PruittHealth-Neuse

1303 Health Drive, New Bern, NC 28560 (252) 634-2560
For profit - Limited Liability company 110 Beds PRUITTHEALTH Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#377 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

PruittHealth-Neuse in New Bern, North Carolina, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about care quality. Ranked #377 out of 417 facilities in the state, they are in the bottom half, and #5 out of 5 in Craven County, meaning there are only four other local options, all of which are better. While the facility is showing improvement in issues reported, dropping from 22 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, they still have an alarming 48 total deficiencies, including one critical incident where a resident fell due to inadequate supervision, resulting in a head injury. Staffing is somewhat stable with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 34%, which is below the state average, but they have incurred $200,097 in fines, indicating ongoing compliance problems. Despite having better RN coverage than 85% of North Carolina facilities, specific incidents, such as failing to administer prescribed medications correctly, raise serious concerns about the quality of care provided.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In North Carolina
#377/417
Bottom 10%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
22 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
34% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$200,097 in fines. Higher than 57% of North Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for North Carolina. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
48 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 22 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (34%)

    14 points below North Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 34%

12pts below North Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $200,097

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: PRUITTHEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 48 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 8 actual harm
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0573 (Tag F0573)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and the Responsible Party (RP) interviews, the facility failed to provide copies of a resident's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and the Responsible Party (RP) interviews, the facility failed to provide copies of a resident's medical records to the resident's RP within 2 working days after a request for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for medical record access (Resident #6). Findings include: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #6's admission record completed on [DATE] revealed a family member was listed as her RP and Power of Attorney. A review of nursing notes dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 expired on this date. A review of a letter dated [DATE] written by Resident #6's RP and sent to the facility revealed a request for Resident #6 medical records. In a telephone interview with the RP on [DATE] at 10:37 a.m. she revealed she began requesting Resident #6's medical records from the facility's Medical Records Director a couple of months before [DATE]. She stated the Medical Records Director kept promising her that she would provide the records but did not. The RP stated she decided to engage legal help and signed a consent requesting for the records on [DATE]. An interview was conducted with the Medical Records Director on [DATE] at 1:57 p.m. She stated she did receive a letter with signed consent from Resident #6's RP via fax requesting a copy of all medical records on [DATE]. The Medical Records Director further stated that she mailed out the records on [DATE]. She revealed it was her understanding that since Resident #6 was no longer at the facility she had 90 days within which to provide the records and stated there was no delay releasing the records. During a telephone interview with the prior Administrator on [DATE] at 1:48 p.m. he stated that he did not remember why there was a delay in releasing requested medical records for Resident #6. He stated it was the responsibility of the Medical Records Director to oversee any records request. An interview was conducted with the Senior Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 8:10 a.m. who stated that it was a problem if a medical records request was not fulfilled in 2 working days after a request was received at the facility. In a telephone interview with the current Administrator on [DATE] at 9:15 a.m. she stated it was the responsibility of the Medical Records Director to process requests. She further stated that she was not aware there were delays with requested medical records for Resident #6.
May 2025 2 deficiencies
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the areas of smoking for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar with manic delusions. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] had Resident #1 coded as cognitively intact and did not use tobacco. The care plan dated 01/21/2025 had focus of Resident #1 not needing supervision with smoking and will propel self out of facility to smoking area. A review of the observation detail list dated 01/21/2025 revealed Resident #1 was observed to be a safe individual smoker that reviewed and understood the smoking policy. An interview with the Case Mix Coordinator was conducted on 04/25/2025 at 9:40 AM. She stated another nurse from the corporate office completed the MDS assessment for Resident #1 when she was out of work. Resident #1 does smoke, and it should have been coded yes for tobacco use. It must have been an oversite. An interview with Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted on 04/25/2025 at 11:47 AM. She stated Resident #1 was a smoker and it should have been coded as her being a tobacco user. The DON also stated they will have someone else review assessments before transmission. An interview with the Administrator was conducted on 04/25/2025 at 12:07 PM. The Administrator stated Resident #1 was a smoker. She also stated that she expected the MDS nurses to code the assessments correctly.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not smoke inside of the facility in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not smoke inside of the facility in accordance with their smoking policy for 1 of 3 residents sampled for accidents. On 4/13/2025 the resident was observed by staff in the lobby area of the facility lighting and beginning to smoke a cigarette. There were no residents with oxygen in the lobby area and Resident #1 was escorted outside by Nurse #2. The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including bipolar with manic delusions. A review of the smoking policy revised 12/12/2024 indicated that no one should be allowed to smoke inside any area of the healthcare center at any time. The care plan dated 1/21/2025 included a focus of Resident #1 not needing supervision with smoking and indicated she could self-propel out of facility to the smoking area. The interventions included that Resident #1 was able to keep her smoking materials in her room in a lock box. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was cognitively intact and had no behaviors or rejection of care. She was able to transfer herself independently and wheeled self independently in her manual wheelchair. The resident received antipsychotic, antidepressant and antianxiety medication. A review of the observation detail list completed by Nurse #1 dated 1/21/2025 revealed Resident #1 was observed to be a safe smoker who reviewed and understood the smoking policy. An interview with Nurse #1 was conducted on 4/24/2025 at 3:37 PM. The Nurse stated Resident #1 was observed to be a safe and independent smoker on 1/21/2025. Nurse #1 also stated Resident #1 read, understood, and agreed to the smoking policy. A telephone interview with Receptionist was conducted on 4/25/2025 at 9:36 AM. The Receptionist stated she worked evenings and weekends. On Sunday 04/13/2025 she observed Resident #1 light and smoke a cigarette in front of the lobby door. The Resident was not near any other residents with oxygen at the time and Resident #1 was asked by Nurse #2 to go outside and smoke because there was no smoking in the facility. Resident #1 stated that this was her home, and she could smoke where she wanted. Nurse #2 helped escort Resident #1 outside to finish smoking. Nurse #2 asked for Resident #1's smoking materials when she came back in the facility and the resident became combative with the nurse and the police were called. The Receptionist also stated that was the first time she ever witnessed the resident smoking in the building. The Receptionist further stated she had always observed Resident #1 carry her own cigarettes and lighter. An interview with Nurse #2 was conducted on 4/25/2025 at 1:10 PM. The Nurse stated she was familiar with Resident #1. She verified she witnessed Resident #1 smoking in the lobby on 4/13/2025, she told Resident #1 she could not smoke in the building, and she helped the resident go outside. She indicated there were no other residents around the lobby area with oxygen tanks. When Resident #1 came back in the facility after smoking, she (Nurse #2) asked for her lighter and cigarettes. Resident #1 refused to give them to her and the resident hit the nurse in the chest area when she was bent over looking for Resident #1's smoking materials. The police were called, and they could not get the materials from the Resident. Resident #1 was sent to the emergency room for evaluation due to escalating behaviors and was returned back to the facility and was put on one to one (1:1) supervision. Nurse #2 also stated prior to this 04/13/2025 incident, she had never seen Resident #1 smoke in the building. Resident #1 was out of the facility during the survey and could not be interviewed or observed. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted on 4/25/2025 at 1:49 PM. The DON stated residents were not allowed to smoke in the facility at any time. The current smoking policy was to have the residents give their smoking materials to the nurse, but residents who were grandfathered in from the old administration were allowed to keep their smoking materials in a lock box in their rooms. Those residents were care planned and assessed for safe smoking. She indicated that prior to this 04/13/2025 incident, Resident #1 had been allowed to retain her own smoking materials in her lockbox. The DON stated since this incident those privileges were rescinded for all residents who had been grandfathered in to prevent this from happening again. An interview with the Administrator was conducted on 4/25/2025 at 2:09 PM. The Administrator stated the Receptionist called her on 4/13/2025 and reported that Resident #1 was smoking in the lobby. She told them to call 911, try to get the lighter, and to get her out of the facility. There were no reports of residents in the lobby with oxygen. Nurse #2 was able to get Resident #1 out of the facility to smoke. The Administrator also stated there were no reports of Resident #1 smoking in the facility before 4/13/2025 but since she broke the smoking policy, she would not be able to keep her own smoking materials. The facility provided a corrective action plan that was not acceptable by the state agency. When addressing how corrective action will be accomplished for other residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice not all smokers were included. Also, the plan did not include who was responsible for the monitoring/audits, specific information regardng what or who they were monitoring, and the frequency and duration of monitoring and audits. Audits and monitoring must be specific to the deficient practice to determine if education and system changes put into place are effective.
Nov 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Responsible Party (RP) interviews, the facility failed to notify the RP of a change in condition when the fingerstick blood sugar (FSBS) levels exceeded 500 milligrams per deciliter (a normal blood glucose level is 80-130 milligrams per deciliter) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for notification of change (Resident #1). The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes, dementia, and femur fracture. The admission nursing note dated 9/27/24 at 5:52 pm revealed Resident #1 was alert with noted confusion. Resident #1 had a physician order dated 9/27/24 for insulin lispro (fast-acting insulin) per sliding scale with the following instructions: If Blood Sugar is less than 70, call MD. If Blood Sugar is 141 to 180, give 2 Units. If Blood Sugar is 181 to 220, give 2 Units. If Blood Sugar is 221 to 260, give 2 Units. If Blood Sugar is 261 to 300, give 4 Units. If Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, give 4 Units. If Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give 6 Units. If Blood Sugar is greater than 400, give 6 Units. If Blood Sugar is greater than 400, call MD. The FSBS (fingerstick blood sugar) was to be checked at 6:30 am, 11:30 am, 4:30 pm, and 9:00 pm every day. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 10/01/24 revealed Resident #1's FSBS was 565 mg/dL at 9:00 pm as noted by Nurse #3. The nursing progress note dated 10/02/24 at 3:01 am by Nurse #3 revealed Resident #1's initial HS (hour of sleep or at bedtime) FSBS was 546 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). The on-call provider was notified, and Nurse #3 was instructed to administer an additional 3 units of insulin lispro along with the ordered dose of 6 units of insulin lispro. The progress note further noted that Resident #1's FSBS was rechecked in 2 hours and the FSBS was 428 mg/dL. The on-call provider was once again notified and gave instructions to administer an additional 6 units of insulin lispro and recheck Resident #1's FSBS in two hours. Resident #1's FSBS was noted to be 298 mg/dL after the additional insulin lispro dose was administered. Nurse #3 further noted Resident #1 was asymptomatic. The MAR for 10/02/24 revealed Resident #1's FSBS at 9:00 pm was noted by Nurse #3 to be 519 mg/dL. The nursing progress note dated 10/03/24 at 2:20 am by Nurse #3 revealed Resident #1's FSBS at HS was 519 mg/dL. Nurse #3 administered the ordered rapid-acting insulin and notified the on-call provider. The on-call provider instructed Nurse #3 to administer an additional 8 units of rapid-acting insulin and recheck Resident #1's FSBS 2 hours after. Nurse #3 noted that Resident #1's FSBS after the additional 8 units of rapid-acting insulin was 364 mg/dL. Nurse #3 further noted Resident #1 was asymptomatic. The MAR for 10/03/24 revealed Resident #1's 9:00 pm FSBS was 515 mg/dL as recorded by Nurse #3. The nursing progress note dated 10/04/24 at 8:35 am by Nurse #3 revealed Resident #1's FSBS at HS was 515 mg/dL. Nurse #3 noted the on-call provider was notified and instructed Nurse #3 to administer an additional 8 units of insulin lispro and recheck Resident #1's FSBS in 2 hours. Nurse #3 further noted Resident #1's FSBS was rechecked and was 389 mg/dL and Resident #1 was asymptomatic. Review of the nursing progress notes from 10/01/24 through 10/04/24 revealed no documentation that Resident #1's RP was notified of the elevated blood glucose levels at 9:00 pm on 10/01/24, 10/02/24, or 10/03/24. A telephone interview was conducted with Resident #1's Responsible Party (RP) on 11/19/24 at 10:26 am who revealed she was not notified of Resident #1's elevated blood glucose levels on 10/01/24, 10/02/24, and 10/03/24. The RP stated she was notified by Nurse #3 on the morning of 10/05/24, when Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital unresponsive, that Resident #1 had experienced elevated blood glucose levels on several nights throughout the week. She stated she was not aware of how high Resident #1's blood glucose levels were during the week until she was at the hospital. The RP stated that had she been made aware of Resident #1's high blood glucose levels on the nights prior she would have requested Resident #1 be sent to the hospital. A telephone interview was conducted on 11/19/24 at 2:14 pm with Nurse #3 who revealed she did not notify Resident #1's RP of the elevated blood glucose levels when they occurred because it was the middle of the night, and it was not life threatening. She stated she would not have called the RP because the additional insulin that was administered did bring the blood glucose levels down. Nurse #3 stated she did notify Resident #1's RP about the elevated blood glucose levels throughout the week when she notified the RP that Resident #1 was sent to the hospital on the morning of 10/05/24. An interview was conducted on 11/19/24 at 2:40 pm with the Director of Nursing who revealed Nurse #3 should have notified Resident #1's RP of the elevated blood glucose levels.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, Pharmacist, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director telephone interviews, the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, Pharmacist, Nurse Practitioner, and Medical Director telephone interviews, the facility failed to administer scheduled antibiotic medication which resulted in 3 doses of the antibiotic being missed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #1). The findings included: Review of the hospital visit summary dated 9/22/24 through 9/27/24 revealed Resident #1 was noted to have had a urine culture completed on 9/23/24 with a positive culture result of Escherichia Coli (E. coli, a common bacteria that causes urinary tract infections). Resident #1 had a discharge diagnosis which included urinary tract infection and was not prescribed antibiotic medication upon discharge. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included femur fracture, urinary tract infection, and diabetes. Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for further evaluation of altered level of consciousness. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) visit note dated 10/02/24 revealed Resident #1 had a urinary tract infection (UTI) listed on hospital diagnosis list with unknown treatment. The NP noted to continue to monitor for symptoms and would consider treatment as indicated. The Medical Director's History and Physical progress note dated 10/03/24 revealed Resident #1 had reported increased urinary frequency without dysuria (discomfort upon urination). The Medical Director further noted Resident #1 was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection prior to admission however it was unclear if Resident #1 was treated during the hospital stay. The Medical Director's treatment plan included an empiric (based on observation and experience) course of ciprofloxacin antibiotic and to continue to monitor for symptoms. Resident #1 had a physician order dated 10/03/24 at 2:29 pm for ciprofloxacin (antibiotic medication) 250 milligram (mg) tablet, give 1 tablet twice a day for urinary tract infection (UTI). The order had a start date of 10/03/24 with an end date of 10/09/24. The medication was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. A review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October 2024 revealed ciprofloxacin was not administered on 10/03/24 at 5:00 pm or 10/04/24 at 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 11/19/24 at 8:30 am who was assigned to Resident #1 on 10/03/24 for the 7:00 am through 7:00 pm shift. Nurse #1 stated she was not aware the physician wrote an order for ciprofloxacin for Resident #1 during her shift, so she did not administer the medication. She stated when a physician order was entered a yellow box would come across the resident screen stating an order was waiting to be verified, but she did not verify physician orders. She stated the Unit Manager normally verified the physician orders for the residents. Nurse #1 stated she did not recall the order for Resident #1's antibiotic. An attempt to conduct a telephone interview with the Unit Manager on 11/19/24 at 8:54 am was unsuccessful. A telephone interview with Nurse #3 was conducted on 11/18/24 at 3:12 pm who was assigned to Resident #1 on 10/3/24 during the 7:00 pm through the 7:00 am shift and again on 10/04/24 during the 11:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. Nurse # 3 stated she was not sure when Resident #1's ciprofloxacin order was entered but she stated she verified the order on 10/04/24 at 10:02 pm when she saw the order. Nurse #3 stated she notified the on-call provider that the medication was delayed, and a new order was obtained to start the antibiotic on 10/05/24. Nurse #3 stated she was aware of how to verify physician orders, but she was unable to state why the order was not verified during her shift on 10/03/24. A telephone interview was conducted on 11/19/24 at 9:15 am with Nurse #2 who was assigned to Resident #1 on 10/04/24 from 7:00 am through 11:00 pm. Nurse #2 stated he often did not have time to review physician entered orders until the end of his shift, but he did know how to verify the orders. Nurse #2 stated he was not aware of an order for Resident #1 to receive ciprofloxacin at 9:00 am and 5:00 pm during his shift on 10/04/24. A telephone interview was conducted on 11/19/24 at 10:16 am with the Pharmacist who revealed Resident #1's ciprofloxacin order was not submitted by the facility to the pharmacy until 10/04/24 at 10:02 pm. The Pharmacist stated the pharmacy was unable to send the antibiotic medication for Resident #1 until the order was submitted by the facility. During a telephone interview on 11/19/24 at 10:41 am with the NP she revealed she and the Medical Director had discussed an antibiotic as treatment for a possible UTI that Resident #1 had prior to admission to the facility that may not have been treated fully. The NP stated she was not aware the ciprofloxacin was not administered to Resident #1 as ordered. A telephone interview was conducted on 11/19/24 at 10:53 am with the Medical Director who was assigned as the primary provider for Resident #1. The Medical Director reported that based on the hospital discharge summary Resident #1 had a UTI while hospitalized , but it was unclear if antibiotic therapy was completed. He stated Resident #1 had reported increased urinary frequency during his visit on 10/03/24 so he ordered an antibiotic in the event that the UTI was not treated in the hospital. The Medical Director stated he was not notified that Resident #1's ciprofloxacin was not administered as ordered. The Medical Director stated the medication should have been administered to Resident #1 as scheduled. An interview was conducted with the Director of Health Services on 11/19/24 at 9:36 am who revealed the nurses, or the Unit Manager were responsible to verify the physician orders. She stated when an order was entered into a resident's electronic record a notice would populate on the resident screen that a new order was pending verification. She stated to verify an order the nurse would have to review and confirm the order. The Director of Health Services stated that until the physician orders were verified the order would not be sent to pharmacy and would not show on the MAR to be administered. The Director of Health Services stated had Resident #1's ciprofloxacin order been verified when written the medication would have been available to be administered. The Director of Health Services stated she did not know why Resident #1's ciprofloxacin order was not verified by the nursing staff when ordered and she was unable to state how the order was missed. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 11/19/24 at 1:30 pm who revealed the Director of Health Services was responsible to ensure physician orders were verified and the medications were available to be administered. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a completion date of 10/09/2024. An Ad-Hoc (as needed) Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held on 10/07/24 with the Administrator, Director of Health Services, Nurse Navigator, Unit Manager, and Corporate Clinical Director. The facility's corrective action plan was developed and implemented on 10/07/24. 1. Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice: Resident #1 no longer resides in the facility. 2. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. All residents have the potential to be affected due to overlooked and unverified physician orders. An audit of all active resident physician orders was completed by the Director of Health Services on 10/08/24 to ensure all physician orders were verified (reviewed and confirmed) and accurately transcribed. No issues were identified. 3. Address what measures will be put into place or systematic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not reoccur. On 10/05/24 the Director of Health Services initiated education for licensed nurses regarding physician order verification. The education consisted of where to look for physician written orders, how to identify when orders were awaiting verification, and how to verify physician orders. The education was completed for 100% of the licensed nursing staff by 10/08/24. Education regarding physician order verification will be provided by the Director of Health Services or designee to all new hire licensed nurses in orientation or as indicated to ensure systems remain compliant. 4. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. The Nurse Navigator or designee will audit the Order Verification Reports for all resident physician orders to ensure verification and accuracy of the physician orders. The audits are to be conducted weekly for 12 weeks. The Director of Health Services or designee will report the findings to QAPI committee monthly for three months. The QAPI Committee will determine if sustained compliance has been achieved and if ongoing monitoring is needed. The corrective action plan completion date was 10/09/2024. The facility's corrective action plan was verified on 11/19/2024 by the following: Review of the weekly order verification reports initiated on 10/07/24 and completed weekly to date. Record review of the resident order audit completed on 10/08/24 was completed and validated. Random review of resident orders was completed with no concerns identified. Interviews with licensed nursing staff revealed they were educated on where to look for physician orders, how to verify physician orders, and confirming all new orders are verified. The compliance date of 10/09/2024 was validated.
Sept 2024 7 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, family member, Pharmacist, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Nurse Practitio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, family member, Pharmacist, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to administer prescribed medications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 45) reviewed for significant medication errors. Resident #45 was not administered 10 consecutive doses of lorazepam (anti-anxiety medication) during the time period of 7/29/24 through 8/01/24 when the order was erroneously discontinued on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) by the Director of Nursing (DON) which caused Resident #45 to experience increased anxiety. Resident #45 was assessed by the NP on 8/01/24 due to severe anxiety and noted the resident was crying and asking for his medication. Findings included: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that hypertension (high blood pressure), anxiety disorder, and asthma. Review of Physician orders dated 6/1/24 indicated Resident #45 had been prescribed lorazepam, 1 mg (milligram) tablet, take one tablet 4 times a day for anxiety disorder. Review of the Physician orders dated indicated Resident #45 had been prescribed lorazepam 1 mg per 1ml (milliliter) to be given orally in a syringe for anxiety as needed (PRN). Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #45 was severely cognitively impaired and was coded to receive an anxiolytic (medication to treat anxiety). Review of the 2024 July and August Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #45 was not administered a total of 10 doses of his prescribed lorazepam (a medication to treat anxiety) on 7/29/24 (2 doses), 7/30/24 (4 doses), 7/31/24 (4 doses), and 8/1/24 (2 doses). This was evidenced by the absence of nursing initials on the MAR for the dates of the missed doses. The order on the MAR had a discontinue date of 7/29/24. Additionally, the MAR revealed Resident #45 was not administered any doses of PRN lorazepam. Review of the Controlled Drug Record for Resident #45's lorazepam 1 mg tablet revealed that Nurse #7 signed on 7/29/24 at 8 pm and on 7/30/24 at 9 pm that 2 doses of lorazepam had been administered. These doses were not signed off as administered on the MAR. During an interview with Nurse #7 on 09/10/24 at 11:00 am he stated that he did not recall if he had administered lorazepam 1 mg tablet to Resident #45 on 7/29/24 or 7/30/24. He further indicated that if he did not have an order for it, he would not have administered it. In an interview with Nurse # 5 on 9/10/24 at 2:47 pm she stated she had worked 7/31/24 and saw that Resident #45's lorazepam had been discontinued so she did not administer it because the order needed to be renewed. She stated she put in a request for the NP to see him and renew the lorazepam. She stated that she did not administer the PRN lorazepam on 7/31/24 because he had not been anxious. The interview further revealed that one day (date unknown) during the first part of July the family had asked that Resident #45's lorazepam dose be held so he would not be drowsy when the family visited that day, but they had not asked that it be stopped. During an interview with Nurse #4 on 9/10/24 at 3:53 pm she stated that when the pharmacy refill review request (a record of orders that are scheduled to be refilled) came electronically on 7/29/24 that it got messed up by someone (she did not know who), and Resident #45's scheduled lorazepam had been discontinued and had to be restarted. She stated when it had been brought to her attention by nursing staff that his lorazepam had been discontinued, she notified the NP to get it reordered on 8/1/24. She recalled that a hydroxyzine order had been received from the NP to be given until the scheduled lorazepam had been reordered. She further indicated that no one had reported to her that he had been overly anxious, and if he had been he had an order for PRN lorazepam that he could have received. In an interview with Resident #45 on 9/10/24 at 8:19 am he stated he recalled that he had not received his prescribed anxiety medication for several days one time but could not recall the name of the medication or the exact dates. He stated he went bezerk and that was what happened when staff forgot to give him his anxiety medication. He further clarified that it made him feel bad overall but could not further describe how he felt. He stated that the nurse (he could not recall her name) gave him some sort of a concoction and that made him feel better, and he had felt fine since. Review of a NP progress note written by the NP dated 8/1/24 read in part, I was called to see [Resident #45] due to his severe anxiety. [Resident #45] was crying and asking for his medications. [Resident #45] was given hydroxyzine [a non-narcotic medication that helped to reduce anxiety] 50 mg by mouth stat [immediately]. Apparently, his Ativan [lorazepam] has been abruptly discontinued. Initially I was told it was by his [family member's] desire but on further investigation it was discontinued from the MAR. The [lorazepam] was resumed as ordered. Review of Physician orders dated 8/1/24 indicated that Resident #45 was prescribed hydroxyzine 25 mg tablets, give 2 tablets 50 mg stat one time dose for anxiety. The order had a start and stop date of 8/1/24. A review of the August MAR revealed that lorazepam, 1 mg to be administered four times a day was reordered and transcribed to the MAR for Resident #45 on 8/1/24, and it was administered as ordered. An interview with Nurse #3 on 9/11/24 at 8:44 am she stated on 8/1/24 she was assigned to administer medications to Resident #45 and administered a dose of hydroxyzine 50 mg as a stat (immediately) as one time dose for anxiety, but could not remember what time she had given it. She stated Resident #45 had increased anxiety on 8/1/24 and she could not remember if he had been crying or what his behaviors had been on 8/1/24 because he often became anxious. She stated she did not recall if he had lorazepam ordered at that time or if she had administered it. She further indicated that she did not routinely work with Resident #45, so it was difficult to recall the exact details of the day. In an interview with the NP on 9/10/24 at 9:18 am she stated that Resident #45 sometimes became groggy when he took the lorazepam, and she was told by nursing staff that his family member wanted the lorazepam stopped. She further stated a nurse told her the facility had not renewed the lorazepam because Resident #45's family member had not wanted it renewed. She could not recall the name of the nurse. She stated that lorazepam should not have been abruptly stopped because it could have caused a rebound of anxiety. She further indicated that she had ordered hydroxyzine when she learned the lorazepam had been discontinued and reordered the lorazepam. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/11/24 at 8:04 am revealed that she had erroneously discontinued Resident #45's lorazepam on 7/29/24. She stated that the pharmacy sent an alert that Resident #45 had 2 lorazepam orders, so she had reviewed the orders and had not realized that one of the lorazepam orders had been for PRN lorazepam 1 mg per 1 milliliter (ml) to be given orally in a syringe, and she thought it was a duplicate lorazepam order and discontinued the scheduled lorazepam 1 mg to be given 4 times a day. She stated that on 8/1/24 a nurse (she did not recall the name) notified her that the order for Resident #45's scheduled lorazepam had been discontinued so she asked the Nurse #4 to notify the NP to reorder the lorazepam and she did. The interview further revealed that Resident #45's family had not contacted her to ask that the lorazepam order be discontinued. She further indicated that the lorazepam should not have been discontinued and Resident #45 should have received scheduled lorazepam on 7/29/24, 7/30/24, 7/31/24, and 8/1/24. She stated the lorazepam 1 mg tablets had been available for administration and had not yet been returned to the pharmacy. During an interview with Resident #45's family member on 9/11/24 at 9:26 am she stated that Nurse # 4 notified her on 8/1/24 that Resident #45 had become combative, yelled, cursed, and they could not get him to calm down and the doctor ordered a medication to calm him down. She stated she did not know what medication had been ordered. The interview further revealed that she had not asked the facility to stop his lorazepam and had only asked the facility to hold one dose around the 7/19/24 so family could visit. She stated that when he did not get his scheduled lorazepam that he became combative and upset. In an interview with the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner on 9/10/24 at 12:09 pm she stated Resident #45 had been ordered lorazepam to be given on a routine scheduled basis, as well as lorazepam to be given on an as needed (PRN) basis, so he should not have missed any doses of his lorazepam. She further stated she would have expected that the nurses would have given him the PRN lorazepam if they did not have an order for the scheduled lorazepam. She stated that she did not discontinue the scheduled lorazepam, and was unaware it had been discontinued. She stated lorazepam should not have been stopped abruptly as it could have caused increased agitation for the resident. In an interview with the Pharmacist on 9/10/24 at 02:10 pm he stated that according to his records the order for lorazepam for Resident #45 had been discontinued by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/29/24 and it had been reordered on 8/1/24 by the Nurse Practitioner. He further stated that lorazepam should not have been stopped abruptly and should have been titrated (dose lowered by over a period of several days) to a lower dose and then tapered off before it had been stopped. He stated if it had been abruptly stopped that Resident #45 could have experienced irritability, tremors, sweating, panic attacks, headaches, and worsened anxiety. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/11/24 at 1:25 pm she stated Resident #45 should have received his medications as ordered and not missed doses. She stated that nurses administered medication according to the order on the MAR. She further indicated the error occurred because of the way the medication re-order system was set up and that the lorazepam had been restarted for Resident #45 when they became aware it had been stopped.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a complete Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Benefici...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide a complete Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF/ABN) by omitting the estimated cost of services for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for beneficiary notices (Resident #286 and Resident #287). Findings included: a. Resident # 286 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medicare part A services began on 12/27/23. The medical record revealed a CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter (NOMNC) was signed by Nurse #2 as issued to Resident # 286's representative via phone on 3/11/24. The notice indicated that Medicare coverage for skilled services was to end 3/13/24. Resident #286 remained in the facility when Medicare coverage ended. Review of Resident #286 's record indicated the SNF/ABN form dated 3/11/24 had no estimated cost of services documented on the form. b. Resident #287 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medicare part A services began on 6/14/24. The medical record revealed a CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter (NOMNC) was signed by Resident #287 and on 8/12/24. The notice indicated that Medicare coverage for skilled services was to end on 8/16/24. Resident #287 remained in the facility when Medicare coverage ended. Review of Resident # 287's record indicated the SNF/ABN form dated 8/12/24 had no estimated cost of services documented on the form. During an interview with Nurse #2 on 9/11/24 9:17 am she stated that she completed the SNF ABNs for Resident #286 and Resident #287. She further stated that she was not aware that the estimated cost needed to be included on the SNF/ABN form. She concluded she would begin to include the estimated cost in the future. During an interview with the Administrator in Training on 9/10/24 at 3:13 pm, he stated if estimated costs was to be included in the SNF/ABN then it should have been completed for Resident #286 and Resident #287. He stated the Social Worker and Nurse #2 had been responsible to complete the SNF/ABN forms. During an interview with the Administrator on 09/10/24 03:29 pm she stated she had not been aware that the estimated costs had not been completed for Resident #286 and Resident #287. She further indicated that the costs should have been completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately code a significant change in status Minimum Data S...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately code a significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment following hospice election for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #56) reviewed for hospice. The findings included: Resident #56 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute respiratory failure, acute pneumonitis (pneumonia) and Alzheimer's dementia. A review of Resident #56's hospice election form revealed she was admitted to hospice on 8/19/24. A review of Resident #56's electronic health record revealed a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed on 8/19/24. The MDS did not indicate the resident had been admitted to hospice. In an interview with the MDS nurse on 9/11/24 at 8:17 AM She further stated she learned about significant changes in morning meeting every day and she was aware Resident #56 had been admitted to hospice. The MDS nurse revealed the significant change MDS that was completed on 8/19/24 should have indicated the resident was admitted to hospice. She was not sure how it was missed. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/11/24 at 8:39 AM she stated the MDS completed on 8/19/24 should have captured that Resident #56 was admitted to hospice.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe transfer for 1 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe transfer for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #285) reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. On 8/26/24 Resident #285 was assessed by Physical Therapist #1 to have required a mechanical lift transfer. The mode of transfer had not changed and on 9/5/24 Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 and NA #2 transferred Resident #285 from the bed to a chair without the use of a mechanical lift. Findings included: Resident #285 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen levels in the body), anxiety, muscle weakness, unsteady on feet, shortness of breath, and pneumonia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #285 was moderately cognitively impaired. She was dependent on staff for transfers from bed to chair. She required the use of supplemental oxygen. Review of a care plan for Resident #285 dated 8/23/24 revealed she was at risk for falls related to cardiac dysrhythmia (abnormality of heart rhythm), and generalized weakness. Interventions included assist for toileting and transfers as needed. Review of the physical therapy initial evaluation and plan of treatment for Resident #285 dated 8/26/24 revealed Resident #285's baseline for sitting to standing was patient unable to stand despite max A +2 [maximum assistance of 2 persons]. The evaluation further revealed Resident #285 was unable to ambulate. In an interview with Physical Therapist (PT) #1 on 9/10/24 at 11:22 am she stated she had evaluated Resident #285 on 8/26/24 and had determined a mechanical lift was the safest mode of transfers because Resident #285 could not stand safely related to weakness and unsteadiness on her feet. She stated a two-person physical assist without the use of a mechanical lift put Resident #285 at a risk for falls related to poor physical strength. The interview further revealed NA #1 told PT #1 she transferred Resident #285 without the use of a mechanical lift on 9/5/24 and that concerned her because NA #1 should have used a mechanical lift. In an interview with Resident #285 on 9/11/24 at 9:58 am she stated on 9/4/24 the therapist (not sure which one) told her she wanted Resident #285 out of bed for therapy on 9/5/24 and to let the Nursing Assistants (NAs) know when they came to get her up to use the mechanical lift. Resident #285 stated that on 9/5/24 NA#1 and NA #2 came to assist her out of bed, and she told them to use a mechanical lift for the transfer and NA #1 told her they (NA #1 and NA #2) were sent to get her out of bed and into the chair and that was what they were doing. She stated when NA #1 and NA #2 assisted her to stand up to transfer to the chair she could feel herself falling and staff grabbed her by her underarms and it hurt like hell and it scared her because she thought she was going to fall. The interview further revealed that Resident #285 had pneumonia and had difficulty breathing and the exertion from the transfer made her short of breath. In an interview with NA #1 on 9/10/24 at 11:12 am she stated she transferred Resident #285 from the bed to a chair without the use of a mechanical lift on 9/5/24 because she had not been aware at that time that Resident #285 required a mechanical lift. She stated Resident #285's care card had indicated that she was a two person assist for transfers. She indicated that NA #2 assisted her to transfer Resident #285. She stated Resident #285 held onto a walker during the transfer, became short of breath, could not pivot to turn, and sit in the chair. NA #1 explained she and NA #2 assisted Resident #285 to sit on the side of bed until she could regain her breath and then they continued with the transfer to the wheelchair. NA #1 indicated Resident # 285 did not tell her that she should have used a mechanical lift until after she had been transferred into the chair. She stated on 9/5/24, after the transfer had occurred, Physical Therapist (PT) #1 told her that Resident #285 should have been transferred using a mechanical lift. During an interview with NA #2 on 9/11/24 at 11:08 am she stated she assisted NA #1 on 9/5/24 to transfer Resident #285 from the bed to a wheelchair. She indicated they did not use a mechanical lift for the transfer because Resident #285's care card indicated she had been a two person assist for transfers and did not indicate a mechanical lift had been required. She stated when she arrived at Resident #285's room on 9/5/24 to assist NA #1 with the transfer that Resident #285 was sitting on the side of the bed with her legs over the edge of the bed and feet on the floor. She stated when they assisted the resident stand up the resident stated, I can't do it, I can't do it, so they assisted her to sit back down on the bed by holding her under each arm, on each side of the resident. She stated NA #1 told Resident #285 they were going to transfer her to the chair and asked if she was ready and Resident #285 agreed she was. She stated Resident #285 stood up and NA #1 and NA #2 assisted her to pivot to the chair and sat her down. They stated the resident was able to bear weight during the transfer, but they helped her maintain her balance. She stated after Resident #285 was seated in the wheelchair that she was short of breath and that concerned her, so she checked on her frequently afterward until she was no longer short of breath. In an interview with Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) #1 on 9/11/24 at 10:05 am she stated that on 9/4/24 she told Resident #285 to tell the NA staff to use a mechanical lift when they got her up for therapy on 9/5/24. The COTA stated after Resident #285 was out of bed, the resident told her NA #1 and NA#2 had transferred her without the use of a mechanical lift. She stated Resident #285 could not bear weight to stand related to weakness so she should have been transferred with a mechanical lift. She stated Resident #285 had not had a change in her transfer status since she had been admitted . She stated if there had been a change in how Resident #285 transferred a therapist would have communicated that to the nursing staff verbally. The interview revealed there had not been a formal process in place for therapy to communicate modes of transfer to nursing staff. In a follow-up interview with PT #1 on 9/11/24 at 10:45 am she confirmed she documented in her physical therapy progress notes on 8/26/24 Resident #285 was not safe to bear weight and that she verbally notified the nurse on duty that day. She stated she did not recall which nurse she spoke to. In a follow-up interview with Nurse #6 on 9/11/24 at 11:51am she stated she worked on 8/26/24 when therapy did the initial evaluation on Resident #285, but she did not recall if a therapist told her to transfer Resident #285 with a mechanical lift. She further indicated therapists would tell the NAs how to transfer a resident and the NAs would tell the nurse so the nurse could update the care plan. She stated she was not told how Resident #285 should transfer at any time and had not updated the care plan. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/11/24 at 8:21 am she stated if a resident required a mechanical lift for transfers that they should be transferred with a mechanical lift unless therapy changed the mode of transfer. She stated therapy communicated verbally to the nursing staff about how a resident should be transferred. In a follow up interview with the DON on 09/11/24 at 1:03 pm she stated that on admission a nurse assessed a resident to see how they would transfer until therapy assessed the resident. She stated therapy usually assessed residents the next day after admission and determined how the resident should be transferred and then therapy would tell the nurse. She stated that the safest mode of resident transfers was also discussed in morning meeting with the interdisciplinary team each day. She stated there was not a set system on how to communicate on how to transfer residents and without a system someone could be transferred incorrectly. She explained therapy initially assessed Resident #285 and assessed her mode of transfer to be a mechanical lift. She said the facility needed a process to communicate about transfers after a resident was assessed by therapy. She further indicated when NA #1 and NA #2 noticed Resident #285 became short of breath they should have reported the resident being short of breath to the nurse before they continued with the transfer. She stated when therapy notified Nurse #6 Resident #285 should be transferred with the use of a mechanical lift that Nurse #6 should have notified the DON or MDS nurse so they could have updated the care plan. During an interview with the Administrator on 9/11/24 at 1:32 pm she stated Resident #285 had been assessed by nursing when admitted and Resident #285 required two-person assistance to transfer out of bed, and that was put on the care plan. She stated therapy did not always make the determination on how a resident should be transferred.
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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, staff and Physician interview the facility failed to have a medication error rate of less than 5% as evidenced by 2 medication errors out of 27 opportunities, resu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff and Physician interview the facility failed to have a medication error rate of less than 5% as evidenced by 2 medication errors out of 27 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 7.41%, for Medication Administration. Both errors were for medications received by Resident #77. Findings included: a. A review of Resident #77's medication orders dated 7/29/24 revealed he was prescribe one 325 mg (milligram) aspirin by mouth once daily. Further review of the resident's orders revealed he was to be given medications whole in puree (meaning not to crush the medications and to place the medication in a food to help with administration such as applesauce). On 9/10/24 at 8:35 AM Nurse #1 was observed as she prepared and administered four medications to Resident #77. The medications administrated included one enteric coated aspirin 325 mg. All of the resident's medications were crushed and administered to the resident in applesauce. In an interview with Nurse #1 on 9/10/24 at 9:28 AM she stated she had been crushing Resident #77's medications as he had been having trouble swallowing them whole. Nurse #1 revealed she used an enteric coated aspirin instead of a regular aspirin as that was what she had in her cart, and she should have gone to the medication storage room for the correct aspirin. b. A review of Resident #77's medication orders dated 7/29/24 revealed he was prescribed one Metoprolol Succinate extended release tablet 50 mg by mouth once daily. Further review of the resident's orders revealed he was to be given medications whole in puree (meaning not to crush the medications and to place the medication in a food to help with administration such as applesauce). On 9/10/24 at 8:35 AM Nurse #1 was observed as she prepared and administered four medications to Resident #77. The medications administrated included one Metoprolol Succinate extended release tablet 50 mg to be given by mouth. All of the resident's medications were crushed and administered to the resident in applesauce. In an interview with Nurse #1 on 9/10/24 at 9:28 AM she stated she had been crushing Resident #77's medications as he had been having trouble swallowing them whole. She further stated she knew she should not have crushed Metoprolol Succinate extended release because that changes it from a long acting to a short acting medication. She further revealed she should have contacted the Physician or Nurse Practitioner to change his order from taking medication whole to crushed. An interview with the Pharmacist on 9/10/24 at 2:03 PM revealed Metoprolol Succinate extended release should not be crushed as it changes it to immediate release and can lower the residents blood pressure and/or pulse. He stated enteric coated aspirin should not be crushed as the enteric coating protects the stomach lining. He further revealed if a residents orders changed from taking medications whole to crushed, he would recommend an equivalent medication that can be crushed. He stated the pharmacy did not receive a request for recommendations for crushable medications for Resident #77. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/24 at 9:22 AM revealed Metoprolol Succinate extended release should not have been crushed as it changes it from a long-acting medication to a short acting one that could cause a drop in blood pressure or pulse for the resident. The DON stated the nurse should have known not to crush it. She further stated she expected nursing to follow the orders in the electronic medication administration record including how residents took their medications. If a resident needed a change from taking medications whole, to taking them crushed, nursing would contact the Physician or Nurse Practitioner for that order and any changes from medications that could not be crushed to an equivalent medication that could be crushed. In an interview with the Physician on 9/11/24 at 8:02 AM he stated Metoprolol Succinate extended release should not be crushed as it could cause the resident's blood pressure and/or pulse to drop. He further stated Resident #77 did not have an order for enteric coated aspirin and enteric coated aspirin should not be crushed if it was given. The Physician revealed Resident #77 did not have an order for medications to be crushed but had an order for them to given whole in puree.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to keep medications in a locked treatment cart for 1 of 2 treatment carts observed (Treatment Cart #1). Findings included: During observa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to keep medications in a locked treatment cart for 1 of 2 treatment carts observed (Treatment Cart #1). Findings included: During observation on 9/9/24 at 3:33 PM Treatment Cart #1 was observed to be unlocked and unattended on the 100 hall with the locking mechanism popped out in the unlocked position. At 3:33 PM a resident rolled to the cart and stopped approximately 5 feet from it and remained there through the observation. At 3:34 PM a nurse aide pushing a resident in a wheelchair and a restorative aide walked past the unlocked treatment cart. At 3:35 PM a visitor walked past the unlocked treatment cart. At 3:35 PM the MDS Nurse walked to the unlocked treatment cart, noted it was unlocked, and locked Treatment Cart #1. During an interview on 9/9/24 at 3:36 PM the MDS Nurse stated Treatment Cart #1 was being used by Treatment Nurse #1. She stated it should be locked when unattended and was why she locked it when she saw it was not locked as she was passing by. During an interview on 9/9/24 at 3:40 PM Treatment Nurse #1 stated treatment carts were to be locked when unattended. He stated he did not have a reason the treatment cart was left unlocked. During observation on 9/9/24 at 3:44 PM with Treatment Nurse #1, the treatment cart was observed to contain calmoseptine ointment, triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1%, Mometasone Furoate Cream 0.1%, nystatin ointment 100,00 units per gram, nystatin topical powder 100,000 units per gram, sodium hypochlorite solution 0.50%, hydrogen peroxide, wound cleanser, triamcinolone cream 0.1%, corn starch powder, wound solution, ketoconazole shampoo 2%, and 1.5% dimethicone. During an interview on 9/10/24 at 7:54 AM the Director of Nursing stated treatment carts were to be locked when unattended.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement their policies and procedures for hand hygiene when Nurse #1 failed to perform hand hygiene before donning glov...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement their policies and procedures for hand hygiene when Nurse #1 failed to perform hand hygiene before donning gloves and after glove removal for 1 of 2 Nurses observed for hand hygiene during medication administration. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration: Hand Hygiene dated 10/17/2023 stated in part: During medication administration .use hand hygiene before and after glove removal. The policy definition of hand hygiene stated: The cleansing of hands by using the organization-approved, alcohol-based hand sanitizer or by washing hands with soap and water. An observation was started on 9/10/24 at 8:15 AM of Nurse #1 administering medications to a resident. She performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer upon leaving the room. During the second observation at 8:30 AM on 9/10/24, after collecting the needed supplies and medications, Nurse #1 was accompanied to the resident's room. Once in the room, Nurse #1 set down the glucose monitoring supplies, a cup of water and the medication cup, put on disposable gloves and proceeded with handing Resident #18 the medication cup and water. Nurse #1 was observed administering medications and performing a blood glucose test on Resident #18. Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene before putting on gloves. After Resident #18 took his medication, Nurse #1 completed the blood glucose test, removed her gloves and threw them away before proceeding to the medication cart in the hallway. Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene after removing her gloves. In an interview with Nurse #1 on 9/10/24 at 12:00 PM she stated she was aware she should have performed hand hygiene before donning gloves to perform the blood glucose test and after removing her gloves after the test. She further revealed she did not perform hand hygiene because she was nervous and had a bad headache. An interview with the Infection Preventionist on 9/10/24 at 12:06 PM revealed Nurse #1 should have washed her hands after removing gloves when done with the blood glucose test. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/24 at 10:21 AM she stated Nurses are trained in infection control upon hire and at least yearly. She further stated Nurse #1 should have washed her hands and donned gloves before performing the blood glucose test and should have washed her hands after removing her gloves when done with the test.
Apr 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

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 protect the resident's right to be free from misappropriatio...

