 400-hall medication cart. The facility failed to dispose of 4 bottles of expired eye drops and had an in use inhaler with no resident name, opened date or expiration date on the 200 Hall medication cart. The facility failed to label a tube of eye ointment with an opened and expiration date and failed to discard an expired bottle of atropine solution on the 300 Hall medication cart. This was for 3 of 3 medication carts observed for medication storage. Findings included: 1a. Observation of the South station medication room was conducted on 6/11/24 at 2:30 PM with Unit Manager #1 in attendance. The following expired medications were observed: 14 doses of COVID-19 vaccine were observed with a printed expiration date of 6/2/24 on the box. 8-ounce bottle of Senna syrup with a printed expiration date of 4/24/24 on the label. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 6/11/24 at 2:30 PM revealed the nurses on the medication carts were to check for expired medications on the carts. Unit Manager #1 stated the pharmacist checked one of the medication carts each time on her monthly visit. 1b. Observation of the 400-hall medication cart on 6/11/24 at 3:00 PM with Unit Manager #1 in attendance revealed: Resident #421's unopened bottle of latanoprost .005% eye drops with a label which indicated refrigerate until opened. The unopened bottle was noted in the top drawer of the medication cart not refrigerated. An interview was conducted on 6/11/24 at 3:30 PM with Nurse #7. Nurse #7 indicated the Unit Managers asked the nurses to check the medication carts for expired medications and eye drops that required refrigeration, but she did not know who was responsible for making sure it was done. 1c. Observation of the 200-hall medication cart on 6/11/24 at 3:30 PM with Medication Aide (MA) #3 in attendance revealed: Resident #14's opened bottle of Vyzulta 0.024% ophthalmic solution with a date opened of 4/22/24. According to the manufacturer's expiration information, it was good for 8 weeks after opening, or 6/10/24. Resident #24's dorzolamide/timolol ophthalmic solution 2-0.5% with a date opened of 4/24/24. The manufacturer instructions indicated to discard 4 weeks after opening. or 28 days, which was 5/22/24. Resident #24's latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution with a handwritten date opened of 5/3/24 and an expiration date of 5/31/24. The manufacturer's instructions indicated to discard 4 weeks, or 28 days after opening. Resident #30's latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution with a handwritten date opened of 5/2/24 and an expiration date of 6/2/24. The manufacturer's instructions indicated to discard 4 weeks or 28 days after opening. An in-use Ventolin inhaler was found on the medication cart with no resident name or dose. There was no label with a date opened or an expiration date. 1d. Observation of the 300-hall medication cart on 6/11/24 at 3:45 PM with MA#3 in attendance revealed: Resident #169's ciloxan ophthalmic ointment 0.3% with no date opened and no expiration date on the label. Resident #20's atropine solution 1% use 1 drop under the tongue every 3 hours as needed. The bottle had a handwritten date opened of 5/9/24 and an expiration date of 6/9/24. An interview was conducted on 6/11/24 at 3:47 PM with MA # 3. MA # 3 indicated she was new to working on the medication cart, so she was not sure, but she thought the Unit Managers checked the medication carts. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/11/24 at 4:05 PM. The DON stated her expectation was that there would be no expired medications on the medication carts or in the medication rooms. The DON further stated there was a breakdown in the process for checking the medication carts for expired medications and checking that medications were labeled and dated.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and pain. Resident #8's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of the physician orders for Resident #8 revealed the following: 8/19/23: Rivaroxaban 15 mg - 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for atrial fibrillation 8/19/23: Glipizide 10 mg - 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 2/28/24: Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg - 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for pain 2/28/24: Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg - 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for pain a. The April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am and 8:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication administration documentation related to Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen: 4/6/24 at 8:00 pm 4/7/24 at 8:00 am 4/7/24 at 8:00 pm During an interview with Nurse #19 on 6/28/24 at 12:00 pm, she explained Resident #8 was listed in electronic medical record (EMR) as unassigned since moving to her new room. She further stated she had to click out of one screen and go into another screen to document medication administration for Resident #8. She indicated she gave the medication for Resident #8 but forgot to document in EMR the medication was given. The narcotic count sheet reviewed indicated her signature at 8:00 am. In an interview with Unit Manager #1 on 6/28/24 at 1:00 pm, she stated she could not recall if she gave this medication on at 8:00 pm. The narcotic count sheet reviewed indicated her signature at 8:00 pm for the medication. b. The April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg was scheduled to be administered at 2:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication administration documentation related to Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen: 4/7/24 at 2:00 pm 4/16/24 at 2:00 pm 4/19/24 at 2:00 pm During a phone interview with Nurse #19 on 6/28/24 at 12:00 pm, she explained Resident #8 was listed in electronic medical record (EMR) as unassigned since moving to her new room. She further stated she had to click out of one screen and go into another screen to document medication administration for Resident #8. She indicated she gave the medication for Resident #8 but forgot to document in EMR the medication was given. The narcotic count sheet reviewed indicated her signature at 2:00 pm. c. The May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg was scheduled to be administered at 2:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication administration documentation related to Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen: 5/11/24 at 2:00 pm 5/30/24 at 2:00 pm d. The June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg was scheduled to be administered at 2:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication administration documentation related to Resident #8's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen: 6/6/24 at 2:00 pm e. The April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Rivaroxaban 15 mg was scheduled to be administered at 6:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication documentation related to Resident #8's Rivaroxaban: 4/7/24at 6:00 pm 4/16/24 at 6:00 pm 4/19/24 at 6:00 pm 4/20/24 at 6:00 pm 4/21/24 at 6:00 pm 4/24/24 at 6:00 pm 4/29/24 at 6:00 pm During an interview with Nurse #19 on 6/28/24 at 12:00 pm, she explained Resident #8 was listed in electronic medical record (EMR) as unassigned since moving to her new room. She further stated she had to click out of one screen and go into another screen to document medication administration for Resident #8. She indicated she gave the medication for Resident #8 but forgot to document in EMR the medication was given. In an interview with Unit Manager #1 on 6/28/24 at 1:00 pm, she stated she could not recall if she gave this medication on 4/21/24 at 6:00 pm. f. The May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Rivaroxaban 15 mg was scheduled to be administered at 6:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication documentation related to Resident #8's Rivaroxaban: 5/5/24 at 6:00 pm 5/9/24 at 6:00 pm 5/10/24 at 6:00 pm 5/11/24 at 6:00 pm 5/21/24 at 6:00 pm 5/22/24 at 6:00 pm 5/27/24 at 6:00 pm 5/29/24 at 6:00 pm In an interview with Unit Manager #1 on 6/28/24 at 1:00 pm, she stated she did not recall if she gave this medication on 6/9/24 at 6:00 pm. g. The June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Rivaroxaban 15 mg was scheduled to be administered at 6:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication documentation related to Resident #8's Rivaroxaban: 6/2/24 at 6:00 pm 6/9/24 at 6:00 pm During a phone interview with MA #3 on 6/28/24 at 12:31 pm, she stated the Rivaroxaban was not given. She further stated she was unable to administer this specific medication. She informed Unit Manager #1, the nurse covering her, that she did not give this medication. In a phone interview with Unit Manager #1 on 6/28/24 at 1:00 pm, she stated she did cover the medication aides working on the medication carts, but she could not recall if she gave this medication on 6/9/24 at 6:00 pm. During a phone interview with MA #6 on 6/28/24 at 12:48 pm, she indicated she was an MA and an NA at the facility. She indicated on 6/9/24 she was performing the job responsibilities of an MA and had given the medication but could not recall if she had documented administration in the computer. h. The April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Glipizide 10 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication documentation related to Resident #8's Glipizide: 4/7/24 at 8:00 am 4/7/24 at 6:00 pm 4/16/24 at 6:00 pm 4/19/24 at 6:00 pm 4/20/24 at 6:00 pm 4/21/24 at 6:00 pm 4/24/24 at 6:00 pm 4/29/24 at 6:00 pm During an interview with Nurse #19 on 6/28/24 at 12:00 pm, she explained Resident #8 was listed in electronic medical record (EMR) as unassigned since moving to her new room. She further stated she had to click out of one screen and go into another screen to document medication administration for Resident #8. She indicated she gave the medications for Resident #8 but forgot to document in EMR the medications were given. i. The May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Glipizide 10 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication documentation related to Resident #8's Glipizide: 5/5/24 at 6:00 pm 5/9/24 at 6:00 pm 5/10/24 at 6:00 pm 5/11/24 at 6:00 pm j. The June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Glipizide 10 mg was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication administration documentation related to Resident #8's Glipizide: 6/2/24 at 6:00 pm 6/9/24 at 6:00 pm During a phone interview with MA #3 on 6/28/24 at 12:31 pm, she stated she does not recall if she administered this medication. During a phone interview with MA #6 on 6/28/24 at 12:48 pm, she indicated she was an MA and an NA at the facility. She indicated on 6/9/24 she was performing the job responsibilities of an MA and had given the medication but could not recall if she had documented administration in the computer. k. The June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #8's Ozempic was