CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 refer a resident with newly evident diagnosis of mental illne...
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 refer a resident with newly evident diagnosis of mental illness for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II screen for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for PASARR (Resident #7).
Findings included:
Resident # 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with PASARR level I screen which indicated the screen did not go to level II. Resident #7 had no mental health related diagnosis noted on admission to the facility.
The psychiatric note dated 3/8/21 indicated that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and was on Zoloft and Doxepin for depression and Remeron for appetite stimulant. The note indicated to discontinue Doxepin as part of gradual dose reduction (GDR).
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of depression and had received an antidepressant medication during the assessment period.
The psychiatric note dated 5/3/21 revealed that Resident #7 continued to complain of bugs crawling underneath her skin and all over her body and bed. On examination, she appeared anxious and reported that she could feel and see the bugs on her body and placed them in a cup on the table. There was a cup on the table, but the resident would not allow the writer to look inside the cup. Risperdal was initiated to manage distressing psychotic symptoms that were impairing her function and a diagnosis of Schizophrenia spectrum disorder with psychotic disorder type was added to the diagnosis list.
Resident #7 had a physician's order dated 5/3/21 for Risperdal (an antipsychotic drug) 0.5 milligrams (mgs) by mouth at bedtime for psychosis.
The annual MDS assessments dated 6/17/21 and 5/30/22 revealed that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and had received an antipsychotic medication during the assessment period. The assessments further indicated that the resident had not been evaluated by level II PASARR and determined to have a serious illness and or mental retardation.
The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 11:38 AM. The SW stated that when a resident was newly diagnosed with a mental illness, the resident needed to be evaluated for a level II PASARR. The SW reviewed the medical records of Resident #7 and verified that Resident #7 was admitted with a level I PASARR. She stated that the resident was being followed by the psychiatric services and on 5/31/21, a new diagnosis of Schizophrenia spectrum disorder with psychotic disorder type was added. The SW indicated that if she had been made aware by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) of the new diagnosis, she would have made a referral for level II PASARR evaluation, but she was not. She confirmed that no referral for level II PASARR had been made for Resident #7.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. She stated that the Social Worker was responsible for making the referral for level II PASARR. She indicated that she expected the SW to make the referral when a resident had a new diagnosis of mental illness.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled for 1 of 5 sampled residents who needed extensive assistance or were dependent on the staff for activities of daily living (Resident #59).
Findings included:
Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis including hemiplegia/hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left dominant side and dementia.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #59 had moderate cognitive impairment and she needed extensive assistance with personal hygiene and bathing. The assessment further indicated that the resident had no behaviors including rejection of care.
Resident #59's care plan that was reviewed on 1/29/23 revealed that she had an activity of daily living (ADL) self -care performance deficit related to hemiplegia/hemiparesis. The approaches included I required staff extensive assistance with grooming and personal hygiene.
Review of the shower schedule revealed that Resident #59 was scheduled to have a shower twice a week on Monday and Thursday on 3-11 shift.
Review of the nurse's notes from January 2023 through March 2023 revealed that Resident #59 did not have refusal of care.
Resident #59 was observed in bed on 3/6/23 at 11:25 AM. The resident was clean and her hair was a litthe bit greasy. A family member was at bedside visiting.
A family member of Resident #59 was interviewed on 3/6/23 at 11:28 AM. The family member voiced a concern that every time she visited, the resident's hair was greasy. The staff did not provide shower to the resident unless she/he asked for it. The family member reported that the resident was supposed to receive a shower twice a week but that was not happening.
The shower documentation for the last 3 months was requested but the facility only provided one month of shower documentation (2/9/23 through 3/6/23).
Interview with the Administrator on 3/7/23 at 3:20 PM revealed that the computer would only allow the staff to pull 30 days of shower documentation.
Review of the shower documentation from 2/9/23 through 3/6/23 revealed that Resident #59 had received a shower on 2/9, 2/20, 2/23, 2/27, 3/2 and 3/6/23. The resident missed her shower on 2/13, and 2/16. There was no documentation on the shower form that the resident had refused shower.
Attempts to interview Nurse Aide (NA)#2, who was assigned to Resident #59 on 2/13/23 but was unsuccessful.
