Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita

1028 Blair Street, Thomasville, NC 27360 (336) 472-7771
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds ALLIANCE HEALTH GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
21/100
#356 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. With a state ranking of #356 out of 417 in North Carolina, they fall in the bottom half, and they rank #8 out of 9 in Davidson County, meaning there is only one other local option that is better. Although the facility is showing some improvement, having reduced their issues from 6 to 2 over the past year, their staffing rating is poor with a turnover rate of 57%, which is higher than the state average. The facility also has concerning RN coverage, being below the standard of 78% of North Carolina facilities, which raises alarms about the level of care residents may receive. Specific incidents include a critical failure to secure a resident's wheelchair during transportation, resulting in a fall, and concerns about food safety practices that could lead to foodborne illnesses. Overall, while there are some positive trends, families should weigh these serious issues carefully when considering care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
21/100
In North Carolina
#356/417
Bottom 15%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$24,850 in fines. Higher than 87% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
37 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 57%

11pts above North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $24,850

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: ALLIANCE HEALTH GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (57%)

9 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 37 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jul 2025 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews with facility staff, resident, and the Contracted Van Transportation Company...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews with facility staff, resident, and the Contracted Van Transportation Company Owner, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1's wheelchair was secure on the contract transportation van lift by the Contract Van Driver before the lift platform was raised to the elevated position. On 3/7/25, Resident #1 was loaded onto the van lift by the Contract Van Driver. The lift was positioned at the rear entrance of the van and Resident #1 was facing out away from the van. When the lift platform was at the floor level of the van, Resident #1's wheelchair rolled forward, away from the van, and Resident #1 fell forward, off of the lift, landing on the asphalt parking lot. Resident #1 fell approximately 48 inches from the raised lift platform onto the ground. According to the resident, she had tried to put her arms out to catch herself as she was falling. Resident #1 was transported to the hospital via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and at the hospital, Resident #1 was found to have sustained fractures to both upper arms, multiple lumbar vertebrae (lower back) fractures, and a fracture to her right foot. Resident #1 also sustained a laceration to her right forehead measuring 4 centimeters in length which required 4 sutures to close. Resident #1 was receiving a blood thinner which increased her risk of bleeding. There is a high likelihood of a serious adverse outcome, including death or injury, when the manufacturer's instructions for loading residents onto the transportation van lift are not followed. This deficient practice was found for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents.The findings included:Review of the manufacturer's operating instructions showed the following instructions for the use of the contract transportation van lift to load a resident in a wheelchair.1. Stand clear and press the unfold switch until the platform stops (reaches floor level of the vehicle - unfold fully).2. Press the DOWN switch until the entire platform reaches ground level and the roll stop (a piece of metal attached to the lift which unfolds to a flat position when the lift is on the ground but is in an upright position when the lift is not in contact with the ground) unfolds fully (ramp position).3. Load passenger onto platform, lock wheelchair brakes, and buckle handrail belt (if equipped). Ensure passenger is fully positioned inside the yellow boundaries.4. Press UP switch and raise platform to floor level; approximately 48 inches from ground level to floor of van per lift manual specifications. 5. Unlock wheelchair brakes and unload passenger from platform and move into the van.Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included polyneuropathy (numbness and weakness in extremities), severe obesity, and a history of deep venous thrombosis. Resident #1's quarterly Minimum Data Assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], coded the resident as having no cognitive impairment. The resident was coded to use a wheelchair for ambulation and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living except Resident #1 was independent with eating and oral hygiene. The MDS showed Resident #1 weighed 415 pounds. Review of the physician orders showed Resident #1 had an active order last reviewed and dated for 1/5/25 for apixaban (a blood thinner) 2.5 milligrams, take one tablet twice daily. Review of the February and March 2025 Medication Administration Record showed Resident #1 was administered the apixaban twice daily including a dose on the morning of 3/7/25. There had been no documented dose omissions from 2/1/25 to 3/7/25. Review of a statement provided to the facility by the Contract Van Driver dated 3/7/25 read in part, I loaded the resident on the lift facing outward due to her size and the size of the wheelchair. The lift is appropriate for facing outward loading. After loading her on the lift I locked the brakes and checked them, then raised the lift to the van floor level. The statement continued to document the driver walked around to the right side of the van to enter via the side passenger doorway. As the Contract Van Driver was walking up the steps, he noticed her (Resident #1's) chair began to roll forward toward the outside of the van. Contract Van Driver had documented he immediately moved toward her, but her chair hit the roll stop. Her momentum carried her and her wheelchair over the end of the lift where she landed on the pavement and her chair was resting on top of her. The Contract Van Driver documented he removed the wheelchair without moving the resident and at that time two unknown people arrived at her side.Contract Van Driver was unavailable for interview.An interview was conducted with Resident #1 on 7/17/25 at 10:20 AM. Resident #1 stated she was leaving the facility in a wheelchair for an appointment right after lunch on 3/7/25. Resident #1 stated the Contract Van Driver pushed her to the end of the sidewalk of the main facility entrance and loaded her onto the van lift at the back of the van. Resident #1 stated she was in a large wheelchair and felt like it took up the entire platform. Resident #1 stated she was facing the parking lot when the Contract Van Driver began to raise the lift. Resident #1 reported she felt like the wheelchair was stable on the platform but wasn't sure if the Contract Van Driver engaged the wheelchair brakes. Resident #1 explained she was trying to get the Contract Van Driver attention as the lift began to raise because she felt like the chair was beginning to roll forward as the lift was rising, but he did not hear her yelling for him. Resident #1 stated, the next thing she knew, her wheelchair began rolling forward, she fell forward off of the van lift, as she was falling she tried to catch herself with outstretched arms and hands, and she landed onto the pavement. Resident #1 did not know how far she fell but felt like it might have been several feet. Resident #1 reported she felt pain in both her arms and lower back immediately after the fall. Resident #1 stated the Director of Nursing came out and sat down on the ground with her and waited for the ambulance to arrive. Resident #1 reported she didn't want anyone to touch her-she just wanted the ambulance to get there and take her to the hospital. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/17/25 at 11:48 AM. The DON stated, on 3/7/25 around lunchtime, Facility Van Driver #2, who was not involved with the Contract Van Driver, or the incident, came around the corner from the front lobby to her office and stated Resident #1 appeared to have just fallen off of the van lift out front due to the resident being on the ground. The DON reported she told Facility Van Driver #2 to call 911 and she immediately went outside to assess Resident #1. The DON stated she found Resident #1 lying face down on the pavement, both of the resident's arms were under her and her wheelchair was off to the side. There was also a small laceration to the right side of her forehead. The DON stated Resident #1 was conscious, alert, crying, and stated she didn't want anyone to touch her. The DON further stated Resident #1 told her both arms and her back were hurting, therefore, the decision was made to not to move her and not assess her further until the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived. The DON stated she applied a bandage to control the bleeding to the resident's forehead wound. The DON stated there were a couple of other staff members who came over to see if they could assist but she did not remember who they were.Facility Van Driver #2 was no longer employed at the facility and was unavailable for interview.An interview was conducted by phone with the Van Transportation Company Owner 7/17/25 at 12:50 PM. The Van Transportation Company Owner stated he received a call on 3/7/25 about 12:30 PM from the Contract Van Driver who told him a resident (Resident #1) just fell off the lift of the van. The Van Transportation Company Owner stated he arrived at the facility shortly after the driver called him to let him know what had happened and inspected the van and lift for any abnormalities and did not find any. Van Transportation Company Owner stated Contract Van Driver reported to him he put Resident #1 on the lift facing outward, locked the wheelchair brakes and then raised the lift up fully. The Contract Van Driver then told the Van Transportation Company Owner he walked around to the passenger side to get in the van and saw Resident #1 rolling forward out of the corner of his eye. The Contract Van Driver stated to the Van Transportation Company Owner he observed Resident #1 fall face first over the roll stop and onto the pavement below. The Van Transportation Company Owner reported the Contract Van Driver had been driving for his company for a while and completed training on using the van lift and there had no issues with the Contract Van Driver.A review of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) record showed the call was received by dispatch at 12:37 PM and EMS arrived at the facility on 3/7/25 at 12:53 PM. The record read, Resident #1 was alert and oriented and lying face down in the parking lot next to a transport bus with a superficial laceration noted to her forehead. The record further read, The attendant apparently dropped her off the side of the ramp while she was in the wheelchair and she landed face first on the parking lot.No loss of consciousness per staff. Noted to be on a blood thinner. The record further read, assistance was needed by the local fire department in getting the resident transitioned to the stretcher and into the ambulance. Resident #1 remained alert during transport to the hospital for evaluation.A review of the hospital records for Resident #1 for the hospitalization period of 3/7/25 through 3/10/25 revealed the following: Resident # 1 was seen in the emergency room (ER) on 3/7/25 following the fall out of a van. The physician noted Resident #1 was alert and in no acute distress at the time of the physician's assessment. The physician's head to toe assessment of Resident #1 showed pain reported in both arms (splints were applied), mild back pain, and right foot pain. A 4 centimeter laceration on the forehead above the right eyebrow was closed with 4 simple sutures. Pain medication was provided. Resident #1 required no surgeries due to fractures. Diagnostic x-rays done on 3/7/25 in the emergency room showed Resident #1 had sustained the following fractures: 1) comminuted (fragmented) intra-articular distal humerus fracture, right elbow, 2) comminuted intra-articular distal humerus fracture, left elbow, 3) mildly displaced fractures of the left transverse processes of Lumbar (L)1 and L2 (bones which make up the lower portion of the spine), and nondisplaced fractures of the distal second and third metatarsals (the long bones of the midfoot) of the right foot. Further review of radiology reports completed on 3/7/25, indicated that a computed tomography (CT) (a CT is a noninvasive medical imaging procedure that uses x-rays to create cross-sectional detailed pictures of the inside of the body) scan of the head and neck were negative for any abnormalities. Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] for observation and was discharged back to the facility on 3/10/25 with both arms splinted and support to her right foot.A joint interview was conducted with Occupational Therapist #1 and Physical Therapist #1 on 7/17/25 at 3:30 PM. Both Occupation Therapist #1 and Physical Therapist #1 stated they had assessed Resident #1's wheelchair on 3/7/25 following the incident and found it to be in excellent working order, including the brakes working properly. Both therapists agreed that no repair issues were discovered. Occupational Therapist #1 reported, Resident #1, prior to the fall from the liftgate of the wheelchair van, was independent with both upper extremities but became dependent on staff for eating and oral hygiene following the accident on 3/7/25. Occupational Therapist #1 reported she was currently still working with Resident #1 on her hand grip and mobility. The interview further revealed Resident #1 had gained significant mobility back although the resident still required some staff assistance with reaching and picking up items.An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 7/17/25 at 1:15 PM and she stated the DON called her immediately after the incident on 3/7/25. The Medical Director stated the DON did the right thing by not moving Resident #1 based on her presentation, her complaints of pain, and it would have taken several extra staff members to move her. The Medical Director stated she had reassessed Resident #1 several days after she was readmitted to the facility and had provided new orders to follow-up with her orthopedist in 6-8 weeks and occupational therapy as tolerated. During an interview with the Administrator on 7/18/25 at 4:30 PM, he stated the facility had not used the contract van company since the incident with Resident #1 on 3/7/25. He stated the facility transport van was unavailable that day, so they had to use an outside company. On 7/17/25 at 4:15 PM, the Administrator was notified of immediate jeopardy. The facility implemented the following corrective action plan: Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice;Free of Accidents: Contract company failed to prevent fall from the van lift by not staying with the resident on the lift and not ensuring the wheelchair brakes were fully engaged. On 3/7/25 The contract van driver arrived to pick up resident #1 at approximately 12:30pm for an appointment. The contract van driver loaded resident #1 on the lift facing outward due to her size and the size of the wheelchair. Per manufacturer's instructions the lift is appropriate to load facing outward. After loading resident #1 on the lift the contract van driver stated he locked the wheelchair brakes and checked them by pushing on the wheelchair to ensure there was no movement, he then raised the lift to the van floor level. The contract driver proceeded to walk into the van via the passenger doorway. As the driver was walking up the steps of the van, he noticed Resident #1's chair began to roll forward toward the outside of the van. He immediately moved toward her on the outside of the van, but the resident's wheelchair hit the roll stop of the liftgate. Her momentum carried the resident and her wheelchair over the end of the lift where she landed on the pavement and her chair was resting on top of her. The driver removed the chair without moving resident #1 and at that time two staff members arrived at her side. The van driver asked one of them to call 911. The County Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrived at the facility within 10 minutes and the local fire department staff arrived shortly thereafter. No injuries were identified at the scene. Resident #1 was in the hospital for 3 days for right comminuted intra-articular distal humerus fracture, left comminuted intra-articular distal humerus fracture, mildly displaced fractures of the left transverse processes of L1 and L2, non displaced fractures of the distal second and third metatarsals of the right foot, and superficial linear laceration to the right forehead measuring 4 centimeters in length requiring 4 sutures to repair. Resident required bilateral splints for left and right elbow fractures and was totally dependent on staff upon return to the facility. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice; Residents that require transport have the potential to be affected by the deficient practice.The Director of Nursing identified residents that have been transported in the last 30 days. On 3/7/25 alert and oriented residents identified were interviewed by the Administrator and asked if they had any safety concerns during transport. No residents reported having safety concerns. On 3/7/25 the Director of Nursing performed a skin check on the non interviewable residents that were identified. No injuries or signs of safety concerns were identified. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur; The contract van company owner inspected the contract van vehicle lift, tie downs, lap, and shoulder restraints for proper operation on 3/7/25. All were mechanically sound and working as intended.Education was provided per manufacturers guidelines to all 5 transportation drivers for the facility on 3/7/25 by the Director of Plant Operation about providing supervision/contact with the resident while the resident is on the lift. In addition, the Director of Plant Operations observed the transportation drivers through the loading and unloading process to show full compliance and understanding of providing constant supervision and contact with a resident when the resident is on the lift, this included safely securing a resident in the van. These observations were completed on 3/7/25. The contract van company is no longer being used. No other contract van company is being used. Newly hired transportation drivers will be required to receive the same education and return demonstration with the Regional Maintenance Director or Maintenance Director during orientation. The Administrator will be responsible for tracking the education. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained; The Maintenance Director or Administrator will observe five residents being loaded into the van prior to transport at the facility and unloaded from the van upon return to the facility from the transport per week for four weeks then three residents a week for eight weeks to ensure that facility van drivers are following manufacturer's instructions for loading and unloading a resident on and off the van. This includes ensuring wheelchair brakes are locked when using the wheelchair lift, having constant supervision/contact with the resident while they are on the wheelchair lift, and safely securing the resident in the van per manufacturer's instructions.The decision was made on 3/7/25 to complete training and education, monitor the system, and to take to Quality Assurance Committee.This plan was taken to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee on 3/20/25 by the Administrator. The QAPI committee, which consists of the interdisciplinary team will review the audits to identify if there are any trends that need to be addressed or require an extension of the audits. Include dates when corrective action will be completed. Alleged date of IJ removal: 3/21/25. The facility's corrective action plan was validated by the following:Only 2 of the 5 facility van drivers were still employed by the facility. The facility provided documentation of Transportation Aide/Driver #3 and Transportation Aide/Driver #4 web-based training courses on driving basics, how to anticipate potential hazards and how to react to them, and a checklist that included return demonstrations on how to load and unload residents from the transportation van. The facility provided evidence of their audits as outlined in their plan of correction. Their audits included observation of Facility Van Driver #3 and Facility Van Driver #4 to ensure both followed lift and van safety instructions regarding boarding safety, patient securement, and patient assistance. Monitoring of all residents using the transport van lift was being conducted and that information was presented in the facility's QA meeting. On 7/17/25 at 5:05 PM Facility Van Driver #3 was observed loading and unloading a staff member, who was seated in a wheelchair, from the facility van using the lift. Facility Van Driver #3 explained in detail the steps she took and the safety measures she followed when using the lift as she was loading and unloading the staff member. The observation included verification that wheelchair brakes were engaged, and the chair was secure on the lift. An interview conducted with a resident who had been recently transported to an appointment revealed he had no concerns with being loaded or unloaded from the van, being secured safely in the van, and felt the transport was safe. Facility Van Driver #3 stated she completed the refresher course as part of the facility plan of correction on 3/8/25. Facility Van Driver #3 provided a copy of a checklist which showed she used when loading and securing a resident for transport. The facility's IJ removal date and compliance date for the corrective action plan of 3/21/25 was validated. The IJ removal date was 3/21/25.
