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 F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to complete a self-administration of...
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 complete a self-administration of medication assessment, obtain a physician's order, and care plan self- administration of medication before leaving medication at the resident's bedside. This was for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for self-administration of medication.
Findings included:
Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic pain.
A review of Resident #17's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed her vision was adequate. She was cognitively intact.
A review of Resident #17's current comprehensive care plan last revised 8/17/23 revealed she was not care planned to self-administer medication.
A review of Resident #17's medical record on 9/25/23 revealed no self-administration of medication assessment indicating Resident #17 would self-administer medication.
A review of Resident #17's medical record on 9/25/23 did not reveal any physician's order for Resident #17 to self-administer medication.
On 9/25/23 at 11:18 AM an observation of Resident #17 revealed an albuterol (medication to treat wheezing and shortness of breath) inhaler on her bedside table. An interview with Resident #17 at that time indicated she kept this inhaler at her bedside to use when she needed it. She stated she used it earlier today because the flowers in the room caused her some respiratory discomfort.
On 9/27/23 at 1:42 PM an observation of Resident #17 revealed her albuterol inhaler and a medication cup with 3 pills on her bedside table. An interview with Resident #17 at that time indicated the pills were her 2 acetaminophen (an anti-inflammatory pain medication) and her gabapentin (a medication that can treat pain). She stated the nurse left them with her earlier. She went on to say she had not taken them yet because she was cleaning out her nose.
On 9/27/23 at 1:49 PM Nurse #4 was interviewed. She indicated she was caring for Resident #17 that day and was familiar with her. She stated Resident #17 either kept her albuterol inhaler on the medication cart or at her bedside because she used it herself. She went on to say she left Resident #17's 2 acetaminophen tablets and gabapentin at her bedside earlier because Resident #17 had food in her mouth when she brought the pills to her. Nurse #4 stated she had not stayed to observe Resident #17 take this medication. She went on to say the process for resident's to self-administer medication was that a self-administration of medication assessment needed to be completed. Nurse #4 stated if the resident was appropriate to self-administer a physician's order needed to be obtained and then it would be placed on their care plan. She further indicated Resident #17 did not have any of this and she should not have left any medication at Resident #17's bedside.
On 9/27/23 at 2:04 PM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated there needed to be a self-administration of medication assessment completed to determine if a resident was appropriate to self-administer medication, a physician's order for the self-administration of medication, and then this needed to be included in the resident's care plan. She stated if these things were not completed, medication should not be left at the bedside.
On 9/29/23 at 10:22 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated if a resident requested to self-administer medication, an assessment needed to be done, a physician's order obtained, and then this needed to be placed on the resident's care plan.
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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
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 accommodate a resident's request t...
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 accommodate a resident's request to try the new type of television (TV) the facility had when he was no longer able to use the control buttons on his old TV to change the channels. This was for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #52) reviewed for the accommodation of needs.
Findings included:
Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis paralysis of all four limbs.
A review of his quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. He was dependent on 1 person for personal hygiene including combing hair, brushing teeth, and shaving. He had functional limitation in range of motion of both upper and lower extremities. He had no behaviors, delusions, or rejection of care.
A review of Resident #52's current comprehensive care plan last revised on 8/12/23 revealed a focus area for activities of daily living (ADL) decline related to paralysis of bilateral lower and right upper extremity. The goal was for Resident #52 to be assisted with all his ADL needs through the next review. An intervention was to provide assistive devices as needed.
On 9/25/23 at 3:31 PM an interview with Resident #52 indicated about 2 months ago he told the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Maintenance Director that he was no longer able to use the buttons on his TV set to change the channels. He stated his hands had gotten weaker since he was first admitted to the facility and while he had previously been able to change the channels on his television set, he no longer was. He stated the DON had told him she would look into this, but no one had gotten back to him. He stated he could use his laptop to keep himself occupied but it was frustrating that he had to watch the same channel on his TV. Resident #52's TV was observed to be fixed to a swinging arm attached to his bed. The control buttons on the lower aspect of the screen were observed to be small slightly raised pillow type. Resident #52 was observed to attempt to push these buttons to change the channel but was not able to successfully.
During an interview on 9/26/23 at 12:56 PM the Maintenance Director stated Resident #52 had complained about wanting a bigger newer TV because the buttons on his TV were hard to push. He stated he had gone in and tested the buttons on Resident #52's TV and they worked with barely even pushing them. He went on to say he had told Resident #52 that his TV was working as well as it should. The Maintenance Director stated Resident #52 had not been in his room when he tested the buttons on his television, and he had not heard anything about Resident #52's TV since then. He went on to say the facility had recently gotten newer bigger TV's that were touch screen rather than the push buttons like Resident #52 had.
In an interview on 9/26/23 at 1:28 PM the DON stated she recalled Resident #52 being in the front lobby and telling her he needed another TV. She stated she did not recall Resident #52 telling her why he needed a new TV and she had not asked him. She went on to say she reported to the Maintenance Director that Resident #52 needed a new TV after this discussion. She further indicated she had not followed up with Resident #52 to see if his TV issue had been resolved. The DON stated if Resident #52 had told her he couldn't use the old TV because the buttons were too hard to push, she would have immediately made sure he got a new TV. She stated the facility had recently gotten newer TVs that were a bit larger, and she had thought maybe Resident #52 had seen other residents getting new TVs and had wanted one too.
On 9/29/23 at 10:22 AM an interview with the Administrator indicated if the facility's new TVs enabled Resident #52 to change the channels, then he needed to be given a new TV.
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 staff interviews the facility failed to keep dependent residents' fingernails trimmed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to keep dependent residents' fingernails trimmed for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care (Resident #19).
Findings included:
Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His active diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, cerebral infarction due to embolism of left middle cerebral artery, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side.
Review of Resident #19's minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as severely cognitively impaired. He had no rejection of care. He required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on and off unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene.
Review of Resident #19's care plan dated 7/20/23 revealed Resident #19's was care planned for activities of daily living decline related to cerebrovascular accident and weakness. The interventions included to notify the physician of changes, physical therapy and occupational therapy to evaluate and treat, encourage resident to do as much as possible, and set up resident for activities of daily living. He was not care planned for refusal of fingernail care.
During observation on 9/25/23 at 10:44 AM Resident #19's ten fingernails on both hands were observed to be long.
During an interview on 9/25/23 at 10:44 AM Resident #19 nodded when asked if his fingernails were long and if he would like them to be cut.
During observation on 9/26/23 at 10:30 AM Resident #19's ten fingernails on both hands were observed to be long following his morning shower.
During an interview on 9/26/23 at 10:34 AM the Director of Nursing stated during morning care, nails were to be trimmed if they were long. Upon observing Resident #19's fingernails, the Director of Nursing stated Resident #19's fingernails should have been cut before now if he allowed. The Director of Nursing asked Resident #19 if he would like his fingernails to be cut and he nodded.
During an interview on 9/26/23 at 10:35 AM Nurse Aide #3 stated he noted Resident #19's nails were long but had not gotten to them today. He stated this was his first time working with the resident in a while. He stated the fingernails were very long and he did not know how long they had been that way. He concluded Resident #19 did allow him to complete nail care previously and indicated the resident would let staff clip his nails when the resident was ready.
During an interview on 9/26/23 at 10:40 AM Nurse #10 stated nurse aides were to report to nursing any refusals of nail care. She stated she was his regular nurse. The nurse concluded until today, no nurse aides had reported Resident #19's fingernails were long.
During a follow up interview on 9/26/23 at 11:37 AM the Director of Nursing stated if the resident had a pattern of rejection of care, it would be on his care plan. Because rejection of nail care was not care planned, Resident #19 did not have a pattern of rejection of nail care.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and wound care Physician interviews the facility failed to assess and receive Physician orders fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and wound care Physician interviews the facility failed to assess and receive Physician orders for a resident who had a wound to the back of her right leg. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #248) reviewed for wound care.
Findings included:
Resident #248 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included adult failure to thrive and wound to right posterior leg.
A review of Resident #248's hospital discharge record dated 7-6-23 revealed the resident was discharged with multiple decubitus ulcers on her legs and thigh. There were no treatment orders provided in the discharge summary.
An admission note written by Nurse #2 on 7-6-23 at 7:17pm documented Resident #248 arrived to the facility at 6:35pm on 7-6-23 from the hospital. The documentation included diagnoses but no mention of the resident's wound.
Nurse #2 was interviewed on 9-28-23 at 1:45pm. The nurse confirmed she had been assigned to Resident #248 when she was admitted on [DATE] and had worked from 7:00am to 7:00pm on 7-6-23. Nurse #2 explained she had not completed a full assessment of Resident #248 because the resident arrived after 6:00pm and stated the next shift would have been responsible for completing the admitting assessment. The nurse discussed when a resident was admitted to the facility with wounds, the admitting nurse would complete a skin assessment, remove any dressings over the wound, obtain measurements, and then re-dress the wound according to the facility's standing orders for wound care. She stated the admitting nurse would also notify the Wound Care Physician so the resident could be seen by the wound care team. Nurse #2 said she did not know why there had not been any orders written for four days or why there had not been any documentation of wound care being completed.
The facility's admitting observation report for Resident #248 was initiated on 7-6-23 at 10:09pm and was completed by the Director of Nursing (DON). The skin assessment section documented Resident #248 as having no alterations of her skin.
A nursing note dated 7-7-23 at 9:59pm written by Nurse #3 documented she changed Resident #248's dressing to her right outer thigh and placed a dry dressing over the large area. There was no documentation as to the size or description of the area.
There was no further documentation of Resident #248's wounds or dressing changes.
