Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center

7166 Jordon Road, Ramseur, NC 27316 (336) 824-8828
For profit - Corporation 90 Beds YAD HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#379 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: August 2025

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

Overview

Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns regarding the quality of care provided, which is the lowest rating possible. They rank #379 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina, placing them in the bottom half, and #6 out of 6 in Randolph County, meaning there are no better local options available. Although the facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 11 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, there are still serious concerns highlighted, including critical incidents involving sexual abuse allegations and unsafe transfers that led to a resident sustaining a fracture. Staffing appears to be a weakness, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 and concerning RN coverage that is less than 89% of state facilities, although the turnover rate is notably low at 0%. Additionally, the facility has incurred $124,225 in fines, which is higher than 91% of North Carolina facilities, indicating potential compliance issues.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In North Carolina
#379/417
Bottom 10%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$124,225 in fines. Higher than 87% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 16 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $124,225

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: YAD HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Aug 2025 3 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the Physician when a STAT (immediately...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Physician interviews, the facility failed to notify the Physician when a STAT (immediately or urgently) x-ray was not completed as ordered for a resident that had right hip pain after a fall on 2/22/25. The order for the x-ray was called to the mobile x-ray provider the evening of 2/22/25. The nurse assigned to the resident on 2/23/25 contacted the mobile x-ray provider to follow up about the STAT x-ray order around 5:00 PM but did not notify the Physician the STAT x-ray had not been completed. Another nurse contacted the mobile x-ray provider on 2/24/25 and the x-ray was completed that afternoon and noted Resident #90 had a displaced right femoral neck fracture (a break in the upper part of the femur [thigh bone],near the hip joint, where broken bone fragments have moved out of their normal alignment). The lack of notification resulted in a delay of an evaluation at the hospital for stabilization or surgery for the fracture until 2/24/25. The deficient practice occurred for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for notification of changes (Resident #90).Findings included:Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, hypertension and protein calorie malnutrition.Resident #90's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated revealed he had cognitive impairment.A review of Resident #90's fall report dated 02/22/25 read in part, Resident was ambulating unassisted and lost his balance and fell landing on their right side, range of motion completed and movement of extremities without difficulty. The report read further Resident complained of (c/o) right hip pain.A review of Nurse #1's progress note dated 02/22/25 read in part, Nurse Practitioner (NP) notified at 10:24pm. Received new order for x-ray 2 view right hip STAT x-ray order through mobile company at 10:30pm.On 07/30/25 at 1:39 pm an interview was conducted with Nurse #1 (worked 7p-7a on 02/22/25) and she indicated Resident #90 had a fall on 02/22/25 that was witnessed. She indicated, Resident complained by moaning of right hip pain, however he was able to move all extremities without difficulty, and when she called the NP, she received an order to do a STAT x-ray of right hip. Nurse #1 stated, I did report off to oncoming nurse of fall, pain in his hip, and not getting the x-ray, and called the x-ray company with the order. Nurse #1 indicated the portable/mobile x-ray company did not come during her shift. A review of Nurse #2's progress noted dated 02/23/25 read in part, Resident status post (S/P) fall with no injures, c/o right hip area pain, awaiting on portable x-ray for 2 view x-rays of right hip area, in bed resting with eyes closed, respirations even with no distress noted, continue to monitor.An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 (worked 7a-7p shift on 02/23/25) on 07/29/25 at 3:28 pm. Nurse #2 indicated the 3rd shift nurse had called the portable/mobile x-ray company on the night of 02/22/25. She indicated she had contacted the portable/mobile company for the x-ray on 02/23/24 around 5 pm because they had not arrived and the representative that she spoke with stated the dispatcher would call her back to give the time they would arrive to perform the x-ray. Nurse #2 reported she was not aware the order for the x-ray was STAT and did not receive a return call from the portable/mobile x-ray company. Nurse #2 indicated she did not notify the Physician/NP that the STAT order had not been performed as she was waiting for a return call from the dispatcher from the portable/mobile company. A review of Nurse #3's progress note dated 02/24/25 read in part. Resident has been in bed this am resting, and staff went to get him out of bed (OOB) he grimaced with pain. The writer spoke with portable/mobile about stat x-ray, and they stated it depends on quality and severity of STAT x-ray, and they will continue to reschedule. She informed me of estimated time of arrival (ETA) time today is between 1-3 pm. Resident was administered acetaminophen for pain and discomfort. Staff will continue to monitor.A review of the radiology results report dated 02/24/25 revealed findings as follows: fracture of the right femoral neck (right hip bone) with displacement of the distal fragment. Femoral head appropriately positioned Conclusion: acute, displaced right femoral neck fracture as noted.On 07/30/25 at 1:07 pm an interview was conducted with Nurse #3 (worked 02/24/25 7a-7p shift) and she indicated Resident #90's x-ray had not been performed and she called the portable/mobile x-ray company to see why it had not been done. She stated the x-ray representative she spoke with indicated they would be out that day to perform the x-ray. Nurse #3 indicated the portable/mobile x-ray company arrived around 2:30 pm and performed the x-ray and it was revealed Resident had a fracture to his right hip. She stated she called and informed the Nurse Practitioner and received orders to send Resident out to the hospital due to the x-ray results. Nurse #3 stated she also informed the Residents' responsible party of x-ray results and the order to send him to the hospital.An interview was conducted with a Representative from the portable/mobile x-ray company on 07/31/25 at 9:54 am and she indicated the turn around time for a STAT x-ray was 4 to 6 hours from the time the order was received and the x-ray technician was on site. The Representative indicated a x-ray technician was unable to get in the door of facility early in the morning on 02/23/25 due to it being locked and no one answered the phone when the x-ray technician called the facility. She indicated they implemented a protocol to use back up numbers to reach facility staff if unable to get into the facility.An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/20/25 at 1:26 pm and she indicated on 02/24/25 she was informed Resident #90 had a fall on 02/22/25 and had orders for an x-ray to be performed due to right hip pain. She stated she was informed by Nurse #3 the x-ray had not been performed, and they would be coming out that day to do the x-ray. The DON indicated the NP was in the facility and evaluated the Resident and according to the NP the Resident wasn't in any distress at the present time and did not present with any pain when she evaluated him and that it would be ok to wait for the portable/mobile x-ray to come. She stated the protocol now was anybody that had a fall with pain would be sent to the hospital. The DON also stated she called the portable/mobile company and spoke with the director, and a plan was implemented going forward.An interview was conducted with the Physician on 07/3/25 at 9:01 am and he indicated the NP evaluated Resident #90 on 02/24/25 and he was not experiencing pain at that time. The Physician indicated the staff provided the appropriate care for the Resident. He stated, He had chronic diseases, osteoporosis, which is a bone disease that could cause problem with fractures. The physician indicated communication would have been good as far as the x-ray not being performed STAT. He stated, in my opinion it was no delay in care, I was ok with the care the staff provided.The facility provided the following corrective action plan:1. Adress how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice.On 2/24/2025 facility identified that a Stat X-Ray for Resident #90 was not completed, and the facility failed to notify the physician/nurse practitioner of delay in X-Ray services. The facility failed to notify the MD/NP of delay in X-Ray services until 2/24/2025. Resident #90 discharged from the facility on 2/24/25. 2. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice.All residents with falls have the potential to be affected. Per policy all residents that fall require MD/NP notification: On 2/24/2025 all nursing staff, including Certified Nursing Assistants and Licensed Nurses that had been scheduled on 2/22/2025 from 7pm-7am were interviewed, by the Director of Nursing, concerning any changes in condition for residents during the shift needing provider notifications or updates of previously identified changes of condition to the provider. No concerns beyond Resident #1 were identified. On 2/24/2025 the Director of Nursing reviewed the 24-hour reports/Progress notes for the last 30 days for all current residents with falls to ensure the physician/nurse practitioner were notified of all falls and notified of any delay in obtaining X Rays. No concerns were identified. 3. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur.On 2/24/2025 the Director of Nursing educated the Licensed Nurses, including agency Licensed Nurses on falls management program, process change for stat x-ray orders, including sending residents to the Emergency Department if needing a stat x-ray/change in condition/pain after a fall, notification of physician/nurse practitioner for any falls, delay in treatment/services from outside vendors. This education was completed on 2/25/2025. Any nursing staff that were not educated will receive this education prior to their next shift, from the Director of Nursing. This education will be added to the facility orientation program for licensed nurses, including new agency staff and will be the responsibility of the Director of Nursing/Assistant Director of Nursing or Nurse Manager.4. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. Quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) committee met on 02/25/2025 to determine need for monitoring.Beginning 2/26/2025 The Director of Nursing/Designee will review the 24-hour report 5 times a week, including all 7 days of the week, for 12 weeks to ensure provider notification of changes in condition and ensure the provider receives updates if diagnostic/laboratory testing had not been obtained per order.Beginning 3/1/2025 on the weekends, the charge nurse was assigned to contact the Director of Nursing or On-call nursing manager that includes the unit manager, Assistant Director of Nursing and Wound Care Nurse in addition to notifying the provider of any delays in X-Ray Services, diagnostic or laboratory testing.Beginning 2/28/2025, the Director of Nursing, Administrator, Nurse Practitioner and Medical Director will have weekly meetings to ensure that the providers have been updated timely. Alleged date of compliance: 2/26/25. An onsite validation of the facility's Corrective Action Plan was completed on 7/31/25. Reviewed education dated 2/24/25 through 2/25/25 of Licensed Nurses on falls management program, process change for stat x-ray orders, including sending residents to the emergency department if needing a stat x-ray/change in condition/pain after a fall, notification of physician/nurse practitioner for any falls, delay in treatment/services from outside vendors. Reviewed Inservice sign-in sheets with staff signage with dates of 2/24/25 through 2/25/25 and staff were found to be trained. Reviewed audit sheets for weeks 1-12 with dates 2/24/25 through 5/16/25 and no concerns were identified. Resident #90 was discharged to hospital on 2/22/25. Reviewed notification for 3 sampled residents and no concerns were identified. Staff interviewed were able to verbalize education training provided in reference to residents with process change for stat x-ray orders, including sending residents to the emergency department if needing a stat x-ray/change in condition/pain after a fall, notification of physician/nurse practitioner for any falls, delay in treatment/services from outside vendors.The corrective action plan's compliance date of 2/26/25 was validated.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff and Physician interviews, the facility failed to provide immediate medical evalua...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff and Physician interviews, the facility failed to provide immediate medical evaluation and treatment when Resident #90 fell and complained of right hip pain on 2/22/25. Nurse #1 notified the Nurse Practitioner and received an order for a STAT (immediately or urgently) of the right hip on 2/22/25. The x-ray was not completed until 2/24/25 and the results revealed a displaced right femoral neck fracture (a break in the upper part of the femur [thigh bone], near the hip joint, where the broken bone fragments have moved out of their normal alignment). In addition, nurses failed to document thorough ongoing assessments of the resident's condition and staff continued to turn and reposition the resident in the bed which was painful for the resident. Resident #90 was sent to the hospital for an evaluation on 2/24/25 and x-rays confirmed the displaced right femoral neck fracture. Initially the Orthopedic surgeon considered operating on Resident #90 but then further evaluating determined Resident #90 was a very high risk for surgery and would not do well postoperatively due to his significantly worsening dementia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, and already having frequent falls. After having long conversation with the family member hospice was consulted and Resident #90 was transferred to hospice services from the hospital on 2/27/25. The deficient practice occurred for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for falls (Resident #90). Findings included:Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, hypertension and protein calorie malnutrition.Resident #90's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated revealed he had severe cognitive impairment and needed partial/moderate assistance with eating, substantial/maximum assistance with toileting hygiene assistance, shower/bath, personal hygiene, substantial/maximum assistance to dependent assistance with transfers, dependent with walking, and supervision/touching assistance with bed mobility. A review of Resident #90's care plan last revised 02/20/25 revealed Resident was at risk for falls. The goal was Resident would be free from falls and free of minor injuries. The Interventions read in part, Resident would be kept in areas of observation while awake, anticipate and meet the Resident's needs, prompt response to requests for assistance, nonskid strips to be applied to left side of bed on floor, keep bed in lowest position, staff to offer toileting assistance during periods of restlessness, offer toileting prior to meals and bedtime, ensure proper footwear (nonskid socks/shoes) in place while awake, anti-rollbacks to wheelchair, bariatric bed with bolster, dycem (non-slip material) to wheelchair, provide diversional activities during periods of restlessness. A review of Resident #90's fall report dated 02/22/25 read in part, Resident was ambulating unassisted and lost his balance and fell landing on their right side, range of motion completed and movement of extremities without difficulty. The report read further residents complained of (c/o) right hip pain. A review of Nurse #1's progress note dated 02/22/25 at 10:40 pm read in part, Resident noted on the floor laying on his right side at 10:00pm. Fall was witnessed. Resident was noted ambulating unassisted and lost his balance and fell landing on his right side. The Resident did not hit his head. The Resident assisted off the floor x 2 staff. Resident c/o right hip pain. Temperature 97.3, respiration 18, blood pressure 144/94, pulse 60, oxygen saturation 94% on room air. Resident assisted to bed x 2 staff. As needed (PRN) acetaminophen administered 325 milligrams (mg) x 2 tablets administered for pain. Nurse Practitioner notified at 10:24pm. Received new order for X-ray 2 view right hip STAT. X-ray order through mobile company at 10:30 pm. Resident responsible party notified at 10:35 pm. No signs or symptoms (s/s) of acute distress noted. Will continue to monitor. Call light within reach. A review of Nurse #1's progress note dated 02/23/2025 at 4:58 am read in part, Resident status post (s/p) witnessed fall. No pain or discomfort. No apparent injuries noted. Able to move all extremities without any difficulty. Will continue to monitor.On 07/30/25 at 1:39 pm an interview was conducted with Nurse #1 (worked 7:00 pm to 7:00 am on 02/22/25) and she indicated Resident #90 had a fall on 02/22/25 that was witnessed. She indicated, Resident complained by moaning of right hip pain, however he was able to move all extremities without difficulty, and she administered acetaminophen as ordered for the pain in right hip after the fall. Nurse #1 indicated she called the NP and received an order to do a STAT x-ray of right hip. Nurse #1 stated, I did report off to oncoming nurse of fall, pain in his hip, and not getting the x-ray, and called the x-ray company with the order. Nurse #1 indicated the portable/mobile x-ray company did not come during her shift. Unable to contact Nursing Assistant #3 (NA) (worked 02/22/25 7p-7a).A review of the electronic medication administration record (EMAR) revealed Resident #90 received acetaminophen tablet 325 mg 2 tablets by mouth for s/s of pain/discomfort to right hip/leg on 2/23/2025 at 8:10 am.A review of Nurse #2's progress noted dated 02/23/25 at 10:13 am read in part, Resident status post (s/p) fall with no injuries, c/o right hip area pain, awaiting on portable x-ray for 2 view x-rays of right hip area, in bed resting with eyes closed, respirations even with no distress noted, continue to monitor.A review of the EMAR revealed Resident #90 received acetaminophen tablet 325 mg 2 tablets by mouth for mild pain: s/s of pain to right hip/leg on 02/23/25 at 5:30 pm.An interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant #1 (NA) (worked 02/23/25 7a-7pm) on 07/30/25 at 10:16 am. She indicated she provided activities of daily living (ADL) care with Nurse #2 on Resident #90 and he exhibited some pain during movement. She indicated Resident stayed in bed and rested quietly during the shift. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 (worked 7:00 am to 7:00 pm shift on 02/23/25) on 07/29/25 at 3:28 pm. She indicated Resident #90 exhibited pain only when he was moved in bed and she administered pain medication as ordered. She stated he was able to move his extremities and there was no bruising, rotation or shortening of right leg. Nurse #2 indicated the 3rd shift nurse had called the x-ray company on the night of 02/22/25. She indicated she had contacted the portable/mobile company for the x-ray around 5:00 pm because they had not arrived and the representative that she spoke with stated the dispatcher would call her back to give time they would arrive to perform the x-ray. Nurse #2 stated she was not aware that the order for the x-ray was STAT. Nurse #2 indicated Resident did not get out of bed during the shift. A review of the EMAR revealed Resident #90 received acetaminophen tablet 325 mg by mouth for mild pain on 02/24/25 at 6:38 am.A review of Nurse #3's progress note dated 02/24/25 at 1:17 pm read in part, Resident has been in bed this am resting, and staff went to get him out of bed (OOB) he grimaced with pain. The writer spoke with portable/mobile about stat x-ray, and they stated it depends on quality and severity of STAT x-ray, and they will continue to reschedule. She informed me of estimated time of arrival (ETA) time today is between 1:00 and 3:00 pm. Resident was administered acetaminophen for pain and discomfort. Staff will continue to monitor. A review of the EMAR revealed Resident #90 received acetaminophen tablet 325 mg 2 tablets by mouth for mild pain noted for grimacing upon movement on 02/24/25 at 1:24 pm.An interview was conducted with NA #2 (worked 7:00 am to 7:00 pm on 02/24/25) on 07/30/25 at 10:42 am. She indicated she as assigned to Resident #90 on 2/24/25 and when she provided ADL care to the resident he exhibited pain in his right leg when she would turned him. NA # indicated Resident would moan when turned and repositioned. She indicated she did not attempt to get the Resident out of bed because they were waiting for the x-ray company to come to x-ray his right leg due to the fall on 02/22/25.On 07/30/25 at 1:07 pm an interview was conducted with Nurse #3 (worked 02/24/25 on the 7:00 am to 7:00 pm shift) and she indicated she had assessed Resident # 90, and he did not appear to be in pain except during movement of his right leg. She stated Resident #90's x-ray had not been performed and she called the portable/mobile x-ray company to see why it had not been done. She stated the x-ray representative she spoke with indicated they would be out to perform the x-ray that day between 1:00 and 3:00 pm. Nurse #3 indicated the portable/mobile x-ray company arrived around 2:30 pm and performed the x-ray and it was revealed Resident had a fracture of his right hip. She stated she called and informed the Nurse Practitioner and received orders to send Resident out to the hospital due to the x-ray results. Nurse #3 stated she also informed the Residents' responsible party of x-ray results and the order to send him to the hospital. Nurse #3 indicated Resident did not get out of bed during the shift until he transferred to the hospital.A review of the Nurse Practitioner note dated 02/24/25 read in part, Resident seen for recent fall with injury. He was saw ambulating in the hallway when he fell and landed on his right side. He did not hit his heard. x-ray of the right hip was ordered 02/22/25. Comorbidities: hypertension (HTN), dementia, physical deconditioning. Resident was sitting comfortably in no acute distress. Due to impaired cognition, resident is unreliable historian; information obtained through chart review and discussion of clinical staff. No complaints of pain or discomfort. No chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, cough. No other cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU) signs or symptoms. Normal appetite, sleep, bowel and bladder functions. Musculoskeletal: no joint deformity, swelling, redness, pain, muscle weakness.Unable to contact Nurse Practitioner due to family medical leave.A review of the radiology results report dated 02/24/25 revealed findings as follows: fracture of the right femoral neck (right hip bone) with displacement of the distal fragment. Femoral head appropriately positioned. Conclusion: acute, displaced right femoral neck fracture as noted. A review of the emergency department (ED) report dated 02/24/25 read in part, Patient sent from rehabilitation facility with concerns for a broken hip. Patient slipped and fell landing on the right side, 2 days ago, since then he has not been bearing weight. Today the facility x-rayed and claimed the hip is broken. Patient has advanced dementia and provides no history. Further review of ED report read in part, Exam of extremities: internal rotation of the right hip with noted deformity in the right foot, leg shortened on right side, calves are non-tender to palpation. A review of hospital history and physical dated 02/24/25 read in part, Physical exam of musculoskeletal (muscles, bones, tendons, ligaments, joints, and cartilage): right hip painful to movement. Further review of hospital report read in part, Assessment and Plan (A/P): closed acute right hip fracture (a bone break with skin intact) from mechanical fall. Orthopedic surgery consulted, initially Orthopedic was thinking of operating on patient but then further evaluating the case it was felt patient is very high risk for surgery and will not do well postoperatively due to his significantly worsening dementia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, already having frequent falls. After having long conversation with family member hospice consulted.An interview was conducted with a Representative from the portable/mobile x-ray company on 07/31/25 at 9:54 am and she indicated the turn around time for a STAT x-ray was 4 to 6 hours from the time the order was received and the x-ray technician was on site. The Representative indicated a x-ray technician was unable to get in the door of facility early in the morning on 02/23/25 due to it being locked and no one answered the phone when the x-ray technician called the facility. She indicated they implemented a protocol to use back up numbers to reach facility staff if unable to get into the facility.An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/31/25 at 1:26 pm and she indicated on 02/24/25 she was informed Resident #90 had a fall on 02/22/25 and had orders for a x-ray to be performed due to right hip pain. She stated she was informed by Nurse #3 the x-ray had not been performed, and they would be coming out on that day to do the x-ray. The DON indicated the NP was in the facility and evaluated the Resident and according to the NP the Resident wasn't in any distress at the present time and did not present with any pain when she evaluated him and that it would be ok to wait for the portable/mobile x-ray to come. She stated the protocol now was anybody that had a fall with pain would be sent to the hospital. The DON also stated she called the portable/mobile company and spoke with the director, and a plan was implemented going forward.An interview was conducted with the Physician on 07/31/25 at 9:01 am and he indicated the NP evaluated Resident #90 on 02/24/25 and he was not experiencing pain at that time. The Physician indicated the staff provided the appropriate care for the Resident. He stated, He had chronic diseases, osteoporosis, which is a bone disease that could cause problem with fractures. He stated, communication would have been good as far as the x-ray not being performed STAT. The Physician also stated, in my opinion it was no delay in care, I was ok with the care the staff provided. The facility provided a corrective action plan that was not approved due to not including audits or monitoring.
