PruittHealth-Union Pointe

3510 West Highway 74, Monroe, NC 28110 (704) 291-8500
For profit - Limited Liability company 90 Beds PRUITTHEALTH Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#278 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

PruittHealth-Union Pointe has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #278 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina places it in the bottom half, and it is the lowest-rated facility in Union County. The facility is currently improving, with issues decreasing from 20 in 2024 to just 5 in 2025, which is a positive sign. Staffing is a strength, with a 4 out of 5-star rating and RN coverage exceeding 93% of state facilities, although the turnover rate is 58%, which is average. However, the facility has accumulated $197,532 in fines, indicating serious compliance issues, and recent inspector findings raised alarm bells, including critical incidents of sexual abuse involving residents with severe cognitive impairments and the failure to implement protective measures.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In North Carolina
#278/417
Bottom 34%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
20 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$197,532 in fines. Higher than 96% of North Carolina facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for North Carolina. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 20 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 58%

12pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $197,532

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: PRUITTHEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 3 actual harm
May 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, Resident Representative, and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct quarterly care c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, Resident Representative, and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct quarterly care conferences with residents and their families for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for care conferences (Resident #25, Resident #12, and Resident #41). The findings included: A. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility 6/11/24. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #25 to be cognitively intact. Review of Resident #25's medical record revealed a care conference conducted on 1/6/25. The medical record indicated the next care conference date was 4/6/25. Review of the medical record revealed no care conference had been conducted on 4/6/25. Resident #25 was interviewed on 5/6/25 at 8:59 AM. When asked if she had participated in quarterly care conferences, Resident #25 reported she had, but it had been months since the last one. B. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility 11/12/24. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #12 to be cognitively intact. The medical record for Resident #12 was reviewed and a care conference was documented on 11/19/24. The medical record indicated the next care conference date was 2/17/25. Review of the medical record revealed no care conference had been conducted on 2/17/25. Resident #12 was interviewed on 5/8/25 at 12:51 PM and he reported he participated in a care conference in November 2024 when he was admitted to the facility but had not had another since then. C. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility 12/23/24. The quarterly MDS documented Resident #41 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #41's medical record revealed no care conferences documented. Resident #41's Representative was interviewed by phone on 5/5/25 at 5:40 PM. The Representative reported she had not received an invitation to a care conference. The Representative explained she was Resident #41's Power of Attorney and she expected to be invited to care conferences. The former SW was interviewed by phone on 5/7/25 at 4:37 PM. The SW explained that she was not aware the care conferences were her responsibility and thought it was another staff member's responsibility. The SW explained when she was told it was her responsibility, she was so behind, she was unable to get caught up. The Nurse Consultant and Administrator were interviewed on 5/7/25 at 2:01 PM. The Administrator reported the Social Worker (SW) had been responsible for the care conferences. The SW had been terminated from her position and when the facility consultant reviewed charts, the Nurse Consultant discovered that the care conferences had not been completed. The Administrator reported he expected the care conferences to be completed quarterly, and the residents and representatives to be invited. The Nurse Consultant explained that she had conducted a 100% audit of all residents, and the facility had distributed the work between departments to complete the care conferences. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a completion date of 5/3/25: How corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice On April 4.16.2025 the Social Worker was suspended from her position due to job performance. Ultimately, this would also be her last day working for the Organization. In efforts to identify issues needing to be addressed within the Social Services Department, the facility began to conduct internal audits to address areas within her job duties. On 5.2.2025 it was discovered that several residents had not had either had care plans scheduled, or there was no documentation to validate care plans had been held. Resident #25's care conference was scheduled for 5/15/25; Resident #12's care conference was scheduled for 5/5/25; Resident #41's care conference was scheduled for 5/12/25. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient. All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. On 5.2.2025, the Nurse Consultant conducted an audit on 100% of resident charts to identify residents who were missing documented care plan meetings. Forty-five of 82 residents were identified as not having documented quarterly care plan meetings. Care Plan meetings for the identified residents will be scheduled were scheduled and held beginning 5.5.2025. Care Plan meetings will be held by 5.16.25, unless families and/or responsible parties have conflicts and cannot attend. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not occur. On 5.2.2025, an abbreviated Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Meeting was held to discuss the findings related to care plan meeting audit. Due to the nature of the audit's findings and urgency to resolve the deficient practice, the abbreviated Ad Hoc committee assigned the facility Infection Preventionist to contact families telephonically to schedule meetings. To ensure the deficient practice does not reoccur, on 5.2.2025, the Administrator re-educated the designated facility interdisciplinary team members on the policy and procedure for the right of residents to participate in the person-centered care planning process. Meeting attendees included the Administrator, Clinical Competency Coordinator, Director of Health Services, Assistant Director of Health Services. Dietary Manager, Case Mix Director, and Activities Director. This education has also been added to the facility's General Orientation for all newly hired interdisciplinary team members. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained: The Assistant Director of Health Services will audit 10 records weekly to ensure care plan meeting notification to residents, families and/or responsible parties has been made and scheduled. The Assistant Director of Health Services will also audit the previous week's care plan meetings to ensure there is documentation of the meeting. This audit will be conducted weekly for 4weeks. Thereafter, audits will be conducted twice monthly for two months, and then monthly for three months. The Assistant Director of Health Services will present audit findings and analysis to the Administrator weekly and with the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee monthly for three months and until compliance is maintained. The Assistant Director of Health Services is responsible for implementing and maintaining the acceptable plan of correction. The decision to monitor and include in QAPI was made 5/2/2025. Date of compliance: 5.3.2025 The facility's corrective action was reviewed on-site and validated on 5/8/25. Initial audits were reviewed and 100% of residents in house on 5/2/25 were reviewed and 45 of the 82 residents were identified as not having care conference meetings. Staff were interviewed regarding calling resident representatives to schedule care conferences. Resident Representative for Resident #41 reported she had received an invitation to a care conference to be conducted the week of 5/12/25. The ad-hoc QAPI meeting minute notes for 5/2/25 were reviewed and the team discussed the missed care conferences and developed a plan for correction. Education provided to the interdisciplinary staff and general orientation for interdisciplinary staff was reviewed and included review of the facility policy Care Plans. The facility compliance date of 5/3/25 was validated on 5/8/25.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and Nurse Practitioner (NP) and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of an unsuccessful attempt to insert a midline intravenous (IV) line (long, thin, flexible tube that is inserted into a large vein in the upper arm) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for notification (Resident #80). The findings included: Resident #80 was admitted to the facility 11/17/20 with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] did not conduct an interview for cognition because Resident #80 was rarely or never understood. A NP note dated 2/27/25 documented a positive urine culture and potential pneumonia for Resident #80 and ordered cefepime (an antibiotic) to be administered by IV due to Resident #80's refusal to take oral medications. Physician orders for Resident #80 were reviewed and revealed an order dated 2/27/25 to insert a midline IV to be inserted. An order dated 2/27/25 specified cefepime 1 Gram to be administered in 50 milliliters of dextrose intravenously every 12 hours starting on 2/28/25. A nursing note dated 2/27/25 written by Nurse #3 documented the midline IV was not inserted because Resident #80 was pulling and jerking her arm away. The note documented the Resident Representative was notified. An interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 5/8/25 at 11:39 AM. Nurse #3 reported she was assigned to Resident #80 on 2/27/25 when the infusion company attempted to insert the midline IV, but Resident #80 was combative and would not allow them to insert the IV. Nurse #3 reported she told the Resident Representative the IV could not be inserted. When asked if Nurse #3 called the on-call NP to notify the physician, Nurse #3 reported she had told the Unit Manger (UM) that the midline IV could not be inserted and she assumed the UM would call the on-call NP. The UM was interviewed by phone on 5/12/25 at 4:37 PM. The UM reported she was working on 2/27/25 and was told by Nurse #3 that Resident #80 did not have the midline IV inserted because she was combative. The UM explained she did not call the on-call NP to notify the physician because that would have been Nurse #3's responsibility. The NP was interviewed by phone on 5/12/25 at 9:55 AM. The NP reported that Resident #80 had been refusing oral medications and the Resident Representative agreed to trying IV medications for the urinary tract infection and possible pneumonia. The NP explained that neither her nor the on-call NP received a notification that the midline IV was not inserted on Resident #80 due to her combativeness on 2/27/25. The NP reported the UM notified her the midline was not inserted the morning of 2/28/25. The NP reported that she would not have ordered anything to be done for Resident #80 after the failed attempt to start the midline IV on 2/27/25, however, she expected to be notified immediately of any refusals or changes for residents. The NP explained that not receiving the antibiotic on 2/28/25 did not adversely affect Resident #80's outcome and she would not have ordered a different antibiotic on 2/27/25 until she was able to consult with a pharmacist. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed by phone on 5/12/25 at 4:54 PM. The DON explained that during the morning meeting on 2/28/25, the interdisciplinary team reviewed nursing notes from the previous date and noted that the on-call NP had not been notified that Resident #80 was combative and the midline IV was not inserted. The DON reported they recognized the staff nurses required education about notifying the NP, but because this was an isolated incident, they did not start a plan of correction with monitoring and only provided education to the nursing staff. The DON reported he expected the nursing staff to report resident changes and refusals to the on-call NP.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to administer scheduled medication as ordered ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to administer scheduled medication as ordered by the physician for 7 of 24 residents on the 500 hall reviewed for medication administration (Resident #339, Resident #335, Resident #20, Resident #13, Resident #43, Resident #8, Resident #11). The findings included: A. Resident #339 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety Physician order dated 10/17/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #339 Lorazepam (antidepressant and anxiety) 2 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #339 did not receive Lorazepam 2 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. B. Resident #335 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Physician order dated 3/17/2023 revealed an order to administer Resident #335 Mirtazapine (antidepressant and anxiety) 7.5 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #335 did not receive Mirtazapine 7.5 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. C. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included pain in right knee and major depressive disorder. Physician order dated 9/24/2021 revealed an order to administer Resident #20 Mirtazapine (depression) 15 mg at bedtime. Physician order dated 10/31/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #20 Gabapentin (pain) 100 mg two times a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #20 did not receive Gabapentin 100 mg at 8:00 PM and Mirtazapine 15 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. D. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included major depressive disorder. Physician order dated 10/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #13 Zoloft (antidepressant) 100 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #13 did not receive Zoloft 100 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. E. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included Alzheimer's disease. Physician order dated 3/25/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #43 Donepezil (Alzheimer's disease) 10 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #43 did not receive Donepezil 10 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. F. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included major depressive disorder. Physician order dated 2/23/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #8 Trazodone (antidepressant) 25 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #8 did not receive Trazodone 25 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. G. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. Physician order dated 6/7/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #11 Mirtazapine (antidepressant, anxiety) 7.5 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #11 did not receive Mirtazapine 7.5 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. A telephone interview was conducted with Nurse #4 on 5/8/25 at 8:46 AM. Nurse #4 stated on 12/7/2024 she was assigned a shift of 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. She indicated after 10:30 PM there were only two nurses (Nurse #5 and herself) in the facility to administer medications. Nurse #4 nor Nurse #5 wanted to take responsibility for taking an additional assignment when Nurse #6 left at 11:00 PM. Due to only having two Nurses on 3rd shift, she contacted the Administrator to communicate she did not feel safe taking the medication cart keys for the 500 hall because she would be responsible for administering medications to the entire unit (400 and 500 halls). Nurse #4 stated she nor Nurse #5 administered medication to the 500 hall resulting in the residents not receiving medications as ordered. An interview was attempted with Nurse #6 on 5/8/2025 at 11:26 AM. The phone call was not returned. An interview was attempted with Nurse #5 on 5/8/2025 at 11:28 AM, her mailbox was full and a message could not be left. Another call was attempted with Nurse #5 on 5/8/2025 at 1:14 PM, after the surveyor introduced herself the call was disconnected. At 1:15 PM a final attempt was made to call Nurse #5 back with no answer and her mailbox was full and no message could be left. The Infection Preventionist was interviewed on 5/8/25 at 1:23 PM. She revealed on 12/7/24 she was acting as the interim DON. The Infection Preventionist stated she did not recall being contacted by the Administrator or nursing staff regarding there not being a nurse assigned to administer medications. Had she been contacted about the staffing concern she would have come into the facility to cover the shift to ensure medications were administered according to the physician orders. An interview was conducted on 5/9/2025 at 9:43 AM via telephone with the Medical Director. During the interview the Medical Director stated he did recall the incident when residents did not receive medication but did not recall the exact date or time. He recalled there was no delay in his notification and implementation of interventions which included assessment of all affected residents to ensure there was no significant change in resident status due to missed doses of medication. He conducted a general sweep of the affected hall (500) to review any high-risk medications. He stated in general missing a single dose or two of medication in many chronic conditions would not result in decompensation or adverse outcomes. An interview was conducted on 5/8/2025 at 7:49 AM with the Administrator. During the interview he revealed on 12/7/2024 (time unknown) he was informed by Nurse #4 the facility was short nursing staff on the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift. He stated he asked the dayshift Nurse #6 to stay until 11:00 PM leaving the facility with two nurses Nurse #4 and Nurse #5 after 11:00 PM. After being notified by Nurse #4 she was not going to administer medications on the 500 hall, he attempted to contact other nurses to cover the unit. He further stated when he arrived at the facility, he felt as though there was sufficient staff. The Administrator contacted the Medical Director and notified him that medications had not been administered to residents on the 500 hall due to not having a nurse. The Administrator stated the Medical Director adjusted medication times and residents were assessed with no negative outcomes. An additional interview with the Administrator was conducted on 5/9/2025 at 10:43 AM. He stated the expectation of the nurses was to ensure all residents received their medication. He further stated if the unit was short staffed the expectation was for the nurse on the unit to get report from the off going nurse and take the medication cart keys to administer medication to the residents.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to have sufficient staff in the facility to administer medications as ordered to the 500 hall/unit for 17 of 24 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to have sufficient staff in the facility to administer medications as ordered to the 500 hall/unit for 17 of 24 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #339, Resident #335, Resident #20, Resident #56, Resident #338, Resident #38, Resident #63, Resident #19, Resident #336, Resident #333, Resident #11, Resident #13, Resident #45, Resident #26, Resident #29, Resident #337, Resident #8). Finding included: This tag is crossed referenced to: F658: Based on record review, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to administer scheduled medication as ordered by the physician for 7 of 24 residents (Resident #339, Resident #335, Resident #20, Resident #13, Resident #43, Resident #8, Resident #11) on the 500 hall reviewed for medication administration. This tag is cross referenced to: F760: Based on record review, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to administer scheduled medication as ordered by the physician for 17 of 24 residents (Resident #339, Resident #335, Resident #20, Resident #56, Resident #338, Resident #38, Resident #63, Resident #19, Resident #336, Resident #333, Resident #11, Resident #13, Resident #45, Resident #26, Resident #29, Resident #337, Resident #8) on the 500 hall when there was no nurse assigned to administer medication. This practice resulted in significant medication errors. Nurse Supervisor #1 was interviewed on 5/8/2025 at 6:14 AM. She revealed when nurses called out the procedure was to call the Staffing Coordinator or the Administrator. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 5/8/2025 at 6:18 AM. She revealed when the facility was short staffed, she was able to adjust the schedule. She would call off duty nursing staff to come in or notify the Staffing Coordinator, Administrator or DON when she was unable to get additional staff to come in. She further revealed if the facility was short staffed the Unit Manager or Supervisor should take a cart to pass medication. An interview was conducted with the Staffing Coordinator on 5/8/2025 at 8:33 AM. She stated on 12/7/2024 she was notified there was a call out and attempted to call off duty nurses to come in to work. She further stated she informed the Administrator and Infection Preventionist who was acting as the interim DON the facility was short nursing staff. She further stated she did not recall if she was able to get additional nurses to come in to work.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to administer scheduled medication as ordered ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to administer scheduled medication as ordered by the physician for 17 of 24 residents (Resident #339, Resident #335, Resident #20, Resident #56, Resident #338, Resident #38, Resident #63, Resident #19, Resident #336, Resident #333, Resident #11, Resident #13, Resident #45, Resident #26, Resident #29, Resident #337, Resident #8) on the 500 hall when there was no nurse assigned to administer medication. This practice resulted in significant medication errors. The findings included: A. Resident #339 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included atrial fibrillation (irregular, rapid heart rate), congestive heart failure and hypertension. Physician order dated 10/17/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #339 Eliquis (anticoagulant) 2.5 milligrams (mg) two times a day. Physician order dated 10/29/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #339 Metoprolol Tartrate (used to treat chest pain and hypertension) 50 mg two times a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #339 did not receive Eliquis 2.5 mg at 9:00 PM and Metoprolol Tartrate 50 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. B. Resident #335 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included essential tremors. Physician order dated 5/22/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #335 Carbidopa-Levodopa (combination drug to treat symptoms of Parkinson's disease) 25-100 mg two times a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #335 did not receive Carbidopa-Levodopa 25-100 mg at 8:00 PM. C. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included hypertension. Physician order dated 10/31/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #20 Coreg 6.25 mg (used to treat hypertension and congestive heart failure) twice a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #20 did not receive Coreg 6.25 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. D. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included type 2 diabetes mellitus. Physician order dated 10/24/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #56 Lantus Insulin (long-acting insulin) 25 units once a morning. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #56 did not receive Lantus Insulin 25 units at 6:00 AM on 12/8/2024. Per the MAR on 12/7/2024 the medication was not initialed as given. E. Resident #338 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy (nerve pain) and restless legs syndrome. Physician order dated 11/4/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #338 Gabapentin (used to treat neuropathy and restless legs syndrome) 300 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 11/22/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #338 Ropinirole (used to treat restless legs syndrome)1.5 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #338 did not receive Gabapentin 300 mg at 9:00 PM and Ropinirole 1.5 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. F. Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included type 2 diabetes mellitus and bipolar disorder. Physician order dated 11/7/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #38 Depakote (anticonvulsant drug used to treat bipolar disorder) 1500 mg at bedtime. Physician order dated 11/2/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #38 Novolog Insulin (rapid-acting insulin) per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime. Physician order dated 11/7/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #38 Seroquel (antipsychotic medication used to treat bipolar disorder) 50 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #38 did not receive Depakote 1500 mg at 9:00 PM, Novolog Insulin per sliding scale at 9:00 PM and Seroquel 50 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. G. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included hypertension, diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and chronic pain syndrome. Physician order dated 11/9/2023 revealed an order to administer Resident #63 Carvedilol (used to treat hypertension) 25 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 4/11/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #63 Gabapentin 100 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #63 did not receive Carvedilol 25 mg at 9:00 PM and Gabapentin 100 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. H. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, venous thrombosis (blood clot) and embolism (blood vessel blockage)-apical thrombus. Physician order dated 8/14/2023 revealed an order to administer Resident #19 Eliquis 2.5 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 8/14/2023 revealed an order to administer Resident #19 Entresto 24-26 (lowers blood pressure and treats heart failure) mg two times a day. Physician order dated 11/23/2023 revealed an order to administer Resident #19 Levemir Insulin (long-acting insulin) 16 units every 12 hours. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #336 did not receive Eliquis 2.5 mg at 8:00 PM, Entresto 24-26 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024 and Levemir Insulin 16 units at 6:00 AM on 12/8/2024. I. Resident #336 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and atrial fibrillation. Physician order dated 11/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #336 Lantus Insulin 13 units at bedtime. Physician order dated 11/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #336 Metoprolol 12.5 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 11/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #336 Novolog Insulin per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #336 did not receive Lantus Insulin 13 units at 9:00 PM, Metoprolol 12.5 mg at 9:00 PM, Novolog Insulin per sliding scale at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024 and Novolog Insulin per sliding scale at 6:30 AM on 12/8/2024. There was no documented Blood Sugar (BS) on the MAR at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2025, the 6:30 AM, 11:30 AM and 4:30 PM doses were not given per sliding scale parameters. J. Resident #333 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia and dementia. Physician order dated 12/3/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #333 Basaglar Insulin (long-acting insulin) 4 units at bedtime. Physician order dated 9/21/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #333 Metoprolol 50 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 12/5/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #333 Risperidone (antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia) 0.25 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #333 did not receive Basaglar Insulin 4 units at 9:00 PM, Metoprolol 50 mg at 9:00 PM and Risperidone 0.25 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. K. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, factitial dermatitis (intentional self-inflicted skin injury), rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, pain in right hip, pain in left ankle and joints of left foot. Physician order dated 11/8/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #11 Divalproex (prescribed for factitial dermatitis) 125 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 4/9/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #11 Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen (narcotic pain reliever) 5-325 mg two times a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #11 did not receive Divalproex 125 mg at 8:00 PM and Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. L. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included pain in left knee, pain in left hand and seizures. Physician order dated 10/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #13 Gabapentin (anticonvulsant) 300 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 10/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #13 Primidone (anticonvulsant)250 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #13 did not receive Gabapentin 300 mg at 9:00 PM and Primidone 250 mg at 9:00 PM. M. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included schizophrenia, epilepsy and anxiety disorder. Physician order dated 8/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #45 Lorazepam (used to treat anxiety, insomnia and epilepsy) 0.5 mg three times a day. Physician order dated 8/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #45 Risperidone 3 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 12/6/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #45 Tegretol (anticonvulsant and mood stabilizer) 100 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 8/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #45 Trazodone (antidepressant sometimes prescribed as a sleep aid) 50 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #45 did not receive Lorazepam 0.5 mg at 9:00 PM, Risperidone 3 mg at 9:00 PM, Tegretol 100 mg at 9:00 PM and Trazodone 50 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. N. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included unspecified convulsions, extrapyramidal and movement disorder (involuntary movement often caused by medication), bipolar disorder and unspecified psychosis. Physician order dated 11/11/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #26 Benztropine (used to treat extrapyramidal and movement disorder) 2 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 11/11/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #26 Divalproex (anticonvulsant also used to treat bipolar disorder)) 500 mg two times a day. Physician order dated 11/11/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #26 Risperidone (antipsychotic medication used to treat bipolar disorder) 1 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #26 did not receive Benztropine 2 mg at 9:00 PM, Divalproex 500 mg at 9:00 PM and Risperidone 1 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. O. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included major depressive disorder, Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia (involuntary movements of the face, arms, legs and trunk), essential tremor, anxiety disorder, chronic pain, delusional disorder, auditory hallucinations, restlessness and agitation. Physician order dated 8/12/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #29 Buspirone (antianxiety medication) 15 mg three times a day. Physician order dated 8/12/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #29 Gabapentin 100 mg three times a day. Physician order dated 10/18/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #29 Lorazepam (antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg at bedtime. Physician order dated 8/12/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #29 Pramipexole (used to treat symptoms of Parkinson's disease) 0.25 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #29 did not receive Buspirone 15 mg at 9:00 PM, Gabapentin 100 mg at 9:00 PM, Lorazepam 0.5 mg at 9:00 PM and Pramipexole 0.25 mg at 9:00 PM on 12/7/2024. P. Resident #337 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy (damage to multiple peripheral nerves), generalized anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, restlessness and agitation. Physician order dated 12/2/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #337 Divalproex mg every 8 hours (atypical antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder). Physician order dated 11/26/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #337 Humalog Insulin (fast-acting insulin) per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime. Physician order dated 11/22/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #337 Quetiapine (atypical antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder) 100 mg at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #337 did not receive Humalog Insulin per sliding scale at 9:00 PM, Quetiapine 100 mg at 9:00 PM, Divalproex 250 mg at 10:00 PM on 12/7/2024 and Divalproex 250 mg at 6:00 AM on 12/8/2024. According to the MAR there was no documentation on 12/7/2024 of the 6:30 AM or 9:00 PM blood sugars. Q. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included hypertension, chronic pain, neuralgia (nerve pain) and neuritis (pain causing inflammation of the peripheral nerves). Physician order dated 12/4/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #8 Doxazosin (used to treat hypertension) 4 mg at bedtime. Physician order dated 10/15/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #8 Gabapentin 100 mg every 8 hours. Physician order dated 2 /3/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #8 Hydralazine (used to treat hypertension) 50 mg every 8 hours. Physician order dated 10/26/2024 revealed an order to administer Resident #8 Oxycodone (narcotic pain reliever)10 mg two times a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of December 2024 indicated Resident #8 did not receive Doxazosin 4 mg at 8:00 PM, Gabapentin 100 mg at 10:00 PM, Hydralazine 50 mg at 10:00 PM and Oxycodone 10 mg at 8:00 PM on 12/7/2024. A telephone interview was conducted with Nurse #4 on 5/8/25 at 8:46 AM. Nurse #4 stated on 12/7/2024 she was assigned a shift of 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. She indicated after 10:30 PM there were only two nurses (Nurse #5 and herself) in the facility to administer medications. Nurse #4 nor Nurse #5 wanted to take responsibility for taking an additional assignment when Nurse #6 left at 11:00 PM. Due to only having two Nurses on 3rd shift, she contacted the Administrator to communicate she did not feel safe taking the medication cart keys for the 500 hall because she would be responsible for administering medications to the entire unit (400 and 500 halls). Nurse #4 stated she nor Nurse #5 administered medication to the 500 hall resulting in the residents not receiving medications as ordered. An interview was attempted with Nurse #6 on 5/8/2025 at 11:26 AM. The phone call was not returned. An interview was attempted with Nurse #5 on 5/8/2025 at 11:28 AM, her mailbox was full and a message could not be left. Another call was attempted with Nurse #5 on 5/8/2025 at 1:14 PM, after the surveyor introduced herself the call was disconnected. At 1:15 PM on 5/8/2025 a final attempt was made to call Nurse #5 back with no answer and her mailbox was full and no message could be left. The infection Preventionist was interviewed on 5/8/25 at 1:23 PM. She revealed on 12/7/24 she was acting as the interim DON. The Infection Preventionist stated she did not recall being contacted by the Administrator or nursing staff regarding there not being a nurse assigned to administer medications. Had she been contacted about the staffing concern she would have come into the facility to cover the shift to ensure medications were administered according to the physician orders. An interview was conducted on 5/9/2025 at 9:43 AM via telephone with the Medical Director. During the interview the Medical Director stated he did recall the incident when residents did not receive medication but did not recall the exact date or time. He recalled there was no delay in his notification and implementation of interventions which included assessment of all affected residents to ensure there was no significant change in resident status due to missed doses of medication. He conducted a general sweep of the affected hall (500) to review any high-risk medications. He stated in general missing a single dose or two of medication in many chronic conditions would not result in decompensation or adverse outcomes. An interview was conducted on 5/8/2025 at 7:49 AM with the Administrator. During the interview he revealed on 12/7/2024 (time unknown) he was informed by Nurse #4 the facility was short nursing staff on the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift. He stated he asked the day shift Nurse #6 to stay until 11:00 PM leaving the facility with two nurses Nurse #4 and Nurse #5 after 11:00 PM. After being notified by Nurse #4 she was not going to administer medications on the 500 hall, he attempted to contact other nurses to cover the unit. He further stated when he arrived at the facility, he felt as though there was sufficient staff. The Administrator contacted the Medical Director and notified him that medications had not been administered to residents on the 500 hall due to not having a nurse. The Administrator stated the Medical Director adjusted medication times and residents were assessed with no negative outcomes. An additional interview with the Administrator was conducted on 5/9/2025 at 10:43 AM. He stated the expectation of the nurses was to ensure all residents received their medication. He further stated if the unit was short staff the expectation was for the nurse on the unit to get report from the off going nurse and take the medication cart keys to administer medication to the residents.
Jul 2024 2 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to protect Resident #1's a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to protect Resident #1's and Resident #2's right to be free from sexual abuse. On 6/16/24 staff (Nurse Aide #1, Nurse Aide #2, and Nurse #1) observed Resident #1 (female) in Resident #2's (male) room. Resident #2 was lying on his back on the bed naked from the waist down and Resident #1 was on top of him with her brief and pants down at her ankles. Resident #2 had one hand on his erect penis and was trying to insert his penis in Resident #1, and he was touching her private parts with his other hand. Approximately 30 minutes after the residents were separated, Nurse Aide #2 observed Resident #1 back in Resident #2's room with her hands on the front of his pants and was attempting to remove them. Resident #1 and Resident #2 had severe cognitive impairment and did not have the capacity to consent. A reasonable person expects to be protected from abuse in their home environment and sexual abuse would cause trauma and fear. This deficient practice affected 2 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. Immediate Jeopardy began on 6/16/2024 when the facility failed to protect Resident #1's and Resident #2's right to be free from sexual abuse. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/29/2024 when the facility implemented an acceptable credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity level of D (no harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education is completed and monitoring systems put into place are effective. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and her diagnoses included dementia with psychosis and a cognitive communication deficit. A quaterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired and required moderate assistance with transfers, used a wheelchair for mobility in the facility, and had not had behaviors. Resident #1's care plan was reviewed and a care planned problem dated 2/10/2024 and updated on 6/11/2024 indicated Resdient #1 required various degrees of assistance with activities of daily living and should be allowed to attempt activities of daily living before being assisted and required incontience care as needed and during care rounds. A care plan problem dated 8/1/2023 indicated Resident #1 had physical and verbal behaviors of attempting to touch others (residents and visitors), yelling out, resisting care, and not being easily redirected during behaviors. The care plan problem indicated staff would assess whether the behavior endangers the resident or others and intervene if necessary. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and his diagnoses included a history of stroke and schizophrenia. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] which indicated he was severely cognitively impaired; was independent with transfers, walking, and toileting; and he had not behaviors. Resident #2's care plan was reviewed and a care plan for 1/6/2024 stated he was independent with transfers, walking, and toileting and had verbal behaviors of theatening others, screaming at and cursing others, and episodes of fighting others. The interventions for Resident #2's care plan indicated staff would avoid overstimulation and maintain a calm environment. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed a Nurse's Progress Note written by the Director of Health Services (DHS) on 6/16/2024 at 5:30 pm which stated Resident #1 exhibited behaviors. A Nurse's Progress Note written by the DHS on 6/16/2024 at 5:35 pm in Resident #2's electronic record dated 6/16/2024 at 5:35 pm indicated Resident #2 exhibited behaviors. A Witness Statement written on 6/16/2024 at 1:30 pm by Nurse Aide #2 revealed the following: She entered Resident #2's room and found Resident #2 lying on his back with his body perpendicular to the bed with his legs hanging over the side of the bed and Resident #1 was lying on top of Resident #2. Both residents were naked from the waist down and Resident #2 had one hand on his penis and was trying to put his penis in Resident #1, and he was touching her private parts with his other hand. Nurse Aide #2 called out to Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #1 called out to Nurse #1. When Nurse #1 arrived at the room they assisted Resident #1 off Resident #2, dressed her, and removed her from the room. Nurse Aide #2 was interviewed on 6/26/2024 at 10:00 am by phone and she stated she worked on 6/16/2024 and found Resident #1 in Resident #2's room. She stated Resident #2 was lying on his back on his bed with his legs perpendicular to his bed and his legs hanging over the side of the bed with Resident #1 lying on top of him. Nurse Aide #2 stated Resident #2 had an erection and he had one hand on his penis and was trying to penetrate Resident #1's vagina but was not successful. She stated she was just inside the doorway to the room when she saw what was happening she called out to Nurse Aide #1 who came to the room. Nurse Aide #2 stated they did not separate Resident #1 and Resident #2 before they called for Nurse #1. She indicated then Nurse Aide #1 called out to Nurse #1 to come to the room. Nurse Aide #2 stated Nurse Aide #1 left the room to get Nurse #1 and it was only a few minutes before Nurse #1 came to the room. She indicated she remained standing inside the doorway to the room until Nurse #1 got to the room. Nurse Aide #2 stated she did not think about seperating Resident #1 and Resident #2 before calling Nurse #1 to the room because everything happened so fast. Nurse Aide #2 stated she and Nurse #1 dressed Resident #1, put her in her wheelchair, and removed her from the room. She revealed about thirty minutes later she (Nurse Aide #2) found Resident #1 in Resident #2's room again in her wheelchair beside his bed with her hand on the front of his pants and was attempting to remove them. Nurse Aide #2 stated Resident #2 was lying on the bed on his back. Nurse Aide #2 stated one-to-one monitoring was put into place for Resident #2 at 6:00 pm that evening. Nurse Aide #2 stated Resident #2 was able to dress and undress, transfer, and walk without assistance and Resident #1 could transfer herself to the commode and back to her wheelchair without assistance at times and could pull her pants and brief down herself. Nurse Aide #2 stated Resident #1 had a history of behaviors of making sexual comments to other residents. A Witness Statement written on 6/16/2024 at 1:30 pm by Nurse Aide #1 revealed the following: Nurse Aide #1 saw Resident #1 and Resident #2 in the hallway and Resident #2 whispered to Resident #1 come in my room. The statement indicated Nurse Aide #1 redirected Resident #1 and told her she should not go in Resident #2's room and then she began passing lunch meal trays. Nurse Aide #2 called her to Resident #2's room and Resident #2 was lying on his bed and Resident #1 was lying on top of him. Resident #2 was naked from the waist down and Resident #1's brief and pants were down. Resident #1 was humping Resident #2 and Resident #2 was rubbing Resident #1's private parts and was also trying to penetrate Resident #1 with his penis, but was not able to. Nurse Aide called out to the Nurse #1 and she came to the room. During an interview on 6/25/2024 at 1:14 pm with Nurse Aide #1 she stated on 6/16/2024 she was passing lunch meal trays when she was called to Resident #2's room by Nurse Aide #2. She stated when she came to the door to Resident #2's room he was lying on the bed perpendicular to the bed with his legs over the side edge of the bed and Resident #1 was on top of him. Nurse Aide #1 stated she stayed just inside the doorway to Resident #2's room. She stated Resident #2 had an erection and he was trying to insert his penis in Resident #1. Nurse Aide #1 stated she yelled at Nurse #1 to come to the room but she had to leave the room to get Nurse #1 because she (Nurse #1) could not hear her. She stated when she returned to the room with Nurse #1 a few minutes later and they assisted Resident #1 off of Resident #2, dressed Resident #1 and removed her from the room. Nurse Aide #1 stated she was so shocked she did not think about seperating Resident #1 and Resident #2 immediately when called to the room by Nurse Aide #2. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 6/25/2024 at 12:49 pm and she stated she was not assigned to Resident #1 or Resident #2 on 6/16/2024. She stated she was called to Resident #2's room by Nurse Aide #1. She stated she was on the 400-hall when Nurse Aide #1 called out to her but she could not understand what Nurse Aide #1 was saying to her so Nurse Aide #1 came down the hall and asked her to come to Resident #2's room. Nurse #1 stated she entered the room and Resident #2 was on his back perpendicular to the bed and Resident #1 was lying on top of him. Nurse #1 stated Resident #2 was naked from the waist down and Resident #1's brief and pants were pulled down to her ankles and Resident #2 was attempting to penetrate Resident #1's vagina. Nurse #1 stated they assisted Resident #1 off of Resident #2 and removed her from the room. Nurse #1 stated Resident #1 was found in Resident #2's room again about 30 minutes later by Nurse Aide #2. Nurse #1 stated Resident #1 was put on one-to-one observation after the second time she was found in Resident #2's room. Nurse #1 stated Resident #1 was able to transfer herself to the toilet and could pull down her brief and pants and Resident #2 was independent for dressing and undressing. Attempts were made during the survey to reach Nurse #2 who was assigned to Resident #1 and Resident #2 during the 7:00 am to 7:00 pm shift on 6/16/2024. Nurse #2 no longer worked for the facility and did not return messages left for a return call. On 6/25/2024 at 2:35 pm an attempt was made to interview Resident #2 and due to his cognition he was not able to answer any questions. Resident #1 was observed in her room on 6/26/2024 at 10:00 am and an attempt was made to interview her regarding the incident on 6/16/204. Resident #1 did not remember the incident. During an interview on 6/25/2024 at 4:45 pm the Director of Health Services (DHS) was interviewed by phone and stated on Sunday, 6/16/2024 at 1:10 pm she received a call from Nurse #2 who reported the incident that occurred at 1:00 pm. The DHS stated Resident #1 was found approximately 30 minutes later in Resident #2's room, by Nurse Aide #2, and Resident #1 had her hand on the front of Resident #2's pants like she was trying to take his pants off. The DHS stated Resident #1 was not put on one-to-one observation until after she was found in Resident #2's room a second time. The DHS also stated both Resident #1 and Resident #2 were very confused, but neither of them had behaviors of inappropriate touching before the incident. She stated she tried to interview Resident #1 after the incident but she denied the incident happened. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed on 6/25/2024 at 1:58 pm and she stated both Resident #1 and Resident #2 were cognitively impaired and did nto have the capacity to consent to sexual contact. During an interview with the Administrator on 6/25/2024 at 12:24 pm he stated he was aware of allegation of sexual touching between Resident #1 and Resident #2 that occurred on 6/16/2024 at approximately 1:00 pm. He stated he was not aware of the second incident between Resident #1 and Resident #2 and one-to-one observation should have been put into place after the first incident between the two residents. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 6/26/2024 at 10:36 am. The facility provided the following credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal: Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance. The facility failed to protect Resident #1's and Resident #2's right to be free of sexual abuse. Both Resident #1 and Resident #2 had severe cognitive impairment and were not capable of consenting to sexual acts. On 6/16/2024 at 1:00 PM Nurse Aide #1 entered Resident #2's room. Resident #2 (a male resident) was lying on his bed with Resident #1 (a female resident) lying on top of him. Resident #2 was undressed from the waist down and Resident #1's brief and pants were down around her ankles. According to the written statements of Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2, Resident #1 was humping Resident #2 and Resident #2 had an erection and was trying to penetrate Resident #1 but was not able to. Nurse #1 stated Nurse Aide #1 called out to her (she was in the hall), Nurse Aide #1 left the room to get her (Nurse #1) and she entered the room (approximately 5 minutes after she was notified) and observed Resident #1 lying on top of Resident #2 and Resident #2 had his hand on his penis which was erect and was trying to place his penis in Resident #1. Nurse #1 stated Resident #2 had not penetrated Resident #1. Nurse #1 stated she instructed Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2 to Resident #1 off Resident #2, and they dressed her and wheeled her from the room. After removing Resident #1 from Resident #2's room, they wheeled her down the hallway for monitoring. According to the staff, monitoring Resident #1 was a collective effort. Approximately 30 minutes later, Resident #1 was again found in Resident #2's room with her hand on the front of Resident #2's pants and when asked what she was doing she stated she was fixing his pants. It was at this time a dedicated staff member was assigned one to one to Resident #1. On 6/19/2024, Resident #1's skin was assessed by a facility staff nurse to help ensure there was no skin impairment because of the incident. Resident #2's skin assessment was done by the charge nurse on 6/26/2024. The assessment revealed no skin impairments. Resident #1 had a room change on 6/25/2024 to remove her from proximity to Resident #2. On 6/16/2024 Resident #1 was placed on dedicated 1:1 monitoring until the psychiatrist deems her change in medication has stabilized her behaviors. On 6/20/2024 Resident #1 and Resident #2 were evaluated by their psychiatrist. Resident #1's medication, paroxetine, a psychotherapeutic medication, was evaluated and increased. Resident #1's care plan and resident profile were reviewed and identified touching other residents and was reviewed and revised on 6/27/2024 to reflect the medication changes and 1:1 monitoring. On 6/27/2024, Resident #2 did not have required any changes to his medication regimen, Resident #2's care plan was reviewed and revised on 6/27/2024 to include sexual inappropriate behaviors towards others to include attempted sexual encounter with another resident. The Administrator directed the Nurse Managers and Licensed Nurses on 6/26/2024 to complete the skin observations of all residents with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 9 or below to identify any skin impairments of unknown origin (bruises, skin tears). Residents with a BIMS score of 10 or above will be interviewed by a Department Manager (Administrator, Social Worker, Clinical Competency Coordinator, Case Mix Director, Director of Health Services, Nurse Navigator) on 6/27/2024 regarding any concerns related to abuse, nonconsensual sexual abuse, and mistreatment. The facility will initiate abuse prevention, identification and reporting policy if any concerns are identified from skin assessments and resident interviews. This includes notification to the State agencies, police and local adult protective services. 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 completed. On 6/26/2024, during an Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Meeting, the Administrator and Clinical Competency Coordinator educated the Department Managers (Director of Health Services, Social Worker, Environmental Services, Dietary Manager, Case Mix Director, Cas Mix Coordinator, Financial Counselor, Nurse Navigator, Admissions Director) on the facility's Prevention of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation Policy and Procedures that includes sexual abuse is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident and staff's heightened awareness of sexually inappropriate actions between residents. In the event of a resident-to-resident nonconsensual sexual behavior, the residents will be provided a one-to-one staff member until review is made by the provider (Nurse Practitioner, Physician, Psychiatrist) to determine a removal plan for the one-to-one. One-to-one is a dedicated staff member assigned to the resident to prevent further occurrences of a specific behavior. The Director of Health Services and/or Nurse Managers assign the designated staff members by identification on the Certified Nursing assignment sheet. On 6/26/2024 the Clinical Competency Coordinator and Department Managers began educating their respective department related to the facility Prevention of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment and Misappropriation Policy and Procedures that includes sexual abuse is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident and staff's heightened awareness of sexually inappropriate actions between residents. Any resident voicing desire to have a sexual relationship with another resident will be evaluated by the provider (physician) and/or social worker to ensure both residents have the cognitive compacity to make an informed decision. In the event of a resident-to-resident nonconsensual sexual behavior, or an observed sexual act without the staff's prior knowledge of consent of both residents with BIMS score of 10 or greater with cognitive capacity to consent to the sexual act, the staff members report the behavior to the Licensed Nurse, who reports to the Nurse Manager and Administrator. The residents will be provided a one-to-one staff member until review is made by the provider (Nurse Practitioner, Physician, Psychiatrist) to determine the removal plan for the one-to-one. One-to-one is a dedicated staff member assigned to the resident to prevent further occurrences of specific behavior. Staff members not educated by 6/27/2024 will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift. The Administrator and/or Clinical Competency Coordinator are responsible for ensuring all staff are educated by 6/27/2024. Facility Staff who are scheduled to work will receive the in-person education; Facility Staff who are not scheduled to work will receive verbal education over the phone with review of education by their Department Manager and/or Administrator upon next scheduled shift. This education has been added to the general orientation for all newly hired staff provided by the Clinical Competency Coordinator. The Administrator and/or Clinical Competency Coordinator maintains the employee roster of those who have been educated and who require review. Alleged date of immediate jeopardy removal: 6/29/2024. Validation of the facility's Credible Allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal was completed on 7/1/2024. Interviews were conducted with the Administrator, Director of Health Services, Nurse Aides, Nurses, Social Worker, Dietary Staff, Environmental Staff, Maintenance Director, Clinical Competency Coordinator, and Assistant Director of Nursing and staff were able to identify the different types of abuse, and that sexual abuse is non-consensual sexual contact of any type. Staff also indicated residents should be removed from abusive situations and monitored to ensure no further abuse occurs. The facility provided a skin assessment completed on 6/26/2024 for Resident #1 and she did not have any skin impairments. Resident #1's room was changed on 6/25/2024 to remove her from the immediate vicinity of Resident #2. Resident #1 was placed on one-to-one observations and was observed during the validation on one-to-one observation. A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed she was seen by the Nurse Practitioner on 6/17/2024 and was seen by Psychiatric Services on 6/20/2024 and her psychotherapeutic medication, paroxetine was evaluated and increased. Resident #1's Care Plan was reviewed and updated on 6/27/2024 to reflect she had one-to-one monitoring and a change to her psychotherapeutic medication. Resident #2's care plan was reviewed and verified to be updated on 6/27/24. The facility provided Skin Assessment forms for residents with a BIMS of 10 or lower and documentation of interviews with residents with a BIMS higher than 10 to show that all other residents were assessed for abuse that were completed on 6/28/204. The facility also provided a copy of the minute notes for their 6/26/2024 Quality Assurance Meeting which indicated the Quality Assurance Team discussed the facility's progress with their credible allegation and plan of correction. The facility's Immediate Jeopardy's removal date of 6/29/2024 was validated.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement their abuse policy by failing to immediately implement protective measures when Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2 observed two residents with severe cognitive impairment (Resident #1 and Resident #2) engaged in sexual activity that they did not have the capacity to consent to and the staff did not immediately separate the residents to provide protection from further abuse. The residents remained engaged in the sexual act until Nurse #1 arrived at the room and instructed Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2 to separate the residents. Approximately 30 minutes after the residents were separated, Nurse Aide #2 observed Resident #1 back in Resident #2's room with her hands on the front of his pants and she was attempting to remove them. Additionally, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy for reporting and investigating the sexual abuse for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for allegations of abuse. Immediate Jeopardy began on 6/16/2024 when the facility failed to immediately implement protective measures when Resident #1 and Resident #2 were observed engaging in sexual activity that they did not have the cognitive capacity to consent to. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/29/2024 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation of Immediate Jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity level of D (no harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure monitoring systems put into place are effective. Findings included: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation of Property policy, last revised on 1/11/2024, included the following: Sexual abuse is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Any person observing or identifying any signs or symptoms of abuse was to report it to the Administrator as soon as possible. The Administrator was to inform and designate other staff members to assist in the investigation as needed. If there was an occurrence or an allegation involving resident abuse, the facility would ensure that precautions were taken to protect the health and safety of the resident during the course of and following the investigation. The Administrator or their designee should notify the state agency and other agencies in accordance with the regulations and state law. The initial report to the state agency should include the nature and extent of any injuries. The investigation report was to be submitted to per state requirements. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and her diagnoses included dementia with psychosis and a cognitive communication deficit. A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and his diagnoses included a history of stroke and schizophrenia. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 was severely cognitively impaired. A Witness Statement dated 6/16/2024 at 1:30 pm completed by Nurse Aide #2 included the following information: She entered Resident #2's room and found Resident #2 lying on his back with his body perpendicular to the bed with his legs hanging over the side of the bed and Resident #1 was lying on top of Resident #2. Both residents were naked from the waist down and Resident #2 had one hand on his penis and was trying to put his penis in Resident #1, and he was touching her private parts with his other hand. Nurse Aide #2 called out to Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #1 called out to Nurse #1. When Nurse #1 arrived at the room they assisted Resident #1 off Resident #2, dressed her, and removed her from the room. During an interview by phone with Nurse Aide #2 on 6/26/2024 at 10:00 am she stated she was assigned to Resident #1 and Resident #2 on 6/16/2024 on the 7:00 am to 7:00 pm shift. She stated she found Resident #1 in Resident #2's room. Nurse Aide #2 stated Resident #2 was lying on his back on his bed with his legs perpendicular to his bed and his legs hanging over the side of the bed with Resident #1 lying on top of him. Nurse Aide #2 stated Resident #2 had an erection and he had one hand on his penis and was trying to penetrate Resident #1's vagina but was not successful. She stated she was just inside the doorway of Resident #2's room when she saw Resident #1 and Resident #2 and she called out to Nurse Aide #1 who came to the room. She indicated Nurse Aide #1 then called out to Nurse #1 to come to the room. Nurse Aide #2 stated Nurse Aide #1 left the room to get Nurse #1 and was only gone a few minutes before Nurse #1 came to the room. Nurse Aide #2 stated she did not separate the residents prior to getting assistance from Nurse Aide #1 and they (Nurse Aide #2 and Nurse Aide #1) did not separate Resident #1 and Resident #2 before they called for Nurse #1. When asked why, she stated she did not think about separating the residents because everything happened so fast. Nurse Aide #2 stated Nurse #1 instructed her to help remove Resident #1 from the bed, get her dressed and remove her from the room. Nurse Aide #2 stated no interventions or monitoring was implemented for Resident #1 or Resident #2 after this incident. She indicated about thirty minutes later she found Resident #1 back in Resident #2's room. Resident #1 was in her wheelchair beside Resident #2's bed and Resident #2 was lying on his back in bed. Resident #1 had her hand on the front of his pants and was attempting to remove them. Nurse Aide #2 stated she notified Nurse #1 of Resident #1 coming back into Resident #2's room and she (Resident #1) was removed from the room again. Nurse Aide #2 stated between 6:30 pm and 7:00 pm on 6/16/2024 Resident #1 was put on one-to-one observation, and she did not know why Resident #1 was not put on one-to-one observation sooner. Nurse Aide #2 indicated no additional interventions or monitoring were implemented for either resident prior to the one-to-one observation of Resident #1. A Witness Statement written on 6/16/2024 at 1:30 pm by Nurse Aide #1 revealed the following: Nurse Aide #2 called her to Resident #2's room and Resident #2 was lying on his bed and Resident #1 was lying on top of him. Resident #2 was naked from the waist down and Resident #1's brief and pants were down. Resident #1 was humping Resident #2 and Resident #2 was rubbing Resident #1's private parts and was also trying to penetrate Resident #1 with his penis, but was not able to. Nurse Aide called out to the Nurse #1 and she came to the room. During an interview with Nurse Aide #1 on 6/25/2024 at 1:14 pm she stated she was called to Resident #2's room Nurse Aide #2 on 6/16/2024. She stated when she arrived at Resident #2's room he was lying on his back on the bed perpendicular to the bed with his legs hanging off the bed and Resident #1 was lying on top of him. Nurse Aide #1 stated Resident #2 was trying to put his penis in Resident #1, but he was not able to. She stated she called out to Nurse #1, but Nurse #1 did not hear her, so she walked up the hallway from the 500-hall to the 400-hall and got Nurse #1. She stated when they returned to the room Resident #1 was still on top of Resident #2 and Resident #2 had his penis in his hand and was still attempting to penetrate Resident #1. Nurse #1 instructed them to get Resident #1 off Resident #2 and get her removed from the room. Nurse Aide #1 stated she felt they were shocked and neither she nor Nurse Aide #2 thought about removing Resident #1 from the room before calling Nurse #1 to the room. Nurse Aide #1 stated approximately 30 to 45 minutes after the first incident, Resident #2 was found in Resident #1's room again with her hand on the front of his pants and she was messing with his zipper. Nurse Aide #1 stated after the second incident Resident #1 was put on one-to-one observation. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 6/25/2024 at 12:49 pm and she stated she was not assigned to Resident #1 or Resident #2 on 6/16/2024. She stated she was called to Resident #2's room by Nurse Aide #1. She stated Nurse Aide #1 had called to her but she did not hear her and then Nurse Aide #1 came down to 400-hall (Resident #2's room was on 500-hall) and told her she needed to come to Resident #2's room. Nurse #1 stated it was approximately 5 minutes from the time Nurse Aide #1 came to get her until she arrived at Resident #2's room. Nurse #1 stated she entered Resident #2's room and observed Resident #2 naked from the waist down on his bed, lying on his back, with his legs perpendicular to the bed and his legs hanging off the bed; and Resident #2 was naked from the waist down and Resident #1's brief and pants were down to her ankles. Nurse #1 stated Resident #1 was lying on top of Resident #2, and Resident #2 had his hand on his penis, and he was trying to penetrate Resident #1. Nurse #1 stated Resident #2 had an erection, but she did not observe him penetrate Resident #1's vagina. She stated she instructed Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2 to get Resident #1 off Resident #2, they dressed her and removed her from the room. Nurse #1 stated she did not assess either Resident #1 or Resident #2 for any injuries She stated approximately thirty minutes after they removed Resident #1 from Resident #2's room she was found again by Nurse Aide #2 in Resident #2's room with her hand on the front of Resident #2's pants. Nurse #1 stated Resident #1 was put on one-to-one observation after she was found in Resident #2's room the second time, but she did not remember what time the one-to-one observation began. Attempts were made during the survey to reach Nurse #2 who was assigned to Resident #1 and Resident #2 during the 7:00 am to 7:00 pm shift on 6/16/2024. Nurse #2 no longer worked for the facility and did not return messages left for a return call. There was no evidence in Resident #1 or Resident #2's record that they were immediately assessed and there was no evidence the facility reported the sexual abuse to the state agency, Adult Protective Services, and law enforcement. The Director of Health Services (DHS) was interviewed on 6/25/2024 at 4:45 pm and she stated she received a call from Nurse #2 at 1:10 pm on Sunday, 6/16/2024, and was told Resident #1 was found in Resident #2's room, Resident #1 was lying on top of Resident #2 in his bed, and both residents were unclothed from the waist down. She stated she immediately called the Administrator and reported Resident #1 and Resident #2 were attempting to have sex and told him she was on her way to the facility to get witness statements and would keep him updated. The DHS did not indicate the Administrator gave her any instructions regarding the investigation and monitoring. The DHS stated she interviewed Nurse Aide #1, Nurse Aide #2, and Resident #1. The DHS stated she was not aware Resident #1 and Resident #2 were not separated immediately and was not aware Resident #1 was not put on one-to-one observation immediately. The DHS also stated the staff should have separated them immediately and put Resident #1 on one-to-one observation immediately to protect both residents. The DHS stated approximately 30 minutes after the initial incident Nurse Aide #2 found Resident #1 in Resident #2's room again. She stated Nurse Aide #2 told her, she [Resident #1] had her hands on the front of his [Resident #2] pants like she was trying to take them off. The DHS stated Resident #1 was put on one-to-one observation after the second incident. The DHS stated Resident #1 did not have a skin assessment after the incident, but she took her to the bathroom between 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm that evening and she did not have any bleeding when wiped and she did not complain of pain or grimace when she was wiped. The DHS stated she did not do any interviews or assessments of any other residents to ensure no one else was sexually abused; she did not do education with the staff regarding the facility's sexual abuse policy, and she did not report the incident to the state agency, Adult Protective Services, or the authorities. The DHS stated the Administrator was responsible for reporting abuse to the state agency, Adult Protective Services, and the authorities and she did not know why it was not reported. The Administrator was interviewed on 6/26/2024 at 1:15 pm and he stated he should have reported the allegation of sexual abuse to the state agency, Adult Protective Services, and the local law enforcement authorities and he should have asked more questions of the staff when the incident was reported to him on 6/16/2024. The Administrator stated since both residents were severely confused and were not aware they were doing anything wrong, he had not considered the incident to be sexual abuse. He revealed he realized now he should have reported the incident since neither resident was able to consent to the sexual activity. The Administrator stated staff had not made him aware there was a second incident with Resident #1 returning to Resident #2's room or that they had not separated Resident #1 and Resident #2 immediately after the first incident. The Administrator stated he should have made sure Resident #1 and Resident #2 were separated immediately and one-to-one observation was put into place after the first incident when Resident #1 was found in Resident #2's room the first time to ensure both residents were safe. He stated he should have also ensured there were no other residents that may have been involved by having the other residents interviewed and assessed for any signs of abuse and he should have ensured education was completed with all the staff regarding reporting, investigating, and protecting residents from sexual abuse. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 6/26/2024 at 10:36 am. The facility provided the following credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance. On 6/16/2024 at 1:00 pm Nurse Aide #1 entered Resident #2's room and identified Resident #1 and Resident #2, who both lacked capacity to consent in a sexual compromising position and did not immediately separate them. Nurse Aide #1 called out for help to Nurse #1 (Nurse #1 was down the hall), Nurse Aide #1 left the room to get Nurse #1. When Nurse #1 and Nurse Aide #1 entered the room, they observed Resident #1 lying on top of Resident #2 and Resident #2 had his hand on his penis which was erect and was trying to place his penis in Resident #1. Nurse #1 stated Resident #2 had not penetrated Resident #1. Nurse #1 stated she instructed Nurse Aide #1 and Nurse Aide #2 to assist Resident #1 off of Resident #2 and they dressed her and wheeled her from the room. After removing Resident #1 from Resident #2's room, they wheeled her down the hallway for monitoring. According to the staff, monitoring Resident #1 was a collective effort. Approximately 30 minutes later, Resident #1 was again found in Resident #2's room with her hand on the front of Resident #2's pants and when asked what she was doing she stated she was fixing his pants. It was at this this time a dedicated staff member was assigned to Resident #1. The issues leading to the facility not implementing its abuse policy for reporting, protecting, and investigating the allegation of resident-to-resident sexual abuse was due to a lapse in education. The facility should have treated this incident as abuse and reported to local and state agencies as outlined in its policy. Resident #1 and Resident #2 do not have the capacity to make rational decisions as it relates to sexual intercourse; therefore, their inability to make this decision could have resulted in injury or harm. The decision to monitor Resident #1 by different staff members observation versus a dedicated assigned staff member was not appropriate as it did not protect Residents #1 and #2 from each other and other facility residents. To help ensure the immediate protection of residents to prevent further occurrences, Resident #1 was placed on 1:1 observation on 6/16/2024. Direct monitoring will remain in place until deemed safe by Resident #1's physician. As a result of the facility not implementing its abuse policy, local and state agencies were not notified, which compromised the protection of residents and thorough investigation of the event. The lack of reporting and following the facility policy compromises all residents and their protection against abuse. An initial investigation report regarding this incident has been submitted to NC Department of Health and Human Services Regulation department on 6/26/24. The incident has also been reported to the County Adult Protective Services and the local Police department on 6/26/24. On 6/27/24 the Facility Administrator conducted an audit of all other abuse allegations within the past six months to ensure interventions were immediately implemented to protect the residents and prevent further abuse, that the allegations were reported as required and were investigated thoroughly. Any identified discrepancies will be addressed according to the abuse protocol up to and including notification to Department of Health and Human Services, Adult protective services and local police department. 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. 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 completed. An Ad Hoc Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement meeting was held 6/26/24 to discuss and review its policies on abuse identification and abuse prevention and reporting. Attendees included the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, Social Services, Case Mix Nurse, Nurse Navigator, Business Office, and Admissions Director. The Committee concluded the policy and procedure had not been followed. The committee reviewed the facility's policy on Abuse Identification as well as Abuse Prevention to ensure understanding of how to identify and address allegations of abuse. On 6/26/24 the Clinical Competency Coordinator educated facility Nurse Managers and Department Managers (Dietary, Housekeeping, and Environmental Services) on abuse identification and abuse prevention and reporting, to ensure they were prepared and able to disseminate information to their staff. Department Managers (Dietary, Housekeeping, and Environmental Services) educated their staff on Abuse Identification as well as Abuse Prevention to ensure understanding of how to identify and address allegations of abuse on 6/26/2024. The Clinical Competency Coordinator also began education to all Facility Staff members on 6/26/24 on the facility abuse identification and abuse prevention and reporting policies. Staff education included all clinical and non-clinical staff. Those who have not received education by 6/28/24 will be provided education prior to the beginning of their next scheduled shift. The Administrator and/or Clinical Competency Coordinator maintains the employee roster of those who have been educated and who requires education and ensure staff do not work until education has been completed. All new employees will be educated by the facility Clinical Competency Coordinator during the New Employee Orientation and will not be permitted to work on the units until this education has been completed. Alleged date of immediate jeopardy removal: 6/29/2024. On 7/1/2024 the facility's credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal was validated. The facility provided documentation of education provided by the facility regarding implementing their abuse policy which included providing a thorough investigation, protection of the resident involved and all other residents, assessment of the resident involved and assessment and interview of all other resident, and reporting of all allegations of abuse to the state agency, adult protective services, and local police authorities which was completed on 6/26/2024. The facility provided the documentation of the sexual abuse allegation report sent to the state agency, adult protective services, and the local police department. The facility provided documentation of the one-to-one observation by staff of Resident #1 and observations of Resident #1 on one-to-one observations were completed during the survey. The facility's Administrator conducted an audit of all other abuse allegations within the past six months to ensure interventions were immediately put into place to protect residents from further abuse on 6/27/2024. An Ad Hoc Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement meeting was held on 6/26/2024 and the minutes indicated the facility reviewed their policies on abuse identification and abuse prevention and reporting. Facility staff were interviewed and were able to verbalize understanding of identification of abuse and how to prevent and report abuse. All the facility staff were knowledgeable about the types of abuse, who they should report abuse to, how they should protect the residents, and that residents should be assessed immediately if abuse is suspected. The facility's immediate jeopardy removal date of 6/29/2024 was validated.
Feb 2024 18 deficiencies 3 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff, Nurse Practitioner, (NP) #1 and Medical Director (MD) interviews, observations and record review, the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff, Nurse Practitioner, (NP) #1 and Medical Director (MD) interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to supervise Resident #16 who was cognitively impaired and impulsive. The resident was eating in a dining room without any staff present in the room and with the back of her wheelchair positioned in front of a stone hearth. While passing trays on the 300 hall, NA #8 observed Resident #16 aggressively bounce her wheelchair and suddenly flip her wheelchair backwards hitting her head on the stone fireplace. This accident resulted in acute cervical 6, cervical 7 and thoracic 1 fractures. The fall on 12/23/23 resulted in pain at a level of 6 out of 10 and the use of a hard cervical collar. This was for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #16). The findings included: Resident #16 was admitted on [DATE] with cumulative diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, peripheral vascular disease with a left above the knee amputation (AKA) and a history of falls. Resident #16 was care planned on 5/13/23 for cognitive loss and a memory recall problem. An intervention read to provide verbal and visual reminders. An Interdisciplinary Team note (IDT) evaluation note following a 7/20/23 fall determined Resident #16 was impulsive, poor safety awareness and attempted to transfer without assistance. The intervention added to the care plan was to remind her to call for assistance with transferring. A care plan intervention initiated on 7/27/23 was for increased supervision. Resident #16's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 had severe cognitive impairment, impairment to one lower extremity and substantial/maximum assistance with transfers from sit to stand and transfers from bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. She was coded for one fall with minor injury. Review of a nursing note dated 12/23/23 at 5:36 PM read Resident #16 was sitting in her wheelchair in the dining room. She had eaten her evening meal and apparently had locked her wheelchair brakes. As she attempted to push her wheelchair back away from the table, her wheelchair tipped backwards resulting in Resident #16 striking her head on the hearth of the stone fireplace behind where she was seated. There was bleeding noted with an open area to the back of her head. She was sent to the emergency room for an evaluation. This note was written by Nurse #18. Review of an event report completed by Nurse #18 dated 12/23/23 at 5:41 PM read Resident #16 was eating her dinner in the dining room. The report did not include any further details. There were no IDT evaluation notes and the report read not applicable (NA)-event still open: An interview was completed on 2/7/24 at 2:19 PM with Nurse #18. She stated she was assigned Resident #16 on the 500 hall on 12/23/23 when she fell and hit her head on the stone fireplace hearth. Nurse #18 stated she was down the hall passing medications. Resident #16 was in the dining room eating dinner. She was not aware if any staff were in the dining room at the time of the fall but the aides yelled and she went to the dining room to assess Resident #16. She stated there was a lot of blood from a laceration on the back of her head and she complained of neck pain. Nurse #18 stated she immediately called the previous Director of Nursing (DON) and emergency medical services (EMS) for a hospital transfer. She stated that was all she knew about it until the next day when she learned about the cervical and thoracic fractures. An interview was completed on 2/7/24 at 3:00 PM with NA #9 who worked 12/23/23 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and was assigned Resident #16. She recalled assisting Resident #16 to the dining room but did not recall locking her brakes and Resident #16 was known to do that herself. She stated she was passing trays on the hall because Resident #16 could feed herself. NA #9 stated it was Christmas weekend and they were working short. She stated normally one person was assigned to observe and assist in the dining room, but she did not think there was an aide in the dining room when Resident #16's fall happened because her peers were also passing trays and feeding residents in their rooms. NA #9 stated the dining room was right across from the nurses station and anyone could observe the residents while passing the dining room. A telephone interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 10:13 AM with NA #8. She recalled working on 12/23/23 at the time of Resident #16's fall in the dining room. She stated she was passing trays on the 300 hall which was across from the dining room, and she saw Resident #16 aggressively bouncing her wheelchair but NA #8 stated she did not notice that Resident #16's wheelchair brakes were locked when she suddenly flipped her wheelchair backwards and hit her head on the stone fireplace. A telephone interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 10:39 AM with NA #10. She recalled Resident #16's fall on 12/23/23. She stated there were only three aides working at the time of the fall. She stated she and her peers were either passing trays or feeding residents in their rooms. NA #10 stated there was no staff normally assigned to the dining room and there was approximately 8-10 residents eating there. She stated the residents she observed in the dining room on 12/23/23 were independent or set up assistance only. NA #10 stated she was walking by the dining room when she saw Resident #16's wheelchair in midair and before she could react, she fell backwards striking her head on the stone fireplace. NA #10 stated apparently Resident #16's wheelchair brakes were locked and she complained of pain immediately. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 10:20 AM with Nurse #11. She stated she was working on 12/23/23 but she was assigned the 300 and 400 halls. She stated Resident #16 had a lot of falls from her wheelchair and thought Resident #16 overestimated her abilities. Nurse #11 stated she had seen Resident #16 eating in the dining room at a table with her back to the stone fireplace. She stated apparently Resident #16 was attempting to leave her table when she flipped her wheelchair striking her head on the fireplace hearth. She stated there were no anti-tippers on her wheelchair at the time of the fall. Review of a nursing note dated 12/24/23 at 11:55 AM read Resident #16 arrived back to the facility with multiple fractures throughout her spine and her thoracic spine. The noted read there was no surgical intervention recommended and orders were for her to wear a hard collar neck brace for 4-6 weeks until she could follow up with a neurologist. The note also read that it was recommended she be prescribed opiates, muscle relaxers and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDS) medication as needed for pain control. This note was written by Nurse #6. Review of the December Physician orders read a new order dated 12/25/23 for hydrocodone-a acetaminophen 5mg-325mg every 6 hours as needed. She received the pain medication once on 12/25/23 and 12/26/23. She received Ibuprofen once on 12/28/23. New orders were given on 12/28/23 for scheduled hydrophone-acetaminophen four times daily which she received as ordered. An observation was completed on 2/5/24 at 11:00 AM. Resident #16 sitting up in her wheelchair with her brakes unlocked. There was a padded cushion to the seat of the wheelchair. A telephone call was completed on 2/8/24 at 11:59 AM with former NP. She stated up until about 2 weeks ago, she was working at the facility and recalled Resident #16's fall on 12/23/23. NP #1 stated she was familiar with Resident #16. She stated she was impulsive and required close supervision. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 2:40 PM with the MD. He stated Resident#16 was known to be impulsive. He stated there should be closer supervision of the residents eating in the dining room and it sounded like a plan should be implemented to prevent additional unsupervised falls.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], diagnosis included diabetic nephropathy, Cerebellar stroke syndrome, con...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], diagnosis included diabetic nephropathy, Cerebellar stroke syndrome, congestive heart failure (CHF), repeated falls, and lack of coordination. Resident #69's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated his cognition was moderately impaired and he displayed no rejection of care behaviors. He was coded to exhibit disorganized thinking behavior that was present and/or fluctuated. He required maximum assistance with personal hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bath, and dressing. He was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #69's active care plan, last revised on 01/04/2024, included the focus area of functional status activities of daily living (ADL) decline related to slurred speech and impaired mobility. The interventions included for staff to encourage Resident #69 to do as much as possible and to provide assistance as needed or requested. A focus area of bladder incontinence which included the intervention to provide Resident #69 incontinence care after each incontinent episode. He also had a focus that he was at risk for skin breakdown related to decline in mobility and medical diagnosis. The interventions included to keep skin clean and dry as possible and minimizing skin exposure to moisture and providing incontinence care. An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 1:43 PM with Resident #69's family member. She stated she was active in Resident #69's care. She explained there have been multiple times when Resident #69 was saturated with urine through his pants and his bed would be wet. She indicated she comes to the facility daily for breakfast and dinner to ensure he eats and was changed. She also stated she had to come into the facility to make sure he was cared for. She stated she was very unhappy with the care provided. An interview was conducted on 02/08/24 at 9:03 AM with Resident #69. He stated there had been many times where he was saturated with urine so much that his clothes and/or his bed would be soaked. He then pointed at his mattress and stated, look at my mattress, it happened this morning, they even had to change my sheets, indicated his sheets and his incontinence brief was saturated with urine. Observation of the mattress revealed a circular area in center of mattress extending out to approximately 2 inches from each side of the mattress. The center of the large area was slightly damp, and the edges of the circular area were whitish in color. No sheets were observed on the mattress. He stated he did not receive a shower, but the Nursing Assistant wiped him up. He further commented that there was no call for it, and he hoped that he didn't get sores from the urine on him like that. He then stated it made him frustrated and mad when staff don't change him often enough to prevent him from soaking through his clothes and bedding. An interview was conducted on 02/08/24 at 9:15 AM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #11. She stated Resident #69 was out of bed and dressed sitting in his wheelchair when she came on shift at 7:00 AM. The night shift NA had gotten him up. She verified there were no sheets on the bed when she entered the room. She stated normally sheets are changed if they were wet, soiled, or it was the residents shower day. She verified circular discoloration to the mattress. An interview was conducted on 02/08/24 at 9:20 AM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #4. She verified the circular discoloration area on the mattress was present. She indicated she did not know what was on the mattress, but it appeared to be urine. She further stated she cleaned the area prior to applying the clean sheets. An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 10:05 AM with Director of Nursing (DON) #1. She stated Resident #69 was to receive incontinence as needed and should be checked for incontinence needs often. No residents' clothing or bed linens should be wet with urine. Multiple phone calls were made to the Nursing Assistant (NA) #12 from 02/07/24 through 02/08/24 with no answer. She was assigned to Resident #69 on 02/07/24 from 7:00 PM-7:00 AM. 5. Resident #390 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included retention of urine. A care plan, dated 1/29/24, was in place for a urinary catheter related to diagnosis of urinary retention. On 2/5/24 at 10:50 AM, Resident #390 was observed walking in the hallway with Physical Therapy (PT). He was noted to have an indwelling urinary catheter with the drainage bag attached to the walker. The drainage bag did not have a privacy cover and contained yellow urine which was visible to other residents and staff in the hallway. On 2/5/24 at 12:00 PM, Resident #390 was observed walking in the therapy gym. He was noted to have a urinary catheter with the drainage bag attached to the walker. The drainage bag did not have a privacy cover and urine was visible to the other residents and staff in the gym. An interview and observation occurred with Resident #390 on 2/6/24 at 9:18 AM. He was observed to be sitting on the side of the bed with the urinary drainage bag attached to a walker. The drainage bag did not have a privacy cover, had yellow urine in the drainage bag and could be seen from the hallway. Resident #390 commented, I don't think everyone should see my urine. An interview occurred with Nurse #13 on 2/6/24 at 9:20 AM and she stated all residents with urinary catheters should have a privacy cover on the drainage bags and indicated she would make sure one was provided for Resident #390. On 2/6/24 at 2:18 PM, Resident #390 was observed sitting up in a recliner chair watching TV. The urinary drainage bag was hanging to the left side of the chair, yellow urine in the drainage bag and was visible from the hallway. There was no privacy cover in place. Another interview occurred with Nurse #13 on 2/6/24 at 4:13 PM and she stated she spoke with the Central Supply Clerk and was told there were no dignity covers available. Nurse #13 added she instructed the nurse aides to cover the drainage bag with a pillowcase. On 2/7/24 at 11:08 AM, Resident #390 was observed sitting up in a chair in his room with a walker in front of him. The urinary drainage bag was attached to the walker with a pillowcase partially wrapped around it. Yellow urine was still visible from the hallway and there was no dignity cover in place. The Central Supply Clerk was interviewed on 2/7/24 at 11:45 AM. She explained the facility had urinary drainage bags with a dignity cover in place. The Central Supply Clerk was able to show that multiple urinary drainage bags with a dignity cover were present in the supply closet on the hallway where Resident #390 resided. She added the nurses were responsible for making sure the residents with urinary catheters had a urinary drainage bag with a dignity cover. Director of Nursing #1 was interviewed on 2/8/24 at 9:54 AM and stated it was her expectation for the nursing staff to use a privacy cover for urinary drainage bags to protect the resident's dignity and was unable to state why Resident #390's drainage bag was not covered. Based on record reviews, resident, family member, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect residents' dignity when residents were left soiled in feces and saturated in urine for 4 of 17 residents reviewed for dignity issues (Resident #192, Resident #34, Resident #48, and Resident #69), and failed to provide a dignity cover over a urinary catheter drainage bag for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident #390). Resident #192, Resident #34, Resident #48, and Resident #69 reported they felt upset, angry, mad, and like they did not matter at all when they were not provided incontinence care. Resident #390 felt upset that everyone could see my urine. The reasonable person concept was applied for Resident #48 due to her inability to express her feelings and a reasonable person would feel humiliated and degraded having to holler for assistance. The findings included: 1. Resident #192 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure and hypertension. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #192 to be cognitively intact. The remainder of the MDS was in progress and incomplete. The admission nursing assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #192 was incontinent of urine and feces. A care plan dated 2/1/2024 addressed Resident #192's potential for skin breakdown related to incontinence. The MDS vision assessment was not completed, however, Resident #192 read from her phone, and was able to read the name badge of the surveyor. Resident #192 was interviewed on 2/5/2024 at 11:17 AM. Resident #192 reported that on Sunday 2/4/2024 she was left saturated in urine, and she waited for care from 8:30 AM until 12:30 PM. Resident #192 described that her bed linens were wet with urine, her nightgown was wet with urine, and her incontinence brief was saturated with urine. Resident #192 explained that she had very little control of her bladder and she required an incontinence brief all the time. Resident #192 reported the incident made her feel sad and bad about herself, Like I didn't matter at all, and she was cold and uncomfortable. When asked how she knew she waited for 4 hours for incontinence care, Resident #192 explained she pressed her call light at 8:30 AM and the nurse told her he would be in to help her when he finished with his medication pass. Resident #192 reported she tracked the time on her cell phone. An interview was conducted with Nurse #10 on 2/6/2024 at 3:45 PM. Nurse #10 reported on Sunday 2/4/2024 the hall had one nursing assistant (NA) and him working. Nurse #10 reported that he had to administer medications before he was able to help the NA with incontinence care on residents. Nurse #10 reported Resident #192 was very wet when he provided her with incontinence care after he had administered medication, but she did not mention she was upset. NA #1 was interviewed on 2/8/2024 at 10:12 AM. NA #1 reported she was the only NA scheduled to work the short-term unit and it was her and Nurse #10 on the hall on 2/4/2024. NA reported she started at one side of the short-term hall and started providing care to residents one-by-one. NA #1 explained that several residents were soiled and saturated in urine, and she was not certain how long it took to provide care to all the residents. NA #1 reported she had provided care to Resident #192 on Saturday 2/3/2024 and she was aware that Resident #192 was incontinent of urine. NA#1 reported she did not know when Resident #192 received incontinence care on Sunday 2/4/2024 because Nurse #10 provided that care. The Director of Nursing (DON) #1 was interviewed on 2/8/2024 at 4:09 PM. DON #1 explained she was not certain why staffing was so low on 2/4/2024 and she would need to review the staffing sheets. DON #1 reported she expected incontinence care to be provided to residents in a timely manner. 2. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include stroke and diabetes. The admission MDS dated [DATE] assessed Resident #34 to be cognitively intact. The MDS documented Resident #192 was occasionally incontinent of urine and always continent of bowels. Resident #34 was interviewed on 2/5/2024 at 12:02 PM. Resident #34 reported during the past weekend (he was not certain if it was 2/3/2024 or 2/4/2024) he was left soiled in feces and his bed linens were wet with urine. Resident #34 reported he used the call bell for assistance, but it was a significant amount of time before he was provided incontinence care. Resident #34 reported he did not track the time; he only knew he was wet and soiled and upset. Resident #34 reported he felt horrible to be left wet and soiled and he was very upset. NA #1 was interviewed on 2/8/2024 at 10:12 AM. NA #1 reported she was the only NA scheduled to work the short-term unit and it was her and Nurse #10 on the hall on 2/4/2024. NA #1 explained that several residents were soiled and saturated in urine, and she was not certain how long it took to provide care to all the residents. NA recounted Resident #34 was soiled with feces and his bed linens and incontinence brief was saturated with urine. NA #1 reported Resident #34 was very angry and upset when she was able to provide care to him. The Director of Nursing (DON) #1 was interviewed on 2/8/2024 at 4:09 PM. DON #1 explained she was not certain why staffing was so low on 2/4/2024 and she would need to review the staffing sheets. DON #1 reported she expected incontinence care to be provided to residents in a timely manner. 3. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, pulmonary hypertension, urinary incontinence, chronic pain syndrome, hemiplegia with hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, and erosive (osteo) arthritis. Review of Resident #48's quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was moderately cognitively impaired. She was able to communicate her needs to staff and required extensive assistance to total dependence with all her activities of daily living. Resident #48 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. During an observation on 02/08/24 at 8:15 am Resident #48 could be heard from the hallway hollering for help. Upon entry into Resident #48's room, a urine odor was present. A follow-up observation was conducted on 02/08/24 at 8:50 am of Resident #48, her call light was on and she was hollering for help. An interview was attempted with Resident #48 but was unsuccessful. On 02/08/24 at 9:00 am NA #8 was observed leaving Resident #48's room and the call light was turned off. NA #8 was interviewed at this time and reported Resident #48's brief was wet. The NA stated she was the scheduler/transportation person but was assisting on the floor that day as a nurse aide. NA #8 indicated that she would get NA #10 who was assigned to the Resident to provide incontinence care. On 02/08/24 at 10:10 am an observation was conducted of NA #8 providing incontinence care to Resident #48. Resident#48's brief was observed to be saturated in urine and a strong smell of urine was present. An interview with NA #10 on 02/08/24 at 10:30 am. NA #10 indicated she was the only NA on the hall to care for 26 Residents. NA #10 indicated Resident #48 had a behavior of hollering out from time to time when it took staff too long to provide care and when she was upset. NA #10 indicated she believed Resident #48 was upset and feeling bad because staff did not come in sooner to provide care she needed. NA #10 indicated that she tried to treat all her residents with dignity and respect. The Director of Nursing (DON) #1 was interviewed on 2/8/24 at 4:09 PM. DON #1 explained she was not certain why staffing was so low on 2/8/24 and she would need to review the staffing sheets.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record reviews, and staff, resident, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff which resulted in residents bei...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and staff, resident, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff which resulted in residents being treated in an undignified manner when left incontinent of urine or stool (Resident #192, #34, #48, and #69) and when a urinary catheter bag was left uncovered (Resident #390). These residents reported feeling upset, angry, mad and unimportant. The facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to assist with activities of daily living (ADL) care for dependent residents (Resident #192, #34, #69, #48, and #339). The facility failed to supervise a resident who was at high-risk for falls which resulted in acute cervical 6, cervical 7 and 1 thoracic fractures due to a fall (Resident #16). This affected 9 of 86 residents reviewed for sufficient nursing staff. The findings include: This tag is crossed referenced to F 550: Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect residents' dignity when residents were left soiled in stool and saturated in urine for 4 of 17 residents reviewed for dignity issues (Resident #192, Resident #34, Resident #48, and Resident #69), and failed to provide a dignity cover over a urinary catheter drainage bag for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident #390). Resident #192, Resident #34, Resident #48, and Resident #69 reported they felt upset, angry, mad, and like they did not matter at all when they were not provided incontinence care. Resident #390 felt upset that everyone could see my urine. The reasonable person concept was applied for Resident #48 due to her inability to express her feelings and a reasonable person would feel humiliated and degraded having to holler for assistance. This tag is crossed referenced to F 677: Based on observations, record reviews and interviews of residents, family member, and staff, the facility failed to provide incontinence care for dependent residents (Resident #192, Resident #34, Resident #69, Resident #48, and Resident #339), and failed to provide bathing for a dependent resident (Resident #339) for 5 of 16 residents reviewed for activities of daily living. This tag is crossed referenced to F689: Based on staff, Nurse Practitioner, (NP) #1 and Medical Director (MD) interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to supervise Resident #16 who was cognitively impaired and impulsive. The resident was eating in a dining room without any staff present in the room and with the back of her wheelchair positioned in front of a stone hearth. While passing trays on the 300 hall, NA #8 observed Resident #16 aggressively bounce her wheelchair and suddenly flip her wheelchair backwards hitting her head on the stone fireplace. This accident resulted in acute cervical 6, cervical 7 and thoracic 1 fractures. The fall on 12/23/23 resulted in pain at a level of 6 out of 10 and the use of a hard cervical collar. This was for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #16). On 2/7/24 at 2:03 pm an interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) #8. NA #8 stated, this past Saturday (2/4/24), she worked on the long-term care hall (Halls 400 and 500) with 1 other NA and 48 residents on day shift. NA #8 stated, yesterday (2/6/24), from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm I was the only NA on the long-term care hall with 87 residents. NA #8 stated she texted the Director of Nursing (DON) #1 multiple times and informed her. The residents residing on Hall 500 had not received any care or had call lights answered by me during this time. NA #8 stated she had spoken with the Corporate Floating DON and informed her the care was not completed and showed her that Resident #339 was soaked through to the bed flooded with urine and had not received care for hours. NA #8 stated the Corporate Float DON informed her to do her best and answer call lights. NA #8 stated some resident call lights were answered after 30 minutes. NA #8 stated she had not observed licensed nursing staff provide incontinence or personal care to the residents during this time. NA #8 stated that the staffing problem had become unsafe for staff and residents and currently the staffing was the worst she had seen in the 5 years she had been employed at the facility. A review of the nursing staffing for 2/6/24 revealed there was 1 NA scheduled from 3:00 to 7:00 pm on the long-term care Hall (400 and 500) due to call outs. The census for the facility (4 halls 100 - 400) was 78. On 2/7/24 at 2:03 pm an interview was conducted with NA #8. She stated on 2/3/24 and 2/6/24 there were approximately 40 residents to care for on Halls 400 and 500. The Infection Preventionist Nurse (IP) was interviewed on 2/7/24 at 11:55 am. The IP stated she was frequently pulled to cover licensed nursing call outs for a hall assignment to pass medication. The IP stated she was on the floor assignment during the 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm block of time when there were few NAs. She was aware that there were only 3 NAs during this time for 80 to 90 residents. The prior Administration had 8 hours shifts for NAs and the facility was moving to 12 hours shifts for the NAs which caused the occasional low staff gap from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm NA schedule. On 2/8/24 at 4:10 pm an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing #1 (DON). The DON stated she was scheduling nursing staff and not aware of a NA staffing shortage/coverage and she would need to review the staffing sheets. The DON had no further comments.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interview the facility failed to assess a resident's ability to self-administer medications for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for medications at bedside (Resident #440 and Resident #194). The findings included: 1. Resident #440 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and atrial fibrillation. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #440 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #440's medical record revealed no documentation that Resident #440 had been assessed to self-administer medications at bedside. Further review of Resident #440's medical record revealed no care plan for self-administration of medications. An observation and interview were conducted with Resident #440 on 02/06/24 at 9:13 AM. Resident #440 was sitting in his wheelchair beside his bedside table. He was noted to have over-the-counter medications, fluticasone propionate nasal spray (used for sneezing and a runny nose) and refresh tear eye drops (relief of eye irritation), on his bedside table. A further observation revealed a table in the corner of his room that contained personal items which included over-the-counter medications, a bottle of MiraLAX (for constipation) and AREDS 2 eye vitamins (a supplement). Review of Resident #440's physician orders sheet dated January 2024 revealed no physician orders for the refresh tear eye drops, MiraLAX, and AREDS 2, however it was noted an order dated 01/23/24 for Flonase Allergy Relief (fluticasone propionate) spray, suspension; 50 micrograms (mcg)/actuation: 2 sprays; nasal once a day. An interview was conducted with Resident #440 on 02/06/24 at 9:20 am and he indicated the medications observed were his medications and he had used the medications on his bedside table that morning. Nurse #13 was interviewed on 02/06/24 at 9:32 AM. She indicated she had administered Resident #440's morning medications this morning. She stated, he took his medicines from me, and I don't give any of these medications. Nurse #13 indicated she was not aware of the medications in Resident's room as he was sitting close to the door in his wheelchair, and she did not see the medications when she administered his medications. She stated she had talked to Resident's family members before because they had brought medications in before. Nurse #13 indicated Resident #440 had not been assessed for self-administration and did not have an order for self-administration of medications. Director of Nursing (DON) #1 was interviewed on 02/06/24 at 4:09 PM and she indicated sometimes family members would bring in medications and would not tell the nursing staff. She indicated they needed to be better at checking and educating residents/families. 2. Resident #194 was admitted to the facility 2/1/2024 with diagnoses to include dry eye syndrome and ocular hypertension. The admissionMinimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #194 to be cognitively intact. The remainder of the MDS was in progress and not completed. Resident #194's medical records were reviewed and there was no order for Resident #194 to self-administer his medications. There was no care plan developed for self-administering medications for Resident #194, and no assessment of his ability to self-administer medications. Orders for Resident #194 included an order dated 2/1/2024 for brimonidine/timolol eye drops to be administered every 12 hours. Review of the medication administration record indicated Resident #194 received this medication as evidenced by nursing initials. An order dated 2/5/2024 for dorzolamide eye drops to be administered every 8 hours. The medication administration record indicated this was administered on 2/6/2024. During an interview with Resident #194 on 2/5/2023 at 2:30 PM, he mentioned his wife brought in the eye drops for him to administer until the facility was able to get his prescription eye drops. Resident #194 opened his nightstand drawer to reveal the 2 bottles of eye drops, brimonidine/timolol and dorzolamide. When asked if the nursing staff knew that he had the eye drops in his room, Resident #194 reported he had told a nurse (he was uncertain who) he had his own eye drops. Resident #194 was interviewed again on 2/6/2023 and he reported the facility had obtained both of his prescription eye drops and his wife took his bottles home. Nurse #13 was interviewed on 2/6/2024 at 3:37 PM. Nurse #13 reported she was not aware Resident #194 had eye drops in his room. Nurse #13 reported she asked about home medications when she completed the admission assessment but did not complete Resident #194's admission assessment. Nurse #10 was interviewed on 2/6/2024 at 3:45 PM. Nurse #10 reported that he was not aware Resident #194 had eye drops in his nightstand drawer and was self-administering the eye drops. The facility physician was interviewed on 2/8/2024 at 3:03 PM. The physician reported that eye drops in a closed nightstand drawer would not pose a danger to other residents, but an assessment for self-administration of medications should have been completed for Resident #194. The Director of Nursing (DON) #1 was interviewed on 2/8/2024 at 4:09 PM. DON #1 explained that sometimes residents will bring in medications and not tell staff. DON #1 reported she would expect if a resident brought in medication from home, a medication self-administration assessment was completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to revise a care plan for falls to include a new i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to revise a care plan for falls to include a new intervention on 12/27/23 for anti-tippers to a wheelchair. This was for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #16). The findings included: Resident #16 was admitted on [DATE] with cumulative diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, peripheral vascular disease with a left above the knee amputation (AKA). Resident #16's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 had severe cognitive impairment, impairment to one lower extremity and substantial/maximum assistant with transfers from sit to stand and transfers from bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to bed. She was coded for one fall with minor injury. Review of a nursing note dated 12/23/23 at 5:36 PM read Resident #16 was sitting in her wheelchair in the dining room. She had eaten her evening meal and apparently had locked her wheelchair brakes. As she attempted to push her wheelchair back away from the table, her wheelchair tipped backwards resulting in Resident #16 striking her head on the hearth of the stone fireplace behind where she was seated. There was bleeding noted with an open area to the back of her head. She was sent to the emergency room for an evaluation. Review of a physical therapy note dated 12/27/23 read anti-tippers were added to her wheelchair. Review of Resident #16's fall risk care plan dated initiated on 12/19/23 last revised on 12/29/23 included a new intervention dated 12/23/23 for staff to give her verbal reminder not to ambulate/transfer without assistance, staff to visually monitor frequently and to observe Resident #16 frequently and place her in a supervised area when she was out of the bed. There was another new intervention dated 12/28/23 which read to analyze her falls to determine a pattern/trend and the last new intervention was dated 12/29/23 read for Resident #16 to wear a new brace due to spinal fractures. There was not any documentation on the care plan regarding the new intervention of anti-tippers added to her wheelchair on 12/27/23. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 1:30 PM with the Clinical Reimbursement Consultant. She stated she had oversight of the regional MDS departments. She stated the two MDS Coordinators started six months ago, and they were still learning. She also said there was one part-time MDS person also assisting. She stated she had discussed care plans with the previous Administrator and she was to write up a formal performance improvement plan but she apparently did not do so. She stated she had a spread sheet of all the residents whose care plan was revised and that Resident #16's fall care plan was revised on 12/29/23. The Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator stated the new intervention of the wheelchair anti-tippers must have been an oversight and it should have been added to her care plan when it was last revised.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and medical director interviews, the facility failed to obtain daily weights as ordered for a resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and medical director interviews, the facility failed to obtain daily weights as ordered for a resident with heart failure and prescribed a diuretic (Resident #70). This was for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for nutrition. The findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure. He was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the facility. A review of Resident #70's physician orders included the following: - An order dated 10/16/23 for Torsemide (a diuretic medication) 20 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth once a day. - An order dated 10/17/23 to obtain daily weights and to notify the provider if weight gain of greater than three pounds was present. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #70 was cognitively intact. A review of the October 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed daily weights were not documented as obtained or refused by Resident #70 on 10/20/23. A review of the November 2023 MAR revealed the daily weight was not documented as obtained or refused by Resident #70 on 11/3/23, and 11/17/23. A review of the December 2023 MAR revealed the daily weight was not documented as obtained or refused by Resident #70 on 12/1/23, 12/2/23, 12/3/23, 12/9/23 and 12/10/23. A phone interview was completed with Nurse #1 on 2/7/24 at 2:36 PM. She was assigned to Resident #70 on the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 10/20/23. She could not recall Resident #70 or explain why the daily weight was documented as obtained or refused. Nurse #1 stated a list of was provided to the Nurse Aides for weights to be obtained at 6:00 AM. She stated if the weight wasn't documented then it must not have been obtained. On 2/7/24 at 3:30 PM, a phone interview occurred with Nurse #5. She was assigned to Resident #70 on the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 12/2/23 and could not recall Resident #70 or why there was no daily weight value. She added if the weight wasn't documented then it most likely wasn't obtained. Nurse #9 was interviewed by phone on 2/7/24 at 3:38 PM. She was assigned to Resident #70 on the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 12/10/23 and could not recall why the daily weight was not documented with a value or as refused and most likely wasn't obtained. A phone interview occurred with Nurse #8 on 2/7/24 at 4:23 PM. She was assigned to Resident #70 on the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 12/9/23 and could not recall why the daily weight was documented with a value or as refused. She added if the weight wasn't documented then it wasn't obtained on that day. An interview was completed with Director of Nursing #1 on 2/8/24 at 9:54 AM and stated that she expected daily weights to be obtained as ordered and documented with the value or if the resident refused. An interview occurred with the Medical Director on 2/8/24 at 2:49 PM and explained that when a resident had a diagnosis of heart failure and was on a diuretic, daily weights were important in order to monitor and adjust the medications as needed. Multiple phone calls were made to Nurse #2 from 2/6/24 to 2/8/24 without an answer. She was assigned to Resident #70 on 11/3/23, 11/17/23 and 12/1/23.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview of facility staff, the facility failed to follow the physician's order to obtain a urine sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview of facility staff, the facility failed to follow the physician's order to obtain a urine sample for urinalysis and culture and sensitivity (to evaluate for a urinary tract infection) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for urinary catheter/urinary tract infection (Resident #343). Findings included: Resident #343 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of urinary retention. Resident #343's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented the resident was admitted with a urinary catheter and had the diagnosis of urinary retention. Physician order dated 1/29/24 documented Resident #343 had her urinary catheter removed for a voiding trial. Resident #343's nurses' note dated 2/2/24 documented the resident had delusions. Resident was noted sitting in her wheelchair at the bedside talking incoherently to herself. The resident's abdomen was distended, and the resident complained of discomfort. The physician was notified, and a bladder scan was completed which revealed 867 milliliters of urine in the resident's bladder. The physician was notified of urine retention and an order was received to insert a urinary catheter and to obtain urine for a urinalysis and culture & sensitivity, documented by Nurse #12. A physician order dated 2/2/24 for Resident #343 was to place a urinary catheter and obtain urine for a urinalysis and culture and sensitivity. Physician note dated 2/2/24 documented nursing reported Resident #343 had urine retention and Flomax (medication to improve urine flow) was started, a urinary catheter was placed, and a urinalysis and culture & sensitivity was ordered. The resident was confused. Nurses' note documented on 2/5/24 at 12:14 pm documented the resident had a urinary catheter placed to collect a urine sample for confusion on 2/2/24. The diagnosis was repeat urinary retention and an order for urinalysis and culture and sensitivity was obtained, documented by Nurse #12. On 2/7/24 at 2:30 pm an interview was attempted with Nurse #12, but she was unable to be reached. The Director of Nursing was unavailable for information during the survey and information was obtained from the Corporate MDS Nurse as directed. On 2/6/24 at 3:30 pm an interview was conducted with the Corporate MDS Nurse (Director of Nursing was unavailable). She stated the urinalysis and culture & sensitivity ordered for Resident #343 was missed, not obtained on 2/2/24 and she would notify the physician. On 2/7/24 a new order for urinalysis and culture & sensitivity was obtained from the physician for Resident #343. On 2/8/24 at 4:10 pm an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was not aware the lab for Resident #343 was missed. The DON had no other comments.