NA #3, who was assigned to Resident #59 was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 3:50 PM. The NA stated that the resident seldom refused care, especially showers. If she refused shower and you tried to persuade her, most of the time she would allow you to give her a shower. The NA would not comment as to why the resident had missed some showers.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:20 AM. The DON stated that she expected NAs to provide showers to the resident as scheduled and if the resident refused shower to document on the form. The DON also reported that the computer would not allow her to pull the shower documentation for more than 30 days.
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 record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was provided as ordered ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was provided as ordered by the physician for 1 of 4 sampled residents for respiratory care (Resident #33).
The findings included:
Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and dependence on supplemental oxygen.
Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 was cognitively intact. She required extensive assistance with 2 people with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. She was coded as utilizing oxygen.
Resident #33's care plan dated 05/11/22 revealed she required oxygen therapy due to congestive heart failure. The goal included she would have no signs or symptoms of poor oxygen absorptions through the review date. Interventions, in part, included oxygen settings are based on physician orders and observe for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and report to physician.
Review of Resident #33's physician orders dated 12/13/22 revealed supplemental oxygen to be delivered at 2 liters per minute via cannula.
On 03/06/23 at 10:21 AM, Resident #33 was observed lying in the bed receiving humidified oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula when viewed horizontally, eye level.
On 03/07/23 at 8:33 AM, Resident #33 was observed lying in the bed receiving humidified oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula when viewed horizontally, eye level.
On 03/08/23 at 8:25 AM Resident #33 was observed lying in the bed receiving humidified oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula when viewed horizontally, eye level.
An observation was made with Nurse #4 of Resident #33's oxygen concentrator on 03/08/23 at 08:30 AM, who stated the oxygen regulator on the concentrator was set at 2 liters when she viewed it while she stood over the machine. She stated she quickly checked the flow rate earlier in the morning at eye level and stated it was 2 liters per minute. Then Nurse #4 viewed the oxygen regulator on the concentrator at eye level and adjusted the flow to administer 2 liters of oxygen as ordered. Nurse #4 stated she did not know why the oxygen regulator was set at 2.5 liters.
During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 03/03/23 at 11:15 AM, nurses should view the oxygen regulator on the concentrator at eye level to determine if it was set at the correct flow rate.
The Administrator was interviewed on 03/08/23 at 1:05 PM. She stated physician orders should be followed at the correct oxygen flow rate.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #29's physician orders revealed the following:
- An order dated 1/12/23 to cleanse stage 3 pressure ulcer to the ri...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #29's physician orders revealed the following:
- An order dated 1/12/23 to cleanse stage 3 pressure ulcer to the right buttock with normal saline. Apply Santyl to the wound bed and cover with a foam dressing every day. This order was discontinued 2/23/23.
- An order dated 2/24/23 to cleanse the right buttock with wound cleanser. Apply Collagen sheet to wound bed and cover with dry dressing on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and as needed. This was discontinued 2/28/23.
- An order dated 2/25/23 to cleanse the skin tear to the left outer knee, apply Vaseline gauze and cover with dry dressing until healed every day.
- An order dated 2/28/23 to cleanse the right buttock pressure ulcer with normal saline. Apply Medihoney gel to the wound bed, top with Calcium Alginate and cover with dry dressing. Change Monday, Wednesday, Friday and as needed. This order was discontinued on 3/3/23.
- An order dated 3/3/23 to cleanse the stage 3 pressure ulcer to the right buttock with saline. Apply Santyl to the wound bed, add Calcium Alginate and cover with a dry dressing every day.
The February 2023 and March 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) were reviewed and revealed the following:
- The stage 3 pressure ulcer to Resident #29's right buttock had not been documented as completed or refused by the resident on 2/8/23, 2/23/23, 3/3/23 and 3/5/23.
- The skin tear to the left outer knee was not documented as completed or refused by the resident on 3/5/23.
Review of the nursing progress notes from 1/10/23 until 3/8/23 revealed Resident #29 accepted wound care.
On 3/8/23 at 1:10 PM, the Treatment Nurse was interviewed and explained she became the Treatment Nurse towards the end of February 2023. She stated Resident #29 she completed wound care to Resident #29 but had forgotten to document the wound care as completed on the TAR for 2/23/23 and 3/3/23. The Treatment Nurse added the former wound care nurse would have been responsible for the wound care on 2/8/23.
Nurse #2 was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 2:00 PM and reviewed the March 2023 TAR. She verified caring for Resident #29 on 3/5/23 and completed the wound care. Nurse #2 added she had forgotten to sign the wound care as completed on the TAR.