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 interviews, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 of 23 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy (Resident #8 and Resident #14).The findings included: a. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility 11/2/2024 with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Review of the physician orders for Resident #8 included an order dated 12/31/24 Haloperidol (an antipsychotic medication) 100 milligrams (mg) to be administered intramuscularly (injection into the muscle) one time per month. Review of the medication administration record revealed Resident #8 received Haloperidol in June and July 2025. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #8 did not take antipsychotic medications. b. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility 10/30/24 with diagnoses including obesity. Review of the physician orders for Resident #14 included an order dated 3/14/25 for semaglutide (a medication used to facilitate weight loss) weekly subcutaneously (into the fatty tissue). This order was modified on 6/9/25 to administer 1 mg every Monday for weight loss. Review of the medication administration record revealed Resident #14 received the semaglutide injection every Monday in June and July 2025 as ordered. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #14 received 1 injection of insulin in the 7-day look-back period. Review of the physician orders for Resident #14 revealed no orders for insulin. The MDS coordinator (MDS Nurse #1) was interviewed on 7/30/25 at 2:29 PM. MDS Nurse #1 reviewed the assessments for Resident #8 and Resident #14 and agreed that Resident #8 should have been coded for antipsychotic medications, and Resident #14 should not have been coded for insulin. MDS Nurse #1 reported that MDS Nurse #2 had completed those assessments for Resident #8 and Resident #14. An attempt was made to interview MDS Nurse #2, but no response was received from voice messages or text messages sent. The Administrator was interviewed on 7/30/25 at 2:40 PM and she reported she did not know why the MDS for Resident #8 and Resident #14 were coded incorrectly, and she expected all MDS assessments to be accurate.
May 2024 11 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to protect a resident's righ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free of sexual abuse for 1 of 3 residents investigated for abuse (Resident #7). A moderately cognitively impaired male resident (Resident #39) was found beside Resident #7's bed, a severely cognitively impaired female resident, with his hand moving under the covers around her groin area when a staff member entered Resident #7's room. Resident #7's brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on her sheets, and Resident #39 had stool on his hands. Resident #39 was interviewed and stated he was playing around with Resident #7 down there and waved his hand in a circular motion around his groin area. Resident #39 stated he had done something stupid, and he should not have done it. Resident #7 did not have the cognition to express or understand consent for physical sexual advances, and a reasonable person would have been traumatized by unwanted physical sexual advances. Immediate Jeopardy began on 5/2/2024, when the facility failed to protect Resident #7's right to be free of sexual abuse. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 5/17/2024 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remained out of compliance at a lower scope and severity level of D (no actual harm with potential for potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure monitoring systems that were put into place are effective. Findings included: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and cognitive communication deficit. A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #7 was assessed as severely cognitively impaired; was dependent on staff for rolling from side to side in bed; was totally dependent for transferring to and from the bed to wheelchair; was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was sometimes understood by others and sometimes understood others The Care Plan for Resident #7 which was reviewed on 3/21/2024 indicated she had difficulty with making her own decisions. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and stroke. A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #39 was moderately cognitively impaired and had no behaviors. Resident #39's Care Plan was reviewed and on 3/29/2024 the Care Plan indicated Resident #39 had episodes of verbally aggressive behaviors and should be approached in a calm manner. A Care Plan problem added on 4/4/2024 to the Care Plan indicated Resident #39 had a history of depression, he had scheduled psychiatric visits ordered, and he had difficulty recalling recent events due to dementia. A review of a written statement made by Nurse Aide #6 on 5/2/2024 indicated she walked into Resident #7's room and Resident #39 was sitting next to her bed, and she saw something move under the covers that appeared to be Resident #39's hand. The statement further stated she asked Resident #39 what he was doing, and he said nothing. The written statement further indicated when Resident #39 left the room he had stool on his fingers and Resident #7's brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on her sheet. On 5/14/2024 at 1:11 pm Nurse Aide #6 was interviewed, and stated she cared for Resident #7 on 5/2/2024 and walked into her room between 9:00 am and 9:30 am and Resident #39 was sitting beside her bed in his wheelchair and his hand was under the covers and she saw his hand moving around her groin area. Nurse Aide #6 stated Resident #7 was not upset but she was severely cognitively impaired. Nurse Aide #6 stated she asked Resident #39 what he was doing and when she asked him to leave the room, she noticed he had stool on his hand. She stated after Resident #39 rolled himself in his wheelchair to his room, Nurse Aide #6 stated she returned to Resident #7 to clean her up and when she pulled the sheet down her brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on her sheet. Nurse Aide #6 stated Resident #39 was sometimes confused and sometimes he was clear. Nurse Aide #6 stated Resident #39 could get up unassisted, moved himself in his wheelchair without assistance, and he wandered around the facility. Nurse Aide #6 stated Resident #39 sat in the doorway of Resident #7's room a lot but 5/2/2024 was the first time she found him in her room. A written statement dated 5/2/2024 by the Social Worker stated she interviewed Resident #39 and asked him what he was doing in Resident #7's room this morning and he stated, I was just playing around and when asked to elaborate on what he meant he said, I was just playing with her down there and he took his hand and waved it in a circular motion around his groin area and said, down there. The Social Worker's written statement indicated Resident #39 stated, I was doing something stupid that I should not have done. The Social Worker's written statement stated she explained to Resident #39 that Resident #7 was cognitively impaired and could not give consent to being touched sexually and he verbalized understanding that he knew what he did was inappropriate. On 5/14/2024 at 2:15 pm the Social Worker was interviewed and stated Resident #39 was coming down the hallway toward her office between 9:30 am and 9:45 am on 5/2/2024 and he stated, I was playing around with Resident #7 in her room, and he did a circular hand motion towards his groin area. The Social Worker stated he said, I did something stupid and the Social Worker stated because he said he did something stupid he understood what he had done was wrong. The Social Worker stated he told the Police Officer that investigated the sexual abuse allegation the exact same thing about an hour after she interviewed him. The Police Officer explained to Resident #39 that Resident #7's family would have to decide to press charges and the Police Officer returned to the facility later that day and notified Resident #7 of his court appearance date and that he was charged with sexual battery. A Police Report dated 5/2/2024 at 9:54 am indicated Resident #39 was charged with sexual battery of Resident #7. The Police Report further indicated Nurse Aide #6 entered Resident #7's room and found Resident #39 at her bedside with his hand under the blanket. Nurse Aide #6 indicated Resident #39 hand was moving under the blanket and Nurse Aide #6 confronted Resident #39 about what he was doing, and he stated, nothing. Nurse Aide #6 reported there was stool on Resident #39's fingers and she found Resident #7's brief open and there was stool outside the brief and on the bed. The Police Report stated Resident #7 was cognitively impaired and could not recall the alleged abuse or give consent. The Police Report stated the Responsible Party was interviewed and stated Resident #7 had dementia and frequently repeats what is said to her. The Responsible Party indicated he wished to pursue charges for the incident on behalf of Resident #7. An interview was conducted by phone on 5/15/2024 at 10:05 am with the Police Officer who responded to the allegation of sexual abuse on 5/2/2024. The Police Officer stated he interviewed Nurse Aide #6 and she stated she entered Resident #7's room and found Resident #39 in his wheelchair sitting beside the bed with his hand under the covers and when she approached him and asked what he was doing he said nothing, but she noticed stool on his fingers. The Police Officer stated Nursing Aide #6 stated after Resident #39 left the room she saw that Resident #7's brief was open and there was stool outside the brief and on the sheet. The Police Officer stated Resident #39 admitted to touching Resident #7 sexually and seemed to understand what he did was sexual battery. The Police Officer stated Resident #39 took advantage of a situation where no one was around, and Resident #7 confusion prevented her from stopping him. During an interview on 5/14/2024 at 10:00 am with Resident #7's Responsible Party by phone he stated the facility notified him on 5/2/2024 at 9:30 am that Resident #7 had been sexually abused. He stated Resident #7 is severely cognitively impaired and would not have understood what happened to her. The Responsible Party stated he felt Resident #7 was sexually abused because she was unable to call for help or report what was done to her. He stated Resident #7 was a very good woman and would not have instigated a sexual encounter and would have been very upset if she understood what happened. A Physician's Progress Note stated 5/6/2024 by the Medical Director indicated he saw Resident #7 and evaluated her mental status and ability to give/withhold informed consent. The Progress Note further stated Resident #7 was a poor historian due to her cognition and information was obtained through chart review and discussion with medical staff; and she was not able to give informed consent. A Physician's Progress Note dated 5/6/2024 indicated the Medical Director evaluated Resident #39 for the ability to give/withhold informed consent. The Progress Report stated Resident #39 had a history of dementia; had no recent cognitive decline noted; and Resident had cognitive impairment with poor ability to give or withhold consent and was unlikely to understand the nature of his actions. On 5/14/2024 at 5:32 pm the Medical Director was interviewed by phone and stated he did not believe Resident #39 understood what he was doing when he evaluated him on 5/6/2024 after the incident that occurred on 5/2/2024. The Medical Director stated Resident #39 responded, it was bad when he asked if he understood what he did was bad; and he responded, it was bad when he asked Resident #39 if he understood why what he did was bad. Resident #39 was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 11:20 am and he stated he has lived at the facility for 2 years. When asked if he had any altercations with another resident he stated, I got in trouble for touching another resident. Resident #39 stated he did not know the name of the resident and stated he did not remember how long ago the incident happened. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 5:37 pm and stated Unit Manager #2 reported to her on 5/2/2024 around 9:30 am to 9:40 am that Resident #39 was found in Resident #7's room by Nurse Aide #6 sitting beside her bed in his wheelchair with his hand under the covers. She stated Nurse Aide #6 reported Resident #7's brief was open, and stool was on the outside of her brief and on her sheet, and Resident #39 had stool on his hand. The Director of Nursing stated they began an investigation and had substantiated the sexual abuse. On 5/15/2024 at 8:42 am the previous Administrator was interviewed by phone and stated the facility had initiated an investigation when Nurse Aide #6 reported Resident #39 was found in his wheelchair beside Resident #7's bed with his hand under the covers. The Administrator stated the Medical Director spoke with Resident #39 and the Medical Director felt Resident #39 did not understand what he had done wrong. The previous Administrator stated the Medical Director prescribed Zoloft (an antidepressant) to treat Resident #39's libido and aggression after the incident. The previous Administrator indicated Resident #39 was put on every 15-minute observations by nursing after the incident was reported and the Medical Director felt that every 15-minute observations by nursing was sufficient to protect Resident #7 and other resident's safety. He stated Resident #39 did wander in the facility between the every 15-minute observations. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/17/2024 at 3:32 pm and he stated the facility had provided education to all staff regarding their Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Reporting, and Investigation Policy. He stated the facility was responsible for protecting the residents from all forms of abuse. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 5/15/2024 at 4:24 pm. The facility provided the following Credible Allegation of Immediate Jeopardy Removal: Identify Those recipients who have suffered, or likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance. On 5/2/2024 NA #6 observed Resident # 39's hand under the covers of Resident #7 in her bed in resident #7's room at around 9:00am. NA # 6 announced for Resident #39 to abstain from touching Resident # 7. NA #6 removed Resident #39 from Resident # 7's room. Nurse #6 completed a skin assessment on Resident #7 during 7p-7a shift on 5/2/2024 with no noted injuries. Law enforcement was notified on 5/2/2024 around 9:30 am. Resident # 7's responsible party was notified of occurrence on 5/2/2024. Resident # 7's emergency contact was also notified of the occurrence on 5/2/2024. Resident #7 was transferred to another room on 5/2/24 for her protection. Resident #39 had no prior history of sexual aggression prior to the incident on 5/2/2024. Abuse questionnaires were completed by the Business Office Manager, MDS Nurse, Admissions Director and Unit Manager on all residents with Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 and above with no adverse responses. Questionnaires were completed on 5/15/2024. The questions asked were as follows, 1. Do you feel safe? 2. Has anyone ever touched you inappropriately? 3. Are you afraid of anyone in the facility? The Unit Manager and/or Floor Nurse completed skin assessment for all residents with a BIMS score below 9 as of 5/15/2024 with no negative findings. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete. On 5/2/2024 at 9:40am Social Worker talked with Resident #39 about the incident that occurred and explained to resident #39 what he had done wrong. On 5/7/2024 the physician changed resident #39's medication to add Zoloft 25mg tablet daily by mouth for aggression. As of 5/15/2024, around 5:30pm resident #39 has been placed on 1 on 1 observation. MDS Nurse updated resident #39's care plan to reflect new behavior of sexual aggression and interventions for managing behavior as of 5/16/2024. MDS Nurse updated care guide for resident #39 on 5/16/2024 and staff notified of changes through care guide on 5/16/2024. MDS Nurse will continue to update interventions as needed. As of 5/15/2024 the Staff Development Coordinator educated 100% of facility staff on the facility abuse policy to include residents right to be free from abuse to include sexual, physical, mental, verbal and misappropriation of property as well as signs of abuse and reporting of abuse or potential abuse. Staff development Coordinator will provide education for abuse training to new hires during orientation. 1:1 supervision will be documented and reported to the facility Administrator and Director of Nursing to ensure monitoring of resident. The Director of Nursing will ensure the 1:1 staff member is provided each shift with the staffing coordinator daily. As of 5/15/2024 all CNA's will be educated by the Director of Nursing/Staff Development Coordinator on supervision of resident during 1:1 duty. Education will include a goal of 1:1 in protecting other residents from any sexual aggression by resident #39 and ensuring resident #39 does not encounter resident #7 and documenting of any aggression during shift. On 5/15/2024 the facility completed Ad Hoc QAPI to review investigation and current action plan to ensure all components were done and followed. The facility administrator and Director of Nursing are responsible for continued compliance. Alleged date of IJ removal: 5/17/2024 Credible Allegation of IJ Removal: The Credible Allegation of IJ Removal was validated on 5/17/2024. The facility provided documentation of the in-service education that was provided to all facility staff which included review of the facility's Abuse Policy to include residents right to be free from abuse to include sexual, physical, mental, verbal and misappropriation of property; signs of abuse; and reporting of abuse or potential abuse. The Staff Development Coordinator provided the education to the staff which will also be covered in the facility's orientation of new employees. The Staff Development Coordinator was interviewed and stated they have ensured staff are educated on the abuse policy before they are allowed to care for residents. During interviews with staff from all departments, they were able to verbalize the types of abuse, resident's right to be free from abuse, signs of abuse, reporting of abuse and potential abuse and protection of residents from abuse. Observations were made of Resident #39 during the validation of the Credible Allegation, and he remained on 1 to 1 observation during the validation. The facility provided skin assessments that were completed on residents with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of less than 9 and interviews forms that were completed on all residents with a BIMs score of 9 or above. The facility provided the minutes for their Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting which was completed on 5/15/2024. The alleged date of IJ removal of 5/17/24 was validated.