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.