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented their abuse policy and procedure in the area of reporting when facility staff had knowledge of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented their abuse policy and procedure in the area of reporting when facility staff had knowledge of an allegation of sexual abuse. This failure resulted in a delay in the facility initiating a thorough investigation of the allegation, implementing protective measures, and reporting the allegation to the State Agency, Law Enforcement and Adult Protective Services. This deficient practice was found for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). Findings included: The facility's Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation reviewed/revised 1/1/25, read in part: It is the policy of this facility to report all allegations of abuse/neglect/exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources and misappropriation of resident property are reported immediately to the Administrator of the facility and to other appropriate agencies in accordance with current state and federal regulations within prescribed timeframes. During an interview on 3/4/25 at 2:04 p.m., Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 revealed Resident #1 reported to her on Sunday (2/16/25) that she was touched inappropriately by a male staff member, but did not know his name and did not provide a description of the male or date of the incident. She recalled there were two male nursing assistants working on that unit. NA #1 stated she reported the allegation to the Staff Nurse #1 but was unsure if Staff Nurse #1 interviewed Resident #1. An interview was conducted with Staff Nurse #1 on 3/4/25 at 2:37 p.m. Staff Nurse #1 stated no one had reported abuse to her since she began working at the facility (approximately three months ago). She recalled three to four days prior to Resident #1's recent hospitalization (2/20/25), she and the Director of Nursing (DON) were standing at the nurse's station when they overheard NA #1 repeatedly, advising NA #2 to not enter Resident#1's room unless he had someone with him. Staff Nurse #1 stated she overheard NA #1 tell NA #2 that Resident#1 was saying that somebody was messing with her. Staff Nurse #1 revealed she did not interview Resident #1 and did not know if the DON interviewed the resident. An interview was conducted on 3/5/25 at 2:51 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she first learned of the sexual abuse allegation on the morning of Friday, 2/21/25. The DON stated she did not recall overhearing any conversation at the nursing station between a female NA and male NA about not providing care to Resident #1. During an interview on 3/5/25 at 1:36 p.m., the Occupational Therapist (OT) recalled on 2/17/25, as she was escorting Resident #1 from the 200-hall unit's common area to start the resident's therapy session, the resident was agitated and insisted that she needed to talk with the Administrator. The OT revealed the resident informed her she was being molested at the facility since her admission. The OT stated that she calmed the resident and immediately escorted Resident #1 to the Admission's Coordinator's office where the resident repeated the allegation. The OT stated at that time she was unaware who was the Abuse Coordinator. The Admission's Coordinator later explained to her that the Administrator was the Abuse Coordinator, but she (Admissions Coordinator) did write the report and submitted it to the Administrator. On 3/5/25 at 2:19 p.m., the Admission's Coordinator stated on the morning of 2/17/25, the OT escorted Resident #1 to her office. She revealed Resident #1 told her she had been molested at the facility. The Admission's Coordinator stated she excused herself and went to the Administrator's office and informed him of the resident's allegation. She was instructed by the Administrator to take Resident #1's statement, which she did. She stated Resident #1 informed her that a tall, skinny black guy (no name provided) had been molesting her. She stated the resident reported every morning the male staff would remove all of her clothes, rub her private area, then bathe and dress her before transferring her to her wheelchair and escort her to the dining table in the common area. The resident reported this happened the previous Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The Admission's Coordinator revealed when asked if there was anything else she needed to report about the incident, the resident replied, No, that was it, but he's a nice guy. The Admission's Coordinator stated she submitted the statement to the Administrator. She further revealed she had not heard any more about the allegation. During an interview on 3/6/25 at 5:54 p.m., the Administrator revealed on 2/17/25, the Admission's Coordinator reported to him there was a potential allegation of abuse (she did not specify the type of abuse) which he directed her to document the witness statement. He stated the Admission's Coordinator handed him the statement later, which he placed on his desk to review after completion of what he was working on. However, he did not remember the statement. He stated that when the police arrived at the facility on 2/21/25 at 8:30 a.m. to investigate a report of employee to resident sexual abuse, he recalled receiving a written statement of abuse earlier that week. The Administrator indicated he did not read the statement of abuse when it was placed on his desk on 2/17/25. He stated after locating and reading the witness statement on his desk on 2/21/25, he contacted the Regional Chief Nursing Officer and together they began working on the investigation on 2/21/25. The alleged perpetrator (NA#2) was immediately suspended on 2/21/25. The Administrator sent an initial report to the Division of Health Service Regulation and notified Adult Protective Services on 2/21/25. During an interview on 3/6/25 at 11:26 a.m., NA #2 stated the first time he was made aware Resident #1 alleged that he inappropriately touched her was the morning of 2/21/25. The Administrator also informed him he was suspended until the investigation of the alleged abuse was complete. NA #2 stated he had not worked at the facility since 2/21/25. He further revealed that he was informed via phone today (3/6/25) that he was cleared to return to work at the facility. The facility initially reported the incident to the State Agency on 2/21/25 as an alleged employee to resident abuse of sexual assault. The facility reported it became aware of the incident on 2/21/25 at 8:30 a.m. Resident #1 was currently in the hospital and reported to the police a description which fit one of the two male nurse aides that worked on the resident's hall. The male aide was suspended on 2/21/25 until completion of the investigation. Review of the facility's staffing records revealed NA#2 worked at the facility on 2/16/25 from 7:00 a.m. through 11:00 p.m. but did not work at the facility on 2/17/25 through 2/20/25. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a compliance date of 2/22/25. Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice. On 2/17/25 admission Coordinator presented Administrator with a written statement from the therapist stating that Resident #1 alleged sexual assault during care by a staff member. The administrator laid the statement on the desk before reading and completed the task he was previously working on. The Administrator became distracted by other events in the facility and failed to read the statement and report in the two-hour window. The Administrator failed to report the allegation as required. The failure of the Administrator to report led to not reporting to law enforcement, Adult Protective Services, not starting an investigation, lack of protection. Adult Protective Services was notified on 2/21/2025. Resident #1 did not readmit to the facility after hospitalization and is no longer residing in the facility. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. All Residents residing in the facility have the potential to be affected by the deficient practice. On 2/21/25 the Regional Nurse Consultant reviewed reportable incidents for the last 30 days to identify if reporting was completed per policy to include appropriate reporting to the administrator and that law enforcement, APS, and state agency were notified. On 2/21/2025 Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Unit Manager, and Social Worker completed interviews with alert and oriented residents regarding abuse and skin checks on not alert and oriented residents for signs of abuse; with no indications of abuse discovered. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur. On 2/21/2025 the Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing educated current staff, including agency on identifying and reporting abuse. Education included verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and mistreatment. The staff members, including agency staff, that have not received the education will not be able to work until they have received this education. The Director of Nursing is responsible for ensuring this is enforced. In the event abuse is witnessed the staff member should stay with the resident providing protection from the abuse. Immediately after removing the abuse the abuse must be reported to the Administrator. The Administrator was educated by the Regional Nurse Consultant on 2/21/2025 on how he should confirm the abuse, ensure the protection of the resident, confirm the perpetrator is removed, and submit an initial investigation to the State, contact the police department and Adult Protective Services and complete a thorough investigation prior to submitting the five-day report to the State. Staff were asked to return information verbally to confirm understanding of education. The Director of Nursing is responsible for ensuring newly hired staff, including agency staff, will receive the education in orientation. Education completed 2/21/2025. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. The Regional Nurse Consultant will audit all submitted reportables in person weekly for twelve weeks to ensure protection of the resident was provided, perpetrator was removed, and appropriate reporting to the administrator and notification to law enforcement, APS, and state agency was completed timely by the Administrator. The decision was made on 2/21/2025 to complete education, to monitor the system, and to take to Quality Assurance Committee. The Regional Nurse Consultant or designee will bring these audits to the Quality Assurance Committee meeting monthly for 3 consecutive months. The Quality Assurance Committee will evaluate the effectiveness of the above plan and will make additional interventions and recommendations based on the audits to ensure continued compliance. Date of alleged compliance: 2/22/2025 Validation of the facility's corrective action plan was conducted from 3/4/25 through 3/6/25. Review of facility documents revealed alert and oriented residents were interviewed regarding abuse by facility staff with no abuse reported and no concerns were discovered. Skin audits of residents were reviewed with no findings indicating abuse. Reviewed the education provided to staff (including sign-in sheets) on following the facility's policy on the types of abuse, protecting the resident, and reporting abuse immediately to nurse, DON, and Administrator and time frames for submitting initial report and the investigation report to the State Agency. Facility staff were interviewed during the survey on the facility's abuse policy including: identifying abuse, reporting abuse immediately, and protecting residents. The Administrator was interviewed and verbally demonstrated an understanding of the facility's abuse policy and the importance of taking immediate action on allegations of abuse. Other sampled residents' abuse allegations (most recent was 12/24/24) indicated the facility's abuse policy was followed. Interviews with residents and observations of residents indicated they had no concerns with abuse or if abuse was reported, it was investigated. The facility's compliance date of 2/22/25 was validated.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 and interviews of staff, the resident, and the nurse practitioner, the facility failed to correctly trans...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews of staff, the resident, and the nurse practitioner, the facility failed to correctly transcribe the resident's (Resident #57) nephrology order for sterile saline flush 15 to 30 milliliters of the suprapubic urinary catheter every 12 hours. The resident's order was put in as a one-time order and only one sterile saline flush was completed. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheter. Findings included: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of neurogenic bladder. Resident #57's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident's cognition was intact. The resident had a suprapubic urinary catheter and the diagnosis of neurogenic bladder. The care plan dated 5/23/24 for Resident #57 had a planned area for suprapubic urinary catheter. The interventions were monitor/document for signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection and report to the physician and to position the catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder. Resident #57's nephrology consultation visit note dated 7/5/24 documented for staff to flush her suprapubic urinary catheter with 15 to 30 milliliters of sterile saline every 12 hours. The resident was to return for follow up after 7/28/24. Resident #57 had an order entered on 7/5/24 by Nurse #1 for a one time order to flush the suprapubic urinary catheter every 12 hours with 15 to 30 milliliters of sterile water. A review of Resident #57's Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented on 7/5/24 day shift one flush of the suprapubic urinary catheter. The remaining dates for the month of July to the 30th had no signatures. There was an x in the place to sign. On 7/9/24 at 10:30 am an interview was conducted with Resident #57. Resident #57 stated she saw the urologist and he ordered her suprapubic urinary catheter to be flushed twice a day. She further stated that the staff had not flushed her catheter twice a day. When she asked the staff about the catheter flush the nurse still had not flushed the catheter. Resident #57 commented that she had no signs or symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI) at this time. On 7/9/24 at 1:30 pm an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated that Resident #57's suprapubic urinary catheter flush order was incorrectly placed into the system as a one-time order. Nurse #1 incorrectly entered the order for one-time order to flush the catheter every 12 hours on 7/5/24. At 2:30 pm the ADON checked with Nurse #1 and the resident's MAR, the resident's catheter was only flushed once by Nurse #1 who entered the order on 7/5/24 day shift. There were no continued flushes after this date/shift. On 7/9/24 at 3:35 pm an interview was conducted with the Corporate Nurse Consultant. During the interview Resident #57's medical record was displayed to read. The Corporate Nurse stated the resident's order to flush the suprapubic urinary catheter every 12 hours was placed in the order system for one-time only in error. The order reflected as completed and there would not have been an order for the nurses to follow for every 12 hours ongoing. The Corporate Nurse stated she would correct this, and the resident would have her catheter flushed now. Resident #57 had an order entered on 7/9/24 second shift by the Assistant Director of Nursing to flush the suprapubic urinary catheter every 12 hours with sterile water (15-30 ml) every day and evening shift for UTI for 28 Days. On 7/10/24 at 9:00 am an interview was conducted with Nurse #1. Nurse #1 stated she was regularly assigned to Resident #57 on day shift. Nurse #1 stated she entered Resident #57's order in the electronic medical record for suprapubic urinary catheter flush on 7/5/24. Nurse #1 was not sure if the order was entered as a one-time order. Nurse #1 stated there was not currently a place/order in the MAR to document the catheter flush. The order was showing as completed (7/5/24). Nurse #1 stated she would document any catheter flushes completed in the nurses' notes because it was no longer in the resident's orders. Nurse #1 stated she had not documented in the nurses notes a catheter flush. Nurse #1 stated if she needed to flush the catheter, she would use a prior order that was not discontinued. A review of Resident #57's orders, including discontinued orders, had not revealed an order to flush the catheter in the past six months (1/8/24). A review of Resident #57's nurses' notes had not revealed any documentation of the suprapubic urinary catheter flush for the past 90 days (4/8/24). On 7/10/24 at 9:11 am an interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP). The NP stated she was very familiar with Resident #57. The resident saw the urologist on 7/5/24 with sterile saline suprapubic urinary catheter flush every 12-hours order. The NP stated she asked staff and reviewed the resident's chart and there was no standing order for urinary catheter flush or prior order in place to flush the catheter. The NP was not aware the resident had not received the ordered urinary catheter flushes after 7/5/24. The resident was oriented and could ask when the new order from urology was not completed (catheter flush) because she was aware of the order. The NP was made aware that the order was corrected on 7/9/24 in the evening for the catheter flush. At 11:30 am the NP assessed the resident and stated the resident had no signs or symptoms of a UTI from the missed urinary catheter flushes from 7/5/24 to 7/9/24. On 7/11/24 at 9:30 am an interview was conducted with Resident #57. She stated her urinary catheter was now being flushed twice a day.
May 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident interviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to place a resident's call l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident interviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to place a resident's call light (Resident #5 and #7) within reach to allow for the residents to request staff assistance this was for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The findings included: 1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, history of falls, traumatic brain injury and traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #7 ' s cognition was severely impaired. He had no behavior and no rejection of care. He required minimum assistance of 1 for toileting hygiene and personal hygiene and required maximum assistance with shower/baths. He was occasionally incontinent of bladder and always continent of bowel. He had no functional limitation with range of motion of her extremities. Resident #5's active care plan, last revised on 04/23/24, indicated he had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to a history of traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness from a fall downstairs and cognitive impairment. The interventions included for staff to encourage him to use his bell to call for assistance. Another focus read Resident #5 had an actual fall and was at risk for additional falls related to confusion and history of a fall with serious injury prior to admit to facility. The interventions included for staff to be sure his call light was within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needs a prompt response to all requests for assistance. An observation was conducted on 05/08/24 at 9:55 AM of Resident #7 lying in bed resting with eyes closed. His call bell was tied onto the bottom of the grab rail on the left side of bed out of the residents ' reach. Resident #7 declined to be interviewed. An interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 on 05/09/24 at 11:40 AM. She verified she was the direct care NA for Resident #7 ' s room. She indicated she checked call bell placement prior to leaving the rooms. NA #1 verified Resident #7 does utilize his call bell for assistance at times. She indicated she did not check his call bell placement upon leaving his room today. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 10:52 AM with Nurse #1. She verified that Resident #7 ' s call bell was tied on the bottom of the grab rail where the resident could not reach it. She indicated he gets up unassisted and ambulated but had used the call bell in the past. She stated Resident #7 does require assistance with his activities of daily living (ADLs). An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated the call bell device should always be within the resident ' s reach. 2. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included chronic osteomyelitis (inflammation of bone or bone marrow) of right thigh and difficulty walking. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #5 ' s cognition was intact. She had no behavior and no rejection of care. She required moderate assistance of 1 for toileting hygiene and minimal assistance with shower/baths. She was always continent of bowel and bladder. She had no functional limitation with range of motion of her extremities. Resident #5's active care plan, last revised on 04/23/24, indicated she had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to pain in her right hip. The interventions included for staff to encourage the resident to use bell to call for assistance. Another focus read Resident #5 had an actual fall and was at risk for additional falls related to generalized muscle weakness and poor safety awareness. The interventions included for staff to be sure her call light was within reach and encourage the resident to use it. An observation and interview were conducted on 05/08/24 at 10:15 AM. Resident #5 ' s call bell was located on the floor behind a box at the head of bed. Resident indicated she could not locate her call bell. She stated she did not know how the call bell got up against the wall under the box, it had been there a while. She also stated she would use her call bell if she needed to. An interview was conducted on 05/08/24 at 10:18 AM with NA #3. She verified she was the direct care NA for Resident #5 and that her call bell was on floor behind a box at head of bed. She stated Resident #5 does not use her call bell, but she does require assistance with her activities of daily living (ADLs). She stated she checks for call bell placement prior to leaving a room but she did not recall if she checked Resident #5 ' s call bell the last time she was in the room. An observation was conducted on 05/09/24 at 10:10 AM. Resident #5 ' s call bell was located on the floor behind a box at head of bed. Resident stated the call bell was under a box and she could not currently reach it. She stated she did not know how the call bell got under the box; it had been there a while. She indicated she did not use the call bell often, but she would if it was within reach, and she needed to do so. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 10:52 AM with Nurse #1. She verified that the Resident #5 ' s call bell was on floor behind a box at head of bed. She stated Resident #5 did not normally use her call bell, but she does require assistance with her activities of daily living (ADLs). An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated the call bell device should always be within the resident ' s reach.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility's administration failed to investigate and complete a root cause analy...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility's administration failed to investigate and complete a root cause analysis for a fall for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident #8). The deficient practice led to the inability to implement effective interventions to prevent a reoccurrence. The findings included: Resident # 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included disorder of the brain, repeated falls, and paranoid schizophrenia. Resident #8 ' s significant change Minimum Dat Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated her cognition was severely impaired. She had one fall with major injury since admission or reentry. She required moderate assistance for bed mobility and minimal assistance for transfers. Resident #8 ' s care plan, last revised 04/23/24, indicated she was at risk for falls related to confusion, deconditioning, impaired balance during transitions; poor safety awareness, and she does not call for assistance. The interventions included for staff to anticipate and meet the resident's needs, be sure call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needed a prompt response to all requests for assistance and to ensure that the resident is wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating. An incident report, dated 04/25/24, revealed a fall with no injury. Resident #8 was noted to be sitting upright in hall. Resident #8 stated she was trying to go backwards in her wheelchair and fell out of it. The report also revealed she was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation with predisposing factor being gait imbalance. The nursing notes reviewed from 04/25/24 through 05/08/24 there was no at risk meeting related to fall that occurred on 04/25/24. An interview was conducted on 05/08/24 at 1:32 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated falls are discussed every morning in the meeting and then documented in the nurses ' notes. She indicated she did not have an actual at risk meeting. She also indicated she was responsible for completing a root cause analysis for falls. She further stated if there were no notes documented in the nursing notes regarding a fall then there were not any. She was unable to provide documentation of root cause analysis for Resident #8 ' s fall on 04/25/24.
