CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident, staff, Legal Guardian, Dialysis Nurse and Nurse Practitioner interviews the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident, staff, Legal Guardian, Dialysis Nurse and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to prevent Resident #49's unauthorized and unsupervised exit from the facility. Resident #49 was ruled incompetent, had a legal guardian and had verbalized the desire to leave to several staff members. This affected 1 of 3 residents (Resident #49) reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. Resident #49 was unsupervised and eloped from the facility's fenced in patio/smoking area the night of 6/17/21. The facility failed to communicate the 6/17/21 elopement to the dialysis center and Resident #49 was left unsupervised outside the dialysis center waiting on transportation on 6/25/21. As a result, Resident #49 eloped from the dialysis center and propelled himself two businesses down on a busy two-lane road. Resident #49 was found at a store by a dialysis center staff member and was taken back to the dialysis center.
Immediate jeopardy began on 6/17/21 when Resident #49 exited the facility's fenced in smoking area unsupervised. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 7/4/21 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of D (isolated with no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) to complete education and ensure monitoring systems put into place are effective related to supervision to prevent accidents.
The findings included:
Review of Resident #49's court orders revealed on 02/25/21 Counseling Center received legal guardianship of Resident #49 and he was ruled incompetent by the courts. Guardianship included Resident #49 needed assistance taking prescribed medications, communicate regarding health decisions, seek medical help for serious problems, keeping a sanitary living environment, to identify and void life-threatening behaviors, recognize and avoid hazards in home, seek help in emergencies, and capacity to make decisions without undue influence from others.
Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included renal failure, bipolar disorder with mania, muscle weakness, and vision impairment due to loss of right eye.
A review of the Elopement Risk Evaluation for Resident #49 dated 5/14/21 revealed Resident #49 was marked for no concerns of elopement.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #49 was assessed for being cognitively intact and requiring extensive assistance with one person staff for activities of daily living (ADL). The MDS further revealed Resident #49 mobilized with a wheelchair and was not coded for delusions or hallucinations.
Resident #49 did not have a care plan for wandering or elopement behaviors.
An interview with Resident #49 on 6/27/21 at 10:23 AM revealed a week half ago he escaped the facility and made it to the fence line while smoking unsupervised in attempt to go home to another state and a staff member spotted him and brought him back inside the facility gate. Resident #49 revealed he also escaped again during dialysis recently while waiting on transport and made it down the road and a staff member stopped him.
A further interview with Resident #49 on 6/29/21 at 4:15 PM stated his plan was to panhandle from one state to another to live with friends that he has not spoken to in 20 years. Resident #49 stated he had no plans to seek medical treatment, continue dialysis, or where he would live or what he would eat during his attempt to travel.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #7 on 6/28/21 at 4:15 PM revealed on 6/17/21 at 11:30 PM Resident #49 was outside unsupervised smoking and another resident notified the NA that Resident #49 was outside of the fence. The NA #7 stated Resident #49 was sitting in his wheelchair outside the fence on the bank which sloped down to a wooded area. The NA further revealed she could barely see the resident due to the darkness and she ran and jumped the fence because she was scared the resident was going to flip off the bank. NA #7 stated Resident #49 plan was to travel to a store to buy cigarettes and go to another state. NA #7 stated a staff member contacted the Administrator and a note was put up at the nurse's desk instructing the staff if the resident attempted to elope to contact the administrator and the police. The NA revealed no interventions or precautions were put into place during 2nd shift on 06/17/21. NA #7 recalled seeing the posted note during her 2nd shift for only two shifts. NA #7 stated that she was not made aware Resident #49 had spoken to staff about leaving the facility on 6/17/21. NA #7 further revealed Resident #49 had discussed leaving the facility to go to another state since his admission [DATE]).
An interview with Nurse #3 on 6/30/21 at 12:15 PM revealed on 6/17/21 during 2nd and 3rd shift change another resident reported to staff Resident #49 had left the facility fenced in Nurse #3 stated when she got to Resident #49, he indicated he was going to the store to buy cigarettes but was aware he had no money. He further revealed to Nurse #3 and NA #7 that he was going to the store to make money and travel to another state. Nurse #3 revealed the Administrator was contacted and a staff member posted a note at the desk if Resident #49 attempted to leave again to contact the Administrator and the police. Nurse #3 further revealed Resident #49 had never voiced leaving the facility prior to 6/17/21 and was not made aware of Resident #49 wanting to leave the day of 6/17/21. No interventions or precautions were put into place during Nurse #3's shift.
Review of incident reports revealed there were no incidents documented for Resident #49 on 6/17/21. In addition, there was nothing documented in the nurses notes and an Elopement Risk Evaluation was not completed after he eloped on 6/17/21.
A review of the weather conditions per Weather Channel website revealed the following data for [NAME], North Carolina. On 6/17/21 the website indicated it was partly cloudy with the low of 59 degrees Fahrenheit at 11:30 PM.
An observation of the fenced in patio area was conducted on 6/28/21 at 4:55 PM and revealed residents entering and exiting the patio without having to use a code. The cement patio had covered area with one picnic table and was surrounded by a grass area. It was further observed the patio gate that Resident #49 exited out of had a metal latch and was closed with a yellow bungee cord. Outside of the gate a cement path wrapped around the left side of the building but to the right it was observed to be a small dirt path between the fence and the tree line which sloped down to a bank.
An interview with the Maintenance Director on 6/29/21 at 10:40 AM revealed a request was completed by nursing staff dated 6/17/21 for a better gate mechanism. The Maintenance Director stated he was told to leave the bungee cord in place by the Administrator because it slows down residents trying to elope.
An interview with Dialysis Nurse on 6/28/21 at 2:00 PM revealed Resident #49 was left unsupervised waiting on transportation at the front of the dialysis building on 6/25/21. Resident #49 left the parking lot and propelled himself down the side of a two-lane highway traveling past a restaurant and turning into a gas station that is at the intersection of a major highway. Resident #1 was spotted by a dialysis employee who revealed cars passing were having to go around the resident and the employee was able to get the resident back to the facility. The Dialysis Nurse revealed she told the facility transporter about what had happened. The Dialysis Nurse stated they had no knowledge of Resident #1 to elope from the facility, and if they have known they would have not allowed him to go outside unsupervised. The Dialysis Nurse further stated Resident #1 would no longer be allowed to sit outside to wait on transportation.
An interview with the facility transporter on 06/28/21 at 1:00 PM revealed on 6/25/21 at 3:45 PM she picked up Resident #49 from the dialysis center on 6/25/21 and it was reported Resident #49 had left the facility unsupervised. The facility transporter further revealed Resident #49 made it two buildings down on a busy two-lane road. The Facility Transporter indicated Resident #49 had discussed multiple times escaping and leaving the facility and she had relayed the information to the Administrator.
Review of incident reports revealed there were no incidents documented for Resident #49 on 6/25/21. In addition, there was nothing documented in the nurses notes and an Elopement Risk Evaluation was not completed after he eloped on 6/25/21.
A review of the weather conditions per Weather Channel website revealed the following data for [NAME], North Carolina on 6/25/21. The website indicated it was partly cloudy and 83 degrees Fahrenheit.
An interview with the legal guardian on 6/28/21 at 8:20 PM revealed on 6/18/21 the guardian was contacted by the facility Social Worker (SW) and informed Resident #49 was making threats to leave the facility, and the facility could not stop the resident. The guardian reported she was not informed he had eloped from the facility on the night of 6/17/21 and stated Resident #49 was incompetent and could not make safe decisions for himself.
An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 06/29/21 at 11:35 AM revealed on 6/17/21 the Administrator reported to the SW Resident #49 was wanting to leave the facility through the front door that morning and go to a store to panhandle money to be able to hitch hike to another state to get his money. The SW further revealed the SW had a conversation with the Legal Guardian on 6/18/21 but did not reveal the resident had eloped the night of 6/17/21. The SW indicated she told the guardian the resident was having behaviors of possible elopement stating he was going to leave the facility. The SW indicated no interventions were put in place to prevent the resident from eloping again after Resident #49 left the facility through the patio gate on 6/17/21. The Social Worker (SW) revealed she was not made aware of his elopement from the dialysis center on 6/25/21 and was never notified to contact the guardian. The SW stated no interventions were put in place to prevent the resident from eloping after leaving the dialysis center. The SW recalled conversations with the resident, and he did not understand why he had to be in the facility.
A further interview with the SW on 7/1/21 at 8:15 AM revealed Resident #49 would not be able to be discharged to the community because the resident was unable to make safe decisions and was deemed incompetent.
An interview with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 6/29/21 at 8:50 AM revealed Resident #49 was deemed incompetent before being admitted into the facility. The NP further revealed Resident #49 was incompetent, unable to make any kind of sound medical decisions, and had threatened to leave since 5/13/21. The NP further revealed she was made aware of Resident #49's first elopement on 6/18/21 but had not examined the resident. The NP revealed she was not made aware of Resident #49 leaving the dialysis center unsupervised on 6/25/21.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/29/21 at 9:25 AM revealed Resident #49 had stated to the Administrator on 6/17/21 that he was going to leave the facility because he was unhappy. The DON stated she did not recall if any interventions to prevent elopement were put in place for Resident #49.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/01/21 at 9:15 AM revealed Resident #49 was extremely delusional and had been since admission. The DON indicated she was not informed by the dialysis center or Administrator of Resident #49 leaving the dialysis center on 6/25/21 and did not recall any interventions put into place to address his elopement. The DON stated Resident #49 should not be discharged to the community because he was unable to make safe decisions for himself.