An interview occurred with the Director of Nursing on 3/9/23 at 9:30 AM and indicated she expected the nursing staff to complete wound care as ordered as well as to document it was completed or refused by the resident.
Based on record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to have accurate and complete medical records in the areas of pressure ulcers (Resident #4), wound care (Resident #29) & splint application (Resident #1) for 3 of 20 sampled residents whose medical records were reviewed (Residents # 1, # 4 & #29).
Findings included:
1. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of the weekly decubitus ulcer (damage to an area of the skin caused by constant pressure on the area for a long time) assessments was conducted. The assessment revealed that Resident #4 had developed a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left buttock on 1/24/23.
Review of the physician's orders from January 2023 through March 2023 revealed there was no treatment ordered for the stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left buttock.
Review of the January through March 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) revealed there was no evidence that treatment was provided to the left buttock pressure ulcer.
On 3/7/23 at 4:30 PM, Resident #4 was observed during the dressing change. The resident was observed to have open areas on the right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse was observed to clean the pressure ulcers on the right and left buttocks with wound cleanser, Sulfadiazine (used to treat and prevent wound infection) was applied to both areas and covered with a foam dressing.
On 3/8/23 at 1:20 PM, the Treatment Nurse was interviewed. She verified that Resident #4 had stage 3 pressure ulcers on her right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the TARs and reported that she did not realize that there was no treatment ordered for the left buttock pressure ulcer and there was no evidence in the TARs that the treatment was provided. She reported that the treatment to both left and right buttocks was provided 7 days a week as ordered.
On 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON indicated that it was an oversight on the part of the treatment nurse for not writing the treatment order for the left buttock pressure ulcer and therefore there was no treatment transcribed to the TARs. She reported that the treatment was provided to the left buttock, however, it was not documented on the TARs.
2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
The quarterly Minimum Data (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #1's cognition was intact.
Resident #1 had a physician's order dated 11/11/22 to wear bilateral hand splints at night as tolerated and to remove in AM before meal.
Resident #1 was observed on 3/6/23 at 1:25 PM with her right and left hands in a fist position. There was no device noted on both hands. The resident was interviewed and stated that the splints were applied at night.
Review of the January, February and March 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed multiple boxes with no nurse's initials to indicate that the splints were applied as ordered on the following dates: 1/2, 1/9, 1/10, 1/11, 1/13, 1/14, 1/15, 1/16, 1/23, 1/24, 1/25, 1/27, 1/28, 1/30, 2/6, 2/7, 2/8, 2/10, 2/11, 2/12, 2/14, 2/16, 2/21, 2/22,2/24, 2/25, 2/26 and 3/2/23.
An attempt was made to interview Nurse #6 who was assigned to Resident #1 on 3/2/23 but was unsuccessful.
Nurse #7 was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:16 AM. She stated that she worked night shift. Nurse #7 was assigned to Resident #1 on 1/9, 1/10, 1/11, 1/13, 1/14, 1/15, 1/16, 1/23, 1/24, 1/25, 1/27, 1/28, 2/6, 2/7, 2/8, 2/10, 2/11, 2/12, 2/22 and 2/25/23. She stated that she was aware that Resident #1 had an order for splints to be applied at night. Nurse #7 reported that she applied the splints every night and she did not know why the MARS were not signed off. She stated that she might have missed to sign them.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. The DON stated that Nurse #6 and Nurse #7 were both agency nurses. She indicated that the nurses were applying the splints as ordered but she expected them to document to ensure complete and accurate medical records.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obstructive and reflux uropathy (a condition...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obstructive and reflux uropathy (a condition in which the flow of urine is blocked).
A physician's order dated 7/10/22 indicated Resident #54 to have a urinary catheter for obstructive uropathy.
Nursing notes dated 12/1/22 through 2/3/23 specified Resident #54 had a urinary catheter in place.
A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #54 was cognitively intact. She was coded with an indwelling catheter and as frequently incontinent of bladder.
Review of Resident #54's active care plan, last reviewed 3/4/23, included a focus area having an indwelling urinary catheter for obstructive uropathy.
During an interview with the MDS Nurse on 3/8/23 at 4:00 PM, he confirmed Resident #54 had an indwelling urinary catheter when the 2/3/23 MDS was completed, and it was an error to have coded her with bladder incontinence. This area should have been coded as Not Rated.