scheduled to be administered at 8:00 am every Friday and specified. This MAR and the medication administration notes revealed no medication administration related to Resident #8's Ozempic: 6/7/24 at 8:00 am In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 11:00 am, stated there was a problem in the facility with the nurses documenting 9 on the MAR for medications not available. She indicated she was trying to hold the nurses accountable for accurate medication documentation. During a phone interview with the Administrator on 6/28/24 at 4:10 pm, she stated she expected pain medication to be administered as ordered by the physician. Based on record review, and staff, Pharmacy Technician, and Consultant Pharmacist interviews the facility failed to accurately document on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) the administration of medications for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #10 and Resident #8) reviewed for medications. Findings included. 1. A physician's order dated 03/06/24 for Resident #10 revealed Tetrabenazine 25 milligrams (mg) oral tablets. Give 2 tablets by mouth in the morning for Tardive Dyskinesia. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated May 2024 for Resident #10 revealed Tetrabenazine 25 mg oral tablets. Give 2 tablets by mouth daily at 9:00 AM was signed off as administered on the following dates and time. 05/14/24 at 9:00 AM 05/16/24 at 9:00 AM 05/19/24 at 9:00 AM 05/21/24 at 9:00 AM 05/22/24 at 9:00 AM 05/23/24 at 9:00 AM 05/29/24 at 9:00 AM Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated June 2024 for Resident #10 revealed Tetrabenazine 25 mg oral tablets. Give 2 tablets by mouth daily at 9:00 AM was signed off as administered on the following dates and time. 06/01/24 at 9:00 AM 06/02/24 at 9:00 AM 06/04/24 at 9:00 AM 06/06/24 at 9:00 AM 06/09/24 at 9:00 AM During a phone interview on 06/13/24 at 2:00 PM Pharmacy Technician #1 stated the initial order for Tetrabenazine 25 mgs for Resident #10 was originally filled and sent to the facility on [DATE]. The Pharmacy dispensed 60 tablets which was a 30-day supply. She stated they dispensed another 60 tablets/30-day supply on 04/06/24. She stated they had not dispensed anymore of the medication since 04/06/24 because they needed to get prior authorization to continue to fill the medication. She stated they did not refill the medication after 05/06/24 and indicated the medication would not have been available in the facility for administration after 05/06/24. During an interview on 06/13/24 at 2:15 PM the Consultant Pharmacist stated according to the pharmacy records Tetrabenazine 25 mgs had not been dispensed from the pharmacy since 05/06/24 due to waiting on a prior authorization form. She indicated the medication would not have been available in the facility for administration after 05/06/24. During an interview on 06/12/24 at 3:00 PM Nurse #7 stated Resident #10 had been out of the Tetrabenazine 25 mgs for a while, and they were waiting on pharmacy to refill the medication. She reported that she called the pharmacy yesterday on 06/12/24 to ask about the medication and they informed her they were waiting for the prior authorization form to be returned from the facility before they could refill the medication. She stated if she signed off on the MAR that the Tetrabenazine 25 mgs was administered to Resident #10 on 06/06/24 when the medication was not in the facility then it was done in error. During an interview on 06/13/24 at 3:25 PM Unit Manager #2 stated she didn't know why she signed off on the MAR that she administered Tetrabenazine 25 mgs to Resident #10 on 05/16/24, 05/22/24, 05/29/24, 06/01/24, 06/02/24, and 06/09/24 when the medication was not in the facility. She indicated it was done in error. During an interview on 06/13/24 at 3:49 PM Nurse #6 stated if she signed off on the MAR that she administered Tetrabenazine 25 mgs to Resident #10 on 05/21/24 when the medication was not in the facility then it was done in error. An attempt was made to contact Nurse #9 on 06/13/24 at 04:01 PM Nurse #9 documented on the MAR that she administered Tetrabenazine 25 mgs to Resident #10 on 05/23/24 when the medication was not in the facility. There was no response. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 10:57 AM Unit Manager #1 stated if she signed off on the MAR that the Tetrabenazine 25 mgs was administered to Resident #10 on 05/14/24 when the medication was not in the facility then it was done in error. During a phone interview on 06/14/24 at 3:00 PM Nurse #19 stated if she signed off on the MAR that the Tetrabenazine was administered to Resident #10 on 05/19/24 when the medication was not in the facility then it was done in error. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 3:30 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was not aware that Resident #10 did not have Tetrabenazine available during May and June 2024. She reported the nurses should not have signed off on the MAR that the medication was administered if they didn't have the medication in the facility. During an interview on 06/14/24 at 3:30 PM the Administrator stated she expected that the nurses were accurately documenting medication administration on the residents MAR. She stated education would be provided.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