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide care in a manner to maintain...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide care in a manner to maintain the resident ' s dignity by not answering call bells for residents that need extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). This was evident for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #10, Resident #3, and Resident #4) reviewed for dignity. Findings include: 1. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus, and osteoarthritis of right knee. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 ' s cognition was intact. She required moderate assistance with toileting, shower/baths, and personal hygiene. She required maximum assistance with dressing and was dependent on staff for transfers. She was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. An interview on 05/08/24 at 10:21 AM with Resident #10 was conducted. She stated she had waited up to 2 hours for her call light to be answered, which resulted in her sitting in urine and bowel movement. She indicated she did not want to sit in a soiled brief. She did not recall the dates of the occurrences. She then stated she can time how long the call light had been on according to what she ' s watching on TV at the time. Resident Council minutes reviewed for 09/07/23, 10/03/23, 11/02/23, and 01/04/24 revealed concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) not providing activity of daily living (ADL) care. On 12/07/23, 02/08/24, 03/07/24, and 04/24/24 concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) call light response time were voiced. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:08 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated she did pull NA #1 to assist with transportation during the morning of 05/09/24 and she made the nurses and other NAs know she would be off the hall. She stated the other NAs on the hall would assist in covering the section until the NA returned. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was unaware of the wait times and staff not answering call bells. She also stated her expectations is for the call lights to be answered in a timely manner by all staff. 2. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Parkinson ' s Disease, diabetes mellitus, and Dementia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 cognition was moderately impaired. She required set-up/clean-up assistance with toileting, minimal assistance with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. She also required moderate assistance with shower/baths and dressing. She had limited range of motion (ROM) to one side of her upper extremities. A continuous observation and interview on 05/09/24 from 9:44 AM through 10:13 AM revealed call lights were activated. Nursing Assistant (NA) #2 was noted sitting at the nurses ' station in front of the computer. NA #2 was asked if she was aware the call lights were activated and she stated, They ' re not my residents and then stated, I thought that nursing assistant had returned to the hall. She indicated she normally answered any call lights that were activated, and she should not have assumed NA # 1 was going to do so. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 11:40 AM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1. She verified she was the direct care Nursing Assistant (NA) for Resident #3 ' s room. She stated she answered the call bells as timely as she could however this morning she had been pulled to assist with transportation and was not on the floor for a period of time. She stated the nurses and other NAs knew she would be off the hall for transportation. She stated she did not tell other staff she was leaving her assignment, but the ADON was on the floor, and she did. Resident Council minutes reviewed for 09/07/23, 10/03/23, 11/02/23, and 01/04/24 revealed concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) not providing activity of daily living (ADL) care. On 12/07/23, 02/08/24, 03/07/24, and 04/24/24 concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) call light response time were voiced. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:08 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated she did pull NA #1 to assist with transportation during the morning of 05/09/24 and she made the nurses and other NAs know she would be off the hall. She stated the other NAs on the hall would assist in covering the section until the NA returned. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was unaware of the wait times and staff not answering call bells. She also stated her expectations is for the call lights to be answered in a timely manner by all staff. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:55 PM with Resident #3. She revealed that when she activated her call light to request assistance on 05/09/24 at about 09:45 AM, it took staff 30 minutes to come to her room. She did not recall why she activated the call light at that time. She indicated she often had to wait up to an hour for help after she activated the call light. She also stated she got frustrated and helpless when staff do not respond timely. She further stated it doesn ' t feel good to be wet that long. She indicated when the State was in the building, the staff answered the call bell a lot faster than if they were not. 3. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), difficulty walking, history of falls, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 ' s cognition was intact. She required set-up/clean-up assistance with toileting, personal hygiene, and dressing. She required minimal assistance with showing/bathing and was occasionally incontinent of bladder. A continuous observation and interview on 05/09/24 from 9:44 AM through 10:13 AM revealed call lights for rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] were activated. Nursing Assistant (NA) #2 was noted sitting at the nurses ' station in front of the computer. NA #2 was asked if she was aware the call lights were activated and she stated, there not my residents and then also stated, I thought that NA had returned to the hall. She indicated she normally answered any call lights that were activated, and she should not have assumed NA # 1 was going to do so. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 11:40 AM with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1. She verified she was the direct care Nursing Assistant (NA) for rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. She stated she answered the call bells as timely as she could however this morning she had been pulled to assist with transportation and was not on the floor for a period of time. She stated the nurses and other NAs knew she would be off the hall for transportation. She stated she did not tell other staff she was leaving her assignment, but the ADON was on the floor, and she did. Resident Council minutes reviewed for 09/07/23, 10/03/23, 11/02/23, and 01/04/24 revealed concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) not providing activity of daily living (ADL) care. On 12/07/23, 02/08/24, 03/07/24, and 04/24/24 concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) call light response time were voiced. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:08 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated she did pull NA #1 to assist with transportation during the morning of 05/09/24 and she made the nurses and other NAs know she would be off the hall. She stated the other NAs on the hall would assist in covering the section until the NA returned. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was unaware of the wait times and staff not answering call bells. She also stated her expectations is for the call lights to be answered in a timely manner by all staff. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 1:45 PM with Resident #4. She revealed that when she activated her call light to request assistance on 05/09/24 at about 09:45 AM, it took staff 30 minutes to come to her room. She indicated she needed ice at that time, but it should not matter what the need was. She then stated it made her mad and upset when staff are heard talking about personal things, but they wouldn ' t answer the call light.
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 F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to communicate the facility's efforts to address group concerns verbalized during Resident Council meetings and to resolve r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to communicate the facility's efforts to address group concerns verbalized during Resident Council meetings and to resolve repeat concerns for 8 of 9 consecutive months (September 2023, October 2023, November 2023, December 2023, January 2024, February 2024, March 2024, and April 2024). Findings included: a. Resident Council minutes dated 09/07/23 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) not providing activity of daily living (ADL) care (not following the bath schedule) and food being cold when served. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. b. Resident Council minutes dated 10/03/23 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) not providing activity of daily living (ADL) care (NAs leaving residents soiled for extended period) and food being cold when served. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. c. Resident Council minutes dated 11/02/23 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) not providing activity of daily living (ADL) care and food not being on time. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. d. Resident Council minutes dated 12/07/23 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) call light response time and food being cold when served. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. e. Resident Council minutes dated 01/04/24 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) not providing activity of daily living (ADL) care (not following the bath schedule) and food being cold when served. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. d. Resident Council minutes dated 02/08/24 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) call light response time slow and food not coming out on time. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. e. Resident Council minutes dated 03/07/24 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) call light response time slow and food being cold when served. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. f. Resident Council minutes dated 04/24/24 indicated residents had voiced concerns related to Nursing Assistants (NAs) call light response time slow. There was no evidence of the facility ' s response to the concerns voiced during the previous meeting had been reviewed or discussed. The facility ' s concern log revealed no documented concerns from the Resident Council from September 2023 through April 2024. An interview was conducted on 05/08/24 at 12:45 PM with the Administrator. He indicated the concerns that were reported in resident council meetings would be written up by the Activity Director and given to the department head responsible so an investigation could be conducted. He was unaware the resident concerns were not addressed from September 2023 through April 2024. An interview was conducted on 05/09/24 at 12:45 PM with Resident # 11, Resident Council President, and Resident #12, Resident Council Co-President, was conducted. Resident # 11 stated they did not receive feedback from staff when group concerns were voiced. Resident # 11 further voiced they have complained multiple times regarding receiving activity of daily living (ADL) care and call bell response time being slow, however, nothing gets resolved. He then stated the Nursing Assistants (NAs) stand around at the nurses ' station and gossip and talk about personal things until 7:45-8:00 AM when they should be starting work at 7:00 AM. He indicated he did not know if the old Activity Director was giving the concerns to the Director of Nursing (DON) or the Administrator. Resident # 12 agreed with Resident # 11 ' s comments. Multiple phone calls to contact the Previous Activities Director were unsuccessful. The Previous Activities Director was employed from 08/02/23 through 04/09/24.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the recertification and complaint investigation surveys completed on 09/01/22 and 07/20/23. This was for 2 deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Resident Rights/Exercise of Rights and Reasonable Accommodation of Needs/Preferences. Resident Rights/Exercise of Rights was cited on the recertification and complaint survey on 09/01/22 and recited on the current complaint survey of 05/09/24. Reasonable Accommodation of Needs/Preferences was cited on 07/20/23 and recited on the current complaint survey of 05/09/24. The continued failure of the facility during three federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program (QA). The findings included: This citation is cross referred to: 1. F550-Based on record review, observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide care in a manner to maintain the resident's dignity by not answering call bells for residents that need extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). This was evident for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #10, Resident #3, and Resident #4) reviewed for dignity. During the facility's recertification and complaint survey of 9/1/22, the facility failed to promote dignity by not providing privacy cover over a urinary catheter drainage bag for one resident. This occurred for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for dignity. 2. F558-Based on observation, record review, resident interviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to place a resident's call light (Resident #5 and #7) within reach to allow for the residents to request staff assistance this was for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. During the facility's recertification and complaint survey of 07/20/23, the facility failed to provide a dependent resident with a wheelchair to accommodate her size and inability to sit up. The resident was unable to get out of bed unless the staff borrowed a wheelchair from another resident with the same accommodation needs for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. A phone interview was conducted on 05/21/24 at 3:23 PM with the Administrator. He stated the citations repeated, but the same issues did not repeat. He indicated he felt the current interventions in place are effective for the issues being cited in previous surveys.
Jul 2023 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews of staff and a resident, the facility failed to provide a dependent resident a wheelchair to accommodate her size and inability to sit up. The resident was unable to get out of bed unless the staff would borrow a wheelchair from another resident with the same accommodation needs (Resident #93) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. Findings included: Resident #93 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of progressive neurological disease. Resident #93's discharge with return anticipated Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented she had an intact cognition. The resident required total dependence for bathing, transfer, and mobility. Her diagnosis was progressive neurological disease. Resident #93's care plan dated 7/20/21 had a focus for identified activity of daily living self-care deficit. The intervention was to discuss with the resident or family any loss of independence. On 7/17/23 at 10:10 am Resident #93 was observed to be sitting in her bed. There were no wheelchairs in the room that would accommodate her size and need for support while sitting. The resident was concurrently interviewed. The resident stated that she had been without a wheelchair for over a month and was not able to get out of bed unless another resident's wheelchair that fit her and could support her was borrowed since about 4/23/23. A new wheelchair was delivered yesterday but had no pressure reduction cushion so the wheelchair could not be used until the cushion was obtained. The resident stated she was informed by Physical Therapy there were not enough large wheelchairs for all the residents in the building. Resident #93 stated she had not gotten out of bed for over a week, and wanted to visit her family. On 7/1723 at 12:15 pm an interview was conducted with the Therapy Manager. She stated that there were not enough bariatric and supportive wheelchairs (when a resident cannot sit up on their own) for all residents who required the support. She ordered wheelchairs when the corporate office provided the funding and approval. Resident #93's wheelchair funding was approved about 2 weeks ago and a wheelchair was ordered. She stated that Resident #93 had been without a wheelchair that fit her for about a month. When a resident was discharged , their wheelchair would be reassigned to another resident. A bariatric wheelchair was ordered about 2 weeks ago and had arrived yesterday. The pressure reduction cushion had not arrived, and the wheelchair cannot be used until the cushion was available. The resident had a sacral pressure ulcer. She stated the residents' shared wheelchairs so they can get out of bed and sometimes there were not enough to go around, and residents would remain in bed. On 7/20/23 at 11:30 am an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated he was not aware Resident #93 required a specialty wheelchair and that one was not available. He stated that there was funding for wheelchairs, and one should have been ordered when first identified. The Administrator further stated he was not aware there were not enough bariatric wheelchairs that provide sitting support for each resident that required one.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to provide a CMS-10055 (Centers for Medicare and Medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to provide a CMS-10055 (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) prior to discharge from Medicare part A services to 2 of 3 residents (Resident #36 and Resident # 29) reviewed for SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review. Findings included: a. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medicare part A services began on the date of admission. The medical record revealed a CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter (NOMNC) was signed by Resident #36 on 4/4/23. The notice indicated that Medicare coverage for skilled services was to end 4/4/23. Resident #36 remained in the facility when Medicare coverage ended and had not exhausted the Medicare benefit. The medical record further revealed a CMS-10055 SNF ABN was not provided to the resident or resident representative on 4/4/23. b. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medicare part A services began on the date of admission. The medical record revealed a CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage letter (NOMNC) was signed by Resident #29 on 3/20/23. The notice indicated that Medicare coverage for skilled services was to end on 3/20/23. Resident #29 remained in the facility when Medicare coverage ended and had not exhausted the Medicare benefit. The medical record further revealed that a CMS-10055 SNF ABN was not provided to the resident or resident representative on 3/20/23. An interview was conducted with the Social Worker on 7/20/23 at 11:24 AM. She shared staff (Social Work, Business Office Manager, Therapy Director, and Minimum Data Set Nurse) met weekly and discussed each resident who received services under Medicare part A. She explained the team discussed the anticipated last covered day of Medicare services and she completed the NOMNC form but was not aware that she was responsible for issuing the SNF ABN form and had not issued this form since she began her position at the facility in April of 2023. During a telephone interview with the former Social Worker on 7/20/23 at 11:26 AM and she revealed that she was not employed at the facility after November of 2022. An interview was conducted with the [NAME] Office Manager on 7/20/23 at 11:28 AM and she revealed that she was responsible for submitting the NOMNC forms when there was not a social worker employed but was not aware of the SNF ABN form. The Administrator was interviewed on 7/20/23 at 11:33 AM and he revealed that it was the social worker's responsibility to issue the NOMNC and SNF ABN forms as applicable and was not aware that the SNF ABN forms were not provided to the resident and/or resident representatives.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to repair the walls in the resident's room after u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to repair the walls in the resident's room after under-sink cabinets were removed leaving holes in the wall and no floor tile in two residents rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) and failed to maintain the wall behind a bed in good repair (room [ROOM NUMBER]). The deficient practice was observed on 1 of 2 halls (200 hall). Findings included: a. On 7/17/23 at 11:50 am an observation and interview of was done of Resident #93 in room [ROOM NUMBER] while sitting up in her bed. The wall under the sink was damaged/missing the plaster and paint and floor tile was missing. There were two 2 inch holes in the wall next to the bed. Resident #93 stated the under-sink cabinet was removed for resident handicapped access months ago and the wall and floor were not repaired. She stated this was disappointing to the resident they have left the hole in the wall for months and there was no storage. The hole next to the bed was fixed. The resident stated she would like the wall and floor to be fixed because it was her home. An interview was conducted on 7/18/23 at 11:45 am with the Maintenance Director. He stated the facility was required to provide a handicapped sink, so the under-sink cabinet was removed in all resident's rooms. He stated the facility was not spending the money for cement plaster to fix the walls. Due to the age and neglect of the plaster, it needed to be completely replaced. The plaster breaks easily when bumped with furniture or wheelchairs. There was constantly damage to the walls and all the walls below the sink where the cabinets were removed had not been repaired. b. During the tour of the residents' rooms on the 200 hall on 7/17/23 at 11:51 a.m., there were missing sections of floor tile and the baseboard observed beneath the handwashing sink in room [ROOM NUMBER]. A second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 7/20/23 at 9:50 a.m. revealed the floor and baseboard beneath the sink continued to be in disrepair. An interview with the Maintenance Director on 7/20/23 at 9:51 a.m., revealed floor tile was ordered to repair the area beneath the sink in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 4/17/23, but at the time of this interview had not been received. c. On 7/17/23 at 12:49 p.m., the wall behind the headboard of bed A in room [ROOM NUMBER] had multiple large, scratched marks with torn plaster. During a second observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 7/20/23 at 9:42 a.m. accompanied by the Maintenance Director, the wall behind the headboard of bed A continued to be badly damaged. On 7/20/23 at 9:43 a.m., the Maintenance Director stated that he was unaware of the damaged wall in room [ROOM NUMBER]. He indicated he had not received a work order from the staff concerning the wall in room [ROOM NUMBER]. He revealed he placed instructions on how to place work order requests for maintenance in the computer for staff and provided instructions to new hires. The Maintenance Director stated he frequently repaired the walls in residents' rooms when observed during his room audits due to nursing assistants pushing the beds against the walls and raising or lowering the heads of the beds. He indicated the heads of the beds should be at least six inches from the walls. The Maintenance Director revealed he had reported this issue to the Administrator. On 7/20/23 at 11:30 am an interview was conducted with the Administrator. He stated that all the under-sink cabinets were removed from the resident's room to provide handicapped access. Because the sinks started to fall down after cabinet removal, the sinks were repaired first, and the walls were not fixed, and tile floor was not replaced. He stated that the wall damage and missing plaster dated back to the previous recertification survey. During COVID, rooms were empty, and walls were repaired while empty. The Administrator provided a purchase order form dated 7/19/23 for 24 square feet of tile that had not been approved by corporate which would cover approximately 3 bathroom floors.