An interview with the Administrator on 6/28/21 at 1:27 PM revealed on 6/17/21 during first shift Resident #49 was unhappy and continued to state he was going to leave the facility and go to another state. The Administrator revealed she had not put any interventions or precautions in place for Resident #49 at that time. She explained on 6/17/21 at 11:30 PM Resident #49 did exit out of the smoking area through the gate with plans of going to one state then to another. The Administrator stated she did not consider it an elopement because the resident was alert and had intact cognition. The Administrator further revealed if a resident with intact cognition left the facility and was alert it was not considered an elopement. The Administrator stated she had written a note and placed it at the nurses' desk for 24 hours on 6/18/21 for staff to keep an eye on Resident #49 and contact the Administrator and police if Resident #1 was to elope. The Administrator further revealed she did not discuss the resident's behaviors on 6/17/21 face to face with staff after he had discussed leaving the facility that day prior to the elopement. The Administrator stated no interventions or precautions were put in place.
An interview with the Administrator on 06/29/21 at 12:15 PM revealed she was notified by the facility transporter on 6/25/21 of Resident #49 eloping from dialysis center but felt that it was the dialysis center's responsibility the resident eloped from their facility. The Administrator stated his elopement on 6/25/21 was discussed during their morning meeting on 06/28/21 and no safety interventions were put in place for Resident #49 to prevent further elopement. The Administrator revealed the facility should have made the dialysis center aware of Resident #49's behaviors of elopement but failed to do so. The Administrator further revealed she was aware Resident #49 was incompetent at admission and given the resident history of bipolar depression, and elopement, she should have sent Resident #49 to the hospital and put safety interventions in place after the first elopement on 6/17/21.
The Administrator was informed of immediate jeopardy on 07/01/21 at 1:55 PM.
The facility provided the following acceptable IJ removal Plan with the correction date of 7/4/21:
The facility failed to supervise a cognitively impaired resident with wandering behaviors from exiting the facility and the dialysis center unsupervised.
What corrective action will be accomplished for the residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice?
1) Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance:
Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of renal failure, bipolar disorder with mania, unspecified symptoms and signs with cognitive functions and awareness, muscle weakness, and vision impairment due to loss of right eye. Resident #49 was ruled incompetent on 2/25/2021 by the courts and was appointed a Legal Guardian with Phoenix Counseling Center at that time. On 6/17/2021, Resident #49 attempted to exit the facility front door stating that he was going back to [NAME] Virginia, facility Administrator was present. Later, 6/17/2021 at approximately 11:00 pm, Resident #49 propelled himself through a gate in the fenced in smoking area. When Resident #49 exited the gate, the resident propelled himself behind the fence where the ground is unlevel and slopes to a drop off next to a wooded area. Another resident that was in the smoking area at the time of exit notified staff and staff went and returned Resident #49 back onto the facility. Facility did not complete an elopement assessment after either incident, implement safety interventions to address elopement or notify the Physician or Guardian. Additionally, resident receives dialysis services on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The facility did not communicate elopement risk to the dialysis center to ensure coordination of care for safety. On 6/ 25/21, dialysis notified the Van Driver when picking up Resident #49 that Resident #49 left the premises unassisted and propelled out of the parking lot down a busy side street to a gas station. A dialysis employee noted resident at the gas station and returned him to the dialysis center. The facility Van Driver communicated this information to the facility Administrator. The facility did not ensure safety interventions were initiated post incident on 6/25/2021 and did not notify the Physician or Guardian of the incident.
On 6/29/2021 Resident #49 was assessed by Physician. Physician advised periodic safety checks, placement of a wander guard related to elopement risk, and a Psychological Evaluation. Wanderguard placed on resident by Licensed Nurse on 6/29/2021 and every 15-minute safety checks initiated. Smoking Assessment was completed on 6/29/2021 and Resident #49 was made a supervised smoker and with placement of wander guard the door to the smoking area will alarm to alert staff of his proximity to the exit door. Elopement Assessment and care plan was updated by Director of Nursing on 6/29/2021 to reflect risk of elopement. All information was added to the Elopement Risk Binder and Careguide by the Administrator and Director of Nursing. Social Worker immediately contacted Community Mobile Crisis Unit for evaluation. Community mobile crisis completed an evaluation of Resident#1 on 6/29/2021 and recommends a higher level of care (i.e., secure unit). Social worker began referral process on 6/29/2021. On 6/30/2021, Social Worker, Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS), Senior Clinical Consultant, and Regional Clinical Consultant conducted a care conference with resident #49's legal guardian. Discussions included interventions for elopement risk, wanderguard and safety checks (15-minute checks), she agrees with plan of care as stated above. On 6/30/2021, the Administrator discussed with the Dialysis Center Social Worker the plan of care for Resident #49's elopement risk which included interventions of calling facility when dialysis is completed, and Resident #49 will remain in the dialysis center until facility transportation arrives. Dialysis Social Worker confirmed understanding of the plan of care.
All residents that are at risk for elopement have the potential to be affected when policies and procedures for elopements are not followed.
2) Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete:
Effective 6/29/2021, residents with Wanderguards were assessed to validate placement and function of the Wanderguards by Maintenance Director. Completion date of 6/29/2021.
Effective 6/29/2021, elopement assessments and care plans were reviewed and validated for all current residents assessed at risk for elopement by the Director of Nursing and MDS Nurse. Elopement risk binders were reviewed and updated as needed by the Administrator. Completion date of 6/29/2021.
Effective 7/1/2021, Licensed Nurses were re-educated by the Administrator and Director of Nursing on Elopement assessments and completion. They are completed on admission, then quarterly and/or as needed by the Licensed Nurse. Any newly identified residents noted at risk will be communicated by the licensed nurse during shift huddle at the change of each shift.
Effective 7/1/2021, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to include but not limited to Administrator, Director of Nursing, Charge Nurse, Activities Director, Social Worker, and Dietary Manager was re-educated by the Regional Clinical Consultant and Senior Clinical Consultant on Elopement Policy to include ensuring residents who are assessed at risk for elopement are supervised by facility staff and signs of elopement risk are recognized which included: resident packing belongings, resident stays near or searching for exit doors, and/or resident verbalizes/comments of wanting to go home. Additionally, they will be educated on their role in developing plans/interventions in response to any elopement risk. This should include a written careplan with elopement risk interventions formulated in conjunction with Physician/ Responsible Party (RP) and communicated with staff.
Effective 7/1/2021 - Administrator, Director of Nursing, and/or Regional Clinical Consultant initiated education with all staff in all departments including contracted employees on the facility elopement policy including ensuring residents who are assessed at risk for elopement are supervised by facility staff. Facility ensures that residents that exhibit wandering behavior and/or are at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents and receive care in accordance with their person-centered plan of care. Facility will establish and utilize a systematic approach to monitoring and managing residents at risk for elopement or unsafe wandering, including assessment and identification of risk, evaluation and analysis of hazards and risk, implementing interventions to reduce hazards and risks, and monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary. Education also to include signs of elopement risk: resident begins packing belongings, resident stays near or searching for exit doors, and/or resident verbalizes/comments of wanting to go home. When the above behaviors are noted, the nurse must be notified immediately and the charge nurse. Notification to Physician/RP/Administrator and DON should occur immediately if resident displays these behaviors. Documentation of the behaviors should be documented in the Electronic Health Record as well as recorded on the 24-hour shift report. An elopement assessment should be completed by the Licensed Nurse immediately following these behaviors. Elopement assessment will be reviewed, and appropriate intervention applied as needed. Interventions for elopement attempt: Redirect, diversional activities and notify Physician/RP and DON for further interventions. Residents identified at risk for elopement will be added to the Elopement Risk Binder, there are 2 Elopement Risk Binders in the facility (reception desk, nursing station). All staff re-educated on the location of the Elopement Binders. Each book contains current wander guard resident list and individual identification forms with pictures of these residents. Each hall nurse is responsible for checking placement of the wander guard each shift and ensuring it is documented in the medical record. Maintenance, Licensed Nurse or/designee will check function of all residents with wanderguards daily. Maintenance or designee will continue routine daily door and alarm checks to ensure alarms are functioning properly (ie sounds when activated). Additionally, Director of Nursing, Social Worker, Admissions Coordinator, Business Office Manager, Maintenance Director, Dietary Manager, Therapy Director and Licensed Nurses educated on the process of reviewing Resident Profile in the Electronic Health Record to determine who has a legal guardian due to competency status, this information will be entered by the Admissions Coordinator. Resident Profile will be printed off and placed in a binder at the nurse's station for review by all staff as appropriate. The education will be communicated verbally and telephonically by the Administrator and the Director of Nursing. Written education will be available for review prior to the staff member working their assigned shift. Administrator will utilize a master employee list to track completion of education. No staff will be allowed to work until education is completed. This education will be included in orientation for New Hires.
Effective 7/1/2021, the Regional Nurse Consultant will review all electronic nursing notes and 24-hour log sheets for current residents for the last 14 days to ensure there are no unaddressed elopement risk behaviors. No other residents were noted to have elopement risks which were not addressed. This review will be completed by 7/1/2021.
Effective 7/1/2021, Residents at risk for elopement that need to go out of the facility for an appointment will have elopement risk communicated with the receiving entity and have an appointment escort provided (i.e., family, facility staff). Nursing staff and Van Driver will be educated by Administrator.
Effective 7/1/2021 Nursing Management to include Charge Nurse and/or Director of Nursing will review 24-hour report sheets and previous day nurses notes to identify any change in condition i.e., exit seeking behavior for appropriate follow up and notification to Physician review will be completed daily. Any newly identified residents noted at risk will be communicated by the licensed nurse during shift huddle. Administrator will educate the Nursing Management team to include Charge Nurse, Licensed Nurses, Director of Nursing and Social Worker on the new process of monitoring and responsibilities of this plan by 7/1/2021.
Effective 7/1/2021 the Interdisciplinary Team (Nurse Managers, Social Work) will review residents at risk for elopement weekly in the Standards of Care Meeting to ensure continued appropriate interventions are in place to include Psych referral as indicated, with collaboration from the Physician/RP. Administrator will educate the Interdisciplinary Team on the new process of monitoring and responsibilities of this plan by 7/1/2021.
