Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co

2702 Farrell Road, Sanford, NC 27330 (919) 776-9602
For profit - Limited Liability company 131 Beds SANSTONE HEALTH & REHABILITATION Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#192 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided. They rank #192 out of 417 facilities in North Carolina, placing them in the top half, but this is overshadowed by serious issues. Although the facility shows improvement in its trend, reducing problems from 7 in 2024 to 1 in 2025, there are still concerning findings. Staffing is rated at 2 out of 5 stars, indicating below-average performance, and they have a high turnover rate of 47%, which is just slightly below the state average. The facility also faces $49,826 in fines, which suggests ongoing compliance issues. There are critical incidents, including a medication error that led to a resident's dangerously low blood pressure and instances where residents were not provided timely incontinence care, compromising their dignity. While there is some strength in their health inspection rating of 3 out of 5, the lack of adequate RN coverage-less than 95% of state facilities-is a significant weakness that could impact resident care.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In North Carolina
#192/417
Top 46%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$49,826 in fines. Higher than 90% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near North Carolina average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 47%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $49,826

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: SANSTONE HEALTH & REHABILITATION

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

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 submit follow up documents for completion of a Preadmission ...

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 submit follow up documents for completion of a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level I screen to determine appropriate placement for 1 of 3 residents sampled for PASRR (Resident #46). The findings included: A review of the diagnosis list for Resident #46 included diagnoses of psychotic disorder 05/24/2023 and bipolar disorder 06/12/2023. A review of the North Carolina Medicaid Long Term Care Facility Level (FL)2 Form dated 01/22/2024 revealed diagnoses including psychotic disorder 05/24/2023 and bipolar disorder 06/12/2023. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder. A review of the North Carolina PASRR level I screen submitted 02/28/2024 revealed diagnoses including bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorder. The screen requested additional information to include the most recent history and physical (H&P), FL2 signed by physician, psychiatric notes and comprehensive notes. The facility did not submit the information requested and never received a letter of determination for proper placement of Resident #46. The care plan dated 03/04/2025 had a focus of a history of mood distress as evidenced by finding little interest or pleasure in doing things. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 was cognitively intact with moods that included little interest or pleasure in doing things, feeling down, depressed, and/or hopeless. An interview with the Administrator was conducted on 04/03/2025 at 1:22 PM. The Administrator stated the Social Worker (SW) was responsible for completing the PASRR screenings. The SW left her position in February of 2025, and they were interviewing potential SWs currently. On 02/28/2024, a PASRR level I was started but additional information was requested for submission to get a determination for placement of Resident #46. The SW did not submit the information requested for the completion of the screening. The Administrator also stated the additional information should have been submitted and he did not know why it was not completed. The Administrator further stated he was receiving assistance with PASRRs from their sister facility until a SW position was filled.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, Medical Director, Nurse Practitioner, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to prevent a sig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, Medical Director, Nurse Practitioner, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration when two blood pressure (BP) medications, Isosorbide mononitrate and hydralazine were not administered per orders for Resident #1. This resulted in Resident #1 ' s BP to drop to 82/50 causing a near syncope event that required a visit to the emergency room for further evaluation. The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, hypertension (HTN) (high blood pressure), acute cerebral vascular accident (CVA) (an interruption in the flow of blood to cells in the brain), coronary artery disease (CAD) with history of two myocardial infarctions (MI) (heart attack), and coronary artery occlusion. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) coded as an admission assessment on 06/02/24 revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. No behaviors coded and no rejection of care were coded. Record review of active medications revealed an order dated 05/27/24 that read in part, hydralazine 50 milligram (mg) tablet: give 1 tablet; by mouth, three times a day. (Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 120 related to essential (primary) hypertension. It also revealed an order dated 05/27/24 that read in part, isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg tablet extended release over 24 hours; give 1 tablet; by mouth once a day for BP greater than 160/90. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2024 revealed Resident #1 ' s BP reading to be 112/61 on 06/04/24 at approximately 9:00 AM. The MAR also revealed hydralazine 50 milligram (mg) tablet, hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 120 and isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg tablet extended release tablet, give once a day for BP greater than 160/90 was administered by Nurse #1. A phone interview was conducted with Resident #1 ' s responsible party on 06/12/24 at 9:52 AM. He stated when he arrived at the facility Resident #1 was in her wheelchair sitting outside in the courtyard. She was in the sun, not responding to him and she had sweat on forehead. He then stated he thought she had another stroke because when she opened her eyes and started talking to him her speech sounded slurred. He indicated this had happened before and that her BP goes up and down a lot. He further stated he yelled into the building for help and the nurse came to assist. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 06/12/24 at 1:23 PM. She verified she was Resident #1 ' s nurse on 06/04/24. She stated she checked Resident #1 ' s BP then administered hydralazine 50 mg 1 tablet and isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg tablet on 06/04/24. She indicated she did not thoroughly read the orders which included parameters for both medications. She further stated the hydralazine 50 mg tablet was to be held if her systolic blood pressure was below 120 and the isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg tablet was to be given for a BP greater than 160/90. She then indicated she was unaware of the parameters for the medications due to not thoroughly reading the orders. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/12/24 at 11:20 AM. The DON stated she was alerted by the voice of Resident #1 ' s responsible party that his mother appeared to be having another stroke. She then went to assist Nurse #1 with assessing Resident #1. She also stated Nurse #1 took her vital signs which were BP 82/50, temperature 97.1 axillary, and oxygen saturation was 98% on room air. She also had sweat on her forehead. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called for a possible stroke and while awaiting their arrival Resident #1 ' s BP went up to 104/66, she was alert and verbally responsive. Resident #1 ' s responsible party stated her BP fluctuates and sometimes bottoms out. She returned from the hospital with no issues noted. A review of Resident #1 ' s medication administration record (MAR) for 06/04/24 revealed a medication error related to BP medications being given outside of parameters to hold. She indicated that the medications should be given per order. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) records dated 06/04/24 revealed Resident #1 was assessed at the facility upon arrival at 10:52 AM. Call came in as possible stroke. Resident #1 ' s vital signs were as follows: blood pressure 128/69, pulse 77, respirations 14, temperature 98 degrees. Stroke screen with negative findings. Heart monitor applied and noted atrial fibrillation (A-Fib) present. Attempts to start intravenous saline lock times 2 were unsuccessful. Resident #1 was alert and oriented to event, person, place, and time. Skin diaphoretic, flushed, and hot. emergency room records revealed Resident #1 arrived on 06/04/24 at 11:30 AM with a damp gown on, awake, alert and oriented. She denied any pain and her responsible party stated she was close to her baseline. Her discharge diagnosis was near syncope (fainting or passing out), and no medications were given. Electrocardiogram (EKG) was performed which indicated A-Fib and a series of blood tests. No treatments, no intravenous fluids, or vital signs listed on emergency department records dated 06/04/24. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 06/12/24 at 11:25 AM. She indicated that the medications should be given per order. She stated that an ad [NAME] (as needed) Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held on 06/04/24 to discuss the deficient practice, initiate the plan of correction and education for staff regarding following physician orders for medication administration. Review of the plans to monitor performance revealed the Staff Development Nurse or designee would review medication administration records to ensure physician parameters are followed for hypertension orders. This plan would not prevent another medication error from occurring.
Jan 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff, resident, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and Medical Director (MD) interviews and record review, the facility failed to obtain Physician orders for the care and maintenance of a peripherally inserted central catheter(PICC) intravenous line for 1 (Resident #33) of 1 residents reviewed for intravenous (IV) therapy. The findings included: Resident #33 was originally admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infection following a right total knee replacement (TKA). Review of Resident #33's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact and not coded for the use of an antibiotic (medication prescribed to treat bacterial infections). Review of Resident #33 electronic medical record (EMR) indicated she transferred to the hospital on 1/8/24 for scheduled knee procedure. She was readmitted on [DATE] with orders for an IV antibiotic. Resident #33 was care planned on 1/15/24 for the use of a PICC line. Interventions included to flush her PICC line per facility protocol. Review of Resident #33's January 2024 Physician orders did not include an order for the flushing of her PICC line. An observation and interview was completed with Resident #33 on 1/21/24 at 1:12 PM. Observed in her room was an IV pump with an empty medication bag and tubing from earlier IV medication on 1/21/24. The dressing to her PICC line was dated 1/18/24. Resident #33 stated she would be on IV antibiotic for a while due to a staph infection in her knee. An interview was completed on 1/23/24 at 11:30 AM with Nurse #1. She was asked to review Resident #33's January Physician orders to see if there were orders for flushing her PICC line. Nurse #1 verified there were no Physician orders for flushing the PICC line and stated she had been flushing Resident #33's PICC line using the SASH method (saline, administration of medication, saline then Heparin-(blood thinner)). Review of a new Physician order dated 1/23/24 read to flush Resident #33's PICC line with 10 cubic centimeters (cc's) of Normal Saline pre and post medication administration. A telephone interview was completed on 1/23/24 at 2:00 PM with the NP. He stated he was at the facility earlier and apparently the facility discovered earlier that there were no orders on how to flush Resident #33's. PICC line. He stated the use of Heparin would not have resulted in harm to Resident #33 but the facility should be flushing her PICC line at minimum using 10cc's of Normal Saline pre and post administration of the medication. An observation and interview was completed on 1/24/24 at 9:30 AM with Nurse #2. She was observed flushing Resident #33's PICC line with 10cc's of Normal Saline followed by the medication then flushed again with another 10cc's of Normal Saline. She stated she followed the Physician order that was entered yesterday on 1/23/24. An interview was completed with the MD on 1/24/24 at 9:45 AM. She stated there should always be specific Physician orders on the flushing of a PICC line. An interview was completed with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/24/24 1:25 PM. He stated there should have been a Physician order regarding the flushing of Resident #33's PICC line.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to obtain Physician orders for continuous oxygen (Resident #73). This was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The findings included: Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included gastrointestinal hemorrhage, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact and was not coded for receiving oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #73's nursing progress notes dated 01/11/24 revealed Resident #73 was sent to the emergency room (ER) due to vomiting. She returned to the facility on 2L of oxygen (O2) via nasal cannula. The O2 was removed during transfer to the bed from the wheelchair causing her O2 saturation to drop to 86%. O2 was reapplied via nasal cannula raising her O2 sats to 95% on 2L. Review of Resident #73's nursing progress notes dated 01/12/24 revealed no new orders were received for treatment related to her emergency room visit on 01/11/24. Resident #73's active care plan, last reviewed 01/15/24, included a focus for oxygen (O2) therapy as needed to maintain 02 saturations of 90% or greater. The interventions included administering oxygen as ordered and encouraging the resident to wear oxygen as ordered. A review of Resident #73's December 2023 and January 2024 physician orders did not include an order for oxygen. During an observation and interview 01/21/24 at 11:51 AM, Resident #73 was lying in bed with oxygen running at 1 ½ liters (L)/minute (min) flow via concentrator. She indicated she used oxygen all the time. In an observation on 01/21/24 at 2:51 PM, Resident #73 was lying in bed with oxygen running at 1 ½ liters (L)/minute (min) flow via concentrator. In an observation on 01/22/24 at 8:38 AM, Resident #73 was lying in bed with oxygen running at 1 ½ liters (L)/minute (min) flow via concentrator. An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #1 on 01/22/24 at 2:36 PM. She verified that Resident #73 did not have an active order for oxygen (O2). She stated the resident recently returned from the hospital and returned with no new orders. She indicated when residents returned from the hospital with O2 without an order they would initiate the order and notify the physician. A phone interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 01/22/24 at 4:54 PM. She verified that Resident #73 returned to the facility on [DATE] on 2L of oxygen (O2) via nasal cannula. It was an oversight that an order for O2 was not added to her active orders. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/23/24 at 3:20 PM. He stated anyone that received oxygen (O2) should have an active order in place. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director (MD) on 01/24/24 at 9:55 AM. She stated anyone that received oxygen (O2) should have an order in place. She indicated she was not aware oxygen had been placed on Resident #73.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to secure unused narcotic medications for dispo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to secure unused narcotic medications for disposition (the process of returning unused medications) resulting in possible diversion (the transfer of a controlled medication from a lawful to an unlawful channel of distribution or use). This was for 1 of 1 discharged resident (Resident #92) reviewed for pharmacy services. The finding included: Resident #92 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. Review of Resident #92 ' s physician orders revealed an order initiated on [DATE] and discontinued on [DATE] for oxycodone 5 milligrams (mg) tablet, take one tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for moderate pain. An attempt to interview the Weekend Supervisor was made on [DATE] at 1:02 PM without success. Weekend Supervisor ' s statement revealed he reported on [DATE] about 5:30 AM the door to the medication room on 100 hall was propped open. When he entered the room, the pharmacy tote's secure tags (tags applied to both ends of the tote to secure it shut) were cut and sitting on top of the tote. The Weekend Supervisor reported that on [DATE] he and another nurse had written up medications to be returned to the pharmacy to include non-narcotics and narcotics. They placed them into the pharmacy tote and applied the secure tags for return to the pharmacy. Upon further review of the tote, it was noted that the narcotic sheet that was previously in the tote was missing along with the bubble pack containing 16 Oxycodone 5mg tabs. A phone interview was conducted with the Staff Development Nurse on [DATE] at 1:24 PM. She stated she was made aware of missing narcotic medications at the facility on [DATE] between 5:30 and 6:00 AM by the weekend supervisor. She indicated he stated that at about 5:30 AM he seen that the door to the medication room on 100 hall was propped open. When he entered the room, the blue pharmacy tote's secure tags were cut and sitting on top of the tote and the narcotic sheet that was previously in the tote was missing along with the bubble pack containing 16 oxycodone 5mg tablets. She then stated she arrived at the facility on [DATE] between 8:00 and 9:00 AM to start her investigation for possible diversion of narcotic medications. She further stated she notified law enforcement, and they came to the facility to take the report. She also indicated she did not remember who she interviewed during her investigation. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 3:20 PM he explained that he returned to work on [DATE] from a bereavement time off period. He indicated he completed the possible narcotic medication diversion investigation. He stated he located the missing narcotic sheet along with the empty narcotic bubble pack medication card in a shred box in the 100 hall locked nourishment room. All 16 oxycodone tablets had been removed from the bubble pack. He also indicated although the medication room door had been sticking at times the door should not have been propped open for any reason and all medications should be secured at all times.
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to label multi-dose medications with the date they were opened on 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed (the 300 Hall Medicati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to label multi-dose medications with the date they were opened on 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed (the 300 Hall Medication Cart). Findings included: An observation was conducted on 01/21/24 at 3:25 PM of the nurse ' s medication cart on the 300 Hall in the presence of Med Aide #1 and Unit Manager #1. The observation revealed no opened date on the following multi-dose medications: a. Two 10ml (milliliter) multi-dose vials of Humalog insulin with no open date. (Manufacturer ' s recommendation to discard 28 days after opening). first use b. two 10ml (milliliter) multi-dose vial of Novolog insulin with no open date. (Manufacturer ' s recommendation to discard 28 days after opening). c. One multi-dose package of Ipratropium Bromide and Albuterol Sulfate 0.5 milligram (mg)/3mg per 3 milliliter (ml) inhalation vials. (Manufacturer ' s recommendation that once the foil pouch is opened, use vial within one week). d. One multi-dose 10ml bottle of Latanoprost 0.005% solution eye drops. (Manufacturer's recommendation to discard 6 weeks after opening). Unit Manager #1 verified the multi-dose medications were not dated and she removed them from the medication cart and discarded them. She indicated nurses and med aides were to write the date on all multi-dose medications upon opening and check dates prior to administration. She stated she did not realize they were not dated. She also stated that unit managers were to check med carts weekly, the pharmacy consultant checks medication carts for undated medications monthly and the administration staff audit carts monthly. An interview was conducted with the pharmacy consultant on 01/22/24 at 8:30 AM. He stated he comes to the facility once a month to perform medication audits and education when needed. He indicated he audits one medication cart, one medication room, and one medication pass monthly. He also stated he was here last week but did not audit 300 hall cart. When he audits the medication carts some things, he was looking for would include expired medications, lose pills, and if multiuse medications have an open date labeled on them. He further indicated that he had educated staff in the past on labeling multi-dose medications with an open date upon opening and this was an ongoing issue. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/23/24 at 3:20 PM. He stated it was the nurse ' s and med aides ' responsibility to date multi-dose medications upon opening and they should be checking for dates daily prior to administration. He also stated all multi-dose medications were to be dated when opened. He then stated there should not have been unlabeled multi-dose medications on the medication cart.