2. The facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program policy dated 4/1/24 stated the Infection Preventionist (IP) was responsible for completing surveillance of healthcare associated infections, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. The facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program policy dated 4/1/24 stated the Infection Preventionist (IP) was responsible for completing surveillance of healthcare associated infections, tracking outbreaks and monitoring standard and transmission precautions. During a meeting with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 6/14/24 at 3:49 pm she stated she started this position on 5/06/24 and was still in orientation. She was unable to provide any documentation of tracking or surveillance of infections, infection risks for the facility from May 2023 through May 2024. The IP provided a binder with monthly computer printouts of infections in the facility from January 2024 through June 18, 2024. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/12/24 at 11:00 am she stated she began her position as DON on 3/25/24 and was not responsible for infection control. An interview with the Administrator on 6/14/24 at 4:00 pm revealed she had been the Administrator since 2/02/24 and was Statewide Program for Infection and Epidemiology (SPICE) certified. The Administrator stated the IP had not been monitoring or tracking the infections within the facility. She indicated she was helping the IP who was trying to get infection control in order. The Administrator further stated the facility should have been monitoring and tracking infections. Based on record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy for enhanced barrier precautions and hand hygiene during wound care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #66) whose wound care was observed. The facility also failed to implement an infection surveillance plan for monitoring and tracking infections in the facility to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 70 of 70 residents in the facility. Findings included: 1. Review of the facility Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy documented enhanced barrier precautions (EBPs) are used as an infection prevention and control intervention to reduce the spread of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) to residents. EBPs employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities when contact precautions do not otherwise apply. Gloves and gown are applied prior to performing the high contact resident care activity (as opposed to before entering the room). Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include wound care (any skin opening requiring a dressing). EBPs are indicated for residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices regardless of MDRO colonization. Signs are posted on the door or wall outside the resident room indicating the type of precautions and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) required. PPE is available outside the room. Review of the facility Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy documented the facility considered hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of healthcare associated infections. Hand hygiene is indicated: immediately before touching a resident, before performing an aseptic task such as placing an indwelling device or handling an invasive medical device, after contact with blood, body fluids or contaminated surfaces, after touching a resident, after touching the resident ' s environment, before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same resident and immediately after glove removal. The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. On 06/14/24 at 10:00 am an observation of the Enhanced Barrier Precautions sign posted on Resident #66's door instructed staff to clean hands before entering and after leaving the room and to wear gloves and a gown for high contact resident care activities including wound care or any skin opening requiring a dressing. A supply of gowns and gloves were located in a bin in the hallway next to the resident's room. An observation of wound care was made on 06/14/24 at 10:12 AM. Present were the Treatment Nurse and the Wound Care Specialist physician. The physician and the nurse donned gloves and gowns prior to entering the room. The physician partially removed the dressing and measured the Stage 4 coccyx pressure ulcer. Both the physician and the nurse removed their gloves and gowns and discarded them in an acceptable receptacle. In the hallway the physician and the nurse used alcohol based hand rub (ABHR). The physician directed the nurse to change the treatment to a new debriding ointment and a border dressing daily. The Treatment Nurse obtained the new ointment from the treatment cart and entered the room without donning a gown. She donned gloves and removed the old dressing and discarded it in an appropriate receptacle. The nurse discarded her gloves and donned new gloves before applying the new treatment. She did not wash her hands or use ABHR after she discarded her gloves or before moving to a clean body site on the same resident. In an interview with the Treatment Nurse after the dressing change on 06/14/24 at 10:30 am she stated she changed her gloves between removing the old dressing and applying the new dressing and she thought that was adequate. She stated she did not think she had to wash her hands if she changed her gloves. She acknowledged she had forgotten to wear a gown prior to reentering the room to complete the dressing change and stated she should have put one on. In an interview with the Infection Preventionist on 06/14/24 at 1:30 PM she stated the Treatment Nurse should have worn a gown during wound care and performed hand hygiene between removing the old dressing and applying the new dressing. In an interview with the Agency Director of Nursing on 6/14/24 at 4:30 PM she stated she expected staff to wear the appropriate PPE when treating residents on enhanced barrier precautions and perform hand hygiene when indicated.