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 staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days after the facility determined a significant change occurred for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for significant change MDS assessments. Findings included: Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included, in part, benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary tract symptoms. The significant change MDS assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 4/28/23 was reviewed and revealed the assessment was signed as completed on 5/16/23, 18 days after the determination that a significant change had occurred. Attempts to interview the former MDS Nurse by telephone were unsuccessful. During an interview with the Administrator on 7/19/23 at 3:32 PM, he acknowledged over the past several months MDS assessments had been late. He said the facility had tried some different options to help get caught up on the MDS assessments, which included the hiring of a part time/as needed MDS Nurse who assisted the full time MDS Nurse. The Administrator added the facility recently made a personnel change in the MDS department and there was a new MDS Nurse who had gotten MDS assessments caught up and current.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan that addressed the use of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan that addressed the use of a urinary catheter for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for urinary catheters. Findings included: Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included, in part, benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary tract symptoms. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 was cognitively intact and had an indwelling urinary catheter. A Care Area Assessment (CAA) was completed by the former MDS Nurse on 5/17/23 for indwelling urinary catheter. The CAA indicated a care plan would be developed with approaches to avoid complications from urinary tract infections, minimize the risk for developing pressure injuries and ensuring the resident's needs were met. The comprehensive care plan, updated 5/25/23, was reviewed and did not include a care plan that addressed the use of a urinary catheter. Attempts to interview the former MDS Nurse by telephone were unsuccessful. On 7/19/23 at 3:47 PM, an interview was conducted with MDS Nurse #1. She was new to the facility (since 6/1/23) and said Resident #59's care plan should have included a focus area for urinary catheter. She explained the care plan should have included information about monitoring for signs/symptoms of infection, observing for kinks in the tubing and instructions for emptying the collection bag. During an interview with the Administrator on 7/19/23 at 3:32 PM, he shared the facility had recently made a personnel change in the MDS department. He added a care plan should have been developed to address the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for Resident #59.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to keep a urinary catheter b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to keep a urinary catheter bag from touching the floor to reduce the risk of infection or injury for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. Findings included: Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included, in part, benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary tract symptoms. The significant change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 was cognitively intact and had an indwelling urinary catheter. The comprehensive care plan, updated 5/25/23, was reviewed and did not include a care plan that addressed the use of a urinary catheter. On 7/17/23 at 11:51 AM and 7/19/23 at 12:57 PM, observations were made of Resident #59. He was in bed and the bed was in the lowest position. The catheter collection bag was hung on the lowest bar of the bed and half of the bag touched the floor. An interview was conducted with Resident #59 on 7/19/23 at 2:34 PM. He shared staff members came in throughout the day and emptied the catheter collection bag. During the interview, Resident #59's bed was in the lowest position and the collection bag touched the floor. Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 was interviewed on 7/19/23 at 2:40 PM. He stated he typically worked second shift (3:00 PM-11:00 PM). He explained he emptied the catheter collection bag when he worked with Resident #59 and said the collection bag should hang below the level of the bladder and should not have touched the floor. An observation of Resident #59's catheter collection bag and interviews with NA #2 and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) were completed on 7/19/23 at 2:43 PM. The resident was in bed. The bed was in the lowest position and the collection bag touched the floor. During an interview with NA #2, she verified she worked with Resident #59 on 7/17/23 and 7/19/23 during the first shift (7:00 AM-3:00 PM). She explained she typically emptied the collection bag in the morning and again at the end of her shift (around 2:45 PM). She stated the collection bag should be hung below the level of the resident's bladder and not come in contact with the floor. She added Resident #59's bed was in the lowest position and she hung the collection bag on the lowest bar of the bed which caused the bag to touch the floor. The ADON said if the collection bag was placed on the upper bar of the bed, it was still below the level of the resident's bladder and even when the bed was in the lowest position, the bag wouldn't come in contact with the floor.
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 F0808 (Tag F0808)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews, and staff interviews the facility failed have a physician order for a therapeutic diet per...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews, and staff interviews the facility failed have a physician order for a therapeutic diet per the Speech Therapist's evaluation for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #71) reviewed for nutrition. Findings included: Resident #71 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: ESRD (end-stage renal disease), diabetes mellitus, and dysphagia. The most recent Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated Resident #71 was cognitively intact, was independent with eating, required a mechanically altered diet, received dialysis services and speech therapy. The care plan dated 1/14/23 revealed Resident #71 had a potential nutritional problem related to ESRD and pureed renal diet with nectar thickened liquids. Interventions included: RD (Registered Dietitian) to evaluate and make diet change recommendations, when needed; provide and serve diet as ordered, Monitor intake and record every meal. The physician's order dated 6/29/23 indicated Resident #71 was to receive a diet of pureed texture (double portions) and nectar thickened fluids, related to ESRD, dependence on renal dialysis, and dysphagia. The resident was ordered a 1000 milliliter fluid restriction. The resident was cleared by speech therapy for soft sandwiches. The diet order also included the resident was not to receive salt packets, soups, fried foods, bananas, tomatoes, potatoes, oranges, juice, and citrus. During a dining observation on 7/17/23 at 1:30 p.m., Resident #71 received a meal of mechanical soft consistency which included ground pot roast, egg noodles, peas, dinner roll, and a brownie. The meal card located on the resident's meal tray from the dietary department indicated the resident was to receive a meal of mechanical soft consistency with double portion entrée. An interview was conducted on 7/18/23 at 2:55 p.m. with the facility's Registered Dietician (RD). The RD revealed that after observing this Surveyor sitting with Resident #71 during the lunch meal service on 7/16/23 and noticed the resident was consuming a meal of mechanical soft texture. The RD stated that she reviewed the physician's orders which did not indicate the resident's diet was changed from pureed texture to mechanical soft texture. She revealed that earlier this day she was informed by the Speech Therapist (ST) that she upgraded the resident's diet from pureed to mechanical soft on 7/12/23 and provided a diet slip to the dietary department before the physician's order was completed. The RD revealed she in-serviced the ST on 7/18/23 concerning not providing a diet change slip to dietary until a signed physician's order of change was received and in place. During an interview on 7/19/23 at 10:35 a.m., the ST indicated Resident #71 received speech therapy services due to staff's concerns with meal consistency as evidenced by the resident's coughing while eating. On 5/24/23 the ST began working with the resident for safe trials while eating. The ST acknowledged she submitted a diet communication form to dietary to upgrade Resident #71's pureed soft diet to mechanical soft with ground meats on 7/12/23. She concluded she thought she had also placed the order in the electronic record prior to submitting the change to dietary.
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interview the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor the interventions that the committee put into place following the recertification surveys completed on 9/1/22 and 4/22/21. This was for 4 deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Safe/Clean/Comfortable/Homelike Environment (F584), Comprehensive Assessment After Significant Change (F637) which were cited on 9/1/22 and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey 7/20/23. Develop/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan (F656) which was cited on 9/1/22, 4/22/21 and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey 7/20/23. Bowel/Bladder Incontinence, Catheter, UTI (F690) cited on 4/22/21 and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey 7/20/23. The continued failure of the facility during three federal surveys showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assessment and Assurance Program (QA). The findings included: This citation is cross referred to: F584: Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to repair the walls in the resident's room after under-sink cabinets were removed leaving holes in the wall and no floor tile in two residents rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) and failed to maintain the wall behind a bed in good repair (room [ROOM NUMBER]). The deficient practice was observed on 1 of 2 halls (200 hall). During the recertification survey on 9/1/22, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment by not ensuring room [ROOM NUMBER] had a working toilet for at least 3 days during the survey, not ensuring a clean resident room (room [ROOM NUMBER]A) and failed to label and cover urinals for 3 residents use in a shared bathroom (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) for 3 of 47 rooms on 2 of 2 halls reviewed for a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. F637: Based on staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days after the facility determined a significant change occurred for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for significant change MDS assessments. During the recertification survey on 9/1/22, the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for rehabilitation services. F656: Based on observation, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan that addressed the use of a urinary catheter for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for urinary catheters. During the recertification survey on 9/1/22, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for nutrition and 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for discharge planning. During the recertification survey on 4/22/21, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for one of two residents reviewed for care plans. F690: Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to keep a urinary catheter bag from touching the floor to reduce the risk of infection or injury for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. During the recertification survey on 4/22/21, the facility failed to obtain orders regarding indwelling catheter care in 2 of 3 residents reviewed, orders to change the catheter in 2 of 3 residents reviewed and failed to secure the urinary catheter drainage tubing for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter. The Administrator was interviewed on 7/20/23 at 2:40 pm. He stated that the QA members were made up of Administrator, the Director of Nursing, Dietary Manager, Business office manager, Maintenance Director, Social Worker, Activities Director, and Housekeeping Director. The Nurse Supervisor and the Medical Director were always invited to attend. He also stated that the QA committee usually meets quarterly but they have met monthly this year due to new staff. He also added that the facility has to utilized a lot agency staff since Covid began and he was happy to say that they have recently been able to eliminate all agency staff. He stated the facility has a whole will meet to discuss these issues and investigate new ways to achieve compliance.
Sept 2022 21 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote dignity by not providing a privacy cover over an urin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote dignity by not providing a privacy cover over an urinary catheter drainage bag for one resident (Resident #52). This occurred for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for dignity. Findings included: Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of uropathy requiring a suprapubic catheter. Review of Resident #52's quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] showed that she was alert and oriented. It also stated resident had a suprapubic catheter. On 8/29/2022 at 11:10 AM, Resident #52 was observed from the hallway lying in her bed. An urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway and noted to be hanging from the side of the bed and filled with urine. Several staff members and a visitor were observed walking past the open door. During an interview with Resident #52 on 8/29/2022 at 11:15 AM, stated that she would prefer the whole building not walk by and see her urine in a bag hanging on the bed. On 8/29/2022 at 12:30 PM, Resident #52 was observed form the hallway lying in her bed. The catheter drainage bag contained yellow urine and remained uncovered. On 8/30/2022 at 10:50 AM, Resident #52 was observed form the hallway lying in her bed. The catheter drainage bag contained yellow urine and remained uncovered. During an interview with Nurse #4 on 8/31/2022 at 2:10 PM, she stated that they always put a privacy cover over the bags upon admission. She stated that Resident #52 had just returned to the facility and that is probably just got forgotten. She added that she noticed it and put a privacy cover over the bag before she left the facility that afternoon. During an interview with Director of Nursing on 8/31/2022 at 10:26 AM, she stated that nursing staff should be aware that catheter bags should not be visible from the hallway. She added that a bag cover should always be used to maintain resident's privacy and dignity.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed obtain a physician ' s order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed obtain a physician ' s order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #234). The findings included: Resident #234 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and expired in the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #234 ' s medical record revealed no physician's order to identify the residents code status as DNR. Further review of the medical record revealed a Stop sign document that indicated Resident #234 was a DNR. The document had an effective date of [DATE] (Resident #234 ' s admission date) but was not scanned into the electronic health record until [DATE], after Resident #234 was discharged from the facility. On [DATE] at 1:12 PM, an interview was conducted with Nurse #1 who stated the admitting nurse was supposed to review code status, allergies, medications and diet on admission. Nurse #1 stated most residents came in with the Stop sign documented but if they did not the physician will fill one out on the next visit. On [DATE] at 2:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated the admitting nurse was responsible for entering the residents code status and calling the physician for orders. She stated she went over it with the nurses frequently and expected the code status to be identified on admission and a physician's order obtained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Observations were made on 08/29/2022 at 8:39 AM, 08/30/2022 at 10:02 AM and on 08/31/2022 at 2:59 PM of the shared bathroom l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Observations were made on 08/29/2022 at 8:39 AM, 08/30/2022 at 10:02 AM and on 08/31/2022 at 2:59 PM of the shared bathroom located between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] revealed three unlabeled urinals were observed in the bathroom stored on the back of the toilet. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #4 was conducted on 08/29/2022 at 10:40 AM. The NA stated three of the four residents who shared the bathroom were able to utilize the bathroom on their own. She said the three residents emptied their urinals in the bathroom independently. The NA was unable to say which residents had left their urinals in the bathroom. She further stated urinals should be stored in labeled bags in the bathroom or at resident's bedside. An interview with Nurse #2 was conducted on 08/31/2022 at 12:57 PM. Nurse #2 stated she regularly cared for the residents on the hall 100 and urinals should be labeled and covered. During an interview on 09/01/2022 at 3:00 PM the Administrator and the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated it was their expectation of staff to label and cover urinals. Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment by not ensuring room [ROOM NUMBER] had a working toilet for at least 3 days during the survey, not ensuring a clean resident room (room [ROOM NUMBER]A) and failed to label and cover urinals for 3 residents use in a shared bathroom (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) for 3 of 47 rooms on 2 of 2 halls reviewed for a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. 1. Resident #58 was admitted on [DATE]. Her recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed she was moderately cognitively impaired, required supervision with prompting for activities of daily living, and was continent of bowel and bladder. On 8/29/2022 at 10:30 AM, an observation was made a shared bathroom between two rooms with a printer-generated paper sign that read no water do not use on the bathroom door of room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 8/29/2022 at 10:35 AM, Resident #58 stated a staff member put up the sign the previous day. She stated she didn't know what was wrong but the toilet wasn't flushing right. She stated that a staff member told her someone would look at it soon. She was not redirected to another toilet to use in the meantime. On 8/30/2022 at 9:15 AM, Resident #58's bathroom door still had the sign on the door. On 8/30/2022 at 9:20 AM, Resident #58 stated she was still using the toilet and flushing it, but it wasn't going down like it was supposed to do and stated that the toilet was starting to smell. On 8/31/2022 at 10:35 AM, the shared toilet still had the sign on the door and Resident #58 stated she was starting to use the toilet next door because no one used that one. During an interview with maintenance on 8/31/2022 at 10:45 AM, he stated he was unaware of any broken toilets. He stated the staff will put in maintenance requests online and he can access it right from his phone. He stated if there had been a request, he would have fixed it right away. He stated that there was a leak so someone had turned off the water almost completely. He stated he fixed it and it was in working now. During an interview with the unit manager on 8/31/2022 at 11:15 AM, she stated she was unaware that there was a broken toilet. She stated any staff member should be able to put in a maintenance request. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/1/2022, she stated that any staff member should be able to enter a request for maintenance to check and repair anything in the facility. She added that housekeeping can let any staff member know and they should be able to enter that request for them. 2. On 8/29/22 at 11:07 AM, an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]A revealed several dried liquid spots on the wall behind the bed and on the wall next to the sink. The area behind the trash can in the room was heavily soiled with a dried brown liquid substance that had run down the wall. The floor had crumbs and dust along the wall behind the bed and there was an area that was heavily soiled with a dried dark substance and dried tan colored substance on the floor under the head of the bed. On 8/30/22 at 10:45 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER]A continue to have several dried liquid spots on the wall behind the bed and on the wall next to the sink. The area behind the trash can in the room was still heavily soiled with a dried brown liquid substance that had run down the wall. The floor still had crumbs and dust along the wall behind the bed and there was still an area that was heavily soiled with a dried dark substance and dried tan colored tube feeding built up on the floor under the head of the bed. On 9/1/22 at 2:15 PM, an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]A revealed several dried liquid spots remained on the wall behind the bed and on the wall next to the sink. The area behind the trash can in the room was still heavily soiled with a dried brown liquid substance that had run down the wall. The floor still had crumbs and dust along the wall behind the bed and there was still an area that was heavily soiled with a dried dark substance and dried tan colored tube feeding built up on the floor under the head of the bed. On 9/1/22 at 2:15 PM, an interview was conducted in room [ROOM NUMBER] with Housekeeper #1. Housekeeper #1 stated he usually cleaned the walls in the rooms on the evening round after lunch. He stated he had not cleaned room [ROOM NUMBER] yet. When Housekeeper #1 was informed the areas of concern were present since 8/29/22, he stated he must not have seen it. He stated he was responsible for cleaning all of the rooms on the 100 hall and it was a lot to get to in an 8 hour day. On 9/1/22 at 2:30 PM, the Housekeeping Director was interviewed in room [ROOM NUMBER]A with Housekeeper #1 present. She observed the areas and stated resident rooms were cleaned daily to include the walls and floors. She added Housekeeper #1 should have noticed the areas on the walls and floor and taken care of them.