Resident #248's care plan dated 7-7-23 revealed the resident was at risk for pressure injury related to decrease mobility. The goal for Resident #248 was to have no new avoidable skin breakdown and no signs or symptoms of deterioration or infection. The interventions for the goal were to provide treatment as ordered, observe, and report any new skin breakdown, and assist with turning and repositioning.
A review of the Physician orders revealed on 7-10-23 there was an order received to clean the back of the right leg and buttocks with wound cleanser and apply a dry dressing three times a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday).
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #248 was cognitively intact with no behaviors. The resident required extensive assistance with two people for bed mobility, toileting, and personal hygiene. Resident #248 was documented as having one stage 2 pressure ulcer and 1 stage three pressure ulcer that were both present upon admission.
A review of the Physician orders revealed on 7-15-23 Resident #248's wound treatments changed to cleaning the right posterior thigh with soap and water, apply mupirocin (topical antibiotic ointment) ointment 2% then apply calcium alginate (wound dressing) and cover with a dry protective dressing three times a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday).
Review of Resident #248's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 7-6-23 through 7-30-23 revealed wound treatments began on 7-10-23 and continued until 7-29-23. Documentation also revealed there was no wound treatment missed from 7-10-23 through 7-29-23 and followed the Physician's orders.
Resident #248's medical record showed the Wound Care Physician first saw the resident on 7-20-23. The Physician documented at that time Resident #248's right posterior thigh wound measured 1.2 centimeters (CM) long, 8.5 CM wide, and 0.1 CM deep with moderate drainage. The note documented no signs or symptoms of infection.
The Wound Care Physician saw Resident #248 on 7-27-23 and documented the wound measurements as 1.5CM long, 6.5CM wide, and 0.1CM deep. The Physician described the wound as having moderate drainage with no odor.
On 8-3-23 Resident #248 was seen by the Wound Care Physician. The Physician measured the resident's wound as 0.5CM long, 4.0CM wide, and 0.1CM deep. The Physician documented the wound continued to have moderate drainage with no odor.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 9-28-23 at 3:49pm. The DON explained the process when a resident was admitted to the facility from the hospital. She stated the nurse should complete an admission assessment using the observation form which included a full skin assessment and body audit. The DON confirmed she had completed the admission assessment on Resident #248 on 7-6-23. She stated she had completed a full skin assessment on Resident #248 and said she did not remember seeing any skin impairments. The DON also said she had read the hospital discharge summary but did not remember seeing anything in the summary related to a wound on Resident #248. She stated if the hospital had not sent treatment orders for Resident #248's wound, it was the responsibility of the admitting nurse to obtain orders.
Nurse #1 was interviewed on 9-28-23 at 3:13pm. Nurse #1 discussed the admission process and stated if a resident was admitted with wounds or any skin impairment, that it should be documented in the admission assessment. She explained if the resident comes from the hospital with wounds, the hospital will typically send orders but if they did not, then it was the responsibility of the admitting nurse to obtain orders. The nurse confirmed she was assigned to Resident #248 on 7-8-23. She described the resident's skin as having excoriations and a wound to the posterior right thigh. Nurse #1 said there was not a dressing on Resident #248's right thigh but stated the resident told her it had fallen off during the night. The nurse said she had applied a dry dressing to Resident #248's posterior right thigh. The nurse stated she did not remember if there was an order for the dressing and said she had not documented applying the dressing because she forgot.
During an interview with the Wound Care Practitioner on 9-28-23 at 2:10pm, the Wound Care Practitioner stated she remembered Resident #248. She explained that she expected to be notified by the next visit of any new residents who had been admitted with wounds. The Wound Care Nurse Practitioner stated she did not know why the facility had waited four days to obtain orders or why Resident #248 had not been seen until 7-20-23. She also said since there had not been prior measurements or documentation of the wound, she could not say if the resident's wounds had become worse.
The Administrator was interviewed on 9-29-23 at 10:11am. The Administrator discussed that a skin assessment should be completed on all new admissions. She further stated if there was a discrepancy between the documentation of the skin assessment and what was present on the resident, then the facility would need to investigate why there was a discrepancy. The Administrator explained as soon as there was a skin impairment noted on a resident, the nurse should be contacting the Physician for orders. She stated she was unaware there was an issue with the skin assessment for Resident #248 and that she expected staff to document any changes in the resident's skin and document any wound care treatments being provided.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #397 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included Alzheimer's and non-Alzheimer's dementia.
The c...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #397 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included Alzheimer's and non-Alzheimer's dementia.
The care plan dated 12/02/2021 indicated Resident #397 was at risk for pressure injury. Interventions included conducting weekly skin checks by the nurse. The care plan was updated on 9/20/2022 to record pressure injuries to both the right and left heel that were dated resolved on 11/01/2022. There was no documentation on the care plan indicating the resident developed a sacral wound.
A review of the medical record from September 2022 through January 2023 revealed there was one documented skin focused observation/weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] and recorded a skin tear to the hand.
A review of nursing documentation from September 2022 to January 2023 in the electronic medical record did not record a pressure wound to the sacral area on Resident #397 nor record a right and left heel pressure wound since November 2022.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #397 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of one person for toileting and bed mobility. The MDS further indicated Resident #397 was a risk for developing a pressure ulcer but was not marked as having a pressure ulcer.
A wound care physician note dated 1/5/2023 reported an unavoidable unstageable pressure ulcer measuring 4 centimeters (cm) x 5.3cm x 0.4cm was present on the sacral area of the body. The wound care physician documented the sacral pressure wound had been present for less than one week. The sacral pressure wound was described as black and yellow in color with eighty-five percent of the tissue necrotic (dead tissue) and fifteen percent granulated (new connective tissue) with an odorless mild serous drainage from the wound. Treatment was provided and sharp debridement for the wound bed was planned after receiving consent from Resident #397's responsible party.
Physician orders for Resident #397 dated 1/6/2023 requested a consultation for sharp debridement by the wound care physician and a dietician consultation due to a non-stageable pressure area on the sacral area. Physician orders also included cleansing Resident #397's sacral area with a 0.25% diluted sodium hypochlorite solution moisten gauze, applying medical grade honey to the wound bed every day and covering with a dry dressing.
On 1/8/2023, the Physician ordered to clean the right and left heels with normal saline and apply a skin preparation every day.
Dietary notes dated 1/10/2023 reported Resident #397 was being followed by the wound care team for a sacral wound and a right and left heel deep tissue injury. The Dietician noted that due to Resident #397's decline in his oral intake and dehydration, Resident #397 had received intravenous fluids.
In an interview with Nurse #2 on 9/28/2023 at 12:43 p.m., she stated she was unable to recall Resident #397 having a sacral pressure wound. She explained residents were to receive weekly skin assessments. After reviewing Resident #397's chart, she stated she did not know why there were no weekly skin assessments or focused skin observations documented on Resident #397's electronic medical record.
In an interview with Nurse #1 on 9/28/2023 at 1:09 p.m., she stated while serving as the wound nurse from July 2022 to December 31,2022, she did not recall Resident #397 having a sacral pressure wound. She stated skin assessments were to be conducted weekly, and there were no weekly skin assessments or focused skin observations documented for Resident #397 in the electronic medical record. Nurse #1 had no explanation as to why the weekly skin assessments had not been conducted.
In a phone interview with Nurse #12 on 9/29/2023 at 12:13 p.m., she recalled Resident #397 developing blisters on the right and left foot that resolved with skin prep treatments and wearing protective boots. She stated Resident #397's weekly skin assessments would have been conducted on the second shift, and she didn't have an answer to why weekly skin assessments for Resident #397 were not conducted or documented. She explained prior to Resident #397 being moved to another unit on 12/26/2022, she did not recall Resident #397 having a sacral pressure wound.
In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/29/2023 at 10:48 a.m., she explained all residents were placed on weekly skin assessments as part of the standard of care to monitor skin changes. She stated Resident #397 had an order for skin audits written on 5/17/2022, and the nursing staff, who were responsible for performing weekly skin assessments, should have conducted and documented Resident #397's weekly skin assessments. She explained Resident #397's health declined, and a sacral pressure wound was identified on 1/5/2023. The Director of Nursing explained team members were assigned to monitor the performance of skin assessments weekly on the units and was unsure why Resident #397's weekly skin assessments not being completed had been missed except possibly the resignation of the team member. She stated in that case, she would have assumed responsibility of the monitoring of the skin assessments on the unit, and due to her workload, she was not able to complete the monitoring of skin assessments for Resident #397.
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to place skin protection under the bridge (a section of a wound vac system used to connect the dressing to the vac) of a wound vac (Resident #8) and failed to complete weekly skin audits (Resident #397) for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care.
Findings included:
1. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
Resident #8's minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as cognitively intact. He was assessed to reject care daily. He required supervision with bed mobility, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He was independent with transfers. Resident #8 had an indwelling catheter and was always continent of bowel. His active diagnosis included osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, neurogenic bladder, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, paraplegia, anxiety disorder, and pressure ulcer of the sacral region stage IV. He had one stage IV pressure ulcer which was present upon admission and had a pressure reducing device for his bed and chair, nutritional or hydration interventions, and pressure injury care.
Resident #8's care plan dated 6/6/23 revealed he was care planned to be at risk for pressure injury related to paraplegia, decrease mobility, diabetes mellitus, and current stage 4 pressure injury present upon admission with osteomyelitis. The interventions included to follow up with reconstructive surgery per recommendations, educate on risk/complications for refusing wound care, lab/x-rays as ordered, notify physician of abnormalities, medication and supplements as ordered to aide in wound healing, wound care services and follow up with recommendations as ordered, monitor wound for signs and symptoms of decline and infection, dietician consult as indicated, encourage treatments as ordered, and pressure reduction mattress is in place to bed and cushion to wheelchair.