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0940 (Tag F0940)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure all staff received training on dementia care, infection control policies and procedures and the elements of the Quality Assur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure all staff received training on dementia care, infection control policies and procedures and the elements of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. This practice had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: A review of the 2023 and 2024 annual education records from April 2023 to May 2024 provided by the facility revealed no documented evidence that dementia care, infection control training on policies and procedures and QAPI training were conducted for the staff. a. Medication Aide #5's personnel file was reviewed and revealed a date of hire of 11/8/2019. There was no documentation of dementia care, infection control and QAPI training in the personnel file. A phone interview was conducted on 7/1/2024 at 1:23 pm with Medication Aide #5. During the interview, Medication Aide #5 stated she was not able to recall having QAPI training since April 2023 and thought she had received some training on infection control and dementia care in the last year but was unable to recall for certain. b. Nurse Aide (NA) #2's personnel file was reviewed and revealed a date of hire of 8/13/2018. There was documentation NA# 2 had received dementia care training on 12/5/2023, and there was no documentation NA #2 had received infection control training on policies and procedures and QAPI training. A phone interview was conducted on 6/18/2024 at 5:49 pm with NA #2. She stated she felt like training as a whole had been overlooked with the all changes in the administrative team. She indicated she had received training on dementia care and QAPI training since changing roles as the activities director in 2024. She only recalled attending an in-service about not wearing gloves into the hallway as infection control training since April 2023. c. On 6/18/2024 at 06:14 pm in a phone interview with Nurse #8 who had worked at the facility the last two years, she stated she did not know what QAPI was. She said she had not received training while at the facility on QAPI or dementia care and had not received infection control training on policies and procedures since April 2023. d. On 6/19/2024 at 8:31 am in a phone interview with Medication Aide #3, she stated she had worked at the facility since 8/2023. When asked if she had received QAPI training,, Medication Aide #3 stated she did not know what QAPI was. Mediation Aide #3 further stated she had not received infection control training and did not recall receiving dementia care training since 8/2023. e. On 6/1/2024 at 7:56 am in a phone interview with Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse #4, she stated There had been no infection control and QAPI training since April 2023 and she was unable to recall receiving dementia care training. On 6/14/2024 at 4:11 pm in a phone interview with the Admissions Coordinator, she stated the facility did not have any evidence that infection control training and QAPI training was provided to all the staff at the facility. She explained when the previous Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) resigned, the SDC's office was cleaned and no one knew what happened to all the training documentation of all the staff at the facility. In a phone interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/19/24 at 10:22 am, she stated there was no Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) at the facility when she was hired in March 2024. The DON also stated she was unable to locate any files documenting dementia care, infection control training on policies and procedures and QAPI training to the staff since April 2023. She stated since there was no SDC, she was responsible for documenting the staff's training conducted by different administrative staff members, and stated since March 2024 she had not recorded any training hours and could not recall having training on dementia care, infection control and QAPI training. A phone interview was conducted on 6/19/24 at 12:25 P.M. with the Administrator. The Administrator explained when the SDC resigned two months ago, the SDC role was originally assigned to the new MDS Nurse #2 who was hired in April 2024. She explained MDS Nurse #2 was unable to manage the educational training due to learning the role as an MDS nurse and working on the back log of MDS assessments in the facility. She revealed MDS Nurse #2 had resigned during the state survey. She stated the facility currently did not have a Staff Development Coordinator and the responsibilities of the SDC for ensuring staff received the required annual training of dementia care, QAPI and infection control and documentation of the training fell ultimately to the DON to ensure completion. The Administrator explained there had been a high turnover in the DON position and felt the responsibility of scheduling dementia care, infection control and QAPI training for all the staff and tracking training had been overlooked.