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer oxygen at the prescribed rate for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer oxygen at the prescribed rate for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #18). The findings included: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A review of the active physician orders revealed an order dated 12/06/23, for oxygen (O2) at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula to keep O2 Sats at 92% or above. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact. She was coded as receiving intermittent oxygen therapy. A review of Resident #18's active care plan, last reviewed 02/02/24, included a focus area that read Resident #18 required oxygen therapy related to oxygen desaturation and shortness of breath. One of the approaches was to provide oxygen as ordered via nasal cannula. Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed oxygen was signed off as being administered at 2 liters per minute from 02/01/24 through 02/06/24. On 02/05/24 at 1:52 PM, an observation was made of Resident #18 while she was lying in bed. The oxygen (O2) regulator on the concentrator was set at 4 liters per minute when viewed horizontally, at eye level. On 02/06/24 at 8:51 AM, an observation was made of Resident #18 while she was lying in bed. The oxygen (O2) regulator on the concentrator was set at 4 liters per minute when viewed horizontally, at eye level. An observation and interview were conducted on 02/07/24 at 9:40 AM of Resident #18, which revealed the oxygen regulator on the concentrator was set at 4 liters per minute by nasal cannula when viewed horizontally at eye level. Resident #18 stated she did not know what the oxygen was set on, all she knew was that she needed the oxygen because it made it easier to breathe. An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 9:52 AM with Nurse #11. She was not the nurse assigned to Resident #18 but stated she did have residents that required oxygen therapy. She stated the nurse was responsible for checking the oxygen (O2) saturations and verifying the O2 concentrators were set per the physician orders. On 02/07/24 at 10:05 AM, an observation of Resident #18 was completed with Director of Nursing (DON) #1 in conjunction with an interview with DON #1. DON #1 was assisting a new nurse that was working the 500 hall which included Resident #18. She verified Resident #18 ' s oxygen (O2) concentrator was set to 4 liters per minute when viewed horizontally at eye level. She stated the nurse was responsible for verifying the O2 concentrators were set per order every shift. She then verified Resident #18's O2 order read oxygen was to be delivered at 2L. She then stated Resident #18's oxygen should be delivered at the prescribed rate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0777 (Tag F0777)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, Nurse Practitioner and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain x-ray results for a resident with...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, Nurse Practitioner and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain x-ray results for a resident with nausea and poor appetite (Resident #70). This was for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for nutrition. The findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemoperitoneum requiring surgical intervention (bleeding within the peritoneal cavity, the space that contains your abdominal and pelvic organs). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #70 was cognitively intact. A physician progress note dated 10/19/23 indicated Resident #70 reported having loose stool over the past two days, intermittently. A nursing progress note dated 10/23/23 revealed an order was received for a STAT KUB (kidney, ureter, bladder) x-ray to rule out an obstruction. A review of the physician orders for resident #70 revealed an order dated 10/23/23 for a KUB x-ray to be obtained. A physician progress note dated 10/24/23 cites Resident #70 was being seen for poor intake and reports of nausea. The note further read that a KUB order was placed on 10/23/23, resident reported this was completed, however no results were available at that time. A physician progress note dated 10/31/23 indicated Resident #70 was being seen for complaints of poor appetite and nausea. The report indicated that the KUB results from 10/23/23 were not available and nursing was to call and obtain the results for review. A physician progress note dated 11/15/23 indicated the KUB results from 10/23/23 were not available. A review of Resident #70's medical record on 2/6/24 did not include the results of the KUB x-ray results from 10/23/23. On 2/6/24 at 4:45 PM, the Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator explained that the facility called the Mobile X-ray company and received the KUB x-ray results on 2/6/24 and that they were not found in Resident #70's medical record. The results of the KUB x-ray were negative for any acute findings. The Medical Records coordinator was interviewed on 2/7/24 at 1:34 PM and stated the KUB x-ray results were not part of Resident #70's medical record and were obtained on 2/6/24. She stated there were multiple fax machines in the facility that information was sent to and sometimes the information sat on the fax machine and wasn't distributed to the right areas. A phone interview occurred with Nurse #14 on 2/7/24 at 5:26 PM. She indicated there was a time that x-ray results were not being received timely at the facility but wasn't sure if it was a fax machine problem or someone was getting them off the fax and not bringing them to the correct nursing station. She indicated this has improved over the past couple of months. A phone interview was completed with the former Nurse Practitioner #1 on 2/8/24 at 11:53 AM. She explained that she was no longer at the facility as of a month ago, but never saw the results of the KUB x-ray that was completed on 10/23/23 for Resident #70. She added that x-ray results were difficult to obtain when she was at the facility, and she had asked the nurses to follow-up several times. The Nurse Practitioner added she provided Resident #70 with an appetite stimulant, monitored his lab work, and ensured that he was seen by the trauma surgeon for his appetite concerns. Director of Nursing #1 was interviewed on 2/8/24 at 9:54 AM and indicated it was her expectation for all x-ray results to be received and available in the resident's medical record within one to two days. She explained she began employment at the facility in January 2024 and was unaware of any concerns with receiving x-ray results.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in the area of wound care (Resident #70) for 1 of 1 resident records reviewed for surgical wound care. The findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemoperitoneum requiring surgical intervention (bleeding within the peritoneal cavity, the space that contains your abdominal and pelvic organs). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #70 was cognitively intact and received surgical wound care. The physician orders included the following orders dated 10/16/23 to 10/26/23: - Midline abdominal incisional site: cleanse with wound cleanser, cover the two proximal (nearest to the trunk of the body) sites and most distal (away from the central of the body) site with a foam gauze twice a day. - Midline abdominal incision site at the umbilicus area: cleanse with wound cleanser and apply Medi-honey, cover with gauze and secure with foam dressing every other day. - Right site open wound with Penrose drain: cleanse with wound cleanser, prep the peri-area with no sting barrier film for protection, loosely pack slightly moistened gauze into wound, cover with an absorbent dressing and secure with tape every day. A review of the October 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the surgical wound care had not been documented as completed or refused by Resident #70 on the 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM shift on 10/19/23, 10/20/23 and 10/22/23. The physician orders included the following orders dated 10/26/23 to 11/18/23: - Bottom abdominal wound: clean with normal saline or wound cleanser. Apply normal saline moistened gauze to the wound bed. Cover with a dry dressing twice a day. - Top two abdominal wounds: clean with normal saline or wound cleanser. Cover with Vaseline impregnated gauze and dry dressing every day and as needed. A review of the November 2023 TAR revealed the surgical wound care had not been documented as completed or refused by Resident #70 on the 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM shift on 11/4/23, and 11/9/23. Review of the nursing progress notes from 10/16/23 to 11/30/23 did not reveal any refusals of wound care by Resident #70. On 2/7/24 at 10:29 AM, an interview occurred with the Wound Care Nurse. She explained that she completed wound care during the day Monday through Friday. She reviewed the TAR's showing no initial as completing the wound care or refusal by Resident #70 on 10/19/23, 10/20/23 and 11/9/23. She stated that she completed the wound care as ordered but got busy and forgot to sign the treatments off as completed. A phone interview was completed with Nurse #8 on 2/7/24 at 4:23 PM and was assigned to care for Resident #70 on the 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM shift on 10/22/23. She recalled completing the surgical wound care to Resident #70 and stated she forgot to document that it was completed. On 2/8/24 at 9:30 AM, a phone interview was conducted with Nurse #6, who was assigned to care for Resident #70 on the 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM shift on 11/4/23. She recalled he had surgical wound care and stated that she got busy and forgot to sign it off as completed. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 2/8/24 at 9:54 AM and indicated it was her expectation for the nursing staff to complete wound care as ordered as well as to document that it was completed or refused by the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer an influenza vaccine for a resident who signed a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer an influenza vaccine for a resident who signed a consent form to receive an influenza vaccine or document an influenza vaccine was received for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for infection control (Resident #58). The findings included: Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a reentry date of 10/16/23. Resident #58's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #58 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #58's medical record revealed he signed a Resident Influenza (Flu) Vaccine Consent/Refusal form on 10/31/23. There was a check mark on the line that read I do wish to receive the flu vaccine depending on the availability of the vaccine. There was a handwritten note at the top of the form that read, Do not receive went to hospital. Review of Resident #58's medical record showed he was admitted into a hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #58's hospital records dated 11/28/23 showed no documentation Resident #58 received an influenza vaccine during his hospitalization. An interview was attempted on 2/8/24 at 9:20 A.M. with Resident #58. Resident #58 was unavailable. An interview was conducted on 2/7/24 at 12:17 P.M. with the Infection Preventionist and the Director of Nursing (DON) #3. During the interview, the DON #3 explained the influenza vaccine was offered to residents annually. The DON #3 stated when a resident was out of the facility for an appointment or hospitalization, the resident should be offered the vaccine when they returned to the facility and met the criteria to receive the vaccine. DON #3 further explained the facility always had influenza vaccines available at the facility and she was unsure why Resident #58 had not been administered the influenza vaccine this season. An interview was conducted on 2/8/24 at 11:35 P.M. with DON #3. During the interview, DON #2 confirmed she had reviewed Resident #58's medical record and there was no documentation Resident #58 had received an influenza vaccine. An interview was conducted on 2/8/24 at 1:43 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) #1. During the interview, the DON stated it was the responsibility of staff to follow up with Resident #58 and administer him an influenza vaccine when he returned from the hospital. The DON did not provide an answer to why Resident #58 had not received an influenza vaccine this influenza season after signing a consent to receive the influenza vaccine.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete mandatory twelve hours of annual in-services training for 2 of 5 Nursing Aides (NA #22, and NA #23) reviewed. The findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete mandatory twelve hours of annual in-services training for 2 of 5 Nursing Aides (NA #22, and NA #23) reviewed. The findings included: Review of the personnel file of NA #22 revealed a hire date of 7/14/21. Review of the personnel file of NA #23 revealed a hire date of 8/11/21. Review of NA #22's Educational Record for yearly training did not include 12 hours of the annual mandatory in-servicing for 2023. Review of NA #23's Educational Record for yearly training did not include 12 hours of annual mandatory in-servicing for 2023. Review of all the facility education and training documentation revealed no record of education or in-service training for NA #22 and NA #23 for the year of 2023. The Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator was interviewed on 02/07/24 at 9:30 AM. She stated the facility used an online in-service program and she was aware that all nurse aides must have the annual mandatory in-service training. The Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator indicated she was helping the facility out and reviewed the facility training records for NA #22 and NA #23 and she could not find any documented education for either NA for 2023. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 02/08/24 at 11:30 AM, she indicated she had only been in the facility for less than 2 weeks and could not provide any information.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], diagnosis included diabetic nephropathy, Cerebellar stroke syndrome, con...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], diagnosis included diabetic nephropathy, Cerebellar stroke syndrome, congestive heart failure (CHF), repeated falls, and lack of coordination. Resident #69's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated his cognition was moderately impaired and he displayed no rejection of care behaviors. He was coded to exhibit disorganized thinking behavior that was present and/or fluctuated. He required maximum assistance with eating, personal hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bath, dressing, and bed mobility. He was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #69's active care plan, last revised on [DATE], included the focus area of functional status activities of daily living (ADL) decline related to slurred speech and impaired mobility. The interventions included for staff to encourage Resident #69 to do as much as possible and to provide assistance as needed or requested. A focus area of bladder incontinence which included the intervention to provide Resident #69 incontinence care after each incontinent episode. He also had a focus that he was at risk for skin breakdown related to decline in mobility and medical diagnosis. The interventions included to keep skin clean and dry as possible and minimizing skin exposure to moisture and providing incontinence care. Nursing notes reviewed from [DATE] through [DATE] no refusals of incontinence care were noted. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 1:43 PM with Resident #69's family member. She stated she was active in Resident #69's care. She explained there have been multiple times when Resident #69 was saturated with urine through his pants and his bed would be wet. She indicated she comes to the facility daily for breakfast and dinner to ensure he eats and was changed. She also stated she had to come into the facility to make sure they are cared for. She stated she was very unhappy with the care provided. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 9:03 AM with Resident #69. He stated there had been many times where he was saturated with urine so much that his clothes and/or his bed would be soaked. He then pointed at his mattress and stated, look at my mattress, it happened this morning, they even had to change my sheets. Observation of the mattress revealed a circular area in center of mattress extending out to approximately 2 inches from each side of the mattress. The center of the large area was slightly damp, and the edges of the circular area were whitish in color. No sheets were observed on the mattress. He stated he did not receive a shower, but the Nursing Assistant wiped him up. He further commented that there was no call for it, and he hoped that he didn't get sores from the urine on him like that. He then stated it made him frustrated and mad when staff don't change him often enough to prevent him from soaking through his clothes and bedding. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 9:15 AM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #11. She stated Resident #69 was out of bed and dressed sitting in his wheelchair when she came on shift at 7:00 AM. The night shift NA had gotten him up. She verified there were no sheets on the bed when she entered the room. She stated normally sheets are changed if they were wet, soiled, or it was the residents shower day. She verified circular discoloration to the mattress. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 9:20 AM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #4. She verified the circular discoloration area on the mattress was present. She stated the only time sheets are normally changed is if they were wet, soiled, or it was the residents shower day. She indicated she did not know what was on the mattress, but it appeared to be urine. She further stated she cleaned the area prior to applying the clean sheets. The shower schedule on [DATE] at 10:43 AM revealed Resident #69's shower days were Tuesdays and Fridays on day shift. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 10:05 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated Resident #69 was to receive incontinence as needed and should be checked for incontinence needs often. No residents' clothing or bed linens should be wet with urine. Multiple phone calls were made to the Nursing Assistant (NA) #12 from [DATE] through [DATE] with no answer. She was assigned to Resident #69 on [DATE] from 7:00 PM-7:00 AM. 5. Resident #339 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of a stroke and dementia. Resident #339's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented he had a severe cognitive deficient. The resident was dependent for bathing and an extensive assist of 2 staff for personal hygiene. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and had a urinary catheter. Active diagnoses were neurogenic bladder and stroke. Resident #339 had a care plan dated [DATE] for activities of daily living (ADL) deficit set up with assistance as needed. The resident was no longer at the facility a. On [DATE] at 11:16 am an interview was conducted with Resident #339's family member. The family member stated the resident was dependent on staff for all his care. The family member visited frequently and found the resident had stool that dried to his buttocks and there was a concern the resident was not cleaned for hours. The family member stated she had brought her concerns to the attention of the Director of Nursing and the care had not improved. The family member stated the care concerns continued from February 2023 until [DATE] when the resident expired. A review of Resident #339's activity of daily living record for February 2023 documented he was incontinent of stool almost every day, 1 to 3 times a day. Personal hygiene for incontinence care was not documented as being completed during February 2023 on dates [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE]. There was no documentation in the system for any type of care on [DATE]. Nursing Assistant (NA) #8 was assigned to the resident frequently during February 2023. On [DATE] at 2:03 pm an interview was conducted with NA #8. NA #8 stated she had worked at the facility for 5 years. She had worked in January, February, and [DATE] when there were only 3 NAs on the 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm schedule responsible for 90 residents until staff arrived at 7:00 pm and other day shifts she had 20 residents (8 hours). NA #8 stated resident care could not be completed and when care was completed it was delayed. The residents would be very soiled when staff was able to provide care. The resident's ADL documentation was not completed because the care was not provided. b. On [DATE] at 11:16 am an interview was conducted with Resident #339's family member. The family member stated the resident was dependent on staff for all his care. The family member visited frequently and found the resident had body odor and dirty looking hair. The family member stated she had brought her concerns to the attention of the Director of Nursing and the resident received a bath that day, but it was not consistent. The family member stated the care concerns continued from February 2023 until [DATE] when the resident expired. A review of Resident #339's ADL bathing records for February 2023 documented the resident received 7 baths out of 28 days in the month. The 4 times bathing was completed, 2 were partial bed baths and 1 bath was documented as other. The resident was incontinent of stool almost every day, 1 to 3 times a day. On [DATE] at 2:03 pm an interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) #8. NA #8 stated she had worked at the facility for 5 years. She had worked in January, February, and [DATE] when there were only 3 NAs on the 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm schedule responsible for 90 residents until staff arrived at 7:00 pm and other day shifts she had 20 residents (8 hours). NA #8 stated resident care bathing could not be completed. The resident's ADL documentation was not completed because the care was not provided. On [DATE] at 4:10 pm an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing. The DON stated she was not aware resident care was not being completed and had no further comments. Based on observations, record reviews and interviews of residents, family member, and staff, the facility failed to provide incontinence care for dependent residents (Resident #192, Resident #34, Resident #69, Resident #48, and Resident #339), and failed to provide bathing for a dependent resident (Resident #339) for 5 of 16 residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The findings included: 1. Resident #192 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure and hypertension. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #192 to be cognitively intact. The remainder of the MDS was in progress and incomplete. The MDS vision assessment was not completed, however, Resident #192 read from her phone, and was able to read the name badge of the surveyor. The admission nursing assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #192 was incontinent of urine and feces. A care plan dated [DATE] addressed Resident #192's potential for skin breakdown related to incontinence. Resident #192 was interviewed on [DATE] at 11:17 AM. Resident #192 reported that on Sunday [DATE] she was left saturated in urine, and she waited for care from 8:30 AM until 12:30 PM. Resident #192 described that her bed linens were wet with urine, her nightgown was wet with urine, and her incontinence brief was saturated with urine. Resident #192 explained that she had very little control of her bladder and she required an incontinence brief all the time. When asked how she knew she waited for 4 hours for incontinence care, Resident #192 explained she pressed her call light at 8:30 AM and the nurse told her he would be in to help her when he finished with his medication pass. Resident #192 reported she tracked the time on her cell phone. An interview was conducted with Nurse #10 on [DATE] at 3:45 PM. Nurse #10 reported on Sunday [DATE] the hall had one nursing assistant (NA) and him working. Nurse #10 reported that he had to administer medications before he was able to help the NA with incontinence care on residents. Nurse #10 reported Resident #192 was very wet when he provided her with incontinence care after he had administered medication. NA #1 was interviewed on [DATE] at 10:12 AM. NA #1 reported she was the only NA scheduled to work the short-term unit and it was her and Nurse #10 on the hall on [DATE]. NA reported she started at one side of the short-term hall and started providing care to residents one-by-one. NA #1 explained that several residents were soiled and saturated in urine, and she was not certain how long it took to provide care to all the residents. NA #1 reported she had provided care to Resident #192 on Saturday [DATE] and she was aware that Resident #192 was incontinent of urine. NA#1 reported she did not know when Resident #192 received incontinence care on Sunday [DATE] because Nurse #10 provided that care. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 4:09 PM. The DON explained she was not certain why staffing was so low on [DATE] and she would need to review the staffing sheets. The DON reported she expected incontinence care to be provided to residents in a timely manner. 2. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include stroke and diabetes. The admission MDS dated [DATE] assessed Resident #34 to be cognitively intact. The MDS documented Resident #192 was occasionally incontinent of urine and always continent of bowels. Resident #34 was interviewed on [DATE] at 12:02 PM. Resident #34 reported during the past weekend (he was not certain if it was 2/3 or [DATE]) he was left soiled in feces and his bed linens were wet with urine. Resident #34 reported he used the call bell for assistance, but it was a significant amount of time before he was provided incontinence care. Resident #34 reported he did not track the time; he only knew he was wet and soiled. NA #1 was interviewed on [DATE] at 10:12 AM. NA #1 reported she was the only NA scheduled to work the short-term unit and it was her and Nurse #10 on the hall on [DATE]. NA #1 explained that several residents were soiled and saturated in urine, and she was not certain how long it took to provide care to all the residents. NA recounted when she provided incontinence care to Resident #34, he was soiled with feces and his bed linens and incontinence brief were saturated with urine. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 4:09 PM. The DON explained she was not certain why staffing was so low on [DATE] and she would need to review the staffing sheets. The DON reported she expected incontinence care to be provided to residents in a timely manner. 4. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, pulmonary hypertension, urinary incontinence, chronic pain syndrome, hemiplegia with hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, and erosive (osteo) arthritis. Review of Resident #48's quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was moderately cognitively impaired. She was able to communicate her needs to staff and required extensive assistance to total dependence with all her activities of daily living. Resident #48 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. A review of Resident #48's care plan revised on [DATE] indicated that Resident was resistive to care due to dementia and she would refuse activities of daily living (ADL) care. Resident #48 was also care plan that she needed extensive to total care of one to two plus staff for most of her ADL care. During an observation on [DATE] at 8:15 am Resident #48 could be heard from the hallway hollering for help. The Resident's call light was not on. Upon entry into Resident #48 room, a urine odor was present in the room. On [DATE] a continuous observation of the hall where Resident #48 resided was conducted starting at 8:15 am until 8:47 am and no nurse aide (NA) was observed on the hall during this timeframe. Resident #48 continued to holler for help during the continuous observation. On [DATE] at 8:50 am NA#8 and another unidentified person were observed in the sitting area on the unit. Resident #48 continued to holler out for help. Resident #48's call light was on. On [DATE] at 8:55 am Resident #48 continued to holler out. NA #8 asked Resident #48 what she wanted, and Resident #48 was observed moving her hands up and down in front of her brief. On [DATE] at 9:05 am an interview was conducted with NA #8, and she indicated that she was the scheduler/transporter but was assisting on the floor today as a nurse aide. NA #8 indicated that she would get NA #10 who was assigned to this Resident. NA #8 confirmed that Resident #48 was wet. NA #8 explained that Resident #48 used her hands to communicate she was wet by moving them up and down. An observation was conducted on [DATE] at 10:10 am of NA #8 performing incontinence care on Resident #48. NA#8 removed the old brief, and it was observed to be saturated with urine and noted to have a strong urine smell. The resident's skin was intact. NA #8 confirmed she smelled the urine smell. NA #8 applied a new brief on Resident #48 after applying barrier cream. An interview was conducted with NA #10 on [DATE] at 10:30 am. The NA revealed she performed her round after breakfast, and she had to help with feeding on another hall. She stated that Resident #48 did not communicate at 8:00 am that she was wet and incontinence care was not provided. NA #10 indicated that she was the only NA on the hall to care for 26 residents on [DATE] until 7pm. NA #22 was identified by DON #1 as the nurse aide assigned to Resident #48 on [DATE] during third shift (11:00 pm until 7:00 am). On [DATE] at 12:45 pm NA #22 was interviewed and stated she had not worked in the facility since Monday, [DATE] and did not recall working with Resident #48. Attempts were made to contact Resident #48's nurse on duty for the evening of [DATE] but the nurse was unable to be reached for an interview. The Director of Nursing (DON) #1 was interviewed on [DATE] at 4:09 PM. DON #1 explained she was not certain why staffing was so low on [DATE] and she would need to review the staffing sheets. DON #1 reported she expected incontinence care to be provided to residents in a timely manner. During an interview with the DON and Administrator on [DATE] at 4:50 pm the Administrator indicated that his start date with the facility was [DATE] and the DON indicated she had been in the facility for two weeks.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview of facility staff, the facility failed to label/date an opened vial of tubercu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview of facility staff, the facility failed to label/date an opened vial of tuberculin (injectable solution to test for tuberculosis) and failed to discard an opened expired vial of tuberculin for 2 of 2 medication storage refrigerators observed on the short-term hall and long-term hall respectively. Findings included: The manufacturer's instructions for tuberculin read initial and date the tuberculin vial when opened and to discard the tuberculin vial 30 days after opening. On [DATE] at 11:04 am the short-term hall medication storage refrigerator observation revealed that a tuberculin vial was opened and not dated. The Infection Preventionist (IP) was present for observation and stated the tuberculin should have been dated when opened and discarded the vial. On [DATE] at 11:04 am an interview was conducted with the IP during medication storage observation. The IP stated that nursing staff was required to date all medication when opened and to check for expired medication during their shift to discard. On [DATE] at 11:29 am the long-term hall medication storage refrigerator observation revealed that a tuberculin vial had a date tag which was written opened on [DATE]. The vial had expired 30 days after opening, [DATE]. The vial was discarded by Nurse #15. Concurrent interview with Nurse #15 stated she did not know how long an open Tuberculin vial could be used before expiring. She further commented that she worked on the short-term hall and the vials were used before they expired. On [DATE] at 4:10 pm an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON was not aware of the findings for the medication storage of tuberculin. The DON had no further comments.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, and resident, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure there was sufficient and competent dietary staff available on 12/31/23 to s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and resident, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure there was sufficient and competent dietary staff available on 12/31/23 to serve breakfast. This failure had the potential to impact all residents who received meals from the kitchen. The findings included: The facility's meal delivery times were recorded as follows: · Breakfast - 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM · Lunch - 12:00 AM - 1:30 PM · Dinner - 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 12:25 PM with the Infection Preventionist Nurse. She stated a group email was sent out by Administrator #2 on 12/30/23 at approximately 10:00 PM requesting anyone that was available to come in and help cook in the kitchen on 12/31/23 due to no dietary staff. She responded saying she would be able to help. She arrived at 6:00 AM and upon arriving, Dietary Staff #1 was already cooking breakfast. She stated Dietary Staff #1 instructed her to set the breakfast trays up which she done. She also indicated she read the meal tickets and made sure the correct diet was provided. Pureed diets were blended to a smooth consistency. She stated that her husband came in and assisted in the kitchen as well. She verified her husband was not an employee at the facility but had some previous work experience in a kitchen. She explained she had helped in the past but had not been trained to cook in the kitchen. She did not recall what time breakfast was served on 12/31/23 but it was served late. An interview was conducted on 02/08/24 at 11:25 AM with Dietary Aide #1. She stated she was scheduled to work on 12/31/23 but she had called out due to back pain. She could not remember who took the callout. She indicated there have been mornings in the past that Nursing Assistants (NAs) have had to assist her with cooking. Breakfast on those mornings was served late but it was always served. Dietary Aide #1 stated she did not work on 12/31/23. Review of the dietary staff schedule and time clock detail report for 12/31/23 revealed Dietary Aide #1 did not work. A phone interview was conducted on 02/08/24 at 2:07 PM with Administrator #2. She indicated that she received a call on 12/30/23 from the facility stating they had a call out for the kitchen for 12/31/23 which would leave them with no staff for breakfast shift. She did not recall who notified her of the call out. She explained that she sent a group email out to the administrative staff to inquire if anyone could assist with preparing breakfast on 12/31/23. She received a response from the Infection Preventionist that she would assist and that there were extra staff scheduled and she would pull someone from the nursing area for additional help if needed. She also indicated it was her understanding the shift was covered. She further explained that she did call the Interim Dietary Manager (DM) #1 on 12/31/23 to have him come in as well to assist. An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 2:18 PM with Dietary Manager (DM) #1. He stated he was called by Administrator #2 on 12/31/23 at approximately 9:00 AM and was told no dietary staff showed up for the early shift and he needed to come in to work. He arrived at the facility at 11:00 AM. He explained at that time he was the interim DM and was working at two different buildings. He indicated a nurse, and a Nursing Assistant (NA) were asked to work in the kitchen to assist in getting breakfast out to the residents. He also stated he did not recall what time breakfast was served to the residents, but it was served later than the regularly scheduled time. He verified the nurse and NAs had not had training on working in the kitchen. He further stated additional staff were hired and this has not occurred since 01/01/24. He then indicated that now they have 2 cooks, 2 aides, 2 managers, and a supervisor during day shift. An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 1:43 PM with a family member for Resident #69. She stated she comes to the facility every day for breakfast and dinner. She indicated breakfast had been late on many mornings in December. She also stated that she arrived between 7:30 AM and 8:00 AM on the morning of 12/31/23 but breakfast was not served until after 10:00 AM and that was unacceptable. She further explained her family member had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus and although his blood sugar remained stable, he needed to eat his breakfast at approximately the same time each day. She further indicated it had been an ongoing problem but had improved lately. An interview was conducted on 02/08/24 at 9:03 AM with Resident # 69. He stated breakfast had been late on many days in December, with the latest being at approximately 10:15 AM. He explained he had a diagnosis for type 2 diabetes mellitus and takes diabetic medications by mouth twice a day and insulin at bedtime. He indicated his blood sugar has been good, but it makes him nervous when he doesn't eat by 9:00 AM. He stated he was very disappointed and frustrated with the facility. An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 1:07 PM with Resident # 57. She stated breakfast was late on many days in December. She indicated it made her feel as if the facility did not care enough for the residents to make sure they get their meals on time. An interview was conducted on 02/07/24 at 12:05 PM with Director of Nursing (DON) #3. She indicated she received a complaint on 01/02/24 from a family member that breakfast had been served late on 12/31/23. She explained that when she investigated the concern, she found that on 12/31/23 no dietary staff showed up to the facility to work. She indicated that the Infection Preventionist came in to cook breakfast and that Nurse # 3 was pulled from the floor to assist. She verified breakfast was late but could not recall the exact time it was served.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, resident, family member, physician, nurse practitioner, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee (QAPI) failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, resident, family member, physician, nurse practitioner, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee (QAPI) failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place in following the complaint investigation of 3/12/2021 and 10/22/2021, and the recertification and complaint investigation of 6/30/2022. This was for 4 deficiencies in the areas of F677 Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), F842 Accuracy of Records, F684 Quality of Care/Professional Standards, and F883 Influenza and Pneumococcal Immunizations. These deficiencies were recited on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 2/16/2024. The continued failure of the facility during two or more federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program. The findings included: This tag is cross referred to: F677: Based on observations, record reviews and interviews of residents, family member, and staff, the facility failed to provide incontinence care for dependent residents (Resident #192, Resident #34, Resident #69, Resident #48, and Resident #339), and failed to provide bathing for a dependent resident (Resident #339) for 5 of 16 residents reviewed for activities of daily living. During the complaint investigation of 3/12/2021 the facility failed to provide a dependent resident with shaving assistance for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). F842: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in the areas of surgical wound care (Resident #70) for 1 of 1 resident record reviewed for surgical wound care. During the complaint survey dated 10/22/2021, the facility failed to document the correct medication dosage on the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) for Fentanyl patch for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for accurate medical record. F684: Based on record review, staff and medical director interviews, the facility failed to obtain daily weights as ordered for a resident with heart failure on a diuretic (Resident #70). This was for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for nutrition. During the recertification and complaint survey dated 6/30/2022, the facility failed to assess, document, and treat skin tears, resulting in the resident receiving antibiotic treatment, for one of three sampled residents reviewed for wound care. F883: Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer an influenza vaccine for a resident who signed a consent form to receive an influenza vaccine or document an influenza vaccine was received for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for infection control (Resident #58). During the recertification and complaint survey dated 6/30/2022, the facility failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine and include documentation in the resident's medical record of education or vaccination status for the pneumococcal vaccination for two of five residents reviewed for the pneumococcal vaccinations. An interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant and the Clinical Reimbursement Consultant RN on 2/8/2024 at 11:19 AM and they revealed a mock survey had been conducted in December 2023 and multiple areas of concern were identified. The Clinical Reimbursement Consultant RN reported several plans of correction were in place as well as several performance improvement plans. The Regional Nurse Consultant explained that during the follow-up a couple weeks ago, the team found that the facility was not meeting metrics and the plans of correction were modified. The Administrator was interviewed on 2/8/2024 at 4:32 PM. The Administrator explained his first day at the facility was 2/5/2024. The Administrator reported the QAPI committee met monthly and reviewed risks and monitored areas of concern by following standard monitoring guidelines. The Administrator explained that to maintain compliance, the QAPI committee would review areas of concern and track the audit results for up to 6 months if necessary.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Responsible Party (RP) interviews, the facility failed to notify a Residents RP in writing of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and Responsible Party (RP) interviews, the facility failed to notify a Residents RP in writing of a hospital transfer. This was for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization(Resident #16 and Resident #19). The findings included: 1. Resident #16 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #16's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of her electronic medical record read she was transferred to the hospital on 1/2/24. She was readmitted on [DATE]. There was no documented evidence that her RP was notified in writing the reason for her hospital transfer. A telephone interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 12:08 PM with Resident #16's RP. He stated he did not receive anything in writing about Resident#16's transfer to the hospital or the reason for her hospital transfer on 1/2/24 but stated the nurse did call him to let him know. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 8:50 AM with the Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator. She stated the floor nurses wrote up the reason for the hospital transfer and gave it to the Business Office Manager to mail out. Another interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 9:40 AM, with the Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator. She stated the facility was not mailing out or providing a copy to the Notice Of Involuntary Transfer form to the resident if applicable or the RP. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 11:00 AM with the Business Office Manager. She stated she was not aware that she was supposed to mailing a copy of the Notice Of Involuntary Transfer form for hospital transfers. 2. Resident #19 was admitted [DATE]. Resident #19's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated she was cognativel intact. Review of her electronic medical record read she was transferred to the hospital on 3/21/23. She was readmitted on [DATE]. There was no documented evidence that her RP was notified in writing the reason for her hospital transfer. A telephone interview was completed on 2/7/24 at 3:58 PM with Resident #19's RP. He stated he did not receive anything in writing about Resident#19's transfer to the hospital or the reason for her hospitalization on 3/21/23 but stated the nurse did call him to let him know. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 8:50 AM with the Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator. She stated the floor nurses wrote up the reason for the hospital transfer and gave it to the Business Office Manager to mail out. Another interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 9:40 AM, with the Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator. She stated the facility was not mailing out or providing a copy to the Notice Of Involuntary Transfer to the resident if applicable or the RP. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 11:00 AM with the Business Office Manager. She stated she was not aware that she was supposed to mail a copy of the Notice Of Involuntary Transfer form for hospital transfers.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was admitted to hospice services on 01/19/24. Review of Resident #18'...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was admitted to hospice services on 01/19/24. Review of Resident #18's most recent Minimum Dat Set (MDS) assessment was dated 01/19/24 and was coded as a significant change in status assessment. The assessment had not been completed and there was no indication the assessment had been transmitted. An interview was conducted on 02/08/24 at 1:30 PM with the Clinical Reimbursement Consultant. She stated the two MDS Coordinators started six months ago, and they were still learning, and there was one part-time MDS person also assisting. She indicated she was aware of the completion and transmission problems, and they were working to get caught up. Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to complete residents Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the required time. This was for 4 of 34 active residents reviewed for MDS completion (Residents #16, #19, #8, and #18). The findings included: 1. Resident #16 was admitted on [DATE] and was admitted to hospice services on 1/8/24. Review of the significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed it was still in progress, and the mood section had not been completed. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 1:30 PM with the Clinical Reimbursement Consultant. She stated the two MDS Coordinators started six months ago, and they were still learning, and there was one part-time MDS person also assisting. She indicated she was aware of the completion and transmission problems, and they were working to get caught up. 2. Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE] and admitted to hospice services on 1/6/24. Review of the significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed it was still in progress and the only areas completed were the identification information, cognition, and preferences and customary activities. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 1:30 PM with the Clinical Reimbursement Consultant. She stated the two MDS Coordinators started six months ago, and they were still learning, and there was one part-time MDS person also assisting. She indicated she was aware of the completion and transmission problems, and they were working to get caught up. 3. Resident #8 was admitted [DATE]. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed it was still in progress and the mood section had not been completed. An interview was completed on 2/8/24 at 1:30 PM with the Clinical Reimbursement Consultant. She stated the two MDS Coordinators started six months ago, and they were still learning, and there was one part-time MDS person also assisting. She indicated she was aware of the completion and transmission problems, and they were working to get caught up.