CONCERN (D)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide effective leadership and implement effective systems to thoroughly investigate possible diversion (the trans...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide effective leadership and implement effective systems to thoroughly investigate possible diversion (the transfer of a controlled medication from a lawful to an unlawful channel of distribution or use) of missing narcotic medications from 100 hall medication room. The finding included: An attempt to interview the Weekend Supervisor was made on 01/23/24 at 1:02 PM without success. The Weekend Supervisor ' s statement revealed he reported possible narcotic diversion on 08/20/23 about 5:30 AM. He reported that the door to the medication room on 100 hall was propped open, upon entering the room, a pharmacy tote's secure tags (tags applied to both ends of the tote to secure it shut) were cut and sitting on top of the tote. Upon further review of the tote, it was noted that the narcotic sheet that was in the tote was missing along with a bubble pack containing 16 Oxycodone 5mg tabs. A phone interview was conducted with the Staff Development Nurse on 01/23/24 at 1:24 PM. She stated she was made aware of missing narcotic medications at the facility on 08/20/23 between 5:30 and 6:00 AM by the weekend supervisor. She indicated she arrived at the facility on 08/20/23 between 8:00 and 9:00 AM to start her investigation for possible diversion of narcotic medications. She also stated she notified law enforcement, and they came to the facility to take the report. She then indicated she received a statement from one nurse and one nursing assistant stating they did not notice anyone going in the medication room except one nurse when she was retrieving the Covid box. She further stated she did not remember who she interviewed during her investigation. Investigation records revealed approximately 8 nurses, 7 med aides, and 28 nursing assistants (NAs) worked in the building from 08/19/23 through the morning of 08/20/23. The investigation records revealed four written statements, two of the four statements referred to if they had observed anyone in the med room or observed anyone with medications. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/23/24 at 3:20 PM he explained that he returned to work on 08/21/23 from a bereavement time off period. He indicated he completed the possible narcotic medication diversion investigation. He verified a police report had been completed and a report was sent to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He stated during the investigation he located the missing narcotic sheet along with the empty narcotic bubble pack medication card in a shred box in the 100 hall locked nourishment room. All 16 oxycodone tablets had been removed from the bubble pack. He also stated he had not interviewed all nursing staff that had worked on the weekend that the alleged diversion took place. The staff he interviewed were the nurses and med aides that worked the medication cart that would have handled the narcotic medication and/or the tote they were stored in. He verified that due to the medication room door being propped open all staff had access to the narcotic medications located in the tote. After completing the facility investigation, the facility was unable to determine who removed the narcotic medications from the medication room. During a phone interview with Administrator #2 on 01/24/24 at 3:39 PM he stated he did not participate in the possible diversion investigation. He then stated all he knew was that they were unable to determine who removed the narcotic medications from the medication room.
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, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interve...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations, 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 on 5/6/21. This was for one deficiency that was cited in the area of Respiratory/Tracheostomy care and Suctioning. In addition, two additional deficiencies were cited during the annual recertification and complaint survey on 12/1/22 in the areas of Respiratory/Tracheostomy care and Suctioning and Label/Store Drugs and Biologics. The duplicate citations during three federal surveys of record show a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program. The findings included: The citations are cross referenced to: 1) F695- Based on observations, record review, and staff and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to obtain Physician orders for continuous oxygen (Resident #73). This was for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. During the facility's annual recertification and complaint survey on 5/6/21, the facility failed to administer oxygen at the prescribed rate for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. During the facility's annual recertification and complaint survey on 12/1/22, the facility failed to obtain a Physician's order for a resident's use of continuous oxygen for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Additionally, the facility failed to secure oxygen tanks that were not in use for 1 of 4 observations. 2) F761- Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to label multi-dose medications with the date they were opened on 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed (the 300 Hall Medication Cart). During the facility's annual recertification and complaint survey on 12/1/22, the facility failed to: 1) discard expired medications 2) keep a medication refrigerated per manufacturer guidelines 3) label medications with the date they were opened and 4) to keep a treatment cart locked and secured. In an interview with the Administrator on 1/24/24 at 10:00 AM, she indicated there had been recent turnover with staff and felt that education was needed for ensuring oxygen orders were in place, to check the medication carts for expired medications and to ensure that medications were dated when opened.
Dec 2022 23 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. a. On 11/29/2022 at 8:45 AM Medication Aide (MA) #4 was observed during medication administration. When approaching the MA's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. a. On 11/29/2022 at 8:45 AM Medication Aide (MA) #4 was observed during medication administration. When approaching the MA's medication cart there were three pills in a clear medication cup and a nicotine patch sitting on the cart. MA#4 pulled medications for another resident and left the cart to administer those medications. The three pills in the medication cup and the nicotine patch were left unattended on her medication cart. At the time the medications were unattended, Resident #59, a severely cognitively impaired resident, was observed sitting in his wheelchair next to the medication cart. Immediately after completing the medication administration, MA #4 was interviewed. She stated the three pills and nicotine patch were for another resident who refused their medications. She further stated she should not leave medications on the cart unattended. Instead, she should have disposed of the medications or secured them in the locked cart until she had time to dispose of them. On 11/30/2022 at 4:08PM and interview was conducted with the Regional Operations Manager. She stated medications should never be left unsecured on the medication cart. 2. b. On 11/30/2022 at 10:45AM an observation of medication administration with Charge Nurse #2 was completed. Charge Nurse #2 was observed pulling Medications for Resident #325. The Charge nurse stated the resident had an order for Ferrous Sulfate solution 300milligrams (mg) per 5 milliliters (ml) but the solution on the cart was not 300mg/5ml, it was 220mg/5ml. Charge Nurse #2 asked another staff member to look in the medication storage room for Ferrous Sulfate. The staff member returned with another bottle of 300mg/5ml solution. The Charge Nurse stated she would need to call the provider prior to administering the medication for clarification. She placed both bottles on top of the medication cart and left them unattended while she went down the hall to administer medications to Resident #325. On 11/30/2022 at 11:15AM and interview was conducted with Charge Nurse #2. She stated she did not realize she left the medications on the cart unattended. She should have secured the medications prior to leaving the cart. On 11/30/2022 at 4:08PM and interview was conducted with the Regional Operations Manager. She stated medications should never be left unsecured on the medication cart. Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a severely cognitively impaired resident from exiting the facility unsupervised, failed to ensure the resident was safe in the parking lot, and failed to report that a cognitively impaired resident was in the parking lot for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #59). Resident #59, who was in his wheelchair, was found by Nurse Aide (NA) #1 in the parking lot unsupervised, didn't intervene and then, the resident was found to have gone out to the road. The resident was discovered by the Housekeeper on a 2-lane road where the speed limit was 55 miles per hour (MPH) west bound and was a quarter mile away from the facility's front door. In addition, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended for 2 of 2 observations during the medication pass. Immediate jeopardy began on 11/22/22 when Resident #59 was observed out in the parking lot unsupervised in his wheelchair. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 12/2/22 when the facility provided and implemented an acceptable credible allegation for immediate jeopardy removal. The facility remains out of compliance at a lower scope and severity of D (no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy) to ensure the facility completes all staff training and ensure monitoring systems put into place are effective. Example #2 was cited at scope and severity of D. Findings included: 1. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting right dominant side and dementia. Resident #59 was assessed for elopement on 11/8/22 and he did not present an elopement risk. He was not care planned for elopement risk on admission. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #59 had severe cognitive impairment. The assessment further indicated that the resident needed extensive assistance with transfer and used a wheelchair for mobility. Resident #59 was not coded for wandering. A nurse's note dated 11/22/22 at 3:22 PM and was recorded as late entry on 11/25/22 at 6:27 PM by the former Treatment Nurse revealed that Resident #59 was noted attempting to go out of the front door of facility by the staff. The staff followed the resident out and redirected back in. The staff assisted the resident back inside the door safely at which time a wander guard was placed. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Unit Manager were present and were aware. Several attempts to interview the former Treatment Nurse via phone were unsuccessful. A new elopement assessment was completed for Resident #59 by the Unit Manager (UM). The assessment had an event date of 11/22/22 and completion date of 11/30/22. The assessment indicated that Resident #59 was found outside the front door and was redirected back in. A wander guard was applied on resident. The evaluation indicated event still open. Review of Resident #59's care plan revealed that on 11/23/22, a care plan for elopement risk was initiated. The care plan problem was resident has a wander guard secondary to wandering/elopement risk. The goal was resident will not leave secured area unattended. The approaches included check functioning of alarm every shift, check placement of alarm and monitor skin under alarm for any indication of skin breakdown, contact physician and family if resident attempts to leave facility, if resident becomes confused and attempts to exit secure unit/facility, attempts diversional activities as able, observe resident's whereabouts when out of bed, personal secure alarm (wander guard) as ordered and redirect resident as indicated and as needed. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 10:25 AM. She stated that she had interviewed the Housekeeper who found Resident #59 outside the facility on the road. When the resident was back to the facility, a wander guard was placed on his ankle. She indicated that the administration was aware and had investigated the elopement incident dated 11/22/22 with Resident #59. She added that she initiated the care plan for elopement on 11/23/22 after the elopement incident. She stated that a new elopement assessment was completed on 11/22/22 for Resident #59 and he was added to the wander guard book. On 11/30/22 at 12:30 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) #1 was interviewed. She stated that she was familiar with Resident #59. She was assigned to him in the past. He was confused and disoriented, and wheelchair bound. She reported that on 11/22/22, she was coming in to work on 3-11 shift. She observed Resident #59 in the parking lot around 2:45 PM. There were visitors on the porch, and she thought Resident #59 was with his family. The NA stated that she did not attempt to confirm if the resident was being supervised while he was outside, and she did not report that the resident was in the parking lot. She proceeded to enter the facility to work. The Regional Operation Manager, in the absence of the Administrator, was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 11:10 AM. She reported that Resident #59 was found outside the building on 11/22/22. She stated that the incident was investigated by the [NAME] President (VP) of clinical Operation. The Regional Operation Manager provided the investigation report including the timeline, the corrective actions, and the written statements from the staff for review. On 12/1/22 at 8:20 AM, the [NAME] President (VP) of Clinical Operation, in the absence of the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. She reported that she had investigated the elopement incident that occurred on 11/22/22 with Resident #59. She reported that the front door was locked from 8 PM to 8 AM every day and there was a receptionist assigned at the front desk from 8 AM to 8 PM every day. The investigation report indicated that Resident #59's elopement incident happened on 11/22/22. The resident was seen during lunch in his room by the Wellness Coordinator/Nurse Aide (NA), was seen during medication pass at 1 PM by the former Treatment Nurse, was seen between 2:45 and 3:00 PM by NA #1, and was seen at 3:15 PM by a passerby who called the facility to inform them that a resident in a wheelchair was on the road with a staff member (Housekeeper). The written statement from the Housekeeper dated 11/22/22 revealed (Name of Housekeeper) reported that when she left work on 11/22/22, she left the facility and turned left and noted a resident in his wheelchair on the road. The Housekeeper stayed with resident until additional staff came to assist the resident. On 11/30/22 at 12:20 PM, the Housekeeper was interviewed. Due to language barrier, she was interpreted by Med Aide #5. She stated that it was around 3:04 PM she was leaving from work. She was driving and when she was turning from the parking lot to the main road, she saw Resident #59 on the main road. He was in his wheelchair. She parked her car and went to the resident. She pushed the resident to the side of the road on the grass. Staff members then came and assisted the resident back to the facility. The written statement from the Business Office Manager (BOM) revealed on 11/22/22 we received a call at the front desk that there was a man in a wheelchair with a woman in scrubs on the side of the road. The caller stated that he looked like he could be one of our residents. I walked out to the road to see, and I did see a man with a woman on the side of the road, so I proceeded to go help assist. The resident is fine and alert, so I assisted nursing with pushing him back into the facility. On 11/30/22 at 2:01 PM, the BOM was interviewed. He stated that the facility had received a call from a passerby that a resident in a wheelchair was on the side of the road with a woman. He went outside to the end of the parking lot and saw Resident #59 in his wheelchair and a Housekeeper on the side of the road. The distance from the front door to where the resident was located was about a quarter of a mile. He added that the weather was partly sunny and was not cold. The resident was fine. The written statement from the Wellness Coordinator revealed that On 11/22/22, I was alerted in the hall by a staff member that there was a resident that was on the road in a wheelchair. I immediately ran down to where the resident was sitting in his wheelchair. The BOM and another staff member were already standing with him in the road. This resident was not in any kind of distress. I pushed the resident back up to the facility in his wheelchair. Once inside, a wander guard was placed on him, and he was redirected. On 11/30/22 at 1:20 PM, the Wellness Coordinator was interviewed. She reported that she was helping as a Nurse Aide (NA) on the floor on 11/22/22. She reported that she had seen Resident #59 in his room eating lunch on 11/22/22. She indicated that she was notified that the resident was outside (unable to remember exact time). When she went outside in the parking lot, she saw the resident in wheelchair, the Housekeeper, and the Business Office Manager (BOM) on the side of the road. She reported that the resident was not in any distress. He was wearing a shirt and a pair of pants. She said the weather was not cold, it was partly sunny. She indicated that the distance from the front door to where the resident was located was about a quarter of a mile. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 10:30 AM. She reported that Resident #59 had eloped on 11/22/22 and was found on the road by the Housekeeper. The SW reported that the resident did not have any history of elopement or attempts of leaving the facility. On 11/30/22 at 1:35 PM, the facility's Maintenance Director was requested to measure the distance from the front door to the location where Resident #59 was located. The Maintenance Director reported that the distance was a quarter of a mile. On 11/30/22 at 3:30 PM, the location where Resident #59 was found was observed. The same location was identified by the Housekeeper, the Wellness Coordinator and by the BOM as the exact location where the resident was located. The side of the road where the resident was found was grassy. The location was not visible from the front door. Review of the www.wunderground.com revealed that the weather on 11/22/22 was partly sunny and the highest temperature was 61 degrees Fahrenheit (F). On 11/30/22 at 12:24 PM, Medication Aide (Med Aide) #5 was interviewed. She stated that she was familiar with Resident #59. She was assigned to the resident, and he would always say door, door, door. She also stated the resident was wheelchair bound and was confused and disoriented. On 11/28/22 at 12:50 PM, Resident #59 was observed up in wheelchair in his room. His speech was mumbled and hard to understand and he was unable to answer to questions appropriately. On 11/29/22 at 9:30 AM, Resident #59 was observed up in wheelchair, wheeling self-up and down the hall saying, door, door, door. He was wearing a wander guard to his ankle. Review of the education records including the sign in sheets revealed that facility had in-serviced the staff from 11/22/22 through 11/30/22 on elopement, elopement risk changes, and ensuring resident's safety when outside and wander guard book. The facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan for the elopement incident that occurred on 11/22/22 was reviewed. The interventions to correct the problem included: 1. Resident was identified outside in front of the facility with an employee from housekeeping. No injuries were noted. 11/22/22 2. A facility head count was completed, and all residents were accounted for. 11/22/22 3. A 100% audit of elopement risk observation will be completed for changes in risk by the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nurse Supervisor. 11/22/22 4. Facility staff in serviced by the DON on what an elopement is, the use of the wander guard books prior to letting someone out of a locked door, and placement of the wander guard. 11/22/22 5. The Regional Clinical Manager in-serviced the DON, the Assistant DON, Nurse Supervisor, and MDS Coordinator on making sure elopement assessments are accurate and done timely. The Regional Clinical Manager in-serviced the Social Worker on accuracy of the wander guard books and placement of books. 11/22/22 6. The DON will assign quarterly wandering assessments to a specific nurse and specific shift, when due. This will be done weekly x 12 weeks. The ADON or Nurse Supervisor will complete a weekly audit on all residents with wander guards to assure orders are accurate, functionality and placement are completed daily per shift, this will be completed weekly x 12 weeks. The Social Worker Director will complete a weekly audit of the wander guard books to ensure accuracy and updated information is available. This will be done weekly x 12 weeks. 1/14/23 7. The Administrator will bring the results of these audits to the Quality Assurance Committee monthly x 3 months. The Regional Operations Manager and the Division [NAME] President (VP) of Operation were notified of the immediate jeopardy on 11/30/22 at 5:45 PM. The facility's VP of Operation provided the following credible allegation for immediate jeopardy removal: Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance: The facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a cognitively impaired resident from exiting the facility unsupervised (Resident #59). Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side and dementia. Cognition score was 5, no noted behavior and used wheelchair for mobility. An elopement assessment was completed on 11/8/22 and was not identified as an elopement risk at that time. Resident #59 was observed outside in the parking lot by NA #1 on 11/22/22 at approximately 2:45 PM. NA #1 reported she thought the resident was with his family, proceeded inside the facility to work. Resident was last seen in the facility at approximately 1 PM during the medication pass. The investigation of the incident revealed Resident #59 was able to push the door and maneuver the wheelchair over the threshold. The resident demonstrated a slow steady rock to roll over the threshold. This was observed by the [NAME] President of Clinical Services. The date of this observation was 12/1/22. NA #1 failed to notify the facility that resident #59 was unsupervised in the parking lot in his wheelchair. At approximately 3:15 PM, the facility received a call from a passerby that a resident in a wheelchair was on the road with a staff member. Several staff members exited the facility to find the resident with a housekeeping staff member on the side of the road. The housekeeper was leaving work at approximately 3:00 PM when she turned out of the facility and found the resident in his wheelchair on the road, approximately a quarter mile from the facility. The housekeeper stayed with the resident until additional staff came to assist the resident. The resident was returned to the facility in his wheelchair accompanied by staff at approximately 3:30 PM. The resident was assessed for any injury and no injury was identified. Once assessed, a wander guard, a door alarm bracelet, was applied to resident. Resident information was then placed in the facility elopement books. The elopement books are located at each nurse's station and the front reception desk. These books are accessed by all staff. The elopement books contain pictures and face sheets for all residents who have triggered as an elopement risk. An elopement assessment was completed at approximately 4:05 PM by the Unit Supervisor and all notifications to Responsible Party and Medical Director were initiated. The Responsible Party did not return the phone call. Another call was placed to Responsible Party on 11/23/22 with no response. Additional calls were placed to the Responsible Party by the Director of Nursing and floor Nurse with the last attempt being on 11/25/22 and all calls left unanswered. The facility completed a census to resident count at approximately 3:45 PM. All residents were accounted for. The Director of Nursing and Nurse Supervisor initiated a 100% of all in house resident's reevaluation of elopement risk assessments. These audits were completed on 11/22/22 by the Director of Nursing and the Unit Supervisor at approximately 7:15 PM. On 11/30/22, NA #1 was educated on residents outside the facility left unsupervised and ensuring their safety. The [NAME] President of Clinical Services educated NA #1. 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 11/22/22, the Director of Nursing and Unit Manager completed a reassessment of elopement risks of all in-house residents. No other residents who were not previously an elopement risk were identified. Residents who previously triggered elopement risk were validated to have pictures and face sheets in each elopement books, care plan s were verified for wandering behaviors and interventions. On 11/22/22, the Director of Nursing initiated in-servicing on elopement and wander guard books to include locations of each book to all staff. The wander guard books are located at each nurse's stations and the front receptions desk. The Director of Nursing or designee will be responsible for keeping the elopement books up to date with all residents who trigger as an elopement risk. Any staff who did not complete the in-service prior to 11/30/22 are not allowed to work until this in-service has been completed. The Regional Operation Manager will track the in-services to ensure all staff have received. On 11/22/22, the Regional Clinical Manager in-serviced the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and Nurse Unit Supervisors on what an elopement is. The Director of Nursing began an in-service on 11/22/22 for all staff on elopement and completed on 11/30/22. Any staff that did not receive the in-service will not be allowed to work after 11/30/22 until the in-service has been completed. The regional Operation Manager is responsible for tracking the completion of the in-service. On 11/30/22, the Regional Operation Director in-serviced all department heads on ensuring residents safety when unsupervised outside. This in-service includes staying with a resident until staff can ensure the resident is not at risk of endangerment. 100% of staff were in-serviced on 11/30/22 by the Department heads on ensuring resident's safety when unsupervised outside and staying with resident until a staff member can ensure resident is not at risk of endangerment. Any staff member who did not receive the in-service on 11/30/22 will not be allowed to work until the in-service has been completed. The Regional Operations Manager is responsible for tracking any staff that needs to be in-serviced. This education has been added to the new hire orientation process effective 11/30/22, by the Director of Nursing. As of 12/1/22, all residents who have been identified by the nurse to be unsafe and unsupervised while outside will have a profile maintained at the receptionist desk. This profile will include picture identification. The receptionist will monitor residents, between the hours of 8AM and 8 PM, wishing to exit the facility by verifying the resident profile. Any resident who has been identified as being unsafe and needs supervision while outside will be provided with facility staff to accompany them. The receptionist will notify the nurse that the unsafe resident wishes to go outside, and a staff member will be assigned to the resident. The staff member will remain with the resident while outside. The facility will also provide education on elopement, elopement risk changes, and ensuring resident safety when outside during the monthly staff meeting x 3 months starting with the next all staff meeting. IJ removal date 12/2/22 On 12/1/22, the facility's credible allegation for immediate jeopardy removal was validated by observation of the wander guard books at each nurse's stations and at the front reception desk. The residents who were identified as elopement risk had their pictures and face sheets in the wander guard books. Multiple staff interviews including administrative staff and the receptionist were conducted and revealed that they had received in-services on elopement, wander guard books and ensuring resident's safety when unsupervised outside. Care plan of residents identified as elopement risk were initiated and reviewed and sign in sheets for the in-services were reviewed. Immediate jeopardy was removed on 12/2/22.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to promote dignity by failing to addre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to promote dignity by failing to address resident's repeated request for incontinence care (Resident #60) and by ignoring resident's request and allowing a resident to lay in a wet pad (Resident #51) for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for dignity (Residents #60 & #51). The facility's failure to promote dignity made Resident #60 angry and made Resident #51 feel deserted. The findings included: 1. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility 9/5/2022 with diagnoses that included cerebral infarct (stroke). Resident #60's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident was cognitively intact, had clear speech, understood others and could be understood by others. She was coded as requiring extensive assistance for all activities of daily living and dependent upon staff for toileting during the assessment period. The resident's comprehensive care plan, last revised 11/18/2022, had a focus for assistance with activities of daily living related to weakness and overall deconditioning. Interventions included provide incontinence care on routine rounds and in a timely manner. On 11/30/2022 at 9:09 AM Resident #60 was heard yelling out for someone help me. The resident also made the statement, I am wet. Someone come help me. Resident #60 was sitting on the side of her bed in a pajama top and nothing but an incontinent brief on her lower body. The incontinent brief was visibly wet and the resident's bed linens were visibly wet with urine (yellow in color). When standing at the threshold of the room, a strong smell of urine was present and there was a pile of wet clothing on the floor next to the resident's feet. The resident was easily visible from the hall where other residents, staff, and family could see her sitting in a wet brief. At 9:09 AM when resident was yelling out for assistance, there was a housekeeper and a medication aide (MA) observed in the hall outside her door. At 9:15 AM Resident #60 called out again for assistance. The activity director entered the room and offered the resident a newspaper. The resident stated she wanted to talk to the lady from the state. The activity director told the resident she would let the lady from the state know. The activity director did not acknowledge the resident was sitting in urine or that her call bell was on the floor next to her bed. She did not offer the resident assistance or offer to find assistance for the resident. At 9:25 AM Medication Aide (MA) #4 entered Resident #60's room and administered medications to her roommate. Resident #60 was observed making derogatory comments regarding the facility and the staff for letting her sit in a wet bed with a wet brief. These comments were made while MA#4 was in the room. The MA exited the room without acknowledging the resident's condition or offering to get assistance for the resident. An interview was conducted with the MA on 11/30/2022 at 9:30AM. She stated she did not hear Resident #60 calling out for assistance and when she went into the room to administer medications to the roommate, she did not see that Resident #60 was sitting in a wet incontinent brief, nor did she smell urine while she was in the room. At 9:45 AM NA #9 was observed entering Resident #60's room. The NA closed the door and provided incontinence care. An interview was conducted with NA #9 on 11/30/2022 at 10:45. She stated she was in another room and did not hear Resident #60 calling out. The activity director let her know the resident needed assistance. She stated when she entered Resident #60's room there was a strong smell of urine and she found the resident sitting in a wet and soiled incontinent brief with wet bed linens and there was wet clothing on the floor. She stated the resident does typically use the call bell for assistance, but her call bell had fallen on the floor next to her bed and she did not believe the resident was able to reach the call bell. On 11/30/2022 at 11:00AM an interview was conducted with Resident #60. She stated it makes her angry and sad when staff leave her in a wet bed with wet brief smelling of urine after she asked repeatedly for help. She stated she would have cleaned herself up if she could have, but she could not. An interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 12/1/2022 at 4:08PM. She stated all residents should be treated with dignity and provided incontinent care when requested. 2. Resident # 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with left hemiplegia. The quarterly Minimum m Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #51's cognition was intact, and she did not have any behaviors. The assessment further indicated that Resident #51 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, and she needed extensive assistance from the staff with personal hygiene. Review of Resident #51's active care plan, last reviewed on 11/18/22 was conducted. The care plan problem was resident has potential for skin breakdown related to functional and mobility deficits with incontinence. The approaches included provide assistance with toileting as needed, monitor for incontinence on routine rounds and provide incontinent care in a timely manner. On 11/28/22 at 11:20 AM, Resident #51 was interviewed. She reported that on 11/27/22 between 3 and 4 PM, she was soaking wet, from her gown to the bed. She used her call light to call for assistance and had waited for 2 hours (pointed the clock on the wall) and nobody came. Finally, a Nurse Aide (NA) (didn't know her name) came, provided her with incontinent care and changed her wet gown. She requested the NA to change her pad as it was also wet but the NA ignored her and left the room. She again pushed her call light for assistance to change her wet pad. Resident #51 stated that she had to lay in a wet pad until the corporate staff member came and changed the wet pad. The resident had shared the name of the corporate staff member who had changed her wet pad. On 11/29/22 at 12:05 PM, the Division [NAME] President (VP) of Operation was interviewed. He reported that he remembered changing Resident #51's wet pad, but he could not remember the date and time. He indicated that the resident did not inform him of what had happened, she just requested her pad changed since it was wet. On 11/29/22 at 12:50 PM, Resident #51 was again interviewed. The resident was consistent with her story. She reported same information she shared on 11/28/22 interview. She stated that the delay in answering the call light and incontinent care and laying in a wet pad made her feel deserted and she felt like staff don't care about me. On 12/1/22 at 8:21 AM, the VP of Clinical Operation was interviewed. She stated that Nurse Aide (NA) #10 was assigned to Resident #51 on 11/27/22. She indicated that NA #10 was a traveler from other sister facility and the facility did not have her telephone number. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected staff to provide dignity to all residents.
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 F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, resident, family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor residents ' choices ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, resident, family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor residents ' choices related to showers (Resident #24) and additional milk with meals (Resident #12) for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for choices. Findings include: 1. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included right hip fracture due to a fall, diabetes (DM), end stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #24 was cognitively intact, needed extensive assistance from two staff members with all transfers and was totally dependent for one staff member assistance with bathing. A review of grievance dated 10/10/22 was filed by Resident #24 related to not receiving showers since she was admitted on [DATE]. The investigation and findings listed on the grievance was that Resident #24 had orders for non-weight bearing at this time. The resolution included staff was educated on giving showers and what to do for a refusal. A review of Resident #24's active care plan, last reviewed 10/11/22, included a focus area for decreased ability to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) related to right hip fracture with functional and mobility deficits present. A review of Resident #24's nursing progress notes from 09/27/222 to present revealed no refusals of showers documented. The nursing progress notes also revealed an entry on 11/18/22 at 02:54 PM that Resident #24 ' s daughter was called and made aware about her receiving a shower. A review of the active physician ' s orders indicated Resident #24 attended dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. A review of the Shower Schedule indicated Resident #24 was to receive a shower every Monday and Thursday on first shift (7:00 AM to 3:00 PM). The shower schedule is in the shower binder at the nurse ' s station. It lists the room numbers with the shift the shower is to be done on. On 11/29/22 hard copy shower sheets were provided by Med Aide #3/Central Supply for 10/05/22 through 10/27/22. The shower sheets revealed no shower was documented as provided, instead a bed bath was provided. They indicated they could not locate any additional shower sheets for Resident #24. An interview with Resident #24 was conducted on 11/28/22 at 10:26 AM. Resident #24 ' s hair was combed and appeared well-kept. She stated her shower days were every Monday and Thursday, but she had dialysis every Thursday which interfered with her Thursday shower day. She stated she left the facility between 09:00 AM and 10:00 AM and normally returned between 03:00 PM and 04:00 PM from dialysis. She revealed she would receive a bed bath, but she has had only one shower since admission. She further stated that she has refused once when the staff offered a shower because her hired help was coming in to wash her hair. She also stated her family member had to hire a friend to come in to wash her hair because she was not getting her showers. She stated her family member had called the facility about the showers and she thought they had fixed the problem. She stated she had asked the Nursing Assistants (unable to recall specific staff names) and Charge Nurse #1 to change the Thursday shower to a different day due to dialysis and fatigue after dialysis. She further stated they never got back to her, and she filed the grievance on 10/10/22. An interview was conducted on 11/28/22 at 11:48 AM with Charge Nurse #1. She stated she was not aware Resident #24 ' s dialysis day interfered with her shower day. She also stated her shower day should have been changed to a day that she did not have dialysis. A phone interview was conducted on 11/29/22 at 02:32 PM with Resident #24 ' s family member. She stated Resident #24 would call her and tell her that she had not received a shower at all. She had not received one for the first month and a half of being at facility. The family member stated she now pays someone to come in to wash resident ' s hair and it shouldn't be that way. An interview was conducted on 11/29/22 at 05:55 PM with Nurse Aide #5. He stated he would switch Resident #24 ' s shower days with another room and correct it on the shower sheet. He further stated he would switch it with an empty room so there was no conflict. He stated Resident #24 was tired upon returning from dialysis and frequently asked to be laid down. He did not recall Resident #24 refusing a shower, but he normally worked 2nd shift (3PM-11PM) and her shower days were on 1st shift (7AM-3PM). Interview with Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Control Preventionist (ADON/ICP) on 11/30/22 at 12:10 PM. She stated she observed Resident #24 being taken to the shower room on 11/18/2022. She then stated she called Resident #24 ' s family member to follow up with her previous grievance and to let her know Resident #24 was receiving a shower at that time. Interview was conducted on 11/30/22 at 07:42 PM with Nurse Aide #8. Has worked at facility for 4 months. She stated it was hard to get showers done when they are short staffed. There were times the showers did not get done so she would give bed baths. Interview was conducted on 12/01/22 at 11:20 AM with Nurse Aide #6. She stated that on most days staff was unable to provide showers because of being short staffed. She also stated she would report to 2nd shift, but they were short as well. She further stated she gave bed baths when short staffed. She then stated she set the resident up with a wash basin, soap, and water so they could start their bed bath then she would assist them in completing the bed bath. The Regional Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 12/01/22 at 4:13 PM. She stated she expected Resident #24 ' s showers to be offered and provided on her scheduled days. She added that if dialysis interfered with the shower schedule, she expected the shower days to be adjusted. She stated she expected nursing staff to provide ADL assistance, to include showers, at the resident ' s preferred time. 2. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #24 was cognitively intact. An interview was conducted with Resident #12 on 11/28/22 at 11:01 AM. He stated he requested over a month ago for Charge Nurse #1 to have dietary send him 3 small cartons of milk on every meal tray. He also stated as of today, he had not received 3 milks on his meal trays from dietary. He further stated he had to ask staff for the additional milk, sometimes they would bring it to him and sometimes they would not. An interview was conducted with Charge Nurse #1 on 11/29/22 at 10:07 AM. She stated that Resident #12 had requested to have 3 milks on his meal trays, but she did not fill out a diet request ticket. She stated the kitchen brings a bin with milk in it on ice to the hall with meals and the NAs can grab the milk out and give the residents how many they want. She stated she will give Resident #12 extra milk when she is working. An interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager on 11/29/22 at 11:16 AM. She stated the kitchen brings out bins of milk for breakfast only and if the residents wanted additional milk or other items a diet request ticket would need to be filled out and brought to the kitchen. She stated she had not received a diet request ticket for Resident #12 to receive 3 milks on his meal trays. Resident # 24 ' s diet order read; low concentrated sweets (LCS)/no added salt (NAS), Mechanical Soft, Special Instructions: Large portion proteins at all meals. Resident #24 was not on fluid restrictions, diet restrictions, or any reason the facility could not honor his request for additional milk. An interview was conducted with Med Aide #6 on 12/01/22 at 11:34 AM She stated she assisted the NA ' s with answering call lights, passing meal trays, and provide resident care. She also stated she was familiar with Resident #12, and he did ask for additional milk with meals. She further stated that she would give him the milk when he requested it. The Regional Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 12/01/22 at 04:13 PM. She stated she expected nursing staff to assist residents with notifying the correct individuals of requests such as foods and additional milk or coffee if their diet permitted the change. She indicated that the request for additional milk for Resident #12 should have been submitted to dietary per his request if his diet permitted it.
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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) after 6...