Apr 2023 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the area of Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the area of Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #15, Resident #7, and Resident #3) reviewed for PASARR. Findings included: 1. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility 9/29/17 with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder and anxiety. Record review indicated Resident #15 had a level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), indicating serious mental illness evaluation on 8/16/18. Resident #15's 11/13/22 annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated a No response to the question which asked if Resident #15 had been evaluated by a Level II PASARR and determined to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/05/23 at 2:57 PM revealed she was responsible for completing the MDS assessments for all residents since the MDS Nurse left several months ago. The DON stated some of the questions in the MDS are prepopulated from other parts of the computer system or from the previous full assessment. She verified Resident #15 was a Level II PASARR and should have been listed as such on the 11/13/22 annual MDS Assessment. The DON confirmed the MDS was coded inaccurately. 2. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility 9/29/17 with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, anxiety, schizoaffective, paranoid personality, and borderline personality disorders. Record review indicated Resident #7 had a level II PASARR evaluation on 5/21/17. Resident #7's 1/21/23 annual MDS indicated a No response to the question which asked if Resident #7 had been evaluated by a Level II PASARR and determined to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/05/23 at 2:57 PM revealed some of the questions on the MDS are prepopulated from other parts of the computer system or from the previous full assessment. DON verified Resident #7 was a Level II PASARR and should have been listed as such on the 1/21/23 annual MDS Assessment. DON confirmed the MDS was coded inaccurately. 3. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility 05/19/15 with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, bi-polar disorder, major depression with psychotic features, severe dementia, and anxiety. Record review indicated Resident 3 had a level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), indicating serious mental illness evaluation on 01/15/20. Resident #3's 03/20/23 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated a No response to the question which asked if Resident #3 had been evaluated by a Level II PASARR and determined to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/05/23 at 2:57 PM revealed she was responsible for completing the MDS assessments for all residents since the MDS Nurse left several months ago. The DON stated some of the questions in the MDS are prepopulated from other parts of the computer system or from the previous full assessment. She verified Resident #3 was a Level II PASARR and should have been listed as such on the 03/20/23 quarterly MDS Assessment. The DON confirmed the MDS was coded inaccurately.
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 interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitoring interventions the committee put in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitoring interventions the committee put into place following a COVID-19 Focused Infection Control survey and complaint investigation survey on 01/06/2021. The failure was for one deficiency that was cited for Resident Assessment (F641) and was subsequently recited on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 04/06/2023. The repeat deficiency during two federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QA program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to F 641: Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the area of Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #15, Resident #7, and Resident #3) reviewed for PASARR. During the COVID-19 Focused Infection Control Survey and Complaint investigation on 01/06/2021 the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately to reflect deep tissue injuries on 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 04/06/2023 at 01:55 P.M. The Administrator stated that she thought the facility had a good QA committee and that they had done a great job. She further stated that she felt the reason for the repeated deficiency was due to the facility continuing to have a shortage of nurses. The Administrator indicated that the Director of Nursing was completing the MDS assessments and was also currently the Infection Control Preventionist for the facility. She stated that the facility had been trying to hire nurses for these positions since August and the nurses she had hired had either quit or declined the position before starting. The Administrator further stated that the facility had offered to pay for current staff members to attend nursing school for a work contract but that no one had accepted the offer. She stated that the facility currently had ads for hiring nurses on job sites online and had reached out to other resources in the community for nursing applicants.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to administer the influenza vaccine during the 2022-2023 season ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to administer the influenza vaccine during the 2022-2023 season after informed consent was obtained for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for influenza vaccinations (Resident #248 and Resident #44) and failed to administer the pneumococcal vaccination after obtaining informed consent for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccinations (Resident #248). Findings included: 1.Resident #248 was admitted on to the facility on 3/13/23. A review of Resident #248's medical record revealed the 2022-2023 Influenza Consent Form indicated consent to receiving the influenza immunization for the annual season of October 1, 2022-March 31,2023 was signed by the resident's responsible party on 3/10/23. A review of Resident #248's medical record revealed the facility Pneumococcal Consent Form indicated consent given to receive the pneumococcal vaccination was signed by the resident's responsible party on 3/10/23. A review of Resident #248's physician orders revealed the following orders dated 3/13/23: May have pneumococcal vaccine as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). May have influenza vaccine annually unless contraindicated. Resident #248's 3/20/23 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was listed as in process or incomplete. A review of the immunization section of Resident #248 's medical record did not indicate any information regarding the administration or refusal of the influenza or pneumococcal vaccinations. Review of Resident #248's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March and April 2023 indicated no notation that the influenza or pneumococcal vaccinations were administered. Review of Resident #248's nursing progress notes from March 13/23 through April 6, 2023, revealed no notation of refusal or administration of the influenza or pneumococcal vaccinations. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/6/23 at 1:27 PM revealed the vaccinations were not given. DON stated it was an oversight that Resident #248's influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations were not administered. DON further indicated she expected that vaccinations would be administered within 8 days of the consent being signed. DON revealed the Admissions Coordinator had the consent form for immunizations signed by the resident or responsible party on admission. The Admissions Coordinator then gave copies of the immunization consent forms to the nurse and the DON to ensure that the nurses administered the vaccinations. DON stated she must have overlooked the consents for Resident #248. 2. Resident #44 was admitted on [DATE]. A review of Resident #44's medical record revealed the 2022-2023 Influenza Consent Form indicated consent to receive the influenza immunization for the annual season of October 1, 2022-March 31,2023 was signed by the resident's responsible party on 1/20/23. A review of Resident #44's physician orders revealed the following orders dated 1/20/23: May have influenza vaccine annually unless contraindicated. Resident #44's 1/27/23 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed resident was cognitively impaired. Resident #44's influenza vaccination status was coded as No, had not received and reason not received coded as none of the above. Review of Resident #44's nursing progress notes from 1/20/23-4/6/23, revealed no documentation of the influenza vaccination administered or refused. Review of Resident #44's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 1/20/23-4/6/23 revealed no documentation of influenza vaccination administration or refusal. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/6/23 at 12:08 PM revealed she did not know why Resident #44 was not administered the influenza vaccination for the current influenza season. DON stated she expected the influenza vaccination would be administered by day 8 after admission. DON stated it was an oversight that Resident #44's vaccination was not administered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments withi...