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 protect the resident's right to be free from misappropriation of a controlled medication, (30 Oxycodone 5 milligram (mg) pills), which were prescribed by the Physician for pain for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property (Resident #10). The findings included: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Physicians order for Resident #10 dated 8/8/23 was one tablet of Oxycodone 5mg every four hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 was moderately cognitively impaired. A review of the facility internal investigation report dated 9/15/23 revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) received a phone call from Nurse #6 on 9/7/23 at 7:33 AM and she stated they were counting narcotics at change of shift and there was a card of narcotic medication unaccounted for. The medication belonged to Resident #10. The DON stated she notified the Administrator and Nurse Consultant. She further revealed the facility notified law enforcement and Pharmacy on 9/13/23. In an interview with Resident #10 on 4/23/24 at 4:15 PM he stated he was not aware that any of his medication had been missing in September. He further stated he did not recall going without narcotic medication at any time, nor did he recall being charged for any medication. In an interview with the DON on 4/23/24 at 10:44 AM she stated all narcotics are kept double locked. In this case the Nurse would have two keys, one to unlock the cart and one to unlock the narcotic drawer. She further stated Nurse #4 and an orientee (Nurse #5) were working on that cart that night, and they both passed voluntary drug screening tests during the investigation by the facility. The DON revealed staff searched all medication carts and med rooms for the missing medication. Nurses #4, #5 and #6 could not be reached for interviews. The law enforcement officer was unavailable for interview. Observations during the survey revealed medication carts to be locked when not in use. An interview with the Pharmacist on 4/23/24 at 1:12 PM revealed he was notified of missing narcotic medication belonging to Resident #10 on 9/13/23. He came to the facility the same day to help staff investigate the incident. The Pharmacist further stated he was unable to locate the medication. In an interview with the Administrator on 4/24/24 at 2:15 PM, she stated she was made aware of the missing narcotic medication on 9/7/23 and helped staff search for it. She further stated the narcotic count sheet had been moved to the back of the three-ring binder but was unable to determine who had moved it. She had reviewed facility camera recordings, and the cart was parked out of view for some of the shift. The Administrator revealed the narcotic count should always be correct. She stated the facility covered the cost to replace the medication. The Administrator revealed they completed trainings that included misappropriation upon hire.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit an initial or investigation (5 day) report to the state regulatory agency and did not notify Adult Protective Services (APS) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit an initial or investigation (5 day) report to the state regulatory agency and did not notify Adult Protective Services (APS) regarding an allegation of misappropriation of resident property. They further failed to report to Law Enforcement within 24 hours of discovery of misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #10) reviewed. Findings included: A review of the facility internal investigation report dated 9/15/23 revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) received a phone call from Nurse #6 on 9/7/23 at 7:33 AM and she stated they were counting narcotics at change of shift and there was a card of narcotic medication unaccounted for. The medication belonged to Resident #10. The DON further revealed the facility notified law enforcement on 9/13/23. The report did not indicate if APS was notified. An interview with the DON on 4/23/24 at 10:44 AM revealed she received a phone call from Nurse #6 on 9/7/23 who stated a card of a narcotic medication was missing during the shift change medication count. The DON stated she notified the Administrator. In a follow up interview with the DON on 4/24/24 at 11:09 AM she stated she did not send an initial report or 5-day investigation report to the state regulatory agency as she did not realize it was a reportable incident. She stated she did not report it to APS for the same reason. The DON revealed she did not think about the incident as being classified as misappropriation of resident property. She further stated she did not notify law enforcement for 5 days because she spent that time looking for the missing medication. In an interview with the Administrator on 4/24/24 at 2:15 PM she stated she did not report the misappropriation to the state regulatory agency by sending an initial report or a 5-day investigation report. She further stated she did not notify APS. The Administrator revealed she did not think to categorize the missing medication as misappropriation as she was thinking more of diversion. She indicated that the delay in notification to law enforcement was because they were searching for the missing medication.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee (QAA) failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previously put in place following the recertification and complaint investigation surveys of 4/21/22 and the complaint investigation surveys of 8/30/23 and 2/21/24. This was for 3 recited deficiencies in the areas of Safe/Clean/Comfortable/Homelike Environment (F584), Reporting of Alleged Violations (F609), and Infection Control (F880). The continued failure during 2 or more federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. The tag is cross-referenced to: F584: Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a room free of a strong smell of urine which reached out into the hallway. This was evident in 2 of 3 rooms reviewed for a safe, clean, homelike environment (Rooms 307 and room [ROOM NUMBER]). During a recertification and complaint investigation survey of 4/21/22 the facility was cited for failing to keep walls, resident furniture and sinks in good condition. During a complaint investigation survey of 8/30/23 the facility was cited for failing to: clean and repair water damage to resident vanities; prevent leaking plumbing in resident hand sinks and toilets; clean a flat, black substance on resident walls near toilet plumbing and behind raised wallpaper; and repair wallpaper that was wet to touch and separated from the wall behind toilets. F609: Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation of resident property to the state regulatory agency and Adult Protective Services (APS). They further failed to report to Law Enforcement within 24 hours of discovery of misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #10) reviewed. During a complaint investigation survey of 2/21/24 the facility was cited for failing to report an allegation of staff to resident abuse within the required time frame of 2 hours. F880: Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their policies and procedures for wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when 3 of 3 Nursing staff members (Nurse #1, Nurse #2, and Nurse #3) were observed not wearing (PPE) when providing care to 1 of 1 resident (Resident #21). During a recertification and complaint investigation survey of 4/21/22 the facility was cited for not following isolation precautions for a resident who had orders to be on isolation enteric precautions. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/24/24 at 2:05 PM she stated the QA (Quality Assurance) committee met monthly and consisted of the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Medical Director and the Directors of the facility's departments. When an area of concern was identified during an IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) meeting, a PIP (performance improvement project), including audits with results was submitted to the QA committee every month until the concern was resolved. She further stated that as oversight, the corporate consultants also have access to this information to audit, submit recommendations, and follow-up to the QA Committee. The Administrator revealed that overcoming certain citations such Environment and Infection Control are difficult as they encompass so many potential issues. She further stated that the facility must ask permission from corporate for the funds to fix walls and replace resident furniture. The Administrator revealed they received a citation for failure to report on 2/21/24 and it was because the fax would not go through for several hours. They have since found that sending a fax from Human Resources works faster.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their enhanced barrier precautions policies and procedures for wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when 3 of 3 Nur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their enhanced barrier precautions policies and procedures for wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when 3 of 3 Nursing staff members (Nurse #1, Nurse #2, and Nurse #3) were observed not wearing (PPE) when providing care to 1 of 1 resident (Resident #21). Findings included: The facility's enhanced barrier precautions guidelines effective date 4/01/24 read in part that enhanced barrier precautions were in effect for chronic wounds, internal devices, and lines. Infection Control signage posted on Resident #21's room door read in part 'Enhanced Barrier Precautions. Providers and staff must also wear gloves and a gown for the following High-Contact Resident Care Activities.' The high contact resident care activities list included device care or use: urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy; wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing. During an observation on 4/23/24 at 8:59 AM, Nurse # 1 and Nurse #2 were observed to provide wound care on Resident #21's right and left buttock, suprapubic (above the pubic bone) urinary catheter care, gastrointestinal tube care, and tracheostomy care. Nurse #1 and Nurse #2 did not don a gown for any observed resident care. An interview on 4/23/24 at 9:33 AM with Nurse #1 and Nurse #2 revealed they had had enhanced barrier training. They stated they had not donned a gown for any of Resident #21's observed care. They stated they had not done so due to nervousness about being observed. During an observation on 4/23/24 at 10:22 AM, Nurse #3 was observed to provide a tube feeding with water flushes for Resident #21. She did not don a gown for any observed resident care. She stated that she had not because 'people don't really' and she had fallen out of practice with wearing a gown for residents with enhanced barrier precautions. She stated she was aware that Resident #21 had an enhanced barrier precautions sign on his door but did not realize that it included tube feeding. An interview on 4/24/24 at 10:05 AM with the Administrator revealed the staff have had enhanced barrier precautions training and she thought they were just nervous, and it was human error they had not worn a gown during resident care. An interview on 4/24/24 at 11:10 AM with the Director of Nursing revealed that the staff have had enhanced barrier precautions training, and she did not know why they had not worn gowns during resident care.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a room free of a strong smell of urine whic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a room free of a strong smell of urine which reached out into the hallway. This was evident in 2 of 3 rooms reviewed for a safe, clean, homelike environment (Rooms 307 and room [ROOM NUMBER]). Findings included: 1a. During an observation on 4/22/24 at 10:41 AM the 300 hallway and room [ROOM NUMBER] smelled strongly of urine. No soiled briefs or linens were observed in the room, and the resident was not visibly soiled. An observation and interview on 4/23/24 at 2:23 PM with Resident #22 revealed a strong smell of urine from the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] and outside the room in the 300 hall. 1b. During an observation on 4/22/24 at 10:41 AM the 300 hallway and room [ROOM NUMBER] smelled strongly of urine. An observation on 4/23/24 at 2:23 PM revealed a strong smell of urine from room [ROOM NUMBER] and outside the room in the 300 hall. Resident #23 was not able to be interviewed. No soiled briefs or linens were observed inside the room, and the resident was not visibly soiled. An interview on 4/23/24 at 1:38 PM with the Housekeeping Director revealed she was aware of the strong smell of urine in the facility on 4/22/24 and on the 300 hall on 4/23/24. She stated the residents in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] refused to allow housekeeping to clean their rooms. She also stated that Resident #23 urinated in trashcans and on the furniture. She stated some days the urine smell in the facility was worse than others. An interview on 4/23/24 at 2:23 PM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 revealed that she worked on the 300 hall frequently. She stated that the urine smell was really bad on 4/22/24 especially on 300 hall. She stated that Resident #23 refused care frequently and urinated in trashcans and cups. An interview on 4/23/24 at 2:46 pm with NA #2 revealed that she worked on the 300 hall at times. She stated that rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] frequently had a strong urine odor. An interview on 4/23/24 at 3:02 PM with Nurse #7 revealed she worked on the 400 hall which was adjacent to the 300 hall. She stated that the residents in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] were resistive to care and their rooms usually had a strong urine odor. An interview on 4/24/24 at 8:05 AM with the Maintenance Director revealed he was aware of the strong urine odor on the 300 hall. He stated that the residents in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] refused to allow housekeeping to clean their rooms. He stated that the floor tiles probably needed to be replaced to get the odor out. An interview on 4/24/24 at 9:39 AM with Nurse #8 revealed he usually worked at the 300 hall nurses' station and the resident in rooms 314 refused care so the 300 hall frequently had a strong urine odor. An interview on 4/24/24 at 10:05 AM with the Administrator revealed that she was aware of the strong odor of urine in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] and the 300 hall. She stated that she would get room [ROOM NUMBER] floor retiled to see if that would help. She stated that the facility had made multiple attempts to get the residents to permit their rooms to be cleaned. An interview on 4/24/24 at 11:10 AM with the Director of Nursing revealed that she was aware the urine odors on the 300 hall. She stated the residents in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had behaviors and refused to have their rooms cleaned.
Mar 2024 7 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews and family, staff, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews and family, staff, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. Resident #1 was diagnosed with cerebellar ataxia (a condition that causes poor muscle control that causes clumsy movements), and functional quadriplegia (complete immobility due to severe disability or frailty from another medical condition without injury to the brain or spinal cord) and was dependent on staff for assistance with care. On 1/18/24 Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 was providing Resident #1 with care when the resident experienced spastic/uncontrolled movements and the resident fell off the side of the bed striking his head on a bedside table causing a laceration on his forehead above his left eye before he fell onto the fall mat on the floor. Resident #1 was transferred to the Emergency Department and was treated for a left frontal scalp hematoma (a pool of mostly clotted blood) with a significant laceration with active bleeding that required 7 sutures for closure. Immediate jeopardy began on 1/18/24 when NA #1 failed to provide care safely to Resident #1. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 3/15/24 when the facility provided an acceptable credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower level and severity of D (no harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure monitoring systems put in place were effective. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included stroke with right side hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (muscle weakness of one side of the body), functional quadriplegia, cerebellar ataxia, muscle weakness, lack of coordination and intellectual disability. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #1's cognition was severely impaired, and he was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) assistance, dressing, and bed mobility. He was coded to have received antiplatelets and had 1 fall with no injury since prior assessment on 8/7/23. He did not have behaviors. Review of the care plan for Resident #1 dated 10/20/23 included the following: - At risk for falls related to muscle weakness, cerebral vascular accident (stroke) with right sided hemiplegia, functional quadriplegia, intellectual disability, and cerebellum ataxia with a goal that Resident #1 would not have negative outcomes related to falls without appropriate nursing intervention through the next review (start date 2/28/23) with interventions that included to use a wider bed, floor mats beside bed, assist with toileting and transfers, keep the environment safe, and call light within reach. - Impaired physical mobility and required 1-2 person assist with ADLs related to right side hemiplegia with interventions that included to provide 1-2 person assist with ADLs as needed. In an interview with Nurse #2 on 3/12/24 at 12:08 pm it was revealed that Resident #1 had a diagnosis of cerebellar ataxia, had a recent deterioration in his condition and had become more spastic (uncontrolled movement) with increased muscle spasms and became more agitated at times. She stated he was at risk of falls because of his diagnosis. She indicated that some of the staff interventions used were: they approached him calmly as not to startle him, they kept his bed in a low position, padded the side rails with pillows, checked for incontinence and changed him as needed, and had floor mats on both sides of the bed to help prevent self-injury. The interview further revealed that Resident #1 had a wider bed to help prevent falls and that staff got him up in a chair and took him to activities to help keep him occupied and so they could keep a closer eye on him. Nurse #2 stated that a family member familiar to him visited daily and that helped. The interview further revealed that many different fall interventions had been exhausted for Resident #1 and he was reviewed in fall meetings regularly and medication reviews were done, and medications were adjusted as necessary. Nurse #2 stated he was prescribed lorazepam 0.5 milligrams at bedtime for anxiety and baclofen to help control his muscle spasms. Review of an Event Witness Statement dated 1/18/24 at 10:50 am written by NA #1 read went into the room and took his [Resident #1's] shirt off, he started moving around and fell off the bed. The statement was signed as witnessed by Nurse #3. Review of a Facility Event Investigation Form dated 1/18/24 at 10:50 am completed by Nurse #3 and signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that Nurse #3 responded to an NA's call for assistance because a resident had fallen out of bed. The review further revealed that Resident #1 was being assisted with dressing and changing when he started jumping and fell off of bed. The record had a hand drawn diagram that indicated that Resident #1 laid on the floor between both beds with a night stand near his head, it was noted that he was on his left side with his arms up by his chest, legs outstretched, and with blood on the floor coming from under him from an area on the upper left forehead. The record review further indicated that the care plan was updated to include 2 or more persons when ADL care was provided or for bed mobility. The form was dated and signed by the DON as investigation completed on 1/23/24. Review of a nurse's progress noted dated 1/18/24 at 3:12 pm written by Nurse #3 revealed that she was called to Resident #1's room by the NA and Resident #1 was on the floor between the beds in his room. The review further revealed he had fallen off his bed when the NA attempted to change and dress him. He was noted to have bled from an area on the left side of his forehead. 911 was called and Resident #1 was transported to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Review of a nurse's progress noted dated 1/18/24 at 3:28 pm written by Nurse #3 revealed that pressure was applied to Resident #1's head for bleeding, and he grimaced when pressure was applied. In a phone interview with NA #1 on 3/12/24 at 4:22 pm she stated that she was assigned to Resident #1 on 1/18/24 when he fell out of bed. She stated that she went into his room to give him a bath. She indicated he let her take his shirt off and at that point in time he started making his movements like he did. She explained that was when she remembered that he had a history of flailing around with agitated movements when he received care so she was going to go get someone to assist her. She indicated she left the side of the bed without lowering the bed. She stated that he then went off the other side of the bed so she ran out of the room to go get the nurse. NA #1 stated that Nurse #3 came into the room. She stated that when he started to move around in bed after she removed his shirt that she talked to him so he would not move as much. She indicated that she had his bed up to a working height that permitted her to provide care on the same plane (level) as Resident #1 when he fell. She further stated that Resident #1 typically moved around a lot but would let her do his care but this day he moved so fast that he fell off the other side of the bed (opposite from where she was standing) and hit his head on the bedside table before he fell onto the floor mats that were beside his bed. She stated that she then ran over to where he laid on the floor and asked him if he was ok and he said he was. NA #1 indicated that there was blood everywhere, on the privacy curtain, on the floor, and on his head and upper body. The interview further indicated that NA #1 recalled that Resident #1 had moved around a lot since she started working at the facility in July of 2023 and because of that 2 people usually worked with Resident #1. She further stated that she knew she should use 2 people when she provided care to Resident #1 because when she became employed at the facility other staff (no specific staff names provided) told her that. She indicated that there were no staffing issues on the morning of 1/18/24 when she provided care to Resident #1. She explained that she was not thinking that day and was just moving to get her patient care completed and as soon as she removed his shirt that she thought she needed to go get someone else to assist her when he started with his agitated movements. In a phone interview with the Administrator on 3/14/24 at 3:11 pm she stated that NA #1 wanted the surveyor to call her back so that she could clarify some information that she had given in a previous interview on 3/12/24 at 4:22 pm. The Administrator stated that NA #1 had never left the bedside on 1/18/24 when the resident fell out of the bed. In a follow up phone interview with NA #1 on 3/14/24 at 3:31 pm she indicated that her statement in a phone interview on 3/12/24 at 4:22 PM was correct but clarified that she never left his bedside prior to the fall. She explained that she stood beside the bed the entire time. She stated that she took his shirt off and thought in my head that she needed to go get someone to help when he got agitated. NA #1 stated that she stood beside his bed but did not grab him or hold him when he thrashed around because she did not want to restrain him but didn't want him to fall off the bed so she hovered her hand over his body without touching him. She stated she was on the side of the bed closest to the door and kept her hand hovered over him and that he thrashed toward her side of the bed. She felt that if she stood there and hovered her hand over him that she was not restraining him and if he moved to her side of the bed that he would not fall and hit the floor. She indicated that he then suddenly sat up and threw himself toward the opposite side of the bed and fell off the bed (from where NA #1 was standing) before she could stop him. She rationalized that when he sat up, she thought he was going to lay back down but he didn't and he instead flung himself off the opposite side of the bed. During an interview with Nurse #3 on 3/12/24 at 3:09 pm she stated that Resident #1 would get anxious when he was left alone or if staff tried to change him. She stated that his behavior was childlike and when he became anxious or agitated that he would swing his body, arms, and legs and that he could fall out of the bed. She described his movements as flailing and that he would flail and move around a lot when staff tried to provide care. She stated that interventions were in place for him that included lower bed position and fall mats on the floor. The interview further revealed that he had a fall in January 2024, but she could not recall the date, when NA #1, who was unfamiliar with him and did not know how anxious he would get, assisted him with morning care and he flipped himself off the bed. She stated that NA #1 had the bed raised while she gave him care and worked without assistance with him the day he fell. After he fell his care plan was changed so that 2 or more staff assisted Resident #1 when care was provided. She recalled that blood was everywhere, and she called a code green (to indicate a fall) and after she saw the amount of blood that she called 911 (EMS-Emergency Medical Services) and stayed with him until EMS arrived. Nurse #3 further indicated that she attempted to get a brief on him after he fell when he was on the floor while she waited for EMS to arrive, but he twisted all around and she could not. She stated that he had a laceration to his left forehead that bled a lot. In an interview with a family member on 3/12/24 at 3:00 pm it was revealed that Resident #1 fell out of his bed on 1/18/24 and was taken to the hospital where he received sutures to his forehead. She stated that she arrived at the facility on 1/18/24, the day he fell off the bed, just before he was transported to the hospital and that his face was covered with blood. Review of hospital emergency department (ED) records dated 1/18/24 revealed Resident #1 was received in the ED on 1/18/24 at 1:11 pm from EMS (Emergency Medical Services) with a chief complaint of a fall out of bed with a laceration above the left eye. Resident #5 was assessed to have the worst possible pain as rated on a numeric/faces pain scale (a pain scale that assigns a number to a face to assess pain in an individual that is unable to report pain. A 0 point 'happy face' represents the absence or lack of pain. A 10 point 'crying face' represents the worst possible or most excruciating pain). The physician was called to the bedside immediately due to the nature of Resident #1's laceration. He was assessed by the physician to have a large hematoma above his left eye with a significant laceration that actively bled and the bleeding was not well controlled with applied pressure. Resident #1 was placed in a C (cervical) collar (to prevent movement of the head and neck) and lidocaine (a medication to numb) and epinephrine (a medication to constrict blood vessels) were ordered to get as rapid a closure [of the laceration] as possible. 7 sutures were placed to close the laceration. Resident #1 received fentanyl (pain medication) 25 micrograms/0.5 milliliters via intravenous push (medication given all at one time). A CT (computerized tomography) brain scan (a diagnostic imaging exam that uses X-ray technology to produce images of the inside of the body) was done with the findings of a left frontal scalp hematoma (a pool of mostly clotted blood) with no intercranial (in the brain) bleeding. Resident #1 was discharged back to the facility from the hospital on 1/18/24 at 6:03 pm. In an interview with the DON on 3/13/24 at 10:17 am it was revealed that the facility provided fall prevention training for staff when every fall occurred. She stated that it was discussed in the training how the fall happened, how the fall could be prevented, if the care plan needed to be updated, and how many staff should have been used. She indicated that Resident #1 received care using the number of staff that he was care planned for at the time of the fall which was 1-2 staff members. During an interview with NA #2 on 3/13/24 at 1:31 pm she stated that Resident #1 moved around a lot during his care and that she noticed that his movement increased around the time he had a fall but did not recall if the increased movement started prior to his fall in January 2024. She described his movement as jerk-like and stated that when he was rolled over in bed that he would jerk his body and swing his arms and legs. She stated that he had always had these types of movements since he was admitted about a year ago but it had gotten worse. She stated that he had always required 2 staff to assist with all his care since he was admitted to the facility about a year ago because he moved a lot. NA #2 stated that she believed it was not safe to work with Resident #1 without assistance from another staff for the safety of Resident #1 and the staff since he kicked and moved around so much during ADL care and when he was handled in any way. She indicated that that staff had received training specific to his care periodically since he was admitted prior to his fall in January of 2024. She was unable to provide specific dates that training occurred prior to the 1/18/24 fall. She further indicated that the trainings were informal and usually in a group and delivered verbally by nurse supervisors, usually after he had a fall or any change in care needs. The training typically included things like to keeping the bed in a low position, using floor fall mats beside his bed, and to always use 2 staff when care was provided. In an interview with NA #3 on 3/13/24 at 1:56 pm she stated that she had worked at the facility for about 9 months and that she had often worked with Resident #1. She stated that she and other staff had always used 2 people when they transferred or did ADL care with Resident #1 because he got agitated and had muscle spasms in his legs and that his limbs started to move around and he flopped like a fish out of water and she could not contain him alone. She further stated that his condition had worsened since the beginning of 2024. She stated that NA's were taught how to go into the computer to see the care plan and she could see how many people were needed to assist a resident, but that they received in-services each time Resident #1 had a fall and were educated verbally by a nurse supervisor to get assistance when she worked Resident #1 so she did. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/13/24 at 4:15 pm she stated that at the time of the fall that Resident #1 was a 1-2 person assist. She stated that the care plan had been updated on 2/7/24 from a 1-2 person assist to a 2 or more person assist after his fall on 1/18/24. In an interview with the MD on 3/14/24 at 3:41 pm it was revealed that Resident #1's falls were directly related to his diagnosis of cerebellar ataxia and that his spasticity had increased recently so his medication baclofen had been increased in the past few months but she was unsure of the date. She stated that he was at risk for falls related to his diagnosis. In an interview with NP #2 on 3/15/24 at 1:35 pm revealed that Resident #1 had a diagnosis of spinal cerebellar ataxia which caused uncontrolled movements and that his condition had worsened in the past few months. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 3/13/24 at 3:53 pm The facility provided the following credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal: Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance: On 01/18/2024 at 10:50AM, at the time of the fall, the bed was the proper height for providing activities of daily living (ADL) care for Resident #1 (proper bed height can vary from resident to resident and based upon the height of the care provider); NA # 1 was at bedside and in the process of changing the resident's shirt. The following safety precautions were in place at the time of the incident: siderail, fall mats on floor on both sides of bed, and safety wedges in place bilaterally for edge of bed awareness. During this provision of care, Resident # 1 began flailing, fell out of bed and hit the bedside table resulting in a laceration to left eyebrow. NA #1 called for assistance and three staff members responded (registered nurse (RN), licensed practical nurse (LPN), certified nursing assistant (CNA). 911 was called and Resident #1 was transported to the emergency room (ER) at 3:12PM. Resident # 1 returned to the facility at 1:27AM on 01/19/2024. Resident # 1 fell from his bed secondary to uncontrollable flailing due to exacerbation of his diagnosis of cerebral ataxia. On 01/18/2024, prior to resident's return to the facility, room furnishings were rearranged by an LPN to prevent further injury and assist in facilitating an optimally safe environment. On 01/19/2024, pharmacy recommended an adjustment to Resident # 1's dosage of medication used for muscle spasms; nurse practitioner (NP) approved recommendation; new order implemented. On 01/20/2024, Clinical Competency Coordinator (CCC) completed education with CNAs regarding safety awareness and precautions while providing ADL care. Education included the importance of understanding the resident's physical and cognitive condition/ limitations in providing safe care. CNAs have access to care needs and interventions through the tablets provided for CNA documentation. On 02/07/2024, an additional fall mat was placed on the left side of bed. On 02/07/2024, care plan was updated to reflect, provide 2 or more person assist with ADLs as needed. On 02/15/2024, mattress with bolsters in place for edge of bed reminder. On 02/20/2024, a pharmacy consultant conducted medication review for purposes to reduce falls. Vitamin D added. Per the National Institute of Medicine, Vitamin D has a direct influence on muscle strength and is regulated by specific vitamin D receptors in muscle tissue .Insufficient vitamin D is associated with lower physical performance and greater declines in physical functioning . On 03/02/2024 & 03/03/2024, Director of Health Services (DHS)/ Director of Nursing (DON) conducted a review of residents at high risk for falls (as identified by our Electronic Health Record (EHR) clinical risk insight report) related to diagnosis and/ or physical/ cognitive limitations. Safety interventions were reviewed to ensure individual needs for assistance with ADLs are being met and are identified on the care plan as well as the CNAs documentation tool. Individual resident needs for assistance with ADLs may be identified through any of the following, but are not limited to: care plan meetings, multiple nursing resident assessment tools, Minimum Data Set assessments, therapy evaluations, residents' history and physical, etc. Any outstanding interventions were entered as identified during the audit process by the respective auditing clinical manager; the CNA documentation tool is automatically updated when a care plan intervention is added or updated in the EHR. On 03/06/2024, medical director (MD)/ NP reviewed medications for purposes to reduce falls. Medication used to decrease anxiety was added to the resident's medication regimen. All residents have the potential to be affected if staff fail to follow safe resident care practices. Safe resident care practices include but are not limited to the following: bed in optimal position for resident safety, bed at appropriate height during the provision of ADL care, after providing ADL care staff are to ensure all ordered fall interventions are in place prior to leaving the room, staff are to utilize tablets to access resident specific safe care interventions, etc. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete: On 03/13/2024, CCC provided education (additional to education provided on 01/20/2024) to RNs, LPNs, and CNAs which included checking room environment for safety prior to leaving the room (e.g., ensuring bed is in optimum position for individual resident safety, any fall interventions are in place prior to leaving room, etc.). Staff who did not receive education were removed from the schedule until education can be provided. Facility does not utilize agency staff. On 03/14/2024 & 03/15/2024, clinical staff (RNs, LPNs, & CNAs) educated by the CCC on the importance of optimizing resident safety during the provision of ADL care and post care. Education included the following but not limited to: understanding resident limitations/ capabilities, knowledge of where and how to locate resident specific safety interventions, gathering care products prior to initiating resident care, after care has been started resident is not to be left unattended, after care is provided checking the environment to ensure all safety interventions are in place (e.g., fall mats, bed in lowest position (if applicable to resident need), etc.). Staff who did not receive education were removed from the schedule until education can be provided. This education will be added to new clinical team member orientation; classroom orientation is completed prior to unit/ room assignments. On 03/13/2024, an ad hoc Quality Assurance and Process Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held. Attendees were Administrator, Admin-in-Training (AIT), Director of Health Services (DHS), Unit Coordinators, Infection Preventionist (IP), CCC, Skin Integrity Nurse, and Senior Nurse Consultant (via conference call). Items discussed included: creating a safety task force reviewing all ADL care plans to ensure interventions reflect current and individualized resident needs. The task force will focus on resident safety during ADL care utilizing visual observation rounds, the clinical event log, the resident care plan, and a quality assurance (QA) tracking tool. On 03/13/2024 & 03/14/2024, clinical managers completed 100% audit of ADL care plans to ensure any resident specific safety interventions are in place and appropriate. Audit outcome reflected a need to improve timely entry of new safety interventions (e.g., fall mats, wedges, etc.). Any outstanding interventions were entered as identified during the audit process by the respective auditing clinical manager. On 03/14/2024, CCC provided education to the Nursing Staff (Licensed Nurses and C.NAs) on providing ADL care in compliance with individual safety interventions per the residents' plan of care. Nurses and CNAs are to review the CNA Care profile in electronic health record (EHR) available on documentation devices for information on resident specific care needs. Staff who did not receive education were removed from the schedule until education can be provided. Facility does not utilize agency staff. CCC monitors education for completion. Effective 03/14/2024, CCC will provide education to new clinical team members orientation (RNs, LPNs, CNAs) regarding the importance of understanding your residents and meeting their individual needs. This education will include where and how to find information on interventions needed for the provision of safe care for each resident. Classroom orientation is completed prior to unit/ room assignments. Date of Immediate Jeopardy Removal: 3/15/24 The credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal was verified on 3/15/24. Interviews were conducted with a sample of Nursing Assistants and Nurses to verify education was conducted for Nurses and NAs regarding safe delivery of care for residents. Documentation of in-service records was reviewed. A review of audits of ADL care plans dated 3/13/24 and 3/14/24 were verified to be completed. In an interview with the Clinical Competency Coordinator on 3/15/24 at 4:05 pm, he stated that all Nurses, Nursing Assistants, and therapists had been educated on providing care for all residents, how to access the electronic medical record and find the care plan and if in doubt to ask a nurse, supervisor or therapy. He stated that he was responsible for orienting new nurses and nursing assistants on providing safe care to residents for all residents. He further stated that orientation had been updated to include Resident Safety Awareness/training for nursing staff that included falls, what to do, interventions, and who to notify. An observation of the Resident #1's room and environment revealed that Resident #1 was in bed and fall mats were in place on both sides of the bed, the bed was in a low position, furniture had been arranged a safe distance away from the bed, side rails hand been padded, and mattress bolsters were in place at the edges of the bed. A family member of Resident #1 was in the room sitting at his bedside. During the survey, observations were made of care being provided to multiple residents and no concerns were identified with the safe provision of care. The facility's immediate jeopardy removal date of 3/15/24 was validated.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to administer prescribed narcotic pain medication for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 3) reviewed for pain management. Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE] and did not receive his prescribed pain medication for 5 days after he was admitted to the facility resulting in the resident experiencing increased pain rated as a 7 on a 0-10 pain scale (on a numeric pain scale designed to evaluate pain in individuals using a number value with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain possible). Findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included chronic osteomyelitis (serious infection of the bone). Review of Physician orders dated 12/1/23 indicated that Resident #3 was prescribed oxycodone 10 milligram (mg) tablet, take one tablet every four hours PRN (as needed) for chronic pain. Review of the December 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that on 12/1/23, 12/2/23, 12/3/23, 12/4/23, and 12/5/23 that Resident #3 did not receive his PRN oxycodone. This was evidenced by an x mark placed in the date box that indicated that the medication had not been administered. A pain assessment had been completed by Nurse #4 on 12/3/23 for Resident #3 and was documented as a 7. In a phone interview with Nurse #4 on 3/14/24 at 11:12 am it was revealed that he did not recall Resident #3 or if he had pain because he worked the short-term rehabilitation unit, and his residents only stayed a short time and there was a lot of turnover of residents. He stated that he did not recall if or what he may have communicated to the Physician about Resident #3's pain medication. He stated that if the pain medication was not available the nurses could have gotten it out of the pyxis (a locked medication dispenser intended to be utilized when a resident was out of or did not have a medication until their medication was delivered from the pharmacy), or they could have contacted the Physician to get something else ordered that could be pulled from back up medication supply until the Resident #3's medication became available. He stated that he could not recall if he had asked for an alternative medication for Resident #3. Record review of a Request for Treatment dated 12/5/23 completed by Nurse #3 for Resident #3 indicated that Nurse #3 made a written request to the contract physicians' group requesting that oxycodone 10 mg tablets be called into the pharmacy ASAP (as soon as possible) to make sure scripts were in so she could get them out of the pyxis. In a phone interview with Nurse #3 on 3/14/24 at 3:18 pm she stated that she was assigned to care for Resident #3 on 12/5/23 and that he did not complain of pain but wanted to know where his oxycodone was. She stated he would ask her when it would come each time she brought him his routine scheduled medications throughout the day. She further indicated that Resident #3 was calm and not freaking out and she let him know that his pain medication would be in that night. Nurse #3 stated that she was surprised when she came in to work that his medications were not in yet. She further indicated that when she learned that his pain medication had not been delivered that she filled out a Request for Treatment form that she faxed to the provider to get the signed orders so the pharmacy would send his pain medication. Record review of pharmacy delivery records indicated that Resident #3's medication, oxycodone 10 mg tablets, were signed as delivered to the facility on [DATE] and received by Nurse #6. The MAR indicated that Resident #3 received his first dose of oxycodone on 12/6/23 at 12:26 am. There was no documented pain level. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was cognitively intact and was coded to receive an opioid pain medication. He was assessed to have no pain. Review of a nurse progress note dated 12/18/23 written by Nurse #3 revealed that Resident #3 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and he did not return to the facility. In a phone interview with Resident #3 on 3/14/24 at 9:29 am he stated that he had pain every day after admission until his pain medication came in. He described the pain in his hips, back, and shoulders as a 7 or 8 on a 0-10 pain scale. Resident #3 stated that he finally started to receive his pain medication around the 5th day after admission and then his pain level became more tolerable and stated that a pain level of 7 or 8 was not tolerable to him. He stated that he was offered acetaminophen, but he could not take that because of other health issues. Resident #3 stated that after his pain medication came in from the pharmacy that things calmed down for him. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 3/13/24 at 4:30 pm revealed that she was unaware that Resident #3 did not get his narcotic pain medication for 5 days and that a resident should not have had to go 5 days without a pain medication. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/13/24 at 4:45 pm she stated that she would have expected that Resident #3 would have received his medications as ordered and not missed doses. The interview further revealed the facility had a pyxis on-site that nurses could access to obtain needed medications. She stated that if the resident's pain medication was not available that the nurse could have called the Physician to get an order for something that was available in the pyxis until his medication was available. In a phone interview with the facility Medical Director (MD) on 3/14/24 at 3:41 pm it was revealed that other than the pain that Resident #3 had to endure for the 5 days without the medication that he did not suffer any harm from the missed doses of pain medication. During a phone interview with NP #1 on 3/15/24 at 2:11pm she stated that she was not aware that Resident #3 did not get his prescribed narcotic pain medication as ordered and that Resident #3 should not have had to wait 5 days for his medications to become available to him.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, Pharmacist, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, Pharmacist, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to obtain narcotic medications from the pharmacy for 1 of 10 resident (Resident # 3) reviewed for pharmacy services. This caused Resident #3 to miss 5 days of pain medication, 4 days of anti-anxiety medication and 3 days of sedative/hypnotic medication that resulted in increased pain, anxiety, and inability to sleep for Resident #3. Findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included atrial fibrillation (an irregular rapid heart rate), anxiety disorder, chronic osteomyelitis (serious infection of the bone), and insomnia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was cognitively intact and was coded to receive an opioid, anxiolytic, and hypnotic. Review of Physician orders dated 12/1/23 indicated that Resident #3 was prescribed lorazepam 1 mg tablet, take one tablet 3 times a day for anxiety disorder, oxycodone 10 mg tablet, take one tablet every four hours PRN (as needed) for chronic pain, and zolpidem 10 mg tablet, take one table at bedtime for obstruction sleep apnea. Review of the December 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that on 12/1/23, 12/2/23, 12/3/23, 12/4/23, and 12/5/23 that Resident #3 did not receive his PRN oxycodone and on 12/2/23, 12/3/23, 12/4/23, and 12/5/23 he did not receive his scheduled lorazepam. The review further revealed that he did not receive his scheduled zolpidem on 12/1/23, 12/2/23, or 12/3/23. This was evidenced by nursing initials placed in parenthesis and a reason documented on the MAR as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. Record review of pharmacy delivery records indicated that the medications Zolpidem 10 mg tablets, lorazepam 1 mg tablets, and oxycodone 10 mg tablets were signed as delivered to the facility on [DATE] and received by Nurse #6. Review of a nurse progress note dated 12/18/23 written by Nurse #3 revealed that Resident #3 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] for an unrelated concern and he did not return to the facility. In an interview with Nurse #3 on 3/13/24 at 3:23 pm she stated that she was unsure why the pharmacy did not send the medication and thought that they were waiting for a Physician to approve it. The interview further revealed that the hospital should have sent written prescriptions for the narcotics to the facility with Resident #3 but that they did not always do that. Nurse #3 stated that the pharmacy is notified when a newly admitted residents orders are entered into the EMR and recalled that they were waiting for the hard script (written narcotic prescription signed by the prescriber) and that the providers for the facility would not provide a written prescription for narcotics until the provider evaluated the resident. She further indicated that the process was that a nurse would put a note in the providers mailbox and the provider would get it the next morning and would evaluate the resident and then write a hard script. Nurse #3 further indicated that they had a backup medication system (a locked medication dispenser intended to be utilized when a resident was out of or did not have a medication until their medication was delivered from the pharmacy) at the facility but that she did not know the process of how to get into the system to get medications for a resident. Nurse #2 indicated that the pharmacy had to have the active signed written prescription before they would send a narcotic medication. In an interview with the Unit 2 Coordinator on 3/13/24 at 3:28 pm it was revealed that Resident #3 was admitted in the evening on 12/1/23 and that the hospital did not send the signed hard scripts with him for the narcotics. She stated that it was facility policy that the facility physician or nurse practitioners could not send narcotic prescriptions to the pharmacy until a provider had seen and evaluated the resident. The Unit 2 Coordinator provided a fax confirmation that showed the facility faxed the hard scripts to the pharmacy on 12/1/23 at 9:41 pm. Review of a fax transaction form dated 12/1/23 revealed the facility had faxed Resident #3's hard scripts for his narcotic medication to the pharmacy at 9:41pm and that the result was OK. The faxed form had handwriting that read came from [hospital name] on 12/1 scripts not signed please send in new scripts for all meds attached so resident can have scheduled and as needed. Attached to the form were 3 unsigned hard scripts for lorazepam 1 mg, oxycodone 10 mg, and zolpidem 10 mg. This form was not signed by the sender. In a phone interview with Resident #3 on 3/14/24 at 9:29 am he stated that he had pain every day until his pain medication came in. He described the pain in his hips, back, and shoulders as a 7 or 8 on a 0-10 pain scale. Resident #3 stated that he finally started to receive his pain medication around the 5th day after admission and then his pain level became more tolerable and stated that a pain level of 7 or 8 was not tolerable to him. The interview further revealed that Resident #3 could not sleep until his zolpidem came in and that he had been taking lorazepam for 4 or 5 years and that his atrial fibrillation could get worse if he did not have his lorazepam. Resident #3 stated that after these medications came in from the pharmacy that things calmed down for him. An interview with the DON on 3/13/24 at 4:30 pm revealed that she was unaware that Resident #3 did not get his narcotic medication for 5 days and that the process was that if a resident was admitted without a hard script from where they discharged from that staff should have to called the facility's on-call provider to get an order to get something out of the facility's back up medication supply. She stated that the pharmacy would then have called the nurse on duty to give her a code to get the narcotic from the back-up medication supply. She further stated that nothing should have prevented staff from calling the Physician to get an e-script (electronic prescription) sent by the Physician to the pharmacy or that the Physician could have sent a STAT (urgent or rush) order and it would have been directed to a back-up pharmacy that was just across the street from the facility and that pharmacy would have delivered the medication to the facility. The interview further revealed that the facility did not have a policy that stated that a Physician was required to see and evaluate a resident before they wrote a hard script or sent an e-script to the pharmacy for a narcotic. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/13/24 at 4:45 pm she stated that if a resident was admitted late on a Friday that she hoped that the hospital would have sent a hard script or would have e-scripted the order to the pharmacy. She further added that for the same night delivery of a medication that the pharmacy would have had to receive the order by 3:00 pm the same day. The interview further revealed the facility had a pixis (a locked machine that contained a supply of back up medications) on-site that nurses could access to obtain needed medications. She stated that if the resident was admitted without the hard script that the nurse could have called the Physician to get an order for something that was available in the pixis until their medication was available. She stated that the facility did not have a policy that stated that the Physician had to see and evaluate a resident before they could write a hard script for a narcotic medication but that she had heard that the contracted physician group required that. In a phone interview with Nurse # 4 on 3/14/24 at 11:12 am it was revealed that he stated that he did not recall Resident #3 because he worked the short-term rehabilitation unit and his residents only stayed a short time and there was a lot of turnover of residents. He stated that he did not recall if or what he may have communicated to the Physician about Resident #3's medications. He stated that when residents were admitted late on a Friday that the facility had issues with getting signed hard scripts from the on-call Physician. He stated that an alternative would be that if the medication was not in the back-up supply that they could get something else ordered that could be pulled from back up medication supply until they could get the hard scripts signed, but if the on-call Physician or provider did not have the ability to do an e-script then they were stuck. He stated that he could not recall if he asked for an alternative medication for Resident #3. Nurse #4 described his process to ensure that he does not run out of medications for a resident is that when he counted narcotics with another nurse that he noted how low a narcotic was getting and he would go to the medical provider that was on that day and get new prescriptions and that he did the same process with newly admitted residents. He further stated that if a resident came in late on Friday and the prescriptions were not signed that he could not pull the medication from back-up supply if they did not have an active e-script and without a signed prescription there was nothing that he could do. He stated if the order got e-scripted on a Friday night that it would not have arrived until Saturday night. He further indicated that he thought the problem was a process issue. In a phone interview with Nurse #3 on 3/14/24 at 3:18 pm she stated that she was assigned to care for Resident #3 on 12/5/23 and that wanted to know where his lorazepam and oxycodone were. She recalled he was prescribed lorazepam 3 times a day and would ask her if they were in his medication cup when she brought him his medications. She stated he would ask her when they would come it. She further indicated that Resident #3 was calm and not freaking out and she let him know that his medications would be in that night (12/5/23). Nurse #3 stated that she was upset that his medications had not come in yet because she had worked on Friday but not the weekend and was surprised when she came in that his medications were not in yet and she wanted to know why. She further indicated that she then filled out a Request for Treatment form that she faxed to the provider to get the signed orders. Record review of a Request for Treatment dated 12/5/23 completed by Nurse #3 for Resident #3 indicated that Nurse #3 made a written request to the contract physicians' group requesting that oxycodone 10 mg tablets, and lorazepam 1 mg tablets be called into the pharmacy ASAP (as soon as possible) to make sure scripts are in and we can get them out of the pyxis. In a phone interview with the facility Medical Director (MD) on 3/14/24 at 3:41 pm it was revealed that getting signed hard scripts from the hospital for residents at discharge had been a night [NAME], that the resident was supposed to come from the hospital with a 3 or more day supply of prescribed narcotics but they never came with anything and the policy for the facility is that if you don't get prescriptions sent in to their pharmacy that you will not get the medication until the next day, especially narcotics. The interview further revealed that the contracted physicians' group that she was employed by did require that a Physician see and evaluate a resident before a hard script for a narcotic was written, but that she did not require that and permitted her NP's to write a hard script for a narcotic even if the resident had not been see and evaluated by the Physician. She stated that the NP should have had enough confidence in the nurse to believe the nurse and should have e-scripted the order to the pharmacy. The MD further indicated that medical providers are always on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week to include holidays so staff could have called at any time and talked to a provider to get an e-script. She stated that, other than anxiety and pain that Resident #3 had to endure for the 5 days without the medication that he did not suffer any harm from the missed doses of medication. In a phone interview with Nurse # 5 on 3/15/24 at 9:51 am revealed that she did not recall Resident #3 but there was a protocol for obtaining medication for newly admitted residents. She stated that they used to have access to the pyxis and would just go pull the medication that the resident needed. She stated that now the process is they faxed the medication list to the pharmacy, and the medications came in later that night. She stated that lately that she could not get into the new pyxis to pull medications out for residents. The interview further revealed that if she received a hard script not signed by a physician that she would call the on-call physician to get an order sent to the pharmacy and the pharmacy would send a code to the nurse so that she could pull the narcotic from the new pixis. She stated an on-call physician could be reached 24 hours a day 7 days a week. In a phone interview with the pharmacist 3/15/24 at 11:14 am it was revealed that that the faxed prescriptions for Resident #3 were not received by the pharmacy until after 2:00 pm on Saturday 12/2/23 so no one at pharmacy saw the prescriptions until Monday 12/4/23. The pharmacist stated their records indicated that Resident #3's hard scripts came over at 5:30 pm on Saturday after their cut off time of 2 pm. He further stated that the pharmacy is closed on Sundays, so they didn't see the order and follow-up until Monday 12/4/23. He stated the original faxed hard scripts received by the pharmacy on 12/2/23 were not signed by the prescriber so the prescription could not be filled on 12/4/23. He indicated that on 12/4/23 that the pharmacy notified a nurse at the facility by phone that they needed new signed hard scripts. He stated that on 12/5/23 the pharmacy received the signed hard scripts from the facility MD and that the medications were sent to the facility that night. The interview further revealed that the facility should have used the back-up pharmacy after the established cut off times of 5:50 pm on weekdays and 2:00 pm on Saturdays. The Pharmacist stated that the facility should have notified the Physician that they needed signed hard scripts and the physician could have sent the signed hard scripts to the back-up pharmacy. He stated the nurses would not have been able to access the pyxis because the hard scripts had not been signed. During a phone interview with NP #1 on 3/15/24 at 2:11pm it was revealed that she was familiar with Resident #3 and that the contracted physicians' group had a triage line for after hours and the facility had instruction on how to use this line and could call it 24 hours a day 7 day a week. She indicated that facility nurses recently told her that they did not know about the triage line or that they could have called it. She stated that the staff should have called the DON who could have provided them with that triage number.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, famiy, Pharmacist, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, resident, famiy, Pharmacist, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to administer prescribed medications for 1 of 10 resident (Resident # 3) reviewed to ensure residents are free from significant medication errors. Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE] and did not receive his prescribed pain medication for 5 days, his anti-anxiety medication for 4 days, and did not receive his prescribed sedative/hypnotic medication for 3 days after he was admitted to the facility which caused Resident #3 to experience pain, anxiety, and inability to sleep. Findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included atrial fibrillation (an irregular rapid heart rate), anxiety disorder, chronic osteomyelitis (serious infection of the bone), and insomnia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was cognitively intact and was coded to receive an opioid, anxiolytic, and hypnotic. Review of Physician orders dated 12/1/23 indicated that Resident #3 was prescribed lorazepam 1 mg tablet, take one tablet 3 times a day for anxiety disorder, oxycodone 10 milligrams (mg) tablet, take one tablet every four hours PRN (as needed) for chronic pain, and zolpidem 10 mg tablet, take one table at bedtime for obstruction sleep apnea. Review of the December 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that on 12/1/23, 12/2/23, 12/3/23, 12/4/23, and 12/5/23 that Resident #3 did not receive his PRN oxycodone and on 12/2/23, 12/3/23, 12/4/23, and 12/5/23 he did not receive his scheduled lorazepam. The review further revealed that he did not receive his scheduled zolpidem on 12/1/23, 12/2/23, or 12/3/23. This was evidenced by nursing initials placed in parenthesis and a reason documented on the MAR as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. Record review of pharmacy delivery records indicated that the medications Zolpidem 10 mg tablets, lorazepam 1 mg tablets, and oxycodone 10 mg tablets were signed as delivered to the facility on [DATE] (no time indicated) and received by Nurse #6. Review of a nurse progress note dated 12/18/23 written by Nurse #3 revealed that Resident #3 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] for an unrelated concern and he did not return to the facility. In an interview with Nurse #3 on 3/13/24 at 3:23 pm During the interview Nurse #3 had difficulty accessing the information in the electronic medical record (EMR) and asked for assistance from Nurse #2 who indicated that the parenthesis around a nurse initial on MAR indicated that the medication was not given. She further stated that Resident #3 did not receive his first dose of oxycodone until 12/6/23 and that it had been documented that the medication was not available on the dates prior to 12/6/23 and there were no notes that indicated that a provider had been contacted. In a phone interview with a family member of Resident #3 on 3/14/24 at 9:24 am she indicated that Resident #3 was no longer a resident at the facility. She stated that he did not have pain medication for the first 5 days after he was admitted to the facility the staff told her that the discharge Physician at the hospital should have ordered the medications that Resident #3 required. She stated that he was in pain most of the time all the time due to osteomyelitis in his hip and femur, and degeneration in his spine and shoulders. She stated that he had pain from the day he was admitted to the facility and that he consistently reported to the staff that his pain level was at a 7 out of 10 (on a numeric pain scale designed to evaluate pain in individuals using a number value with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain possible). She stated that his pain was controlled after he started to receive his pain medications. In a phone interview with Resident #3 on 3/14/24 at 9:29 am he stated that he had pain every day until his pain medication came in. He described the pain in his hips, back, and shoulders as a 7 or 8 on a 0-10 pain scale. Resident #3 stated that he finally started to receive his pain medication around the 5th day after admission and then his pain level became more tolerable and stated that a pain level of 7 or 8 was not tolerable to him. He stated that he was offered acetaminophen, but he could not take that because of his kidneys and liver problems, and he could not take ibuprofen because it did not work for him. The interview further revealed that Resident #3 could not sleep until his zolpidem came in and that he had been taking lorazepam for 4 or 5 years and that his atrial fibrillation could get worse if he did not have his lorazepam. Resident #3 stated that after these medications came in from the pharmacy that things calmed down for him. An interview with the DON on 3/13/24 at 4:30 pm revealed that she was unaware that Resident #3 did not get his narcotic medication for 5 days after he was admitted and that a resident should not have had to go 5 days without a pain medication or any other medication. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/13/24 at 4:45 pm she stated that she would have expected that Resident #3 would have received his medications as ordered and not missed doses. She indicated that if a resident was admitted late on a Friday that she hoped that the hospital would have sent a hard script or would have e-scripted the order to the pharmacy. She further added that for the same night delivery of a medication that the pharmacy would have had to receive the order by 3:00 pm the same day. The interview further revealed the facility had a pixis (a locked machine that contained a supply of back up medications) on-site that nurses could access to obtain needed medications. She stated that if the resident was admitted without the hard script that the nurse could have called the Physician to get an order for something that was available in the pyxis until their medication was available. She stated that the facility did not have a policy that stated that the Physician had to see and evaluate a resident before they could write a hard script for a narcotic medication but that she had heard that the contracted physician group required that. In a phone interview with Nurse #3 on 3/14/24 at 3:18 pm she stated that she was assigned to care for Resident #3 on 12/5/23 and that he did not complain of pain and just wanted to know where his lorazepam and oxycodone were. She recalled he was prescribed lorazepam 3 times a day and he would ask her if they were in his medication cup when she brought him his medications. She stated he would ask her when his medications would come in. She further indicated that Resident #3 was calm and not freaking out and she let him know that his medications would be in that night (12/5/23). Nurse #3 stated that she was upset that his medications had not come in yet because she had worked on Friday but not the weekend and was surprised when she came in that his medications were not in yet and she wanted to know why. During a phone interview with NP #1 on 3/15/24 at 2:11pm it was revealed that she was not aware that Resident #3 did not get his prescribed narcotics as ordered and she would have expected that Resident #3 would not have had to wait 5 days for his medications to become available to him.
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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, Dental Hygienist and Physician interviews the facility failed to obtain emergency dental serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff, Dental Hygienist and Physician interviews the facility failed to obtain emergency dental services for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 5) reviewed for routine and emergency dental services. Findings included: Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included diabetes mellitus. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 was cognitively intact. In a review of a nurse progress note dated 2/4/24 written by Nurse #1 revealed a family member of Resident # 5 had requested for a dental appointment to be arranged. Review of a Dental Hygienist progress note dated 2/12/24 revealed that Resident #5 had been evaluated by the dental hygienist and had reported pain and off and on swelling of the lower left tooth #20 and had a large carious lesion or lost filling with food impaction. The note further revealed that there was no infection noted but that Resident #5 stated that the tooth ached often. The note indicated that Resident #5 needed to be seen for an emergency visit. It was documented that the facility Social Worker had been notified in person and by email and the contract dental Clinical Support Manager had been notified by email. Review of a nurse progress note dated 2/28/24 written by Unit Coordinator #2 revealed that Resident #5 was discharged to the hospital on 2/28/24 for another unrelated condition. She did not return to the facility. An interview with the Social Worker (SW) on 3/12/24 at 4:10 pm it was revealed that when a resident asked for a dental appointment, she would first ask them if they were seen by an outside dentist because they could not see the in-house facility contracted dentist and an out-side private dentist because insurance would not pay for both. She further indicated that the facility contracted dental provider visited monthly and the dentist and dental hygienist rotated every other month. She further indicated that after a resident had been seen that their progress notes were uploaded to the computer. She stated the process after a request for dental services were made was that the SW notified the contract dental clinic and they processed for eligibility and insurance and the resident was place on a list to be seen on the next scheduled visit date. She stated that Resident #5 was seen on 2/12/24 for an initial screen by the in-house dental clinic after a request was made by a family member of Resident #5 to be seen, she was not sure when that request was made but believed it was in February of 2024. She further indicated that progress notes were entered into the computer and that she could see that a follow-up emergency was to be scheduled. In a follow-up interview with the SW on 3/13/24 at 3:25 pm it was revealed that when she alerted the in-house dental provider that Resident #5 wanted to be seen they sent her a referral to fill out and return to them and she did that and they put her on the list to be seen on 2/12/24 during the next scheduled visit. She further indicated that she was not sure what the in-house dental providers process was for follow-up emergency dental care and was not sure how the facility would follow-up on emergency dental care that was identified by the dental hygienist when she saw the resident and stated that she would have hoped that the in-house dental provider would have taken care of that. She further indicated that she was unaware of a triage form that she would have been required to complete and the dental provider did not send her anything else to complete for Resident #5 so she did not send a triage form to them after Resident #5's initial dental screen by the dental hygienist on 2/12/24. In a phone interview with the contracted dental providers Clinical Support Manager on 3/13/24 at 12:48 pm it was revealed that she scheduled appointments for the dental providers. She stated her records showed that Resident #5 had been screened by the hygienist for a chipped tooth and filling that had fallen out and that she was getting her in their system. Resident #5 was scheduled to be seen by a dentist on 3/29/24 but if an emergency visit were required that she would try to get someone out sooner but Resident #5 discharged before that could be arranged. She further indicated that the facility should have sent over a triage form so they could have referred it out to the community if their dentist could not provide care prior to the next regular scheduled visit on 3/29/24. She stated that her notes indicated that the social worker had been notified and that she should have submitted that triage form but had not. She further stated that the resident should have been seen within 48 hours of the date she was screened, and the problem identified but that they did not have a dentist available to make the emergency visit. In a phone interview on 3/14/24 at 6:40 pm with Nurse #1 it was revealed that she was assigned to care for Resident #5 three days a week regularly and that Resident #5 did report she had a broken tooth but did not report associated pain. Nurse #1 did not recall what date it was reported to her but that she would have left a note with the transport driver/appointment scheduler to arrange an appointment. She recalled that Resident #5 did get an appointment and was seen by a dentist in the recent past but did not recall the date. The interview further revealed that Resident #5 would eat whatever she wanted whenever she wanted it and ate candy, chips, and ice without difficulty or complaints of pain. In an interview on 3/13/24 at 11:04 am with the Administrator in Training (AIT) it was revealed that the facility used an in-house contracted vendor for dental services. He stated it was the facility's responsibility to ensure that care was provided. He further indicated that if the facility did not get the needed correspondence for the follow-up care from the dental provider timely that the facility SW should have reached out to the dental provider to determine why. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/13/24 at 4:34 pm revealed that she was not aware that a resident had needed emergency dental care, and that the SW would be responsible to make sure the necessary care was provided. In an interview with the Administrator on 03/13/24 at 4:45 pm she stated that she was not aware Resident #5 had requested dental care. She stated if she needed emergency dental care that she would have expected that an appointment would have been scheduled for the follow-up care. She further indicated that she was unaware of a triage form that the contract dental provider required for an emergency referral. The Administrator further indicated that Resident #5 was verbal and oriented and would let the facility know when she had concerns and she had not made her aware of a dental concern. In a phone interview with a family member on 3/14/24 at 10:39 am she indicated Resident #5 was no longer a resident at the facility. She stated she told the facility in December that Resident #5 had a toothache, and nothing was done. She stated that she told the SW before and after Christmas that Resident #5 had a broken tooth and needed dental care. She stated that Resident #5 was seen by the in-house dentist around February. The family member stated that after she was seen by the dentist that the SW told her she would follow-up with the dentist on what care was needed. She stated that Resident #5 was at specialty facility at this time for treatment for another concern and she still has not received dental care. She stated she had not requested dental care there because she was not sure how that worked in that facility. During a phone interview with the Dental Hygienist on 3/14/24 at 1:59 pm she indicated that she received a note entered on 2/9/24 by the Clinical Support Manager that the SW at the facility put in a request for Resident #5 to be seen by the in-house dental clinic for a chipped tooth. The interview further revealed that Resident #5 was screened by the Dental Hygienist on 2/12/24 and that Resident #5 reported pain and aching in her left lower #20 tooth that often kept her awake, so she put in for a limited or emergency evaluation visit for tooth #20 for a dentist to follow up for treatment. She indicated there were no signs of a (fistula) infection noted on this visit. She stated that this information was provided to the in-house dental clinic Clinical Support Manager by email and that she communicated with the facility SW verbally and in an email. The interview further revealed that the Dental Hygienist stated that she would have assumed that the Clinical Support Manager would have scheduled the emergency visit with the dentist but was unsure if she had scheduled for the follow-up visit. She stated that the facility SW did not further contact her regarding the required follow-up care. She stated that when she evaluated Resident #5 that she put in a visit exam code 140 to the Clinical Support Manager that indicated that the resident should be seen prior to the next scheduled routine visit. She was not sure who should have initiated the emergency dental visit but that their Clinical Support Manager knew that code 140 code had been entered on 2/12/24. The interview further revealed that the resident had not been enrolled as a patient with the in-house dental clinic on 2/12/24 when she was screened but was screened because it was her job to make sure patients were not having pain. She stated that she would have to have been enrolled by the facility into the program before being seen for the follow-up emergency visit and that would have been the facility's responsibility. In a phone interview with the facility Medical Director (MD) on 3/14/24 at 3:41 pm it was revealed that she admitted Resident #5 to the facility in December and did a physical to include an oral assessment and that she did not see any dental concerns at that time. The interview further revealed that Resident #5 did not offer any complaints to her that she wanted dental care or had a concern and did not report mouth pain. The MD stated that when she saw Resident #5 on 2/25/24 that she was eating candy, ice cream and drank cold drinks without difficulty and that if she had tooth pain that she would not have been able to tolerate those foods without pain. She stated that she did not report dental concerns or pain at that time. The interview further revealed that the MD had not been made aware of dental issues for Resident #5 and she would have expected some type of notification to the MD or Nurse Practitioner (NP) so they could have followed up. A phone interview with the Business Office Manager on 3/15/24 at 10:57 am revealed Resident #5's payor was BCBS and Medicaid. In a phone interview with Nurse #2 on 3/15/24 at 11:11 revealed that Resident never complained of a broken tooth, mouth pain or that she desired dental care during her stay as a resident at the facility. He stated she was prescribed pain medication for another medical condition but not for dental pain and never requested pain medication for dental pain. During a phone interview with Nurse Practitioner #1 on 3/15/24 at 2:11pm it was revealed that Resident #5 was treated for a sore throat during her stay but never any dental pain issues. She stated she was unaware that Resident #5 had a dental concern and that Resident #5 never complained to her about a dental concern, broken tooth or pain and never asked for a referral to see at dentist during her stay as a resident at the facility.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews and family, Responsible Party, Pharmacist, Medical Director, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and st...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews and family, Responsible Party, Pharmacist, Medical Director, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee had previously put in place following the focused infection control and complaint investigation survey of 10/4/21, the recertification and complaint investigation survey of and 4/21/22, and the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 7/13/23. This was for re-cited deficiencies in the areas of Notification of Change (F580), Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices (F689), Significant Medication Errors (760). The continued failure during three federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F580: Based on staff interview, responsible party (RP) interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notification of room change to the RP for 1 of 1 resident (#2) reviewed for notification of room change. During the focused infection control and complaint investigation survey of 10/4/21 the facility was cited for failing to notify the physician of a medication error allegation. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 7/13/23 the facility was cited for failing to notify the of the resident's Medical Doctor of a resident's refusals of medications. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/15/24 at 5:30 pm she stated that she was not sure where the breakdown was, but the facility would review its process and would get corrective action in place. F689: Based on observation, record reviews and family, staff, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to provide care in a safe manner for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. Resident #1 was diagnosed with cerebellar ataxia (a condition that causes poor muscle control that causes clumsy movements), and functional quadriplegia (complete immobility due to severe disability or frailty from another medical condition without injury to the brain or spinal cord) and was dependent on staff for assistance with care. On 1/18/24 Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 was providing Resident #1 with care when the resident experienced spastic/uncontrolled movements and the resident fell off the side of the bed striking his head on a bedside table causing a laceration on his forehead above his left eye before he fell onto the fall mat on the floor. Resident #1 was transferred to the Emergency Department and was treated for a left frontal scalp hematoma (a pool of mostly clotted blood) with a significant laceration with active bleeding that required 7 sutures for closure. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of 4/21/22 the facility was cited for failing to provide an environment without a potential accident hazard when resident rooms were observed to have a heat/air wall unit without a cover exposing the wires and coils and a wall plug outlet loose from the wall allowing access to the wires. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/15/24 at 5:30 pm she stated that she was not aware of a previous F689 and thought that it must have occurred prior to her employment at the facility. The Administrator stated the facility would review its process and would get corrective action in place. F760: Based on record review, and staff, resident, Pharmacist, Medical Director (MD), and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews the facility failed to administer prescribed medications for 1 of 10 resident (Resident # 3) reviewed to ensure residents are free from significant medication errors. Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE] and did not receive his prescribed pain medication for 5 days, his anti-anxiety medication for 4 days, and did not receive his prescribed sedative/hypnotic medication for 3 days after he was admitted to the facility which caused Resident #3 to experience pain, anxiety, and inability to sleep. During the focused infection control and complaint investigation survey of 10/4/21 the facility was cited for failing to prevent a significant medication error by administering insulin to the wrong resident resulting in hospitalization for the treatment of hypoglycemia. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/15/24 at 5:30 pm she indicated she was not working at the facility at the time of the previous citation for F760.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0843 (Tag F0843)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a transfer agreement in place for transferring residents to the local hospital for evaluation and treatment, which had the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a transfer agreement in place for transferring residents to the local hospital for evaluation and treatment, which had the potential to effect 90 of 90 residents who resided in the facility. The findings included: A review of the facility contracts with local entities revealed the facility had not executed a transfer agreement with the local hospital. On 3/15/2024 at 4:40 p.m. in an interview with the Administrator she stated the facility did not have a written transfer agreement with the local hospital to transfer the residents for treatment as needed. She stated they did not know the facility was to have a transfer agreement with the local hospital and explained residents had been transported and accepted at the local hospital for evaluation and treatment as needed. She further indicated that the facility did not have a policy on hospital transfer agreements. She indicated that she would get a transfer agreement in place.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to submit a two hour Initial Allegation Report for an allegatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to submit a two hour Initial Allegation Report for an allegation of staff to resident abuse to the State Survey Agency within the required timeframe for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #2). Findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The facility's Administrator in Training (AIT) completed an Initial Allegation Report to the State Agency on 2/14/24. The report designated the type of allegation as Resident Abuse and indicated the facility became aware of the allegation at 12:00 AM on 2/14/24. Allegation details revealed Resident #2 reported Nurse Aide (NA) #1 hit her in the face. Resident #2 was assessed and was not noted to have any serious bodily harm. NA #1 was sent home pending an investigation. The facsimile (fax) receipt provided by the facility was dated and timed as 2/14/24 at 10:38 AM, ten hours and thirty-eight minutes after the facility became aware of the allegation of abuse. On 2/21/24 at 10:51 AM an interview was conducted with the Clinical Competency Coordinator, who shared he worked the night of the incident and Nurse #2 came to him around midnight and reported that Resident #2 alleged she had been hit by NA #1 in the face. The Clinical Competency Coordinator immediately talked to Resident #2 and assessed her. Resident #2 had skin tears on her left hand from where she bumped her hand on the side rail. There were no marks on the resident's face. The Clinical Competency Coordinator shared he immediately met with NA #1, removed her from the floor and sent her home. He then notified the Director of Nursing (DON). An attempt to interview Nurse #2 by telephone was unsuccessful. In an interview with the DON on 2/21/24 at 10:43 AM, she recalled the Clinical Competency Coordinator contacted her late at night and informed her Resident #2 accused NA #1 of punching her in the face. The DON explained she considered punching to be an allegation of abuse and an investigation was initiated. The DON stated she thought the Initial Allegation Report only needed to be sent in within two hours if there was an injury. The DON recalled there was no injury to Resident #2's face, which is why the report was not sent in to the State Agency within two hours. A telephone interview was conducted with the AIT on 2/21/24 at 1:06 PM. The AIT confirmed he completed the Initial Allegation Report and shared he arrived at the facility around 7:00 AM on 2/14/24 and was notified by staff of the allegation of physical abuse. The AIT said he completed the Initial Allegation Report and faxed it to the State Agency. When asked why the report was not sent in within two hours, the AIT replied he understood if there was no injury, those can be reported within 24 hours. The AIT said since Resident #2 did not sustain any injury, he thought he had 24 hours to submit the Initial Allegation Report. During an interview with the Administrator on 2/21/24 at 1:26 PM, she explained the facility reported an allegation to the State Agency within two hours if it was considered abuse and there was evidence of physical harm. The Administrator said it was her understanding that because there was no injury, the report did not need to be sent in until 24 hours later. The Administrator stated if Resident #2 alleged she was hit by a staff member, it was considered an allegation of abuse. Since the incident, the Administrator said the facility implemented a folder that contained the forms for nursing staff to complete and fax to the State Agency within the 2 hour window when there was an allegation of abuse.
Aug 2023 4 deficiencies