An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing on 3/9/23 at 9:30 AM and she indicated it was her expectation for the MDS to be coded accurately.
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of medications (Residents # 22, #4 & #1), accidents (Resident #4 & #26), diagnoses (Resident #4) and urinary status (Resident # 54) for 5 of 20 sampled residents whose MDS were reviewed.
Findings included:
1 a. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF).
Resident #4 had a physician's order dated 12/14/22 for Bumetanide (a diuretic drug) 1 milligram (mg.) by mouth twice a day for CHF.
Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #4 had received Bumetanide from January 1 through January 31, 2023.
The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #4 had received a diuretic medication during the assessment period.
The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the January 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #4 had received Bumetanide during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #4 had received a diuretic medication.
b. Resident #4 had a physician's order dated 1/7/23 for Ertapenem (an antibiotic drug) 1 gram (gm) - 500 mgs. intramuscular (IM) in the evening for urinary tract infection (UTI) for 10 days.
Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #4 had received Ertapenem from January 7 through January 16, 2023.
The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #4 had received an antibiotic medication during the assessment period but did not indicate that the resident had a diagnosis of UTI.
The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the January 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #4 had received Ertapenem for UTI during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #4 had a diagnosis of UTI.
c. Review of the nurse's note and the incident report dated 1/1/23 at 11:15 AM revealed that Resident #4 was found on the floor. The resident complained of head, neck and back pain and noted to have a skin tear to the left shin.
The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #4 had no falls since admission/entry, reentry or prior assessment.
The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the nurse's notes and verified that Resident #4 had a fall on 1/1/23. He reported that he missed to note on the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #4 had a fall.
2. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hypertension.
Resident #22 had a physician's order dated 8/26/22 for hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic drug) 25 mgs by mouth in the evening for hypertension.
The January 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #22 had received hydrochlorothiazide from January 1 through January 31, 2023.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #22 had received a diuretic medication during the assessment period.
The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the January 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #22 had received hydrochlorothiazide during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #22 had received a diuretic medication.
3. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including non-pressure chronic ulcer on the ankle.
Resident #1 had a physician's order dated 1/27/23 for Flagyl 500 milligrams (mgs) capsule- apply to ankle wounds topically every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for wound care.
Review of the February 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #1 had received Flagyl to her wounds every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from February 1 through February 28, 2023.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #1 had received an antibiotic medication during the assessment period.
The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the February 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #1 had received Flagyl during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #1 had received an antibiotic medication.
4. Resident # 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hemiplegia affecting the left dominant side.
Review of the nursing note and the incident report dated 12/26/22 at 1:20 PM revealed that Resident #26 was found on the floor in front of his wheelchair. The resident stated that he was trying to go back to bed. There was no injury noted.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #26 had no falls since admission/entry, reentry or prior assessment.
The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the nurse's notes and verified that Resident #26 had a fall on 12/26/22. He reported that he missed to note on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #26 had a fall.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. The DON reported that the MDS Nurse was brand new (started last summer), and he had no MDS experience. He is still learning MDS.
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** 2. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease.
A revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease.
A review of the active physician orders included an order dated 6/30/21 for a low loss air mattress for pressure ulcer protection/preventive and comfort. Maintain proper function every shift. Air mattress settings should be semi firm (dial settings should be at 12 o'clock position).
A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #29 had severe cognitive impairment. She was coded as having a pressure ulcer over a bony prominence and one stage 3 pressure ulcer. She had a pressure reducing device to the bed.
A review of Resident #29's active care plan, last reviewed 1/18/23, included the following focus areas:
- Risk for pressure ulcer development due to decreased ability to assist with repositioning. The interventions included a low loss air mattress to the bed for pressure prophylaxis (pressure injury prevention).
- Currently have a pressure ulcer to the right buttock, gluteal fold related to immobility. One of the interventions was an air mattress to the bed.
- Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to dementia and overall weakness. The interventions included an air mattress.
A review of Resident #29's medical record from 12/13/22 to 3/6/23 revealed wound care was provided to a right buttock pressure ulcer.
On 3/6/23 at 10:20 AM, an observation was made of Resident #29 while she was lying in the bed. A hissing sound was coming from the air mattress machine that was hooked to the foot of the bed. Upon observation the bottom connector of the air mattress was dislodged from the machine. Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress.