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 reviews and staff interview the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for 1 of 1 sampled r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interview the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #77) reviewed for rehabilitation services. Findings included: Resident #77 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included pathological hip fracture, fall, and adult failure to thrive. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #77 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers occurred 1-2 times, and had no falls since admission. Review of the clinical records revealed Resident #77 had an unwitnessed fall in his room on 5/12/22. The on-call physician was notified, and Resident #77 was sent to the hospital for evaluation. The hospital's Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #77 was diagnosed with left hip with nondisplaced closed fractures due to fall. The resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical records indicated on his return from the hospital, Resident #77 continued to receive physical therapy from 5/18/22 through 6/22/22 to address functional decline and attention to midline, fall risk prevention, provide patient, family and caregiver education and mitigate barrier to a safe transition. A quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #77 was moderately, cognitively impaired, required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers, and 1-fall with no injury. During an interview on 9/01/22 at 9:07 a.m., the MDS Coordinator acknowledged when Resident #77 returned from the hospital after the fall resulting in a fracture, a significant change MDS should have been completed on 5/27/22, not a quarterly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, chronic obstructive pulmonary disea...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes. The quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 5/31/22 was reviewed and revealed the assessment was signed as completed on 7/1/22. The previous MDS ARD was 2/28/22. An interview was completed with the MDS Nurse and Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator on 8/31/22 at 2:58 PM. The MDS Nurse verified she completed the quarterly assessment for Resident #6 and stated the assessment should have been signed as completed on 6/13/22. She explained she was the only MDS Nurse in the building and had gotten behind when she helped with other responsibilities in the facility due to COVID outbreaks with residents and staff. The Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator shared MDS assessments fell behind for about a month and the regional team assisted with completing past due assessments and care plans. During an interview with the Administrator on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM, he explained the facility had only one MDS nurse to complete all MDS assessments, and she was unable to keep up with the volume of assessments. The Administrator reported a new MDS nurse had been hired to assist with the assessments and that nurse would start the following week. Based on staff interviews and medical record reviews, the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 92 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the previous MDS assessment for 3 of 27 residents (Residents 24, #432, and #6) reviewed for timely completion of quarterly MDS assessments. Findings included: 1.Resident # 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #24 most recent quarterly MDS assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/13/22 was marked as completed late on 05/05/22 which was more than 14 days after the ARD date. The previous ARD date was 01/11/22. On 09/01/22 at 12:20 PM the MDS nurse was interviewed, and she explained she had been out of work for a period of time and as the only MDS nurse she got behind and was not able to complete MDS assessments as required. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) conducted on 09/01/22 at 1:44PM revealed that he hired a new MDS nurse to work as needed and the new MDS nurse was to begin orientation during the next week. 2. Resident # 432 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #432's most recent quarterly MDS assessment had an ARD date of 03/24/22 was marked as completed late on 05/01/22 which was more than 14 days after the ARD date. The previous ARD date was 12/01/21. On 09/01/22 at 12:20 PM the MDS nurse was interviewed, and she explained she had been out of work for a period of time and as the only MDS nurse she got behind and was not able to complete MDSs as required. An interview with the NHA conducted on 09/01/22 at 1:44PM revealed that he hired a new MDS nurse to work as needed and the new MDS nurse was to begin orientation during the next week.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include end stage renal disease. The admission Minimum ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include end stage renal disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #43 to be cognitively intact. The MDS was coded to indicate Resident #43 had no discharge plans and was going to be staying in the facility for long-term care. The care plans dated 7/15/2022 for Resident #43 revealed no care plan was in place that addressed his long-term care status. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 10:16 AM. The SW reported that Resident #43 had told her on admission he wanted to go home, but once he had been at the facility it was determined that would not be safe. The SW reported that Resident #43 was not able to discharge home and he would be staying at the facility for long-term care. The SW reported the MDS coding would trigger a care plan related to long-term care and she was not aware the MDS did not trigger the care plan. The SW further reported she was not aware a care plan that addressed long-term care needed to be included in the comprehensive care plan. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported he was not aware the SW had not developed a long-term care plan for Resident #43 and he expected all residents to have a care plan that addressed their discharge plan or their need for continued long-term care. Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #77) and 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #43) reviewed for discharge planning. Findings included: 1. Resident #77 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included severe protein-calorie malnutrition, dysphagia, abnormal weight loss, and adult failure to thrive. The physician's order dated 7/25/22 revealed the resident was to receive an 8-ounce house supplement (Ensure Plus as available) with meals for protein-calorie malnutrition. A physician's order dated 7/25/22 indicated Resident #77 was to receive a frozen nutritional treat three times each day related to his diagnoses of severe protein-calorie malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, and abnormal weight loss. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #77 was moderately, cognitively impaired, required supervision with eating, weighed 84 pounds, had no significant weight loss or gain, and received a therapeutic/mechanically altered diet. There was no nutrition care plan with interventions for Resident #77's diagnoses of severe protein-calorie malnutrition and abnormal weight loss. The most recent weight documented in the clinical records on 8/24/22 indicated Resident #77 weighed 87 pounds. On 8/29/22 at 1:16 p.m., Resident #77 was observed in his room, feeding himself lunch of mechanical soft texture. The resident was drinking a four-ounce strawberry shake. The resident's meal ticket indicated the resident was to receive a magic cup (frozen nutritional treat) with his meal. There was no magic cup on his meal tray. The resident stated he always received a strawberry shake (which he enjoyed) with every lunch and supper. The resident consumed one hundred percent of the 4-ounce strawberry shake but consumed less than twenty-five percent of his meal of mechanical soft texture. During a telephone interview on 8/31/22 at 9:45 a.m., the Registered Dietitian (RD) stated Resident #77 had been losing weight since admission and his weight was currently stable, but still low. She stated the current interventions to prevent further weight loss for the resident included fortified foods, magic cup (for protein and calories) with his breakfast, lunch, and supper, house supplement (2-strawberry shakes (8-ounces of Ensure or Ensure Plus) with meals and in-between meals, 2.5mg (milligrams) dronabinol medication (used as an appetite stimulant) twice each day, 2(4-ounce) strawberry shakes and a magic cup with each meal, and weekly weights. When questioned about the resident receiving the 4-ounce shake instead of the 4-ounce magic cup as ordered, the RD stated not receiving the supplements and/or receiving the supplements in the amounts as ordered may contribute to the resident's lack of weight gain. Resident #77 was observed in his room with his lunch meal tray on 8/31/22 at 1:15 p.m. The food items on the meal tray included 1-(4 ounce) strawberry shake. There was no magic cup (frozen nutritional treat) on the resident's meal tray. During an interview on 8/31/22 at 1:25 p.m., NA#6 (nursing assistant) stated Resident #77 was able to feed himself. She revealed Resident #77 received a 4-ounce strawberry shake with all his meals but did not receive a receive a magic cup. During an interview on 8/31/22 at 10:45 a.m., the MDS Coordinator stated Nutrition was not independently/specifically addressed in Resident #77's Care Plan but should have been and would be immediately addressed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interview, the facility failed to review and update the comprehensive care plan for falls for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interview, the facility failed to review and update the comprehensive care plan for falls for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #77) reviewed for rehabilitation services. Findings included: Resident #77 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included pathological hip fracture, fall, and adult failure to thrive. The care plan dated 3/30/22 revealed Resident #77 was at risk for falls related to deconditioning, gait/balance problems, and a hip fracture with repair from a fall prior to admission to facility. Interventions included ensure resident's call light was within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed and the resident needed prompt response to all requests for assistance. Review of the clinical records revealed Resident #77 had an unwitnessed fall in his room on 5/12/22. The on-call physician was notified, and Resident #77 was sent to the hospital for evaluation. The hospital's Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #77 was diagnosed with a left hip nondisplaced closed fractures due to fall. The resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #77 was moderately, cognitively impaired, required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers, and 1-fall with no injury. During an interview on 9/1/22 at 9:07 a.m., the MDS Coordinator was unable to recall why she did not update Resident #77's care plan after his fall on 5/12/22. She stated the resident's care plan interventions should have been updated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete a skin assessment for 1 of 4 residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete a skin assessment for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #47). The findings included: Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include diabetes mellitus type 2. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 required extensive to total assistance with activities of daily living and was at risk for pressure ulcers. Resident #47 had a diabetic foot ulcer and a pressure ulcer to his sacrum. A record review revealed no orders for treatments to bilateral lower extremities. On 8/29/22 at 11:15 AM, Resident #47 was observed in his bed. His lower legs were exposed and revealed open areas and scabbed areas to his right and left lower legs. Resident #47 also had dry, scaly areas to both feet. A record review revealed a skin assessment dated [DATE] by the Treatment Nurse revealed Resident #47 had intact skin. On 8/31/22 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with the Treatment Nurse in Resident #47 ' s room. She stated Resident #47 no longer had any wounds. She stated she could not recall if she did the skin assessment on 8/29/22 for Resident #47. She stated she didn ' t think she did. When Resident #47 ' s lower extremities and feet were observed by the Treatment Nurse, she stated those were things that needed to be on the skin assessment so they could be monitored. A follow up interview was conducted with the Treatment Nurse on 9/1/22 at 2:15 PM. She stated she did complete the skin assessment for Resident #47 on 8/29/22 but she must have mis-clicked when she completed his skin assessment On 9/1/22 at 2:15 PM, the Director of Nursing was interviewed and stated skin assessments should be completed accurately.