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care for 1 of 3 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) care. Findings included: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included respiratory failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was cognitively intact and required total assistance with 2 people for toileting. Resident #3 was also documented as always incontinent of bowl and bladder. Review of weekly skin assessments from 8-1-23 through 8-29-23 did not reveal any open areas to Resident #3's skin but did indicate redness to her buttocks. Resident #3's care plan last reviewed on 8-24-23 revealed Resident #3 was at risk for ADL decline due to muscle weakness and respiratory failure. The goal for Resident #3 was her ADL needs would be met. The interventions for the goal included to set Resident #3 up for ADL care and encourage her to participate as much as possible. Resident #3 was interviewed on 8-29-23 at 10:10am. The resident stated she was not receiving incontinence care as she should. She explained when she would ask a staff member for incontinence care, she would have to wait for an hour or longer until the staff member was able to provide the incontinence care. Resident #3 discussed the staff telling her they were short staffed, and they would provide the care as soon as they could. The resident also explained she knew how long it took to receive care because she had looked at the clock on her wall. Resident #3 explained the last time she received incontinence care today (8-29-23) was around 6:00am. The resident stated she had placed her call light on at 8:30am for incontinence care but said staff came in and turned off her light and was informed by the staff (she could not remember who) that breakfast was being served and she would need to wait. Resident #3 stated she was still waiting. There were no odors observed. Observation of incontinence care with Resident #3 occurred on 8-29-23 at 10:58am with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1. Resident #3's brief was observed to be wet but had not leaked through to the under pad and there were no signs of dried urine. The resident's skin was observed to be free of any open areas. However, the lower part of her buttocks and upper part of her thighs were observed to be bright red and the resident was observed to tell the NA the area was sore when the NA cleaned her lower buttocks and upper thigh areas. NA #1 was observed to apply a barrier cream to the bright red areas. NA #1 was interviewed on 8-29-23 at 11:19am. The NA stated she was supposed to check on her assigned residents every 2 hours but stated due to staffing issues she was not able to provide 2-hour rounds on her residents and said she had not checked on or provided Resident #3 any incontinence care prior to 10:58am. NA #1 explained she had been busy this morning (8-29-23) with other residents and had not had time to provide care to Resident #3. She also explained she was unaware Resident #3 had her light on earlier in the morning. The NA stated she had reported the concerns to the Director of Nursing (DON) but had not received any help. NA #1 discussed Resident #3 having to wait probably an hour or more for incontinence care due to the lack of staff. NA #1 also discussed Resident #3's redness to her bottom and upper thighs had been present for the last couple months. An interview with NA #2 occurred on 8-29-23 at 4:47pm. NA #2 discussed being assigned to Resident #3 on the 3:00pm to 11:00pm shift on 8-29-23. She stated she tried to check for incontinence care on her assigned residents every 2 hours. The NA explained Resident #3 would trigger her call light when she needed incontinence care but stated Resident #3 has had to wait over an hour for incontinence care due to lack of staff. NA #2 was unable to recall specific dates as to when Resident #3 had to wait over an hour for incontinence care but stated it happened at least 3-4 times a week. She explained she had discussed her concerns with DON but had not received any help. During an interview with NA #3 on 8-30-23 at 8:15am, the NA discussed being assigned to Resident #3 on the 7:00am to 3:00pm shift on 8-30-23. She discussed trying to check on her assigned residents every 2 hours for incontinence care. The NA stated Resident #3 would sometimes trigger her call light for incontinence care but explained most of the time she had to ask Resident #3 if she needed incontinence care. NA #3 stated Resident #3 has had to wait over an hour for incontinence care when the facility was short on staff. She stated she could not recall exact dates but that it occurred 4-5 times a week. The NA also stated she had voiced her concerns to DON but had not received any help. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8-30-23 at 9:05am. The DON explained the NAs were assigned 17-20 residents per shift. She stated the NAs had brought to her attention the difficulty they were having providing care to their assigned residents and stated the NAs were educated on asking for assistance if they were not able to complete their assignments. The DON stated she had not heard that Resident #3 had to wait an hour or more for incontinence care. She stated she expected staff to inform management of any difficulties, provide timely care and ask for help. The DON also said she would expect the call light to remain on until care had been completed. During an interview with the Administrator on 8-30-23 at 9:55am, the Administrator discussed the NAs being assigned 17-20 residents per shift. She stated if the NAs voiced any concerns completing their tasks, management staff would assist. The Administrator discussed not hearing any concerns of Resident #3 having to wait an hour or more for incontinence care but said she would expect staff to ask for help if they were unable to provide care in a timely manner.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide sufficient nurse staff to ensure 1 of 2 residents (Resident #3) who was dependent on staff received incontinence c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide sufficient nurse staff to ensure 1 of 2 residents (Resident #3) who was dependent on staff received incontinence care. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F677: Based on record review, observation, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) care. A review of the facility's working schedules from 7-1-23 through 8-29-23 revealed the average census for the facility was 92 residents with 5 Nursing Assistants scheduled for the facility. Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 was interviewed on 8-29-23 at 11:19am. The NA discussed not being able to provide care to her assigned residents due to the lack of staff. She explained she typically was assigned 18-20 residents and was not able to provide incontinence care to all her assigned residents in under an hour. NA #1 discussed management being aware of the problem but not helping. During an interview with NA #2 on 8-29-23 at 4:47pm, the NA explained she would be assigned up to 20 residents during her shift and stated she was not able to complete all her assigned tasks. She also discussed residents having to wait an hour or more for care due to the lack of available staff. NA #2 explained she had informed management of the issues and stated she was told to ask management for help, but NA #2 discussed lack of management on the 3:00pm to 11:00pm shift to assist. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8-30-23 at 9:05am. The DON explained the facility did not currently have a scheduler and that she had been helping with the scheduling of nursing staff. She discussed if there was a call out, she would ask staff to work over and if she was unable to find a replacement she would fill in and assist the staff wherever possible. The DON stated the NAs were assigned 17-20 residents per shift and said she had heard from the NAs that they were having difficulty completing their assignments and providing care in a timely manner. She stated she had educated the NAs in asking nursing staff or management for help when needed. The DON explained the normal staffing pattern should be 12 to 13 residents per NA. During an interview with the Administrator on 8-30-23 at 9:55am, the Administrator discussed scheduling by acuity of the facility and stated she had been made aware by staff that they were having difficulty completing their assignments and providing care in a timely manner. The Administrator discussed that most of the residents in the facility were high acuity (residents who require extensive to total assistance) residents, and she explained the NAs had been educated in asking for help when needed. The Administrator confirmed the NAs were assigned 17-20 residents per shift and stated she felt the assignments were appropriate since the NAs were able to ask for help.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions the committee put into place following the 4-21-22 recertification and complaint survey and the 7-13-23 recertification and complaint survey. This was for 1 recited deficiency in F677 Activities of Daily Living. The deficiency was cited again in a follow-up and complaint survey on 8-30-23. The continued failure of the facility during three federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F677: Based on record review, observation, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) care. During the complaint and recertification survey on 7-13-23 the facility was cited for failing to provide nail care. During the complaint and recertification survey on 4-21-22 the facility was cited for failing to provide incontinence care. The Administrator was interviewed on 8-30-23 at 2:23pm. The Administrator discussed not being sure what the root cause was for the continued failure for F677 and stated she had not heard of any concerns relating to incontinence care. She discussed education being completed with staff to ask for help and stated the facility managers needed to be more proactive in asking staff if assistance was needed to complete resident care.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, family interview and staff interview the facility failed to clean and prevent water da...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, family interview and staff interview the facility failed to clean and prevent water damage such as warped and splintering of wood vanities in 9 of 57 resident rooms (Rooms # 109, 301, 308, 309, 312, 314, 316, 319, 320, 401 and 403) and prevent leaking water from hand sinks and toilet plumbing. They also failed to clean a flat, black substance on walls near toilet plumbing and behind raised wallpaper behind toilet and to fix wallpaper that was wet to touch and separating from the wall behind toilets in 7 of 50 bathrooms (Rooms # 105, 111, 201, 209, 213, 215 and 312). The findings included: A. Observations of resident's rooms on 8/29/23 at 10:15 am revealed 3 of 6 room (Room # 109, 401 and 403) hand sinks were leaking and were wet to touch underneath the vanities. The vanity was observed to have warped wood with splintering, bowing and separation of the layers of particle board. Underneath the vanity in room [ROOM NUMBER] there was a dark substance surrounding the area in which water was pooling. An observation of resident rooms on 8/30/23 at 11:00 am revealed an additional 7 of 57 rooms (Room # 301, 308, 312, 314, 316, 319, 320) with vanity hand sinks were leaking and were wet to touch underneath the vanities had water leaking underneath resulting in wet, warped wood with splintering, bowing and separation of the layers of particle board. An interview with the family of Resident #1 (room [ROOM NUMBER]) on 8/29/23 at 10:45 am revealed he had reported Resident #1's hand sink had been leaking under the vanity in her room. He also indicated there was a dark substance around the wet area that he believed was mold. He was unable to name the staff he had told about the leaking sink. Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. In an interview with Resident #1 (room [ROOM NUMBER]) on 8/29/23 at 1:15 pm, she indicated she had reported the leak under the sink vanity several times to unnamed staff. She further reported Maintenance had not been in to assess the water leak. An interview and observation with the Maintenance Manager on 8/30/23 at 9:35 am, revealed he received work orders from staff through the building management computer system , a call on the radio, by report in person, or by paper request. Maintenance Manager kept a list of work that was completed that he later entered into the building management computer system . It was difficult for him to access the building management computer system reliably as the facility network was overwhelmed after 8:30 AM. During the observation of Room # 109 and 401 the Maintenance Manager stated he believed the black substance under hand sink vanities was mold. He had been aware there were leaking hand sinks in the building since he started the position 3 months ago. He stated he could only fix one plumbing issue at a time and must turn the water off to the whole building, making it difficult to schedule plumbing maintenance. He stated he had contacted the Administrator and Corporate regarding hiring a contractor to fix the plumbing. B. Observations of resident's rooms on 8/29/23 at 10:15 am revealed 1 of 6 rooms (Room # 213/215 shared) had wallpaper that was wet to touch behind the toilet in the shared bathroom. An observation on 8/30/23 at 11:00 am revealed an additional 5 toilets (Room # 111, 201/203 shared, 209/211 shared, 213/215 shared and 312) had wallpaper that was wet to touch behind toilets and had a black substance behind and on top of the wallpaper. In an interview with Housekeeping staff #1 on 8/29/23 at 1:10 pm revealed she cleaned rooms daily. She further stated in the instance she saw a leak in the bathroom or residents' room, she would clean any spills and report it to Maintenance through the building management computer system . She further stated housekeeping was to let Maintenance know of any substance that they perceived as mold. In an interview and observation with the Housekeeping Manager at 8/30/23 11:15 am, revealed rooms were cleaned daily. Housekeeping staff were trained to put maintenance requests into the building management computer system when they observed a maintenance issue. If they saw a substance they believed to be mold, they would alert maintenance to assess it. Resident #1's (room [ROOM NUMBER]) vanity hand sink was observed with the housekeeping manager who stated she was surprised at the extent of the water damage. In an interview and observation with the Maintenance Assistant on 8/28/23 at 2:10 pm, he stated staff would enter maintenance requests into the building management computer system , call on the radio, report in person, or put in a paper request. He had both a paper log and an electronic log of maintenance requests. The two logs did not have the same information. There are only a few identifying keywords on the lists such as paint or toilet. He stated he remembered the exact maintenance request when he went into a room. If he observed a substance that appeared to be mold, he would make the Maintenance Manager aware. An interview and observation was conducted on 8/30/23 at 9:35 am with the Maintenance Manager. During the observation of Room # 105, 111, 201, 209, 213 and 215, the Maintenance Manager stated he believed the black substance behind and on top of wallpaper was mold. He further revealed the wallpaper was wet to touch. Housekeeping kept a spray on their carts he would use to clean what he suspected was mold. Upon observation of the cleaning agent, it was not labeled for cleaning mold. The Maintenance Manager stated he did not have a kit to test for mold and he did not know he could ask to have an outside company come into the facility and test. The Maintenance Manager indicated that what appeared to be mold behind toilets and under vanities was not a reason to ask for mold testing. In a continued interview with the Maintenance Manager on 8/30/23 at 1:30 pm, indicated he was only responsible for fixing maintenance issues such as leaks, and housekeeping staff were responsible for cleaning. He provided two cleaning agents and neither were labeled to kill mold spores. He had seen a black substance near leaking areas under the hand sink vanity and behind toilets but did not think it appeared to be mold. The Maintenance Manager stated he would have to shut the water off to the entire building to fix any water leaks. He also stated the toilet shut off valves needed to be replaced. The pipes would crumble when he attempted to replace the plumbing. He contacted the Administrator and Corporate regarding hiring a contractor to fix the plumbing. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 8/28/23 at 3:15 pm. She stated she was unaware of leaking plumbing or black substance under vanities or behind toilets. She indicated ongoing water leaks could affect the health of residents with respiratory issues. In an interview with the Administrator on 8/29/23 at 2:15 pm she indicated she was not aware of leaking plumbing or a black substance in resident vanities and bathrooms.
Jul 2023 9 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by not answering a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by not answering a call light and allowing the resident to sit on the floor for an extended period causing Resident #31 to feel afraid, neglected, shaky, and upset. This occurred for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #31). Findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 was moderately cognitively impaired. Transfers did not occur. Resident #31 was interviewed on 7-10-23 at 12:08pm. The resident discussed having a fall in May 2023 or June 2023 in the middle of the night. The resident discussed how she had put her call light on to be assisted into bed, but she stated after waiting 30 minutes, she decided to try and transfer herself. She stated she forgot to lock her wheelchair and as it started rolling, she tried to sit back down but sat on the edge of the wheelchair. Resident #31 explained she was holding on to one of the arms on the wheelchair and the side rail of the bed. She stated her call light was still on. Resident #31 stated she sat in that position for an hour before staff answered her call light. Resident #31 stated she knew the time because she had looked at the clock on her wall. The resident continued to explain once staff had answered her call light, the nurse (Nurse #3) was unable to assist her back into bed, so the nurse lowered her to the floor, and she had to wait another hour on the floor until Nurse #3 was able to find assistance to help her back to bed. The resident stated she felt afraid and neglected. A telephone interview occurred with Nurse #3 on 7-12-23 a 3:04pm. The nurse discussed she had answered Resident #31's call light on 5-20-23 and when she walked into the resident's room, she had found the resident sitting on the edge of her wheelchair with her buttocks almost touching the floor. Nurse #3 stated she could not say how long the resident's call light had been on. Nurse #3 continued to explain she was unable to transfer the resident into the bed or back into the wheelchair, so she lowered Resident #31 to the floor. She stated the resident was shaky and upset. The nurse discussed leaving the resident's call light on but stated when no one was coming to help, she sent Resident #31's roommate out to look for help. Nurse #3 said the roommate could not find anyone, so she left the room and was able to find Nursing Assistant (NA #5) to assist in getting Resident #31 back to bed. She stated it took a while to get the resident back to bed but said she did not think it was quite an hour. NA #5 was interviewed by telephone on 7-13-23 at 8:27am. NA #5 stated he was not present when Resident #31 fell but had been asked by Nurse #3 to go to Resident #31's room and assist in placing her back in the bed. The NA stated the resident was cold and had asked for a blanket, but he said he picked her up and placed her back in bed then covered her with her blankets. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7-13-23 at 10:12am, the DON discussed the facility policy of everyone answering call lights. She stated she was aware Nurse #3 had to lower the resident to the floor, but not aware Resident #31 had waited an hour for assistance when she was on the edge of her wheelchair or that the resident laid on the floor for an hour waiting for Nurse #3 to find assistance. The DON stated she expected staff to be answering call lights as soon as possible. The Administrator was interviewed on 7-13-23 at 12:17pm. The Administrator discussed staff carrying walkie talkies so they can request help when needed and stated she did not know why Nurse #3 had not used her walkie talkie on 5-20-23 when Resident #31 had fallen. She also commented that she could not say why it took an hour for staff to answer Resident #31's call light. The Administrator explained there was a system in place (the walkie talkies) for staff to ask for assistance and if the employees had worked the process/system it should have only taken 5-7 minutes to get Resident #31 back in bed. She also stated she expected staff to answer call lights as soon as possible.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, staff, and resident representative interviews the facility failed to protect Resident #8's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, staff, and resident representative interviews the facility failed to protect Resident #8's right to be free from abuse for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #8). On an unknown date in October 2022, Nursing Assistant (NA) #7 was witnessed by NA #8 to have grabbed hair on the top of Resident #8's head and pulled the resident's hair after Resident #8 had allegedly made derogatory statements to NA #7. A reasonable person would have experienced feelings such as intimidation, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, and/or dehumanization (deprivation of human qualities such as compassion). Findings included: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included vascular dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was severely cognitively impaired. The facility's 24-hour initial report dated 10-24-22 written by the Administrator documented approximately two weeks ago NA #7 was observed pulling Resident #8's hair. The facility's 5-day report dated 10-27-22 written by the Administrator documented on the morning of 10-24-22 an initial allegation was made that NA #7 had been observed pulling Resident #8's hair. The 5-day report documented the allegation had been substantiated and Resident #8's representative had been notified. On 7-10-23 at 1:57pm Resident #8 was interviewed. The resident stated she did not remember the incident back in October 2022 and said she had not been hurt by any staff members. Resident #8's representative was interviewed by telephone on 7-11-23 at 8:35am. The representative stated Resident #8 had severe dementia and would not have remembered the incident. She stated the Administrator had notified her NA #7 had pulled Resident #8's hair hard. The representative discussed seeing Resident #8 a few days after she was informed of the incident and stated Resident #8 was fine and could not remember the incident. NA #8 was interviewed by telephone on 7-11-23 at 2:26pm. NA #8 confirmed she had been orienting with NA #7 in October 2022 when the incident occurred but stated she could not remember the exact date. The NA discussed entering Resident #8's room with NA #7 to place Resident #8 back in bed. She stated she did not hear Resident #8 make any derogatory remarks to NA #7 but saw NA #7 grab Resident #8's hair on the top of her head and pull it. She stated Resident #8 said ow. NA #8 explained what she had said to NA #7 I didn't think we were allowed to do that and stated she walked out of the room. During a telephone interview with NA #9 on 7-11-23 at 3:55pm, the NA discussed not witnessing the incident but explained NA #7 had told her about the incident. NA #9 explained it was her second night of orientation with NA #7 and they were on break when NA #7 told her Resident #8 called her the N word. She stated NA #7 told her she got so mad and pulled Resident #8's hair, then left the room to obtain hot sauce. NA #9 stated NA #7 told her when she returned to Resident #8's room, she had put the hot sauce on a wet wipe and wiped Resident #8's vagina. An interview with Nurse #5 occurred on 7-12-23 at 10:07am. Nurse #5 stated she performed the skin assessment on 10-24-22 and found no abnormalities. A telephone interview occurred with NA #10 on 7-12-23 at 10:42am. NA #10 explained she had been in Resident #8's room with NA #7 and NA #8 in October 2022 it was either the 17th, 19th, or 21st of October. The NA stated she had been providing care to Resident #8's roommate when she heard Resident #8 say ouch you're hurting me. She stated by the time she looked over towards Resident #8, she did not see anything happening. NA #10 discussed seeing NA #8 walk out of the room looking very upset but said she did not know why. An attempt was made to contact NA #7 but there was no working phone number available. The DON was interviewed on 7-12-23 at 10:17am. The DON discussed on 10-24-22 at 8:00am when she came to work, the previous Human Resource Coordinator had informed her NA #7 had been calling saying staff were accusing her of putting hot sauce in Resident #8's brief. The DON stated when she interviewed NA #8, the NA told her NA #7 had grabbed Resident #8's hair on the top of her head and pulled the hair down towards the resident's face. She stated she also interviewed NA #10, who was present in the room but did not say she saw NA #7 pull Resident #8's hair. The DON explained none of the employees could say what day the incident occurred, but she had narrowed down the time frame through NA #8's orientation schedule to be within two weeks prior to 10-24-22.
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and procedure in the area of reporting when Nursing Assistant (NA) #8, NA #9, and NA #10 did not immediately report an allegation of abuse between a staff (NA #7) member and a resident (Resident #8) resulting in a lack of protection for Resident #8 and other facility residents. The facility also failed to report to the state agency within the required two-hour time frame. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #8) reviewed for abuse. Findings included: The facility's Abuse Identification policy and procedure reviewed on 12-7-22 revealed in part patients/residents in a health care center should not be subjected to abuse or neglect by anyone including staff and any person observing, hearing a complaint of, and/or identifying any signs and symptoms of abuse, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, neglect, mistreatment, misappropriation of patient property, or exploitation should report it to the Administrator as soon as possible. The facility's Reporting Patient Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation of property policy and procedure reviewed 12-7-22 revealed in part the state survey agency should be notified in accordance with state law of any allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment within two-hours after the allegation is made. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was severely cognitively impaired. The facility's 24-Hour Initial Report dated 10-24-22 written by the Administrator documented that on 10-24-22 at approximately 3:45pm an allegation of staff to resident abuse. NA #7 had been observed by NA #8 pulling a resident's hair (Resident #8) about two weeks ago. A timeline of the staff to resident abuse allegation dated 10-27-22 written by the Administrator revealed on 10-24-22 at 8:45am the previous Human Resource Coordinator informed the Director of Nursing (DON) that the alleged perpetrator (NA #7) contacted her and reported she heard staff in the break room accusing her of putting hot sauce in a resident's brief and pulling Resident #8's hair. The previous Human Resource Coordinator was interviewed by telephone on 7-12-23 at 10:53am. The previous human Resource Coordinator stated NA #7 had called her on 10-24-22 at 8:00am to report that she was being accused of putting hot sauce in a resident's (Resident #8) brief and pulling her hair. She stated she did not question NA #7 as to when the incident occurred but had provided the information from NA #7 to the DON. Resident #8 was interviewed on 7-10-23 at 1:57pm. The resident stated she did not remember the incident in October 2022 and said no staff had ever physically hurt her. NA #8 was interviewed by telephone on 7-11-23 at 2:26pm. The NA stated she was present when NA #7 had pulled Resident #8's hair but said she did not know anything about hot sauce being placed in Resident #8's brief. She discussed that she had been a new employee at the time and was orienting with NA #7 and stated the incident happened around the middle of October 2022 but said she could not remember the exact date. NA #8 discussed after NA #7 had pulled Resident #8's hair, she walked out of the room but did not report the incident. The NA stated she did not know who to report the incident to. NA #8 revealed NA #7 continued to work the remainder of the shift providing resident care. A telephone interview occurred with NA #9 on 7-11-23 at 3:55pm. The NA explained she was not present when the incident occurred. NA #9 explained she had been orienting with NA #7 when NA #7 informed her she had been angry with Resident #8 so she pulled the resident's hair while putting the resident in the bed and then left the resident room, obtained some hot sauce, went back into the resident's room and while cleaning Resident #8, NA #7 placed hot sauce on the wipe and wiped Resident #8's vagina. NA #9 stated she believed the incident occurred around the end of September 2022 or the beginning of October 2022 because NA #7 stated it was a couple weeks ago that she become angry with Resident #8. NA #9 stated she was shocked and not sure if the information was true, so she did not report the incident to anyone. An interview with NA #10 occurred by telephone on 7-12-23 at 10:42am. NA #10 explained she was in the room when the incident with Na #7 and Resident #8 occurred but did not see anything. She stated she had heard Resident #8 say ow but said by the time she looked she did not see NA #7 doing anything. NA #10 discussed the incident occurring around October 17, 19, or 21, of 2022 but could not remember the exact date. She also discussed not reporting the incident to anyone because she did not see anything. During an interview with the DON on 7-13-23 at 10:26am, the DON stated the staff had been educated in reporting abuse immediately to the Administrator and was not sure why the incident had not been reported before 10-24-22. The DON stated she did not know when the last education on abuse occurred with staff but stated it was prior to the incident with NA #7 and Resident #8. She stated she expected all staff to report any abuse immediately to a manager and/or the Administrator. The DON also discussed being aware that the 24-hour report had to be submitted to the state agency within two hours but stated since it was not clear as to what happened an investigation had to be completed first. She verified that she was made aware of the allegation by the previous Human Resources Coordinator on 10-24-22 at approximately 8:45 AM and the 24-hour report was not submitted until approximately 3:45pm. The Administrator was interviewed on 7-13-23 at 12:31pm. The Administrator discussed the facility's process for reporting abuse. She explained part of the facility's process included staff education which encompassed when to report abuse and who to report the abuse to. The Administrator stated she believed the facility's process worked even though the incident with Resident #8 had not been reported for approximately 2 weeks and stated the incident was not reported because of the relationships between the NAs. She verified NA #7 had worked after the incident providing resident care until NA #8 had reported the allegations against her to HR on 10/24/22. She explained she was aware the 24-hour report needed to be sent to the state agency within a two-hour time frame but stated the situation was unclear and she needed to conduct interviews and investigate before completing the 24-hour report. The Administrator stated she expected staff to report any incidences of possible abuse immediately.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis. Revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension and rheumatoid arthritis. Review of Resident #44's physician orders dated 8/29/22 revealed an order for clopidogrel (Plavix) 75 milligrams once a day for heart disease. Review of Resident #44's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and was coded as receiving an anticoagulant 7 days during the 7-day look back period. Review of Resident #44's care plan last revised on 6/12/23 revealed she was care planned for anticoagulation usage and no diagnosis was noted. Review of Resident #44's medication administration record revealed no anticoagulant administration during the 7-day look back period. An interview on 7/11/23 at 3:32 PM with the MDS Director and MDS Coordinator revealed the MDS Coordinator had been told to code Plavix as an anticoagulant. She stated she had no documentation related to coding Plavix as an anticoagulant. The MDS Director stated that Plavix was not to be coded as an anticoagulant. An interview on 7/11/23 at 3:51 PM with the Administrator revealed she was unsure what the MDS process specifically was, but expected the MDS nurses to follow the MDS guidelines to accurately code the resident's MDS. Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately code anticoagulant medication use on a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #48 and Resident #44). Findings included: 1. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her active diagnoses included hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and stroke. Review of Resident #48's orders on 7/11/23 at 9:03 AM revealed Resident #48 was not ordered an anticoagulant. Review of Resident #48's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was severely cognitively impaired and coded to have received an anticoagulant 3 days of the lookback period. Review of Resident #48's medication administration record revealed the resident did not receive an anticoagulant during the lookback period. Resident #48 received Plavix on 3 days of the lookback period. During an interview on 7/11/23 at 3:32 PM the MDS Coordinator stated she was told to code Plavix as an anticoagulant but had no documentation of this. Resident #48 was on Plavix during the lookback period and refused the medication for 4 days during the lookback period; therefore, Plavix was coded as an anticoagulant for 3 days on the 5/8/23 quarterly MDS assessment. During an interview on 7/11/23 at 3:51 PM the Administrator stated she was unsure what the MDS process was but expected the MDS nurses to follow MDS guidelines to accurately code the MDS.
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 record review and staff interviews the facility failed to update the care plan to accurately reflect the code status (R...