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to implement the following c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to implement the following components of the abuse policy: (a) immediately report an allegation of sexual abuse of a severely cognitively impaired female resident (Resident #7) by a moderately cognitively impaired male resident (Resident #39) to the Administrator; (b) the facility failed to provide a physical examination of a severely cognitively impaired female resident (Resident #7) by a trained/licensed professional for signs of sexual abuse; (c) the facility failed to protect a severely cognitively impaired female resident (Resident #7) and all other residents from the possibility of sexual abuse when they failed to put Resident #39 on one-to-one observations when there was an allegation of sexual abuse against Resident #7; (d) the facility failed to assess all other residents in the facility when an allegation of sexual abuse was reported; and (e) the facility failed to report the allegation of abuse to the Adult Protective Services. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents (Resident #7) investigated for allegations of abuse and had the high likelihood of affecting other vulnerable residents residing in the facility. Immediate jeopardy began on 5/2/2024, when the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of sexual abuse to the Administrator, provide assessment of the alleged victim of sexual abuse, provide protection for the alleged victim of sexual abuse and protect other residents in the facility from the possibility of abuse by assessing other residents in the facility for signs of sexual abuse. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 5/17/24 when the facility implemented a credible allegation of immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remained out of compliance at a lower scope and severity level of E (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure education and monitoring systems that were put into place are effective. Findings included: 1.a. A review of the facility's Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Reporting, and Investigation Policy, revised 2/2021, indicated upon receiving an allegation of physical and sexual abuse the Executive Director and Director of Health Services should be notified immediately to arrange for the examination of the resident. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, stroke, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and stroke. A written statement made by Nurse Aide #6 on 5/2/2024 stated she walked into Resident #7's room and Resident #39 was sitting next to her bed, and she saw something moving under the covers that appeared to be Resident #39's hand. The statement further stated Nurse Aide #6 asked Resident #39 what he was doing, and he said, Nothing. The written statement indicated when Resident #39 left the room he had stool on his fingers and Resident #7's brief was open and there was stool outside the brief and on her sheets. The written statement did not indicate who Nurse Aide #6 notified of the allegation of abuse. During an interview with Nurse Aide #6 on 5/14/2024 at 1:11 pm she stated she cared for Resident #7 on 5/2/2024 on the 7:00 am to 7:00 pm shift and she walked into the room between 9:00 am and 9:30 am and Resident #39 was sitting next to Resident #7's bed in his wheelchair and his hand was under the bed covers and she saw his hand moving around her groin area. Nurse Aide #6 stated Resident #7 was not upset but she is severely cognitively impaired. Nurse Aide #6 stated she asked Resident #39 what he was doing, and he said, Nothing. Nurse Aide #6 stated when asked Resident #39 to leave the room there was stool on his hand. Nurse Aide #6 stated when she returned to Resident #6, she pulled down the covers and her brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on the sheets. Nurse Aide #6 stated she told Medication Aide #4 about what she witnessed, and Medication Aide #4 told her she would notify Unit Supervisor #2. On 5/14/2024 at 1:29 pm Medication Aide #4 was interviewed and stated Nurse Aide #6 told her she found Resident #39 in Resident #7's room and he had his hand under Resident #7's covers and when he pulled his hand out from under the bed covers, he had stool on his hand and Resident #7's brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on the bed covers. Medication Aide #4 stated she told Unit Supervisor #2 about the allegation of sexual abuse about 30 minutes after Nurse Aide #6 told her because Unit Supervisor #2 was in a meeting, and she did not want to disturb the meeting. Medication Aide #4 stated when Unit Supervisor #2 came to the unit after the meeting she notified her of the allegation of sexual abuse. Unit Supervisor #2 was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 1:35 pm and she stated she did not remember what time it was when she was notified of the allegation of sexual abuse, but it was before 10:00 am. She stated she was coming from the morning meeting, and she does a round of the facility after the meeting. When she went to 200-hall to check on Medication Aide #4 she was told about the allegation of sexual abuse. Unit Supervisor #2 stated she went to Resident #7's room and Nurse Aide #6 was providing incontinence care. She stated there was stool on the sheet, but the brief had been removed. Unit Supervisor #2 stated she reported the allegation of sexual abuse to the Director of Nursing after she checked on Resident #7. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 5:37 pm and stated she was in her office and between 9:30 am and 9:40 am on 5/2/24 when Unit Supervisor #2 came to her office and reported the allegation of sexual abuse of Resident #7. She stated she was told by Unit Supervisor #2 that Nurse Aide #6 went into Resident #7's room and Resident #39 was sitting beside her bed in his wheelchair with his hand under the sheet and when she came into the room, he pulled his hand out. The Director of Nursing stated she was told Resident #39 had stool on his hand. The Director of Nursing stated they began an investigation immediately and the police were called. She stated she was not aware Medication Aide #4 had not reported the allegation of sexual abuse to Unit Supervisor #2 until 30 minutes after it was reported to her. The Director of Nursing stated that all allegations of abuse should be reported immediately. The previous Administrator was interviewed on 5/15/2024 at 8:42 am and he stated he had moved to another facility but was the administrator of the building at the time of the allegation of sexual abuse. He stated he was told by the Director of Nursing about the allegation of sexual abuse, and an investigation was initiated immediately. He stated he was not aware Medication Aide #4 had not report the allegation until 30 minutes after she was told by Nurse Aide #6. He stated all allegations of abuse should be reported to the administration immediately. b. The facility's Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Reporting and Investigation Policy, revised 2/2021, indicated a physical examination of the resident should be conducted by an appropriately trained/licensed professional (attending physician, emergency room physician). Unit Supervisor #2 was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 1:35 pm and she stated she was coming from her morning meeting on 5/2/2024 before 10:00 am, when she did a morning round, and went to the 200-hall to check on Medication Aide #4. She stated Medication Aide #4 told her Nurse Aide #6 walked into Resident #7's room and Resident #39 was sitting in his wheelchair beside the bed with his hand under the sheet. She stated she was told Resident #39 had stool on his hand and Resident #39's brief was open and there was stool on the sheet and on the outside of the brief. Unit Supervisor #2 stated she went to Resident #7's room and Nurse Aide #6 was providing incontinence care for Resident #7. Unit Supervisor #2 stated she did not assess Resident #7 and she did not know if anyone else assessed Resident #7. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 5:37 pm and she stated it was reported to her on 5/2/2024 between 9:30 and 9:40 am that Resident #39 was found by Nurse Aide #6 in Resident #7's room sitting beside her bed in his wheelchair with his hand under the covers. She stated when Resident #39 pulled his hand from the covers he had stool on his fingers and when Nurse Aide #6 pulled back Resident #7's covers her brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on the sheets. The Director of Nursing stated someone did assess Resident #7, but she was not sure who had provided the assessment. A follow-up interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing on 5/15/2024 and she stated there was not a physical assessment of Resident #7 immediately after the allegation of sexual abuse was reported. She stated there was a skin assessment completed on 5/2/2024 on the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. A phone interview was conducted with Nurse #6 on 5/15/2024 at 12:03 pm and she stated she did a skin assessment on 5/2/2024 between 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm and Resident #7 did not have any bruising or injuries to her perineum. The previous Administrator was interviewed on 5/15/2024 at 8:42 am and he stated the Medical Director was made aware of the allegation of sexual abuse immediately, but he did not know when Resident #7 was physically assessed after the incident. c. The facility's Abuse Prevention, Intervention Reporting, and Investigation Policy stated a resident who is allegedly mistreated by another resident is removed from contact with that resident during the investigation. The policy further stated residents are to be protected during incident investigations; and residents will be protected from the alleged offender. A written statement made by Nurse Aide #6 on 5/2/2024 stated she walked into Resident #7's room and Resident #39 was sitting next to her bed, and she saw something moving under the covers that appeared to be Resident #39's hand. The statement further stated Nurse Aide #6 asked Resident #39 what he was doing, and he said, Nothing. The written statement indicated when Resident #39 left the room he had stool on his fingers and Resident #7's brief was open and there was stool outside the brief and on her sheets. During an interview with Nurse Aide #6 on 5/14/2024 at 1:11 pm she stated she cared for Resident #7 on 5/2/2024 on the 7:00 am to 7:00 pm shift and she walked into the room between 9:00 am and 9:30 am and Resident #39 was sitting next to Resident #7's bed in his wheelchair and his hand was under the bed covers and she saw his hand moving around her groin area. Nurse Aide #6 stated Resident #7 was not upset but she is severely cognitively impaired. Nurse Aide #6 stated she asked Resident #39 what he was doing, and he said, Nothing. Nurse Aide #6 stated when she sent Resident #39 out of the room there was stool on his hand. Nurse Aide #6 stated when she returned to Resident #6, she pulled down the covers and her brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on the sheets. Nurse Aide #6 stated she told Medication Aide #4 about what she witnessed, and Medication Aide #4 told her she would notify Unit Supervisor #2. Nurse Aide #6 stated Resident #39 was in his room when she went to tell Medication Aide #4 about the allegation of sexual abuse but there was not anyone with him and they did not put him on one-to-one observation until the Patient Care Associate (PCA) came to sit with him. She stated she did not know what time the PCA was assigned to Resident #39. On 5/14/2024 at 1:29 pm Medication Aide #4 was interviewed and stated Nurse Aide #6 told her she found Resident #39 in Resident #7's room and he had his hand under Resident #7's covers and when he pulled his hand out from under the bed covers, he had stool on his hand and Resident #7's brief was open and there was stool on the outside of her brief and on the bed covers. Medication Aide #4 stated she told Unit Supervisor #2 about the allegation of sexual abuse about 30 minutes after Nurse Aide #6 told her because Unit Supervisor #2 was in a meeting, and she did not want to disturb the meeting. Medication Aide #4 stated Resident #39 was not put on one-to-one observation until later that morning when the Patient Care Associate (PCA) was assigned to watch him and after she left at 3:00 pm that day he was put on every 15-minute checks. Medication Aide #4 stated staff were supposed to check to see where Resident #39 was every 15 minutes and document that we saw him. She stated she did not know why Resident #39 was not kept on one-to-one observation. Unit Supervisor #2 was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 1:35 pm and she stated she did not remember what time it was when she was notified of the allegation of sexual abuse, but she stated it was before 10:00 am. She stated she was coming from the morning meeting, and she does a round of the facility after the meeting and when she went to 200-hall to check on Medication Aide #4 she was told about the allegation of sexual abuse. Unit Supervisor #2 stated she went to Resident #7's room and Nurse Aide #6 was providing incontinence care. She stated there was stool on the sheet, but the brief had been removed. Unit Supervisor #2 stated she reported the allegation of sexual abuse to the Director of Nursing after she checked on Resident #7. Unit Supervisor #2 stated Resident #39 was in the hallway away from his room when she went to check on Resident #7, she stated they did not put Resident #39 on one-to-one observation until after she reported the allegation of sexual abuse to the Director of Nursing and then he went to every 15-minute checks the next day. Unit Supervisor #2 stated Resident #39 is very mobile in his wheelchair and he wanders around the facility. The Police Officer was interviewed on 5/15/2024 at 10:05 am and he stated he came to the facility on 5/2/2024 at 9:58 am to investigate. He stated when he arrived at the facility Resident #7 was in his wheelchair in the hallway and no one was supervising him when he approached him to interview him. During an interview with the Patient Care Associate (PCA) on 5/14/2024 at 2:01 pm, who spoke only Spanish, and the Director of Nursing provided interpretation, the PCA stated she was assigned to Resident #39 at 12:15 pm on 5/2/2024 and she observed him until 3:00 pm. She stated she kept notes in her notebook of where he went during the one-to-one observation. The PCA stated Resident #39 tried to get close to Resident #7 once on 5/2/2024 when she was observing him, but she redirected him. On 5/14/2024 at 11:12 am Resident #7 was observed in her wheelchair on the 200-hall and she went up and down the hallway but did not go into any resident rooms. Staff were observed at the nurses' desk but did not redirect Resident #7 back to the 100-hall where she resided. Resident #7 rolled past Resident #39's room door twice in her wheelchair during the observation. Resident #7 was observed until 11:20 am. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 5:37 pm and she stated they put Resident #39 on one-to-one observation after the incident was reported. On 5/15/2024 at 3:08 pm the Director of Nursing was interviewed again and stated she was not aware Resident #39 was not put on one-to-one observation until 12:15 pm. She stated they decided to monitor him on every 15-minute checks after 3:00 pm on 5/2/2024 because they felt they could watch him closely enough with every 15-minute checks to ensure Resident #7 and all other residents were safe. d. The facility's Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Reporting, and Investigation Policy, revised on 2/2021, indicated the facility will assess and interview all residents who came in contact with the accused when investigating an abuse allegation. Unit Supervisor #4 was interviewed on 5/14/2024 at 5:25 pm and stated she had not physically assessed Resident #7 on 5/2/2024 after the allegation of sexual abuse was reported. Unit Supervisor #4 stated she was not asked to do assessments or interviews with any other residents after the allegation of sexual abuse was reported on 5/2/2024. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 5/15/2024 at 3:08 pm she stated the facility did not complete physical assessments with residents that were cognitively impaired or interview any residents that were not cognitively impaired to see if there were any further allegations of sexual abuse in the facility when the sexual abuse allegation was reported on 5/2/2024. The previous Administrator was interviewed by phone on 5/15/2024 at 8:42 am and he stated when the allegation of sexual abuse of Resident #7 by Resident #39 was reported on 5/2/2024 the facility moved Resident #7 to another room on a different hallway; placed Resident #39 on every 15-minute checks; and the Medical Director and police were notified of the allegation of abuse. The previous Administrator stated he spoke with the Medical Director after the incident on 5/2/2024 to see if the facility needed to do anything else to protect Resident #7 and other residents and the Medical Director stated they had done everything they could do. The current Administrator was interviewed on 5/17/2024 at 4:42 pm and stated the facility's staff have received in-service education regarding the facility's Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Reporting, and Investigation Policy. The current Administrator stated the staff should have assessed all residents who came in contact with the accused when the allegation was reported on 5/2/2024. e. The facility's Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Reporting, and Investigation policy, revised 2/2021, indicated the facility would notify Adult Protective Services when an allegation of abuse is reported. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 5/15/2024 at 4:03 pm and she stated the facility did not notify the North Carolina Division of Social Services, Adult Protective Services regarding the allegation of sexual abuse of Resident #7 that was reported on 5/2/2024. She stated she was not aware she should notify Adult Protective Services. The previous Administrator was interviewed by phone on 5/15/2024 at 8:42 am and he stated when the allegation of sexual abuse of Resident #7 by Resident #39 was reported on 5/2/2024 the facility moved Resident #7 to another room on a different hallway; placed Resident #39 on every 15-minute checks; and the Medical Director and police were notified of the allegation of abuse. The previous Administrator stated he spoke with the Medical Director after the incident on 5/2/2024 to see if the facility needed to do anything else to protect Resident #7 and other residents and the Medical Director stated they had done everything they could do. The Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy on 5/15/2024 at 4:43 pm. The facility provided the Credible Allegation of Immediate Jeopardy Removal: F607 Abuse Reporting: The facility failed to implement the abuse policy related to reporting and protection. Identify Those recipients who have suffered, or likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance. On 5/2/2024 CNA #1 observed Resident # 39's hand under the covers of Resident #7 in her bed in resident #7's room at around 9:00am. CNA # 6 announced for Resident # 39 to abstain from touching Resident # 2. CNA #7 removed Resident # 39 from Resident # 7's room. After an allegation of sexual abuse, a nurse was not notified immediately; staff was cleaning up the resident before a nurse came to the room, a nurse did not complete an initial assessment until that night on 7p-7a shift. The facility failed to provide a physical examination of a cognitively impaired female resident (Resident #7) by an appropriately trained/licensed professional for signs of sexual abuse or other forms of abuse immediately after a moderately cognitively impaired resident (Resident #39) was found in his wheelchair at her bedside with his hand under her covers on 5/2/2024. Resident #7 was not assessed by the Medical Director until 5/6/2024. Medical Director ordered Zoloft 25 milligrams by mouth daily for aggression on 5/6/2024. Resident # 39 was not put on 1 on 1 monitoring until 12:15 pm. The resident stayed on 1 on 1 until 3 pm and then was on every 15-minute checks. Resident #39 was placed on one-to-one supervision on 5/15/2024 at around 5:30 pm. The facility failed to assess if other residents had been abused until 5/15/2024. The facility failed to report the abuse allegation to APS until 5/16/2024. Abuse questionnaires were completed by the Business Office Manager, MDS Nurse, Admissions Director and Unit Manager on all residents with Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 and above with no adverse responses. Questionnaires were completed on 5/15/2024. The questions asked were as follows, 1. Do you feel safe? 2. Has anyone ever touched you inappropriately? 