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 significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) after 6 areas of decline on consecutive MDS assessments for 1 (Resident #64) of residents reviewed for a significant change in status. The findings included: Resident #64 was admitted on [DATE] with cumulative diagnoses of Dementia, Diabetes, anxiety and major depression. Review of the care plan dated 12/10/21 and last revised on 9/2/22 indicated Resident #64 was care planned for assistance with her activities of daily living related to weakness and over all deconditioning. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #64 was cognitively intact, required supervision with dressing, hygiene, toileting and bathing. She was also coded as being continent of bladder and bowel. Review of a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE-a Medicare/Medicaid program for older adults and people over age [AGE] living with disabilities) social worker note dated 10/6/2 indicated the family was made aware of continuing decline due to her chronic kidney disease but the family refused dialysis. The next MDS assessment was another quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. Resident #64 was now coded with moderate cognitive impairment, requiring extensive staff assistance with dressing hygiene, toileting and total assistance with bathing. Resident #64 was also coded as frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel. An interview was completed on 12/1/22 at 10:40 AM with the Regional Reimbursement Manager in the absence of the facility ' s MDS Nurse. He stated a significant change in status MDS assessment should have been completed for the 10/31/22 QMDS review. He was unable to answer why this was not completed. An interview was conducted on 12/1/22 at 3:05 PM with the Regional Nurse Consultant. She stated the expectation was to follow the guidance and an significant change MDS should have been completed on 10/31/22 rather than a quarterly assessment.
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** 3. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus with diabetic ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and dysphagia. An interview was conducted with Speech Therapy on 11/29/22 at 10:24 AM. She stated she evaluated Resident #12 on 11/03/22. She then stated she wrote a new order on 11/3/22 for his diet to be changed to solids (regular consistency) with directions for staff to assist with cutting meat when requested. She also stated she gave the order to the nurse at the nursing station, although she could not recall the nurses name, and to the Dietary Manager. She further stated at that time if there was a change in a diet order, the order was given to the nurse at the nurse ' s station and then she took a copy to the Dietary Manager. She indicated the nurse would enter the order into the system. She stated she was not aware the diet was not updated. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #12 ' s active diet on 11/28/22 read; low concentrated sweets (LCS)/no added salt (NAS), Mechanical Soft, Special Instructions: Large portion proteins at all meals. Review of Resident #12 ' s active diet on 11/30/22 read; Regular special instructions: large portion proteins at all meals, assist with cutting meat when requested- low concentrated sweets (LCS)/no added salt (NAS). An interview was conducted with Resident #12 on 11/28/22 at 11:01 AM. He stated he was evaluated by Speech Therapy (ST) a month ago. He also stated ST told him his meat consistency was going to be changed to whole meats and staff could assist him cutting the meats up if needed, but the meat on his meal tray was still minced. An interview was conducted on 11/29/22 at 11:16 AM with the Dietary Manager. She stated when Speech Therapy (ST) brings a diet change to dietary she enters the information into the system so it will print on the ticket. She also verbally informs the dietary staff of the diet change. She then stated the new diet order for resident #12 was not entered into the system therefore the ticket did not indicate the change. She stated she remembers Speech Therapy bringing the order to dietary and it was an oversite that the order did not get entered into her system. An interview was conducted with Med Aide #6 on 12/01/22 at 11:34 AM She stated she was working on 11/03/22 on 100 hall and she did not receive a diet order for Resident #12. She further stated Speech Therapy (ST) would give diet orders to the nurse. An interview was conducted on 11/29/22 at 12:32 PM with Charge Nurse #1. She stated if Speech Therapy (ST) changed a diet order, the order was given to the nurse at the nurse ' s station and that nurse enters the order into the system. She was unaware of the new diet order for Resident #12. An interview was conducted on 12/01/22 at 02:56 PM with Charge Nurse #2. She stated she was working on 11/03/22 from 7AM-7PM but did not recall receiving an order for a diet change for Resident #12. The Regional Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 12/01/22 at 04:13 PM. She stated her expectation was that nursing staff enter orders when they are given to them by Speech Therapy (ST). Based on record reviews, observations and interviews with the Nurse Practitioner and staff, the facility failed to transcribe the correct medication administration route for a resident with a feeding tube (Resident #18) and failed to transcribe a Physician's order (Resident #51) and a new diet order (Resident #12) accurately for 3 of 15 resident's records reviewed. The findings included: 1. Resident #18 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a recent readmission date of 10/5/22. His diagnoses included a stroke with left sided paralysis and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact with a feeding tube present. The assessment indicated the majority of Resident #18's calories and fluids were provided via a feeding tube. The active November 2022 physician orders included an order dated 10/31/22 for Hydroxyzine (an antihistamine) 25 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed. All other medications were written to be provided through the gastric feeding tube. A review of the November 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #18 had not received a dose of the Hydroxyzine. On 11/30/22 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with Medication Aide (MA) #2 who confirmed Resident #18 received all medications via the feeding tube. The Unit Manager was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 4:15 PM. She reviewed Resident #18's active physician orders and confirmed the Hydroxyzine route of administration was by mouth. The Unit Manager explained when an order was first entered into the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) the default route was by mouth and should have been changed to gastrostomy tube (G-tube/feeding tube). She added Resident #18 received all medications via feeding tube. An interview occurred with Charge Nurse #2 on 12/1/22 at 9:36 AM. She was the nurse that transcribed the order for Resident #18 and explained when the provider put the order into the EMR, the system defaults to the by mouth route. She would have gone in to verify and activate the order ensuring the correct administration route was present. Charge Nurse #2 stated it was an oversight not to have changed the medication route to via G-tube for Resident #18 as he took all medications via the feeding tube. The Regional Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM. She reviewed Resident #18's physician orders and confirmed the route for the Hydroxyzine was entered as oral instead of via G-tube. She further explained when entering the medication into the EMR the default route was oral and she felt it was an oversight that the nurse failed to change the route to G-tube. The Regional Nurse Consultant stated it was her expectation for all medication administration routes to be entered correctly when the order was received and/or activated. 2. Resident # 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Resident #51 had a doctor's order dated 9/22/20 for Pantoprazole (Protonix) 40 milligrams (mgs.) once a day for GERD. On 6/14/22, the Pharmacist had recommended to discontinue Pantoprazole due to long term use had been associated with increased risk of Clostridium difficile (C diff) colitis and to replace it with Famotidine (Pepcid) 20 mgs twice a day as needed (PRN) for indigestion/heartburn. The attending physician had responded agree, please write order to the recommendation on 6/17/22. On 6/26/22, the former Director of Nursing (DON) entered the order in the computer for Famotidine 20 mgs twice a day (scheduled) instead of BID PRN. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) from June through November 2022, revealed that the Famotidine was administered to Resident #51 twice a day (scheduled). On 12/1/22 at 9:40 AM, Charge Nurse #2 was interviewed. She stated that the once the doctor agreed and signed the recommendation of the Consultant Pharmacist, it was considered a doctor's order. The Nurse was expected to enter the order in the computer for the pharmacy to dispense the medication. The Charge Nurse reviewed the Consultant Pharmacist Communication to Physician form and the doctor's order for the Famotidine and stated that it was a transcription error. The former Director of Nursing (DON) transcribed the Famotidine as twice a day (scheduled) instead of twice a day PRN as ordered. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected nursing to enter orders in the computer correctly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide application of a left-hand splint acco...