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 update the care plan to accurately reflect the code status (Resident #73 and Resident #76) and the current diet order (Resident #76) for 2 of 25 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings included: 1. Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke. A review of Resident #73's admission form dated [DATE] revealed Resident #73 had not executed and advanced directive and did not want to discuss advanced directives further at that time. It further indicated Resident #73 did not have a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) or Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) in place and did not wish to discuss them further at that time. No advanced directive was found in Resident #73's medical record. A current active physician's order for Resident #73 dated [DATE] was for code status: full code (attempt resuscitation). A review of his quarterly Minimum Data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was severely cognitively impaired. A review of his current comprehensive care plan revealed his last care conference date was [DATE]. The problem area of advanced directives, initiated on [DATE] and last edited on [DATE], indicated to attempt resuscitation. The short-term goal with a target date of [DATE] for this problem area indicated if Resident #73's heart stopped, or he stopped breathing cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) would not be initiated in honor of Resident #73's DNR wishes through the next review period. On [DATE] at 3:22 PM an interview with the Social Worker (SW) indicated she attended Resident #73's care conference on [DATE]. She stated his advanced directives were discussed. She went on to say Resident #73's code status was full code. She further indicated she would have been responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the advanced directives problem and short-term goal on his current comprehensive care plan. She stated the short-term goal information indicating if Resident #73's heart stopped, or he stopped breathing cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) would not be initiated in honor of Resident #73's DNR wishes through the next review period was not accurate and she should have corrected it. She stated this was an oversight. On [DATE] at 10:58 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated residents' care plans should be an accurate reflection of a residents' current orders and status. 2. Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of stroke. A review of Resident #73's medical record revealed a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form with an effective date of [DATE] with a check in the box marked no expiration signed by her medical provider. It further revealed active physician's orders of code status: DNR dated [DATE] and diet: mechanical soft with regular liquids. A review of her quarterly Minimum Data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was severely cognitively impaired. A review of Resident #73's current comprehensive care plan revealed her last care conference date was [DATE]. The problem area of advanced directives, initiated on [DATE] and last edited on [DATE], indicated to attempt resuscitation. The short-term goal with a target date of [DATE] for this problem area indicated Resident #73's advanced directives were in effect, and her wishes and directions would be carried out in accordance with her advance directives on an ongoing basis. An additional problem area of nutritional status, initiated on [DATE] and last edited on [DATE], revealed an approach with a start date of [DATE] of mechanically altered diet pureed with nectar thickened liquids. On [DATE] at 3:22 PM an interview with the Social Worker (SW) indicated she attended Resident #76's care conference on [DATE]. She stated her advanced directives were discussed. She went on to say Resident #76's code status was DNR. She further indicated she would have been responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the advanced directives problem and short-term goal on her care plan. She stated the advanced directives problem area indicating to attempt resuscitation was not accurate and she should have corrected it. She stated this was an oversight. On [DATE] at 10:33 AM an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) indicated he could not recall if he had been present at Resident #76's [DATE] care conference but if he could not attend a resident's care conference, he would let another member of the team know. He stated he would provide any pertinent information to that team member to bring to the care conference and would receive the update from that team member after the meeting. He stated he would have been responsible for updating and ensuring the accuracy of the nutritional status problem area and approaches on Resident #76's current comprehensive care plan. He stated it must have just slipped his mind. On [DATE] at 10:58 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated residents' care plans should be an accurate reflection of a residents' current orders and status.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide nail care for 1 of 8 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide nail care for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #73) reviewed who were dependent on facility staff for activities of daily living (ADL) care. Findings included: Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke and diabetes mellitus (DM). A review of his quarterly Minimum Data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was severely cognitively impaired. He had no behaviors or rejection of care. He required the total assistance of 1 person for personal hygiene and bathing. He had functional limitation of range of motion of his upper extremities on one side. A review of the current comprehensive care plan for Resident #73 revealed a problem area initiated on 12/15/22 last edited on 4/26/23 of at risk for ADL decline. The goal was for Resident #73 to have his ADL needs met through the next review. An intervention was to provide assistance as needed. On 7/10/23 at 10:14 AM an observation of Resident #73 revealed the fingernails of his right hand appeared long, extending past his fingertip and curving downward touching his palm. The fingernails of his left hand were observed to appear long extending past his fingertips with dark debris under the nails. The thumbnail of his left hand was jagged. On 7/11/23 at 1:41 PM an observation of Resident #73 revealed the condition of his fingernails remained unchanged. An interview with Resident #73 at that time indicated he felt his fingernails were too long and needed cutting. He stated he had asked to have his nails trimmed but was told they could not be. He further indicated he could not recall who or when he asked. On 7/12/23 at 1:42 PM an observation of Resident #73 revealed the condition of his fingernails remained unchanged. An interview with Resident #73 at that time indicated he had his bath that day. On 7/12/23 at 1:47 PM an interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 indicated she was caring for Resident #73 that day. She stated he had not refused any care. She went on to say she provided him with a complete bed bath which included washing his hands. She stated she had noticed his fingernails were long and needed trimming. She further indicated she had also noticed the fingernails of his left hand were dirty. NA #1 stated she had tried to clean his fingernails with a washcloth but had not been able to get the dirt out from under the nails with the washcloth. She went on to say providing nail care to residents included trimming the fingernails and using a wooden dowel to remove debris from under the nails. She further indicated she had not trimmed Resident #73's fingernails or used a dowel to get the debris from under his nails during his bed bath because she had not had the equipment with her at the time. She stated she meant to go back and do this but had not gotten a chance to. On 7/12/23 at 2:16 PM an interview with NA #2 indicated she was assigned to care for Resident #73 on 7/11/23 from 7AM-3PM. She stated this was his shower day, but he had refused his shower, so she provided him with a complete bed bath instead. She went on to say she noticed his fingernails were long and needed trimming. She further indicated she told Resident #73 that his fingernails were so long that they were beginning to press into the palm of his hand, and she needed to trim them, but he had refused. NA #2 stated she had not gone back to attempt again, had not documented the refusal anywhere and had not reported Resident #73's long fingernails or his refusal to allow her to trim them to the nurse. On 7/12/23 at 2:42 PM an interview with Nurse #2 indicated she was assigned to Resident #73 on 7/11/23 from 7AM-7PM. She stated the NAs were supposed to observe resident's fingernails during ADL care daily and cut or trim and clean them if they needed it. She stated she had not been notified that Resident #73 needed his fingernails cut, trimmed or cleaned and had refused or that the NA had not been able to do this. On 7/12/23 at 4:02 PM an interview with NA #6 indicated she provided Resident #73 with a complete bed bath on 7/10/23. She stated she noticed his fingernails were long and needed trimming. She stated she had not done it because she had not had time. She went on to say sometimes the nurse would help with this. She further indicated she had not asked the nurse to help or notified her that Resident #73 needed his nails trimmed and she did not have time to do it. On 7/12/23 at 4:15 PM an interview with Nurse #4 indicated she cared for Resident #73 on 7/10/23 from 7AM-7PM. She stated she was familiar with Resident #73 and had trimmed his nails in the past. She stated she had not been notified on 7/10/23 that Resident #73 needed his nails trimmed or she would have gladly done this. On 7/13/23 at 10:17 AM an interview with the Treatment Nurse indicated she completed a full body skin assessment for Resident #73 on 7/9/23. She stated this would have included observing his hands. She went on to say she had noticed on 7/9/23 that Resident #73's fingernails were long and needed to be trimmed but she had not done this. She stated the NAs would usually do this during a resident's daily ADL care. She further indicated if the NAs could not or the resident refused, the NAs were to notify the nurse. She went on to say she had meant to go back and trim Resident #73's fingernails but had not gotten around to it. On 7/12/23 at 2:02 PM an observation of Resident #73's fingernails was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON used a measuring tape to determine the length of Resident #73's fingernails. She stated the fingernails of his right hand were 1 centimeter (cm) long and curved towards his palm. She stated there were no fingernail marks in Resident #73's right palm. She further indicated the fingernails of his left hand were ½ cm long with dark debris under the nails that looked like food. She went on to say his left thumbnail was broken and jagged. The DON stated NAs should be making observations of resident's fingernails during ADL care daily to ensure they were clean and cut or trimmed. She went on to say there was no reason the NAs could not clean and cut or trim Resident #73's fingernails. She further indicated based on the appearance of Resident #73's fingernails, this should have been done before now. The DON stated if the NA caring for Resident #73 had not been able to clean and cut or trim his fingernails for any reason, the NA should have notified his nurse. She stated any refusal of care should be documented. On 7/13/23 at 11:37 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated NAs should be performing observations of residents fingernails during daily ADL care. She stated the NAs would be responsible for cleaning and trimming or cutting a resident's fingernails if this was needed. She went on to say if for any reason the NA observed a resident's fingernails needed cleaning and trimming or cutting and couldn't do it, the NA should be reporting it to the nurse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident interviews the facility failed to have a complete and accurate medical record relate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident interviews the facility failed to have a complete and accurate medical record related to documentation of a resident assessment following a fall. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #31) reviewed for accidents. Findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included absence of left leg below the knee. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #31 was moderately cognitively impaired and required two people to assist with transfers. Resident #31's care plan dated 5-20-23 revealed Resident #31 was at risk for falls related to a left below the knee amputation. The goal for Resident #31 was not to sustain an injury related to falling. The interventions for the goal were encourage resident to ring for assistance, assist with toileting and transfers, cue for safety awareness, keep environment safe, and place call light within reach. Review of the facility's Facility Event Investigation Form dated 5-20-23 written by Nurse #3 revealed documentation that Resident #31 was found sitting on the edge of her wheelchair with her buttocks nearly on the floor. The nurse documented she had lowered Resident #31 to the floor and once assistance was obtained; Resident #31 was placed in the bed. The document does not include any assessment information. Nurse #3's nursing note dated 5-20-23 at 2:35am revealed Resident #31 was found at 2:00am on the edge of her wheelchair and her buttocks nearly on the floor. The nurse documented she attempted to support Resident #31, but the resident's body slid down, so she slowly placed Resident #3 on the floor. Nurse #3 documented there was no head trauma, and the Physician and resident representative was notified. The documentation did not include any other assessment of the resident. Resident #31 was interviewed on 7-10-23 at 12:08pm. The resident discussed falling in May 2023 or June 2023 in the middle of the night. She stated she was able to reach her call light but had to wait an hour for someone to come and help her. She explained she knew it was an hour because of the clock on her wall. Resident #31 stated Nurse #3 came into her room but was unable to assist her back into bed. The resident stated Nurse #3 woke up her roommate to go find a Nursing Assistant (NA) to help place her back into bed. She explained the roommate could not find anyone, so Nurse #3 left her on the floor to go find some help. She stated she lay on the floor for an hour before (Nursing Assistant) NA #5 came into her room with Nurse #3 and said they picked her up and laid her in the bed. Resident #31 stated she could not remember if Nurse #3 had completed an assessment. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 7-12-23 at 10:17am. The DON discussed not knowing if vital signs or an assessment of Resident #31 had been completed after her fall on 5-20-23. The DON stated there was no documentation of an assessment or vital signs being completed. Nurse #3 was interviewed by telephone on 7-12-23 at 3:04pm. Nurse #3 confirmed she was the nurse for Resident #31 on 5-20-23 during the 11:00pm to 7:00am shift. She stated she had answered Resident #31's call light and when she walked into Resident #31's room, she saw the resident sitting on the edge of her wheelchair with her buttocks almost touching the floor. Nurse #3 stated she was the only employee in the room and was unable to get the resident back into her chair, so she lowered the resident onto the floor. The nurse stated Resident #31's call light was still on, but no one was coming to help her, so she asked the resident's roommate to go out in the hall and get some help. She stated she did not know how long the resident's call light had been on prior to her coming to Resident #31's room and did not know how long it took for another employee to come help her with the resident but stated it was a while, but I don't think it was quite an hour. Nurse #3 explained the resident's roommate was unable to locate anyone to help, so she left the resident safely on the floor and retrieved assistance from NA #5 to place the resident back in bed. The nurse stated she had assessed Resident #31 once she was back in bed and performed vital signs. She stated this would have been documented in her progress notes and did not know why there was not any documentation of her assessment or vital signs. During a telephone interview with NA #5 on 7-13-23 at 8:27am, the NA confirmed he had worked 11:00m to 7:00am on 5-20-23. He stated he was not assigned to Resident #31 but had been asked by Nurse #3 to assist in placing the resident back in bed. NA #5 stated when he walked in the resident's room, the resident was on the floor next to her bed. He stated he did not know what happened or how long the resident had been on the floor, but he stated he picked the resident up and placed her back into bed. The NA stated once Resident #31 was back in bed he saw Nurse #3 start taking the resident's vital signs and performing an assessment. The DON was interviewed on 7-13-23 at 10:12am. The DON explained when a resident fell, the nurse would complete a full assessment to include vital signs, body assessment to check for injury, notify the resident representative and Physician. She stated the nurse should document in the nursing notes, change in condition form, and risk management form. The DON discussed the nurse had not completed a change in condition form and an assessment with vital signs and body assessment was not completed after Resident #31's fall. She stated she expected staff to fill out all required documentation and complete a full assessment. During an interview with the Administrator on 7-13-23 at 12:17pm, the Administrator discussed staff needed to take care of the resident that fell first and make sure they are safe and then complete the necessary documentation. The Administrator discussed Nurse #3 was a new nurse and was unaware of what documentation needed to be completed after Resident #31's fall. She stated she expected all staff to document what they had done after the fall to include assessments with vital signs.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review and resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Medical Doctor (MD) interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintai...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and resident, staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Medical Doctor (MD) interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the 4/21/22 recertification/complaint survey and the 10/4/21 and 2/9/21 focused infection control and complaint investigation surveys. This was for was for 2 deficiencies in the areas of F550 Dignity and F677 Activities of Daily Living (ADL) that were cited on the 4/21/22 recertification and complaint investigation survey, 1 deficiency in the area of F607 Developing and Implementing Abuse Policies that was cited on the 10/4/21 focused infection control and complaint investigation and 1 deficiency in the area of F641 Accuracy of Assessments that was cited on the 2/9/21 focused infection control and complaint investigation. These 4 deficiencies were cited again on the current recertification survey of 7/13/23. The continued failure of the facility during two federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F550: Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by not answering a call light and allowing the resident to sit on the floor for an extended period causing Resident #31 to feel afraid, neglected, shaky, and upset. This occurred for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #31). During the recertification/complaint survey of 4/21/22 the facility was cited for failing provide incontinence care. F607: Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and procedure in reporting when Nursing Assistant (NA) #8, NA #9, and NA #10 did not immediately report an allegation of abuse between a staff (NA #7) member and a resident (Resident #8) resulting in a lack of protection for Resident #8 and other facility residents. The facility also failed to report to the state agency within the required two-hour time frame. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #8) reviewed for abuse. During the 10/4/21 focused infection control and complaint investigation the facility was cited for failing to implement the neglect policy and thoroughly investigate a neglect allegation. F641: Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately code anticoagulant medication use on a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #48 and Resident #44). During the 2/9/21 focused infection control and complaint investigation the facility was cited for failing to accurately code the MDS in the area of immunizations. F677: Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide nail care for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #73) reviewed who were dependent on facility staff for activities of daily living (ADL) care. During the recertification/complaint survey of 4/21/22 the facility was cited for failing provide incontinence care. On 7/13/23 at 1:13 PM an interview with the Administrator indicated she could not say for sure what the root cause was regarding the things that happened prior to her coming to the facility in June 2022. She stated for ADL care, she felt this was a misunderstanding among staff regarding the residents care refusals. She went on to say she felt this was an isolated issue. She further indicated since she started at the facility, one of the biggest things they had been working on in Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) was response time for call bells. The Administrator spoke about the deficient practice at F550 and stated the facility implemented a walkie talkie system and staff were to carry these on their person. She went on to say she felt that if the nurse was carrying her walkie talkie like she should have been when the fall occurred, the delay in response to the call would not have occurred.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and Medical Doctor (MD) interviews, the facility failed to notify the MD of the resident's medication refusals for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #11) reviewed for notification. Findings included: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anxiety, depression, hypothyroidism, schizoaffective disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, constipation, and hyperlipidemia. Review of Resident #11's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment and was coded for rejection of care 1 to 3 days during the 7 day look back period. Review of Resident #11's July 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she had 9 medications scheduled for 8:00 AM, 8:00 PM, or both times. Of these scheduled medications for July 2023, she had a refused all her medications for 10 days except for two 8:00 PM evenings doses on July 5 and 6. These medications included psychiatric, hyperlipidemia, thyroid, stomach reflux, insomnia, and constipation medications. An interview on 7/11/23 at 12:21 PM with Nurse #1 revealed she was frequently assigned to provide care for Resident #11. She stated she thought the NP and MD were aware of the resident's medication refusals, but she had not notified them. An interview on 7/11/23 at 12:26 PM with the MD revealed she was unaware of Resident #11 medication refusals. She stated that the facility typically should have notified her or the NP if the resident refused medications more than 3 days. An interview on 7/11/23 at 2:22 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she was unaware that the NP or MD had not been notified of Resident #11's medication refusals. She stated the NP or MD should be notified if the resident refused medications. An interview on 7/12/23 at 11:54 AM with the NP revealed she had not been notified of Resident #11's medication refusals. She stated she was aware the resident refused medications at times in the past but was unaware the residents had refused medications consistently for the past 10 days. The NP stated that she did not think she would have 'changed much of anything' but may have contacted psychiatry for a referral earlier if she had known about the medication refusals. An interview on 7/12/23 at 2:04 PM with the Administrator revealed she was unaware that the NP or MD had not been notified of Resident #11's medication refusals. She stated the resident's refusals had become 'normalized' and the staff failed to notify the NP or MD.
Apr 2022 10 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by not providing inco...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by not providing incontinence care which made the resident feel terrible and that staff did not care about her. This occurred for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #174) reviewed for dignity and respect. Findings included: Resident #174 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #174 was moderately cognitively impaired and required dependent assistance with one person for toileting and bathing. The MDS also coded Resident #174 always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #174 was interviewed on 4-18-22 at 3:00pm. The resident discussed on 4-16-22 she had received incontinence care at 3:00pm from the Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 who worked 7:00am to 3:00pm. She stated she had not received incontinence care again until 7:00am on 4-17-22. Resident #174 stated she was aware of the time because of the clock that was on the wall in front of her bed. She explained she had put her call light on for assistance around 7:30pm and a NA had come in, shut off the light and told her she would be back. The resident stated no one came back so she put her light on again around 10:00pm, but no one answered. Resident #174 described her bed linen; floor and her gown were soaked with urine. She stated she was unable to sleep, felt terrible, and that staff did not care about her. During an interview with NA #1 on 4-19-22 at 3:40pm, NA #1 confirmed she had been assigned to Resident #174 on 4-16-22 on the 7:00am to 3:00pm shift. She also confirmed she had provided incontinence care to Resident #174 around 3:00pm on 4-16-22. NA #1 discussed Resident #174 was not known to have large output of urine and did not require more than every 2-hour checks. The NA stated when she returned to work on 4-17-22 at 7:00am, she was assigned to Resident #174. She stated she made her initial round shortly after 7:00am and found Resident #174 drenched in urine. She said the resident was upset and had told her no one had been in all night to provide her care. The NA explained Resident #174's gown, sheets, and pad were soaked with urine, and she could see brown/yellow dried rings of urine under the recent wet urine. NA #1 stated she did not remember any urine on the floor. She stated she provided a bath and changed the resident's linens. NA #2 was interviewed on 4-20-22 at 9:30am by telephone. NA #2 confirmed she was assigned to Resident #174 on 4-16-22 on the 11:00pm to 7:00am shift. She explained she was assigned 25 residents that night and could not remember if Resident #174 had put on her call light for assistance or when she had provided incontinence care to Resident #174. NA #2 also explained she was not always able to provide care to every resident when she had 25 or more assigned to her. The NA confirmed Resident #174 would put on her call light when she needed incontinence care or she stated, sometimes I just go in to check. She stated she could not remember when she had provided incontinence care but now stated she thought maybe around 5:00am. The NA stated Resident #174 was not known to have a large output of urine that required more than every 2-hour checks. An attempt was made to contact the nurse who worked on 4-16-22 from 11:00pm to 7:00am with no return call. An interview with NA #4 occurred on 4-19-22 at 2:30pm. NA #4 stated Resident #174 would put on her call light when she required incontinence care. She also said Resident #174 was not known to have a large output of urine and did not require more than every 2-hour checks. The NA discussed Resident #174 had to wait 2-3 hours for care to be provided if the facility only had 2-3 NAs working. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4-21-22 at 10:12am, the DON stated resident #174 can be a heavy wetter so care could have been done. She also stated Resident #174, nor NA #1 had brought the issue to her attention.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care for a depend...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide incontinence care for a dependent resident resulting in the resident feeling terrible and that staff did not care about her. This occurred for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #174) reviewed for incontinence care. Findings included: Resident #174 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis, muscle weakness. The admission minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #174 was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS had coded Resident #174 for verbal behaviors towards others 1-3 days out of 7 but not for refusal of care. Resident #174 was also coded as always incontinent of bowel and bladder and coded as dependent for toileting and bathing with one person assist. Review of Resident #174's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for April 2022 revealed Resident #174 was not taking a diuretic. Resident #174 was interviewed on 4-18-22 at 3:00pm. The resident discussed on 4-16-22 she had received incontinence care at 3:00pm from the Nursing Assistant (NA) who worked 7:00am to 3:00pm. She stated she had not received incontinence care again until 7:00am on 4-17-22. Resident #174 stated she was aware of the time because of the clock that was on the wall in front of her bed. She explained she had put on her call light for assistance, but no one answered. Resident #174 described her bed; floor and her gown were soaked with urine. She stated she was unable to sleep, felt terrible, and that staff did not care about her. Observation of incontinence care occurred on 4-19-22 at 2:15pm with NA #4. The resident's skin was observed to be intact with no redness. Resident #174's brief was noted to be wet but not saturated. An interview with NA #4 occurred on 4-19-22 at 2:30pm. NA #4 discussed checking her residents every 2 hours for incontinence care but stated if there were not enough staff, the resident may have to wait 2-3 hours for care to be provided. She stated Resident #174 would put on her call light when she required incontinence care and said Resident #174 did not require more frequent incontinence care. During an interview with NA #1 on 4-19-22 at 3:40pm, NA #1 confirmed she had been assigned to Resident #174 on 4-16-22 on the 7:00am to 3:00pm shift. She also confirmed she had provided incontinence care to Resident #174 around 3:00pm on 4-16-22 and that Resident #174 was not known to have a large output of urine. The NA stated when she returned to work on 4-17-22 at 7:00am, she was assigned to Resident #174. She stated she made her initial round shortly after 7:00am and found Resident #174 drenched in urine. She said the resident was upset and had told her no one had been in all night to provide her care. The NA explained Resident #174's gown, sheets, and pad were soaked with urine, and she could see brown/yellow dried rings of urine under the recent wet urine. NA #1 stated she did not remember any urine on the floor. She stated she provided a bath and changed the resident's linens. NA #2 was interviewed on 4-20-22 at 9:30am by telephone. NA #2 confirmed she was assigned to Resident #174 on 4-16-22 on the 11:00pm to 7:00am shift. She explained she was assigned 25 residents that night and could not remember if Resident #174 had put on her call light for assistance or when she had provided incontinence care to Resident #174. The NA confirmed Resident #174 would put on her call light when she needed incontinence care or she stated, sometimes I just go in to check. She stated she could not remember when she had provided incontinence care but now stated she thought maybe around 5:00am. The NA stated Resident #174 was not known to have a large output of urine that required more than every 2-hour checks. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4-21-22 at 10:12am, the DON stated resident #174 can be a heavy wetter so care could have been done. She also stated Resident #174, nor NA #1 had brought the issue to her attention.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to determine on admission if 1 of 1 resident had an advance dir...