3. Are you afraid of anyone in the facility? The Unit Manager and/or Floor Nurse completed skin assessment for all residents with a BIMS score below 9 as of 5/15/2024 with no negative outcomes. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete. As of 5/15/2024 the Regional Director of Operations and Regional Clinical Nurse educated the Director of Nursing, Administrator, Medical and Staff Development Coordinator on abuse policy to include residents right to be free from abuse to include sexual, physical, mental, verbal and misappropriation of property as well as signs of abuse and reporting of abuse or potential abuse. Education also included the process and action to protect residents if any type of abuse including sexual abuse occurs according to facility policy and procedure on abuse. Actions to include assessment of all residents involved, immediate protection for all residents, immediate reporting to Management, state agencies, Ombudsman, APS, families, physician, immediate protection for all residents, and law enforcement. On 5/16/2024 Staff Development Coordinator and/or Director of Nursing educated all nursing staff on proper procedures for reporting any suspected abuse and immediate reporting to the Administrator and Director of Nursing for direction. Education will include direction for resident assessment immediately following incident, physician notification by Nurse for direction of care for resident and need to send out to hospital for further examination. On 5/2/2024 at 9:40am Social Worker talked with Resident #39 about the incident that occurred and explained to resident #39 what he had done wrong. On 5/7/2024 the physician changed resident #39's medication to add Zoloft 25mg tablet daily by mouth for aggression. As of 5/15/2024, around 5:30pm resident #39 has been placed on 1 on 1 observation. On 5/15/2024 the facility completed AdHoc QAPI to review investigation and current action plan to ensure all components were done and followed. The facility administrator and Director of Nursing are responsible for continued compliance. Alleged date of IJ removal: 5/17/2024 The Credible Allegation of IJ Removal was validated on 5/17/2024. The facility provided documentation of the in-service education that was provided to all staff which included the review of the facility's Abuse Policy and included immediate reporting of any allegations of abuse to the Administrator immediately; provide a physical examination by a trained/licensed professional for any signs of sexual abuse; provide protection for the resident that is the victim of abuse; provide protection for all other residents when an allegation of abuse is reported; and report any allegations of abuse to the proper authorities. The Staff Development Coordinator was interviewed and stated they have ensure all staff are educated regarding the reporting of abuse allegations to the administrator immediately; provide a physical examination by the physician or if the physician is not available send the resident to the emergency department for evaluation if there is an allegation of sexual abuse; provide protection for the abused individual and all other residents; and reporting of allegations of abuse to the proper authorities. She stated all staff that have been allowed to work have had the abuse education. During the validation of the Credible Allegation of IJ Removal observations of Resident #39 were made and the facility was providing one-to-one observation of the resident. The facility staff (sampled from all disciplines) were able to verbalize the types of abuse; what steps they should take to assess and protect the resident of an alleged abuse; and what authorities should be notified of allegations of abuse. The facility provided skin assessments that were completed on residents with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of less than 9 and interview forms that were completed on all residents with a BIMS of 9 or above that were conducted on 5/15/2024. The facility also notified Adult Protective Services of the allegation of sexual abuse for Resident #7 on 5/16/2024. The facility provided minutes of their Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting which was conducted on 5/15/2024. The alledged IJ removal date of 5/17 24 was validated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized and comprehensive ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized and comprehensive care plan for a resident with urinary incontinence, a resident at risk for aspiration and failed to care plan antibiotic use. This was for 4 of 25 residents whose care plans were reviewed (Resident #2, #85, #66, and #78). The findings included: 1. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included displaced subtrochanteric fracture of right femur, and diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2's cognition was intact. She had no behavior and no rejection of care. She was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, shower/bath, and she required maximum assistance with personal hygiene. She was occasionally incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. Review of Resident #2's active care plan, dated [DATE], revealed no care plan related to incontinence care. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:34 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated a focus or intervention area for incontinence care should have been part of Resident #2's care plan. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 1:04 PM with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse. She verified there were no areas on Resident #2's care plan for assistance needed with incontinence care and there should have been an intervention added to the activities of daily living (ADL) focus. She stated it was an oversight that this intervention was not added on Resident #2's care plan. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:21 PM with Resident #2. She stated she did have incontinent episodes of urine and she was always incontinent of bowel. She further stated she required staff to assist her with continence are. 2. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase. Resident #85 expired on [DATE]. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #85's cognition was severely impaired. His swallowing and nutrition section was coded for swallowing disorder. Review of Resident #85's active care plan, dated [DATE], revealed no care plan related to dysphagia or aspiration precautions. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:34 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated Resident #85's care plan should be person centered and should have included a focus or intervention for aspiration precautions due to his diagnosis for dysphagia. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 1:04 PM with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse. She verified there were no areas on Resident #85's care plan to include aspiration precautions. She stated it was an oversight that this was not added on Resident #85's care plan. 3. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal right knee prosthesis requiring intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Review of Resident #66's active care plan, dated [DATE], revealed no care plan related to intravenous (IV) antibiotics. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:34 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated Resident #66's care plan should be person centered and should have included an area for intravenous (IV) antibiotics. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 1:04 PM with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse. She verified there were no areas on Resident #66's care plan to include intravenous (IV) antibiotics. She stated it was an oversight that this was not added on Resident #66's care plan. 4. Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included neoplasm of the brain and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident #78's medical record revealed an order dated [DATE] for Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic) 750 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet twice a day for polymicrobial bacterial infection (acute and chronic diseases caused by various combinations of viruses, bacteria, and fungi). An Infectious Disease progress note dated [DATE] read that Resident #78 was on Ciprofloxacin for a polymicrobial bacterial infection for at least a year. Review of the active care plan, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #78 was not care planned for the use of an indefinite antibiotic. A significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #78 had severe cognitive impairment and was coded for the use of an antibiotic. On [DATE] at 12:00 PM, an interview occurred with the MDS Coordinator who reviewed Resident #78's active care plan, verified a care plan was not present for the indefinity use of an antibiotic and felt it was an oversight. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:22 PM and stated it was her expectation for the care plan to be person centered and should have included the use of the indefinite antibiotic.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a fall mat was in place according to t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a fall mat was in place according to the care planned fall safety interventions (Resident #31). This was for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. The findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and lack of coordination. A review of Resident #31's medical record revealed on 1/27/23 she was found lying beside her bed and stated she fell off the bed while sleeping. It was noted that her room was rearranged and fall mat placed to the left side of the bed for safety. No further falls were indicated in Resident #31's medical record. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #31 had severe cognitive impairment and received supervision for bed mobility and moderate assistance with transfers. She was coded with no falls since the last assessment. Resident #31's active care plan, last reviewed 4/22/24, included a focus area for risk for falls due to impaired balance, history of falls, diagnosis of dementia with poor safety awareness and psychotropic medication use. An intervention, dated 1/27/23, included fall mat. On 4/30/24 at 11:35 AM, Resident #31 was observed lying in bed with her eyes closed. The bed was in the lowest position, however there was no fall mat beside the bed, in the room or bathroom. On 5/1/24 at 8:18 AM, Resident #31 was observed lying in bed with her eyes closed. The bed was in the lowest position but there was no fall mat beside the bed, in the room or bathroom. An interview occurred with Nurse #4 on 5/1/24 at 9:00 AM. She indicated she had worked at the facility for a few months and had not seen a fall mat being used for Resident #31. On 5/1/24 at 12:11 PM an interview occurred with Nurse Aide (NA) #6 and NA #7, who were familiar with Resident #31. They could not recall seeing fall mats in her room and were unaware one should be present. They stated they would have been informed during rounds and the nursing staff if a fall mat was to be utilized. An interview was completed with the Unit Supervisor #2 on 5/1/24 at 2:18 PM who recalled a fall mat present to the side of the bed for Resident #31 in the past but was unsure what happened to it. On 5/1/24 at 2:22 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed and recalled Resident #31 had a fall mat present in her room when an audit had been completed during March 2024. She was unaware the fall mat was not being used for Resident #31 nor why they were not present in her room. The DON stated it was her expectation for fall interventions to be implemented by the staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to clarify a consultation note and discontinue an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to clarify a consultation note and discontinue an order for PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter) line care (Resident #78). This was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for antibiotic use. The findings included: Resident #78 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was recently readmitted from the hospital on 2/16/24 with a diagnosis of polymicrobial bacterial infection (acute and chronic diseases caused by various combinations of viruses, bacteria, and fungi) with a PICC line present. A review of Resident #78's active physician orders included an order dated 2/17/24 for PICC line dressing change every seven days. Review of an Infectious Disease progress note dated 4/5/24, indicated the PICC line would be removed on 4/5/24. Resident #78's April 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed and indicated the order to change the PICC line dressing every seven days was still active from 4/5/24 to 4/30/24. On 5/1/24 at 12:11 PM, an observation of personal care was made with Nurse Aides (NAs) #6 and #7 of Resident #78. There was no PICC line observed to either arm. Unit Supervisor #2 was interviewed on 5/1/24 at 2:18 PM. She indicated when a resident returned from an appointment the paperwork was reviewed by herself. She reviewed the Infectious Disease progress note dated 4/5/24 and stated she was unsure why the order to change the PICC line dressing every seven days had not been discontinued and removed from the MAR as the PICC line had been removed on 4/5/24 at the appointment. Unit Supervisor #2 felt it was an oversight. On 5/1/24 at 2:22 PM, the Director of Nursing stated she would have expected a clarification order to be obtained to discontinue the PICC line dressing change every seven days when it was removed on 4/5/24.
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews, observations, resident, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations, resident, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following an annual recertification and complaint survey on 06/11/21. This was for two deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Accuracy of Assessments and Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices. During a complaint survey on 05/16/23, one deficiency was cited in the area of Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices. In addition, four deficiencies were cited during the annual recertification and complaint survey on 02/23/23 in the areas of Encoding/Transmitting Resident Assessments, Accuracy of Assessments, Care Plan Timing and Revision, and Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The deficient practice in the areas of Encoding/Transmitting Resident Assessments, Accuracy of Assessments, Care Plan Timing and Revision, and Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices were recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of 05/06/24. The duplicate citations during three federal surveys of record and one complaint survey show a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program. The findings included: F640- Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge assessment within the required time frame for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #58). During the facility's recertification survey of 02/23/23 the facility failed to complete and transmit a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and failed to transmit a discharge MDS assessment. This was for 2 of 2 residents selected to be reviewed for submission of Resident Assessments within the required timeframe. In an interview with the Administrator on 05/02/24 at 1:07 PM, he felt the repeat citations were due to Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse turnover. F641- Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) in the area of medication for 1 of 26 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed (Resident #24). During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21 the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately in the areas of prognosis, range of motion, and Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) level 2. This was for 3 of the 19 MDS's reviewed for accuracy. During the facility's recertification survey of 02/23/23 the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the area of medications for 2 of 21 residents whose MDS were reviewed. In an interview with the Administrator on 05/02/24 at 1:07 PM, he felt the repeat citations were due to Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse turnover. F657- Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the care plans in the areas of antibiotic use and JP drain (A Jackson Pratt (JP) drain is a surgical suction drain that gently draws fluid from a wound to help recover after surgery) for Resident #81. This was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care plans. During the facility's recertification survey of 02/23/23 the facility failed to review and revise the care plan in the areas of falls, pressure ulcers, and medications. This was for 6 of 18 resident records reviewed. In an interview with the Administrator on 05/02/24 at 1:07 PM, he felt the repeat citations were due to Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse turnover. F689- Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a fall mat was in place according to the care planned fall safety interventions (Resident #31). This was for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21 the facility failed to provide supervision to 2 residents with known behavioral symptoms to prevent the physical assault, unwanted physical contact, and/or unwanted advancements into the personal space of cognitively impaired residents. This was for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for resident to resident altercations. During the facility's recertification survey of 02/23/23 the facility failed to ensure a fall mat was in place according to the care planned fall safety interventions. This was for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for accidents. During a complaint investigation survey on 05/16/23 the facility failed to provide a safe transfer for a resident who was at high risk for fractures, was non-ambulatory and required extensive assistance with a mechanical lift for transfers. This deficient practice was for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for accidents. In an interview with the Administrator on 05/02/24 at 1:07 PM, he felt the repeat citations were due to the facility's leadership turnover.