Review of Resident #8's order dated 2/25/23 revealed there was an order to cleanse sacral wound with normal saline, pat dry, and apply wound vac every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Review of a physician's assistant note dated 2/27/23 revealed Resident #8 was seen by the physician's assistant due to a fall over the weekend and reports of rib pain. Resident #8 was found packing his bags in bed without difficulty. Resident #8 was concerned with his wound vac care as he felt it was not appropriate and that his wound was worse than when he got here. He requested an emergency room eval. Upon assessment, the physician's assistant documented Resident #8 had no fever, and his wound vac was intact. He was to continue by mouth antibiotic through 5/12/23 and continue with wound care and vac. Resident #8 was adamant about an emergency room visit for eval. The resident had a picture of his wound, and the wound had no acute concerns, but the physician's assistant documented they would send the resident to the emergency room per Resident #8's request.
Review of Nurse #1's note dated 2/27/23 revealed Resident #8's wound care treatment was initiated and a new wound to left hip was noted. Resident #8 requested the nursing supervisor. The Director of Nursing then went and spoke with Resident #8, and he stated his ribs hurt and needed an x-ray. The supervisor stated the facility could do that in the facility. Resident #8 then requested 911 to be called stating he wanted to go to the hospital. 911 was called.
Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed the physician documented Resident #8 had muscular tenderness to the left rib area without overlying signs of trauma and with a benign abdomen and no midline spinal tenderness. There was no worsening infection of his wound and Resident #8 was currently on antibiotics. The wound appeared to be healing well with no evidence of obvious cellulitis or malodorous purulent discharge appreciated although Resident #8 did have an area of concern to his wound. The area of concern was observed to have some redness to the lateral aspect of his wound where his wound vac was.
During an interview on 9/25/23 at 11:24 AM Resident #8 stated when he first came to the facility, a nurse changed his wound vac dressing and put it on wrong which resulted in discomfort and redness across his left thigh where the dressing connection ran across his skin from the wound to the wound vac. He concluded he did not know what was put on wrong or why it happened, just that a nurse later that week told him it had been placed incorrectly. He stated Nurse #1 who used to be the wound care nurse, would remember what happened.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 10:27 AM Nurse #1 stated when Resident #8 came to the facility she had just stepped down as the wound care nurse and had offered to help Resident #8's hall nurse with wounds on 2/24/23. That nurse stated she was okay because Nurse #8 was helping her with wounds. She stated then on 2/27/23 she did not have an assignment yet and was with Wound Care Nurse #1 when Resident #8 complained about his wound vac. She stated she observed the wound vac as they changed the dressings and saw that the bridge did not have Tegaderm protecting the skin. She stated the nurse applied the wound vac the way that it was supposed to be except the bridge. Because the wound was at the buttock and hip, it needed a bridge to go from the wound to the vac. The nurse did not put Tegaderm on the skin under the bridge to protect the skin from the wound vac suction. She stated he was upset at that point, and she asked if she could put it on correctly, but he refused and requested wet to dry dressing and did not let any staff put the wound vac back on. She could not remember if the physician's assistant observed the wound with the wound vac on or if the wound vac was not on him at the time of her assessment. She stated if the physician's assistant viewed the wound before the wound vac was removed, it would have been impossible to know there was not a clear layer of Tegaderm under the bridge as there was also a layer of Tegaderm placed over the dressing and bridge. The physician's assistant did round early and most likely saw the wound before she had removed the wound vac dressing as he had been requesting to go to the hospital that morning. The order for the wound vac was canceled due to the resident refusing to have the wound vac placed correctly. She stated when she removed the wound vac there was an abrasion to his skin approximately two inches long and a quarter inch wide where the wound vac bridge was from his left buttock to his left hip. This was the new area she documented in her note. She stated the wound nurse let the Director of Nursing know about the wound vac being placed incorrectly and about the abrasion to the resident's skin. The abrasion healed in a matter of days and his wound was healing and had reduced in size.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 11:33 AM the Director of Nursing stated that the previous Wound Care Nurse #1 came to her shortly after Resident #8 was admitted and informed her that Nurse #8 had placed the wound vac on Resident #8 incorrectly. She was told the dressing was put on without skin protection under the bridge to the vac which caused an abrasion to his left buttock and hip. She stated he was very upset when she went to the room to assess him, and Resident #8 did now allow her to assess the wound or replace the wound vac. He requested to be sent to the hospital which the facility complied with. When he returned, he refused to have staff change his wound vac dressing as ordered and was changed to a wet to dry dressing. The Director of Nursing stated Nurse #8 was educated about wound vac use but none of the other staff. She concluded there had not been any other wound vacs in the facility since then. She concluded the wound vac should have had skin protection under the bridge to the wound vac when applied in order to protect the skin from the suction of the vac.
During an interview on 9/28/23 at 11:43 AM Nurse #8 stated she remembered Resident #8 and that she was helping the nurse on that hall with wound care. She further stated she was unable to recall exactly how she placed the bridge to the wound vac or if Resident #8 required a bridge for his wound vac.
During an interview on 9/28/23 at 11:54 AM Wound Care Nurse #1 stated she was being trained by Nurse #1 and did not remember the dressing change on 2/27/23.
During an interview on 9/28/23 at 12:06 PM Physician's Assistant #1 stated she vaguely remembered the visit with Resident #8 on 2/27/23. She further stated he was adamant he wanted to go to the hospital that day due to his fall and that he believed his wound had worsened. She stated he had a picture of his wound from when the dressing had been replaced and she saw no concerns with the wound in his picture. She stated the wound vac was in place when she assessed him, and she told him to wait until wound care to remove the dressing in order to disrupt the site as little as possible. She stated she was not present during his dressing change and only visualized the wound with the dressing intact on 9/27/23.
During an interview on 9/28/23 at 2:16 PM Wound Care Nurse Practitioner #1 stated Resident #8 refused to allow her to visualize his wound, so she had not done any recent assessments. She further stated she was not involved or aware of any concerns with Resident #8's wound vac as he did not have it when she began providing care to him. She concluded if a bridge to a wound vac was left against a patient's skin for a long time, and no Tegaderm was placed under the bridge to protect the patient's skin, the pressure of the wound vac suction could cause the development of a pressure injury to the patient's skin under the bridge if it was not corrected.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 restorative services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed fo...
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 restorative services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for rehab and restorative (Resident #19).
Findings included:
Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His active diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, cerebral infarction due to embolism of left middle cerebral artery, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side.
Review of Resident #19's minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as severely cognitively impaired. He had no rejection of care. He required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on and off unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He did not receive any restorative services during the lookback period.
Review of Resident #19's occupational Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed occupational therapy was discontinued due to Resident #19's ceased progress and limited participation. He was discharged to the restorative nursing program for bilateral upper extremities range of motion while in the long-term care facility.
Review of Resident #19's care plan dated 7/20/23 revealed Resident #19 was care planned to require active and assistive range of motion to left upper left extremity up to 6 days per week. He also required passive range of motion to his right upper extremity up to 6 days per week. The interventions included to place Resident #19 in the restorative nursing program, complete gentle left upper extremity active / active assistive range of motion up to 6 days per week; with minimal visual and verbal cues, in each plane within normal range of motion up to 10 times to lift left upper extremity / reach with left upper extremity. Resident #19 was to tolerate gentle right upper extremity passive range of motion for 1 - 2 sets x 10 repetitions, up to 6 days per week, within range of motion as tolerated, with up to 90 degrees right shoulder flexion and within functional limits right elbow, wrist, and hand; follow patient facial expressions for tolerance.
Review of Resident #19's restorative history report revealed the last time he was offered and received restorative services was on 9/22/23.
During an interview on 9/26/23 at 2:40 PM Nurse Aide #1 stated she worked as a restorative aide. She further stated Resident #19 was to get restorative therapy 6 days a week and she provided him with the range of motion exercises on days she was able. She stated he would miss restorative therapy the days that they were short, and she would be pulled from restorative to work on the floor. She stated she would document on the chart the days she was able to provide restorative therapy and the days she was unable to provide restorative therapy would be blank as she did not chart on those days. If the resident refused, she would enter that it was refused and would not be blank. The blank days would be the days she did not do anything with restorative if she was pulled to work the floor. She stated the last time he had restorative was 9/22/23. She stated today she was put on an assignment, and he would not get restorative today. She stated due to the job being split between herself and Nurse Aide #2, it was difficult for her to know if restorative was or was not done for the resident when she was not here. The lookback option on her tablet only looked back to 9/24/23 and the last time the screen said he received restorative was 9/22/23 but she was unable to look back that far to see who did it or if he received it other days. She stated on the days she is assigned restorative; it is done.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 11:28 AM Nurse Aide #2 stated she had not been able to do restorative since August due to being pulled to the floor because of staffing. She further stated she had not been able to offer Resident #19 restorative this month and would not be able to offer it today to Resident #19 due to both her and the other restorative nurse aide being pulled to the floor.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 11:29 AM Nurse Aide #1 stated she and the other restorative aide were pulled to the floor that day and would not be able to offer restorative services to Resident #19.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 9:55 AM the Therapy Director stated she was familiar with Resident #19. She stated therapy's process when a resident was referred to restorative was to document the referral on the discharge summary and then enter the recommended restorative services on a template that went to the nurse over the restorative program. She further stated therapy's recommendation for restorative being offered to Resident #19 was 6 days a week. She concluded it was expected that restorative services would be offered at least six days out of the week to Resident #19.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 12:10 PM the Infection Preventionist stated she was the head of restorative. She stated the restorative program was currently facing some struggles in order to be consistent. She stated patient care came first and restorative is to help continue what residents had learned once they came off therapy. The biggest struggle the restorative program had been facing was the ability of her two staff to complete the restorative workload each week due to staffing. She stated when her two aides got pulled to work the floor, restorative was not completed. She stated in a perfect world the goal would be that Resident #19 would be offered restorative 6 days a week according to his restorative care plan. She stated they did not enter orders for restorative but had it on the care plan and in a workload sheet at the central nursing station which she updates as resident are added or discharged from restorative. She stated on 9/25/23 and 9/26/23 Nurse Aide #2 was off, and Nurse Aide #1 was pulled to work the floor. On 9/27/23 both aides were at the facility, but both were pulled to work the floor. She concluded Resident #19 was not offered restorative according to his restorative plan of care this week due to her restorative aides being pulled to work the hall instead of completing their restorative caseload.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 12:50 PM the Director of Nursing stated residents should be offered restorative according to the recommendations from therapy and the residents' plan of care.