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 determine on admission if 1 of 1 resident had an advance directive (Resident #225). Findings included: Resident #225 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #225's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed no code status. A review of Resident #225's electronic record was conducted which revealed no advance directive or physician's order that indicated Resident #225's code status. An interview on 4/19/22 at 12:29 PM with Nurse #1 revealed she had entered a blank admission order for Resident #225's code status. She stated she had not indicated a code status in the order as the resident was not at the facility at the time and she did not know the resident's code status. She also stated that the admitting nurse should have completed the code status order during the resident admission process. An interview on 4/19/22 at 12:38 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #225 did not have a completed code status order and she should have. She stated that someone had forgotten to complete the order during the admission process. She stated there was a failsafe process where staff were supposed to check the admission paperwork to determine if there was a do not resuscitate form or other code status. An interview on 4/21/22 at 9:16 AM with the Administrator revealed all residents should have an accurate code status in their medical electronic record. She stated that Resident #225's admission orders were not double checked to ensure her admission was complete and accurate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide an environment without a potential accident hazard whe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide an environment without a potential accident hazard when 2 of 15 resident rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) were observed to have a heat/air wall unit without a cover exposing the wires and coils and a wall plug outlet loose from the wall allowing access to the wires. Findings included: 1.room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 4-18-22 at 10:00 am. The observation revealed the resident's heat/air wall unit was missing the cover exposing the coils and wires to the unit. On 4-21-22 at 8:27 am, room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Director. The observation revealed the room's heat/air wall unit was missing the cover exposing the coils and wires to the unit. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 4-21-22 at 8:30 am. He stated he was not aware the front cover had been removed. The Maintenance Director stated he needed to find a solution so the resident could not remove the cover and injure himself. 2. During an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4-18-22 at 11:20 am, the observation revealed a plug outlet was loose from the wall causing a gap and access to the wiring. A second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted on 4-21-22 at 8:48 am with the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Director. The observation revealed a plug outlet was loose from the wall causing a gap and access to the wiring. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 4-21-22 at 8:50 am. He stated he was not made aware the outlet was loose from the wall and commented it was potentially dangerous. The Maintenance Director stated he would have the outlet fixed immediately. During an interview with Nursing Assistant (NA) #5 on 4-20-22 at 2:50 pm, the NA stated she was aware there were paper forms for maintenance request at the nursing station but said she was usually too busy to fill out a request. During an interview with the Administrator on 4-21-22 at 10:12 am, the Administrator stated the Maintenance Director was new and had been working on maintenance requests as he received them. She said she did not know why staff had not entered a request for the issues found but expected staff to report any maintenance issues they saw.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to prevent a urinary catheter tubing from encounter...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to prevent a urinary catheter tubing from encountering the floor to reduce the risk of injury or infection. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #175) reviewed for urinary catheter. Findings included: Resident #175 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included other specified disorders of the bladder. The admission documentation showed Resident #175 was alert and oriented. Observation of Resident #175 occurred on 4-18-22 at 11:40am. The observation revealed Resident #175 was sitting up in his wheelchair with the catheter bag hanging from the side of the wheelchair and the catheter tubing laying on the floor. On 4-19-22 at 9:55am, another observation of Resident #175's catheter was conducted. The observation revealed Resident #175 was sitting in his wheelchair with the catheter bag hanging on his wheelchair below bladder level and the tubing was on the floor with the resident's right heel of his foot on top of the tubing. Another observation of Resident #175's catheter occurred on 4-19-22 at 2:10pm. Resident #175 was observed sitting up in his wheelchair with the catheter bag hanging under his wheelchair and the catheter tubing was laying on the floor. Observation of Resident #175's catheter occurred on 4-20-22 at 9:45am. Resident #175 was observed sitting up in his wheelchair with his catheter bag hanging behind the front left wheel of the wheelchair and the catheter tubing was laying on the floor. During an interview with Nursing Assistant (NA) #4 on 4-20-22 at 2:50pm, NA #4 stated she was aware Resident #175's catheter tubing was dragging on the floor, but she stated, the tubing is too long and I don't know how to fix it. The NA said she had told the nurses in the past about the issue, but no one had fixed it. Nurse #4 was interviewed on 4-20-22 at 3:00pm. The nurse confirmed she had been assigned to Resident #175 during the 7:00am to 3:00pm shift and stated she had not looked at the resident's catheter or tubing today (4-20-22) so she was not aware the catheter tubing had been laying on the floor. The nurse stated she was aware the catheter tubing should not be laying on the floor due to possible infection and/or injury to the resident. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4-21-22 at 10:12am. The DON discussed Resident #175's catheter tubing being too long and the resident being mobile in his chair as cause to why the tubing was on the floor. She also stated she was aware catheter tubing should not have contact with the floor.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a stop date for an as needed antianxiety medication for...