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 the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the required timeframe for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for annual MDS assessments (Resident #39, Resident #4, Resident #19, Resident #34 and Resident #7) Findings included: a. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #39's 2/28/23 annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was listed as in process. Assessment was not completed. b. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #4's 3/6/23 annual MDS assessment was listed as in process. Assessment was not completed. c. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #19's 2/1/23 annual MDS had a completion date of 3/10/23. d. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #34's 2/11/23 annual MDS was completed on 3/23/23. e. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #7's 1/21/23 annual MDS was completed on 3/7/23. Interview with the Administrator on 4/04/23 at 11:41 AM revealed the MDS Nurse left several months ago, and since then the Director of Nursing (DON) was completing the MDS assessments. Administrator stated she was actively looking for an MDS nurse. Administrator stated the DON was doing the best she could. Administrator stated she was aware of the situation with MDS assessments not completed within the regulatory timeframe and was looking for a solution. Interview with the DON on 4/05/23 at 10:51 AM revealed the MDS Nurse left several months ago and since then she was responsible for the completion of the MDS assessments on all residents. DON stated things were left incomplete when the MDS Nurse left, and she was trying to catch up but did not have enough time with her other duties in the facility. DON stated she was aware of the MDS process and the timelines for completion of assessments.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly assessments within the required 14-day ti...

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 quarterly assessments within the required 14-day timeframe for 6 of 6 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. (Resident #15, Resident #21, Resident #10, Resident #40, Resident #35, and Resident #17). Findings included: a. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #15's 2/13/23 quarterly MDS assessment was completed on 3/9/23. b. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #21's 2/22/23 quarterly MDS was completed on 3/16/23. c. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #10's 2/18/23 quarterly MDS was completed on 3/9/23. d. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #40's 2/24/23 quarterly MDS was completed on 3/27/23. e. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #35's 2/12/23 quarterly MDS was completed on 3/9/23. f. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #17's 1/31/23 quarterly MDS was completed on 2/22/23. Interview with the Administrator on 4/04/23 at 11:41 AM revealed the MDS Nurse left several months ago, and since then the Director of Nursing (DON) was completing the MDS assessments. Administrator stated she was actively trying to hire an MDS Nurse. Administrator stated the DON was doing the best she could. Administrator stated she was aware of the situation with MDS assessments not completed within the regulatory timeframe and was looking for a solution. Interview with the DON on 4/05/23 at 10:51 AM revealed the MDS Nurse left several months ago and since then she was responsible for the completion of the MDS assessments on all residents. DON stated things were left incomplete when the MDS Nurse left, and she was trying to catch up but did not have enough time with her other duties in the facility. DON stated she was aware of the MDS process and the timelines for completion of assessments.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) scheduled for 8 consecutive hours a day for 3 of 92 days (08/07/22, 09/03/22, and 09/04/22) reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) scheduled for 8 consecutive hours a day for 3 of 92 days (08/07/22, 09/03/22, and 09/04/22) reviewed for staffing. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings included. Review of the facility's Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) staffing data report for Quarter 4 of 2022 (July 1 - September 30, 2022) revealed 7 infraction dates of 07/09/22, 07/10/22, 08/07/22, 08/28/22, 09/03/22, 09/04/22, and 09/25/22 when there was no RN coverage in the facility. During an interview on 04/05/23 at 09:00 AM the Administrator stated of the 7 infraction dates listed on the PBJ report she could verify through timecard reports that there was an RN on duty for 8 consecutive hours on 07/09/22, 07/10/22, 08/28/22, and 09/25/22 but stated she could not confirm RN coverage for 8 hours on the infraction dates of 08/07/22, 09/03/22, and 09/04/22. A review of the facility Timecard Report revealed on 07/09/22, 07/10/22, 08/28/22, and 09/25/22 there was RN coverage in the facility for 8 consecutive hours. An interview on 04/06/23 at 10:00 AM with the Director of Nursing revealed she was also in charge of scheduling. She stated no RN coverage for the infraction dates for that time period was due to low staffing but indicated she was not aware that there was no RN in the facility on those dates. She stated they were actively trying to hire more RN's to cover shifts, but they had not had much success in finding RN's to work. She indicated that currently there were enough RN's in the facility to ensure there was RN coverage each day. During an interview on 04/06/23 at 11:00 AM with the Administrator she stated the PBJ Staffing report data was submitted from information received from the facility payroll company, and stated she was not aware that there was no RN coverage on the dates listed on the PBJ report. She stated they were continuously trying to hire more staff, but it was hard to find nurses to work, and they had hired nine RN's over the last two years, but some were no longer employed. She stated they were continuing to try to hire RN's and were using different platforms such as online websites and social media for recruitment and stated they were also keeping the census capped until more nursing staff were hired.