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 and staff interviews the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to provide restorative services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for therapy and restorative (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to provide restorative services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for therapy and restorative (Resident #19).
Findings included:
This tag is cross referenced to:
Tag F688 - Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide restorative services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for rehab and restorative (Resident #19).
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 1:32 PM the Director of Nursing stated that providing care was the priority of the facility nurse aides. Nurse aides are education to provide range of motion exercises while in school. The Director of Nursing felt that there was not a staffing issue as there were enough staff to provide care and they could provide restorative services during that care. Due to this, she stated nurse aides needed to be educated as to which residents needed restorative services in order to complete the care with the current staffing levels.
During an interview on 9/28/23 at 9:08 AM the Administrator stated she felt there were enough staff to complete the restorative tasks for residents. She stated the nurse aides could be educated who was on the restorative case load and when restorative aides are unavailable or unable to complete the restorative task, the nurse aides on the floor would be able to complete restorative services for the residents during their activities of daily living care.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to secure medications for 1 of 2 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to secure medications for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #500) observed with medications at bedside and failed to keep unattended medications in a locked medication cart for 1 of 4 medication carts observed (600-hall medication cart).
Findings Included:
1. Resident #500 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included, in part, dementia.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #500 had severely impaired cognition.
The Self-Administration of Medication assessment, dated 9/12/23, indicated Resident #500 was not appropriate to self-administer any medication.
A review of the medical record revealed there was no order for Resident #500 to self-administer medication.
An observation of Resident #500's room was completed on 9/25/23 at 11:49 AM. The resident was alert and sitting at the foot of the bed. A medication cup that contained ten pills was on the overbed table next to the resident's bed. During an interview with Resident #500 on 9/25/23 at 11:53 AM, he stated sometimes staff dropped off his medications and left them on the table for him to take. He did not know what the medications in the cup were for, and thought the nurse brought them in while he was asleep sometime during the morning.
Nurse #7 was interviewed on 9/25/23 at 11:55 AM. She explained when she gave medication to a resident, she watched the resident swallow the medication before she left the room. She verified she was Resident #500's nurse and shared when she brought the medications to Resident #500 earlier, the resident had not wanted to take them, and she left them in his room for him to take when he was ready. She added she had just returned from his room where she checked his vital signs, and she noticed the cup of pills was still on his overbed table and she left them there for him to take.
On 9/25/23 at 12:11 PM an interview was conducted with Nurse #6. She was orienting Nurse #7 during the day shift and explained that medications were not to be left at a resident's bed side. She said staff were supposed to watch a resident swallow the medications before they left the room.
In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/27/23 at 11:41 AM, she stated if a resident self-administered medications there had to be a physician order and an assessment that indicated a resident was able to self-administer medication. If a resident was not able to self-administer medication, the nurse watched a resident swallow the medications before they left the room. The DON verified Resident #500 was assessed as not being able to safely self-administer medications. She said Nurse #7 was in orientation and was educated not to leave medications in a resident's room. She added, if Resident #500 refused medications, Nurse #7 should have removed the medications from his room and notified the provider.
2. During observation on 9/27/23 at 6:12 AM the 600-hall medication cart's lock was observed unlocked and unattended on the 600-hall, next to the nursing station. At 6:15 AM another nurse returned to the empty nursing station and was in view of the cart. At 6:15 AM Nurse #11 returned to the nursing station.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 6:16 AM Nurse #11 stated medication carts were to be locked when unattended. Upon observing her cart, she stated she must have left it unlocked after giving a pain medication to a resident and forgot to lock the cart prior to leaving the hall.
During an interview on 9/27/23 at 7:59 AM the Director of Nursing stated medication carts should be locked when unattended.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to have a complete and accurate medical record related to docume...
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 complete and accurate medical record related to documentation of a resident's wound. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #248) reviewed for wound care.
Findings included:
Resident #248 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included adult failure to thrive, wound to posterior right thigh.
A review of Resident #248's hospital discharge record dated 7-6-23 revealed the resident was discharged with multiple decubitus ulcers on her legs and thigh. There were no treatment orders provided in the discharge summary.
The facility's admitting observation report for Resident #248 was initiated on 7-6-23 at 10:09pm and was completed by the Director of Nursing (DON). The skin assessment section documented Resident #248 as having no alterations of her skin.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 9-28-23 at 3:49pm. The DON explained the process when a resident was admitted to the facility from the hospital. She stated the nurse should complete an admission assessment using the observation form which included a full skin assessment and body audit. The DON confirmed she had completed the admission assessment on Resident #248 on 7-6-23. She stated she had completed a full skin assessment on Resident #248 and had documented no skin impairment because she did not remember seeing any skin impairments. The DON also said she had read the hospital discharge summary but did not remember seeing anything in the summary related to a wound on Resident #248. She discussed not notifying the wound care Physician because she did not see any skin impairment on Resident #248 during her assessment.
Nurse #1 was interviewed on 9-28-23 at 3:13pm. Nurse #1 discussed the admission process and stated if a resident was admitted with wounds or any skin impairment, that it should be documented in the admission assessment. The nurse confirmed she was assigned to Resident #248 on 7-8-23. She described the resident's skin as having excoriations and a wound to the posterior right thigh. The nurse said she had applied a dry dressing to Resident #248's posterior right thigh. The nurse stated she had not documented applying the dressing or the condition of Resident #248's skin because she forgot.
The Administrator was interviewed on 9-29-23 at 10:11am. The Administrator discussed that a skin assessment should be completed on all new admissions and the finding documented in the resident's medical record. She stated she was unaware there was an issue with the skin assessment for Resident #248 and that she expected staff to document any changes in the resident's skin and document any wound care treatments being provided.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer the pneumococcal vaccine to 2 of 5 residents revi...
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 administer the pneumococcal vaccine to 2 of 5 residents reviewed for immunization (Resident #144 & #70).
Findings included:
The facility policy for Pneumococcal Vaccinations with the revised date of 10/26/22 read in part all residents who reside in this healthcare center are to receive the pneumococcal vaccine within the current CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines unless contraindicated by their physician or refused by the resident or resident's family.
1. Resident #144 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact.
Resident #144's vaccine information consent form signed by the resident dated 8/30/23 read in part that the resident would like to be offered the pneumococcal vaccine upon admission.
Review of Resident #144's immunization records on 9/27/23 revealed no documentation of the pneumococcal vaccine being administered or refused.
An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 9/27/23 at 10:10 AM revealed she had been in the position of the Infection Preventionist since March 2023. She stated she had not administered any pneumococcal vaccines since she had been in that position. She stated the process was to review all new admissions for pneumococcal consents, send the consent to the pharmacy and schedule the vaccine to be administered. She stated she had not been following this process but was unable to explain why not. She stated after the pharmacy received the consent that the vaccine should be delivered to the facility the same day or the next day. After that either she or the nurse on the unit could administer the vaccine.
An interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/27/23 at 3:16 PM revealed she was unaware that new admissions had not been receiving the pneumococcal vaccines and she did not know why.
An interview with the Administrator on 9/28/23 at 9:35 AM revealed she did not know why the Infection Control Nurse had not been administering the pneumococcal vaccines.
2. Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact.
Review of Resident #70's immunization records revealed on 9/27/23 no documentation of the pneumococcal vaccine being offered, administered, or refused.
An interview with the Infection Control Nurse on 9/27/23 at 10:10 AM revealed she had been in the position of the Infection Preventionist since March 2023. She stated she had not administered any pneumococcal vaccines since she had been in that position. She stated she could not locate any documentation that Resident #70 had been offered, administered, or refused the vaccine. She was unable to explain the lack of documentation. The Infection Control Nurse stated she had not reviewed any current residents' pneumococcal vaccine status to determine if they had been offered, administered, or refused and was unable to explain how come she had not.
An interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/27/23 at 3:16 PM revealed she was unaware that Resident #70 had no documentation to indicate whether she had been offered, administered, or refused the pneumococcal vaccine.
An interview with the Administrator on 9/28/23 at 9:35 AM revealed she did not know why the Infection Control Nurse had not been administering the pneumococcal vaccines.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, staff, and Responsible Party (RP) interviews the facility failed to obtain the resident's c...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, staff, and Responsible Party (RP) interviews the facility failed to obtain the resident's consent before depositing and withdrawing the resident's personal funds into and from his non-transferring personal funds account. This was for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #52) reviewed for personal funds.
Findings included:
Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs).
A review of Resident #52's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact.
A review of Resident #52's current Resident Fund Management Service authorization and agreement to handle resident funds dated 6/29/21 revealed Resident #52 provided his written consent for a non-transferring account (no-automatic transfer of deposits to pay for care costs). This consent was witnessed by the facility Regional Financial Counselor.