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 have a stop date for an as needed antianxiety medication for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #225). Findings included: Resident #225 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anxiety. Resident #225's physician's order dated 4/14/22 revealed she was ordered Alprazolam 1 mg twice a day as needed (PRN) for anxiety. The order had a start dated of 4/14/22 with no end date and was documented as open ended. An interview on 4/19/22 at 12:23 PM with Nurse #2 revealed she had entered the admission medication orders for Resident #225. She stated she should have contacted the physician for a stop date for the PRN Alprazolam. She stated she had just missed it. An interview on 4/19/22 at 12:38 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the Alprazolam PRN medication should have a stop date. She stated she would have caught it during the chart audits she usually performs on admission charts. An interview on 4/21/22 at 9:18 AM with the Administrator revealed she was aware all PRN psychotropic medications should have a stop date. She stated it was missed on the order entry by the nurse. She also stated that the second check had not been done which would have caught the entry error.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to don gloves and a gown prior to entering an ente...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to don gloves and a gown prior to entering an enteric precaution room for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for isolation precautions (Resident #34). Findings included: Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her active diagnoses included anemia, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile (C-Diff). Resident #34's minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was assessed as severely cognitively impaired. She had no behaviors and required limited assistance with bed mobility. She required extensive one-person assistance with transfers as well as toileting and required supervision with setup support for eating. She was occasionally incontinent of urine and always incontinent of bowel. Resident #34's physician orders revealed on 3/2/22 she was ordered to be on isolation enteric precautions related to Clostridioides difficile. During observation on 4/18/22 at 1:07 PM Resident #34's room was observed to have a sign for enteric precautions and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at the door. The sign indicated staff were to wear a gown and gloves when entering and remove them before exiting the room. During observation on 4/18/22 at 1:13 PM Nurse Aide #3 was observed taking Resident #34 her lunch tray. The nurse aide did not don a gown or gloves, entered the room, and put the tray on the resident's bedside table. The nurse aide then moved the bedside table and adjusted its height. The nurse aide moved the resident's walker to the side of the resident's chair. She then moved the bedside table in front of the resident and set up the tray. The nurse aide used hand sanitizer and exited the room. During an interview on 4/18/22 at 1:14 PM Nurse Aide #3 stated when residents were on enteric precaution she was to wear a gown and gloves with any patient care. She concluded because she was touching items the resident would regularly touch, she should have gowned and gloved when providing the resident their meal tray. During an interview on 4/19/22 at 8:15 AM the Infection Control Nurse stated Resident #34 was on enteric precautions for C-Diff and receiving by mouth vancomycin until 4/28/22. She further stated if a staff member was providing meal tray the staff should don a gown and gloves. She further stated the resident had not had any symptomatic stool in a while however due to the enteric precaution the nurse aide should absolutely have had the gloves on when providing the meal tray and she would begin education. During an interview on 4/19/22 at 12:29 PM the Director of Nursing stated if any staff members went into Resident #34's room and were going to touch anything in the resident's room they were to don a gown and gloves for infection control due to enteric precautions in place for Resident #34.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide pest free environment for 2 of 15 resident r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide pest free environment for 2 of 15 resident rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) observed for pest control. Findings included: The pest control company's service reports were reviewed and revealed monthly treatments as well as multiple visits a month for cockroach activity with the last visit and treatment of rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] on 4-13-22. Remarks from the pest control company after each visit read no signs of cockroach activity. a. Observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4-20-22 at 10:25am with Nursing Assistant (NA) #5 revealed 3 live cockroaches climbing up the wall behind the resident's bed. The NA commented, I am sick of these things. They are everywhere. The Resident #45 also commented she sees cockroaches every day on her wall. During a second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4-21-22 at 8:38am with the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Director. The Maintenance Director was informed of the cockroaches seen on 4-20-22 and the resident also informed him that she saw the cockroaches daily on her wall. b. Observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] occurred on 4-18-22 at 10:50am. The observation revealed 5 small cockroaches and what appeared to be a cockroach egg located around the resident's nightstand. A second observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4-21-22 at 8:43am with the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Director. The Maintenance Director was informed of the findings of 5 small cockroaches and a cockroach egg located around the resident's nightstand. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 4-21-22 at 8:45am. He stated there had been an infestation of cockroaches in room [ROOM NUMBER] approximately 1.5 weeks ago and he was still working with the pest control company to eradicate the infestation. The Maintenance Director discussed purchasing glue traps to be placed throughout hall 300 to help stop the cockroaches spreading to other areas of the building however he stated he did not plan on placing the glue traps until the week of 4-25-22 due to other work he needed to complete. During an interview with the Administrator on 4-21-22 at 10:12am, the Administrator discussed the pest control company coming monthly to treat for cockroaches and the Maintenance Director was taking steps to help with the issue.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain walls, resident furniture and resident sink ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain walls, resident furniture and resident sink in good repair for 3 of 15 rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) observed for environment. Findings included: a. During an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4-18-22 at 10:40am, the observation revealed cracks in the wall by the heat/air wall unit exposing the dry wall and plaster. The resident's nightstand drawer handle was also observed to be hanging off the drawer. A second observation was made on 4-21-22 at 8:33am with the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Director. The observation revealed cracks in the wall by the heat/air wall unit exposing the dry wall and plaster. The resident's nightstand drawer handle was also observed to be hanging off the drawer. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 4-21-22 at 8:35am. The Maintenance Director stated he had not been made aware of the issues in room [ROOM NUMBER] but he would have them corrected. He explained staff could generate work orders in the computer as well as paper requests that were located at the nursing station. b. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 4-18-22 at 11:05am. The observation revealed the resident's sink had a strip of laminate that was pulled away from the edge of the sink. Also observed was a crack in the wall by the heat/air wall unit exposing the dry wall and plaster. During a second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4-21-22 at 8:38am with the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Director, the observation revealed the strip of laminate had been removed and was laying in the resident's sink leaving the particle board showing along the edge of the sink. Also observed was a crack in the wall by the heat/air wall unit exposing the dry wall and plaster. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 4-21-22 at 8:40am. He stated he was not made aware of the issues observed but would have them fixed. c. Observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] occurred on 4-18-22 at 10:50am. The observation revealed the resident's nightstand drawer handle was broken off. The resident who resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] stated she had been asking nursing staff for the handle to be replaced because she can not open her drawer. The resident explained the handle had been broken for several months. A second observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4-21-22 at 8:43am with the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Director. The observation revealed the resident's nightstand drawer handle was broken off. The Maintenance Director was interviewed on 4-21-22 at 8:45am. He stated he was not made aware of the issues observed but would have the nightstand replaced. During an interview with Nursing Assistant (NA) #5 on 4-20-22 at 2:50pm, the NA stated she was aware there were paper forms for maintenance request at the nursing station but said she was usually too busy to fill out a request During an interview with the Administrator on 4-21-22 at 10:12am, the Administrator stated the Maintenance Director was new and had been working on maintenance requests as he received them. She said she did not know why staff had not entered a request for the issues found during the survey but expected staff to report any maintenance issues they saw. She also explained the facility was changing to a computer-based system for maintenance requests, so all staff had access to report issues to Maintenance.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure person-centered comprehensive care plans for advance ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure person-centered comprehensive care plans for advance directives were developed in accordance with the resident's choice and the physician orders. This occurred for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #174 and Resident #1) reviewed for advance directives. Findings included: 1.Resident #174 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the physician order dated 2-11-22 revealed an order for Resident #174 to be a full code (attempt resuscitation). Resident #174's face sheet located in the facility's electronic medical record indicated the resident was a full code. Resident #174's care plan initiated on 2-11-22 completed by Nurse #1 revealed a problem area for advance directives indicating resuscitation would be attempted. The goal for the advance directive problem area provided conflicting information indicating, in part, if the resident's heart stops or the resident stops breathing resuscitation will not be initiated in honor of the do not resuscitate (DNR) wishes. The intervention for the goal was in part all staff were to be made aware of resident's wishes. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #174 was moderately cognitively impaired. On [DATE] MDS Nurse #1 completed a review of Resident #174's care plan related to the advance directive and no changes were made. During an interview with the facility's Social Worker (SW) on 6-7-22 at 12:58pm, the SW said she was responsible for making sure the resident's advance directive was on the face sheet and care plan. A further interview with the SW occurred on 6-7-22 at 3:21pm. The SW stated she audited Resident #174's advance directive care plan but she was unable to remember when this was completed. She said she made sure the advance directive was on the care plan and commented she saw the problem statement was present. She explained when she audited for the advance directives on a care plan, she did not read the goal or intervention section, she said she just read the problem area of the care plan. The SW said she was not aware the goals and interventions did not match the problem area or the physician order. Nurse #1 was interviewed on 6-7-22 at 3:26pm. The nurse stated she did not remember writing the advance directive care plan for Resident #174 and was unaware the goal and interventions did not match the problem area or the physician order. Nurse #1 commented Resident #174 could have died if she stopped breathing because of the care plan goal and interventions stating she was a DNR. The nurse confirmed Resident #174 was admitted as a full code and that there were no physician orders to change the code status. MDS Nurse #1 was interviewed on 6-7-22 at 3:47pm. MDS Nurse #1 indicated she or MDS Nurse #2 reviewed resident care plans to include the problem, goals and interventions. She stated the care plan goal and interventions not coinciding with resident's chosen full code status was an oversite when the advance diective care plan for Resident #174 was reviewed on 5-17-22. The Administrator was interviewed on 6-7-22 at 4:20pm. The Administrator discussed completing a full audit of all care plans once the issue with Resident #174's care plan was brought to their attention on 6-7-22. She said when the care plan was initiated on 2-11-22 and reviewed on 5-17-22 for Resident #174 to be a full code, there was not follow through to ensure the goals and interventions aligned with the resident's full code status. 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the physician order dated 4-26-22 revealed an order for Resident #1 to be a full code (attempt resuscitation). Resident #1's face sheet located in the facility's electronic medical record indicated the resident was a full code. Resident #1's care plan dated 4-27-22 completed by MDS Nurse #2 revealed a problem list to attempt resuscitation. The goals and interventions for the advance directive problem area providing conflicting information indicating, in part, if the resident's heart stops or the resident stops breathing resuscitation will not be initiated in honor of the do not resuscitate (DNR) wishes. The interventions for the goal were in part all staff were to be made aware of the resident's wishes. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. During an interview with the facility's Social Worker (SW) on 6-7-22 at 12:58pm, the SW said she was responsible for making sure the resident's advance directive was on the face sheet and care plan. A further interview with the SW occurred on 6-7-22 at 3:21pm. The SW stated she had audited Resident #1's advance directive but stated could not remember when she had completed the review. She discussed making sure the advance directive was on the care plan and commented she had seen the problem statement was on the care plan. She explained when she audited for the advance directives on the care plan, she did not read the goal or intervention section, she said she just read the problem area of the care plan. The SW said she was not aware the goals and interventions did not match the problem area or the physician order. MDS Nurse #1 was interviewed on 6-7-22 at 3:47pm. MDS Nurse #1 reviewed the care plan for Resident #1 and stated it was an oversite that the problem area did not match the goals and interventions or the physician order. An attempt was made to interview MDS Nurse #2, however she was not available. The Administrator was interviewed on 6-7-22 at 4:20pm. The Administrator discussed completing a full audit of all care plans once the issue with Resident #1's care plan was brought to their attention on 6-7-22. She said when the care plan was initiated on 4-27-22 for Resident #1 to be a full code, there was not follow through to ensure the goals and interventions aligned with the resident's full code status.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 34% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 8 harm violation(s), $200,097 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 48 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $200,097 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Pruitthealth-Neuse's CMS Rating?

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

How is Pruitthealth-Neuse Staffed?

CMS rates PruittHealth-Neuse's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pruitthealth-Neuse?

State health inspectors documented 48 deficiencies at PruittHealth-Neuse during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 8 that caused actual resident harm, 33 with potential for harm, and 6 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Pruitthealth-Neuse?

PruittHealth-Neuse is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PRUITTHEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 110 certified beds and approximately 91 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in New Bern, North Carolina.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, PruittHealth-Neuse's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pruitthealth-Neuse?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Pruitthealth-Neuse Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PruittHealth-Neuse has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Pruitthealth-Neuse Stick Around?

PruittHealth-Neuse has a staff turnover rate of 34%, which is about average for North Carolina nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Pruitthealth-Neuse Ever Fined?

PruittHealth-Neuse has been fined $200,097 across 5 penalty actions. This is 5.7x the North Carolina average of $35,080. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Pruitthealth-Neuse on Any Federal Watch List?

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