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 observations, record reviews and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a shave and nail care fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a shave and nail care for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) (Residents #47 and #77). The findings included: 1. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include failure to thrive, right and left arm dysarthria following cerebral infarction. A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 was rarely understood, and a Brief Interview for Mental Status revealed severe cognitive impairment. Resident #47 required extensive to total assistance for his ADLs. On 8/29/22 at 11:09 AM, Resident #47 was observed lying in his bed with approximately an inch of facial hair growth. Resident #47 was asked if he liked his facial hair, and he began rubbing his face and stated no. Resident #47 was asked if he wanted to be shaved and he stated yes. On 8/30/22 at 10:45 AM, Resident #47 was observed in bed and still was not shaved. On 8/31/22 at 11:06 AM, Resident #47 was observed in bed and still was not shaved. On 8/31/22 at 11:10 AM, NA #6 was interviewed in Resident #47 ' s room. She stated she worked with Resident #47 the day before and was also assigned to him today. She stated Resident #47 refused to be shaved yesterday. Resident #47 immediately yelled out, no, no. The surveyor asked Resident #47 if he was offered a shave yesterday and he stated no. NA #6 stated she did not report Resident #47 ' s refusal to the nurse. On 9/1/22 at 2:15 PM, the Director of Nursing was interviewed. She stated residents should be shaved as often as they liked. 2. Resident #77 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included pathological hip fracture, fall, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, abnormal weight loss, and adult failure to thrive. The care Plan dated 7/5/22 revealed Resident #77 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to activity intolerance, fatigue, impaired balance, limited mobility, limited range of motion, musculoskeletal impairment, pain, and hip fracture. Interventions included for staff to check nails' length, trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #77 was moderately, cognitively impaired, required limited assistance with transfers, extensive assistance with dressing, hygiene and toileting, and was totally dependent on staff for bathing. The resident was also frequently incontinent of bladder and totally incontinent of bowels. During an observation on 8/29/22 at 3:50 p.m., Resident #77 was awake and reclining in his bed. The resident's fingernails on both hands were dirty with dark brown substance beneath his nails and surrounding the cuticles. Also, gray colored hairs extended from the inside of the resident's nostrils. On 8/30/22 at 3:57 p.m., the resident was observed watching the television from his bed; both hands were lying on top of the bed linen. The resident's fingernails were dirty with dark brown substance beneath the nails and along the sides of nails and cuticles. The hair continued to protrude from the resident's nostrils. On 8/31/22 at 11:15 a.m., the door to the resident's room was closed. When this surveyor knocked on the door of the room, a nursing assistant called out, she was providing care to the resident. On 8/31/22 at 1:25 p.m., NA#6 revealed Resident #77 required assistance with all ADLs except feeding. She stated the resident was also total dependent on staff for incontinent care of bowel and bladder. During a meal observation on 8/31/22 at 1:15 p.m., Resident #77 was in his room feeding himself lunch. The resident's fingernails were dirty with dark brown substance beneath his nails and the surrounding cuticles. The hair continued to protrude from the resident's nostrils. An interview with Resident #77 was conducted on 8/31/22 at 1:18 p.m. The resident stated he would not mind having someone with a steady hand trim the hair from his nose.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to acquire and administer an intravenous (IV) antibiotic for a newly admitted resident with acute pancreatiti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to acquire and administer an intravenous (IV) antibiotic for a newly admitted resident with acute pancreatitis (Resident #280) resulting in four missed doses of medication. This occurred for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. Findings included: Resident #280 was admitted to the facility the afternoon of 9/11/2021 with diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) and cirrhosis of the liver. Review of the hospital physician discharge orders dated 9/11/2021 showed order for piperacillin-tazoctam (antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections) 3.375 grams in sodium chloride 0.9% 100 milliliters-infuse into the vein every 8 hours over 4 hours for 8 days. Nurse #5 was the admission nurse who signed off and ordered medication from the pharmacy. Multiple attempts to contact Nurse #5, who was from an agency and no longer worked at the facility, were unsuccessful. Review of Resident #280's September 2021 medication administration record (MAR) showed the IV antibiotic was not entered on the MAR until 9/12/2021 and Resident #280 did not receive the first dose until the 8:00 AM on 9/13/2021. This resulted in the resident missing a total of 4 doses. All three doses due on 9/12/2021 were marked as unavailable by Nurse #5. Review of Resident #280's progress notes showed an entry by Nurse #5 on 9/11/2021 and stated she was awaiting arrival of medication from pharmacy. On 9/12/2021, Nurse #5 documented twice she had checked on medication and was still awaiting its arrival from the pharmacy. Attempts to contact the pharmacy were not included in the progress notes. During an interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 8/31/2022, she stated that the facility had certain IV and oral medications on hand and, per her records, they had three doses of Resident #280's prescribed antibiotic on hand on 9/11/2021. She stated every nurse, agency or not, should be able to access that medication. She stated the medication is stored in a lock container in the medication room of the facility. She stated they did not receive the medication until the afternoon of 9/12/22 and it was sent to the facility in their evening delivery. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/1/2022 she stated there was a notebook at each nurse's station that listed the prescription medications that the facility had on hand in the locked medication bin located in the medication storage room and every nurse who comes into the facility should be aware of that information. She stated that was included in orientation for new hires and agency nurses. She also stated when the pharmacy was delayed in sending a medication, the nurse should see if it was stocked at the facility to avoid a delay in residents receiving doses as ordered. She stated she was not aware of that omission and there should not have been that delay in Resident #280 receiving the prescribed antibiotic. During an interview with the facility practitioner on 8/29/2022 at 2:20 PM, she stated that Resident #280 did not have a bad outcome as a result of the medication administration delay and was discharged home with family two weeks after admission. She stated that all nursing staff should be aware of medications that the facility keeps on hand.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to acquire and administer an intraven...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to acquire and administer an intravenous (IV) antibiotic for a newly admitted resident with acute pancreatitis (Resident #280) resulting in four missed doses of medication, and failed to administer 1 dose of an anticoagulant for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (Resident #43). This occurred for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for medication errors. Findings included: 1. Resident #280 was admitted to the facility the afternoon of 9/11/2021 with diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) and cirrhosis of the liver. Review of the hospital physician discharge orders dated 9/11/2021 showed order for piperacillin-tazoctam (antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections) 3.375 grams in sodium chloride 0.9% 100 milliliters-infuse into the vein every 8 hours over 4 hours for 8 days. Nurse #5 was the admission nurse who signed off and ordered medication from the pharmacy. Multiple attempts to contact Nurse #5, who was from an agency and no longer worked at the facility, were unsuccessful. Review of Resident #280's September 2021 medication administration record (MAR) showed the IV antibiotic was not entered on the MAR until 9/12/2021 and Resident #280 did not receive the first dose until the 8:00 AM on 9/13/2021. This resulted in the resident missing a total of 4 doses. All three doses due on 9/12/2021 were marked as unavailable by Nurse #5. Review of Resident #280's progress notes showed an entry by Nurse #5 on 9/11/2021 and stated she was awaiting arrival of medication from pharmacy. On 9/12/2021, Nurse #5 documented twice she had checked on medication and was still awaiting its arrival from the pharmacy. Attempts to contact the pharmacy were not included in the progress notes. During an interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 8/31/2022, she stated that the facility had certain IV and oral medications on hand and, per her records, they had three doses of Resident #280's prescribed antibiotic on hand on 9/11/2021. She stated every nurse, agency or not, should be able to access that medication. She stated the medication is stored in a lock container in the medication room of the facility. The pharmacist stated they received the order for the antibiotic on 9/11/22 and it would have come in the early morning delivery on 9/12/22 if they had it in stock. She stated they did not receive the medication until the afternoon of 9/12/22 and it was sent to the facility in their evening delivery. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/1/2022 she stated there was a notebook at each nurse's station that listed the prescription medications that the facility had on hand in the locked medication bin located in the medication storage room and every nurse who comes into the facility should be aware of that information. She stated that was included in orientation for new hires and agency nurses. She also stated when the pharmacy was delayed in sending a medication, the nurse should see if it was stocked at the facility to avoid a delay in residents receiving doses as ordered. She stated she was not aware of that omission and there should not have been that delay in Resident #280 receiving the prescribed antibiotic. During an interview with the facility practitioner on 8/29/2022 at 2:20 PM, she stated that Resident #280 did not have a bad outcome as a result of the medication administration delay and was discharged home with family two weeks after admission. She stated that all nursing staff should be aware of medications that the facility keeps on hand. 2. The stock medication list (no date) was reviewed. It was noted apixaban 2.5 milligrams (mg) was available in the stock medications. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include diabetes and atrial fibrillation. admission orders for Resident #43 dated 6/25/2022 included an order for apixaban (a blood thinner) 2.5 mg by mouth twice daily. The nursing notes for Resident #43 were reviewed. A note dated 6/25/2022 at 5:16 PM written by Nurse #4 indicated apixaban 2.5 mg had not been administered until received from pharmacy. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #43 was reviewed. The MAR documented Resident #43 received apixaban 2.5 mg on 6/26/2022 at 9:00 AM. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 on 9/1/2022 at 11:40 AM. Nurse #7 reported when a resident was admitted to the facility, there were stock medications available to administer to the resident. Nurse #7 reported each nursing station had a list of the medications. A medication aide (MA) #1 was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 11:53 AM. MA #1 reported the facility had stock medications. MA #1 reported she checked the stock medication list and if there was not a specific medication, she called the pharmacy to ask for a stat (very fast) delivery of the medication. Nurse #4 was not available for interview. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 2:57 PM. The DON reported she had provided the nurses and MA with in-services and education related to the availability of stock medications. The DON explained she had typed up a comprehensive list of the medications and had at least one copy at each nursing station. The DON reported she was not aware Resident #43 had not received a dose of apixaban when he was admitted to the facility. The DON reported it was her expectation that all nurses and medication aides were familiar with the list of stock medications. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported the DON had provided education and in-services to staff nurses and MA related to stock medications and he did not know why the admitting nurse for Resident #43 had not gotten the apixaban from the stock medications. The Administrator reported he expected nurses to administer available medications to new admissions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired insulin and date opened insulin for 1 of 2 medication carts observed (100 hall cart). Findings incl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired insulin and date opened insulin for 1 of 2 medication carts observed (100 hall cart). Findings included: a. The 100-hall cart was observed on 8/30/2022 at 1:56 PM with Nurse #1. A quick-acting insulin pen for with an open date 6/22/2022 labeled with Resident #4 ' s name was noted and available for use. The insulin pen was labeled with instructions to discard after 28 days. Nurse #1 was interviewed at the time of the observation. Nurse #1 reported the insulin pen should have been discarded after 28 days. Nurse #1 reported she thought night shift nurses were responsible for checking for expired medications, but all nurses should be mindful of discarding expired insulin. Resident #4 ' s medical record was reviewed. Physician orders dated 1/21/2022 for sliding scale Humalog (quick-acting insulin) before meals and at bedtime for blood sugar results over 200. The medication adminstration record was reviewed for Resident #4 and she had received Humalog 4 units on 8/30/2022 at 8:00 AM for a blood sugar result of 292. The facility physician (MD) was interviewed on 8/30/2022 at 2:57 PM. The MD reported the expired insulin pen would not harm the resident, but it might be less effective at controlling blood glucose levels. b. A vial of long-acting insulin was noted in the medication cart, open and available for use. The vial was not dated with the date opened. Nurse #1 was interviewed at the time of the observation. Nurse #1 reported nurses should label all insulin when they opened it. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 2:57 PM. The DON reported the pharmacy had been at the facility on 8/29/2022 to check all the medication carts and the pharmacist should have noticed the Humalog insulin was expired and the long-acting insulin was not dated when it was opened. The DON reported all nursing staff should be discarding expired insulin and dating opened insulin. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported the pharmacy came to the facility monthly to check the medication carts and they missed the expired insulin and the undated insulin. The Administrator reported he expected nursing staff to follow standards for discarding and labeling medications.
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** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the areas of dental (Residents #3, #34 and #43) and tube feeding (Resident #47) for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: 1. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #34's annual minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed in section L dental was marked no for obvious or likely cavity or broken teeth. He was cognitively intact. During an interview on 08/29/22 at 12:32 PM with Resident #34 he was observed to have brown, missing, and broken upper teeth. Some teeth were brown to the gum line. He denied pain during the interview. He stated he thought they checked his teeth one time in the years since his admission In an interview on 08/31/22 at 8:35 AM the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated she was unable to find a dental consult for Resident #34. An interview with the MDS Nurse was conducted on 08/31/22 at 9:22 AM. She revealed she had worked at the facility for 12 years and had been in the MDS position for three years. She further revealed she had marked Resident #34's MDS section L no for obvious or likely cavity or broken teeth. She explained it was the admitting nurse's responsibility to assess a resident's dental status during completion of the admission assessment UDA (user defined assessment). She further explained when she accessed a resident's MDS she refreshed everything, and it pulled the data to the MDS from the UDA. She stated the MDS guidelines instructed her to look at a resident's teeth and mouth during her MDS assessment. She further stated she used the assessment information from the UDA and did not visually assess Resident #34's dental status on admission. On 08/31/22 at 9:35 AM the MDS Nurse observed Resident #34's teeth. She stated, I can't make the decision if a tooth is broken, it could be decayed. After she observed Resident 34's teeth she said she would code that he had missing teeth. During an interview on 09/01/2022 at 3:00 PM the Administrator and the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated it was their expectation that the MDS Nurse would ensure that the minimum data set assessments were correct and if inaccurate documentation was identified by the MDS Nurse then it should be corrected, and the physician should be notified of any concerns. 2. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #3's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed in section L dental was marked no for obvious or likely cavity or broken teeth. He had impaired cognition. During an interview on 08/30/22 at 10:02 AM with Resident #3 he was observed to have missing, brown, and broken teeth. He revealed he had not been seen by a dentist since admission. He wiggled one of the front bottom teeth and explained it had been loose for some time. He stated he had reported the loose tooth but could not remember when or to whom he had reported it. He further stated he had not reported the concern again. In an interview on 08/31/22 at 8:35 AM the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated she was unable to find a dental consult for Resident #3. An interview with the MDS Nurse was conducted on 08/31/22 at 9:22 AM. She revealed she had worked at the facility for 12 years and had been in the MDS position for three years. She further revealed she had marked Resident #3's MDS section L no for obvious or likely cavity or broken teeth. She explained it was the admitting nurse's responsibility to assess a resident's dental status during completion of the admission assessment UDA (user defined assessment). She further explained when she accessed a resident's MDS she refreshed everything, and it pulled the data to the MDS from the UDA. She stated the MDS guidelines instructed her to look at a resident's teeth and mouth during her MDS assessment. She further stated she used the assessment information from the UDA and did not visually assess Resident #3's dental status on admission. On 08/31/22 at 9:45AM the MDS Nurse observed Resident #3's teeth. After she observed his teeth, she said she would code that he had missing teeth. During an interview on 09/01/2022 at 3:00 PM the Administrator and the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated it was their expectation that the MDS Nurse would ensure that the minimum data set assessments were correct and if inaccurate documentation was identified by the MDS Nurse then it should be corrected, and the physician should be notified of any concerns. 4. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include gastrostomy tube. A physician ' s order dated 5/9/22 revealed Resident #47 was NPO (nothing by mouth). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 had a feeding tube. The MDS also indicated Resident #47 received mechanically altered diet. On 9/1/22 at 8:53 AM, the MDS Nurse was interviewed. She stated she just started completing section K on the assessment and thought she should code the tube feeding as mechanically altered because it was a liquid. She added she now understood that it was not accurate. On 9/1/22 at 3:57 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator who stated it was his expectation that the MDS be coded accurately. 3. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include end stage renal disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #43 to be cognitively intact. The MDS assessed Resident #43 to have no broken teeth or obvious decay. The admission assessment for Resident #43 dated 7/14/2022 did not document broken teeth or obvious decay. Resident #43 was observed on 8/29/2022 at 12:38 PM. It was noted Resident #49 was missing multiple teeth, and the teeth he had were dark. Resident #43 was interviewed at the time of the observation, and he reported he had been losing teeth for a while, but he did not have dental pain. Resident #49 reported he did not remember anyone looking into his mouth or offering him dental services. An interview with the MDS Nurse was conducted on 08/31/22 at 9:22 AM. The MDS nurse revealed she had coded Resident #43 as having no broken teeth or obvious decay. The MDS nurse explained it was the admitting nurse's responsibility to assess a resident's dental status during completion of the admission assessment. The MDS nurse reported when she completed a resident MDS it pulled the data from the admission assessment. She stated the MDS guidelines instructed her to look at a resident's teeth and mouth during her MDS assessment. She explained she used the assessment information from the admission assessment and did not visually assess Resident #43's dental status on admission. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported Resident #43 ' s MDS was not coded correctly because the MDS did not perform an oral examination. The Administrator reported it was his expectation that MDS assessments were coded correctly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #2 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include hemiplegia following a cerebrovascular acciden...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #2 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include hemiplegia following a cerebrovascular accident, diabetes mellitus type 2, anemia and congestive heart failure. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 had moderately impaired cognition. Resident #8 was independent with meals after set up, was 64 inches tall and weighed 120 pounds. Resident #8 had a weight loss and was on a therapeutic diet. A review of the care plan revised on 4/27/22 revealed a focus area of anemia. Interventions included give resident supplements as ordered, monitor intake and alert dietician if consumption is poor for more than 48 hours. Weights for Resident #8 for the previous 6 months were documented as follows: 3/4/22 127.8 pounds, 4/13/22 130.2 pounds, 5/6/22 120 pounds, 6/3/22 120 pounds, 7/8/22 115 pounds and 8/5/22 116.2 pounds. A review of the physician ' s orders included frozen nutritional treat twice a day for weight loss, dated 8/11/22. A review of the August 2022 Medication Administration Record indicated Resident #8 was to receive the frozen nutritional treat at lunch and dinner. A note by the Registered Dietician (RD) dated 8/10/2022 at 2:12 PM included: [AGE] year-old female re-admitted [DATE] with cerebral infarction metabolic encephalopathy, hemiplegia/hemiparesis affecting dominant side, diabetes mellitus type 2 and iron deficiency anemia. Resident is on a mechanical soft diet with thin liquids consuming 51-100% average by mouth intake of meals. One meal refusal reported since re-admission. Diet texture downgraded since last assessment. Independent/supervision with meals. No trouble chewing/swallowing. Height 64 inches, current body weight 119 pounds (8/8/2022) with a normal BMI of 20.4. Significant weight loss present over 180 days but weight has been fairly stable since 5/6/2022. Weight fluctuations anticipated related to CHF and re-hospitalizations. No open pressure wounds. Estimated energy needs based on current body weight of 119 pounds: 1620 kilocalories, 54 grams of protein and 1620 milliliters fluid. RD recommendations: 1. Add fortified foods to diet order due to significant weight loss, 2. Add frozen nutritional treats BID with lunch and dinner meals due to significant weight loss and 3. Add 8 oz of House Supplement (Ensure High PRO as available) three times a day due to significant weight loss. On 8/29/21 at 1:20 PM, an observation of Resident #8 ' s lunch tray did not include a frozen nutritional treat. A review of the tray card did not include a frozen nutritional treat supplement. An interview with Resident #8 on 8/29/21 at 1:21 PM revealed she did not know about the frozen nutritional treat. Resident #8 added she sometimes got an Ensure but she could not drink it all the time. On 8/31/22 at 1:19 PM, an observation of Resident #8 ' s lunch tray did not include a frozen nutritional treat. Resident #8 had eaten approximately 75% of her meal. On 9/1/22 at 12:50 PM, an observation of Resident #8 ' s lunch tray did not include a frozen nutritional treat. Resident #8 had visitors that brought food in from the outside for her to eat. On 9/1/22 at 1:10 PM an interview was conducted with NA #3 who stated the nurses give out the supplements unless it came out on the meal tray and then it would be listed on the tray card. On 08/31/22 at 09:38 AM, the RD was interviewed. During the interview, the RD stated when she assesses the residents, she fills out a log for recommendations that she sends via email to the Administrator, the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Dietary Manager. The RD stated she also puts the orders for supplements into the computer and after that the facility staff are responsible for carrying out the orders. The RD added the frozen nutritional treat should be sent out on the meal tray. On 8/31/22 at 1:48 PM, the Dietary Manager was interviewed and stated the facility was out of the frozen nutritional treat since 8/29/22. On 8/31/22 at 10:08 AM, the DON was interviewed. She stated when the RD made recommendations, she put the orders in herself and sends copies to her, the Administrator, and the Dietary Manager. The DON stated she then checks to make sure the orders are in, and the Dietary Manager should make sure the resident receives the supplement. Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, interview with the Registered Dietician (RD), and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a nutritional supplement as ordered by the physician to address weight loss for 3 of 6 residents (Residents #48, #77 and #8) reviewed for nutrition. Findings included: 1. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, gastroesophageal reflux disease, dysphagia and Alzheimer's disease. The resident's April-August 2022 weights documented in the electronic record were as follows: 4/13/22 weight= 105.2 pounds 5/3/22 weight= 99.4 pounds 5/11/22 weight= 98 pounds 5/18/22 weight= 99.4 pounds 6/1/22 weight= 99.2 pounds 7/6/22 weight= 95.2 pounds 7/19/22 weight= 93.8 pounds 8/3/22 weight= 91 pounds 8/16/22 weight= 93 pounds A physician order dated 5/25/22 read, Frozen nutritional treat with meals for significant weight loss/underweight status. A physician progress note written 7/5/22 by Physician #1 revealed Resident #48 had protein calorie malnutrition and stated, Continue with the supplements .Anticipate continued weight loss due to progression of his Huntington's, as well as Alzheimer's. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 had severe cognitive impairment. He required supervision with eating, was on a mechanically altered diet and a therapeutic diet. He was 73 inches tall and weighed 94 pounds. The MDS further indicated Resident #48 had a weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or a 10% weight loss in the last six months. A nutrition care plan updated 8/8/22 indicated a goal that the resident would have no unrecognized weight gain/loss and a care plan approach included, Provide and serve diet as ordered, and RD to evaluate and make diet change recommendations as needed. On 8/30/22 at 1:41 PM, Resident #48 was observed as he ate lunch in his room. The resident fed himself and consumed all his lunch. No frozen nutritional treat was observed on the lunch tray, nor was one offered to Resident #48 during the meal. Resident #48 was observed during breakfast on 8/31/22 at 8:44 AM. Nurse Aide (NA) #5 delivered the meal tray to the resident's room, set up the tray and assisted Resident #48 to an upright position in bed before she exited the room. The resident fed himself. An observation of the meal ticket on the tray revealed Resident #48 received a puree diet with no restrictions. No other information was listed on the meal ticket. No frozen nutritional treat was observed on the tray, nor was one offered to Resident #48 during the meal. An interview was completed with NA #5 on 8/31/22 at 10:35 AM. She shared it was her first day working with Resident #48. She indicated she delivered the breakfast tray to Resident #48 and said the tray consisted of food and beverage, and no frozen nutritional treat was on the tray when she delivered it to the resident's room. NA #5 confirmed she had not offered a frozen nutritional treat to the resident. In an interview with the Dietary Manager on 8/30/22 at 3:05 PM, she explained if a nutritional supplement was ordered by the RD, it was communicated to the Dietary Manager via electronic mail and she added the information to the resident's profile in her computer system which then printed out on the meal ticket and the supplement was added to the meal tray. During the interview, the Dietary Manager reviewed her computer system and stated Resident #48 was on a puree diet with thin liquids and was not noted to be on any nutritional supplements. She added if she was not notified of new nutritional supplement orders, then the information was not added to the tray ticket. A phone interview was completed with the RD on 8/31/22 at 9:38 AM. She stated Resident #48 had lost weight since his admission, but his weight had recently stabilized, although she considered it to still be in a lower weight range. She added the resident's weight loss was anticipated due to his medical diagnoses, but she still wanted to raise his weight some with the supplement. She verified on 5/25/22 she recommended a frozen nutritional supplement be sent to the resident with all three meals. She explained when she made a recommendation, she wrote the information on a recommendation log and sent it to the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON) and Dietary Manager. She then entered the supplement orders into the electronic health record. The RD expressed the facility should have carried out her supplement order and the frozen nutritional treat should have been added to Resident #48's meal tray. In an interview with the DON on 8/31/22 at 10:08 AM, she explained when the RD made recommendations, the RD entered the orders into the electronic health record and then sent copies of the recommendations to the DON, Administrator and Dietary Manager. The DON said the Dietary Manager should have followed the RD's recommendations and made sure Resident #48 received the nutritional supplement that was ordered by the RD or physician. She added, from her observations, the resident fed himself and ate well and she thought his weight loss was attributed to the disease process. 2. Resident #77 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included severe protein-calorie malnutrition, dysphagia, abnormal weight loss, and adult failure to thrive. The physician's order dated 5/26/22 revealed Resident #77 was to receive a regular diet of a mechanical, soft-ground meat texture with regular, thin liquids. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #77 was moderately, cognitively impaired, required supervision with eating, weighed 93 pounds, had no significant weight loss or gain, and received a therapeutic/mechanically altered diet. The physician's order dated 7/25/22 revealed the resident was to receive an 8-ounce house supplement (Ensure Plus as available) with meals for protein-calorie malnutrition. A physician's order dated 7/25/22 indicated Resident #77 was to receive a frozen nutritional treat three times each day related to his diagnoses of severe protein-calorie malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, and abnormal weight loss. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #77 was moderately, cognitively impaired, required supervision with eating, weighed 84 pounds, had no significant weight loss or gain, and received a therapeutic/mechanically altered diet. The most recent weight documented in the clinical records on 8/24/22 indicated Resident #77 weighed 87 pounds. On 8/29/22 at 1:16 p.m., Resident #77 was observed in his room, feeding himself lunch of mechanical soft texture. The resident was drinking a four-ounce strawberry shake. The resident's meal ticket indicated the resident was to receive a magic cup (frozen nutritional treat) with his meal. There was no magic cup on his meal tray. The resident stated he always received a strawberry shake (which he enjoyed) with every lunch and supper. The resident consumed one hundred percent of the 4-ounce strawberry shake but consumed less than twenty-five percent of his meal of mechanical soft texture. During a telephone interview on 8/31/22 at 9:45 a.m., the Registered Dietitian (RD) stated Resident #77 had been losing weight since admission and his weight was currently stable, but still low. She stated the current interventions to prevent further weight loss for the resident included fortified foods, magic cup (for protein and calories) with his breakfast, lunch, and supper, house supplement (2-strawberry shakes (8-ounces of Ensure or Ensure Plus) with meals and in-between meals, 2.5mg (milligrams) dronabinol medication (used as an appetite stimulant) twice each day, 2(4-ounce) strawberry shakes and a magic cup with each meal, and weekly weights. When questioned about the resident receiving the 4-ounce shake instead of the 4-ounce magic cup as ordered, the RD stated not receiving the supplements and/or receiving the supplements in the amounts as ordered may contribute to the resident's lack of weight gain. On 8/31/22 at 2:42 p.m., Nurse #1 revealed Resident #77 received Ensure (nutritional supplement) at breakfast, lunch, and supper from his nurse or medication aide. Resident #77 was observed in his room with his lunch meal tray on 8/31/22 at 1:15 p.m. The food items on the meal tray included 1-(4 ounce) strawberry shake. There was no magic cup (frozen nutritional treat) on the resident's meal tray. During an interview on 8/31/22 at 1:25 p.m., NA#6 (nursing assistant) stated Resident #77 was able to feed himself. She revealed he enjoyed sweets and snack foods. NA#6 stated the resident received Ensure (supplement) from the nurse during medication administration. She also revealed Resident #77 received a 4-ounce strawberry shake with all his meals but did not receive a receive a magic cup. She acknowledged that when serving the resident his meal trays she never noticed magic cup documented on the resident's meal card. On 8/31/22 at 1:48 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated the dietary department was having difficulty obtaining the physician ordered frozen nutrition treat since Monday (8/29/22) but substituted the supplement with the 4-ounce nutritional shake. The review of the Nutrition Facts sheet of the 118 grams (4-ounce) strawberry shake provided by the Dietary Manager revealed the shake contained 200 calories: 6 grams of protein and 5 grams of fat. The Nutrition Facts sheet of the 118 grams (4-ounce) supplement nutritional treat revealed it contained 300 calories: 9 grams of protein and 12 grams of total fat.
CONCERN (E)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide dental services for 3 of 6 r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide dental services for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for dental services (Residents #3, #34 and #43). Findings included: 1. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with his most recent readmission date being 01/19/2021. His active diagnoses included hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia. Review of Resident #34's annual minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed in section L dental was marked no for obvious or likely cavity or broken teeth. The medical record was reviewed and no orders or referral for dental care or a dentist assessment were noted. Resident #34 was observed on 08/29/2022 at 12:32 PM. He had missing, broken, and brown teeth on his top jaw and had missing teeth on the bottom jaw. He denied pain during the interview but revealed in the past it had hurt when he bit down. He stated he thought they checked his teeth one time in the years since his admission. In an interview on 08/31/22 at 8:35 AM the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated she was only able to find a dental consult for one of the three residents requested. There was no consult for Resident #34. On 08/31/22 at 8:45 AM the Social Worker provided a dental consult for Resident #34 dated 08/31/22. She also provided fax confirmation that the dental consult was faxed to Access Dental on 08/31/22 at 8:38 AM. During an interview on 09/01/2022 at 3:00 PM the Administrator and the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated it was their expectation that the facility identified dental issues and provided services as appropriate. 2. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His active diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, altered mental status, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, failure to thrive, peripheral vascular disease, mild cognitive impairment, esophageal reflux disease, protein calorie malnutrition and cirrhosis of the liver. Review of Resident #3's annual minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] revealed in section L dental was marked no for obvious or likely cavity or broken teeth. The medical record was reviewed and no orders or referral for dental care or a dentist assessment were noted. Resident #3 was interviewed on 08/30/22 at 10:02 AM. Resident #3 had missing, brown, and broken teeth. He revealed he had not been seen by a dentist since admission. He wiggled one of the front bottom teeth and explained it had been loose for some time. He stated he had reported the loose tooth but could not remember when or to whom he had reported it. He further stated he had not reported the concern again. In an interview on 08/31/22 at 8:35 AM the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated she was only able to find a dental consult for one of the three residents requested. There was no consult for Resident #3. On 08/31/22 at 8:45 AM the Social Worker provided a dental consult for Resident #3 dated 8/31/22. She also provided fax confirmation that the dental consult was faxed to Access Dental on 8/31/22 at 8:38 AM. During an interview on 09/01/2022 at 3:00 PM the Administrator and the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated it was their expectation that the facility identified dental issues and provided services as appropriate. 3. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include end stage renal disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #43 to be cognitively intact. The MDS assessed Resident #43 to have no broken teeth or obvious decay. The admission assessment for Resident #43 dated 7/14/2022 did not document broken teeth or obvious decay. Resident #43's medical record was reviewed. No referrals for dental services were noted. Resident #43 was observed on 8/29/2022 at 12:38 PM. It was noted Resident #49 was missing multiple teeth, and the teeth he had were dark. Resident #43 was interviewed at the time of the observation, and he reported he had been losing teeth for a while, but he did not have dental pain. Resident #49 reported he did not remember anyone looking into his mouth or offering him dental services. An interview was conducted on 08/31/22 at 8:35 AM with the Corporate Nurse Consultant and she reported there was no dental consult for Resident #43. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 10:16 AM. The SW reported she was not aware that Resident #43 had missing and obviously decayed teeth. The SW reported Resident #43 had not requested a dental consultation, and she would talk to him about it. During an interview on 09/01/2022 at 3:00 PM the Administrator and the Corporate Nurse Consultant stated it was their expectation that the facility identified dental issues and provided services as appropriate.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews the facility failed to offer or administer the pneumococcal vaccine or the influenz...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews the facility failed to offer or administer the pneumococcal vaccine or the influenza vaccine and failed to include documentation that the residents or the resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine and the influenza vaccine immunizations for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for immunization (Residents #29,#42,#55, #56 and Resident #57). Findings included: The facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine (Series) dated 11/01/2020, stated in part, the resident's medical record will include documentation that indicates at a minimum the following: The resident or resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of pneumococcal immunization and the resident received the pneumococcal immunization or did not receive due to medical contraindication or refusal. The facility policy titled Influenza Vaccination dated 11/01/2020, stated in part, the influenza vaccine would be routinely offered annually from October 1st through March 31st and the resident's medical record will include documentation that the resident or resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of immunization and the resident received or did not receive the immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal. 1.Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE]revealed Resident #29 had no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the influenza vaccine had been received for the recent influenza season and the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. The immunization history record for Resident #29 revealed he received the pneumococcal vaccine on 06/24/2021 and the influenza vaccine on 11/29/2021. A review of Resident #29's medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate whether the resident or his representative received education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine or the influenza vaccine and there was no signed consent to receive or refuse the immunizations. The Director of Nursing (DON)/Infection Prevention Nurse was interviewed on 09/01/2022 at 1:05 PM regarding pneumococcal vaccine and influenza vaccine documentation and administration. The DON revealed she did not know that vaccine education had to be documented in EMRs and she believed that the consents had been scanned into each resident's EMR. 2.Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #42 had no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the influenza vaccine had been received for the recent influenza season and the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. The immunization history record for Resident #42 revealed she received the pneumococcal vaccine on 06/24/2021 and the influenza vaccine on 11/29/2021. A review of Resident #42's medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate whether the resident or her representative received education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine or the influenza vaccine and there was no signed consent to receive or refuse the immunizations. The Director of Nursing (DON)/Infection Prevention Nurse was interviewed on 09/01/2022 at 1:05 PM regarding pneumococcal vaccine and influenza vaccine documentation and administration. The DON revealed she did not know that vaccine education had to be documented in EMRs and she believed that the consents had been scanned into each resident's EMR. 3.Resident # 55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 had severe cognitive impairment and indicated the influenza vaccine had been received for the recent influenza season and the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. The immunization history record for Resident #55 revealed she received the pneumococcal vaccine on 06/24/2021 and the influenza vaccine on 11/29/2021. A review of Resident #55's medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate whether the resident or her representative received education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine or the influenza vaccine and there was no signed consent to receive or refuse the immunizations. The Director of Nursing (DON)/Infection Prevention Nurse was interviewed on 09/01/2022 at 1:05 PM regarding pneumococcal vaccine and influenza vaccine documentation and administration. The DON revealed she did not know that vaccine education had to be documented in EMRs and she believed that the consents had been scanned into each resident's EMR. 4.Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 had severe cognitive impairment and had not received the influenza vaccine for the most recent influenza season and the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. The immunization history record for Resident #56 revealed she received the pneumococcal vaccine on 06/24/2021. A review of Resident #56's medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate whether the resident or her representative received education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine and there was no signed consent to receive or refuse the immunization. The Director of Nursing (DON)/Infection Prevention Nurse was interviewed on 09/01/2022 at 1:05 PM regarding pneumococcal vaccine and influenza vaccine documentation and administration. The DON revealed she did not know that vaccine education had to be documented in EMRs and she believed that the consents had been scanned into each resident's EMR. The DON/Infection Prevention Nurse did not know the if Resident #56 received the influenza vaccine or not during the previous influenza vaccine season. 5.Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #57 had severe cognitive impairment and indicated the influenza vaccine had been received for the recent influenza season and the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. The immunization history record for Resident #57 revealed she received the pneumococcal vaccine on 06/24/2021 and the influenza vaccine on 11/29/2021. A review of Resident #57's medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate whether the resident or her representative received education regarding the pneumococcal vaccine or the influenza vaccine and there was no signed consent to receive or refuse the immunizations. The Director of Nursing (DON)/Infection Prevention Nurse was interviewed on 09/01/2022 at 1:05 PM regarding pneumococcal vaccine and influenza vaccine documentation and administration. The DON revealed she did not know that vaccine education had to be documented in EMRs and she believed that the consents had been scanned into each resident's EMR.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a potentially hazardous sandwich made with eggs and mayonnaise was stored within safe temperature range at or below 41 degrees...