A review of Resident #52's personal check #480 dated 10/10/22 revealed it was made out to the facility in the amount of $1502.00.
A review of Resident #52's personal check #482 dated 11/12/22 revealed it was made out to the facility in the amount of $1502.00.
A review of Resident #52's Resident Landscape Statement from 10/3/22 to 9/25/23 for his facility personal funds account revealed in part the deposit of a personal check dated 10/14/23 in the amount of $1502.00 and a withdrawal on 10/18/22 of a care cost payment of $1498.00. It further revealed a deposit on 11/16/22 of a personal check in the amount of $1502.00 and a withdrawal on 1/24/23 of a care cost payment of $1470.90.
A review of Resident #52's Resident Landscape Statement from 10/3/22 to 9/25/23 for his facility personal funds account revealed in part the deposit on 5/30/23 of a Social Security Administration (SSA) insurance check in the amount of $709.20 and a deposit on 7/11/23 of a SSA insurance refund in the amount of $664.97. These were tax refund checks issued to the resident.
On 9/25/23 at 3:09 PM in interview Resident #52 stated he was still able to take care of his finances including his tax refunds himself and it was important for him to continue doing this. He went on to say he used the facility address as his mailing address because he was residing in the facility when he completed his tax refund forms. Resident #52 stated he was expecting 2 tax refund checks for the tax forms he completed, and he never received them. He went on to say this had worried him. He stated he had contacted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to report the missing checks and they put a trace on them. He went on to say he found out that the facility had opened his mail and cashed these checks without ever telling him and he filed a police report. He further indicated he had not given the facility permission to deposit these checks into his account.
On 9/26/23 at 8:21 AM a telephone interview with Resident #52's RP indicated Resident #52 did his own tax returns. She stated about a month ago the facility received Resident #52's tax refund checks, opened them, and never told him. She went on to say Resident #52 contacted the IRS and was told the checks had been sent to the facility and cashed. She further indicated she contacted Business Office Manager #1 and was told that the facility could re-issue Resident #52 a check from his facility account where these had been deposited. Resident #52's RP stated neither she nor Resident #52 had ever given the facility permission to deposit these checks or his care cost payment checks into his facility account or make any withdrawals from his facility account to pay for his care costs. She went on to say she had been aware of an account where she deposited small amounts of funds that Resident #52 used to pay for snacks and incidentals, but she paid Resident #52's care costs from Resident #52's outside personal checking account directly to the facility.
On 9/27/23 at 10:12 AM an interview with Business Office Manager #1 indicated she was aware of a recent incident where Resident #52 mentioned to her that he had been expecting some checks. She went on to say she received the mail that came to the facility from the postal carrier. She stated she told Resident #52 she possibly had opened these checks and deposited them into his facility account. She went on to say he told her she should not have done this. Business Office Manager #1 stated for residents who have accounts with the facility she would be on the look-out for federal checks which come in a very noticeable envelope. She went on to say even if these had a resident's name on them, she would open them and deposit them into their facility account. Business Office Manager #1 stated she had stopped doing this after Resident #52 complained to her. She further indicated this was just how she had always done things at facility's where she worked. She stated a non-transferring account like Resident #52 had meant that his facility account was not used to pay for his care costs. She went on to say Resident #52's RP had been bringing in his personal checks made out to the facility for this, and these would be deposited into a separate facility Operational Account that had nothing to do with the Resident #52's personal funds account. She further indicated the previous Business Office Manager #2 had deposited the checks made out to the facility for his care costs into his personal funds account and them withdrew the funds from there to pay for Resident #52's care costs.
On 9/27/23 at 3:21 PM a telephone interview with BOM #2 indicated a non-transferring account like Resident #52 had meant that the resident did not agree to have their SS or other things like retirement pensions direct deposited into their account and then automatically debited to pay for care costs. She stated when Resident #52's RP brought in the checks made out to the facility these were slightly over the amount needed to pay for his care costs, so she manually deposited them into his personal funds account and then manually debited the amount needed to pay his care costs leaving the extra in his personal funds account to pay for incidentals or snacks. She stated she had not wanted the facility to receive the extra or send the checks back to the RP to be redone. In a follow-up telephone interview on 9/27/23 at 4:21 PM BOM #2 stated she had not obtained a deposit or withdrawal slip for these transactions from Resident #52 or his RP or notified Resident #52 or his RP of these transactions other than what they would have seen on the quarterly statements.
On 9/27/23 at 4:05 PM a telephone interview with the Regional Financial Counselor indicated a non-transferring resident funds account like Resident #52 had agreed to meant that this account was basically a personal savings account for Resident #52. She stated this type of account would require a deposit or withdrawal slip signed by Resident #52 or his RP in order for the facility to make deposits or withdrawals.
On 9/28/23 at 9:53 AM in an interview the Administrator stated she did not really know the details of the types of accounts for resident fund management services the facility provided. She stated she would have to reach out to the Regional Financial Counselor and see what the facility policies were.
In a follow-up interview on 9/28/23 at 3:19 PM the Administrator stated the facility did not have any specific policy for resident funds accounts.
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, staff, and Responsible Party (RP) interviews the facility failed to deliver a residents per...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and resident, staff, and Responsible Party (RP) interviews the facility failed to deliver a residents personal mail unopened. This was for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for privacy of communication.
Findings included:
Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs).
A review of Resident #52's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact.
On 9/25/23 at 3:09 PM in interview Resident #52 stated he was still able to take care of his finances including his tax refunds himself and it was important for him to continue doing this. He went on to say he used the facility address as his mailing address because he was residing in the facility when he completed his tax refund forms. Resident #52 stated he was expecting 2 tax refund checks for the tax forms he completed, and he never received them. He went on to say this worried him. He stated he had contacted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to report the missing checks and they put a trace on them. He went on to say he found out that the facility had opened his mail and cashed these checks without ever telling him and he filed a police report.
On 9/26/23 at 8:21 AM a telephone interview with Resident #52's RP indicated Resident #52 did his own tax returns. She stated about a month ago the facility received Resident #52's tax refund checks, opened them, and never told him. She went on to say Resident #52 contacted the IRS and was told the checks had been sent to the facility and cashed. Resident #52's RP stated neither she nor Resident #52 had ever given the facility permission to open his mail.
On 9/27/23 at 10:12 AM an interview with Business Office Manager #1 indicated she was aware of a recent incident where Resident #52 mentioned to her that he had been expecting some checks. She went on to say she received the mail that came to the facility from the postal carrier. She stated she told Resident #52 she possibly had opened these checks and deposited them into his facility account. She went on to say he told her she should not have done this. Business Office Manager #1 stated for residents who have accounts with the facility she would be on the look-out for federal checks which come in a very noticeable envelope. She went on to say even if these had a resident's name on them, she would open them and deposit them into their facility account. Business Office Manager #1 stated she had stopped doing this after Resident #52 complained to her. She further indicated this was just how she had always done things at facility's where she worked.
On 9/28/23 at 9:53 AM in an interview the Administrator stated resident's mail should be delivered to them or their RP unopened.
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility's Smoke Free Policy dated 2014 stated fire igniting materials and smoking materials should not be kept in a resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility's Smoke Free Policy dated 2014 stated fire igniting materials and smoking materials should not be kept in a resident's possession. Resident's igniting smoking materials would be maintained at the nurse's station for safety of smokers. The policy also stated residents who were grandfathered-in would be assessed for risk and hazards prior to smoking in designated areas and shall be supervised as necessary based on the smoking observation form located in the electronic medical record. The smoking observation form was completed at least quarterly if questions indicated the resident smoked or had a history of smoking.
Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included multiple sclerosis (an unpredictable disease of the central nervous system that disrupts the flow of information within the brain, and between the brain and body).
Resident #12's care plan initiated on 03/17/2022 and reviewed on 9/26/2023 indicated Resident #12 was care planned as a smoker and was noncompliant with the facility's smoking policy. Interventions included re-education on the smoking policy.
Nursing documentation in Resident #12's medical record recorded the following incidents related to Resident #12 smoking:
-On 10/17/2022, a former Director of Nursing documented a vaporized smoking device (an electronic smoking device) was observed in Resident #12's room. Resident #12 was educated on the facility's smoking policy that included vaporized smoking devices and the vapor device was placed in a locked box on the 500-hall medication cart.
-On 10/24/2022, Nurse #12 recorded Resident #12 was informed he could not receive his vapor smoking materials until he was ready to be escorted outside by family or visitors and staff were not to escort Resident #12 off the facility property to smoke.
-On 11/26/2022, Nurse #12 recorded Resident #12 was reminded of the facility's non-smoking policy when an empty pack of cigarettes was observed on Resident #12's bedside table. Nurse #12 recorded Resident #12 denied having any other packs of cigarettes or a lighter.
-On 4/19/2023, Nurse #3 documented the interdisciplinary team meet on that day, and Resident #12 remained a smoker and would continue with Resident #12's plan of care.
-On 4/24/2023, Nurse #12 recorded Resident #12 had been outside to smoke and subsequently received a burn to right hand middle digit at the first knuckle area. Resident #12 reported the burn occurred about one week ago while trying to hold a cigarette in his hand and he did not report the incident to the staff. Nurse #12 documented observing healing blisters to the area with no redness or signs of infection. She recorded Resident #12 occasionally had difficulty with fine motor skills and manual dexterity due to multiple sclerosis disease process. She also recorded Resident #12 stated he required someone to place the cigarette to his lips and light his cigarette. Nurse #12 recorded Resident #12 was unable to extinguish a cigarette and could not swiftly swat away a lit cigarette if dropped on himself. She documented Resident #12 required someone to propel him off the property to smoke. Nurse #12 recorded a smoking assessment was completed.