Effective 7/2/2021, the Administrator, Regional Nurse Consultant, Rehab Manager, and the Environmental Services Manager began conducting interviews with all staff (to include contract staff) to determine if there were any other resident exhibiting behaviors for risk for elopement (i.e. stating they are wanting or going to leave, packing belongings, wandering, or exit seeking) to ensure there are no unaddressed elopement risk behaviors. Interviews to be completed by 7/3/2021.
Effective 7/1/2021, the Administrator and Director of Nursing will be ultimately responsible to ensure implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged noncompliance.
The facility alleged immediate jeopardy removal effective date 7/4/2021.
The credible allegation of compliance with an immediate jeopardy removal date of 7/4/21 was validated on 7/9/21. Elopement books were observed at the nurses' station and at the front reception desk. The elopement books included pictures and descriptions of residents currently identified at risk for elopement. Staff in-services conducted from 7/2/21 through 7/8/21 were reviewed. No staff were allowed to work until they had received the in-service education. In-services included the following: review of resident elopement risk profile, elopement policy review (missing resident/patient), an elopement drill, use of a post-elopement follow-up report, and an elopement drill or post-elopement checklist. Staff were further in-serviced on how to identify a resident at new risk for elopement. A review of the signature sheets for the in-services revealed all staff were educated.
Interviews with staff on 7/9/21 from 3:42 PM through 5:24 PM revealed staff indicated they were required to complete on-line education regarding wandering / elopement. Staff were able to describe location of elopement books, how to identify elopement behaviors, responses to wander-guard alarms, identity of the 4 current residents at risk for elopement, strict observation of resident smokers in outdoor patio. Nursing staff were able to verbalize timing of elopement risk assessments as being on admission, with any indication that a resident was planning to elope and following any elopement. The administrator and DON verbalized a daily check of 24-hour reports was completed at the morning meeting. The Maintenance Director provided a daily audit of magnetic door locks. The audit was reviewed with no concerns identified.
SERIOUS
(H)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to 4 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to 4 of 4 residents (Resident #5, Resident #66, Resident #36, and Resident #35) reviewed for incontinence. The residents expressed feelings of being upset, humiliated, being forgotten about and feeling like the staff members didn't care about them.
The findings included:
1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain syndrome, heart failure and muscle weakness.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #5 was cognitively intact, required extensive physical assistance with bed mobility, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #5 was always incontinent of both urine and bowel.
Resident #5's care plan reviewed on 4/8/21 indicated Resident #5 required assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) related to chronic pain and generalized weakness. Interventions included to assist Resident #5 with ADL as needed and to assist with toileting or incontinence care routinely and as needed.
An interview with Resident #5 on 6/27/21 at 9:49 AM revealed that she remembered having had to wait for hours before she was provided incontinence care. Resident #5 could not remember the dates when this had happened but said it had happened more than once on the day shift. On several occasions, she was changed at 6:00 AM prior to the night shift nurse aide (NA) leaving and then did not get checked again or changed until 2:30 PM. Resident #5 added there was one day when a NA entered her room to provide incontinence care to her roommate but when she requested to be changed as well, the NA told her that she was not assigned to her and that another NA was going to come and change her. But the NA that was assigned to her never did come to provide incontinence care to her until the end of the shift. Resident #5 reported that this incident upset her and made her feel like she was forgotten about.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/29/21 at 10:11 AM revealed she often had to work on day shift on the hall where Resident #5 resided by herself and that it was impossible to get all her assigned tasks done. NA #1 stated it was possible that she was not always able to provide incontinence care to Resident #5 until around 2:30 PM on the day shift because the hall was full of residents who required incontinence care and it was harder to work with residents who required two-staff assistance for transfers. NA #1 also stated another NA on the next hall was supposed to help her out when she was by herself, but they didn't always come to help her, and they were probably busy with their own residents on the other hall.
An interview with NA #2 on 6/29/21 at 3:35 PM revealed she was a restorative nurse aide, but she often got pulled to work on the hall. NA #2 stated she often had to work by herself on day shift on the hall where Resident #5 resided. NA #2 said it was very hard to get everything done when she had to work on the hall by herself and that it was possible that she hadn't been able to get to Resident #5 to provide incontinence care to her until the end of the shift.
An interview with NA #3 on 6/29/21 at 4:04 PM revealed she usually worked on a different hall on the day shift but sometimes got assigned to watch the call lights on the hall where Resident #5 resided. NA #3 confirmed that she often had to answer Resident #5's call light towards the end of the day shift and she sometimes found her wet with incontinence with her gown and bed sheet soaked with urine. NA #3 stated Resident #5 complained to her all the time that she didn't get changed for nearly eight hours.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she had not been aware of the instances when Resident #5 was not provided incontinence care until the end of the day shift. The DON stated the NA assigned to the hall should have told her so she could get an extra NA to help on the hall. The DON stated the Activities Assistant and the Social Worker were both nurse aides and should have been able to help on the hall if needed. The DON added that Resident #5 should have been provided incontinence care in the morning before and after breakfast, before and after lunch and before the day shift staff members left. She said incontinence care being provided at least every two hours would have been great but was impossible if there was only one NA assigned to the hall. The DON confirmed that it was possible that a NA had refused to provide incontinence care to Resident #5 because she was not assigned to her but she should have helped her instead of making her wait for the NA that was assigned to her.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she had not been aware of any concerns related to Resident #5 not being provided incontinence care. The Administrator stated the restorative aides should have been available to help but if they got pulled to work on the hall, the NA on the next hall should have been helping the NA assigned to Resident #5. The Administrator stated incontinence care not being done timely was most likely due to not having enough staff to provide care to the residents in the facility.
2. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes, muscle weakness and chronic pain.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #66 was cognitively intact, exhibited no rejection of care behaviors and required extensive physical assistance with bed mobility, toilet use and personal hygiene. He was also occasionally incontinent of both urine and bowel.
Resident #66's care plan dated 6/4/21 indicated Resident #66 required assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) related to generalized weakness and abnormalities of gait. Interventions included to assist with ADL as needed and to assist with toileting/incontinence care routinely and as needed.
An interview with Resident #66 on 6/27/21 at 9:25 AM revealed he had sat for three hours before he got provided incontinence care. Resident #66 stated this happened all the time on the evening shift. Resident #66 said one time, two separate nurse aides (NA) came into his room to turn his call light off twice on the evening shift and told him that they would come back but they never did come back. Resident #66 said on that evening, he was provided incontinence care at 1:00 AM. Resident #66 stated this incident upset him and that it made him feel like they didn't care about him. Resident #66 added that he had given up on using the bed pan because it took them a while to get back to him to take him off and being on a bed pan for an extended period hurt his back. He stated he usually had to wait for two to three hours on the evening shift before his call light was answered.
A second interview with Resident #66 on 6/30/21 at 9:29 AM revealed he was very frustrated and confused about the continued lack of response from the staff members especially on the evening shift. Resident #66 reported he had turned his call light on before 7:00 PM on 6/29/21 because he needed incontinence care, but nobody came into this room until 10:15 PM. Resident #66 stated Nurse Aide (NA) #4 went into his room at 10:15 PM and provided incontinence care to him but he never asked her why it took her a long time to come because he feared being retaliated on. Resident #66 stated he knew they were short-staffed. He further stated he felt like they had forgotten about him and that they didn't care about him.
An interview with NA #1 on 6/30/21 at 11:56 AM revealed she usually took care of Resident #66 on the day shift and he told her all the time that they don't answer his call light on the evening shift until after two to three hours.
An interview with NA #4 on 6/30/21 at 2:29 PM revealed she was usually assigned to Resident #66 on the evening shift but had to work by herself on the hall at least three times a week. NA #4 confirmed that she worked by herself on 6/29/21 on the evening shift and didn't get to Resident #66's call light until after 10:00 PM. NA #4 stated she could not remember seeing Resident #66's call light being on at 7:00 PM but said it was very busy during that time because the residents had just finished with supper and everyone was wanting either to go to the bathroom or to go to bed. NA #4 stated she usually started at the beginning of the hall and worked her way to the end of the hall so she could get everything done. She said that was why it took her so long to get to Resident #66's call light because he was one of the residents who were located all the way at the end of the hall. NA #4 further stated there was nobody to help her do her rounds because the other nurse aides had their own hall to take care of.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she had not been aware of the instances when Resident #66 was not provided incontinence care until the end of the evening shift. She said incontinence care being provided at least every two hours would have been great but was impossible if there was only one NA assigned to the hall.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she had not been aware of any concerns related to Resident #66 not being provided incontinence care. The Administrator stated incontinence care not being done timely was most likely due to not having enough staff to provide care to the residents in the facility.
3. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and cerebral palsy.
The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #36 was severely cognitively impaired, required extensive physical assistance with bed mobility, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #36 was always incontinent of both urine and bowel.
Resident #36's care plan reviewed on 4/21/21 indicated Resident #36 required assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) related to impaired mobility. Interventions included to assist Resident #36 with ADL as needed and to assist with toileting or incontinence care routinely and as needed.