Another observation was made of Resident #29 on 3/6/23 at 12:03 PM while she was lying in bed. The air mattress bottom connector was not connected to the machine and Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress.
On 3/7/23 at 8:35 AM, Resident #29 was observed while being assisted with her breakfast meal by Nurse Aide (NA) #1. The bottom connector on the air mattress machine remained dislodged and Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress. NA #1 stated the nurses monitored the air mattress functionality.
Another observation was made of Resident #29 while she was lying in bed on 3/7/23 at 2:19 PM. The bottom connector remained unconnected to the machine and Resident #29 was on the deflated air mattress.
On 3/7/23 at 3:19 PM, an observation of Resident #29 occurred with Nurse #1, who verified the bottom connector of the air mattress was not connected to the machine and Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress overlay in the bed. Nurse #1 stated when she signed on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) it was indicating that the air mattress settings were in the correct position. She added she did not visualize the connectors or if the overlay was inflated.
The Wound Physician was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM and stated she would expect the air mattress to be connected and functioning properly as Resident #29 currently had a pressure ulcer to her buttock area and remained at high risk for further skin breakdown.
Based on record review, observation, and interviews with the Physician, Wound Physician and staff, the facility failed to obtain an order for treatment to the left buttock pressure ulcer (Resident #4) and failed to ensure the alternating air mattress was functioning resulting in a deflated air mattress (Resident #29) for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Residents #4 & #29).
Findings included:
1. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, thoracic, thoracolumbar, lumbosacral, and intervertebral disk disorder, stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure (CHF).
A review of Resident #4's weekly decubitus ulcer assessments dated 1/11/23 revealed that Resident #4 had a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the right buttock measuring 2.7 centimeter (cm) by (x) 2.6 cm x 0.1 cm. with 25 % slough (dead tissue).
Resident #4 had a physician order dated 1/11/23 to clean the right buttock pressure ulcer with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply hydrogel gauze (provides a moist wound environment for healing) and cover with dry dressing daily. On 2/2/23, the treatment to the right buttock pressure ulcer was changed to clean with wound cleanser, apply Sulfadiazine (used to prevent/treat wound infections) and cover with dry dressing daily.
Resident #4's care plan dated 1/11/23 was reviewed. One of the care plan problems was I currently have a pressure ulcer to my right buttock, and I am at risk for development of additional pressure ulcers due to decreased ability to reposition and incontinence. The approaches included to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness.
The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #4's cognition was intact, and she needed extensive assistance with bed mobility. The assessment further indicated that the resident had a stage 3 pressure ulcer that was not present on admission.
The weekly pressure ulcer assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #4 had developed a pressure ulcer on the left buttock. The assessment revealed a stage 3 pressure ulcer measuring 2.5 centimeter (cm) by (x) 1.3 cm x 0.1 cm. and the physician was notified.
Review of Resident #4's physician's orders from January through March 2023 revealed no order for treatment to the left buttock pressure ulcer.
The January through March 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) were reviewed and there was no evidence that treatment was provided to the left buttock pressure ulcer from January 24, 2023 (pressure ulcer was first identified) through March 7, 2023.
On 3/6/23 at 10:05 AM, Resident #4 was observed in bed. She had an air mattress, and she was positioned to her right side. She stated that she had pressure ulcers on her buttocks and the nurses had changed the dressing every day and had turned her from side to side.
On 3/7/23 at 4:30 PM, Resident #4 was observed during the dressing change. The resident was observed to have open areas on the right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse was observed to clean the pressure ulcers on the right and left buttocks with wound cleanser, Sulfadiazine was applied to both areas and covered with a foam dressing.
On 3/8/23 at 1:20 PM, the Treatment Nurse was interviewed. She stated that she started as Treatment Nurse a month ago. She assessed Resident #4's pressure ulcers weekly and provided the treatment on both buttocks daily. She verified that Resident #4 had stage 3 pressure ulcers on her right and left buttocks. She stated that the previous treatment nurse had notified the Physician and the responsible party of the pressure ulcer on the left buttock. The Treatment Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the TARs and reported that she did not realize that there was no treatment ordered for the left buttock pressure ulcer and there was no evidence on the TARs that the treatment was provided. She reported that she used Sulfadiazine to treat the pressure ulcers on the resident's right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse reported that the ulcers on the resident's buttocks were improving. The Treatment Nurse explained that she provided the treatment to the left buttock Monday through Friday and the nurses who were assigned to Resident #4 provided the treatment on Saturday and Sunday. She reported that she could tell that the treatment was provided to the left buttock on the weekends by the date of the dressing.