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 provide application of a left-hand splint according to therapy recommendations (Resident #18) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for limited range of motion. The findings included: Resident #18 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the most recent readmission date of 10/5/22. His diagnoses included a history of a stroke with left sided paralysis and contracture to the left hand. An Occupational Therapy (OT) initial evaluation dated 9/6/22 indicated Resident #18 would receive therapy for a left-hand contracture. A significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact and had limited range of motion to one upper extremity. He was not coded with any behaviors or refusals of care. The care plan, last reviewed 9/14/22, revealed a problem area for being at risk for decreased range of motion secondary to current contracture of the left upper extremity/hand. An OT Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 received OT therapy for a left-hand contracture. Upon discharge, the OT recommendation was for the resident to wear a left resting hand splint up to two hours a day as tolerated. Staff were to perform passive range of motion (PROM) to the left hand prior to placing on the splint and to complete a skin assessment to the left hand to ensure there was no skin breakdown, edema, or redness present. Review of a In-Service Training Report dated 9/29/22, indicated nursing staff were educated on the left-hand splint for Resident #18. The in-service record indicated to perform PROM before applying the left resting hand splint on in the morning for up to three hours as tolerated. Return to the mesh bag and place in his closet when the splint was removed. The form indicated the training was provided by OT , however there was no indication of who gave the in-service or what specific nursing staff were educated. A review of the active Nurse Aide care guide revealed no information related Resident #18's splint. An observation of Resident #18 was completed on 11/28/22 at 10:31 AM, while he was lying in bed. The left wrist/hand was observed to be flexed inwards, with his fingers folded towards the palm of his hand. Resident #18 was unable to straighten his fingers and there was no splinting device located in Resident #18's room. On 11/29/22 at 10:41 AM, Resident #18 was observed lying in his bed with his hands on top of the covers. There was no splinting device to his hand. Nurse Aide (NA) #3 was interviewed on 11/29/22 at 12:10 PM and regularly cared for the resident during the day shift. She stated sometimes Resident #18 wore a brace to his left hand, but she thought the therapy department placed it on the resident. She could not recall the last time she saw the splint on his left hand. On 11/29/22 at 12:15 PM an interview occurred with Medication Aide (MA) #2 who cared for resident regularly and stated she had not seen a hand splint for Resident #18 and was unaware he was to wear one. MA #2 stated normally splints would have a physician's order and they would sign off on the application and removal on the Treatment Administration Record. NA #4 was interviewed on 11/29/22 at 3:30 PM, who cared for resident regularly on the evening shift and stated she was unaware Resident #18 had a left-hand splint. The Rehab Director was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 10:00 AM and stated she had been at the facility since October 2022. She reviewed Resident #18's therapy records and stated he was treated by OT for a left-hand contracture from 9/6/22 until 9/29/22. She shared Resident #18 should have had a left resting hand splint to be worn daily up to three hours as tolerated. Upon discharge from therapy, nursing staff were educated and trained on the application of the left-hand splint. The Rehab Director added the therapy department typically didn't enter orders into the resident's chart regarding splinting devices but would have provided a referral to the nursing department when the resident was discharged , and nursing would have entered the order. The Regional Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM and explained if a resident wore a splinting device there would be an order in the chart. She reviewed Resident #18's medical record and stated there was not an order for the left-hand splint when he was discharged from OT on 9/29/22. She further stated she would expect an order to be written for hand splints following discharge from OT by the nursing staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, Nurse Practitioner and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain a urology consult o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, Nurse Practitioner and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain a urology consult ordered by the medical director for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #70) reviewed for urinary catheters. The findings included: Resident # 70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included urinary retention. Resident #70's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired, required assistance with activities of daily living, and was dependent with toileting. Additionally, the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter during the assessment period. The resident's comprehensive care plan was last revised on 10/22/2022 and contained a focus for an indwelling urinary catheter related to urinary retention and benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate). Resident #70's medical record included a physician's order for urology consult dated 11/4/2022. The order was entered by Nurse #6. The medical record did not indicate the resident had been seen by urologist. On 11/29/2022 at 4:28 PM an interview was conducted with Charge Nurse #1. She was aware of the order but did not know if it was followed up on. She stated she did not recall the resident going to urology. She further stated the nurse who entered the order, Nurse #6, should have notified transportation to make the appointment. Attempts to contact Nurse #6 were not successful. An interview was conducted with the transporter on 11/29/2022 at 4:39 PM . She stated she was not made aware the resident needed a urology appointment therefore the resident did not have a urology appointment scheduled at that time. On 12/01/2022 at 12:53 PM an interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner. She stated she has had issues with getting consults scheduled and completed. She stated she inquired about the urology consult two or three times already. The NP was told the nurse who entered the order should have printed the order and placed it in the transporter's box so she could make the appointment. The NP stated she recently created and began using her own excel spread sheet to follow up on consults and labs. On 12/01/2022 at 4:12 PM an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant. She stated the nurse who entered the order did not follow the process in place. She should have printed the order for the consult and given the copy to the transporter who would have scheduled the appointment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.Resident # 70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and dysphagia. Resident #70's admi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.Resident # 70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and dysphagia. Resident #70's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired, required assistance with activities of daily living, and required some assistance with eating. The resident's comprehensive care plan was last revised on 10/22/2022 and contained a focus for risk of nutritional decline related to diagnoses of dementia, dysphagia, and history of malnutrition. Resident #70's medical record revealed the resident was in the hospital from [DATE] through 10/11/2022. There was no admissions weight on 9/26/2022 and there was no readmission height or weight documented on Resident #70 on 10/11/2022. The record also contained a physician's order to weight resident weekly. The order was dated 10/11/2022. The medical record contained documentation by the Registered dietitian (RD) dated 10/3/2022. On 10/3/2022 the RD noted the resident was out of the facility and requested a readmission height and weight when resident returned since an admissions height and weight were no completed upon admission on [DATE]. On 10/13/2022 the RD completed the admissions assessment and again requested a readmission height and weight on the resident. She noted the resident's hospital laboratory results indicated the resident had low albumin. The RD recommended supplemental nutrition through Glucerna three times daily and weekly weights for four weeks. The resident's medical record included the following dates and weights: On 10/20/2022 at 7:11 AM the resident's weight was 130.8 pounds (lbs) On 10/31/2022 at 10:51 PM the resident's weight was 125 lbs. On 11/28/2022 at 3:35 PM the resident's weight was 101.6 lbs. A phone interview was conducted with the RD on 11/30/2022 1:17 PM. She stated she did not know why Resident #70 was not weighed weekly as requested or why there was no admission weight and height. She further stated she was in the facility on 11/28/2022 and there was not a recent weight on the resident when she was in the facility. She further stated staff did not call her and report the weight. The RD reported she was in the facility weekly and would have seen the weight loss when she reviewed resident weights the following week. She stated sometimes staff would call her with weight loss concerns but mostly she catches it on her weekly reviews and makes recommendations. She stated she would expect staff to report a weight loss of 24 lbs over 28 days to either her or the Nurse Practitioner (NP). On 11/29/2022 at 2:42 PM an interview was conducted with Medication Aide #9 who weighed Resident #70 on 11/28/2022. She stated she works with the resident frequently. She stated she did not know why the resident did not get an admission weight and she did not recall why he did not get weighed weekly as ordered. She stated it may have been missed due to low staffing. When asked if she reported resident's weight loss to anyone, she stated she did not report the weight loss but she did report his poor appetite to the NP. An interview was conducted with the NP on 12/01/2022 at 12:53 PM. The NP stated she felt there was not sufficient staff in the building and that is why weights are not done. The NP stated she did not get a call on 11/28/2022 regarding Resident #70's weight loss. She stated she saw his weight when she was in the building on 11/30/2022 and reached out to the family regarding options and expectations. She stated she would have liked to have gotten a notification, but she did not believe there was a policy that mandated staff call the NP with excessive weight loss. She would have expected the RD to have been made aware so interventions could have been put into place. On 12/01/2022 at 4:12 PM an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant. She stated it was her expectation that staff weight residents per physician's orders. Based on record reviews, staff interviews, and interviews with Nurse Practitioner and Registered Dietitian, the facility failed to obtain admission weight, readmission weight, and weekly weights on a resident per physician's order, and failed to notify the NP or RD of excessive weight loss for 1 of 1 resident's (Resident #70) reviewed for nutrition. Findings included: 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia and dysphagia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #3's cognition was intact, and he needed supervision with eating. The assessment further indicated that the resident weighed 171 pounds (lbs.) and had a weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or 10% or more in the last 6 months and was not on the physician prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of Resident #3's care plan for nutrition reviewed on 11/28/22 was conducted. The care plan problem was resident at risk for nutritional decline related to diagnoses. The goal was resident will remain free from significant weight changes through next review. The approaches included refer to Registered Dietician (RD) as needed, monitor weights per facility protocol and provide diet/supplements as ordered. Review of the electronic weight record revealed that Resident #3 weighed 183 lbs. on 8/27/22 and 171 lbs. on 9/24/22, a weight loss of 12 lbs. in one month. The RD notes were reviewed. The note dated 9/7/22 revealed that Resident #3 had a significant weight loss of 8% in 30 days. He was at risk for weight fluctuations related to fluid shifts due to diuretic therapy. Weights with overall downward trend despite overall good intake of meals. The RD recommended to add a sandwich twice a day with lunch and dinner for additional kilocalories/protein and to continue weekly weights due to significant weight loss. The note dated 9/26/22 revealed that Resident #3 continued to lose weight with a 6.5% loss in 30 days. The recommendation was to continue the weekly weights. The note dated 10/3/22 revealed that Resident #3's current weight was 174 lbs. with no significant weight loss. The RD indicated Resident #3 was at risk for weight fluctuations related to fluid shifts due to diuretic therapy. The recommendation was to continue weekly weights. Documentation of Resident #3's weights for October 2022 and November 2022 were reviewed. There was only 1 weight recorded for October 2022 (10/1/22 - 174 lbs.) and there were no weights recorded for November 2022. Attempts to interview the RD were unsuccessful. On 12/1/22 at 9:40 AM, Charge Nurse #2 was interviewed. She reviewed the RD notes and her recommendations for weekly weights. She also reviewed the recorded weights for Resident #3. She verified that the RD had recommended for weekly weights and there were no weekly weights recorded in the resident's records for October and November 2022. She stated that she did not know who was responsible for the weekly weights. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected the weekly weights obtained as recommended by the RD.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility provided a paper copy of a policy and procedure titled Fire Safety and Prevention. The policy was dated May 2021...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility provided a paper copy of a policy and procedure titled Fire Safety and Prevention. The policy was dated May 2021. The policy read in part, store oxygen cylinders in racks with chains, sturdy portable carts, or approved stands when not in use. On 11/28/2022 at 12:00 PM. Two green oxygen E- cylinders (E cylinders are 24.9 inches in height, weight 7.9 pounds, and have a capacity of 680 liters) were observed in a vestibule. The cylinders were observed to be ½ full. The cylinders were not secured in a wheeled cart or other securement device. Nurse assistant (NA)#1 was observed going in and out of the vestibule several times, passing the unsecured oxygen cylinders each time. On 11/28/2022 at 12:05 PM and interview was conducted with NA#1. The NA stated she was unaware about the facility's policy regarding storage of oxygen cylinders. NA#1 stated she did not know who the tanks belonged to, where they came from, or what she should do with them. An interview was conducted with Charge Nurse #1 on 11/28/2022 at 12:15 PM. She walked down the hall to the vestibule and observed the 2 unsecured oxygen cylinders. She stated she did not know where the cylinders came from or why they were in the vestibule unsecured. She stated oxygen cylinders that were not in use should be stored in a secure rack in the storage area across from the nurse's station. Charge Nurse #1 removed the 2 green oxygen cylinders from the vestibule and placed them in a secured rack in the storge area across from the nurse's station. On 12/01/22 at 3:44 PM an interview was conducted with the Regional Operations Manager. She stated she expected oxygen cylinders that were not in use to be secured in the storeroom. Based on record review, observations and interviews with the Nurse Practitioner and staff, the facility failed to obtain a Physician's order for a resident's use of continuous oxygen (Resident #18). This was for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Additionally, the facility failed to secure oxygen tanks that were not in use for 1 of 4 observations. The findings included: 1. Resident #18 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was hospitalized [DATE] until 10/5/22 for respiratory distress. His diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (inadequate oxygen), congestive heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact and was coded with the use of oxygen. Resident #18's active care plan, last reviewed 9/14/22, included a focus area for received oxygen therapy secondary to COPD and chronic respiratory failure. One of the interventions was to administer oxygen as ordered. A Physician's progress note dated 9/30/22 indicated Resident #18's baseline oxygen level was 3 liters via nasal cannula. Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had been weaned back to his baseline oxygen level of 3 liters at the time of discharge. Review of a Physician's progress note dated 10/7/22 indicated Resident #18 was on 3 liters of oxygen via nasal cannula continuously. Review of Resident #18's nursing progress notes from 4/1/22 until 11/30/22 revealed he was using oxygen continuously. A review of Resident #18's October 2022 and November 2022 Physician orders did not include any orders for oxygen. In an observation on 11/28/22 at 10:31 AM, Resident #18 was lying in bed with oxygen running at 2 liters flow via concentrator. He indicated he used oxygen all the time. Resident #18 was observed lying in bed watching TV on 11/29/22 at 10:41 AM. Oxygen was being used at 2 liters via a concentrator. On 11/30/22 at 11:36 AM, a phone interview occurred with Nurse #1, who was the readmitting nurse on 10/5/22 for Resident #18. The hospital discharge summary and physician orders for Resident #18 were reviewed and Nurse #1 stated it was an oversight not to have included an order for oxygen as he was on continuous oxygen before the hospitalization and when he returned from the hospital. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 12:40 PM. She reviewed Resident #18's hospital discharge summary from 10/5/22 as well as his active physician orders and stated she would have expected the nursing staff to ensure oxygen was included in his active orders based on the discharge summary and his prior use of 3 liters. In an interview on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM, the Regional Nurse Consultant stated Resident #18 required continuous oxygen for his COPD, CHF, and chronic respiratory failure. The Regional Nurse Consultant verified there was no order for the continuous oxygen when he was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] and there should have been. She felt it was an oversight.
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 F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews with Pharmacy and staff, the facility failed to have prescribed pain medication on hand t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews with Pharmacy and staff, the facility failed to have prescribed pain medication on hand to administer as needed (PRN) per Physician ' s orders for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #425) reviewed for pain management. Findings included: Resident #425 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included malignant neoplasm of prostate (cancer), neuropathy, pain, type 2 diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer, cirrhosis of liver, and end stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #425's cognition was intact. He had no behaviors and no rejection of care. Resident #425 received scheduled pain medications and PRN pain medications during the MDS review period. He reported he had occasional pain that did not make it difficult to sleep at night or limit his day-to-day activities. He rated his pain at 04 on a numeric rating scale and a verbal descriptor was not coded. He received opioid medications on 5 of 7 days during the MDS review period. Review of the resident's care plan, last revised 06/15/22, revealed a focused area that Resident #425 was at Risk for Pain: Alteration in comfort related to chronic low back pain and neuropathy in addition to stage 4 prostate cancer with bone metastasis (cancer cells spread from their original site to a bone). The care plan included interventions that included pain medications to be given per orders and to assess location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain. Report any noted increased pain. Resident #425's physician ' s orders included an order dated 05/31/220 for scheduled hydromorphone (narcotic pain medication) 2 milligrams (mg) every 8 hours. Order was changed on 06/07/22 to discontinue scheduled hydromorphone 2 mg three times a day and to continue hydromorphone 2mg, ½ tablet every 4 hours PRN for pain and respiratory distress. Fentanyl 12micrograms (mcg)/hour pain patch; apply 1 patch to skin every 72 hours. The June 2022 electronic Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #425 indicated he was administered scheduled hydromorphone 19 times and 17 PRN doses of hydromorphone. The MAR did not require the nurse to assess and document Resident #425 ' s numerical pain level prior to administration or the numerical pain level effectiveness of the pain medication after its administration. The MAR also revealed hydromorphone was not administered from 06/12/22 through 06/16/22. A review was conducted of the June 2022 hard copy Controlled Medication Utilization Record for Resident #425. This record indicated Resident #425 was administered scheduled hydromorphone 19 times and PRN hydromorphone 23 times in June 2022. This form required the nurse to document the date and time of the pain medication administration. This form had not required the nurse to indicate the numerical pain level prior to administration nor did it require the numerical pain level of effectiveness of the medication after it's administration. The June 2022 Controlled Medication Utilization Record was compared to the June 2022 MAR for Resident #425. This revealed 6 instances when the PRN hydromorphone administration was documented on Resident #425's Controlled Medication Utilization Record, but not on the MAR. A review was conducted of the June 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed hydromorphone was not administered from 06/13/22 through 06/16/22. The hard copy Controlled Medication Utilization Record revealed hydromorphone was not available or given to Resident #425 from 06/12/22 at 09:51 PM through the late afternoon/evening of 06/14/22. According to the Controlled Medication Utilization Record the last available dose of hydromorphone was administered on 06/12/22 at 05:51 PM. The facility received a delivery of 84 hydromorphone 2mg tabs on the late afternoon/evening of 06/14/22. An interview was conducted with Charge Nurse #1 on 11/29/22 at 12:42 PM. She stated the process for administering as needed (PRN) narcotic pain medication included a pain assessment. She then stated the medication was administered, documented on the MAR, and documented on the Controlled medication Utilization Record. She stated Resident #425 often voiced pain. She further stated she was not aware he was out of hydromorphone and that he needed it for his pain control. A phone interview was conducted on 11/30/22 at 03:30 PM with Nurse #2. She stated if a resident runs out of a medication, she would check the Pixis (dispensing system for back-up medications) first and see what was available, then call the Residents physician so he can give an order for a medication that was available until the original order arrived. She then stated she would call the pharmacy to have them deliver the medication as soon as possible and a resident should not run out of his/her pain medication. She further stated she was not aware Resident #425 was close to running out of his pain medication on the last day she worked which was 06/11/22. She also stated Resident #425 often voiced pain. Interview with Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Control Preventionist (ADON/ICP) was conducted on 11/30/22 at 03:42 PM. She stated if a resident runs out of a medication, she would check the Pixis (dispensing system for back-up medications) first to see if the medication is available. If it was not available, she would see what was available, call the physician so he can give an order for a medication that is available until the original order arrives and he can fax the pharmacy a script. Then she stated she would call the pharmacy to have them deliver the medication as soon as possible. A phone interview was conducted with Med Aide #8 on 11/30/22 at 04:24 PM. She stated if a resident runs out of a narcotic pain medication, she would notify the nurse so she can check the Pixis (dispensing system for back-up medications) to see if that medication was available or to see what was available, and she would then notify the physician so an order for an alternative medication can be obtained. She also stated Resident #425 often voiced pain. She administered Tylenol to Resident #425 on 06/13/22 for complaints of pain all over because he was out of hydromorphone. She further stated that the Tylenol was slightly effective, but that Resident #425 needed the hydromorphone instead of the Tylenol. He shouldn't have run out. She revealed she thinks she notified Charge Nurse #1 on 06/13/22 that Resident #425 was out of pain medication but was not positive. A phone Interview with Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Pharmacist and Unit Manager was conducted on 12/01/22 at 02:14 PM. PACE Pharmacist stated 84 hydromorphone 2mg tablets were filled on 05/11/22 and on 06/14/22 and sent to facility. No notification was documented of facility notifying pharmacy that they were out of hydromorphone on or around 06/12/22. Unit Manager stated if a resident was out of a medication, she expected the nurse or Med Aide to call pharmacy and have medications delivered as soon as possible. Interview with Regional Nurse Consultant on 12/01/22 at 04:13 PM. She stated her expectation was for nursing staff to reorder medication prior to it running out. If it does run out, she expected the nurse to call pharmacy and have it delivered as soon as possible. She also stated she expected staff to document the administration of narcotic pain medication on the Controlled Medication Utilization Record and on the Medication Administration Record (MAR).
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 F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview with staff, the facility failed to review the dialysis communication sheet used to exchange...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview with staff, the facility failed to review the dialysis communication sheet used to exchange information regarding resident's treatment and care resulting in missed recommendation from dialysis physician for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis (Resident #6). The findings included: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease. The resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident was cognitively intact, required assistance for all activities of daily living, and received dialysis during the assessment period. Resident #6's comprehensive care plan was last updated on 11/21/2022 and included a focus for dialysis services secondary to end stage renal disease. Interventions included communicating with dialysis center before and after each visit for continuation of care and to inform physician with any changes as needed. Resident #6's active physician orders included several medications to lower her blood pressure including isosorbide 45 milligrams (mg) orally twice daily. The order had a start date of 9/13/2022. Resident #6's dialysis communication notebook included a dialysis communication record dated 11/25/2022. The communication record included a communication from the dialysis center indicating the resident's blood pressure was extremely low and they were unable to remove any fluid, instead fluids were given. The dialysis center documented the resident's blood pressure was 76/45 on arrival. The dialysis center gave the resident 1050 milliliters (ml) of normal saline. The communication included a note to discontinue isosorbide per physician's order. On 11/28/2022 a review of Resident #6's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for November 2022 revealed the isosorbide was still an active order. An interview was conducted with Charge Nurse #1 on 11/29/2022 at 4:39PM. The charge nurse stated when residents return from dialysis, they return through the front entrance with their dialysis communication notebook. She stated the notebook is brought to the nurse station where the charge nurse reviews the log and acts on any new orders or recommendations. The communication notebooks are kept at the nurse's station. She further stated she was working on 11/25/2022 and she did not recall looking at the dialysis communication notebook for Resident #6 on that date. She did not recall seeing the note regarding the resident's blood pressure being low and did not call the Physician or Nurse Practitioner and notify them of the order from the dialysis physician to discontinue the isosorbide. She stated she was not sure how she missed the communication. On 11/30/22 at 12:16 PM an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated she discontinued the isosorbide order on 11/29/2022 at 2:53PM when she saw the communication form and realized it had not been discontinued. She stated the process was not followed. The charge nurse should have reviewed the communication form on 11/25/2022 and called the facility Medical Director (MD) or Nurse Practitioner (NP) and made the necessary changes. The DON stated she did not know why the process was not followed. She stated she called the facility MD on 11/29/2022 and made him aware and got a verbal order to discontinue the medication. On 12/01/2022 at 4:10 PM an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant who stated she expected the Charge Nurse to check the dialysis communication log when the resident returns from dialysis and call the MD with any new orders or recommendations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to assess the resident for their vaccination status and failed t...