An observation conducted on 6/28/21 at 2:40 PM of NA #1 providing incontinence care to Resident #36. When NA #1 placed the resident in the bed and began to change her there was an odor noted in the room, Resident #36 ' s brief was heavy with brown substance and urine. NA #1 had to change Resident #36''s pants and brief due to incontinence.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/28/21 at 2:40 PM revealed she often had to work on day shift on the hall where Resident #36 resided by herself and that it was impossible to get all her assigned tasks done. NA #1 stated she had not provided incontinence care to Resident #36 during her 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift. She stated the last time Resident #36 had incontinence care was around 5:00 AM when third shift got the resident up from her bed. NA #1 stated the hall was full of residents who required incontinence care and it was harder to work with residents who required two-staff assistance for transfers. NA #1 also stated another NA on the next hall was supposed to help her out when she was by herself, but they didn't always come to help her, and they were probably busy with their own residents on the other hall.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she had not been aware of the instances when Resident #36 was not provided incontinence care. The DON stated the NA assigned to the hall should have told her so she could get an extra NA to help on the hall. The DON stated the Activities Assistant and the Social Worker were both nurse aides and should have been able to help on the hall if needed. The DON added that Resident #36 should have been provided incontinence care in the morning before and after breakfast, before and after lunch and before the day shift staff members left. She said incontinence care being provided at least every two hours would have been great but was impossible if there was only one NA assigned to the hall.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she had not been aware of any concerns related to Resident #36 not being provided incontinence care. The Administrator stated the restorative aides should have been available to help but if they got pulled to work on the hall, the NA on the next hall should have been helping the NA assigned to Resident #36. The Administrator stated incontinence care not being done timely was most likely due to not having enough staff to provide care to the residents in the facility.
4. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included non- Alzheimer's dementia, respiratory failure and cerebrovascular accident (CVA).
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #35 was severely cognitively impaired, required extensive physical assistance with bed mobility, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #35 was always incontinent of both urine and bowel.
Resident #35's care plan reviewed on 4/22/21 indicated Resident #35 required assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) related to impaired mobility. Interventions included to assist Resident #35 with ADL as needed and to assist with toileting or incontinence care routinely and as needed.
An observation conducted on 6/28/21 at 2:05 PM revealed Resident #35 sitting in his wheelchair in the middle of the hall with his hands covering his groin area. Resident #35's pants were observed to be wet to his waist and mid thigh. He stated that he had been wet for a hour waiting on assistance from a staff member.
An observation was conducted on 6/28/21 at 2:25 PM with NA #1 of her providing incontinence care to Resident #35. A strong urine odor was noted when she assisted the resident from his wheelchair. Resident #35's pants, shirt, brief and wheelchair pad was heavily saturated with urine. Urine was noted to be sitting in Resident #35's wheelchair on his slick covered foam pad. When NA #1 laid Resident #35 in the bed to change him she then had to change the sheet he laid on due to it being wet from the resident.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/28/21 at 2:30 PM revealed she often had to work on day shift on the hall where Resident #36 resided by herself and that it was impossible to get all her assigned tasks done. NA #1 stated she had provided incontinence care last to Resident #35 around 11:00 AM. The interview revealed she had noticed he was wet when she was picking up the lunch trays around 1:30 PM however had to assist another resident with incontinence care first due to them having an appointment. NA #1 stated the hall was full of residents who required incontinence care and it was harder to work with residents who required two-staff assistance for transfers. NA #1 also stated another NA on the next hall was supposed to help her out when she was by herself, but they didn't always come to help her, and they were probably busy with their own residents on the other hall.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she had not been aware of the instances when Resident #35 was not provided incontinence care. The DON stated the NA assigned to the hall should have told her so she could get an extra NA to help on the hall. The DON stated the Activities Assistant and the Social Worker were both nurse aides and should have been able to help on the hall if needed. The DON added that Resident #35 should have been provided incontinence care in the morning before and after breakfast, before and after lunch and before the day shift staff members left. She said incontinence care being provided at least every two hours would have been great but was impossible if there was only one NA assigned to the hall.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she had not been aware of any concerns related to Resident #35 not being provided incontinence care. The Administrator stated the restorative aides should have been available to help but if they got pulled to work on the hall, the NA on the next hall should have been helping the NA assigned to Resident #35. The Administrator stated incontinence care not being done timely was most likely due to not having enough staff to provide care to the residents in the facility.
SERIOUS
(H)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, record reviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff, resulting in missed showers for dependent residents (Resident #'s 238, 66...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff, resulting in missed showers for dependent residents (Resident #'s 238, 66, 48, 71, 30, 36, and 60), and incontinence care not being provided (Resident #'s 5, 66, 36 and 35) for 10 of 10 residents reviewed for staffing.
The findings included:
This tag is cross referred to:
1. F 550: Based on record review, observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide incontinence care to 4 of 4 residents (Resident #5, Resident #66, Resident #36, and Resident #35) reviewed for incontinence. The residents expressed feelings of being upset, humiliated, being forgotten about and feeling like the staff members didn't care about them.
2. F 677: Based on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled to 7 of 14 residents (Resident #238, Resident #66, Resident #48, Resident #71, Resident #30, Resident #36, and Resident #60) reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living.
An interview was conducted on 06/29/21 at 5:56 AM with NA #4 who revealed staffing was poor. NA #4 stated she was frequently asked to come in early and work 12 hour shifts and to work double shifts to cover the schedule. NA #4 further stated it was all they could do to complete 2 incontinence rounds on the residents. NA #4 said they were only able to get a few residents up early due to no assistance.
An interview was conducted on 06/29/21 at 3:16 PM with NA #7 who revealed she was not able to get all assigned showers done as scheduled. NA #7 stated they were usually able to get 2 incontinence rounds done but there was no way to do 4 rounds on the residents. NA #7 further stated there was not time to get everyone up out of bed.
An interview was conducted on 06/29/21 at 3:35 PM with NA #2 who revealed she was a restorative aide but had been working the halls all the time recently due to staffing. NA #2 stated she was only able to get 2 incontinence rounds done on residents and stated it was not possible to get the showers done as scheduled. NA #2 further stated she had not done restorative for months.
An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 06/30/21 at 4:10 PM. The Administrator stated staffing was a bit of a challenge. She further stated they had done several things to assist with recruiting. The Administrator indicated she was currently doing the schedule and was in the process of trying to hire a Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) who would be responsible for doing the schedule once her orientation was completed. She further indicated they had increased the base pay for Nurse Aides twice in one year - once in November 2020 and again in May of 2021. The Administrator also said they had increased the sign on bonuses for Nurses, Medication Aides and Nurse Aides. The sign on bonuses were described as: Nurses - $3500.00, Medication Aides $2000.00. and Nurse Aides $1000.00 and referral for NAs $1500.00 and for Nurses $2500.00. The Administrator stated they were hiring some Patient Care Aides (PCAs) and were working under a waiver and sponsoring NAs through college and paying their tuition, books and malpractice insurance and pay $100.00 towards their testing in return for the NA agreeing to contract to work at the facility for at least one year after graduation. She further stated she had met with the Regional Director of Operations and was now allowed to refresh ads with recruiters and currently used 3 different agencies to provide Nurses and NAs but was not always able to secure staffing through the agencies. The Administrator indicated the problem with agencies was they were not always able to send staff to assist with resident care. According to the Administrator, she had implemented administrative staff coming in on the weekends to assist with serving meals and feeding residents and for screeners to assist with the process also. The Administrator described the following open positions:
Nurses: 1 PT 1st shift LPN
Medication Aides (MAs): 1 part time 1st shift MA and 1 part time 2nd shift MA
Nurse Aides: 3 full time 1st shift, 5 part time or Baylor
3 to 4 full time 2nd shift or 3-4 part time or Baylor
2 full time 3rd shift and 2 part time
She further described their current shift bonuses for extra parts of shifts (4 hours) or whole shift (8 hours) as:
NAs are offered $75.00 per shift up to $225.00 per shift and Nurses are offered $225.00 per shift. The Administrator said the hardest shift to cover for Nurses was the evening shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM) and for the NAs the hardest shift to cover was the night shift (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM). She further said the work ethic among young people was just not there anymore. The Administrator indicted she was currently offering a meal to staff when they had to work short and observed Nurses ' s week, Nurse Aide week and Nursing Home week, including a cook out and prizes. She further indicated they tried to find fun ways to honor the staff and boost their moral.
A follow up interview was conducted on 07/01/21 at 1:22PM with the Administrator. She stated she didn ' t know how much more they could do other than what they were currently doing to improve staffing. The Administrator further stated she was working with the Regional Director of Operations on a weekly basis to try to resolve some of the staffing issues at the facility. She indicated the Regional Director of Operations was looking into other agencies to help with staffing and assisting with applications for employment.
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, staff interviews, and legal guardian interview the facility failed to notify the legal guardian when a r...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and legal guardian interview the facility failed to notify the legal guardian when a resident eloped from the facility and a treatment center for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #49) reviewed for notification.
The findings included:
Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis which included bipolar disorder with mania and unspecified symptoms and signs with cognitive functions and awareness.
Review of Resident court order revealed Resident #49 was ruled incompetent on 2/25/21 by the courts.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #49 was cognitively impaired.
a. Review of Resident #49 progress notes revealed no notification was documented in contacting the guardian about the resident's elopement on 06/17/21.
An interview with Nurse #3 on 06/30/21 at 12:15 PM revealed on 6/17/21 between 2nd and 3rd shift change Resident #49 eloped and left the facility. The nurse further revealed she did contact the Administrator but does not recall contacting Resident #49's legal guardian.
An interview with the legal guardian on 06/28/21 at 8:20 PM revealed on 6/18/21 the guardian was contacted by the facility Social Worker (SW) that Resident #49 was making threats to leave the facility. The legal guardian further revealed she had no knowledge Resident #49 had eloped from the facility on the night of 6/17/21.
An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 06/29/21 at 11:35 AM revealed the SW had a conversation with Resident #49 Legal Guardian on 6/18/21 but did not reveal the resident had eloped the night of 6/17/21.
An interview with the Administrator on 07/01/21 at 12:55 PM revealed Resident #49 eloped from the facility on 06/17/21 and they did not notify the legal guardian. The Administrator further revealed the guardian should have been notified after Resident #49 eloped.
b. Review of Resident #49 progress notes revealed no notification was documented in contacting the guardian about the Resident's elopement on 06/25/21.