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately document on the Medication Administration Record ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately document on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 1 of 19 residents (Resident # 34). Findings included: Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include hypertension (HTN) and bradycardia (heart rate that is too slow; less than 60 beats per minute). Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) for Resident #34 revealed a physician's order dated 04/03/2021 to give amlodipine besylate tablet 10 milligrams (mg) by mouth one time a day for HTN, hold for Systolic blood pressure of less than 100 or heart rate less than 60. 1. Review of Resident #34's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February 2023 revealed: a. 2/9/23 Medication Aide (MA) #1's initials, and a check mark (indicating the amlodipine medication was given) and the resident's pulse was recorded as 56 beats per minute. b. 2/10/23 MA#1's initials, a check mark (indicating the amlodipine medication was given) and the resident's pulse was recorded as 54 beats per minute. An interview was conducted with MA#1 on 04/05/2023 at 1:08 P.M. MA#1 confirmed that her MAR initials were documented on 2/9/23 and 2/10/23. She further stated that she knew she would not have given the amlodipine medication if a resident's pulse was that low. MA#1 indicated that she was going to be more careful and not just click given down the columns. She further stated that if she had a question about a medication or if a resident's pulse or blood pressure was too low, she would tell the nurse. Review of Resident #34's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2023 revealed: c. 3/22/23 MA#2's initials, a check mark (indicating amlodipine medication was given) and the resident's pulse was recorded as 57 beats per minute. An interview was completed with MA #2 on 04/05/2023 at 1:00 P.M. MA#2 stated that the initials documented on 3/22/23 were hers. She further stated she had not administered the amlodipine medication that day. MA#2 stated that she would not give the amlodipine medication if the pulse or blood pressure was too low. MA#2 indicated that she must have clicked the wrong button, but she was sure she had not given the medication. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/05/2023 at 1:57 P.M. The DON stated she had been unaware of the inaccurate documentation on Resident #34's February 2023 and March 2023 MAR. She further stated MA#1 and MA#2 should have documented a a code for not given instead of the checkmark for given. The DON indicated she usually handled documentation errors one-on-one with the nurse or medication aide. She stated she would usually re-educate or counsel them on the importance of correct documentation and how to correct errors.
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "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: Federal abuse finding, 5 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 3 harm violation(s), $443,620 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 56 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $443,620 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Premier Living And Rehab Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Premier Living And Rehab Center Staffed?

CMS rates Premier Living and Rehab Center's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Premier Living And Rehab Center?

State health inspectors documented 56 deficiencies at Premier Living and Rehab Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 45 with potential for harm, and 3 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 Premier Living And Rehab Center?

Premier Living and Rehab Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 127 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina.

How Does Premier Living And Rehab Center Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Premier Living and Rehab Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Premier Living And Rehab Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Premier Living And Rehab Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Premier Living and Rehab Center has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Premier Living And Rehab Center Stick Around?

Premier Living and Rehab Center has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Premier Living And Rehab Center Ever Fined?

Premier Living and Rehab Center has been fined $443,620 across 2 penalty actions. This is 11.8x the North Carolina average of $37,515. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Premier Living And Rehab Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Premier Living and Rehab Center is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.