Jun 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to resolve and communicate the facility's efforts to address residents repeated concerns voiced during three of three Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to resolve and communicate the facility's efforts to address residents repeated concerns voiced during three of three Resident Council meetings for three consecutive months reviewed for Resident Council. (April 2022, May 2022, and June 2022). The Resident Council Meeting Minutes from April 25, 2022, May 25th, 2022, June 22, 2022, were reviewed. The review revealed the following concerns were voiced during the monthly Resident Council meetings and the facility's response: Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes from April 25, 2022, reported concerns related to: A. Food served to residents is cold. B. Residents receiving too many mixed vegetables and too much barbeque sauce on food. C. Housekeeping is not cleaning rooms that well. D. Housekeeping is only mopping bathrooms one time a week. E. Hallways need to be vacuumed more often. F. Beds are not being made every day. G. Residents are not receiving showers when they are scheduled. H. When Nurses give out medications, they do not introduce themselves. I. Nurse Aides are not always nice. There was no documented response the concerns were acted upon by the facility. Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes from May 25, 2022, reported concerns related to: A. Nurse Aides are not working, they are watching television, or they are on their cell phones and not making rounds. B. Residents would like the nurses to tell them what medication they are on before taking it. C. Nurse Aides use curse words and have a bad attitude. D. Some Nurse Aides do not change the residents and don't wear badges, so we do not know who they are. E. Residents would like menus to be given out so they can choose their meal. There was no documented response the concerns were acted upon by the facility. Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes from June 22,2022, reported concerns related to: A. Not enough nursing staff. B. Some Nurse Aides are rude C. Nurse Aides do not make beds regularly. D. Nurse Aides are not announcing themselves when taking care of residents. E. Nurses do not let resident know what medication they are taking. F. Briefs are not very good because they are too thin. G. Residents stated they are tired of sandwiches. H. Food is sometimes cold. I. The combination of food is not good, and the food could be better at the evening meal. There was no documented response the concerns were acted upon by the facility. An interview was conducted on 6/29/22 at 3:13 PM with the Activities Director (AD) who facilitates the resident council meetings. The AD stated that after the Resident Council meetings she will read off the grievances the following morning at the facilities stand up meeting. All departments attend the stand-up meeting and would write down the grievance. The AD stated she had not gotten any response back from the previous meetings since April 2022 and explained they have an interim Director of Nursing and our Administrator who is the grievance official started in May 2022. An interview was completed with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS) and the interim Director of Nursing on 6/30/2022 at 3:20 PM. The VPCS who stated that it would be their expectation that grievances from Resident Council are turned around with a written response within 72 hours and that there is a written response that is documented and presented to the Resident Council.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews the facility failed to obtain an order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for 1 of 1 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews the facility failed to obtain an order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #16) reviewed for advanced directives. The findings included: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), rheumatoid arthritis, generalized weakness, lack of coordination, dementia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, pulmonary fibrosis, depression, chronic pain syndrome, age-related physical debility, and anorexia. A review of Resident #16's medical record conducted on [DATE] revealed no physician's order to establish the resident's code status to identify if the resident was a Full Code (cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to be initiated if the heart stopped beating) or a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). The care plan for Resident #16 was reviewed on [DATE] and the resident had a care plan problem area under the category of advanced directives to allow a natural death, DNR. The problem area had a start date of [DATE]. Further review of Resident #16's medical record revealed there were indications the resident was a DNR as indicated on the resident's face sheet. Included in the resident's medical record was a Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form which documented the resident as a DNR, and a Stop sign document indicating the resident was a DNR. Both documents were dated [DATE]. An interview and record review were conducted on [DATE] at 11:08 AM with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse. She said residents who are a DNR are supposed to have a physician's order and have the Stop sign document. She reviewed Resident #16's medical record and stated the resident did not have an order for her to be an DNR, but she should have one because the resident was a DNR. She said the care plan problem for the resident having been a DNR was entered into the record based on the hospital discharge summary, the stop sign document, and when the social worker had a care plan meeting, the resident's and family's wishes were verified during the care plan meeting for the resident to be a DNR. She stated either during or shortly after the care plan meeting, the Social Worker had entered the care plan problem for the resident to be a DNR. She explained it was the nurse who put a new resident's admission orders into the system would be the nurse who was responsible for getting the DNR order, or the Director of Nursing. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:54 PM with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS). She stated she expected for the facility nursing staff to obtain advanced directives orders for each resident, along with the other necessary paperwork, such as the MOST form and the stop sign form for a resident who was a DNR. An interview was not conducted with the nurse who put in the admission orders. The Social Worker was unavailable for interview.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 residents, Resident #40,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 residents, Resident #40, reviewed for unnecessary medications received a dose reduction of an antipsychotic medication which was ordered by the Psychological Services Nurse Practitioner. The Psychological Services Nurse Practitioner wrote an order for Resident #40's antipsychotic to be discontinued, but she received the medication for 7 days following the discontinuation order. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and her diagnoses included dementia with behaviors and anxiety. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #40 was severely cognitively impaired and had received antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antianxiety medications in the previous 7 days. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment further indicated Resident #40 had not had behaviors. Review of Resident #40's Care Plan edited on 5/21/2022 revealed she had periods of agitation, wandering and combativeness; she had dementia with short term memory loss; and she received antipsychotic medications for management of dementia with behaviors, an antidepressant for appetite stimulation, and an antianxiety for anxiety. A Psychiatry Progress Note written by the Psychological Services Nurse Practitioner dated 6/20/2022 stated Resident #40 was currently taking an antipsychotic, Quetiapine, for behaviors associated with dementia and an antidepressant, Mirtazapine, to boost her appetite. The Progress Note further stated Resident #40 was also prescribed an antianxiety and an antidepressant and staff reported Resident #40 had calmed and her behaviors had improved. The Psychological Services Nurse Practitioner also indicated in her progress note she was discontinuing the antipsychotic and would monitor for behaviors.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine and include documentation in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine and include documentation in the resident's medical record of education or vaccination status for the pneumococcal vaccination for two of five residents reviewed for the pneumococcal vaccinations (Resident #29 and Resident #16). The findings included: Review of the policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccinations, which had a revision date of 12/10/21, read in part; All patients/residents who reside in this healthcare center are to receive the pneumococcal vaccine(s) within the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines unless contraindicated by their physician or refused by the patient/resident or patient/resident's family. If the patient/resident is cognitively impaired as evidenced by scoring on the Minimum Data Set (MDS), the responsible party will be contacted, and their wishes will be followed in this matter. Under Procedure, 1) The admission process will include determining whether the patient/resident has received the pneumococcal vaccine in the past. If no reliable date of previous vaccination ca be obtained, the patient/resident should be considered eligible for vaccination. 2) A Vaccination information Statement will be provided to inform the patient/resident/family member of the side effects, benefits, and risks of the vaccine. This education will be documented on the interdisciplinary teaching record. 3) Permission or refusal to receive the vaccine within the CDC guidelines will be obtained on admission using the pneumococcal vaccine consent/refusal for. A separate consent for each type of vaccine is required. 1. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed an admission comprehensive assessment for Resident #29 with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/4/22. Further review revealed the resident was coded as having had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS indicated the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. A review of Resident #29's medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate whether the resident received the pneumococcal vaccine, refused the pneumococcal vaccine, or was provided education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine. During an interview conducted on 6/30/22 at 11:16 AM with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS) she stated she was unable to locate the consent form for Resident #29 which would document the resident chose to receive the pneumococcal vaccine, declined the pneumococcal vaccine, or was provided education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine. An interview was conducted on 6/30/22 at 3:54 PM with the VPCS. During the interview she said the pneumonia vaccine consent/education/decline forms needed to be in the resident's medical record. She further stated the pneumonia vaccine needed to be kept in stock and offered to residents or the resident's family when the resident is admission, along with education regarding the vaccine. She said it then needed to be documented in the resident ' s medical records they received education regarding the vaccine, if the resident or family member chose to have or not have the vaccine, and date the vaccine was administered. 2. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed an admission comprehensive assessment for Resident #16 with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/28/22. Further review revealed the pneumonia vaccine was not administered. The reason listed for the pneumonia vaccine not being administered was coded as not offered. A review of Resident #16's medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate whether the resident received the pneumococcal vaccine, refused the pneumococcal vaccine, or was provided education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine. During an interview conducted on 6/30/22 at 11:16 AM with the VPCS she stated she was unable to locate the consent form for Resident #16 which would document the resident chose to receive the pneumococcal vaccine, declined the pneumococcal vaccine, or was provided education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine. An interview was conducted on 6/30/22 at 3:54 PM with the VPCS. During the interview she said the pneumonia vaccine consent/education/decline forms needed to be in the resident's medical record. She further stated the pneumonia vaccine needed to be kept in stock and offered to residents or the resident's family when the resident is admission, along with education regarding the vaccine. She said it then needed to be documented in the resident's medical records they received education regarding the vaccine, if the resident or family member chose to have or not have the vaccine, and date the vaccine was administered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an unvaccinated resident was offered the vaccine for C...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an unvaccinated resident was offered the vaccine for COVID-19 and failed to maintain a resident's record of refusal for the vaccine for COVID-19 two of five residents reviewed for vaccination (Resident #29 and Resident #10). The findings include: Review of the policy titled COVID-19 Vaccination Clinics, which was most recently revised on 4/1/22, revealed in part, all partners (staff members), residents, and patients who have no medical contraindications to the vaccine will be offered the COVID-19 vaccine per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations to encourage and promote the benefits associated with the vaccinations against COVID-19. Further review revealed the facility, agency, or office shall provide pertinent information about the significant risks and benefits of vaccines to partners, residents, patients and/or family members. If the residents/patient was cognitively impaired as evidence by scoring on the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS)/patient Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS), the authorized responsible party will be contacted, and his/her wishes will be followed in this matter. Under Scope, the policy applied to all partners, residents, and patients of the facility. Under Procedure; 1) The patient or legal representative will sign the COVID-19 Vaccine Consent/Refusal Form indicating their wishes to receive or decline the vaccination. 2) All new admissions will be reviewed for consent or declination of vaccine to ensure previous doses of the vaccine have been documented and new/next doses can be scheduled appropriately. 3) All residents declining the vaccine will be given additional information on the benefits of immunization and an opportunity to discuss their concerns and to ask questions before signing the declination form. Under Timing of Vaccination; 1) Current unvaccinated and newly admitted residents/patients (unvaccinated or required second dose) will be offered the COIVD-19 vaccine per CDC recommendation. For Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for vaccine; 1) Pfizer, Incorporated, and BioNTech, Number of Shots: 2 shots, 3-8 weeks apart. For Documentation, 1) Each resident's and patient's immunization status will be determined prior to COVID-19 vaccine administration and documented in the resident and patient's medical record. 3) The resident or legal representative will sign the COVID-19 vaccine consent/refusal from indicating their wishes to received or decline the vaccination. 4) The resident or legal representative may refuse vaccination. Vaccination refusal and reasons why (e.g., allergic, contraindicated, etc.) should be documented in the patient's medical record. 1. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed an admission comprehensive assessment for Resident #29 with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/4/22. Further review revealed the resident was coded as having had moderately impaired cognition. Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an entry dated 4/29/22 where the resident was documented as having received the first COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on 12/20/21. Further review of the record revealed no evidence the resident had received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, or subsequent boosters prior to entering the facility, or at the facility. The record review also did not reveal a consent form for the resident to receive or refuse further doses of the COVID-19 vaccine nor was there information regarding education provided to the resident's family regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. An interview was conducted with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS) on 6/30/22 at 3:54 PM. She stated there had been some confusion when Resident #29 was initially admitted because it had been communicated the resident had received her initial COVID-19 vaccine during her hospitalization in April before she came to the facility, and the nursing staff had not pursued the resident receiving her second COVID-19 vaccine administration. She further explained once the confusion was clarified and it was clear, and verified, the resident had received her first dose of vaccine, and was due for her second vaccine, they followed up with the resident's family, and the resident's family did want her to receive the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, but they did not have the consent form completed. She explained another issue had been the vaccine provider preferred the facility have multiple residents who were ready to receive the vaccine when they come to the facility because they had to bring 10 doses of the vaccine, and whatever doses were not administered, had to be wasted. The VPSC stated they would get Resident #29 her second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and would also explore the option of having her go to a local pharmacy or other vaccine if necessary. 2. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the MDS revealed a quarterly assessment for Resident #10 with an ARD of 4/11/22. Further review revealed the resident was coded as having been cognitively intact. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed no documentation regarding the resident having received a COVID-19 vaccine series or having been provided education and declined the COVID-19 vaccine series. During an interview conducted on 6/30/22 at 3:54 PM with the VPCS she stated Resident #10 had refused not only the COVID-19 vaccine, but all vaccines. She explained they had all of the COVID-19 vaccine refusals in a binder, but they were unable to locate the binder at the time of the survey. She stated it was her expectation for the facility to maintain complete, accurate, and readily accessible records regarding COVID-19 vaccine refusals.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to retain regulatory posted daily nurse staffing sheets for 4 days out of the 7-day period reviewed (6/2/22, 6/3/22, 6/4/22, and 6/5/22)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to retain regulatory posted daily nurse staffing sheets for 4 days out of the 7-day period reviewed (6/2/22, 6/3/22, 6/4/22, and 6/5/22). Findings included: There were no regulatory posted daily nurse staffing sheet available to review for 6/2/22. There were no regulatory posted daily nurse staffing sheet available to review for 6/3/22. There were no regulatory posted daily nurse staffing sheet available to review for 6/4/22. There were no regulatory posted daily nurse staffing sheet available to review for 6/5/22. An interview was conducted in conjunction with a record review on 6/30/22 at 11:34 AM with the scheduler. She said she was in charge of posting, receiving, storing, and maintaining the regulatory posted daily nurse staffing sheets. While she was reviewing the sheets for the period of 6/1/22 through 6/7/22 she said she had the sheets for 6/1/22, 6/6/22, and 6/7/22. She further stated she was unable to locate and did not have the sheets for 6/2/22, 6/3/22, 6/4/22, and 6/5/22. She explained she did not know what had happened to the sheets for those dates and she was unable to locate all of the sheets for the requested period. She stated she kept the sheets in a book where she kept track of them, and also kept track of the daily staffing schedule forms which she was able to produce for the period of 6/1/22 through 6/7/22. An interview was conducted on 6/30/22 at 3:54 PM with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services. She stated she expected the regulatory daily posted nurse staffing sheets to be readily available upon demand.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $197,532 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 31 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $197,532 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Pruitthealth-Union Pointe's CMS Rating?

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

How is Pruitthealth-Union Pointe Staffed?

CMS rates PruittHealth-Union Pointe's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pruitthealth-Union Pointe?

State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at PruittHealth-Union Pointe during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 23 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Pruitthealth-Union Pointe?

PruittHealth-Union Pointe is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PRUITTHEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Monroe, North Carolina.

How Does Pruitthealth-Union Pointe Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, PruittHealth-Union Pointe's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pruitthealth-Union Pointe?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Pruitthealth-Union Pointe Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Pruitthealth-Union Pointe Stick Around?

Staff turnover at PruittHealth-Union Pointe is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Pruitthealth-Union Pointe Ever Fined?

PruittHealth-Union Pointe has been fined $197,532 across 2 penalty actions. This is 5.6x the North Carolina average of $35,054. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Pruitthealth-Union Pointe on Any Federal Watch List?

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