An interview with the legal guardian on 6/28/21 at 8:20 PM revealed the legal guardian had no knowledge Resident #49 had eloped from the dialysis center on 6/25/21. The Guardian stated Resident #49 was incompetent and could not make safe decisions for himself.
An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 6/29/21 at 11:35 AM revealed she was not made aware of Resident #49's elopement from the dialysis center on 6/25/21 and was never notified to contact the guardian.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/01/21 at 12:55 PM revealed Resident #49 eloped from the facility on 6/25/21 from the dialysis center and did not notify the legal guardian. The Administrator further revealed the guardian should have been notified after Resident #49 eloped.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurate for 1 of 1 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurate for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for mood (Resident #49).
The findings included:
Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis which included bipolar disorder with mania and unspecified symptoms and signs with cognitive functions and awareness.
Review of Resident court order revealed Resident #49 was ruled incompetent on 2/25/21 by the courts.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #49 required extensive assistance with one person assist with activities of daily living (ADL) and was not coded for delusions.
An interview with Resident #49 on 06/27/21 at 10:23 AM revealed a week half ago he escaped the facility and made it to the fence line while smoking unsupervised in attempt to go home to another state and a staff member spotted him and brought him back inside the facility gate. Resident #49 revealed he also escaped again during dialysis recently while waiting on transport and made it down the road and a staff member stopped him. Resident #49 stated his plan was to panhandle to his home in another state to receive money to panhandle is way back to another state to live with friends that he has not spoken to in 20 years. Resident #49 stated he had no plans to seek medical treatment, continue dialysis, or where he would live or what he would eat during his attempt to travel.
An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 06/30/21 at 9:10 AM revealed the SW completed the MDS assessing mood section of the MDS. The SW further revealed she did not code Resident #49 delusional because only progress notes were reviewed and there were no notes discussing delusional behaviors. The SW stated she did not review the admission information from the hospital nor discuss resident behaviors with direct care staff. The SW further revealed Resident #49's admission MDS was not coded accurately and the resident should have been coded for having delusions.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/01/21 at 9:15 AM revealed Resident #49 was extremely delusional and since admission had been discussing with staff that he was leaving the facility and panhandling his way from his home in another state to to another state. The DON stated Resident #40 should have been coded for delusions on the MDS.
An interview with the Administrator on 07/01/21 at 12:55 PM revealed Resident #49 should have been assessed by reviewing his medical records, medicines, progress notes, interviewing direct care staff, and reviewing other assessments. The Administrator revealed Resident #49 should have been coded for delusions due to his diagnosis of bipolar disorder with mania and researching information needed to complete an MDS assessment accurately.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policies an...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policies and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when 1 of 2 staff members (Nurse #1) failed to wear an N95 mask, eye protection, gown and gloves prior to entering the room of 1 of 1 resident (Resident #239) on enhanced droplet isolation. Nurse #1 also failed to disinfect a glucometer after use on 1 of 3 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for infection control. These failures occurred during a COVID-19 pandemic.
The findings included:
1. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance entitled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, updated on 2/23/21 indicated the following information regarding Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use under the section, Recommended infection prevention and control (IPC) practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection:
* Put on an N95 respirator (or equivalent or higher-level respirator) before entry into the patient room or care area. Disposable respirators should be removed and discarded after exiting the patient's room or care area and closing the door unless implementing extended use or re-use.
* Put on eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face) upon entry to the patient room or care area. Remove eye protection after leaving the patient room or care area, unless implementing extended use.
* Put on clean, non-sterile gloves upon entry into the patient room or care area. Remove and discard gloves before leaving the patient room or care area, and immediately perform hand hygiene.
* Put on a clean isolation gown upon entry into the patient room or care area. Remove and discard the gown in a dedicated container for waste or linen before leaving the patient room or care area.
A review of the facility's COVID-19 policy entitled, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), updated on 5/28/21 indicated the following information:
* New admission Area - HCP (Healthcare Personnel) should wear an N95 or higher-level respirator (or facemask if a respirator is not available), eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face), gloves, and gown when caring for these residents.
Resident #239 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included right hip joint replacement surgery. She received her first COVID-19 vaccine at the facility on 6/21/21.
An observation was made of Nurse #1 on 6/27/21 at 12:59 PM entering Resident #239's room while wearing a surgical mask. A sign for enhanced droplet isolation was posted on Resident #239's door. The sign indicated the following instructions to follow before entering the room: N95 must fully cover the nose, mouth, and chin; eye protection when entering the room and gown and gloves when entering the room. There was also a storage bin for PPE right outside Resident #239's room. Nurse #1 carried a handful of towels and an ice pack into Resident #239's room without changing into an N95 mask and putting on a gown and gloves. She handed the towels and the ice pack to Resident #239 while talking to her. After 5 minutes, Nurse #1 exited Resident #239's room and rubbed hand sanitizer to both hands. Nurse #1 then walked over to 200 hall which was not a quarantine hall and started talking to Resident #36 who was in her wheelchair in the hallway. Nurse #1 applied a surgical mask onto Resident #36's face and pushed her wheelchair into her room. At 1:10 PM, Nurse #1 exited Resident #36's room and rubbed hand sanitizer to both hands.
An interview with Nurse #1 on 6/27/21 at 1:17 PM revealed that it was not relayed to her during report and she was not sure why Resident #239 was on enhanced droplet precautions, but she was responsible for Resident #239's care. Nurse #1 stated she thought the staff members only had to wear full PPE when providing direct patient care. Nurse #1 further stated she never wore an N95 mask, eye protection, gown and gloves if she entered Resident #239's room just to give her medications. Nurse #1 explained she went into Resident #239's room to give her an ice pack and some towels and she did not think she had to wear full PPE prior to entering the room just to do this task.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/27/21 at 1:30 PM revealed Resident #236 was on enhanced droplet isolation because she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and she hadn't been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. The DON stated the staff members were expected to wear an N95 mask, eye protection, gown, and gloves prior to entering rooms on enhanced droplet isolation. The DON further stated that Nurse #1 should have worn an N95 mask, eye protection, gown and gloves prior to entering Resident #236's room.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed they have done various education regarding PPE use especially for residents on quarantine and could not explain why Nurse #1 failed to wear full PPE prior to entering a room on enhanced droplet precautions.
2. A review of the facility's policy entitled, Cleaning and Disinfecting Glucometers, reviewed on April 2020 indicated the following information:
* Glucometers should be cleaned and disinfected after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions regardless of whether they are intended for single resident or multiple resident use.
A review of the glucometer manufacturer's instructions dated 2015 indicated the following:
* Clean and disinfect immediately after getting any blood on the meter or if meter is dirty.
* If the meter is being operated by a second person who provides testing assistance, the meter and lancing device should be disinfected prior to use by the second person.
An observation was made on 6/27/21 at 1:14 PM of Nurse #1 performing a blood sugar check on Resident #9. Nurse #1 cleaned the tip of Resident #9's right fifth finger with an alcohol wipe and stuck it with a lancet. Nurse #1 applied a drop of blood from Resident #9's right fifth finger into the glucometer strip that was inserted in a glucometer. Nurse #1 wiped the blood off Resident #9's right fifth finger and applied pressure until it stopped bleeding. After the blood sugar reading had registered on the glucometer, Nurse #1 pulled out the strip and discarded it, along with the alcohol wipe and her gloves. Nurse #1 proceeded to place the glucometer back into its case without disinfecting it and left the machine at the bedside.
An interview with Nurse #1 on 6/27/21 at 1:17 PM revealed she only cleaned the glucometers at the end of the shift and that she didn't have to clean them anymore each time she used the glucometers because the residents had their own glucometers which were stored at the bedside.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 9:45 AM revealed glucometers were supposed to be disinfected after each use even though they stored the glucometers at the bedside.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she was not sure why Nurse #1 did not follow the facility's policy regarding glucometer disinfection because she had been educated on it.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #67 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with one person staff for bathing.
An interview with Resident #67 on 6/30/31 at 10:00 AM revealed she received showers on Monday and Thursdays but would like to have more. Resident #67 had requested multiple times to nursing staff that she would like more than two showers per week but was told by nurse aids that she could not have more showers because there was not enough staff. Resident #67 revealed she would like a shower at least four times a week because her hygiene was important to her.
An interview with Nurse Aid (NA) #10 on 6/30/21 at 4:15 PM revealed Resident #67 never refused showers but does not recall Resident #67 requesting extra showers. NA #10 further revealed she had observed other residents requesting more showers and staff telling residents they could not receive an extra shower due to being short staffed.
An interview with Nurse #4 on 6/30/21 at 4:30 PM revealed Resident #67 had revealed she wanted an extra shower day. Nurse #4 further revealed Resident #67 could not receive an extra shower because nurse aids were unable to get current residents showers done.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:55 AM revealed she was aware that showers were not getting done as scheduled due to short staffing. The DON further revealed she had not heard Resident #67 requesting more showers, but if she had she would not be able to receive an extra shower due to shortage of staff.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:55 PM revealed she does not recall Resident #67 requesting additional showers but stated it was not realistic for residents to receive more than the current showers scheduled due to short staffing. The Administrator further revealed she expected for residents to be able to receive additional showers when the facility had more staff available.
4. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of depression.
Resident #2 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. He required limited assistance of one person for personal hygiene, bed mobility and toileting.
Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed he was interviewed on 3/31/2021 by the Activities Direction (AD #5). The interview disclosed that the resident had informed AD #5 of his request to have his model car kits as part of his daily activity.
A review of Resident #2's care plan dated 4/9/2021 revealed a goal to maintain a high level of leisure independence. Interventions included offer and provide materials for independent leisure and assist as needed with leisure supplies.
Observation of Resident #2 on 6/27/2021 at 11:00 AM revealed him sitting on the side of the bed, putting on his socks.