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 assess the resident for their vaccination status and failed to offer the influenza and pneumococcal vaccination upon admission per their facility policy for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations (Residents #59 & #66). Findings included: The facility's policy on Vaccination of Residents dated October 2022 was reviewed. The policy read in part all new admission shall be assessed for current vaccination status upon admission. The resident or the resident's legal representative may refuse vaccine for any reasons. If vaccines are refused, the refusal shall be documented in the resident's medical records. 1. Resident # 66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #66's vaccination records revealed no documentation that he had received the influenza nor the pneumococcal vaccination prior to admission to facility. There was no documentation in the records that the resident nor the Responsible party (RP) had refused both vaccinations. The facility's Immunization Informed Consent form for pneumococcal and influenza vaccine was reviewed. The form included a question as to when the date of the last vaccination, the option to receive or refuse the vaccinations and the education which included the risk and benefits of the vaccines. Resident #66 did not have an Immunization Informed Consent form in his medical record. On 11/30/22 at 8:40 AM, the Unit Manager (UM) was interviewed. The UM stated that the admission Director was responsible for assessing and offering the vaccines on admission. She explained that on admission, the resident or the RP had to complete and sign the Immunization Informed consent form. Once the form was signed, the UM or the Infection Preventionist would enter the information in the computer as to when the last vaccination received, consent to receive, or to refuse the vaccine. The UM added that Resident #66 did not have a signed Immunization Informed Consent form on admission. On 11/30/22 at 8:45 AM, the admission Director was interviewed. He stated that he started as the admission Director of the facility a month ago. He stated that he was trained to provide the resident or the RP the Immunization Informed Consent form to complete on admission. The admission Director stated that he could not find the signed form for Resident #66, or he might have missed giving it to the resident or the RP on admission. He added that he was still learning the process. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected the facility's policy on vaccination to be followed. The Infection Preventionist was not available for interview during the survey. 2. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #59's vaccination records revealed no documentation that he had received the influenza nor the pneumococcal vaccination prior to admission to facility. There was no documentation in the records that the resident nor the Responsible party (RP) had refused both vaccinations. The facility's Immunization Informed Consent form for pneumococcal and influenza vaccine was reviewed. The form included a question as to when the date of the last vaccination, the option to receive or refuse the vaccinations and the education which included the risk and benefits of the vaccines. Resident #59 did not have an Immunization Informed Consent form in his medical record. On 11/30/22 at 8:40 AM, the Unit Manager (UM) was interviewed. The UM stated that the admission Director was responsible for assessing and offering the vaccines on admission. She explained that on admission, the resident or the RP had to complete and sign the Immunization Informed consent form. Once the form was signed, the UM or the Infection Preventionist would enter the information in the computer as to when the last vaccination received, consent to receive, or to refuse the vaccine. The UM added that Resident #59 did not have a signed Immunization Informed Consent form on admission. On 11/30/22 at 8:45 AM, the admission Director was interviewed. He stated that he started as the admission Director of the facility a month ago. He stated that he was trained to provide the resident or the RP the Immunization Informed Consent form to complete on admission. The admission Director stated that he could not find the signed form for Resident #59, or he might have missed giving it to the resident or the RP on admission. He added that he was still learning the process. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected the facility's policy on vaccination to be followed. The Infection Preventionist was not available for interview during the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to assess the vaccination status and to offer the resident or th...