On 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. She stated that the weekly assessments indicated that the Physician was aware of the pressure ulcers on the right and left buttocks. The DON indicated that it was an oversight on the part of the Treatment Nurse for not ensuring that there was a treatment ordered for the left buttock pressure ulcer and for not ensuring there was a treatment transcribed and documented on the TARs. She reported that the treatment was provided to the left buttock, and the pressure ulcer was improving. The DON indicated that she expected an order for treatment for each pressure ulcer.
The Physician was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:20 AM. The Physician stated that Resident #4 was a high risk for pressure ulcer due to her comorbidities and her age. He indicated that he expected the Treatment Nurse to obtain a treatment order for each pressure ulcer and she might have obtained the order but forgot to write it down. He also stated that most of the time if the ulcers were on the same area, the order for treatment was the same.
CONCERN
(E)
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 reviews, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to hold diabetic medicat...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to hold diabetic medications (Residents #18 and #42) and blood pressure medications (Residents #42 and #22) as ordered by the physician for 3 of 6 residents whose medications were reviewed.
The findings included:
1. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes.
A Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact.
Review of Resident #18's February 2023 and March 2023 physician orders included an order for Levemir Solution (a diabetic medication) 100 unit per milliliter. Inject 5 units subcutaneously in the morning for diabetes. Please hold for blood sugar less than 120.
The February 2023 and March 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) were reviewed and revealed Resident #18 had received Levemir, despite the blood sugar less than 120 on the following dates:
- 2/7/23- blood sugar was 109.
- 2/23/23- blood sugar was 116.
- 3/1/23- blood sugar was 116.
- 3/2/23- blood sugar was 104.
- 3/3/23- blood sugar was 98.
An interview occurred with Nurse #1 on 3/8/23 at 12:56 PM, who was assigned to Resident #18 on 2/7/23, 2/23/23, 3/1/23 and 3/2/23. Nurse #1 indicated she was aware of the parameters to hold the Levemir. She reported she obtained the blood sugar and recorded on the MAR. Nurse #1 reviewed the February 2023 and March 2023 MARs, verified the Levemir was documented as administered despite the blood sugar being less than 120 when it should have been held and responded it was an oversight.
The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed via the phone on 3/9/23 at 9:15 AM and stated she would expect the nurses to follow the orders for the Levemir parameters as written.
Attempts to contact Nurse #3 were made without success. She was assigned to Resident #18 on 3/3/23.
2. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Atrial Fibrillation, heart disease, congestive heart failure, and type 2 diabetes.
A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #42 had moderately impaired cognition.
a. Review of Resident #42's active physician orders included an order dated 10/28/22 for Metformin (a diabetic medication) 250 mg one tablet by mouth twice a day for diabetes. Hold for blood sugar less than 110.
The March 2023 MAR was reviewed and revealed Resident #42 had received Metformin, despite the blood sugar being less than 110.
- 3/5/23 the blood sugar was 108.
An interview occurred with Nurse #2 on 3/8/23 at 2:00 PM, who was assigned to Resident #42 on 3/5/23. Nurse #2 reported she took the blood sugar and recorded it on the MAR. She reviewed the March 2023 MAR and verified the Metformin was administered despite the blood sugar being below 110 when it should have been held and felt it was an oversight.
The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed via the phone on 3/9/23 at 9:15 AM and stated if Resident #42 had received a dosage of Metformin outside the parameter it should not have caused any serious harm. The NP added she would have expected the nurses to follow the orders for the Metformin parameters as written.
b. Review of Resident #42's active physician orders included an order dated 9/30/22 for Metoprolol (a blood pressure medication) 25 milligrams. Give half a tablet by mouth every 12 hours for high blood pressure. Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 100, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 55, heart rate less than 55.
The February 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed and revealed Resident #42 had received Metoprolol, despite the SBP less than 100 and DBP less than 55.
- 2/20/23 SBP was 98 and DBP was 52.
- 2/25/23 SBP was 88.