An interview with Resident #2 on 6/27/2021 at 11:10 AM revealed there is nothing really for me to do here. I just want to work on my model cars. The resident recalled telling the Administrator on admission that he needed to work on his model cars to keep from getting down. He indicated he had informed the Administrator during that conversation that he had his supplies in a locked toolbox. He stated he understood the model glue produced toxic fumes and he would have to have a ventilated area to work. He stated other residents could be at risk of injury if exposed to the glue fumes and the knife he used for trimming the plastic on the models. He specified the locked toolbox would keep everyone safe. He revealed his understanding that the toolbox would have to be kept in a secure area and not in his room. He indicated he had also made the Activities Director (AD #5) aware of his personal choice to work on models. He revealed AD #5 had provided a wooden block police car for him to put together, but that was not the same. Resident #2 showed a new model car kit in a box in his drawer. He stated, I've been ready to work on this, but they haven't given me my tools. My toolbox was at my dad's and they just had not told him it was okay to bring it.
An interview on 6/29/2021 at 9:00 AM with AD #5, revealed she was aware of Resident #2's request to work on his models. She stated she had added a Working with Hands activity to the calendar just for Resident #2. The activity involved putting together a wooden block car. AD #5 stated she had not received the okay to do his models. AD #5 stated the issue had been discussed at department management meetings, but no further action had been taken.
Observation on 6/29/2021 at 9:15 AM of the activities calendar, activities room, and activity cart revealed coloring pages, puzzles, crafts, music, and exercise challenges. A computer programmed with games and music was also available.
An interview with the facility Administrator on 6/30/2021 at 4:44 PM revealed she had spoken with Resident #2 and his father about the models. The Administrator stated Resident #2 could not be allowed to do the models until we have deemed it safe. The Administrator acknowledged the issue had been discussed at department management meetings but could not provide a timeline during in which the facility could accommodate the resident's choice. The Administrator could not explain why the resident's request had not been resolved during his three-month residence.
Based on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor the residents' preferences regarding use of an electric bed, smoking, preferred number of showers per week and activity of choice for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #5, Resident #69, Resident #67 and Resident #2) reviewed for choices.
The findings included:
1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain syndrome, muscle weakness and abnormalities of gait and mobility.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #5 was cognitively intact but required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living including bed mobility and transfer. The MDS further indicated Resident #5 was currently working with PT (Physical Therapy) and OT (Occupational Therapy).
An interview with Resident #5 on 6/27/21 at 9:49 AM revealed her main concern during her stay at the facility was about having a crank/mechanical bed instead of an electric bed that she could control. Resident #5 stated she wanted an electric bed so she could control the height of the bed and raise/lower her head or legs whenever she wanted to. Resident #5 added that she would be able to lower her bed and sit on the side so she could work on exercises taught to her during therapy if she had an electric bed. Resident #5 further stated she currently had to rely on staff members to crank her bed up whenever she wanted to and felt frustrated that she had to ask them to come to her room just because she wanted to get repositioned in the bed. Resident #5 reported that she had told several staff members about wanting an electric bed but was told there was nothing they could do about it.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/29/21 at 10:11 AM revealed she usually worked with Resident #5 on day shift and she had complained to her several times that she wanted an electric bed. NA #1 reported that Resident #5 spent most of her time on her bed and only got up whenever she had visits from her family or when she had to work with therapy.
An interview with Nurse #2 on 6/29/21 at 4:27 PM revealed Resident #5 had told her over a week and a half ago about wanting an electric bed which she could be able to adjust herself. Nurse #2 stated she told one of the housekeepers who said that they would check if any electric bed was available.
An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 6/30/21 at 9:12 AM revealed Resident #5 had been requesting for an electric bed ever since she was admitted to the facility. The SW stated she knew the Administrator had been trying to procure some electric beds but was not sure if any was currently available. The SW reported that housekeeping and maintenance usually kept up with the inventory of how many electric beds were used at the facility and how many were available.
An interview with the Housekeeping Director (HD) on 6/30/21 at 9:49 AM revealed the facility had electric beds which were dispersed throughout the whole facility. She stated most beds on the rehabilitation hall were electric beds but could not say how many were currently available. The HD stated she was not aware of any request from Resident #5 to get an electric bed and added that she would need to check the availability, but it would have to be approved first by the Administrator.
An observation of the rehabilitation hall was made on 6/30/21 at 12:02 PM and revealed a total of 8 empty rooms with electric beds not being used on these rooms.
An interview with the Administrator on 6/30/21 at 3:24 PM revealed the facility had a limited number of electric beds and more than half of the beds used in the facility were manual beds. The Administrator remembered Resident #5 requesting for an electric bed, but they didn't have one available at the time of her original request. The Administrator stated they usually reserved electric beds for the rehabilitation hall but some of the long-term care residents could use one if they were able to control it themselves. The Administrator admitted she hadn't thought about taking an electric bed from the rehabilitation hall because it had always been full until two to three weeks ago.
2. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar, depression and non- Alzheimer's dementia.
The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #69 was severely cognitively impaired, requiring extensive assistance with most activities of daily living including bed mobility and transfer.
An interview with Resident #69 on 6/27/21 at 9:42 AM revealed her main concern was the staff not assisting her getting up to smoke at her smoking times during the day which was 9:00 AM and 1:30 PM. During the interview Resident #69 was noted to be laying in bed.
An interview with Resident #69 on 6/27/21 at 11:57 AM revealed the staff never assisted her up out of the bed to go outside during her supervised smoking time at 9:00 AM. She stated, Please take me.
An observation of Resident #69 on 6/28/21 at 9:03 AM revealed the resident to be laying in bed. Resident #69 stated, nobody has gotten me up to go smoke.
An interview with Resident #69 on 6/28/21 at 3:10 PM revealed she hadn't been taken outside during her supervised smoking times. She stated she wanted to go but nobody would take her.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/29/21 at 10:11 AM revealed she usually worked with Resident #69 on day shift and she had complained to her several times that she wanted to go outside and smoke. NA #1 stated she was the only NA on the hall and couldn't take the resident nor get her up prior to her smoking time of 9:00 AM. She stated with 13 complete lifts on the hall it was impossible to get everyone up and take a supervised smoker outside.
An interview with the Housekeeping Director on 6/29/21 at 10:52 AM revealed that housekeepers were asked to take the supervised smokers outside during their smoking times. She stated Resident #69 was expected to roll herself in her wheelchair to the smoking door and housekeeping would assist her outside since they were not supposed to touch the residents. The interview revealed the housekeepers were not trained nor qualified to assisted the residents during their smoking times. She stated if Resident #69 wasn't at the door at her expected time then the housekeepers didn't go looking for her.
An interview conducted with Housekeeper #1 on 6/29/21 at 11:08 AM revealed she had been asked to assist the residents who required supervised smoking which was Resident #69. She stated sometimes the NAs got busy and didn't have the resident up in her wheelchair therefore she couldn't assist her outside. Housekeeper #1 stated she did not take Resident #69 outside to smoke on the morning of 6/29/21 because she didn't think about it. She stated she asked Resident #69 if she wanted to go smoke on 6/28/21 and the resident stated she couldn't get out of bed by herself and there wasn't a NA to get her up.
An interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/29/91 at 11:22 AM revealed the supervised smoker in the facility was Resident #69. She stated if staff hadn't gotten her up at her designated smoking times then she didn't go outside to smoke. The DON stated housekeeping should ask her if she wants to go smoke however, they would not be able to assist her out of the bed. She stated she related the issue to staffing since the NA on the hall did not have time to get the resident up and dressed prior to her smoking time.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 7. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of stroke with hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the bo...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 7. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of stroke with hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and right-hand contracture.
Resident #60's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. He required extensive assistance of one person for bathing and transfers
A review of Resident #60's care plan dated 10/2020 and last revised 6/2021 revealed no care plan focus for refusal of care. The care plan specified a goal of resident will participate in activities of daily living. Interventions for the goal included allow/encourage resident to participate and encourage choices.
An interview with Resident #60 on 6/27/2021 at 10:30 AM revealed he preferred at least three showers a week, but he was not currently getting the two he was scheduled for. He stated he was scheduled for Tuesday and Friday showers, but he did not get his showers on his scheduled days due to low staffing. Resident #60 stated he often slept late into the day as that was his preference. He stated he thought staff often saw him asleep during the day and just wrote him down as refusing his shower. He stated, I don't refuse showers. I can do most of it myself. I just need someone with me.
A review of Resident #60's shower sheets revealed he was scheduled to have 2 showers per week. He was documented to have received 7 of the 16 scheduled showers from May to June 2021. The shower report did not show any shower refusals by Resident
#60.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/29/2021 at 10:13 AM revealed she had been regularly assigned to the hall on which Resident #60 resided. NA #1 stated Resident #60 liked to have his showers in the evenings, but low staffing influenced the showers scheduled on first and second shift.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/2021 at 9:10 AM revealed she was aware that showers were not being given as scheduled. The DON stated low staffing was the root cause for Resident #60 not getting showers as scheduled. She stated a resident's refusal of a shower meant the resident verbally stated they did not want a shower. Refusal did not mean the resident was asleep when it was time for the shower, nor did it mean the Nurse Aide (NA) attempted only once. She stated her expectation of staff was that at least 2 attempts were made to provide a shower for residents.
An interview with the facility Administrator on 7/1/2020 at 1:00 PM revealed she attributed missed showers to low staffing. The Administrator stated she expected staff to make sure showers were completed.
Based on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled to 7 of 14 residents (Resident #238, Resident #66, Resident #48, Resident #30, Resident #71, Resident #36, and Resident #60) reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living.
The findings included:
1. Resident #238 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes with foot ulcer, muscle weakness and excoriation (skin-picking) disorder.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #238 was cognitively intact, exhibited no rejection of care behaviors, and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and bathing.