A smoking observation assessment dated [DATE] completed by Nurse #12 indicated Resident #12 was unable to hold, light and extinguish his own cigarette and was unable to independently move to and from designated smoking areas. The smoking observation further indicated Resident #12 had a medical diagnosis that make unsupervised smoking a danger for Resident #12 and was a supervised smoker.
On 9/29/2023 at 12:20 p.m. in a phone interview with Nurse #12, she stated Resident #12 was a smoker, and facility's staff were aware Resident #12 went outside off the facility property to smoke. She explained smoking assessment were not conducted regularly because it was a non-smoking facility, and she conducted the smoke observation dated 4/24/2023 based on his disease process for multiple sclerosis and did not actually observe Resident #12 smoking for the assessment. She stated Resident #12 could safely smoke at times depending on how his multiple sclerosis was affecting him. She said nursing staff would assist Resident #12 to the front for coffee, but not the smoking area that was off the facility property. She explained visitors took him outside to smoke, and there was a plastic box in the medication room for residents who went off facility premises to smoke to lock up smoking materials. She stated she was unsure when Resident #12 obtained new smoking materials that were to be locked up when not in use.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #12 was cognitively intact, required one person assistance with transfers off the unit and required supervision of one person assistance with eating.
Further review of nursing documentation in Resident #12's medical record regarding smoking included:
-On 8/10/2023, Nurse #12 recorded Resident #12 continued to go outside the facility on the sidewalk off the facility's property to smoke and she was unable to secure smoking materials.
-On 9/21/2023, Nursing #12 documented staff or other residents assisted Resident #12 outside to sit on sidewalk and smoke.
On 9/25/2023 at 11:41 a.m. during an interview with Resident #12, Resident #12 was observed removing a blue lighter and a pack of cigarettes from a black pouch laying in Resident #12's lap. Resident #12 stated the facility knew he smoked, and he smoked off the facility's property on the sidewalk at the highway. He explained friends or other residents helped him to the sidewalk because he was not able to wheel himself in the wheelchair to the sidewalk.
On 9/26/2023 at 2:30 p.m., a visitor was observed pushing Resident #12 up an elevated sidewalk from the facility's patio to the sidewalk alongside the highway, the visitor re-entered the facility leaving Resident #12 outside.
On 9/26/2023 at 2:33 p.m., Resident #12 was observed sitting upright in his wheelchair and removing a cigarette and lighter from the black pouch in his lap. Resident #12 used his right hand to place the cigarette between his lips and used both hands to hold the lighter to ignite the cigarette. Holding the cigarette between the second and third right hand fingers, Resident #12 was observed moving the cigarette from his lips to outside the right side of his wheelchair and discarding ashes onto the concrete sidewalk. Resident #12 stated he discarded the cigarette butt into the highway, and old cigarette butts were observed along the edge of the highway, as well as, on a grass area between the sidewalk and highway. Resident #12's clothing was observed with no burnt areas.
On 9/26/2023 at 2:40 p.m. in an interview with the Administration after requesting the smoking policy, she stated the facility was a smoke-free facility, and residents were not allowed to have smoking materials (lighters and cigarettes) in the rooms. The Administrator was informed Resident #12 was observed with a blue lighter and pack of cigarettes in a black pouch in his room.
In a follow up interview with the Administrator on 9/28/2023 at 3:45 p.m., the Administrator stated there were no resident's grandfathered-in smokers at the facility. She stated residents' smoking materials should be locked up at the nurse's station, and Resident #12 was to obtain and return smoking materials to the nurse's station after going off the facility's property to smoke for safety concerns.
On 9/28/2023 at 4:11p.m. in an interview with Nurse #13, Resident #12's assigned nurse on 9/28/2023, she stated she was not aware Resident #12 was a smoker and was not aware he had smoking materials in his room. She explained if smoking materials were in Resident #12's room, the smoking items needed to be obtained and given to the Director of Nursing.
On 9/28/2023 at 4:22p.m. in an interview with Nurse #1, she stated she had observed Resident #12 date unknown smoking outside along the highway sidewalk when leaving the facility at the end of her shift. She explained when residents had smoking materials in their possession, she asked the resident for the smoking materials, and they were locked up in the medication cart until the resident was discharged . She stated she could not say Resident #12's smoking materials were locked in the medication cart.
On 9/28/2023 at 4:26 p.m. in an interview with Nurse #14, he stated Resident #12 did not have any smoking materials locked inside the medication cart. He explained the facility was a smoke-free facility, Resident #12 was not to have smoking materials in his room, and there was no place to lock Resident #12's smoking materials.
On 9/28/2023 at 6:26 p.m. in a phone interview with Nurse Aide #4, she explained she only assisted Resident #12 to the front of the facility, and Resident #12 got other residents or visitors to assist him to the sidewalk off the facility's property to smoke. She stated nursing staff stored resident's smoking materials and she had not seen any smoking materials in his room.
On 9/29/2023 at 09:48 a.m. in an interview with Resident #12, he stated the Director of Nursing retrieved his smoking materials on the evening of 9/28/2023. He said the facility staff knew he went outside to smoke and how not asked him for his smoking materials.
On 9/29/2023 at 11:00 a.m. in an interview with the Director of Nursing, she stated she was aware that Resident #12 was a smoker and was informed on 9/28/2023 of Resident #12 having smoking materials in his room. She said Resident #12 was cooperative in turning in his smoking materials when approached on 9/28/2023 and the smoking materials had been locked up on the medication cart labeled with his name. She explained Resident #12 will need to request the smoking materials prior to going outside off the property to smoke. She further stated Resident #12 had increased his ability to self-propel his wheelchair to the front of the facility to exit outside and was not dependent on the nursing staff. She explained the facility was a non-smoking facility and Resident #12 independently exited the facility or with family to smoke off the property. She stated the one smoking assessment conducted on 4/24/2023 was performed after obtaining vaporized smoking materials from Resident #12 and not conducted routinely because the facility was a non-smoking facility.
On 9/29/2023 at 12:57p.m. in an interview with the Administrator, she explained Resident #12 was aware of the facility's smoking policy. She stated the facility did not know how Resident #12 was receiving his smoking materials, and Resident #12 continued to have smoking materials in his room without informing the facility. She explained Resident #12 had been re-educated on the smoking policy and smoking materials had been gathered at this time.
Based on record review, resident, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to supervise 1 of 1 resident (Resident #117) to prevent resident-resident altercations with other residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents and the non-smoking facility failed to complete smoking assessments for a resident that smoked, failed to provide supervision when a resident smoked and failed to ensure a resident did not possess smoking materials for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #12).
The findings included:
1. Resident #117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and schizophrenia.
His quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as having a significant cognitive impairment with no behaviors.
a. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. He passed away at the facility on 5/6/23.
His quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had a significant cognitive impairment with no behaviors.
Review of a facility incident report dated 11/7/22 written by the Administrator revealed on 10/31/22 Resident #117 had a verbal and physical altercation with Resident #90. Resident #117 was noted to self-propel his wheelchair up to Resident #90, point his finger in Resident #90's face resulting in a verbal argument and residents swinging arms at each other.
An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 9/27/23 at 3:30 PM who stated the facility incident report was based upon the information provided by staff during the investigation. She indicated she did not witness the incident.
Attempts to interview Resident #117 were not successful.
An interview with Nurse #1 was conducted on 9/26/23 at 4:18 PM. She reported the incident occurred in the living area adjoining the nurse's station. Nurse #1 stated she witnessed the incident. Resident #90 was sitting in his wheelchair and Resident #117 passed by him in his wheelchair. She stated the wheelchairs locked. Nurse #1 stated she believed Resident #117 either kicked or punched Resident #90. She reported she was unsure of the details and could not remember the incident clearly. Nurse #1 stated it happened very quickly and she did not have time to react. She stated she reported the incident to Resident #117's nurse but was unable to recall the nurse's name.
During an interview with Nurse #1 on 9/27/23 at 9:30 AM she stated Resident #90 had a scratch on his face after the incident. She stated he did not have it prior to the incident. Nurse #1 reported Resident #90 did not have any changes in behavior or express any concerns after the incident.
An interview was conducted with Transporter #1 on 9/29/23 at 10:29 AM. She stated she witnessed Resident #117 rolled his wheelchair over to Resident #90 and struck Resident #90. Transporter #1 stated she could not remember any additional details.
Attempts to contact NA #4 who witnessed the incident were unsuccessful.
b. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and sepsis.
His admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as having a moderate cognitive impairment with no behaviors.
Review of a nursing progress note dated 11/5/22 written by Nurse #10 revealed Resident #117 was found in his roommate's legs, Resident #67, attempting to pull him from his bed. Resident #117 also threatened to kill Resident #67. After being reassured the incident would be handled Resident #117 released Resident #67.
An interview was conducted with Nurse #10 on 9/26/23 at 3:43 PM. She reported she observed Resident #117's attempt to remove Resident #67 from his bed. Nurse #10 reported Resident #117 will react to changes in his normal routine by escalating his behavior and will strike other residents. Nurse #10 stated she has learned his triggers. She stated she can redirect him by offering a snack or removing him from the area. She reported Resident #67 had no change in behaviors or emotions after the incident.
Nurse #10 further stated she is very familiar with Resident #117 and is his assigned nurse.
Record review revealed Resident #67 was moved from the room on 11/5/22.
Resident #117 was placed on one-to one supervision from 11/5/22-11/13/22.
An interview was attempted with Resident #67 on 9/27/23 at 1:17 PM and he did not recall the incident.