A phone interview occurred with Nurse #5 on 3/8/23 at 2:17 PM, who was assigned to Resident #42 on 2/25/23. The February 2023 MAR was reviewed with Nurse #5 and stated the medication should have been held per the parameters and felt it was an oversight.
The NP was interviewed via the phone on 3/9/23 at 9:15 AM and stated if Resident #42 had received a few dosages of Metoprolol outside the parameters it should not have caused any serious harm. The NP added she would have expected the nurses to follow the orders for the Metoprolol parameters as written.
Attempts to contact Nurse #6 were made without success. She was assigned to Resident #42 on 2/20/23.
3. Resident # 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hypertension.
Resident #22 had a physician's order dated 8/26/22 for hydrochlorothiazide (can treat hypertension and fluid retention) 25 milligrams (mgs) - give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening. Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) of less than or equal to 130.
The Medication Administration Records (MARs) from October through March 2023 were reviewed and revealed that hydrochlorothiazide was administered despite the blood pressure was less than 130 on the following dates:
10/5/22 - blood pressure (BP) 122/57 10/23/22 - BP 114/68
10/14/22 - BP 110/54 10/28/22 - BP 125/85
10/21/22 - BP 117/58 10/29/22 - BP 125/70
11/2/22 - BP 121/66 11/10/22 - BP 104/65
11/4/22 - BP 101/62 11/12/22 - BP 107/59
11/6/22 - BP 114/52 11/14/22 - BP 100/52
11/7/22 - BP 114/62 11/15/22 - BP - 100/52
11/8/22 - BP 101/61 11/17/22 - BP - 120/53
11/19/22 - BP 123/52 11/24/22 - BP 124/72
11/22/22 - BP 111/70 11/26/22 - Bp 129/65
11/23/22 - BP 107/68 12/4/22 - BP 119/73
12/7/22 - BP 126/68 12/8/22 - Bp 120/81
12/9/22 - BP 118/80 12/10/22 - BP 95/50
12/11/22 - BP 95/50 12/16/22 - BP 118/62
12/26/22 - BP 105/66 12/27/22 - BP 114/57
12/30/22 - BP 112/60 1/1/23 - BP 127/75
1/16/23 - BP 107/60 1/18/23 - BP 107/60
1/21/23 - BP 112/66 1/30/23 - BP 118/66
2/1/23 - BP 123/54 2/3/23 - BP 128/66
2/5/23 - BP 130/68 2/6/23 - BP 122/67
2/13/23 - BP 126/74 2/14/23 - BP 127/79
2/22/23 - BP 122/50 3/2/23 - BP 128/64
Nurse #2, assigned to Resident #59 on 3/2/23 was interviewed. She reviewed the physician's order for the hydrochlorothiazide and stated that she was aware of the parameters to hold the medication if the SBP was below 130 but obviously she missed to hold the medication when the resident's blood pressure was 128/64 on 3/2/23.
Attempts to interview Nurse #6, who was assigned to Resident #59 on 2/13/23 and 2/22/23 but was unsuccessful.
The Pharmacy Consultant was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 3:05 PM. She reported that she identified the irregularity regarding the physician's order to hold the hydrochlorothiazide was not being followed. The Pharmacy Consultant reported that she brought it to the attention of the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/22/22, 10/5/22 and on 3/6/22.
Nurse #8, who was assigned to Resident #59 on 1/23/23, 1/27/23, 1/30/23, 2/5/23, and 2/6/23 was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:14 AM. She reviewed the order for the hydrochlorothiazide and indicated that she was aware of the order to hold the medication if the SBP was 130 or below. Nurse #8 reviewed the MARs and stated, I just don't know what to say, I missed it.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. She stated that she expected the nurses to follow the physician's orders in holding the medications with parameters. She reported that she provided education to the nurses when she received the report from the Pharmacy Consultant.
The Physician was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:20 AM. He stated that he expected the nurses to follow the order in holding the BP medications with parameters.
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 record reviews, observations, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain impl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director, 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 survey on 7/1/21. This was for four deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Accuracy of Assessments, Activities of Daily Living Care Provided to Dependent Residents, Treatment/Services to Prevent/Heal Pressure Ulcers and Drug Regimen is Free From Unnecessary Drugs. The duplicate citations during two federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program.
The findings included:
These citations are cross referenced to:
1. F641- Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of medications (Residents # 22, #4 & #1), accidents (Resident #4 & #26), diagnoses (Resident #4) and urinary status (Resident # 54) for 5 of 20 sampled residents whose MDS were reviewed.