Resident #238's care plan dated 6/1/21 indicated Resident #238 required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) related to generalized weakness, abnormalities of gait and diabetic foot ulcer. Interventions included to assist with ADL as needed and to assist with showers as scheduled on Monday and Thursday on day shift.
A review of Resident #238's Bath Report Roster from 5/20/21 to 6/29/21 indicated she received a shower on 5/27/21, 6/3/21, 6/22/21 and a bed bath on 6/24/21.
An observation and interview were conducted with Resident #238 on 6/27/21 at 11:48 AM. Resident #238 appeared disheveled with dried flakes noted on her hair and face. Her legs and arms were wrapped up with a cohesive elastic bandage. She stated that she did not have any open areas except for her right heel but her legs and arms were wrapped because she had a habit of scratching and picking at her skin. Resident #238 smelled of urine, but she was observed wearing regular cloth underwear. Resident #238 stated she last had a bed bath on 6/24/21 although she was supposed to receive a shower on Mondays and Thursdays on day shift. Resident #238 further stated she did not get her showers as scheduled because the staff members told her they did not have time to do them. On 6/24/21, Nurse Aide (NA) #3 gave her a bed bath instead of a shower because she had three other residents to give showers to and she didn't have time to give her a full shower. Resident #238 said she preferred a full shower instead of a bed bath because she didn't feel like she got cleaned enough with a bed bath. Resident #238 added she was able to use the bathroom with assistance from staff.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/29/21 at 10:11 AM revealed she worked with Resident #238 on day shift on 6/10/21, 6/14/21 and 6/17/21 but did not remember being able to give her a shower on those days because she didn't have time to do them. NA #1 stated she often had to work on the hall by herself and even though another nurse aide was assigned to help her, it was still hard to get all the showers done. NA #1 added she was unable to give Resident #238 a shower on 6/28/21 because she was the only nurse aide on the hall, and she didn't have time to get any of the scheduled showers done.
An interview with NA #5 on 6/29/21 at 3:16 PM revealed she worked with Resident #238 on 6/7/21 but did not remember giving her a shower that day. NA #5 stated they had too much to do on day shift and usually prioritized the residents who were supposed to get visits or who were going out to medical appointments. NA #5 said they didn't always have time to do showers on day shift.
An interview with NA #3 on 6/29/21 at 4:04 PM revealed she had to give Resident #238 a bed bath instead of a full shower on 6/24/21 because she had three other residents who were scheduled to have a shower that day. NA #3 stated she just didn't have time to do all the showers that were scheduled for the day.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she was aware that the showers were not being completed as scheduled because of the facility's staffing issues. The DON stated they knew they did not have enough staff to provide care to the residents, but they just did not know how to fix the staffing issues. The DON added they had tried everything they could think of to hire more staff and ultimately, the goal was to hire a separate team of staff members to be assigned just to do the showers on their shift.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #238 and had seen her looking disheveled and her picking at her skin was significantly worse. The Administrator also stated she knew Resident #238 sometimes had toileting accidents but refused to wear incontinent briefs. The Administrator said she couldn't say she expected showers to be done as scheduled because it was not realistic due to the staffing challenges the facility was currently facing.
2. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes, muscle weakness and chronic pain.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #66 was cognitively intact, exhibited no rejection of care behaviors, was occasionally incontinent of both urine and bowel, and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and bathing.
Resident #66's care plan dated 6/4/21 indicated Resident #66 required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) related to generalized weakness, abnormalities of gait and chronic pain. Interventions included to assist with ADL as needed and to assist with showers as scheduled on Tuesday and Friday on day shift.
A review of Resident #66's Bath Report Roster from 5/24/21 to 6/29/21 indicated he received a shower on 6/1/21 and 6/22/21, and a bed bath on 5/28/21, 6/4/21 and 6/25/21. Resident #66 refused a shower on 6/15/21.
An observation and interview were conducted with Resident #66 on 6/27/21 at 11:13 AM. Resident #66 was lying in bed on a disposable draw sheet with an empty urinal on his bedside table. Resident #66 smelled of urine, but he stated he used his urinal whenever he had to urinate. Resident #66 stated since he had been in the facility, he had received only two showers and three bed baths. He said he was supposed to receive a shower on Tuesdays and Fridays on day shift but only received one when he requested for one. Resident #66 reported the nurse aides did not offer him a shower on the days he was scheduled to get one because the facility did not have enough staff. Resident #66 admitted he had refused one shower on 6/15/21 because it was too close to supper when they asked to take him to the shower room, and he didn't want to take a shower that late in the day.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/29/21 at 10:11 AM revealed she worked with Resident #66 on day shift on 6/8/21 and 6/11/21 but did not remember being able to give him a shower on those days because she didn't have time to do them. NA #1 stated she often had to work on the hall by herself and even though another nurse aide was assigned to help her, it was still hard to get all the showers done.
An interview with NA #5 on 6/29/21 at 3:16 PM revealed she worked with Resident #66 on 6/8/21 but did not remember giving him a shower that day. NA #5 stated they had too much to do on day shift and usually prioritized the residents who were supposed to get visits or who were going out to medical appointments. NA #5 said they didn't always have time to do showers on day shift.
An interview with NA #2 on 6/29/21 at 3:40 PM revealed she was assigned to Resident #66 on 6/18/21 on day shift but did not have time to give him his scheduled shower because she was the only nurse aide on the hall.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she was aware that the showers were not being completed as scheduled because of the facility's staffing issues. The DON stated they knew they did not have enough staff to provide care to the residents, but they just did not know how to fix the staffing issues. The DON added they had tried everything they could think of to hire more staff and ultimately, the goal was to hire a separate team of staff members to be assigned just to do the showers on their shift.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed Resident #66 had not been getting his scheduled showers due to the facility's staffing problems. The Administrator said she couldn't say she expected showers to be done as scheduled because it was not realistic due to the staffing challenges the facility was currently facing.
6. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and cerebral palsy.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #36 was severely cognitively impaired,
exhibited no rejection of care behaviors and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and bathing.
Resident #36's care plan dated 4/21/21 indicated Resident #36 required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) related to impaired mobility. Interventions included to assist with ADL as needed and to assist with showers as scheduled on Monday and Thursday on day shift.
A review of Resident #36's Bath Report Roster from 4/29/21 to 6/29/21 indicated she received a shower on 5/7/21, 5/10/21, 5/24/21, 6/4/21, 6/10/21, 6/21/21 and 6/22/21.
An observation was conducted of Resident #36 on 6/27/21 at 10:07 AM. Resident #36 appeared disheveled with a black substance underneath her fingernails.
An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 6/29/21 at 10:11 AM revealed she worked with Resident #36 on day shift on 6/10/21, 6/14/21 and 6/17/21 but did not remember being able to give her a shower on those days because she didn't have time to do them. NA #1 stated she often had to work on the hall by herself and even though another nurse aide was assigned to help her, it was still hard to get all the showers done. NA #1 added she was unable to give Resident #36 a shower on 6/28/21 because she was the only nurse aide on the hall, and she didn't have time to get any of the scheduled showers done.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she was aware that the showers were not being completed as scheduled because of the facility's staffing issues. The DON stated they knew they did not have enough staff to provide care to the residents, but they just did not know how to fix the staffing issues. The DON added they had tried everything they could think of to hire more staff and ultimately, the goal was to hire a separate team of staff members to be assigned just to do the showers on their shift.
3. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility 05/07/21 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included muscle weakness, pain, encephalopathy and heart disease.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was severely cognitively impaired, exhibited no rejection of care behaviors, and required extensive to total assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL) including personal hygiene. According to the MDS Resident #48 had not had a bath or shower during the look back period.
Resident #48's care plan dated 06/15/21 indicated Resident #48 required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) related to encephalopathy, pain and muscle weakness. Interventions included to assist with ADL as needed and to assist with showers on Wednesday and Saturday on day shift.
A review of Resident #48's Bath Report Roster dated 04/29/21 through 06/29/21 indicated she received a shower on 05/11/21, 05/14/21, 05/18/21, 05/26/21, 06/16/21 and 06/23/21. Resident #48 refused showers on 06/19/21 and 06/26/21.
An observation and interview were conducted with Resident #48 on 06/27/21 at 10:04 AM. Resident #48 was lying in bed on a disposable draw sheet. Resident #48 had particles in her teeth and her teeth appeared to have a filmy substance on them. Resident #48's fingernails were long and had brown debris under the nails. Resident #48's hair was disheveled and appeared not to have been combed. Resident #48 stated staff had not assisted her to brush her teeth and stated she had not had a shower. The resident further stated she preferred to have a shower over a bed bath. Resident #48 indicated she liked her fingernails long and did not want them cut but stated she wanted them cleaned.
An interview with NA #3 on 06/29/21 at 3:34 PM indicated she frequently worked on the 100 hall where Resident #48 resided and cared for her during the week. NA #3 revealed there was too much to do on day shift with 2 meals to serve and incontinence care to be done to get to showers. NA #3 further revealed she often worked alone on her hall and it was hard to get all the showers assigned done for the day. NA #3 said there were days when there was not even enough time to give residents assigned for showers a bed bath. NA #3 added they usually had to prioritize residents as to who looked like they needed a shower the worst or who was getting family visits to decide who might get a shower for the day.
A phone interview was attempted on 06/29/21 at 3:55 PM, 06/30/21 at 8:30 AM and 06/30/21 at 5:00 PM with an agency NA with no return calls.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she was aware that the showers were not being completed as scheduled because of the facility's staffing issues. The DON stated they knew they did not have enough staff to provide care to the residents, but they just did not know how to fix the staffing issues. The DON added they had tried everything they could think of to hire more staff and ultimately, the goal was to hire a separate team of staff members to be assigned just to do the showers on their shift.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #48 and had seen her looking disheveled and her dry skin. The Administrator also stated she knew Resident #48's family member wanted her showered at least 2 times per week and had requested she be up and dressed every day. The Administrator said she couldn't say she expected showers to be done as scheduled because it was not realistic due to the staffing challenges the facility was currently facing.
4. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included non-traumatic brain dysfunction, peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and dementia.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired, exhibited no rejection of care behaviors and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. According to the MDS Resident #30 had not had a bath or shower during the look back period.
Resident #30's care plan dated 04/30/21 indicated Resident #30 required assistance with activities of daily living related to generalized weakness, lack of coordination, history of falls, abnormality of gait, cerebral ischemia and dementia. Interventions included to assist with ADL as needed and to assist with showers as scheduled on Wednesday and Saturday on evening shift.
A review of Resident #30's Bath Report Roster from 04/29/21 through 06/29/21 indicated she received a shower on 04/29/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 06/17/21 and 06/26/21 and a complete bed bath on 06/23/21.
An observation of Resident #30 was conducted on 06/28/21 at 9:30 AM. Resident #30 was sitting in her wheelchair out in the hallway, dressed appropriately for the weather. Resident #30's hair was oily and disheveled, and her skin appeared dry and flakey. The resident was not able to be interviewed and unable to say when she last received a shower.
An interview with NA #4 on 06/29/21 at 5:56 AM revealed she typically worked on the 100 hall with Resident #30 on 2nd shift during the week. NA #4 stated there was usually just one NA on each hall on 2nd shift and they were just unable to get any showers done. NA #4 further stated it was all they could do to keep everyone changed and dried and fed their dinner. She indicated even when there was more than one NA on each hall that it was still difficult to get showers done.
A phone interview was attempted on 06/29/21 at 3:55 PM, 06/30/21 at 8:30 AM and 06/30/21 at 5:00 PM with an agency NA with no return calls.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she was aware that the showers were not being completed as scheduled because of the facility's staffing issues. The DON stated they knew they did not have enough staff to provide care to the residents, but they just did not know how to fix the staffing issues. The DON added they had tried everything they could think of to hire more staff and ultimately, the goal was to hire a separate team of staff members to be assigned just to do the showers on their shift.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #30 and had seen her looking disheveled and her skin being dry and flakey. The Administrator said she couldn't say she expected showers to be done as scheduled because it was not realistic due to the staffing challenges the facility was currently facing.
5. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included epilepsy, osteoporosis and dementia.
The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #71 was severely cognitively impaired exhibited no rejection of care behaviors and required extensive with personal hygiene but was independent with bathing with set up.
Resident #71's care plan dated 06/08/21 indicated Resident #71 required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) related to intellectual disabilities, bipolar disorder, seizures, Parkinson's disease, chronic pain syndrome and dementia. Interventions included to assist with ADL as needed and to assist with showers as scheduled on Monday and Thursday on day shift.
A review of Resident #71's Bath Report Roster from 04/29/21 through 06/29/21 indicated he received a shower on 04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/21/21, 05/28/21, 06/22/21 and 06/28/21.
An observation of Resident #71 on 06/30/21 at 10:34 AM revealed he was sitting up in his wheelchair in his room, dressed for the day. The resident appeared disheveled, had food particles in his teeth and dry flakey skin and was sitting in the dark in his room. The resident was not able to be interviewed and unable to say when he last received a shower.
An interview with NA #8 on 06/29/21 at 3:15 PM revealed she typically worked on the 400 hall where Resident #71 resided. NA #8 stated they typically worked with 1 NA to a hall and sometimes 2 and it was difficult to get incontinence care done for all the residents and showers were not always given as scheduled. NA #8 further stated they had to prioritize showers with who looked as though they needed a shower worse, who was going out for an appointment or who was getting a family visit. NA #8 said it was not fair to the residents, but it was the best they could do given the staff available to care for the residents and all that had to be done on day shift. NA #8 stated Administration was aware of how short they were working because they were always asking for staff to work over or come in early to cover the schedule.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/1/21 at 8:53 AM revealed she was aware that the showers were not being completed as scheduled because of the facility's staffing issues. The DON stated they knew they did not have enough staff to provide care to the residents, but they just did not know how to fix the staffing issues. The DON added they had tried everything they could think of to hire more staff and ultimately, the goal was to hire a separate team of staff members to be assigned just to do the showers on their shift.
An interview with the Administrator on 7/1/21 at 12:50 PM revealed she was familiar with Resident #71 and had seen him looking disheveled. The Administrator also stated she knew Resident #71 liked to do things for himself but needed assistance. The Administrator said she couldn't say she expected showers to be done as scheduled because it was not realistic due to the staffing challenges the facility was currently facing.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote an environment free from crawling an...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote an environment free from crawling and flying insects. This was evident in 3 of 4 resident care hallways (200, 300, and 400 hallways) and ten of ten resident rooms (rooms 205, 308, 309, 311, 312, 313, 410, 411, 412 and 413).
The findings included:
On 06/27/21 at 10:07 AM a flying insect was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] flying around Resident #36's head.
On 06/28/21 at 12:30 PM a flying insect was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] flying around Resident #36's head while she was eating her lunch.
On 06/29/21 at 7:09 AM a flying insect was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] flying around Resident #36's head.
On 06/29/21 at 7:19 AM two crawling black insects were observed in the 400 hall.
On 06/29/21 at 7:30 AM three crawling black insects were observed in the 300 hall.
On 06/29/21 at 3:16 PM an interview was conducted with NA #7. NA #7 stated there were flying insects in room [ROOM NUMBER] and they had been there since the weather was warm. NA #7 further stated there were crawling small black insects in room [ROOM NUMBER] and she had seen them as recent as today and said they had been there at least a month or more. NA #7 stated she had placed it in the Maintenance Director's book, and he had sprayed but they just came back.
On 06/29/21 at 3:35 PM an interview was conducted with NA #2. NA #2 stated she had seen crawling small black insects in room [ROOM NUMBER] as recent as today and they had been there for about a month. NA #2 stated she had told the Maintenance Director but had not placed it in the book and he had sprayed but they just came back over and over.
On 06/29/21 at 3:34 PM an interview was conducted with NA #3. NA #3 stated she had seen crawling large black insects in the 300 and 400 hallways as recent as today and had seen crawling small black insects in rooms 311, 312 and 313 as recent as today. NA #3 stated there were always ants in the rooms on the 300 and 400 halls and stated the Maintenance Director was aware of it and just kept spraying for them, but they didn't go away.
On 06/29/21 at 4:27 PM an interview was conducted with Nurse #2. Nurse #2 stated she had seen crawling large black insects in the 300 hall today and had seen crawling small black insects in rooms 311, 312 and 313 just today. Nurse #2 further stated she had seen flying insects in some of the patient rooms but none today. Nurse #2 indicated there were always ants in some of the rooms on the 300 hall and despite the Maintenance Director spraying for them they did not go away. Nurse #2 further indicated she and the NAs had repeatedly reported it to the Maintenance Director.
On 06/30/21 at 10:45 AM an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director. The Maintenance Director stated the facility had a contract with an insecticide company for monthly maintenance of insects and pests. According to the records provided, the last visit was on 06/02/21 and the facility had been sprayed inside and outside for insects and pests. In addition, the Maintenance Director explained he had sprayed for ants earlier today in room [ROOM NUMBER] and shared there were ants reported earlier in the week in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. The Maintenance Director indicated he was not aware of any flying insects in the building but was aware of ants being reported in room [ROOM NUMBER] specifically. The Maintenance Director further stated residents had reported seeing spiders in their rooms but stated the insecticide company had reported to him they did not have an insecticide spray to combat spiders. He indicated since the weather had been warm, he was having to spray more in between monthly visits from the insecticide company.
On 06/30/21 at 11:25 AM an interview was conducted with alert and oriented residents out in the smoking patio. Resident #67 stated she had had ants in her bed (room [ROOM NUMBER]) and said staff had to change her bed linens twice in one day due to ants crawling in her bed. She further stated she could not remember the date but said it had been in the last month. Resident #52 stated there were ants and spiders in her room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) and there had been a spider in her bedside table. Resident #52 stated they had sprayed but it did not seem to help. Resident #7 stated he had a problem with ants in his room and stated they sprayed but there were still ants. Resident #41 stated he had spiders in his room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) and had killed a spider in the building as he was walking in from the smoking patio yesterday. Resident #7 stated he had a problem with ants in his room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) and despite them spraying it was still a problem.
On 07/01/21 at 1:19 PM a follow up interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director. The Maintenance Director stated the facility had a contract with a pest control company for monthly maintenance. He did not have a copy of the contract with the insecticide company but stated the Administrator should have a copy on file. He stated in between the monthly visits from the pest control company he could spray insecticide, or they could put in a special request for a visit in between the monthly visits but had not done a special request. According to the Maintenance Director he was not aware there was a problem with crawling or flying insects today but stated he would spray the 300 and 400 halls and the rooms mentioned with insecticide. The Maintenance Director indicated he did not know where the flying insects were coming in but suspected it might be the door out to the smoking patio since the residents went out there in their wheelchairs and held the door open for a while. He further indicated there was a fan at the door to prevent flying insects from entering the facility but when the door is held open for an extended period the fan did not function as well.
On 07/01/21 at 1:22 PM an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated she could not locate a copy of the contract between the facility and the insecticide company but stated they had contacted them several times to get a copy of the contract. She indicated there had been complaints of ants, flies and spiders voiced by several residents and some staff since the warmer weather and said the Maintenance Director had sprayed but if that did not take care of the problem they would contact the company to come out again and spray. According to the Administrator the company comes out every month to spray to kill the insects, set traps for pests or whatever they needed, and they made additional trips out as needed and requested for issues.