Attempts to contact Nurse Aide #5 who witnessed the incident were not successful.
c. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and diabetes mellitus.
Resident #29's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was assessed as having severe cognitive impairment with no behaviors.
Review of a nursing progress note written by Nurse #15 dated 12/10/22 revealed Resident # 117 struck Resident #29 in the face.
An interview was conducted with Nurse #15 on 9/29/23 at 10:30 AM who stated she based her note on what she was told by staff. She was unable to recall who gave her the information. Nurse #15 stated she did not observe any psychosocial changes in Resident #29, and she did not express any concerns related to the incident.
Review of a facility interview of Nurse #12 revealed Resident #29 was calling out in the dayroom which appeared to frustrate Resident #117. She stated she attempted to separate the residents but Resident #117 struck Resident #29 before she could intervene.
Attempts to contact Nurse #12 were not successful.
d. Resident #11was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia and epilepsy.
Resident #11's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed he was assessed as having moderate cognitive impairment with no behaviors.
Review of a facility investigation dated 2/25/23 revealed Resident #11 reported to staff he was struck in the face by Resident #117. No staff witnessed the incident. The facility investigation revealed no changes in behavior or any expressions of concern after the incident.
Attempts to interview Resident #11 were not successful.
An interview was conducted with Resident #56 on 9/28/23 at 2:00 PM. He stated he witnessed the incident on 2/25/23 because it occurred outside his room door. Resident #56 stated the residents were arguing and he witnessed Resident #117 strike Resident #11 on the shoulder. He further reported he overheard Resident #117 tell Resident #11 he was going to hit him, and Resident #11 needed to go get him some coffee.
Attempts to interview Nurse #8, the assigned nurse on the hall on 2/25/23 were not successful.
An interview was conducted with Nurse #10 on 9/26/23 at 3:43 PM. She reported she is very familiar with Resident #117 and she is his assigned nurse. Nurse #10 reported Resident #117 will react to changes in his normal routine by escalating his behavior and will strike other residents. Nurse #10 stated she has learned his triggers such as loud noises and changes in his routine. She stated she can redirect him by offering a snack or removing him from the area.
An interview was conducted with Physician #1 on 9/27/23 at 3:00 PM who stated Resident #117 is stable at this point because his current medication regimen is effective.
An interview was conducted with the Administrator and Corporate Consultant on 9/28/23 at 9:00 AM. The Administrator stated Resident #117 had not had any incidents since February 2023 and staff have done a good job managing his behavior. She reported he was admitted in July 2022 and they worked to develop a behavior management plan for him.
Review of an undated behavior management plan read in part, facility staff have learned to look at his face and monitor his mood. They have determined if he is staring and glaring, they know to redirect him and move him away from other residents, as well as keep him in a public area for staff to monitor him.
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide breakfast meal tra...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide breakfast meal trays at a regular scheduled mealtimes comparable to normal breakfast mealtimes in the community for 3 of 8 halls (100, 200 and 300 Halls).
Findings included:
A meal schedule was provided on 9/25/2023. Meal delivery times were recorded scheduled in 15-mnute intervals for the seven different halls (Memory unit, 700, 600, 500, 400, 300, 200, and 100-hall) between the following times:
· Breakfast - 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM
1. On 9/27/2023 at 9:10 a.m., breakfast meal trays were observed not served to residents on the 100-hall and 200-hall
On 9/27/2023 at 9:15 a.m., the Dietary Supervisor was observed working on the serving line and stated breakfast meals trays were delayed due to a call out in the dietary department that morning. She stated all halls except for the 100-hall and 200-hall had received their breakfast meal trays, and the dietary staff were currently working on preparing the 200-hall breakfast meal trays.
On 9/27/2023 at 9:40 a.m., the 100-hall residents, the last hall scheduled to receive breakfast meal trays from the kitchen, received and were served their breakfast meal trays.
a.Resident #56 was admitted to the facility 7/8/2022, and diagnoses included diabetes mellitus and end stage renal disease.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #56 was cognitively intact.
On 9/28/2023 at 9:24 a.m. in an interview, Resident #56 explained he was a dialysis patient, and on 9/27/2023, he almost missed his breakfast meal tray because the breakfast meal trays were late to the 100-hall. He stated he was able to eat before going to dialysis, but he got his breakfast meal tray after 9:30 a.m. and left the facility for dialysis at 10:00 a.m.
On 9/27/2023 at 1:40 p.m., the 100-hall residents, the last hall scheduled to receive lunch meal trays from the kitchen, received and were served their lunch meal trays.
2. On 9/28/2023 at 8:49 a.m., breakfast meal trays were observed delivered to the 300-hall.
a. Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included diabetes mellitus.
The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #110 was cognitively intact.
On 9/28/2023 at 8:44 a.m. in an interview, Resident #100 stated she was hungry and was waiting to receive her breakfast meal tray. She explained sometimes it was 10:30 a.m. before they received the breakfast meal trays. She stated she had not eaten anything since dinner meal trays on 9/27/2023 but had received an energy drank that she drank as much as she could, but not all of it.
The 300-hall was scheduled to receive breakfast meal trays at 8:00 a.m., and the facility had evening snacks available for residents if requested.
b. Resident # 70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included diabetes mellitus and end stage renal disease.
The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #70 was cognitively intact.
On 9/28/2023 at 8:50 a.m. in an interview, Resident #70 stated she had not eaten anything between supper last night and breakfast this morning, and she was hungry.
On 9/28/2023 at 8:52 a.m., nursing staff were observed serving breakfast meal trays to the residents on 300-hall.
c. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and diagnoses included diabetes mellitus.
The admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #5 was severely cognitively impaired.
On 9/28/2023 at 8:42 a.m., Resident #5 was observed sitting outside her room on the 200-hall. She stated she had not been served a breakfast meal tray, and she was hungry. She stated she didn't like to eat breakfast after 9:00 a.m. and preferred eating breakfast after getting up around 7:30 a.m. She said she had eaten a small Baby [NAME] candy bar this morning. Resident #5 was observed receiving her breakfast tray at 9:13 a.m.
On 9/28/2023 at 9:02 a.m., breakfast meal trays were observed delivered to the 200-hall.
On 9/28/2023 at 9:04 a.m., nursing staff were observed serving residents breakfast meal trays to the residents on
200-hall.
d. Resident #306 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
The MDS assessment was not complete.
On 9/28/2023 at 9:19 a.m., Resident #306's breakfast meal tray was observed left on the meal cart due to Resident #306 was in the physical therapy department.
On 9/28/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Resident #306 was observed sitting in wheelchair in her room eating her breakfast. She stated she received her breakfast meal tray after returning from physical therapy about fifteen minutes ago, and the food was still warm. She stated she usually ate breakfast before physical therapy and breakfast meal trays usually were served after 9:00 a.m. She stated dinner meal trays were delivered at 6:30 p.m. on 9/27/2023, and she ate a small snack she had in her room prior to going to bed.
On 9/28/2023 at 9:17 a.m., breakfast meal trays were observed delivered to 100-hall residents.
e. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility 7/8/2022, and diagnoses included diabetes mellitus and end stage renal disease.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #56 was cognitively intact.
On 9/28/2023 at 9:24 a.m. Resident #56 stated breakfast meal trays were always late. Sometimes it may be 9:45 a.m. before breakfast meal trays arrive.
In an interview with the Registered Dietician on 9/28/2023 at 9:23 a.m., she stated she did not know why the breakfast meal trays were not out on the halls as scheduled because the serving line was fully staffed to prepare the breakfast meal trays.
In an interview on 9/28/2023 at 9:30 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor, she explained the preparation of the English muffins served for breakfast caused the delay beyond the scheduled mealtime for the delivery of breakfast meal trays for the 300-hall, 200-hall and 100-hall residents. She explained English muffins, waffles and pancakes were prepared as needed instead of batching, so the food items were served soft and warm. Therefore, slowing down the serving line.
In an interview with the Dietary Manager on 9/28/2023 at 3:05 p.m., she explained she tried to have five dietary staff scheduled daily for each shift (6a.m.-2p.m. and 12p.m. to 8p.m.) to prepare and serve meals to the residents and stated currently she had one dietary staff position opening for the evening shift that she had not been able to fill. She stated residents receiving late meal trays was not an ongoing problem. She explained to keep meals delivered on a regular scheduled time each day, she helped in the kitchen to cover call outs as needed, and the maintenance staff helped deliver prepared meal tray carts to the different halls each mealtime so dietary staff stayed in the kitchen preparing meal trays. She stated although the dietary supervisor and herself were helping to prepare and served breakfast meal trays on 9/27/2023, they were not able to catch up the hour of time the kitchen was behind in preparing and delivering breakfast meal trays at 7:00 a.m. when she arrived at the facility. She stated the kitchen did not maintain a log of the time when meal trays left the kitchen for delivery to the different halls. She also said she would need change the preparation of English muffins, waffles and pancakes, so all residents received breakfast meal trays at a regular scheduled mealtime.
In an interview with the Administrator on 9/29/2023 at 12:49 p.m., she stated she was not aware of any concerns related to late meal trays for the residents. She explained the facility had enough dietary staff to prepare and deliver meal trays as scheduled, and the dietary manager was to follow the attendance policy and hold dietary staff accountable. She stated the residents' meals should be served based on the dietary schedule.
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, record review and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interview 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 complaint surveys of 2/10/21and 10/27/21. The deficiencies were in the areas of ADL Care Provided for Dependent Residents (677), Quality of Care (684), Free of Accident Hazards/ Supervision/Devices (689), Sufficient Nursing Staff (725), Resident Records-Identifiable Information (842), Increase/Prevent Decrease in ROM/Mobility (688) and Free from Abuse and Neglect (600). 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:
The tag is cross-referenced to:
F677: Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to keep dependent residents' fingernails trimmed for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care (Resident #19).