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 assess the vaccination status and to offer the resident or the responsible party (RP) the COVID-19 vaccine upon admission per their facility policy for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for COVID 19 immunizations (Residents #59 & #66). The findings included: The facility's policy on Vaccination of Residents dated October 2022 was reviewed. The policy read in part all new admission shall be assessed for current vaccination status upon admission. The resident or the resident's legal representative may refuse vaccine for any reasons. If vaccines are refused, the refusal shall be documented in the resident's medical records. 1. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #66's vaccination records revealed no documentation of previous vaccinations prior to admission to facility. There was no documentation in the records that the resident nor the Responsible party (RP) had refused the COVID 19 vaccine. The facility's COVID 19 vaccine consent form was reviewed. The form included the type of vaccine and the date received outside the facility, and the option to receive or to refuse the COVID 19 vaccine. Resident #66 did not have a COVID-19 vaccine consent in his medical record. On 11/30/22 at 8:40 AM, the Unit Manager (UM) was interviewed. The UM stated that the admission Director was responsible for assessing and offering the vaccines on admission. She explained that on admission, the resident or the RP had to complete and sign the COVID 19 vaccine consent form. Once the form was signed, the UM or the Infection Preventionist would enter the information in the computer as to the type of vaccine and date received, if any, and whether the resident or the RP had consented to receive, or to refuse the vaccine. The UM added that Resident #66 did not have a signed COVID 19 vaccine consent form on admission. On 11/30/22 at 8:45 AM, the admission Director was interviewed. He stated that he started as the admission Director of the facility a month ago. He stated that he was trained to provide the resident or the RP the COVID 19 vaccine consent form to complete on admission. The admission Director stated that he could not find the signed form for Resident #66, or he might have missed giving it to the resident or the RP on admission to sign. He added that he was still learning the process. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected the facility's policy on vaccination to be followed. The Infection Preventionist was not available for interview during the survey. 2. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #59's vaccination records revealed no documentation of previous vaccinations prior to admission to facility. There was no documentation in the records that the resident nor the Responsible party (RP) had refused the COVID 19 vaccine. The facility's COVID 19 vaccine consent form was reviewed. The form included the type of vaccine and the date received outside the facility, and the option to receive or to refuse the COVID 19 vaccine. Resident #59 did not have a COVID-19 vaccine consent in his medical record. On 11/30/22 at 8:40 AM, the Unit Manager (UM) was interviewed. The UM stated that the admission Director was responsible for assessing and offering the vaccines on admission. She explained that on admission, the resident or the RP had to complete and sign the COVID 19 vaccine consent form. Once the form was signed, the UM or the Infection Preventionist would enter the information in the computer as to the type of vaccine and date received, if any, and whether the resident or the RP had consented to receive, or to refuse the vaccine. The UM added that Resident #59 did not have a signed COVID 19 vaccine consent form on admission. On 11/30/22 at 8:45 AM, the admission Director was interviewed. He stated that he started as the admission Director of the facility a month ago. He stated that he was trained to provide the resident or the RP the COVID 19 vaccine consent form to complete on admission. The admission Director stated that he could not find the signed form for Resident #59, or he might have missed giving it to the resident or the RP on admission to sign. He added that he was still learning the process. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected the facility's policy on vaccination to be followed. The Infection Preventionist was not available for interview during the survey.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #18 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a stroke affecting the left side ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #18 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a stroke affecting the left side and contracture to the left hand. A significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact and displayed no behaviors or refusal of care. He required extensive assistance from staff for personal hygiene. A review of Resident #18's active care plan, last reviewed on 9/14/22, included a focus area for requiring assistance from staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care secondary to history of a stroke with left sided paralysis and left upper extremity contracture, right above the knee amputation, obesity, and overall functional and mobility deficits. One of the interventions included he preferred short nails. A review of Resident #18's nursing progress notes from 5/1/22 to 11/30/22 revealed no refusals of nail care documented. On 11/28/22 at 10:31 AM, Resident #18 was observed while lying in bed. He was noted to have long fingernails to the right and left hand as well as a dark substance under the nails to the right hand. The left hand was contracted with fingernails observed touching the palm of his hand. Resident #18 was observed on 11/29/22 at 10:41 AM, while lying in bed. His nails remained unchanged from previous observations. On 11/29/22 at 10:55 AM, an interview occurred with Nurse Aide (NA) #2 who was familiar with Resident #18. She stated she was not assigned to care for him, but nail care should be rendered on shower days and during personal care if the need was present. She was unable to state why his nail care had not been completed. An interview occurred with NA #3 on 11/29/22 at 12:10 PM, who was assigned to care for Resident #18. During an observation of Resident #18's fingernails, the NA confirmed they were long, and the right hand had a dark substance underneath them. She added she had not noticed the need during Resident #18's morning care. NA #3 stated nail care should be completed during showers and personal care if the need was present. NA #4 was interviewed on 11/29/22 at 3:30 PM and was assigned to care for Resident #18 on the evening shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM). She explained Resident #18 readily accepted care from her and had no refusals. Nail care was to be done during showers/complete bed baths and as needed but she couldn't recall the last time she had performed nail care for Resident #18. The Regional Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM and stated nail care should be rendered during shower days and during personal care when needed. 4. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, dementia, and weakness. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #67 had severe cognitive impairment and displayed no behaviors or refusal of care. He required extensive assistance from staff for personal hygiene. A review of Resident #67's active care plan, last reviewed on 10/12/22, included a focus area for requiring assistance from staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care related to Parkinson's with weakness and deconditioning. One of the interventions included to provide assistance with ADL's, mobility and transfers as needed being careful not to overwhelm resident. A review of Resident #67's nursing progress notes from 5/1/22 to 11/30/22 revealed no refusals of nail care documented. On 11/29/22 at 8:55 AM, Resident #67 was observed sitting upright in bed. He was noted to have long fingernails to the right and left hand with a dark substance under them. On 11/29/22 at 10:55 AM, an interview occurred with Nurse Aide (NA) #2 who was familiar with Resident #67. She stated she was not assigned to care for him, but nail care should be rendered on shower days and during personal care if the need was present. She was unable to state why his nail care had not been completed. An interview occurred with NA #3 on 11/29/22 at 12:15 PM, who was assigned to care for Resident #67. During an observation of Resident #67's fingernails, the NA confirmed they were long and had a dark substance underneath them. She added she had not noticed the need during Resident #67's morning care. NA #3 stated nail care should be completed during showers and personal care if the need was present. NA #4 was interviewed on 11/29/22 at 3:30 PM and was assigned to care for Resident #67 on the evening shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM). She explained Resident #67 readily accepted care from her and had no refusals. Nail care was to be done during showers/complete bed baths and as needed but she couldn't recall the last time she had performed nail care for Resident #67. The Regional Nurse Consultant was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM and stated nail care should be rendered during shower days and during personal care when needed. Based on record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide nail care to residents who needed extensive assistance and/or were dependent for activities of daily living (ADL) for 4 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for ADL care (Residents #3, #51, #18 & #67). Findings included: 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #3's cognition was intact, and he had no behavior of rejection of care. The assessment further indicated that Resident #3 needed extensive assistance from the staff with personal hygiene. Review of Resident #3's active care plan, last reviewed on 9/27/22 was conducted. The care plan problem was resident requires assistance from the staff with activities of daily living (ADL) related to weakness and overall deconditioning and dementia. The goal was resident will have his needs met daily. The approaches included prefers to keep a clean shave and short nails and provide ADLs. Review of the nursing notes from the October through November 2022, revealed no refusal of nail care documented. Resident #3 was observed on 11/28/22 at 11:26 AM with long fingernails on both hands with a brown substance noted underneath his nails. He did not know when the last time his nails were trimmed. On 11/29/22 at 9:10 AM and 12:50 PM, Resident #3's fingernails were again observed. His nails remained unchanged from previous observation. On 11/29/22 at 12:50 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) #9, assigned to Resident #3, was interviewed. She stated that nail care was provided during showers. NA #9 observed the resident's nails and confirmed that they were long and dirty and needed to be cleaned and trimmed. She added that the resident had not been refusing care. NA #9 was unable to explain why the resident's nail care had not been completed. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected nursing to provide nail care to residents when needed. 2. Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with left hemiplegia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #51's cognition was intact, and she had no behavior of rejection of care. The assessment further indicated that Resident #51 needed extensive assistance from the staff with personal hygiene. Review of Resident #51's active care plan, last reviewed on 11/28/22 was conducted. The care plan problem was resident requires assistance from the staff with activities of daily living (ADL) related to functional and mobility deficit and history of CVA with left side hemiplegia. The goal was resident will have her needs met daily. The approaches included prefers to keep her nails long and assist resident with cleanliness of nails as needed. Review of the nursing notes from the October through November 2022, revealed no refusal of nail care documented. Resident #51 was observed on 11/28/22 at 11:20 AM with long fingernails on both hands with a brown substance noted underneath her nails. She did not remember when the last time her nails were cleaned. She stated that she preferred to have long nails, but she needed help to clean them. She reported the staff cleaned her nails during showers but since she did not have a shower for months, they had not been cleaned. On 11/29/22 at 10:15 AM, Resident #51's fingernails were again observed. Her nails remained unchanged from previous observation. On 12/29/22 at 12:5 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) #9, assigned to Resident #51, was interviewed. She stated that nail care was provided during showers. NA #9 observed the resident's nails and confirmed that they were dirty and needed to be cleaned. She added that the resident had not been refusing care. NA #9 was unable to explain why the resident's nail care had not been completed. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected nursing to provide nail care to residents when needed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, Wound Nurse Practitioner and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the alternati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, Wound Nurse Practitioner and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the alternating pressure reducing air mattress was set according to the resident's weight for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #56). The findings included: Resident #56 was admitted to the facility 2/22/21 with diagnoses that included adult failure to thrive and dementia. Resident #56's active physician orders included an order dated 9/29/22 for an alternating pressure air mattress to the bed. Nursing to check every shift to ensure properly functioning and/or settings are in place. A significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #56 had severely impaired decision-making skills, one stage 3 pressure ulcer and a pressure reducing device to the bed. A review of Resident #56's active care plan, last reviewed 10/28/22, included a focus area for potential for further skin breakdown secondary to mobility deficits with incontinence. One of the interventions included pressure relieving device to bed and wheelchair, if indicated. A review of Resident #56's medical record revealed from 7/29/22 to 11/3/22 wound care was provided to a sacral pressure ulcer. Resident #56's weight on 11/3/22 was 94.1 pounds (lbs.). The November 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed nursing staff had been documenting the alternating pressure air mattress was functioning properly. On 11/28/22 at 10:15 AM, an observation was made of Resident #56. She was lying in bed with her eyes closed. The alternating pressure reducing mattress machine was set at 600 to 1000 plus lbs. weight setting. The machine indicated to set according to the resident's weigh per pounds. Resident #56 was observed sitting up in her wheelchair on 11/28/22 at 11:41 AM. The alternating pressure reducing mattress machine was set at 600 to 1000 plus lbs. An observation occurred of Resident #56 on 11/29/22 at 8:50 AM, while she was lying in bed. The alternating pressure reducing mattress machine was set at 600 to 1000 plus lbs. On 11/30/22 at 12:10 PM, an observation was made with Medication Aide (MA) #2 of Resident #56's alternating pressure reducing mattress machine, confirming it was set at 600 to 1000 plus lbs. The MA stated she checked the functionality of the air mattress daily during her rounds to make sure the connections were secured, and the mattress was inflated. The MA stated the former Treatment Nurse was the one that set up the pressure reducing mattresses and set the weights. The Wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 12:13 PM and stated she would expect the alternating pressure reducing mattress machines to be checked daily and set according to the resident's weight as stated on the machine. She added large gaps between the resident's weight and the weight on the machine would not be a useful intervention. On 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM, an interview was held with the Regional Nurse Consultant, who stated she expected the alternating pressure reducing mattress machine to be set according to the resident's weight as stated on the machine. She further added that due to recent staff turnover, education regarding pressure reducing mattresses was needed. Multiple phone calls were placed to the former Treatment Nurse from 11/30/22 to 12/1/22 with no return call received.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE-a Medicare/Medicaid program for older adults and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE-a Medicare/Medicaid program for older adults and people over age [AGE] living with disabilities) Site Director interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain ordered psychological consultation due to a new diagnosis onset of dementia with behaviors to include hallucinations and delusions. This was for 1 (Resident #64) of 1 residents reviewed for behavioral, emotional and mood concerns. The findings included: Resident #64 was admitted on [DATE] with cumulative diagnoses of dementia without behaviors, anxiety and major depression. A nursing note dated 8/2/22 at 6:30 PM indicated that Resident #64 had an episode of delusion/hallucination by dialing 911 telling the dispatcher that she was told to dial 911 by someone calling her name on the loud speaker. PACE was notified of her new behaviors with no new orders. A nursing note dated 8/3/22 at 5:34 PM indicated that Resident #64 demonstrated hallucinations by referencing someone in the room with her but nobody was there. She remained calm and was easily redirected. A new order dated 8/3/22 was received from PACE for Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25 milligrams (mg) at bedtime. Review of Resident #64 ' s comprehensive care plan included a new problem with behavioral symptoms of visual and audible hallucinations and delusions as of 8/3/22. The intervention dated 8/3/22 read to obtain a psychological consult if eligible, notify psychological services of her behaviors and the facility SW to visit her as needed to identify appropriate coping mechanisms. A nursing note dated 8/5/22 at 6:45 AM indicated Resident #64 she packed her belongings and could not stay because someone had put a spell on her and she remained awake the majority of the night. Another note dated 8/5/22 at 2:10 PM read she again packed her personal items and stated a family member was coming to get her. There were signs of anxiety to include restlessness and staff were concerned of her increased fall risk. PACE gave orders for Ativan (an antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg daily and another dose in 4 hours for persistent agitation. A nursing note dated 8/10/22 at 6:44 PM indicated Resident #64 called 911 several times during the shift stating the staff was putting a spell on her. A nursing note dated 8/11/22 at 12:21 PM indicated Resident #64 called 911 stating she wanted to get her hair done. PACE notified and ordered a dose of Ativan 0.5mg and continue to monitor. A Social Worker (SW) note dated 8/15/22 at 12:30 PM read the PACE staff encouraged gospel music, personal items added to her room and walks to reduce the medication use and a psychologist evaluation consult was also placed with the PACE psychological service provider. Review of a PACE SW note dated 8/16/22 at 1:15 PM read a psychiatry consult has been ordered by the PACE Physician for further evaluation. Review of a PACE nursing note dated 8/25/22 at 1:32 PM read Resident #64 reported a poor appetite and staff reported she was refusing meals and made statements about wanting to leave. A nursing note dated 8/28/22 at 12:00 AM indicated Resident #64 was observed sitting in the staff breakroom stating she wanted to go home. She was redirected back to her room and a wanderguard (a discreet bracelet that triggers an alarm while locking a monitored door to prevent elopement) was placed on her left lower extremity with the consent of her family member. PACE staff were notified. A nursing note dated 8/30/22 at 3:23 AM indicated Resident #64 was observed sticking her finger down her throat and vomited after receiving her medications. She denied the event but stated she was being poisoned. PACE and family were notified. Resident #64 was care planned 8/30/22 for the use of a wanderguard. Review of a PACE Physician note dated 8/31/22 at 10:37 AM read the evaluation today was consistent with depression with psychotic behavior. Resident #64 has been unhappy and trying to leave the facility. The intervention was to reach out to recreational therapy for her activities of interest. Review of an email correspondence dated 8/31/22 at 12:44 PM sent by the facility ' s SW to the PACE Site Director read that she was asked to consult the facility ' s psychological services provider who stated they were unable to assist because Resident #64 was on the PACE program and they provided her psychological services through the PACE program. Review of the reply email dated 8/31/22 at 2:31 PM from the PACE Site Director to the facility SW read the PACE contract person had not been able to get a response from the facility ' s psychological services provider. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #64 had moderate cognitive impairment, no mood symptoms, exhibited hallucinations, delusions, rejection of care and wandering. Resident #64 was coded as receiving an antipsychotic and antidepressant. The care plan was revised in 9/1/22 to include the following behaviors: exit-seeking, belief she was being poisoned, attempts to vomit up her medications, repeatedly packing to go home and calling 911. Review of a SW note dated 9/1/22 at 11:42 AM read as follows: Resident #64 remains at facility for long term care (LTC) followed by PACE and has had some changes with her dementia and behaviors. She believed she was being poisoned when given her medications, she attempted to throw up medications, she called 911 to have her hair done, she was exit-seeking, wandering to break room and trying to get out of unit. Resident #64 also packed up her belongings and stated she was going home and PACE providers were aware. The SW note read the PACE Site Director asked her to have the facility psychological service provider see Resident #64. The note read the facility SW notified their psychological services provider who stated they were unable to see a PACE participant and the PACE Site Director was made aware on 8/31/22 and informed that if PACE provided a contract with the facility ' s psychological provider, the facility could move forward. The note read Resident #64 had lost interest in their 1:1 meetings and she was also noted still rummaging and packing her belongings. A PACE Physician note dated 9/8/22 at 8:50 AM read Resident #64 had significant unhappiness staying at the facility. A nursing note dated 9/8/22 at 3:46 AM indicated Resident #64 was hallucinating that children were running around in her room as well as a male peeping in her window. She was sitting at the nurses station at the time. Review of a PACE SW note dated 10/5/22 read Resident #64 presented with a flat affect congruent to her mood and conversation. She was also observed during lunch and she barely touched her meal. The PACE SW would continue to monitor her mood and offer support as needed. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #64 had moderate cognitive impairment, reported feeling down and lacked energy. She was not coded for hallucinations, delusions, rejection of care or wandering. Resident #64 was coded as receiving an antipsychotic and antidepressant. Review of a SW note dated 10/31/22 at 11:22 AM read Resident #64 continued on PACE services and was wearing a wanderguard due to wandering and an elopement risk. Resident #63 stated that she wished she had someone to talk to and reported mild depression. The PACE provider was still trying to obtain a psychological services provider to meet Resident #64 ' s needs. Review of an email correspondence dated 10/26/22 at 2:50 PM to the PACE Physician and the PACE Site Director from the PACE operational provider read there was a continued effort to find a psychological provider for Resident #64. An interview was completed on 11/29/22 at 12:15 PM with Resident #64. She stated she no longer felt that her food was poisoned and staff were assisting her with her activities of daily living (ADLs). Resident #64 stated she had not attended PACE since sometime in September that she could recall. She verified the facility and PACE SW had been coming a few times a week to talk with her but she still wanted to go home and was unhappy in the LTC setting. An interview was completed on 11/29/22 at 5:02 PM with the facility SW. She stated she had worked at the facility for 11 years and was familiar with the PACE program and how it related to the facility ' s residents. She stated when a resident was admitted on the PACE program, the PACE Physician and staff were responsible for all of her care. The SW stated the facility often reminded PACE of the need for them to provide the PACE Physician ordered consults to include psychological services. She stated PACE staff stated they could not find a provider and the facility ' s contracted psychological services provider would not contract with the PACE program. The SW stated if the PACE provider would agree to allow the facility to bill for the psychological services, they would reach out and confirm that this option was agreed upon by the facility ' s psychological service provider but to date, that had not occurred. The SW stated to her knowledge, they have not procured a psychological service provider so she had taken it upon herself to visit Resident #64 at least three times a week to allow her to talk and voice her feelings and concerns. She stated she began this as soon as her behavioral symptoms started in early August 2022. The SW stated there had been improvement in her hallucinations, delusions and noncompliance with care but she still reporting feeling down and wanted to go home. An interview was conducted on 11/30/22 at 12:20 PM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #11. She stated she had worked at the facility for 3 years. She stated she was very familiar with Resident #64 and there had been improvement in her hallucinations but she still on occasion would refuse to eat her food for fear of being poisoned and voiced her sadness about not being able to go home. An interview was completed on 11/30/22 at 12:30 PM with Nurse #5. She stated she had worked at the facility for 4 years. She stated Resident #64 ' s behaviors and mood over the last several months had worsened but she noted improvement with getting her to take her medications or calling 911. She stated she still experienced the occasional hallucination and delusion. Nurse #5 stated Resident #64 ' s care was overseen by the PACE provider and PACE physician. In a telephone interview on 11/30/22 at 5:03 PM, the PACE Site Director stated she was aware that Resident #64 had not been provided the psychological services ordered by the PACE Physician and were continuously working to obtain a contract with a psychological service provider. She stated the PACE provider would work out payment outside of their lack of a contract and that she would have the PACE physician to call surveyor. At the time of the survey exit on 12/1/22, there were no return calls from the PACE physician. An interview was conducted on 12/1/22 at 3:05 PM with the Regional Nurse Consultant. She stated the expectation was for Resident #64 to receive all consults and services ordered for her well-being to include psychological services but it was difficult when Resident #64 ' s care was provided by the PACE program.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview with the Consultant Pharmacist and staff, the Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview with the Consultant Pharmacist and staff, the Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and to report drug irregularity to the Director of Nursing or the Attending Physician regarding the transcription error for the Famotidine (used to treat Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)) for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #51). Findings included: Resident # 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including GERD. Resident #51 had a doctor's order dated 9/22/20 for Pantoprazole (Protonix) 40 milligrams (mgs.) once a day for GERD. On 6/14/22, the Pharmacist had recommended to discontinue Pantoprazole due to long term use had been associated with increased risk of Clostridium difficile (C diff) colitis and to replace it with Famotidine (Pepcid) 20 mgs twice a day as needed (PRN) for indigestion/heartburn. The attending physician had responded agree, please write order to the recommendation on 6/17/22. On 6/26/22, the former Director of Nursing (DON) entered the order in the computer for Famotidine 20 mgs BID (scheduled) instead of BID PRN as ordered. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) from June through November 2022, revealed that the Famotidine was administered to Resident #51 twice a day (scheduled). Resident #51's drug regimen was reviewed by the Consultant Pharmacist on 7/27/22, 8/15/22, 9/22/22, 10/10/22 and 11/14/22 and missed to identify that the Famotidine was administered BID (scheduled) instead of BID PRN as ordered. On 12/1/22 at 4:00 PM, the Consultant Pharmacist was interviewed. He reviewed his recommendation for the Famotidine in June 2022 and verified that the attending physician had agreed to discontinue the Pantoprazole and to replace it with Famotidine 20 mgs twice a day as needed. He also reviewed that the Famotidine was entered in the computed on 6/26/22 to be given twice a day (scheduled) instead of BID PRN. He indicated that he did not catch this irregularity, he missed it. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected the Consultant Pharmacist to identify and to report any drug irregularity to the Director of Nursing or the Physician.