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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents right to be free from m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents right to be free from misappropriation of a narcotic medication (Oxycodone) prescribed to treat pain for Resident #16, Resident #75, and Resident #239. This was for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation. The findings included: 1) Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #16's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 2/29/24, indicated her cognition was intact and she received opioid medication. Resident #16 had an order dated 2/13/24 for Oxycodone 10 milligrams (mg) every 6 hours as needed for 5 days and to record the resident's pain level. A review of Resident #16's February Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident received Oxycodone 10 mg administered by Nurse #2, #7, and #12 for pain on 2/14/24. The second Oxycodone order, dated 2/18/24, was for 10 mg every 6 hours as needed for pain. The Narcotic Count Sheet documented for Resident #16's Oxycodone 10 mg every 6 hours as needed for pain indicated the following: - On 2/22/24 the resident received her med at 6:22 am and one was wasted by Nurse #12. - On 2/25/24 the resident received her med at 1:00 am and one was wasted by Nurse #12. - On 2/26/24 the resident received her med at 3:10 am and one was wasted by Nurse #12. Resident #16 had a pain evaluation dated 2/28/24 which documented she had received pain medication within the past 5 days. She received pain medication and non-pharmacological interventions. The resident was satisfied with the current pain management plan and received her medication when requested. On 4/30/24 at 12:45 pm Resident #16 was interviewed and stated she received her pain medication and all medication as expected and had no concerns. On 5/1/24 at 11:40 am an interview was conducted with Resident #16. She remembered the surgical procedure and received pain medication as requested. The resident had not remembered any concerns regarding the treatment of her pain. A drug testing collection and results dated 2/16/24 for Nurse #2 was reviewed. She was tested for Amphetamines, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine, Burprenorphine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Methamphetamine, Methadone, Opiates/Morphine, Oxycodone, and Phencyclidine. All tested negative. A drug testing collection and results dated 2/16/24 for Nurse #7 was reviewed. She was tested for Amphetamines, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine, Burprenorphine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Methamphetamine, Methadone, Opiates/Morphine, Oxycodone, and Phencyclidine. All tested negative. On 5/6/24/at 10:02 am an interview was attempted by telephone with Nurse #7. She was not available, and a message was left. A review of the hand-written statement dated 2/28/24 by Nurse #12 documented the following: I previously have had an addiction to oxycodone and sought help through treatment. I was clean and stayed so for years. I got a couple of oxycodone from my sister that I took yesterday 2/27 before my shift. A drug testing collection and results dated 2/28/24 for Nurse #12 was reviewed. She was tested for Amphetamines, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine, Burprenorphine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Methamphetamine, Methadone, Opiates/Morphine, Oxycodone, and Phencyclidine. The Oxycodone tested positive, and all other drugs tested negative. On 5/6/24 at 10:05 am an interview was attempted by telephone with Nurse #12. She answered the phone and then hung up. 2) Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #75's 5-day Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented her cognition as intact, received as needed pain medication, and received opioid medication. Resident #75 had an order dated 2/20/24 for Oxycodone 5 mg every 4 hours as needed for pain. A review of Resident #75's Narcotic Count Sheet for February 2024 documented on 2/24/24 at 7:00 pm, one tablet of oxycodone 5 mg was documented as wasted by Nurse #12 and witnessed by Nurse #6. A review of a typed statement, signed by Nurse #6 and dated 3/5/24 documented, I was called into the facility to write a statement to verify that I did waste Oxycodone with Nurse #12 for Resident #75. Those initials are not my initials. I had not wasted the Oxycodone with Nurse #12. On 5/3/24 at 2:52 pm an interview was attempted with Nurse #6 and a voicemail was left which requested a call back. A drug testing collection and results dated 2/16/24 for Nurse #6. She was tested for Amphetamines, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepine, Burprenorphine, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Methamphetamine, Methadone, Opiates/Morphine, Oxycodone, and Phencyclidine. All tested negative. 3) Resident #239 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged on 4/15/24. Resident #239 had an order for Oxycodone 10 mg every four hours as needed for pain dated 2/23/24. A review of Resident #239's Narcotic Count Sheet indicated Oxycodone 10 mg was signed out by Nurse #12 on 2/28/24 at 12:42 am, 3:42 am, and 7:42 am (night shift). Resident #239's pain assessment was completed on 2/27/24 at 12:07 pm, 2/27/24 at 4:47 pm, 2/28/24 at 9:21 am and 2/28/24 at 4:59 pm. She had no pain and required no Oxycodone pain medication as needed. Review of a 5-day Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #239's cognition as intact and received opioid medications. Review of a facility interview with Resident #239 on 3/1/24 indicated she reported she had only requested Oxycodone at 8:00 PM on 2/27/24. The facility provided the follwing corrective action plan: 1. Corrective action for resident(s) affected by the alleged deficient practice: Day shift nurse reported to the Unit Manager and Director of Nursing on 2/28/24 a licensed nurse had potentially taken as needed narcotics from a resident narcotic card. The Regional Nurse Consultant and Staff Development Coordinator audited all active resident's narcotics and determined medication narcotic discrepancies with 4 residents, Oxycodone 10 mg as needed tablets. No negative outcomes for the 4 residents as they were as needed medication, and the facility had this medication in backup. The medications were replaced prior to residents requesting them. The Director of Nursing suspended the Licensed Nurse who was suspected of misappropriation during the investigation immediately on 2/28/24 upon learning of the incident. Director of nursing completed the 24-hour report to the Division of Health and Human Services on 2/28/24. The Director of Nursing then began an investigation of missing narcotics and interviewed the licensed nurses and medication aides who had worked on the carts of missing narcotics. The Director of Nursing submitted the five-day report upon completion of the investigation on 3/6/24 to DHHS. The Director of Nursing notified the local Police Department on 2/28/24, the Board of Nursing and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) on 2/29/24, by the Director of Nursing. Facility notified the Medical Director on 2/28/24 of the missing as needed narcotics and the residents involved. Residents were assessed on 2/28/24 with no adverse effects as the medications were as needed medications. 2. Corrective action for residents with the potential to be affected by the alleged deficient practice: A 100% audit was conducted on 2/28/24 by the Regional Nurse Consultant and Staff Development Coordinator of the control sheets and each medication on all medication carts to verify that all narcotic medication and control sheets were accounted for. It was discovered that the seven Oxycodone tablets among four residents were missing/not properly accounted for. 3. Measures/Systemic changes to prevent reoccurrence of alleged deficient practice: Education was initiated with all licensed nursing and medication aides by the Director of Nursing or Staff Development Coordinator on the pharmacy policy related to maintaining narcotics on the medication carts, signing of shift-to-shift count sheets, counting, and verifying the narcotic count was correct, wasting and signing with 2 nurses, following the physician order, as well as diversion of narcotics. Education was completed by 3/1/24. Staff will not be permitted to work after 3/1/24 until education is completed, including agency staff. Education will be a part of orientation for all new hire and agency licensed staff prior to working their first shift. The Director of Nursing will continue to maintain file folders for narcotics in the facility for receiving and returning meds and verify narcotic medication count of delivery manifest sheets received from pharmacy. The facility will follow the facility's policy in maintaining control medications. The licensed nurses will receive and document receiving the controlled medication from pharmacy. The nurses will document the number of sheets in the narcotic count book for the number of medication packages located in the locked medication cart. If a medication is discontinued two nurses will remove the card and the medication record and document the number of cards and the sheets that remain on the cart. The nurse will give the removed sheet to the Director of Nursing to maintain. Two nurses will return the discontinued meds to pharmacy, and two nurses will sign and verify. The medications will be placed in a locked tote and placed in the locked medication room to return to pharmacy. The nurses will give a copy of the record and a copy of the return to pharmacy sheet to the Director of Nursing to maintain in a file cabinet in her office. Two nurses will complete a shift-to-shift count to verify that the number listed on the narcotic record matches the amount of medication in the cart and verify that the numbers of sheets are correct. 4. Monitoring Procedure to ensure that the plan of correction is effective, and that specific deficiency cited remains corrected and/or in compliance with regulatory requirements. The Director of Nursing and/or Designee began an audit of medication carts related to narcotic count being correct, the medication cards match the control sheets, the shift-to-shift count sheet are being signed at the start and the end of the shift and any narcotic that needs to be wasted is being signed appropriate by 2 nurses on 2/28/24. Auditing will be completed 5 times per week for 4 weeks, weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. An ad hoc Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) team meeting was completed on 2/28/24 to review and discuss the action plan. The Director of Nursing will report all findings of audits to the QAPI team monthly for any needed improvement. The date of completion was 3/1/24. Validation of the corrective action plan was completed on 5/3/24: The action plan was validated by reviewing the education provided to the staff, reviewing the interviews with staff and residents, and reviewing the daily Quality Monitoring documentation. Residents were interviewed during the survey, and none reported untreated pain. Nursing staff were interviewed and indicated they had all received education on narcotic diversion. The facility completion date of 3/1/24 could not be validated because the facility was educating staff on 3/1/24. The competion date was 3/2/24.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #86's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #86's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated his cognition was intact. Review of Resident #86's electronic medical record read he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. There was no documentation in the resident's medical record that written notice of transfer or discharge was provided to the resident and/or Resident Representative (RR). Resident #86 returned to the facility on [DATE]. An interview was conducted on 4/30/24 at 3:32 PM with the facility Social Worker (SW). She stated she had been at the facility since [DATE] and was not mailing a notice of discharge or transfer to the RR when the resident was admitted to the hospital. She was unaware she needed to send notification to the resident or RR in writing. An interview was conducted on 4/30/24 at 3:34 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated when a resident was transferred to the hospital the nursing staff called the RR but did not provide written notice of transfer or discharge. An interview was conducted on 5/1/24 at 8:40 AM with the Administrator who was familiar with the regulation. He stated he was unaware of written notification to the resident and/or RR for the reason for a hospital transfer was not being sent and would expect the regulation to be followed. Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or Resident Representative (RR) written notification of the reason for a hospital transfer for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Residents #78 and #86) and the facility failed to send a copy of a 30-day discharge notice to the Ombudsman for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #64) reviewed for facility-initiated discharge. The findings included: 1. Resident #78 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #78's medical record revealed she was transferred to the hospital on 1/5/24 and readmitted back to the facility on 1/12/24. Additionally, Resident #78 was transferred to the hospital on 1/29/24 and readmitted back to the facility on 2/16/24. There was no documentation of a written notice of transfer provided to the resident and/or RR. On 4/30/24 at 11:15 AM, an interview occurred with the wound nurse, who had transferred Resident #78 to the hospital on 1/29/24. She stated that when a resident was transferred to the hospital, a medication list, resident summary, and bed hold policy was sent with them. The RR was notified via phone. During an interview with the Social Worker on 4/30/24 at 3:32 PM, she stated she didn't provide any written information to the resident and/or RR when a resident was transferred to the hospital. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 4/30/24 at 3:34 PM and explained when a resident was transferred to the hospital the nursing staff called the RR but didn't mail anything to them in writing. On 5/1/24 at 8:40 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator who was familiar with the regulation. He stated he was unaware written notification to the resident and/or RR for the reason for a hospital transfer was not being sent and would expect the regulation to be followed. 3. Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and continued to reside in the facility. A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #64 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #64's record revealed a 30-day notice of discharge was provided to the resident on 5/7/2024. Further review revealed no evidence a copy of the notice was provided to the Ombudsman. During an observation and interview with Resident #64 on 5/15/2024 at 10:32 am he stated he was told he would be discharged soon but was not able to state why he was being discharged . He stated the facility gave him a notice of discharge and told him he had to leave. Resident #64 stated he was ready to get out of the facility. During an interview by phone with the Ombudsman on 5/15/2024 at 11:59 am she stated the facility should report a 30-day discharge notice to her within 48 hours of issuing the notice to the resident. The Ombudsman stated she had not received the notification Resident #64 received a 30-day discharge notice. On 5/14/2024 a phone interview was conducted with the Social Worker, and she stated she issued the 30-day discharge notice on 5/7/2024 to Resident #64 but she did not notify the Ombudsman because she had waited for the Business Office Manager to give her the documentation of the facility's attempts to collect the debts Resident #64 owed to the facility. The Business Office Manager was interviewed on 5/15/2024 at 12:55 pm and she stated she supplied the documentation of the attempts to collect the debts of a resident who was issued a 30-day discharge notice for non-payment. She stated Resident #64 wanted to return home and he was able to care for himself. She stated the Social Worker did not need the documentation of the attempts to collect the debts to notify the Ombudsman of the 30-day discharge notice the Social Worker gave Resident #64 on 5/7/2024. On 5/17/2024 at 4:42 pm the Administrator was interviewed and stated the Social Worker should have notified the Ombudsman when Resident #64 was issued the 30-day discharge notice for non-payment.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

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

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 complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge assessment within the required time frame for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #58). Findings include: Resident #58 had been admitted on [DATE]. An admission MDS assessment had been completed on 11/8/23. Nursing documentation dated 11/18/23 at 1:05 PM noted Resident #58 had been discharged home. No discharge MDS assessment was observed in Resident #58's record. An interview with the MDS Coordinator was conducted on 4/30/24 at 3:38 PM. She explained when she became aware of a resident's pending discharge, she opened the MDS assessment at that time. She stated yesterday she noticed Resident #58's MDS discharge assessment had not been transmitted and explained she was unsure how it had been missed. On 5/01/24 at 2:59 PM an interview with the corporate Nurse Consultant was conducted. She stated she would expect MDS assessments to be transmitted within the required timeframe.
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 interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) in the area of me...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) in the area of medication for 1 of 26 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed (Resident #24). Findings include: Resident #24 had been readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stroke and coronary artery disease. Review of Resident #24's Significant Change in Status MDS assessment dated [DATE] noted he had received anticoagulant (blood thinner) and antiplatelet (blood clot inhibitor) medication. Review of Resident #24's February 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) did not reveal he had received anticoagulant medication but had received antiplatelet medication. On 4/30/24 at 3:38 PM an interview with the MDS Coordinator was conducted. She explained when she completed MDS assessments she also checked the MAR. She stated anticoagulant should not been coded, only antiplatelet medication. On 5/01/24 at 2:59 PM an interview with the Corporate Nurse Consultant was conducted. She stated she would expect MDS assessments to be accurate.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the care plans in the areas of antibiotic ...

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 review and revise the care plans in the areas of antibiotic use and JP drain (A Jackson Pratt (JP) drain is a surgical suction drain that gently draws fluid from a wound to help recover after surgery) for Resident #81. This was for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings included: Resident #81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included urinary tract infection (UTI), abscess to left kidney requiring a JP drain, and right foot diabetic ulcer. Record review revealed the JP drain and the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line were removed on 03/25/24. Resident #81's active care plan, dated 04/04/24, revealed a focus that read resident had a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line and a JP drain, requiring intravenous (IV) antibiotics and IV antibiotics for renal abscess. Date initiated: 04/04/24. An interview was conducted on 05/01/24 at 1:04 PM with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse. She verified the areas on Resident #81's care plan for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line, JP drain, and IV antibiotics for renal abscess should have been removed. She stated it was an oversight that these areas on Resident #81's care plan had not been updated and removed. An interview was conducted on 4/30/24 at 3:34 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated the focus areas for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line, JP drain, and IV antibiotics for renal abscess should have been removed on Resident #81's care plan.
May 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview with the attending physician, resident and staff, the facility failed to provi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview with the attending physician, resident and staff, the facility failed to provide a safe transfer for a resident who was at high risk for fractures, was non-ambulatory and required extensive assistance with a mechanical lift for transfers. On 4/18/23 agency Nursing Assistants (NAs) #1 and #2 transferred Resident #1 from her wheelchair to bed utilizing a stand pivot method resulting in the resident's right lower leg getting caught under the bed during the transfer. The resident reported pain in her leg and NA #1 and NA #2 did not report the injury to a nurse. Resident #1 sustained a fracture of the right tibial plateau (a break of the large lower leg bone below the knee that breaks into knee joint itself), required a knee immobilizer, orthopedic care, and experienced pain rated a 10 out of 10 (with 0 indicative of no pain and 10 being the worst pain imaginable). NA #1 and NA #2 had no knowledge of where the resident's [NAME] (a care guide for NAs) was located and were unaware Resident #1 required a mechanical lift. This deficient practice was for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #1). Findings included: Resident #1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hemiparesis (partial weakness/paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiplegia (complete loss of strength/paralysis on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. The assessment further indicated the resident needed extensive assistance with two plus persons physical assist with transfers and ambulation did not occur over the entire 7-day period. Resident #1's [NAME] (resident care guide) completed on admission (undated) revealed that the resident was non-ambulatory, and the transfer method was mechanical lift. The [NAME] was observed on 5/8/23 at 2:30 PM in a binder located at the nurse's station. The Nurse Unit Manager was interviewed on 5/8/23 at 10:56 AM. She reported that Resident #1 had been using a mechanical lift for transfer for a long time, sometime in 2022. Review of the incident report dated 4/18/23 at 7:01 PM completed by Nurse #1 revealed Resident #1 was lying in bed with her right leg propped up on a pillow. Nurse #1 removed the pillow and the resident winced in pain and stated, can you please put that pillow back? Nurse #1 noticed the right leg was swollen and the resident stated that it hurt from her knee to her ankle. Resident #1 stated the pain was 10 on the scale of 1 to 10. The report indicated Resident #1 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. A nursing progress note dated 4/18/23 at 10:02 PM revealed Nurse #1 went into Resident #1's room to obtain a urine specimen. The resident's right leg was propped up on a pillow. When the nurse removed the pillow under the resident's right leg, the resident winced for pain and stated, can you please put that pillow back? When asked, the resident stated her right leg hurt from her knee down to her ankle. She reported that when the 2 Nurse's Aides (NA #1 and NA #2) were transferring her from the wheelchair to bed, her foot got caught under the bed and she felt something pop, and it had been hurting bad. The resident was sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation. Nurse #1 was interviewed on 5/9/23 at 9:45 AM. She reported she had known Resident #1 since 2022. The resident was alert and oriented to person, place and time, and was reliable. The resident was non-ambulatory and had been using mechanical lift for transfer. The Nurse stated on 4/18/23 after 3:00 PM, she went to Resident #1's room and noticed a pillow under the resident's leg. She indicated when she removed the pillow under the resident's right leg, the resident winced in pain and requested to put the pillow back under her right leg. The nurse observed the resident's right leg to be swollen and the resident rated her pain as 10 on the scale of 1 to 10 when she removed the pillow. The nurse indicated nobody had informed her of the incident nor the resident's complaints of pain. The ER report dated 4/18/23 revealed that Resident #1 arrived in ER for an injury that happened approximately 2:00 PM at the nursing facility. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) stated that resident's right lower leg got caught under the bed when the resident was being transferred back to bed from the wheelchair. The resident reported pain and swelling to lower leg and ankle. The resident was alert and oriented to person, place, date, and time. Evaluation in ER revealed a right tibial plateau fracture. She was placed in a knee immobilizer, non-weight bearing and Percocet (narcotic pain medication) for pain control and to follow up with the orthopedic in 1 week. The result of the Computerized Tomography (CT) of the lower right extremity dated 4/18/23 revealed acute, mildly depressed fracture of the anterior aspect of the lateral tibial plateau. Diffuse [spread or dispersing in many direction] severe osteopenia. Resident #1 was interviewed on 5/8/23 at 9:25 AM. She was in bed with a knee immobilizer on her right leg. She stated that she had the immobilizer since she fractured her leg and the Orthopedic Doctor had told her she would continue wearing the immobilizer for 4 more weeks. She reported that she fractured her right leg during transfer from the wheelchair to bed (on 4/18/23). She explained it was after lunch when she requested to be transferred back to bed. The 2 NAs (NA #1 and NA #2) transferred her, and during the transfer her right leg got caught under the bed. She heard a pop and her leg started to hurt badly. She screamed for pain and the NA stated she would let the nurse know. The resident indicated that she could not bear weight on her legs and the staff always use the mechanical lift for transfer. The written statement of NA #1 dated 4/20/23 was reviewed. The statement indicated that with the help of NA #2, she transferred Resident #1 from the bed to the wheelchair ready for her appointment. After the transfer, they left the room and started passing out breakfast trays. After breakfast, they started picking up breakfast trays when Resident #1 reported that she was sick and wanted to go back to bed. The statement indicated that NA #1 and NA #2 transferred the resident back to bed. NA #1 indicated that she was never told that Resident #1 was a mechanical lift for transfer. NA #1, an agency employee, was interviewed on 5/8/23 at 2:25 PM. She reported that 4/18/23 was her 3rd or 4th time working at the facility and she did not receive any orientation. She indicated she did not have access to the facility's kiosk, and she was not aware of the [NAME] that was available at the nurse's station. She stated that on 4/18/23, after picking up the lunch trays, she assisted NA #2 in transferring Resident #1 back to bed by using the stand pivot transfer. She stated nothing happened during the transfer, and she did not hear the resident complain of pain. NA #2, an agency employee, was interviewed on 5/8/23 at 2:45 PM. NA #2 reported that 4/18/23 was her first day working at the facility and she did not receive any orientation. She was assigned to Resident #1. She stated she did not have access to the facility's kiosk, and she was not aware of the [NAME] that was available at the nurse's station. She reported she was told that Resident #1 was two persons assist with transfers. She indicated that right after lunch, Resident #1 requested to be transferred back to bed from the wheelchair. NA #1 assisted her with the transfer using the stand pivot transfer. She reported that during the transfer, Resident #1 kept saying my leg hurts, my leg hurts and she told the resident that she would inform the nurse. NA #2 stated she did not inform the Nurse thinking that NA #1 did. NA #2 indicated she did not notice Resident #1's leg got caught under the bed during the transfer. NA #2 reported that she put a pillow under the resident's right leg since the resident was saying it hurt. The DON was interviewed on 5/8/23 at 10:05 AM. She reported she investigated the incident that happened on 4/18/23 with Resident #1. She interviewed Resident #1 on 4/19/23 and the resident reported that the 2 NAs transferred her from the wheelchair to bed. During the transfer, her right leg got caught under the bed. The resident indicated she screamed for pain and the NA told her she would inform the nurse. When in bed, a pillow was placed under her right leg. The DON indicated that the resident was alert and oriented to person, place and time and was reliable. The DON reported she interviewed NA #1 on 4/20/23 and obtained a written statement. NA #1 stated she was never informed that Resident #1 needed a mechanical lift for transfer. The DON reported she did not interview NA #2 since the NA had already left the building on 4/18/23 and she informed the agency not to send her back to work. A follow up interview was conducted with the DON on 5/9/23 at 11:05 AM. The DON revealed the resident's care summary including the resident's transfer status was posted in the kiosk, and the [NAME] was available at the nurse's station. She reported the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) was responsible for making sure all staff including agency staff had access to the kiosk and the [NAME] at the nurse's station. She stated that if the agency staff did not know the transfer status of the resident, they should ask the nurse. The SDC was unavailable for interview. The Physician was interviewed on 5/9/23 at 11:53 AM. He stated Resident #1 had throat cancer and was on radiation therapy. She has a diagnosis of severe osteopenia and was a high risk for fractures. Using the lift for transfer could or could have not prevented the fracture. He indicated that minimal movement of resident with severe osteopenia could have caused spontaneous fracture. He stated that he expected the staff to use the appropriate transfer method for all residents to prevent injuries and to notify the nurse of any concerns voiced by the residents or any accident/injuries as they occur to the resident. The Administrator was interviewed on 5/9/23 at 10:15 AM. He stated he had just started as the administrator of the facility when the incident with Resident #1 happened. He reported the facility had plans to get rid of all the agency staff. He stated the incident was investigated by the DON, and a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) was completed. A follow-up interview was conducted with the Administrator on 5/9/23 at 6:10 PM. He stated it was difficult to keep up with the agency staff. The facility received different staff from the agency every day, and it was unrealistic to educate each of them as they came. He reported the facility had planned to stop using agency staff. The corrective action with a compliance date of 4/25/23 was as follows: Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome because of the non- compliance: The facility failed to ensure staff provided transfer per care plan and failed to report the incident to the nurse. NA #1 and NA #2 transferred resident using stand pivot instead, when resident was care planned for a 2-person mechanical lift. On 4/19/2023 resident #1's care plan was updated to reflect transfer status by the Regional Minimum Date Set (MDS) Nurse. On 4/20/2023 interview with NA #1 on 4/20/2023 informed the Director of Nursing that on 4/18/2023 she and NA #2, were assisting Resident #1 from wheelchair to bed as resident had asked to return to bed because she was sick. During a stand pivot transfer resident stated, I heard a pop. NA #1 and NA #2 continued to assist resident #1 to bed. Resident told staff that her leg hurt, and NA #1 and NA #2 placed a pillow under Resident #1's leg and resident appeared to be comfortable. NA #1 stated she didn't know Resident #1 was a lift transfer. Resident stated this was sometime between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm when this happened. Nursing Assistant #2 stated, On April 18th I was given the 200-hall assignment with Resident #1. I was given an assignment run down by NA #1. NA# 1 and was told Resident #1 was a two person assist. I was notified that she was getting a shower because she had an appointment. On update of the resident 200 hall. I was only aware of one Hoyer lift patient. NA #1 and I were informed by the nurse that Resident #1's appointment had been canceled and to lay her down after lunch. After lunch NA #1 and I went to transfer resident #1 to the bed and she stated, that her leg was hurting and we continued to transfer her to bed. Once we got her to bed, we asked if she needed the nurse, and she said yes. NA #1 said she would notify the nurse. On 4/18/2023 around 4:00 pm NA# 3 entered the room to change the roommate and states that when she completed the roommate's care, she decided to do Resident #1's care. Nurse #1 entered resident #1 room to obtain a urine sample as NA #3 assisted. The nurse removed the pillow under resident #1's right leg and resident #1 asked her to put it back. The nurse replaced the pillow and asked Resident #1 if she had any pain, at that time Resident #1 stated, she felt pain from her knee to her ankle. Resident #1 reported a pain scale of 3, on a 0-10 scale. This was the first time the Nurse was made aware of pain. Resident #1 made the NAs aware earlier when the CNAs had to position the resident's leg on a pillow for the resident's comfort. The nurse proceeded to ask Resident #1 had anything happened. Resident #1 informed the nurse when NA # 1 and NA #2 were putting her to bed her foot got caught under the bed and she heard a pop. At this time Nurse #1 reported the incident to the Director of Nursing and Physician. Nurse #1 assessed Resident #1 and noted swelling to the right leg, orders were received to send Resident #1 to the hospital. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and Resident #1 agreed to go out to the hospital. X-rays were obtained at the hospital and the results showed a fracture of Tibial plateau. Resident #1 returned on 4/18/2023 with orders for orthopedic follow up, a knee immobilizer and order for Percocet 5-325 Milligrams (MG) take 1 tablet by mouth as needed every 6 hours for pain. As of 4/19/2023 Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 and NA #2 were suspended pending investigation by the Director of Nursing. Director of Nursing notified the agency of the incident involving NA #1 and NA #2 and to remove them from the scheduling of this facility. The Agency was informed on 4/19/2023 by Director of Nursing that NA #1 and NA #2 were a do not return to the facility. How you will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice, and what corrective action will be taken; All residents requiring assistance with transfers are at risk of being affected by this deficient practice when receiving care. Director of Nursing and/or Nurse Managers completed complete audit of all resident's transfer status as of 4/19/2023 and updated care plan as needed. All residents with a change in status are referred to the Rehab Department by nurse for further evaluation and transfer status change. Specify the action the entity will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, and when the action will be complete. As of 4/19/2023 4-point plan has been started to correct failing to follow proper transfers and reporting incident during transfer. Administrator and Director of Nursing completed 4-point Quality Assurance Improvement Plan (QAPI) as of 4/23/2023 to determine cause of incident. Investigation determined that re-education of care plan location and reporting of incident and accidents was needed. As of 4/19/2023 the Director of Nurses started education to ensure all licensed nurses and certified nursing assistants (full-time, part-time, as needed and agency) employees who do not complete the in-service training on transfers, resident transfer status and reporting change in condition related to pain will not be allowed to work until the training is completed. Staff Development Coordinator will ensure all new staff and agency staff have been educated. All nursing staff to include agency staff, must complete general orientation prior to working with residents. All staff, including agency staff, are given access to a kiosk prior to starting their shift. As of 4/23/2023 Director of Nursing and/or Staff Development Coordinator educated all licensed, non-licensed Nursing Staff and agency staff on proper transfer per care plan, resident transfer status location and reporting of resident pain or any change in condition. All employees to include agency staff, must complete general orientation prior to working with residents. AS of 4/23/2023 the Administrator, Director of Nursing and staffing coordinator will review staffing sheets daily to ensure staff scheduled have been educated and staff who have not been educated prior to starting their assignment receive education. As of 4/19/2023 Director of Nursing and or Nurse Manager will monitor 5 certified nursing assistants daily Monday- Friday for 4 weeks then 3 certified nursing assistants weekly for 3 weeks and then 3 certified nursing aides bi-weekly for 4 weeks to observe they are completing the transfer per care plan and reporting of any pain or change in condition. On 4/24/2023 Universal Healthcare at [NAME] conducted a QAPI meeting to review the findings of QAPI action plan and monitoring tools for effectiveness and any needed changes or improvements. Team consisted of Administrator, Director of Nursing, Nurse Managers, Social Worker, Rehab Director. Alleged Date of Compliance: 4/25/2023 On 5/16/23, as part of the validation process, the corrective action plan was reviewed and verified. Evidence of 100% auditing of residents' correct transfer and lift status on 4/19/23 and evidence of 100% all staff education on resident transfers, mechanical lifts and the [NAME] on 4/19/23 was reviewed and verified. The facility provided evidence of daily Quality Assurance auditing of proper use of lifts and correct lift status starting 4/19/23 and ongoing. Observations revealed correct transferring method and correct use of mechanical lift during resident care. Interviews with agency and in-house aides reported they were able to access the [NAME] and location of written [NAME] and were educated on immediately reporting any resident accidents or resident pain during or after a transfer to the nurse. The validation process verified the facility's date of compliance as 4/25/23.
Feb 2023 14 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to assess and obtain physician orders for the self...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to assess and obtain physician orders for the self-administration of medications for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #185) reviewed for self-administration. The findings included: Resident #185 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included multiple sclerosis, acute pulmonary edema, and atrial fibrillation. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #185 was cognitively intact. Continuous observation on 02/20/23 from 12:15 PM through 12:42 PM revealed three bottles of medications located on the bed side table in Resident #185 ' s room. The medications observed were the following: 1. DG Health 1 oz bottle, Nasal Spray-Oxymetazoline HCL 0.5%, Nasal Decongestant 2. CVS Health 15ml bottle of Sodium Chloride Hypertonicity 5% solution (Sodium Chloride 5% Ophthalmic Solution is indicated for the treatment of corneal edema (swelling) associated with Corneal Dystrophy or cataract surgery). 3. Artificial tears lubricant eye drops, 1 fluid ounce bottle. Record review on 02/20/23 at 01:06 PM revealed Resident #185 did not have an active order for the two eye drops or the nasal spray located on the bedside table. Observation on 02/20/23 at 03:12 PM revealed the medications had been removed from the bedside table. An interview was conducted on 02/21/23 at 03:10 PM with resident #185. She stated she did have eye drops and nose spray at bedside on 02/20/23. She stated she would self-administer the eye drops three times a day and the nasal spray as needed. She then stated someone came and removed them from her room. She further stated staff had them at this time. An interview was conducted on 02/21/23 at 03:15 PM with Med Aide #1. She stated she worked with Resident #185 on 02/20/23 but did not recall seeing the eye drops and nose spray on the bed side table. She stated she did not have an order for them. An interview was conducted on 02/21/23 at 03:31 PM with Nurse #4. She stated she did get an order for artificial tears eye drops and they are located on the medication cart. She further indicated Resident #185 did not have a self-administration order. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 09:50 AM with the Team Leader. She stated she removed the medications that were located on Resident #185 ' s bedside table because she knew she could not have them at bedside, and she did not have an order for them. She also stated Resident #185 did not have an order to self-administer medications. She indicated an order was obtained for polyvinyl alcohol 1.4% eyedrops (artificial tears) and she was working on getting orders for the other eye drop and the nasal spray. An interview was conducted on 02/23/23 at 12:25 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated she expected all medications to have an order to administer and if a resident wanted to self-administer medications that a self-administration assessment was to be completed. She indicated that staff should make sure there are no medications in rooms unless a self-administer assessment had been completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a significant change in status Minimu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident with two or more areas of decline in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for significant change (Resident # 38). The findings included: Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pain in right knee, muscle weakness and diabetes type 2. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #38 had moderately impaired cognition and was able to complete all mobility and ADL tasks with setup and supervision only. There was no limited range of motion coded. Review of the nursing progress notes revealed Resident #38 had a fall on 12/8/22 with pain and inability to extend her right leg. She was transported to the emergency room for further evaluation. She returned to the facility on the same day with a diagnosis of a peri-prosthetic (an area close to an artificial joint) fracture of the distal femur (leg joint at the knee). An orthopedic progress note dated 12/27/22 revealed Resident #38 was sent to the hospital for repair of the right distal femur fracture. Review of the hospital records dated 12/28/22 through 12/30/22 revealed Resident #38 had repair of the supracondylar (top part of the knee) fracture of the right femur. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #38 had moderately impaired cognition. She required setup and supervision for eating tasks; extensive assistance of one staff member for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, bathing, and extensive assistance of two staff members for transfers. Resident #38 was coded with limited range of motion to one lower extremity. On 2/20/23 at 12:25 PM, an interview occurred with Resident #38 while she was lying in bed. She explained that she had a fall recently that resulted in a fracture to her right knee. She explained she required very little assistance with ADL care and mobility prior to the fall in December 2022, but after her fall she required assistance from staff for all ADL's except eating and for mobility. An interview was held with Nurse Aide #3 (NA) on 2/21/23 at 3:21 PM, who stated Resident #38 was very independent with ADL tasks and mobility prior to her fall in December 2022. When she returned from the hospital she required extensive assistance with ADLs, except for eating, and mobility tasks. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 1:26 PM and stated it was an oversight not to have completed a significant change in status assessment due to the increased need for assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, personal hygiene, toileting and bathing and new limited range of motion to one lower extremity, when the quarterly MDS was completed on 1/6/23. On 2/23/23 at 10:53 AM, the Regional MDS Nurse Consultant was interviewed and stated a significant change in status MDS assessment should have been completed as required in the regulation, 14 days after two or more changes in MDS areas were determined.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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) assessments in the area of medications for 2 of 21 residents whose MDS were reviewed (Residents # 77 & # 43). Findings included: 1. Resident # 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbances. Resident #77 had a physician's order dated 2/3/23 for Risperidone (an antipsychotic drug) 0.5 milligrams (mgs) by mouth twice a day for behaviors. Review of the February 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #77 had received Risperidone on February 3, 4, 5 and 6, 2023. The significant change in status MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #77 had received an antipsychotic medication for 4 days during the look back period. However, under the antipsychotic medication review section, the assessment indicated that Resident #77 did not receive an antipsychotic medication since admission/entry, reentry or prior assessment. The Regional MDS Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 2:30 PM. She reviewed Resident #77's MARs and verified that the resident had received an antipsychotic medication during the look back period. She stated that the MDS dated [DATE] was not accurate. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/23/23 at 12:20 PM. The DON stated that she expected the MDS assessments to be accurate. 2. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia. Resident #43 had a physician's order dated 1/19/23 for Vibramycin (an antibiotic medication) 100 milligrams (mgs.) by mouth twice a day for pneumonia. Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration records (MARs) revealed that Resident #43 had received Vibramycin on January 20 through January 24, 2023. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #43 had received an antibiotic medication during the look back period. The Regional MDS Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 2:20 PM. She reviewed the January 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #43 had received an antibiotic medication during the look back period. She stated that she missed to note the use of the antibiotic on the admission MDS dated [DATE]. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/23/23 at 12:20 PM. The DON stated that she expected the MDS assessments to be accurate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a physician ' s order for a palm splint was accurate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a physician ' s order for a palm splint was accurate on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for Range of Motion (ROM). The findings included: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included contracture of right hand. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/14/22, revealed Resident #29 ' s cognition was severely impaired. Resident #29 required extensive assist of one person for bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene, and toilet use. Resident #29 was coded for functional limitations in range of motion (ROM) on one side of her upper extremities. Review of Resident #29 ' s active orders as of 02-20-22 revealed a physician order dated 07/22/22 that read: Resident to have palm guard to right hand (carrot). Nurse to monitor hand under device for signs and symptoms of redness/infection and ensure hand is cleaned with soap and water and dried thoroughly each shift. Start Date: 7/22/22. Order was scheduled on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 06:30 AM only. (Clean hand only scheduled for one time a day on MAR). (First shift is from 7 AM till 7 PM, second shift 7 PM till 7 AM or 7 PM till 11 PM and 11 PM till 7 AM.) An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 03:50 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated it is her expectation that splints be applied per orders. She viewed the order on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and verified the splint order for Resident #29 was not transcribed correctly. The administration time on the order was every shift but, on the MAR, it only had 6:30 AM. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 03:50 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated it is her expectation that splints be applied per orders. She viewed the order on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and verified the splint order for Resident #29 was not transcribed correctly. The administration time on the order was every shift but, on the MAR, it only had 6:30 AM.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a fall mat was in place according to th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a fall mat was in place according to the care planned fall safety interventions (Resident #2). This was for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for accidents. The findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included history of a stroke, Alzheimer's disease, and muscle weakness. Record review revealed Resident #2 rolled off the bed on 10/26/22. At that time the bed was moved, and a fall mat was placed next to the bed. Resident #2's active care plan dated 1/26/23, included a focus area for risk for falls and injury related to weakness, impaired mobility, incontinence, wears glasses, potential side effects from medications, poor safety awareness and history of falls. The interventions included fall mat to the side of the bed. A review of Resident #2's medical record revealed she was found sitting on the floor in her room on 1/30/23. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 had moderately impaired cognition and required limited to extensive assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). A wheelchair was used for mobility, and she was coded with 1 fall since the last assessment. An observation occurred of Resident #2 on 2/20/23 at 12:17 PM. She was observed to be sitting up in a wheelchair next to her bed. The bed was in the lowest position, however there was no fall mat located in the room or bathroom. On 2/21/23 at 8:30 AM, Resident #2 was observed sitting up in her bed eating breakfast. Her bed was in the lowest position, but there was no fall mat located next to the bed, in the room or in the bathroom. An observation occurred of Resident #2's bed on 2/21/23 at 3:17 PM. There was no fall mat located in the room or bathroom. On 2/21/23 at 3:21 PM, an interview was conducted with Nurse Aide (NA) #3 who was familiar with Resident #2 and worked the evening shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM). She thought Resident #2 had a fall mat next to her bed but was unable to locate it in the room or bathroom and could not explain where it was. A phone interview occurred with Nurse #2 on 2/22/23 at 8:55 AM, who was familiar with Resident #2 on the evening shift from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM. She stated at one time Resident #2 had a fall mat next to her bed but could not recall if it was still being used. On 2/22/23 at 10:04 AM, an observation was made of Resident #2's room, which revealed a fall mat next to the left side of the bed. An interview was held with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/22/23 at 11:20 AM. She was familiar with Resident #2 and stated a fall mat was to be placed next to the bed when Resident #2 was in it. She explained staff would remove it when she was up in the wheelchair for safety. The DON was unable to state why the fall mat was not in place on 2/20/23 and 2/21/23 but stated it was her expectation for fall interventions to be implemented by the staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to resolve grievances which were reported in the Resident Council meetings for 4 out of 6 months reviewed (August 2022, Se...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to resolve grievances which were reported in the Resident Council meetings for 4 out of 6 months reviewed (August 2022, September 2022, October 2022, November 2022, December 2022, January 2023). The findings included: Review of the grievance policy provided by the facility and dated October 2017 read as follows: The objective of the grievance policy is to ensure the facility makes prompt efforts to resolve grievances a resident may have. The intent of the grievance process is to support each resident's right to voice grievances (e.g., those about treatment, care, management of funds, lost clothing, or violation of rights) and to assure that after receiving a complaint/grievance, the facility actively seeks a resolution and keeps the resident appropriately apprised of its progress toward resolution. Observation of a Resident Council meeting was conducted on 02/21/23 at 3:16 PM and revealed an issue with resolution of grievance regarding activities on the weekend. Residents in the meeting had various ranges of cognition including, cognitively intact, moderately impaired, and severely impaired. The residents reported having expressed concerns about the lack of meaningful activities on the weekends The President of the Resident Council stated all we do is color. We want more activities on the weekends. She indicated it's frustrating and annoying that there are no activities on the weekends. We get bored. Another resident indicated we have to come up with our own activities on the weekends. A third resident indicated she would like to have more engaging activities on the weekends rather than coloring. The residents stated they had discussed their concerns of the activities several times during Resident Council meetings but felt like an appropriate resolution had not been made. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 09/26/22 indicated activity concerns regarding coloring packets were not enough on the weekends and would like a crochet class and bingo on the weekends. The Resident Council Concern and Recommendation form completed by the Activities Director dated 10/25/22 indicated the plan of action from the 09/26/22 meeting was cards have been ordered. I will try to find someone that knows how to crochet to do a class and teach them how to do it. As far as activities on the weekends, there is lots of stuff they have access to on the weekends. Cabinets are full and are unlocked on weekends. They know they can go in them and do anything they want. Bingo cards are out as well. The form indicated the views, grievances, or recommendations from the group had not been acted upon by the facility to their satisfaction. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 10/15/22 indicated activity concerns regarding needing an activity assistant on the weekends to assist with activities. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 11/29/22 indicated activities concerns regarding there had not been communication regarding the Resident Council requesting an activity assistant on the weekends and would like an assistant on the weekends to assist with activities. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 12/27/22 indicated see attached concern regarding concerns with activities. The Resident Council Concern and Recommendation Form (the attached concern from the Resident Council Meeting held on 12/27/22) completed by the Administrator dated 01/31/23 indicated the Resident Council Concerns were Residents voice concerns re: Activities being only independent and claim she is in the kitchen all of the time. Nothing on weekends . Activities Director is never in activities to coordinate programs. The Plan of Action indicated encourage residents to keep director or Social Worker informed of any activity they would like to have. Other residents do not always agree with the complaint. The Monitoring Process stated, as staffing improves and agency use is gone, will start another interview process to fill the assistant position. The form indicated the views, grievances, or recommendations from the group had been acted upon by the facility to their satisfaction. The former Activities Assistant was interviewed on 02/22/23 at 11:00 AM. She stated she was the Activities Assistant 6 months ago, but the facility had not found a replacement since she had become a Medication Assistant. She indicated she did not work on the weekends and there were no activities personnel on the weekends. She stated she was aware Resident Council expressed grievances regarding the lack of activities on the weekends; therefore, they would leave out activity packets which included 30 pages of coloring sheets and word searchers as well as left out board games. She stated a preacher came every Sunday, but they did not offer activities for non-religious residents on Sundays. An interview with the Social Worker on 02/23/23 at 9:25 AM revealed she met monthly with the Resident Council to discuss concerns, review old and new business, and encouraged residents to come up with recommendation for expressed concerns. She stated for every grievance expressed in Resident Council meetings, she identified the type of grievance and then provided it to the relevant department head. The Activities Director was made aware of Resident Council's concerns regarding the lack of activities on the weekend. The Activity Director was not available for interview. The Administrator was interviewed on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM. She stated she was aware of Resident Council's grievances regarding wanting an activity assistant on the weekends and lack of activities on the weekends. She stated she has spoken with Resident Council several times regarding this concern and informed them an activities assistant cannot be hired due to staffing shortage. She stated she felt like she had responded to the Resident Council's grievances appropriately.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan in the areas of falls (Resid...

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 review and revise the care plan in the areas of falls (Residents #2, #38 and #58), pressure ulcers (Resident #14), and medications (Residents #43 and #77). This was for 6 of 18 resident records reviewed. The findings included: 1. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, muscle weakness and anxiety disorder. A review of Resident #2's medical record revealed she sustained an actual fall on 10/26/22 and another one on 1/22/23. Review of Resident #2's active care plan included a care plan for the risk for falls initiated on 1/26/23. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 had moderately impaired cognition and was coded with one fall with minor injury. On 2/23/23 at 10:53 AM, an interview was conducted with the Regional MDS Nurse Consultant. She reviewed Resident #2's active care plan and stated the care plan should have been revised to reflect the actual falls that occurred on 10/26/22 and 1/22/23. She felt it was an oversight. 2. Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included history of falling, muscle weakness and pain to right knee. Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed she sustained an actual fall on 12/8/22 with injury. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #38 had moderately impaired cognition and had sustained a fall with injury. Review of Resident #38's active care plan, last reviewed 1/10/23, included a care plan for the risk for falls, initiated on 12/31/22. On 2/23/23 at 10:53 AM, an interview occurred with the Regional MDS Nurse Consultant. She reviewed Resident #38's active care plan and stated the care plan should have been revised to reflect the actual fall that happened on 12/8/22. She felt it was an oversight. 3. Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included history of a stroke, history of falling and muscle weakness. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #58 had severely impaired cognition and was coded with one fall with injury and one fall with major injury. Review of Resident #58's active care plan, last reviewed 11/30/22, included a care plan for the risk for falls, initiated on 3/2/22. The care plan included the fall that occurred on 11/20/22 only. Review of Resident #58's medical record revealed he sustained falls on 8/15/22 with no injury, 11/19/22 with minor injury, 11/20/22 with injury, 11/23/22 with no injury, 12/18/22 with no injury and 1/13/23 with no injury. On 2/23/23 at 10:53 AM, an interview was completed with the Regional MDS Nurse Consultant. She reviewed Resident #58's active care plan and stated the care plan should have been revised to reflect the actual falls that occurred and felt it was an oversight. 4. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #14 had severe cognitive impairment and she had no pressure ulcers. Resident #14's care plan with a review date of 12/29/22 was reviewed. One of the care problems was at risk for pressure ulcers and the goal was to remain free from additional pressure ulcers. The approaches included remove C collar to monitor skin for rash/breakdown. Resident #14 was observed on 2/21/23 at 8:55 AM and on 2/22/23 at 2:30 PM. The resident was not observed wearing a C collar. The Treatment Nurse was interviewed on 2/21/23 at 10:05 AM. She stated that she had not seen Resident #14 wearing a C collar. Nurse # 3 was interviewed on 2/21/23 at 10:10 AM. She stated that she had not seen Resident #14 wearing a C collar. She reported that the resident might have been admitted with a C collar way back in 2020. The Regional MDS Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 2:30 PM. She reviewed Resident #14's care plan and stated that the C collar should have been removed from the care plan when the C collar was discontinued. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/23/23 at 12:20 PM. The DON stated that she expected the care plan to be reviewed and revised when indicated. 5. Resident #77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including severe protein calorie malnutrition. Resident #77 had a physician's order dated 1/29/23 for a regular diet. Resident #77's care plan that was initiated on 1/30/23 was reviewed. One of the care plan problems was at risk for dehydration due to use of antibiotic medication for urinary tract infection and the approaches included diet: clear liquids as ordered and tolerated. Nurse # 3 was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 10:10 AM. She stated that Resident #77 was on a regular diet. The Regiona MDS Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 2:30 PM. She reviewed Resident #77's diet order and verified that Resident #77 was on a regular diet and not on a clear liquid diet. She indicated that the MDS Nurse might have checked the wrong diet on the selection of the care plan approaches. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/23/23 at 12:20 PM. The DON stated that she expected the care plan to be reviewed and revised when indicated. 6. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia. Resident #43 had a physician's order dated 1/19/23 for mechanical soft diet with thin liquids. Resident #43's care plan that was initiated on 1/30/23 was reviewed. One of the care plan problems was at risk for dehydration due to use of antibiotic medication for pneumonia and the approaches included diet: clear liquids as tolerated. Nurse # 3 was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 10:10 AM. She stated that Resident #43 was on a mechanical soft diet with thin liquids. The Regional MDS Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 2:30 PM. She reviewed Resident #43's diet order and verified that Resident #43 was on a mechanical soft diet and not on a clear liquid diet. She indicated that the MDS Nurse might have checked the wrong diet on the selection of the care plan approaches. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/23/23 at 12:20 PM. The DON stated that she expected the care plan to be reviewed and revised when indicated.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interview ' s the facility failed to provide nail care and incontinenc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interview ' s the facility failed to provide nail care and incontinence care for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL ' s) (Resident #29, #1, and #2). The findings include: 1. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, stage 3 pressure ulcer, and contracture of right hand. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/14/22, revealed Resident #29 ' s cognition was severely impaired. Resident #29 required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and toilet use. She required extensive assistance of two people for transfers. Resident #29 was coded for functional limitations in range of motion (ROM) on one side of her upper extremities. Review of Resident #29 ' s care plan with a revision date of 12/20/22 revealed a focus area for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs): required assistance for all ADLs related to polio syndrome, right hand contracture, and dementia. The following interventions were included: assist resident as needed and do not rush resident-allow extra time to participate in ADLS as much as possible and then complete task. a. Review of a grievance/concern initiated by Resident #29 ' s responsible party (RP) dated 11/18/22 revealed that Resident #29 was not assigned a Nursing Assistant (NA) from 7:00 AM through 1:00 PM on 11/18/22. Per grievance/concern form, the resident ' s RP came in to visit with Resident #29 at 2:15 PM and asked staff why resident was not out of bed. She was informed by NA #6 at 2:30 PM that Resident #29 was accidentally left off the assignment sheet from 7:00 AM through 1:00 PM. Assignment was immediately corrected to include Resident #29 when this was noted, and education was provided to staff on making sure all residents are included and are receiving care. Review of the assignment sheet for 11/18/22 revealed the assignment schedule had not been adjusted that morning and Resident #29 ' s room was clearly written and assigned to Nursing Assistant (NA) #6. NA #6 was unavailable for interview. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 01:15 PM with the Team Leader. She indicated that she made the assignment schedule for staff the morning of 11/18/22. She stated on 11/18/22 the Nursing Assistants (NAs) assignments were changed that morning and Resident #29 ' s room was accidently left off the assignment sheet. She stated she fed Resident #29 breakfast that morning. She further stated a family member came in and was very upset that the resident had not been changed all morning/afternoon and that Resident #29 was wet. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 01:35 PM with the Social Worker (SW). She stated on 11/18/22 Resident #29 ' s responsible party (RP) came to her because Resident #29 was accidently left off the Nursing Assistants (NAs) assignment sheet. She stated the RP said the resident was soaked in urine and it was unacceptable. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 04:43 PM with Resident #29 ' s responsible party (RP). She stated she came to facility around 2:15 PM on 11/18/22 and Resident #29 was still in bed. She stated she was to be up by 10:00 AM every day. She further stated she was informed by staff that Resident #29 was overlooked on the assignment sheet. She stated she was very upset that Resident #29 had not been bathed, changed, or gotten up until 1:00 PM. An interview was conducted on 02/23/23 at 10:17 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated she expected all residents to be included on the daily assignment sheet and that every resident should receive care. She acknowledged that Resident #29 was missed on the assignment sheet on 11/18/22 and that all staff were educated on the importance of making sure all residents are listed and receiving care. b. An observation was conducted on 02/20/23 at 11:32 AM and on 02/22/23 at 10:14 AM revealed Resident #29 ' s fingernails on her left hand extended approximately 1/8th to 1/4th of an inch beyond her fingertips as did the index and thumb nails on the resident's right hand. Her left pointer finger was jagged, and the right ring finger was jagged. The resident's 3rd, 4th, and 5th fingers were observed curled into the right palm. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 09:50 AM with the Team Leader. She stated the Nursing Assistants (NAs) are responsible for cutting residents nails during showers/baths and/or when they see that it needs to be done. She also stated she does rounds monthly to check to see if nails have been done. An observation and interview were conducted on 02/22/23 at 10:16 AM with the team leader and NA #2. They both confirmed Resident #29 ' s nails were long, the left pointer finger was jagged, and the right ring finger was jagged. They both confirmed her nails needed to be cut. The Team Leader stated nails are to be cut as needed and during showers/baths. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 03:50 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She expected nails to be cut as needed. She stated she normally cuts Resident #29 ' s fingernails but she was unaware they needed to be cut. 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included stroke, Hemiplegia/hemiparesis (Hemiparesis is a mild or partial weakness on one side of the body. Hemiplegia is paralysis on one side of the body), and diabetes mellites. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/30/23, revealed Resident #1 ' s cognition was severely impaired. She was totally dependent of one person for personal hygiene and bathing. There was no rejection of care or behaviors coded. She was coded for functional limitations in range of motion (ROM) on both sides of her upper extremities and impairment on 1 side of her lower extremities. Review of Resident #1 ' s care plan with a revision date of 11/01/22 revealed a focus for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs): only read the following: total care for ADLs. No interventions were listed related to ADLs other than splint application and skin checks under splints. A focus that she exhibits aggressive behavior with ADLs. Interventions included: to allow opportunity to make choices and participate in care and provide diversional activities. Observations on 02/20/23 at 10:14 AM and at 01:10 PM, and on 02/21/23 at 12:57 PM revealed Resident #1 ' s fingernails on her left and right hands extended approximately 1/8th of an inch beyond her fingertips. The middle finger on her left hand was jagged. An observation and interview were conducted on 02/22/23 at 10:16 AM with the team leader and NA #2. They both confirmed Resident #1 ' s nails were long, the middle finger on her left hand was jagged. They both confirmed her nails needed to be cut. The Team Leader stated nails are to be cut as needed and during showers/baths. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 09:50 AM with the Team Leader. She stated the Nursing Assistants (NAs) are responsible for cutting residents nails during showers/baths and/or when they see that it needs to be done. She also stated she does rounds monthly to check to see if nails have been done. An interview was conducted on 02/22/23 at 03:50 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She expected nails to be cut as needed. 3. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included history of a stroke, Alzheimer's disease, and muscle weakness. Resident #2's active care plan, with a start date of 1/26/23, included an area that read Resident requires assistance for eating, mobility, transfers, dressing, grooming, toileting and bathing related to impaired mobility, hearing impairment, vision impairment, some cognitive decline, fractured right wrist and incontinence. The interventions included to assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) as needed A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 had moderately impaired cognition and displayed no rejection of care. She required total assistance from staff for personal hygiene. A review of Resident #2's nursing progress notes from 11/1/22 through 2/22/23 revealed no refusals of nail care documented. On 2/20/23 at 12:17 PM, an observation of Resident #2 occurred while she was sitting up in the wheelchair. Fingernails to both hands were medium length, and the left thumb and right fifth nails were jagged. Resident #2 was observed on 2/21/23 at 8:30 AM, while sitting in bed eating breakfast. Her fingernails remained unchanged from the previous observation. On 2/21/23 at 3:17 PM, Resident #2 was observed while sitting up in the wheelchair. Her left thumb and right fifth fingernails remained jagged. An interview occurred with Nurse Aide (NA) #3 on 2/21/23 at 3:21 PM and was assigned to care for Resident #2 on the evening shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM). She stated nail care was normally rendered during personal care or bathing tasks and was unable to state why Resident #2's nails had not been cared for. On 2/22/23 at 10:04 AM, an interview and observation occurred of NA #4 who was providing personal care to Resident #2. She stated she saw Resident #2 had jagged nails to both hands and had just finished cutting and filing them. NA #4 could not explain why nail care had not been completed prior to this day. She added nail care should be rendered during personal care and bathing. On 2/22/23 at 11:40 AM, an interview was conducted with NA #5 who was familiar with Resident #2 but not assigned to care for her. He explained nail care should be done daily to ensure nails were short and clean. The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 2/23/23 at 11:00 AM and stated she was not aware of any refusals of nail care from Resident #2 or that nail care was needed. She added that she would expect fingernails to be observed on shower days and during personal care with nail care rendered as needed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure group activities were planned on ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure group activities were planned on weekends to meet the needs of residents who expressed that it was important to them to attend group activities (Residents #35, #13, #3) for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for activities. The findings included: A review of the Activities Calendar from August 2022 through January 2023 revealed there was 1 activity planned every Saturday and 1 religious activity on every Sunday. a. Resident #35 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #35's cognition was fully intact. This assessment indicated that it was very important to Resident #35 to do activities with groups of people. The Activity assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #35 preferred to participate in activities in the morning and afternoon, in the day/activity room, and was motivated to participate in activities. The assessment indicated she preferred to participate in cards, games, crafts/arts/hobbies, exercise/walking/jogging, music, baking/cooking, spiritual/religious, time outdoors, watching TV/radio, watching movies, talking/conversing, helping others/volunteer work, parties/social events, and keeping up with the news. Resident #35's active care plan dated 12/01/22 included the focus area of Resident #35 to verbalize her preferences and she stated she enjoyed cards, games, crafts, exercise, music, baking/cooking, spiritual/religious, watching TV, movies, talking/conversing, helping others, parties/social events, and keeping up with the news. The goal included Resident #35 will participate in activities she prefers. Interventions included to assist Resident #35 with getting to activities, remind her when activities are scheduled, and post a personal activity calendar in her room. During a Resident Council meeting held on 02/21/23 at 3:16 PM Resident #35 indicated residents had to come up with their own activities on the weekends. She indicated the weekends can be boring due to the lack of activities. She would like more activities rather than coloring and worksheets. b. Resident #13 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9's cognition was moderately impaired. The Activities assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #13's current interests included cards, games, crafts/arts/hobbies, exercise, music, baking/cooking, spiritual, time outdoors, watching tv and movies, gardening, talking, helping others, parties/social events, and keeping up with the nose. Resident #13's care plan dated 05/29/22 included a focus area of verbalizing her preferences and had stated she enjoyed cards, crafts, games, exercise, music, baking/cooking, spiritual/religious, spending time outdoors, watching TV and movies, gardening, talking and conversing, helping others, parties/social events, keeping up with the news, and community outings. The goal included for Resident #13 to participate in her preferred activities. Interventions included post a personal activity calendar in her room; encouraged her to attend activities that include music, and invited and encouraged her to participate in activity groups of interest. During a Resident Council meeting held on 02/21/23 at 3:16 PM Resident #13 indicated there were very few meaningful activities on the weekends and stated All we do is color. She stated she would like more activities on the weekends. She indicated she gets bored on the weekends because of the lack of activities. c. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 cognition was severely impaired and it was important for her to do favorite activities with groups of people. The Activities assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was interested in cards, games, crafts/arts, music, baking/cooking, spiritual, time outdoors, watching TV and movies, listening to the radio, talking/conversing, parties/social events, and keeping up with the news. She was assessed as being motivated and interested in attending activities. Resident #3's active care plan dated 12/24/19 included the focus area of verbalizing her preferences and stated she enjoyed cards, crafts, games, music, reading, spiritual/religious, spending time outdoors, watching TV and movies, talking, conversing, baking/cooking, parties, social events, and keeping up with the news. The goal included for her to participate in her preferred activities. Interventions included to encourage her to attend activities that involve music; staff will take her outside when the weather is nice for fresh air; and invite and encourage her to participate in activities. During a Resident Council meeting held on 02/21/23 at 3:16 PM Resident #3 indicated she mostly does coloring sheets and word searches on the weekends. She stated she would prefer more activities on the weekends. She stated she does not attend the religious services. The former Activities Assistant was interviewed on 02/22/23 at 11:00 AM. She stated she was the Activities Assistant 6 months ago, but the facility had not found a replacement. While she was an Activities Assistant she assisted with activities such as playing music for residents, assist with snack time, play balloon toss with residents, and facilitate exercise class. She indicated she did not work on the weekends and there were no activities personnel on the weekends. They would leave out activity packets which included 30 pages of coloring sheets and word searchers as well as left out board games. She stated a preacher came every Sunday, but they did not offer activities for non-religious residents on Sundays. An interview with the Social Worker on 02/23/23 at 9:25 AM revealed she met monthly with the Resident Council to discuss concerns, review old and new business, and encouraged residents to come up with recommendation for expressed concerns. She indicated the lack of weekend activities was an ongoing issue with Resident Council, and was working with Resident Council to resolve the concern. She stated the residents would like more variety of activities on the weekends. The Activity Director was not available for interview. The Administrator was interviewed on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM. She stated she felt she had attempted to accommodate the residents several times, but the residents seem to not find the resolutions acceptable. She had attempted to make changes, but residents did not attend the alternative activities. She stated she had attempted to provide additional activities to celebrate Thanksgiving, but very few residents attended. She indicated she was swamped with staffing issues and was focused on resident care rather than additional activities on the weekends.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, resident, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the annual recertification and complaint survey completed on 06/11/21. This was for 6 deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Accuracy of Assessments, Services Provided Meet Professional Standards, Activities of Daily Living Care Provided for Dependent Residents, Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices, Increase/Prevent Decrease in Range of Motion/Mobility, Registered Nurse 8 hours/7 Days/Week, Full Time Director of Nursing, and Posted Nurse Staffing Information. The continued failure of the facility during two federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program. The findings included: 1. F641 - Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the area of medications for 2 of 21 residents whose MDS were reviewed (Residents # 77 & # 43). During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21 the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately in the areas of prognosis, range of motion, and Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) level 2. This was for 3 of the 19 MDS's reviewed for accuracy. In an interview with the Administrator on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM, she felt the repeat citation in MDS accuracy was felt to be related to the MDS Nurse feeling overwhelmed with the amount of MDS assessments she had to do. 2. F658 - Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order for a palm splint was accurate on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for Range of Motion (ROM). During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21 the facility failed to obtain a physician order since admission [DATE]) for the required intravenous line flush before and after antibiotic administration for 1 of 1 reviewed. In an interview with the Administrator on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM, she felt the repeat citation in Services Provided Meet Professional Standards was felt to be related to human error and the MDS Nurse feeling overwhelmed. 3. F677 - Based on observations, record review, resident, and staff interview's the facility failed to provide nail care and incontinence care for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's) (Resident #29, #1, and #2). During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21 the facility failed to provide scheduled showers, baths, nail care, and facial shaving for 7 of 8 activity of daily living (ADL) dependent residents reviewed. In an interview with the Administrator on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM, she felt the repeat citation in ADL care was related to staff turnover and agency staff not being invested in the facility or the residents. 4. F689 - Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a fall mat was in place according to the care planned fall safety interventions (Resident #2). This was for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for accidents. During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21 the facility failed to provide supervision to 2 residents with known behavioral symptoms to prevent the physical assault, unwanted physical contact, and/or unwanted advancements into the personal space of cognitively impaired residents. This was for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for resident to resident altercations. In an interview with the Administrator on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM, she felt like the repeat citation in Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices was not warranted because she disagreed with the repeat citation. 5. F727 - Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 7 out of 38 days reviewed for staffing. The failure to have RN coverage for the facility had the high likelihood to impact every resident in the facility. During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21, the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for at least 8 consecutive hours per day 7 days a week for 15 of 31 days reviewed. In an interview with the Administrator on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM, she felt like the repeat citation in Registered Nurse/7 Days/Week, Full Time DON was related to staffing shortage. She indicated she has not be able to hire an in-house registered nurse. She relies on agency registered nurses. If the agency registered nurse calls out, she cannot get coverage. 6. F732 - Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to display accurate Posted Nurse Staffing Information as compared to the Staff Schedule/Assignment Sheets for 22 out of 38 days reviewed. During the facility's recertification survey of 06/11/21 facility failed to accurately complete the posting on 31 of 31 days reviewed (5/01/21 through 5/31/21). In an interview with the Administrator on 02/23/23 at 12:45 PM, she felt the repeat citation in Posted Nurse Staffing Information was not warranted because she disagreed with the repeat citation.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 7 out of 38 days reviewed for staffing. The failure t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 7 out of 38 days reviewed for staffing. The failure to have RN coverage for the facility had the high likelihood to impact every resident in the facility. The findings included: Review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) facility reporting, Posted Nurse Staffing as compared to the Staff Schedule/Assignment Sheets, and RN timecard reports revealed there was no RN coverage for eight consecutive hours on for 07/31/22, 08/07/22, 08/20/22, 08/21/22, or 08/28/22. This was for 5 of the 8 days reviewed from PBJ triggered days. Review of the Posted Nurse Staffing as compared to the Staff Schedule/Assignment Sheets and RN timecard reports for the period of 01/20/23 through 02/20/23 corroborated there was no RN coverage on 01/21/23 or 01/22/23. This was for 2 of the 30 days reviewed. An interview was conducted on 02/21/23 at 03:47 PM with the Administrator. She stated she did not have an RN on 07/31/22, 08/07/22, 08/20/22, 08/21/22, 08/28/22, 01/21/23 or 01/22/23. She further stated the agency did not have an RN available at that time. She stated she has had a hard time finding an RN to hire. An interview on 02/23/23 at 09:50 AM was conducted with the facility scheduler. She verified that the number of licensed staff and the total hours worked for licensed staff were incorrect for 21 out of 38 days. She stated she was counting the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse under 1st shift although she had not provided direct care to residents and that the accurate Posted Nurse Staffing Information Sheets had not been updated daily to reflect the correct hours that licensed staff had worked. She further stated they had hired a RN supervisor in January, who would have counted towards the RN hours, but she did not work out and was terminated. An interview was conducted on 02/23/23 at 10:17 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated she was aware they did not have RN coverage on some days. She further stated agency did not have an RN available at that time.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete and transmit a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) ass...

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 complete and transmit a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (Resident #56) and failed to transmit a discharge MDS assessment (Resident #67). This was for 2 of 2 residents selected to be reviewed for submission of Resident Assessments within the required timeframe. The findings included: 1. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a history of a stroke with left sided paralysis/weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia. A review of Resident #56's most recent completed MDS was dated [DATE] and coded as a significant change in status MDS assessment. Review of Resident #56's medical record revealed he expired at the facility on [DATE]. There was no death in facility MDS discharge tracker found in Resident #56's medical record. On [DATE] at 1:26 PM, an interview occurred with the Regional MDS Nurse Consultant and the MDS Nurse. The MDS nurse reviewed the most recent MDS completed and verified it was a significant change in status assessment. She confirmed the resident expired on [DATE], a discharge MDS for death was not completed and that it was overlooked. 2. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included muscle weakness, gout, and diabetes type 2. A review of Resident #67's most recent completed MDS was dated [DATE] and was coded a discharge to the community. During an interview with the Regional MDS Nurse Consultant and MDS Nurse on [DATE] at 1:26 PM, the MDS Nurse indicated the discharge assessment was completed on [DATE] but was not transmitted. She stated that a file was made for submission of the assessment on [DATE] because it had been overlooked.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) had a documented performance review every twelve months to ensure in-service education was...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) had a documented performance review every twelve months to ensure in-service education was designed to address the outcome of the performance reviews (CNA #3, #9, #10 and #11). The findings include: 1. a. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3's employee file revealed the Date of Hire (DOH) was 11/21/17. CNA #3's employee file did not include documentation of a performance review. b. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #9's employee file revealed the Date of Hire (DOH) was 05/22/14. CNA #9's employee file did not include documentation of a performance review. c. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #10's employee file revealed the Date of Hire (DOH) was 11/09/10. CNA #10's employee file did not include documentation of a performance review. d. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #11's employee file revealed the Date of Hire (DOH) was 01/25/18. CNA #11's employee file did not include documentation of a performance review. An interview was conducted on 02/21/23 at 03:15 PM with NA #11. She stated the facility uses an online education system for continuing education and skills checklists. She indicated she had not received a performance review. An interview was conducted on 02/23/23 at 11:42 AM with Infection Control Preventionist/Staff Development Coordinator (ICP/SDC) Nurse regarding yearly performance review. She indicated the facility did not currently have a yearly skills performance review, but she was trying to put one in place (a copy was provided). She stated that the facility uses an online education program that consisted of learning modules and that some modules, not all, had a checklist at the end for the CNAs to sign off on. She further stated she does not observe the CNAs performing skills demonstration. She also stated if the module contained a checklist the Director of Nursing (DON) observed the CNA performing the skills demonstration and then signed it off. A review of a module checklist that was provided by the ICP/SDC Nurse with a heading of, Fall Prevention in Bed was conducted. At the top of page under Description it read, in part, the following: This checklist identifies the steps needed to fall prevention falls from bed. It also provides rationales to explain why these steps are performed. The use of this content is for educational purposes only and should only be used as a guide in performing this skill. Any federal, state, and local regulations and protocols must be observed. An interview was conducted on 02/23/23 at 12:25 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She indicated the facility did not have a yearly skills performance review only the online education program that consisted of learning modules. She then stated she did not typically observe the CNAs demonstrating the task. She further stated she and the Infection Control Preventionist/Staff Development Coordinator (ICP/SDC) Nurse reviewed the online education program to see if any module check off was completed, and if it was completed, she signed off on it.
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 display accurate Posted Nurse Staffing Information as compared to the Staff Schedule/Assignment Sheets for 22 out of 38 days reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to display accurate Posted Nurse Staffing Information as compared to the Staff Schedule/Assignment Sheets for 22 out of 38 days reviewed. The findings included: A review of the Staff Schedule/Assignment Sheets and timecard reports compared to the daily Posted Nurse Staffing Information sheets for 07/31/22, 08/07/22, 08/20/22, 08/21/22, 08/28/22 and from 01/20/23 through 02/20/23 revealed discrepancies in the areas of actual hours worked and actual nursing staff who worked including the licensed Registered Nurses (RNs) and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs). The number of licensed staff and actual hours worked of licensed staff on 1st shift were incorrect for the following days: 07/31/22, 01/20/23, 01/22/23, 01/23/23, 01/25/23, 01/26/23, 01/27/23, 01/31/23, 02/01/23, 02/02/23, 02/03/23, 02/07/23, 02/08/23, 02/09/23, 02/13/23, and 02/15/23. The number of licensed staff and actual hours worked of licensed staff on 2nd shift were incorrect for the following days: 07/31/22, 08/28/22, 01/20/23, 01/21/23, 01/22/23, 01/23/23, 01/25/23, 01/26/23, 01/27/23, 01/31/23, 02/01/23, 02/02/23, 02/03/23, 02/04/23, 02/06/23, 02/07/23, 02/08/23, 02/09/23, 02/11/23, 02/12/23, 02/13/23, and 02/15/23. The number of licensed staff and actual hours worked of licensed staff on 3rd shift were incorrect for the following days:07/31/22, 08/07/22, 01/22/23, 01/23/23, 01/27/23, 01/31/23, 02/04/23, 02/08/23, 02/11/23, 02/12/23, The number of licensed and unlicensed staff and actual hours worked of licensed and unlicensed staff on 2nd shift were incorrect for the following days: 01/06/23, 01/07/23, 01/08/23, 01/11/23, 01/12/23, 01/13/23, 01/14/23, 01/16/23, 01/17/23, 01/18/23, 01/21/23, 01/22/23, 01/23/23, 01/25/23, 01/26/23, 01/27/23, 01/30/23, 01/31/23, 02/01/23, 02/02/23, 02/04/23, 02/05/23, and 02/06/23. An interview was conducted on 02/21/23 at 03:47 PM with the Administrator. She stated she was unaware the daily Posted Nurse Staffing Information sheets were inaccurate and did not reflect the correct actual working hours or the correct number of staff for 22 out of 38 days reviewed. An interview on 02/23/23 at 09:50 AM was conducted with the facility scheduler. She verified that the number of licensed staff and the total hours worked for licensed staff were incorrect for 21 out of 38 days. She stated she was counting the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse under 1st shift although she had not provided direct care to residents and that the accurate Posted Nurse Staffing Information Sheets had not been updated daily to reflect the correct hours that licensed staff had worked. An interview on 02/23/23 at 10:17 AM was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). She reviewed and confirmed the daily Posted Nurse Staffing Information sheets were inaccurate and did not reflect the correct actual working hours or the correct number of staff for 22 out of 38 days reviewed.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $124,225 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 29 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $124,225 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 16 with potential for harm, and 8 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

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

How Does Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

Ramseur Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has been fined $124,225 across 3 penalty actions. This is 3.6x the North Carolina average of $34,321. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Ramseur Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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