During the complaint survey of 10/27/21, the facility was cited for failing to provide grooming and hygiene needs.
F684: Based on record review, staff, and wound care Physician interviews the facility failed to assess and receive Physician orders for a resident who had a wound to the back of her right leg. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #248) reviewed for wound care.
During the complaint survey of 10/27/21, the facility was cited for failing to obtain laboratory values and intravenous/ subcutaneous fluids for a resident experiencing end of life changes; failed to obtain wound cultures and sensitivity prior to administration of antibiotics; and failed to obtain vancomycin troughs as ordered.
F689: Based on record review, resident, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to supervise 1 of 1 resident (Resident #117) to prevent resident-resident altercations with other residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents and the non-smoking facility failed to complete smoking assessments for a resident that smoked, failed to provide supervision when a resident smoked and failed to ensure a resident did not possess smoking materials for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #12).
During the complaint survey of 10/27/21, the facility was cited for failing to reassess alternative measures for siderails when the resident developed a bruise and was noted by staff to lean into the siderails and at times be combative.
F725: Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to provide restorative services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for therapy and restorative (Resident #19).
During the recertification and complaint survey of 10/27/21, the facility was cited for failing to provide sufficient staff to provide for the hygiene needs.
F842: Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to have a complete and accurate medical record related to documentation of a resident's wound. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #248) reviewed for wound care.
During the complaint survey of 10/27/21, the facility was cited for failing to accurately document the administration of narcotic medication and intravenous fluid administration.
F688: Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide restorative services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for rehab and restorative (Resident #19).
During the complaint survey of 2/10/21, the facility was cited for failing to provide palm guards and restorative services.
An interview with the Administrator was conducted on 9/29/23 at 2:34 PM. She reported the facility attempted to correct any on-going issues that were identified. The Administrator further stated the facility had some turnover in administrative staff which may have contributed to the repeated citations. She reported she was not sure how the Quality Assurance Committee operated prior to her arriving at the facility. The Administrator reported that the committee met monthly and they looked at trends to identify issues. She further stated employees were encouraged to discuss issues of concern.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the a...
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 the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the areas of Pre-admission Screening Resident Review (PASRR), contraindication of a gradual dose reduction of antipsychotic medication, antibiotic use, anticoagulant use, and sedative/hypnotic use for 3 of 51 resident MDS assessments reviewed (Residents #11, #70, and #44).
Findings included:
1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia.
a. Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed his PASSR Level II Determination dated 6/13/20 (no expiration date).
Review of Resident #11's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he did not have a level II PASSR.
b. A pharmacy review dated 7/5/23 revealed a signed contraindication for a gradual dose reduction of Risperdal, an antipsychotic medication for Resident #11.
Review of Resident #11's August Medication Administration Record revealed he received an antipsychotic medication every day of the 7-day lookback period of the assessment.
His most recent MDS assessment, a quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed no contraindication of a gradual dosage reduction of an antipsychotic medication.
During an interview with the Director of MDS on 9/28/23 at 3:51 PM she stated a temporary staff member assisted with MDS assessments and miscoded Resident #11's PASSR level on his annual MDS dated [DATE]. She further stated the failure to code the contraindication of a gradual dosage reduction of Resident #11's antipsychotic medication was an error.
An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 9/29/23 at 2:30 PM and she stated MDS assessments for Resident #11 should have been coded accurately.
2. Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension and diabetes mellitus.
Resident #70's most recent MDS assessment dated [DATE], a quarterly indicated she received antibiotic medication 7 days of the 7-day lookback period.
Review of Resident #70's Medication Administration Record revealed no antibiotic medication administered during the 7-day lookback period.
An interview with the Director of MDS was conducted on 9/28/23 at 3:51 PM. She stated Resident #70's MDS assessment was coded in error. She reported the staff member who completed the assessment was on medical leave and she would complete education with the staff member upon her return.
An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 9/29/23 at 2:30 PM and she stated MDS assessment for Resident #70 should have been coded accurately to reflect her use of antibiotic medications.
2. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, in part, congestive heart failure and depression.
The physician orders were reviewed for June and July 2023 which revealed no order for an anti-coagulant (blood thinner) medication. An order dated 6/19/23 for Zolpidem (a sedative-hypnotic medication used to treat insomnia), 10 milligrams, one tablet at bedtime was noted.
The Medication Administration Record for 6/30/23-7/6/23 was reviewed and revealed Resident #44 received Zolpidem each bedtime, and no anticoagulant medication was documented as administered.
The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 received an anti-coagulant medication daily, and no hypnotic medication was noted as received during the look back period.
On 9/28/23 at 9:53 AM, an interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #1. She verified she completed the medication section of the 7/6/23 MDS assessment. She explained she coded medications by their drug classification. MDS Nurse #1 reviewed the physician orders that were in effect during the MDS look back period and stated Resident #44 received aspirin, which she considered a blood thinner, but added she knew it was not classified as an anti-coagulant medication. She confirmed the coding was an error. She reported Resident #44 was not on any other medication that was classified as an anti-coagulant. MDS Nurse #1 said the Zolpidem was classified as a sedative/hypnotic medication and acknowledged it was not coded correctly on the MDS, and stated, I missed it.
During an interview with the Corporate Consultant on 9/28/23 at 1:25 PM, she shared the facility had provided a significant amount of training over the past couple of months due to upcoming coding instructions with the MDS process. She acknowledged that MDS Nurse #1 was new to the position and said she had mistakenly coded aspirin as an anti-coagulant and missed the coding of the Zolpidem as a hypnotic/sedative on the MDS assessment.
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to post the daily staffing sheet and post daily staffing census from May 2023 through September 2023 for 80 of 153 days reviewed for dai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to post the daily staffing sheet and post daily staffing census from May 2023 through September 2023 for 80 of 153 days reviewed for daily posted staffing.
Findings included:
A review of the daily posted staffing forms from May 2023 through September 2023 revealed no available posted staffing sheets and/or census information on the following days.
- May 2023: There was no daily staff posting for 5-1-23, 5-2-23, 5-3-23, 5-4-23, 5-5-23, 5-6-23, 5-7-23, 5-8-23, 5-9-23, 5-10-23, 5-13-23, 5-15-23, 5-22-23, 5-27-23, 5-28-23, and 5-29-23. On 5-25-23 there was no census documented on the daily posted staffing sheet.
- June 2023: There was no daily staff posting for 6-3-23, 6-4-23, 6-5-23, 6-10-23, 6-11-23, 6-13-23, 6-17-23, 6-18-23, 6-20-23, 6-24-23, 6-25-23, and 6-29-23.
- July 2023: There was no daily staff posting for 7-1-23, 7-2-23, 7-3-23, 7-4-23, 7-5-23, 7-6-23, 7-7-23, 7-8-23, 7-9-23, 7-10-23, 7-11-23, 7-12-23, 7-13-23, 7-15-23, 7-16-23, 7-17-23, 7-18-23, 7-20-23, and 7-26-23. On the following days there was no documentation of the census. 7-22-23, 7-23-23, 7-25-23, and 7-28-23.
- August 2023: There was no daily staff posting for 8-3-23, 8-5-23, 8-9-23, 8-17-23, 8-18-23, 8-19-23, 8-20-23, 8-21-23, 8-23-23, 8-24-23, and 8-28-23. On the following days there was no documentation of the census. 8-2-23, 8-4-23, 8-7-23, 8-10-23, 8-11-23, and 8-12-23.
- September 2023: There was no daily staff posting for 9-2-23, 9-3-23, 9-9-23, and 9-19-23. On the following days there was no documentation of the census. 9-15-23, 9-16-23, 9-17-23, 9-18-23, and 9-20-23.
The Scheduler was interviewed on 9-27-23 at 8:42am. The Scheduler discussed being new to the role of Scheduler and said she started on 9-1-23. The scheduler explained she and the Director of Nursing (DON) were responsible for the daily posted staffing sheets. She stated she fills out the daily posted staffing sheet and then reviewed the sheet with the DON for accuracy. The Scheduler explained on Fridays she would complete the daily posted staffing sheet for the weekend and place the sheets behind the already posted Friday sheet. She confirmed she had training on how to complete the daily posted staffing sheet and was aware the sheets needed to have the facility census present. She also stated there was no one to complete the daily posted staffing if she was not working. The Scheduler was able to discuss the daily posted staffing was missing on 9-19-23 because she had come to work late that day and was unable to get the sheet completed. She also discussed the facility census missing on the September daily posted staffing sheets by stating she was confused on what the census was and had forgotten to go back and fill in the census when she confirmed the number.
The previous Scheduler was unable to be reached for an interview.
During an interview with the DON on 9-27-23 at 9:39am, the DON explained the daily posted staffing sheets were checked daily by her and the Administrator for accuracy. She stated she does not know why there are so many missing daily posted staffing sheets and was unaware the sheets were missing the census information. She also stated she or the Assistant DON would be responsible for completing the daily posted staffing sheets if the scheduler was not present. The DON discussed expecting the daily posted staffing sheets to be completed every day with complete and accurate information.
The Administrator was interviewed on 9-29-23 at 10:18am. The Administrator discussed the staff coordinator being responsible for checking the daily posted staffing sheets each day and said if the staffing coordinator was not present then the Assistant DON or the DON would be responsible for assuring the daily posted staffing sheets were completed. The Administrator explained on 9-28-23 she had identified an issue with the daily posted staffing being completed and that she had put a new process in place. She stated she would expect the daily posted staffing to be filled in completely and posted daily.