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 F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and Nurse Practitioner (NP) and staff interview, the facility failed to transcribe the Famotidine (used t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and Nurse Practitioner (NP) and staff interview, the facility failed to transcribe the Famotidine (used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)) as ordered resulting in the administration of Famotidine twice a day instead of twice a day as needed (PRN) for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #51). Findings included: Resident # 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including GERD. Resident #51 had a doctor's order dated 9/22/20 for Pantoprazole (Protonix) (used to treat GERD) 40 milligrams (mgs.) once a day for GERD. On 6/14/22, the Pharmacist had recommended to discontinue Pantoprazole due to long term use had been associated with increased risk of Clostridium difficile (C diff) colitis and to replace it with Famotidine (Pepcid) 20 mgs twice a day as needed (PRN) for indigestion/heartburn. The attending physician had responded agree, please write order to the recommendation on 6/17/22. On 6/26/22, the former Director of Nursing (DON) entered the order in the computer for Famotidine 20 mgs BID (scheduled) instead of BID PRN as ordered. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) from June through November 2022, revealed that the Famotidine was administered to Resident #51 twice a day (scheduled) instead of twice a day PRN. On 12/1/22 at 9:40 AM, Charge Nurse #2 was interviewed. She stated that the once the doctor agreed and signed the recommendation of the Consultant Pharmacist, it was considered a doctor's order. The Nurse was expected to enter the order in the computer for the pharmacy to dispense the medication. The Charge Nurse reviewed the Consultant Pharmacist Communication to Physician form and the doctor's order for the Famotidine and stated that it was a transcription error. The former Director of Nursing (DON) transcribed the Famotidine as twice a day (scheduled) instead of twice a day PRN as ordered. She added that she would inform the NP of the transcription error on Resident #51. On 12/1/22 at 12:44 PM, the NP was interviewed. The NP stated that she was informed by the Charge Nurse regarding the transcription error for the Famotidine on Resident #51. She stated that she expected nursing to enter orders in the computer correctly to prevent unnecessary medications. She stated that she would write an order to administer the Famotidine BID PRN. On 12/1/22 at 3:20 PM, the Regional Clinical Manager was interviewed. She stated that she expected nursing to enter orders in the computer correctly.
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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews the facility failed to have a medication error rate of less than 5% as evidenced by 4 medication errors out of 37 opportunities, resulting i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews the facility failed to have a medication error rate of less than 5% as evidenced by 4 medication errors out of 37 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 10.81% for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #26, Resident #46, and Resident #18) observed during medication administration. The findings included: 1.Resident #26 had a physician's order for ipratropium-albuterol solution for nebulization, 0.5 milligram (mg) per 3 milliliters (ml), three times daily for seven days. On 11/30/2022 at 8:30 AM Medication Aide (MA) #5 was observed administering medications to Resident #26. The MA was observed picking the nebulizer mask up out of the bedside chair and loading the medication chamber with 3ml of ipratropium-albuterol solution. MA#5 placed the mask on Resident #26 and pressed the start button on the nebulizer machine. MA#5 then left the resident's room and began to move her medication cart to the next room. When asked to go back into Resident #26's room and examine the nebulizer mask, the MA stated the medication would take 15 minutes to administer. The surveyor pointed out to the MA, the tubing was not connected to the nebulizer machine and therefore the resident was not getting the medication. MA#5 stated she should have checked the nebulizer mask and tubing to ensure they were connected before she left the room. 2. Resident #46 had a physician's order for lactulose, 10 Gram (G) per 15ml solution daily. On 11/30/2022 at 8:45 AM MA #4 was observed administering medications to Resident #46. Upon approaching the MA and the medication cart, she was observed crushing medications and placing them in a clear 30 milliliter (ml) medication cup. She then poured the crushed medication into a larger cup with water for administration. There were small remnants of medication still in the cup and on the cart around the medication cup. The MA began to pull medications for Resident #46 and poured 15ml of lactulose into the clear 30ml medication cup, she previously used, with remnants of crushed medication. MA#4 took the lactulose and other medications into the resident's room where she was instructed by the surveyor not to administer the lactulose. MA#4 was interviewed and stated she did not realize she used the same medication cup for the lactulose and the crushed medications. She stated separate cups should have been used to prevent cross contamination of medications. 3. Resident #18 had a physician's order to flush the percutaneous gastrostomy tube (G-tube) with 30 ml of water pre and post medication. Additionally, the resident had an order for isosorbide 30mg to be crushed and administered four times daily and valproic acid, 10ml of 250ng per 5ml solution to be given three times daily. On 11/30/2022 at 1:35 PM the ADON was observed administering medication to Resident #18. Resident #18 had a percutaneous gastrotomy tube for medication administration. The ADON was observed crushing the isosorbide and the valproic acid and placing them in clear 30ml cups. The ADON placed the clear medication cups with the isosorbide and the valproic acid on the bedside table and retrieved two larger cups from the medication cart. She took the two cups containing isosorbide and valproic acid into the bathroom and set them on the back of the toilet while she filled two cups with water. She brought the cups of isosorbide and valproic acid back to the bedside table and diluted each medication cup with a small amount of water. She then stated she needed more water to flush the tube. She took both medication cups with isosorbide and valproic acid back into the bathroom and again set them on the back of the commode while she got more water in the larger cups. She then took both cups of medication with her and exited the room. After several minutes, the ADON returned with the medication cups of isosorbide and valproic acid. The ADON opened the stopcock, attached a syringe, and flushed the tube with 30ml of water. The ADON poured the first cup of diluted isosorbide into the syringe followed by the second cup with diluted valproic acid. She flushed the tube with 30ml of water and turned the stopcock to the off position. The ADON was interviewed immediately after the medication administration was completed. She further stated she should have flushed between each medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to: 1) discard expired medications on 1 of 3 medication carts observed (the 400 Hall Med Cart) and in 1 of 2 medication s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to: 1) discard expired medications on 1 of 3 medication carts observed (the 400 Hall Med Cart) and in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms (the 100 Med Storage Room) 2) keep a medication refrigerated per manufacturer guidelines on 1 of 3 medication carts 3) label medications with the date they were opened on 3 of 3 medication carts (the 100, 300 and 400 Hall Med Carts) and 4) to keep 100-hall treatment cart locked and secured. Findings included: 1-a) An observation was conducted on 11/30/22 at 10:30AM of the 400-hall medication cart in the presence of Med Aide #2. The observation revealed an expired multi-dose vial of Admelog Insulin that was opened on 10/26/22, it had a sticker that read, expires on 11/23/22 on the insulin vial. (Admelog Insulin expires 28 days after opening). Med Aide #2 confirmed the medications should not have been on the medication cart and discarded the items. 1-b) An observation was conducted on 11/30/22 at 11:20 AM of the medication storage room on 100-hall in the presence of Med Aide #4. The observation revealed 11 expired prefilled Heparin 300units/3ml- flush syringes. All 11 syringes had 3ml of Heparin in them. The Heparin flushes were given to Charge Nurse #1 to be discarded. Charge Nurse #1 confirmed the medications should not have been in the medication storage room and discarded the items. 2-a) An observation was conducted on 11/30/22 at 10:30AM of the 400-hall medication cart in the presence of Med Aide #2. The observation revealed a 250 ML (milliliter) opened bottle of Gabapentin 250mg/5ml liquid with a sticker on bottle that read, KEEP REFRIGERATED in a drawer on the med cart. Med Aide #2 confirmed the Gabapentin was opened and had a sticker that read Keep Refrigerated on the bottle. She stated she did not realize it was supposed to be in the refrigerator. She gave the bottle to the Unit Manager for discard. 3-a) An observation was conducted on11/30/22 at 10:40 AM of the 300-hall medication cart in the presence of Med Aide #2. The observation revealed a multi-dose bottle of Simbrinza 1%-2% eye drops with no opened date. Med Aide #2 confirmed the medication should not have been on the medication cart and discarded the item. 3-b) An observation was conducted on11/30/22 at 11:05 AM of the nurse ' s med cart on 100-hall. Charge Nurse #1 unlocked cart at stood at the nurse ' s station. The observation revealed one multi-dose vial of Admelog insulin and one multi-dose vial of Levemir Insulin with no open dates documented on vials. Charge Nurse #1 wrote a date on the bottom of the vials and put the vials back on the medication cart. 3-c) An observation was conducted on11/30/22 at 11:05 AM of the nurse ' s med cart on 100-hall. Charge Nurse #1 unlocked cart at stood at the nurse ' s station. The observation revealed one multi-dose Admelog Insulin pen with no opened date. Charge Nurse #1 wrote a date on the side of the multi-dose insulin pen and put the pen back on the medication cart. 3-d) An observation was conducted on11/30/22 at 11:05 AM of the nurse ' s med cart on 100-hall. Charge Nurse #1 unlocked cart at stood at the nurse ' s station. The observation revealed one multi-dose package of Salonpas pain patches with no opened date. Charge Nurse #1 wrote a date on the package and returned the package to the medication cart. Charge Nurse #1 returned to the medication cart and removed and discarded the Salonpas pain patches. 3-e) An observation was conducted on 11/30/22 at 11:05 AM of the nurse ' s med cart on 100-hall. Charge Nurse #1 unlocked cart at stood at the nurse ' s station. The observation revealed one multi-dose tube of Genteal tears eye ointment with no opened date. Charge Nurse #1 discarded the tube of Genteal tears eye ointment. 4-a) An observation was conducted on 11/30/22 at 10:19 AM of the 100 hall nurses station treatment cart unlocked. No staff noted at treatment cart or at nurse ' s station. A continuous observation was conducted on 11/30/22 from 10:45 AM through 11:22 AM and revealed the 100 hall nurses station treatment cart being unlocked. Charge Nurse #1 at nurse ' s station. Treatment cart out of view of Charge Nurse #1. Notified Charge Nurse #1 that treatment cart was unlocked, she became verbally aggressive as she slammed the lock closed on the treatment cart. An interview was conducted on 11/30/22 at 02:00 PM with the Unit Manager. She revealed that Nurses and Medication Aides were responsible for writing open dates on required medications and removing expired medications from medication carts and medication storage room as needed. An interview was conducted on 12/01/22 at 04:13 PM with VP Clinical Operation. It is her expectation that Medication Aides and Nurses date required medications upon opening and to discard expired medications as needed. She reported that Nurses and Medication Aides should be reviewing expiration dates when administering medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following a complaint investigation dated 2/8/21 for one deficiency in the area of accidents and a recertification survey and complaint investigation dated 5/6/21 for 6 deficiencies in the areas of resident choices, activities of daily living (ADLs), accidents, respiratory care, influenza/pneumococcal vaccinations and the pharmacist not acting on irregularity of a medication review. In addition, the QAPI committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following a complaint investigation dated 3/9/22 for one deficiency in the area of pressure ulcers and for the current recertification survey and complaint investigation dated 12/1/22 for 6 deficiencies in the areas of resident choices, ADLs, accidents, pressure ulcers, pharmacist not acting on irregularity of a medication review and influenza/pneumococcal vaccinations. Findings included. This tag is cross referenced to: F561-Based on record reviews, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to honor a resident's choice related to showers (Resident #24) for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for choices. In addition, the facility failed to honor a resident's choice to receive additional milk on his meal trays (Resident #12) for 1 of 6 resident's reviewed for choices. *F561-cited 5/6/21-Based on record reviews, observations and interviews with residents and staff, the facility failed to honor residents' choices related to showers. This was for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for choices. F677-Based on record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide nail care to residents who needed extensive assistance and/or were dependent for activities of daily living (ADL) for 4 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for ADL care (Residents #3, #51, #18 & #67). *F677-cited 5/6/21-Based on observations, staff and family interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide ADL assistance for resident who were dependent on staff for assistance with nail care. This was for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for ADLs. F686- Based on record review, observations, Wound Nurse Practitioner and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the alternating pressure reducing air mattress was set according to the resident's weight for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #56). *F686-cited 3/9/22-Based on observation, record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and Nurse Practitioner interview the facility failed to assure pressure sore treatment was done per order and the functioning of a wound vac was monitored for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. F689-Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a severely cognitively impaired resident from exiting the facility unsupervised, failed to ensure the resident was safe in the parking lot, and failed to report that a cognitively impaired resident was in the parking lot for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #59). In addition, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended for 2 of 2 observations during the medication pass. Resident #59, who was in his wheelchair, was found by Nurse Aide (NA) #1 in the parking lot unsupervised, didn't intervene and then, the resident was found to have gone out to the road. The resident was discovered by the Housekeeper on a 2-lane road where the speed limit was 55 miles per hour (MPH) west bound and was a quarter mile away from the facility's front door *F689-cited 2/8/21-Based of observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure resident bed remote control cords were in good repair to prevent residents injury. This was for 4 of 7 residents beds reviewed for accidents. *F689-cited 5/6/21-Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to determine root causes of each fall and to revise the care plan intervention after each fall and also failed to put effective interventions in place following each fall to prevent repeated falls. This was for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for falls. F695- Based on record review, observations and interviews with the Nurse Practitioner and staff, the facility failed to obtain a Physician's order for a resident's use of continuous oxygen (Resident #18) and failed to store a reusable nebulizer mask (Resident #26). This was for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. *F695-cited 5/6/21-Based on record reviews, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer oxygen at the prescribed rate. This was for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. F756 - Based on record review and interview with the Consultant Pharmacist and staff, the Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and to report drug irregularity to the Director of Nursing or the Attending Physician regarding the transcription error for the Famotidine (used to treat gastroesophageal reflux )for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #51). *F756-cited 5/6/21- Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews with staff, Pharmacy Consultant, and facility Physician's Assistant, the Pharmacy Consultant failed to identify the facility's need to identify target behavioral symptoms, to monitor those symptoms and the need to monitor residents for side effects of psychotropic medications. In addition, the facility failed to act upon recommendations made by the Pharmacy Consultant. This was for 5 of 9 residents reviewed for medications. F883 - Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to assess the resident for their vaccination status and failed to offer the influenza and pneumococcal vaccination upon admission per their facility policy for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations (Residents #59 & #66). *F883-cited 5/6/21-Based on record review and staff interview, the failed to administer pneumococcal vaccine to 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for immunizations. An interview was completed on 12/1/22 at 4:00 PM with the Division [NAME] President of Operations. He stated the facility's Administrator ended her employment over the weekend and he was the acting Administrator until the Regional Operation Manager obtained her North Carolina Administration licenses. He also stated his Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant DON were recently hired, no Staff Development Coordinator, no treatment nurse and only one unit manager. He stated it was possible that the significant turn over in the facility management team could have resulted in the instability of the monitoring for compliance in the areas of repeated citations.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene after performing incontinence care prior to touching medical equipment and a resident's personal...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene after performing incontinence care prior to touching medical equipment and a resident's personal items in a resident's room for 1 of 1 (Resident #325) reviewed for incontinence care. The facility failed to disinfect multiple use medical equipment between residents for 2 of 4 medication administration observations (Charge Nurse #2 and Medication Aide #5). Findings included: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene last reviewed on April 2020 revealed the following statement: Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: • Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care • After contact with blood or bodily fluids An observation was made on 11/29/2022 at 11:20 A.M. During the observation, the Interim Wound Nurse donned clean gloves and applied the wound dressing to an open area on Resident #325's buttock. The Interim Wound Nurse and Nurse Aide #12 removed a soiled washable incontinent pad from under Resident #325 and placed the incontinence pad in a trash bag. The Interim Wound Nurse touched the head of bed controller, adjusted the bed linen, placed the call light within reach, and then restarted Resident #325's tube feeding. Just prior to exiting Resident #325's room, the Interim Wound Nurse removed her gloves, and performed hand hygiene. An interview conducted on 11/30/2022 at 2:53 P.M. with the Interim Wound Nurse indicated her gloves should be replaced with clean gloves when the gloves were soiled and when going from a dirty to a clean area on a resident. During the interviews, the Interim Wound Nurse indicated she should have changed her gloves after she completed incontinence care on Resident #325 before she touched Resident #325's medical equipment and the personal items in his room. She indicated she was trained on the infection control policies and was unsure why she had not followed the policy. An interview was conducted on 12/1/2022 at 2:19 P.M. with the Regional Nurse Consultant. During the interview the Regional Nurse Consultant indicated staff should follow the facility's hand washing policy and always change their gloves after incontinence care was provided to a resident. 2.a. The facility provided a copy of the policy and procedure for cleaning of non-critical, reusable patient care equipment. The policy was dated April 2020 and read in part, Sandstone Health and Rehabilitation will implement and maintain processes to ensure all non-critical, reusable patient care equipment is cleaned before and after reuse. On 11/30/2022 at 8:35 AM Medication Aide (MA)#5 was observed using a monitor to obtain blood pressure and oxygenation on Resident #26. After she completed medication administration, she rolled the monitor into the hall and plugged the monitor into an outlet. MA#5 then preceded to another room to provide care. She did not disinfect the equipment after use. At 8:40 AM on 11/30/2022 an interview was conducted with MA#5. She stated she did not clean or disinfect the equipment prior to plugging the monitor into the outlet and leaving it. She started she should have disinfected the monitor and the blood pressure cuff prior to leaving it for someone else to use. An interview was conducted on 12/1/2022 at 2:19 P.M. with the Regional Nurse Consultant. During the interview the Regional Nurse Consultant indicated staff should follow the facility's policy on cleaning of reusable patient care equipment. b. The facility provided a copy of the policy and procedure for cleaning of non-critical, reusable patient care equipment. The policy was dated April 2020 and read in part, Sandstone Health and Rehabilitation will implement and maintain processes to ensure all non-critical, reusable patient care equipment is cleaned before and after reuse. On 12/1/2022 at 11:00 AM Charge Nurse #2 was observed obtaining blood pressure and oxygenation on Resident #325. She was using a wrist blood pressure monitor. After she obtained the blood pressure and oxygenation, she exited the room and left the equipment on a medication cart. She did not disinfect the equipment prior to leaving it for another employee to use. At 11:45 AM on 12/1/2022 an interview was conduced with Charge Nurse #2. She stated she did not disinfect the wrist blood pressure monitor or the pulse oximetry after she used them or before she laid them on the medication cart. She further stated she should have cleaned them prior to leaving them for another employee to use. An interview was conducted on 12/1/2022 at 2:19 P.M. with the Regional Nurse Consultant. During the interview the Regional Nurse Consultant indicated staff should follow the facility's policy on cleaning of reusable patient care equipment.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #66's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospita...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #66's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed he was again transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documentation discovered in the resident ' s medical record of written notices of transfers provided to the resident and/or Responsible Party (RP) regarding the transfers. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #66 was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #66's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for altered mental status and tremors. There was no documentation that a written notice of transfer was provided to the resident and/or RP for the reason of the transfer. Resident #66 returned to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of the medical record revealed there was no documentation of a written notice of transfer provided to the resident and/or RP for the reason of the transfer. Resident #66 returned to the facility on [DATE]. Charge Nurse #1 was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 10:15 AM and stated a copy of the face sheet, code status, medication list, transfer form, any other pertinent documents and a Bed Hold policy were sent with the resident when a resident was transferred to the hospital. The RP would be notified by phone regarding the change and reason for the transfer. Charge Nurse #1 stated she was unaware of a written notification of transfer being provided to the RP and/or resident. On 11/30/22 at 11:51 AM, an interview was conducted with the Social Worker (SW). She was familiar with the regulation to provide a written reason for hospital transfer to the resident and/or RP as this was her responsibility but explained she hasn't done this since June 2022 as she became busy with other things. The Regional Operations Manager was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM and stated she would expect the SW to provide the resident/and or RP notification in writing for the reason of the hospital transfer per the regulation. 3. Resident #325 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #325's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospital and readmitted to the facility for elevated respirations and increased oral secretions on 10/24/22 to 10/30/22 and for decreased oxygen saturations and increased heart rate on 11/12/22 to 11/21/22. There was no documentation that written notices of transfers were provided to the resident and/or RP for the reasons of the transfers. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #325 was rarely/never understood and his cognitive skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired. A review of Resident #325's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for elevated respirations and increased oral secretions. There was no documentation that a written notice of transfer was provided to the resident and/RP for the reason of the transfer. Resident #325 returned to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #325's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for decreased oxygen saturations and increased heart rate. There was no documentation that a written notice of transfer was provided to the resident and/RP for the reason of the transfer. Resident #325 returned to the facility on [DATE]. Charge Nurse #1 was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 10:15 AM and stated a copy of the face sheet, any Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) information, medication list, transfer form, any other pertinent documents and a Bed Hold policy were sent with the resident when a resident was transferred to the hospital. The RP would be notified by phone regarding the change and reason for the transfer. Charge Nurse #1 stated she was unaware of a written notification of transfer being provided to the RP and/or resident. On 11/30/22 at 11:51 AM, an interview was conducted with the Social Worker (SW). She was familiar with the regulation to provide a written reason for hospital transfer to the resident and/or RP as this was her responsibility but explained she hasn't done this since June 2022 as she became busy with other things. The Regional Operations Manager was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM and stated she would expect the SW to provide the resident/and or RP notification in writing for the reason of the hospital transfer per the regulation. Based on record review and interviews with staff, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or Responsible Party (RP) written notification of the reason for a hospital transfer for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Residents #18, #66 and #325). The findings included: 1. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #18's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospital and readmitted to the facility for respiratory issues on 8/6/22 to 8/17/22 and 8/21/22 to 9/1/22. There was no documentation that written notices of transfers were provided to the resident and/or RP for the reasons of the transfers. A Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #18's medical record revealed he was transferred to the hospital on 9/30/22 for respiratory issues. There was no documentation that a written notice of transfer was provided to the resident and/RP for the reason of the transfer. Resident #18 returned to the facility on [DATE]. Charge Nurse #1 was interviewed on 11/30/22 at 10:15 AM and stated a copy of the face sheet, any Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) information, medication list, transfer form, any other pertinent documents and a Bed Hold policy were sent with the resident when a resident was transferred to the hospital. The RP would be notified by phone regarding the change and reason for the transfer. Charge Nurse #1 stated she was unaware of a written notification of transfer being provided to the RP and/or resident. On 11/30/22 at 11:51 AM, an interview was conducted with the Social Worker (SW). She was familiar with the regulation to provide a written reason for hospital transfer to the resident and/or RP as this was her responsibility but explained she hasn't done this since June 2022 as she became busy with other things. The Regional Operations Manager was interviewed on 12/1/22 at 1:45 PM and stated she would expect the SW to provide the resident/and or RP notification in writing for the reason of the hospital transfer per the regulation.
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: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $49,826 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $49,826 in fines. Higher than 94% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 33/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within North Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co Staffed?

CMS rates Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co?

State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 27 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co?

Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co 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 SANSTONE HEALTH & REHABILITATION, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 131 certified beds and approximately 101 residents (about 77% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Sanford, North Carolina.

How Does Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co?

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 Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co Stick Around?

Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co has a staff turnover rate of 47%, which is about average for North Carolina nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co Ever Fined?

Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co has been fined $49,826 across 2 penalty actions. The North Carolina average is $33,577. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co on Any Federal Watch List?

Sanford Health & Rehabilitation Co 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.