During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately in the areas of accidents, nutrition, and diagnoses for 3 of 19 sampled residents reviewed.
In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she felt the repeat citation in MDS accuracy was felt to be related to human error.
2. F677- Based on record review, observation and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled for 1 of 5 sampled residents who needed extensive assistance or were dependent on the staff for activities of daily living (Resident #59).
During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to provide nail care for a resident dependent on staff for assistance with her activities of daily living (ADLs). This was for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nail care.
In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she indicated the facility was utilizing agency staff and felt there was a lack of oversight and education to ensure showers were offered, provided, and documented that they were given or refused by the resident.
3. F686- Based on record review, observation, and interviews with the Physician, Wound Physician and staff, the facility failed to obtain an order for treatment to the left buttock pressure ulcer (Resident #4) and failed to ensure the alternating air mattress was functioning resulting in a deflated air mattress (Resident #29) for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to ensure the alternating pressure reducing air mattress was set according to the resident's weight for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcer.
In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she stated it was felt to be related to human error not to have documented when a treatment was completed as ordered.
4. F757- Based on record reviews, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to hold diabetic medications (Residents #18 and #42) and blood pressure medications (Residents #42 and #22) as ordered by the physician for 3 of 6 residents whose medications were reviewed.
During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to hold the blood pressure medications as ordered and failed to check the blood pressure prior to administering the blood pressure medications for 2 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she indicated the facility was utilizing agency staff and felt the repeat citation could be a result of the need for education and oversight.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews with staff, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or Responsible Party (RP) wri...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews 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 2 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Residents #54 and #17).
The findings included:
1. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #54 was cognitively intact.
Resident #54's medical record revealed she was transferred to the hospital on 2/26/23 for altered mental status and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documentation that written notice of transfer was provided to the resident and/or RP for the reason of the transfer.
The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:55 AM and stated she was not responsible for notifying the resident or RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital.
On 3/7/23 at 10:56 AM, the Admissions staff member was interviewed and stated that she began employment at the facility 2 weeks ago. She was responsible for notifying the resident or RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She called the RP, discussed the bed hold policy and requested the RP to come to the facility to sign the bed hold form. She then provided the RP a copy of the form with the reason and date the resident was discharged to the hospital.
An interview occurred with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:10 AM. She stated that the Admissions staff member was responsible for notifying the resident or RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She added that the Admissions staff member called the RP, explained the bed hold policy and requested the RP come to the facility and to sign the bed hold form. The form included the reason and date of hospital discharge. After the bed hold form was signed, a copy was provided to the RP or resident. The Administrator further explained when Resident #54 was discharged to the hospital, the previous Admissions staff member, who no longer worked at the facility, did not have the bed hold form completed or signed by the resident/RP.
2. Resident # 17 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with aphasia and dysphasia.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #17 had severe cognitive impairment.
A nursing note dated 1/29/23 at 3:34 AM revealed that Resident #17 had a medium stool with small blood clots present in brief. The note indicated that the resident was stable with no complaints of abdominal pain and his vital signs were within normal limits. The Physician Assistant (PA) was notified and ordered to monitor the resident and to call back if the vital signs or the resident status worsen.
A nursing note dated 1/29/23 at 2:12 PM, Resident #17 was seen by the PA and ordered to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment.
Resident #17 was readmitted back to the facility on 2/13/23.
The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:55 AM. The SW stated that she was not responsible for notifying the resident or the responsible party (RP) when a resident was discharged to the hospital.
The admission staff member was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:56 AM. She stated that she started working at the facility 2 weeks ago. She was responsible for notifying the resident or the RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She called the RP, discussed the bed hold policy and requested the RP to come to the facility to sign the bed hold form. She then provided the RP a copy of the form with the reason and the date the resident was discharged to the hospital.
The Administrator was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:10 AM. She stated that the admission staff member was responsible for notifying the resident or the RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She added that the admission staff member called the RP, explained the bed hold policy and requested the RP to come to the facility and to sign the bed hold form. The form included the reason and the date the resident was discharged to the hospital. After the bed hold form was signed, a copy was provided to the RP. The Administrator further explained that when Resident #17 was discharged to the hospital, the previous admission staff member, who no longer worked at the facility, did not have the bed hold form completed and signed by the RP.