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a potentially hazardous sandwich made with eggs and mayonnaise was stored within safe temperature range at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent the potential for food borne illness; failed to ensure the wash and final rinse cycles of the dishwashing machine operated at the manufacturer's recommended temperatures; by not maintaining the food service equipment in clean and debris-free condition; and, failed to ensure the food items stored in the snack/nourishment refrigerators in 1 of 2 residents' nourishment rooms (100 hall nourishment room) were clean, and food items not provided by the facility were dated and labeled. These practices had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: 1. During a kitchen observation with the dietary manager (DM) on 8/29/22 at 10:38 a.m., there were 2-large, resealable plastic bags containing a sandwich, an oatmeal cookie, and a can of soda on the shelf in the walk-in cooler. The DM identified the sandwiches as egg salad and revealed the bagged lunches were for residents who go out of the facility to their dialysis appointments. She stated there were 8 or 9 dialysis residents in the facility and dietary prepared each dialysis resident with a resealable plastic bag containing a sandwich, 2-snacks, and a juice or diet soda to carry with them to dialysis. The DM revealed the facility receptionist would collect the sealed lunch bags from the kitchen every morning and give one to each resident as they left the facility for dialysis center. During an interview on 8/31/22 at 8:50 a.m., Resident #17 revealed he went to the dialysis center three times a week after breakfast and usually ate his packed lunch at 12:30 p.m. while at the dialysis center. He stated that the dietary department supplied him with a packed lunch in a resealable plastic bag which included a sandwich which was always egg salad (his preference), a drink, and snacks. When asked if the packed lunch was refrigerated at the dialysis center due to the mayonnaise-based sandwich, he responded no, the lunch remained in his tote bag (observed in a non-insulated tote bag without an ice pack on back of Resident #17's wheelchair) until he was ready to eat it. An interview with the facility's receptionist on 8/31/22 at 9:20 a.m. revealed 4-residents were scheduled for dialysis this day (Wednesday): 2-residents were to leave the facility at 9:15 a.m. for their 10:15 a.m., dialysis appointment and 2-residents were to leave the facility at 10:15 a.m. for their 11:15 a.m. appointments at the dialysis center. She stated at 9:00 a.m. she collected the 4-resealable, plastic bags of lunches from the dietary department and stores the bagged lunches in a file cabinet next to her desk for each dialysis resident to take with them to the dialysis center. As a demonstration, the receptionist removed from the file cabinet (not temperature controlled) next to her desk 2-large, sealed plastic bags, each consisting of a sandwich, a soda, an oatmeal cookie and a bag of snack crackers. The receptionist revealed she monitored the temperature of the sandwiches by touching the lunch bag to ensuring the sandwiches remained cool. She also stated that after four hours any lunch bags remaining in her file cabinet were returned to the kitchen. 2. During three observations of the operation of the high temperature dishwashing machine in the kitchen on 8/29/22 from 10:21 a.m. to 10:35 a.m., the water temperatures during the wash cycle ranged from 154 degrees Fahrenheit to 174 degrees Fahrenheit; and the water temperatures during the rinse cycle were 174 degrees Fahrenheit during the first two observations and 176 degrees Fahrenheit during the third observation. The dietary staff revealed the wash and rinse temperature gauges were checked three times every day during the dishwashing operation. The dietary staff indicated the wash temperature should read 160 degrees Fahrenheit and the rinse temperature should read 180 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the dietary staff continued to send dishware through the dish machine when the rinse temperature read less than 180 degrees Fahrenheit then stacked the dishware on the storage racks and the meal trays at the food service tray line, ready for use. This surveyor informed the DM the rinse cycle was not meeting the required rinse temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit or above and the meal trays, plates, bowls, and silverware observed during the three observations would have to be rewashed. The DM directed the staff to stop the dishwashing machine and stated she would contact the dishwasher service technician. She revealed the service technician conducted monthly checks of the water temperature cycles on the machine every month and his last visit was a couple of weeks prior. 3. During the kitchen tour on 8/29/22 from 10:38 a.m. to 10:53 a.m., the following was observed: broken and missing floor tiles at the door of the walk-in cooler; dark black/brown grease in the deep fryer which the DM revealed was last used three days prior; badly scuffed/scratched wall next to the 3-compartment sink; the lids of the 3-bins (sugar, flour, rice) were stained with brown, sticky substances, and 1 of the bins filled with brown rice was not labeled. The inside bottom of both sides of the double plate warmer contained food debris and there was a large piece of a broken plate in the bottom of one side of the warmer. The DM revealed the plate warmer was last taken apart and cleaned approximately one and half weeks ago. 4. On 8/31/22 at 11:00 a.m., an observation of 1 of 2 nourishment rooms was conducted. The outside of the refrigerator/freezer was dirty with brown and dark gray stains and old pieces of tape. The inside of the refrigerator had no light, and one bottom vegetable bin contained a free-flowing, yellow colored liquid. The following items were observed in the refrigerator and not labeled with a resident's name, room number, and date stored: 3-4 resealed bottles of water, 1(16 ounce) resealed bottle of diet soda, 1-packaged pre-cooked breakfast sandwich, and 2(12 ounce) cans of grape soda. The freezer section had no thermometer, 6-flavored freeze pops that were not labeled with a resident's name, room number and date stored, and 1-travel thermos not labeled with a resident's name, room number and date stored. On a shelf of the ice cart there was an uncovered ice scoop next to the scoop holder.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the recertification and complaint survey conducted on [DATE]. This was for 14 deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Resident Rights/Exercise of Rights (F550), Safe/Clean/Comfortable/Homelike Environment (F584), Request/Refuse/Discontinue Treatment; Formulate Advance Directives (F578), Medicaid/Medicare Coverage/Liability Notice (F582), Notice Requirements Before Transfer/Discharge (F623), Quarterly Assessments At Least Every 3 Months (F638), Accuracy of Assessments (F641), Develop/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan (F656), Care Plan Timing and Revision (F657), ADL Care Provided for Dependent Residents (F677), Posted Nurse Staffing Information (F732), Residents are free of Significant Medication Errors (F760), Label/Store Drugs and Biologicals (F761) and Influenza and Pneumococcal Immunizations (F883) cited on [DATE] and recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of [DATE]. The duplicate citations during two federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAA program. The findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: 1. F550 - Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote dignity by not providing a privacy cover over an urinary catheter drainage bag for one resident (Resident #52). This occurred for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for dignity. During the recertification and complaint survey of [DATE] and a complaint investigation of [DATE] the facility failed to promote dignity by not providing a cover for a urinary drainage bag for 1 of 3 residents that were reviewed for dignity. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. The Administrator stated they are currently working on big ticket items like stripping and waxing the floors. He stated there was a corporate renovation going on. They are focused now on employee education, falls, environmental issues, advance directive audits, medication administration, Minimum Data Set assessments and PASSR audits. 2. F584 - Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary and homelike environment by not ensuring room [ROOM NUMBER] had a working toilet for at least 3 days of the survey, not ensuring a clean resident room (room [ROOM NUMBER]A) and failed to bag and label urinals for multiple residents use in a shared bathroom (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) for 3 of 47 rooms reviewed for a sanitary and homelike environment. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE] and a complaint investigation of [DATE], the facility failed to maintain a clean and safe environment by failure to maintain a clean floor, clean walls or prevent electrical wires from being accessible in 3 of 18 rooms (rooms 220, 104 and 123) reviewed for environment. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. The Administrator stated they are currently working on big ticket items like stripping and waxing the floors. He stated there was a corporate renovation going on. 3. F578 - Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed obtain a physician ' s order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #234). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed obtain an order and document the resident ' s advanced directives in the resident ' s electronic medical record (EMR) for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #58) reviewed for advanced directives. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. The Administrator stated they are currently working on big ticket items like stripping and waxing the floors. 4. F582 - Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide facility residents with CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare non-coverage (NOMNC) prior to discharge from Medicare services for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge documentation (Resident #481, Resident #40, and Resident #480). During the complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to provide facility residents with CMS-10055 Skilled Nursing Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) prior to discharge from Medicare services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for discharge documentation (Resident #172). An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. The Administrator stated they are currently working on big ticket items like stripping and waxing the floors. 5. F623 - Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written notification for a resident representative and the ombudsman for a resident who was transferred to the hospital for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #49). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to notify the emergency contact of a discharge from the facility for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #68). An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 6. F638 - Based on staff interviews and medical record reviews, the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 92 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the previous MDS assessment for 3 of 27 residents (Residents 24, 432 and 6) reviewed for timely completion of quarterly MDS assessments. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to complete a resident assessment within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) for 2 of 14 (Resident #47 and Resident #52) reviewed for timely completion of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 7. F641 - Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the areas of dental (Residents #3, #34 and #43) and tube feeding (Resident #47) for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for resident assessments. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE] and a complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for pressure ulcers for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #43). An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. The Administrator stated MDS assessments was one of the areas that were being audited. 8. F656 - Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #77) and 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #43) reviewed for discharge planning. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for one of two residents (Resident #58) reviewed for care plans. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 9. F657 - Based on record reviews and staff interview, the facility failed to review and update the comprehensive care plan for falls for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #77) reviewed for rehabilitation services. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to revise a care plan after completion of a quarterly assessment for 1 of 5 care plans reviewed for accidents (Resident #7). An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 10. F677 - Based on observations, record reviews and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a shave and nail care for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) (Residents #47 and #77). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to provide nail care (Resident #8 and Resident #54), failed to provide a scheduled shower (Resident #8), failed to clean ear wax from a residents ear (Resident #54) and failed to ensure residents facial hair was groomed (Resident #8 and Resident #54). This was for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) or personal hygiene. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 11. F732 - Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to post the Daily Staffing Form that reflected the current facility census for 26 of the 30 days reviewed for sufficient staffing. The facility also failed to post the Daily Staffing Form prior to the beginning of first shift for 3 out of 4 days observed during survey. During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to post accurate staffing information as compared to the Staff Schedule/ Assignment Sheets for 7 days of the 7 days reviewed. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 12. F760 - Based on record review and staff and Consultant Pharmacist interviews, the facility failed to acquire and administer an intravenous (IV) antibiotic for a newly admitted resident with acute pancreatitis (Resident #280) resulting in four missed doses of medication, and failed to administer 1 dose of an anticoagulant for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (Resident #43). This occurred for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for medication errors. During the recertification and complaint investigation of [DATE], the facility failed to prevent significant medication errors for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #42). The facility administered heart medication, insulin, blood thinner, blood pressure and diabetic medications to Resident #42 after Resident #68 ' s medications were transcribed in error for Resident #42. The facility failed to administer prescribed antipsychotic medication, heart medication, pain medication, tremor medication and insulin to Resident #42. Resident #42 had the high likelihood of additional adverse consequences to the medications he received that were not intended for him. Resident #42 experienced low blood sugar levels and increased tremors. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 13. F761 - Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard expired insulin and date opened insulin for 1 of 2 medication carts observed (100 hall cart). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to remove expired promethazine rectal suppositories (medication used for nausea/vomiting) and expired lansoprazole liquid (medication used for heartburn) in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms. An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice. 14. F883 - Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to offer or administer the pneumococcal vaccine or the influenza vaccine and failed to include documentation that the residents or the resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine and the influenza vaccine immunizations for 5 of 15 residents reviewed for immunization (Resident #'s 29, 42, 55, 56 and 57). During the recertification and complaint investigation survey of [DATE], the facility failed to administer the vaccine and provide the resident and their representative with education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal immunization for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations (Resident #63). An interview with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse Consultant on [DATE] at 3:57 PM revealed the QAA committee met monthly. The Administrator stated the facility has several administrative staff that are new to the facility who are still in their 90-day window and he had planned to distribute the plan of correction from the last survey. The Corporate Nurse Consultant stated most of the people from last year's survey are gone but there are multiple plans in place to correct deficient practice.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide facility residents with CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide facility residents with CMS-10123 Notice of Medicare non-coverage (NOMNC) prior to discharge from Medicare services for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge documentation (Resident #481, Resident #40, and Resident #480). Findings included: 1. Resident #481 was admitted to the facility 4/29/2022 and discharged to another facility on 5/4/2022. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #481 had not received a NOMNC form prior to discharge. An interview was conducted with the Social Worker (SW) on 9/1/2022 at 10:44 AM. The SW reported she was not aware a NOMNC form should have been provided to Resident #481 upon discharge to the other facility. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported he expected all residents to be provided with the appropriate notices upon their discharge from the facility or from therapy services. 2. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged by physical therapy on 8/16/2022. Resident #40 remained in the facility. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #40 had not received a NOMNC form prior to discharge from therapy services. An interview was conducted with the SW on 9/1/2022 at 10:44 AM. The SW reported she was not aware a NOMNC form should have been provided to Resident #40 upon discharge from therapy services. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported he expected all residents to be provided with the appropriate notices upon their discharge from therapy services. 3. Resident #480 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home 3/17/2022. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #480 had not received a NOMNC form prior to discharge. An interview was conducted with the SW on 9/1/2022 at 10:44 AM. The SW reported she was not aware a NOMNC form should have been provided to Resident #480 upon discharge to home. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported he expected all residents to be provided with the appropriate notices upon their discharge from the facility.
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 staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written notification for a resident representative ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written notification for a resident representative and the ombudsman for a resident who was transferred to the hospital for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #49). Findings included: Resident #49 was admitted to the facility 6/25/2022. Resident #49 was discharged to the hospital on 6/27/2022 and readmitted to the facility 7/21/2022. Resident #49 was discharged to the hospital on 8/23/2022 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #49 was discharged to the hospital on 8/29/2022 and was hospitalized during the dates of the survey. a. Review of Resident #49 ' s medical record revealed no written communication to the family related to Resident #49 ' s hospitalizations were scanned into the record. An interview was conducted by phone with the family member of Resident #49 on 8/29/2022 at 2:45 PM. The family member reported she had been told Resident #49 was going to the hospital, but she was not provided written information. The Business Office Manager (BOM) was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 2:00 PM. The BOM reported that the admissions coordinator was responsible for providing family members with written notices of hospitalization. The BOM reported the facility had not had anyone in the admissions coordinator position since 6/24/2022 and she thought the medical records staff were supposed to call residents who were hospitalized . The BOM reported the medical records staff member was out sick and not available for interview. b. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 2:29 PM. The SW reported she did not send a list of discharges to the county ombudsman. The SW reported she was aware she should provide the ombudsman with a list of discharged residents. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/1/2022 at 3:37 PM. The Administrator reported the admissions coordinator had quit without notice on 6/24/2022. The Administrator explained the admissions coordinator was responsible to call residents or their family members when the resident was discharged to the hospital. The Administrator reported without the admission coordinator, the medical records staff was calling family members, but medical records staff was out sick. The Administrator reported he expected a written notice of hospitalization to be provided to residents or their family members when the resident left the facility for an unplanned hospitalization. The Administrator reported he was not aware SW was not providing a list of discharges to the county ombudsman.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to post the Daily Staffing Form that reflected the current facility census for 26 of the 30 days reviewed for sufficient s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to post the Daily Staffing Form that reflected the current facility census for 26 of the 30 days reviewed for sufficient staffing. The facility also failed to post the Daily Staffing Form prior to the beginning of first shift for 3 out of 4 days observed during survey. Findings included: An observation was made upon entry to the facility on 8/29/2022 at 9:35 AM of the daily staff posting in the lobby of the front entrance. The posting was dated 8/28/2022. A second observation at 9:45 AM showed it had been replaced with the current date and was completely filled out. On 8/30/22, the daily staff posting was not posted in the front lobby entrance until 8:20 AM. On 8/31/22, the daily staff posting was not posted in the front lobby entrance until 9:45 AM. During a review of 30 days of staff schedules and daily postings on 8/31/22 at 11:15 AM, there was not a census for the facility documented on 26 of 30 days reviewed. Facility scheduler was out sick from the facility and not available for interview. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/1/22 at 11:21 AM, she stated she was aware that the daily staff posting should be posted daily at the beginning of first shift which was 7:00am-3:00pm. She also stated she was aware the daily facility census is required for the form and that the scheduler in charge of doing that was new to the job.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "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). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 37 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $24,850 in fines. Higher than 94% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 21/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita's CMS Rating?

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

How is Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita Staffed?

CMS rates Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita?

State health inspectors documented 37 deficiencies at Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 33 with potential for harm, and 3 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 Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita?

Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita 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 ALLIANCE HEALTH GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 102 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Thomasville, North Carolina.

How Does Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita Ever Fined?

Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita has been fined $24,850 across 1 penalty action. This is below the North Carolina average of $33,327. 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 Magnolia Gardens Center For Nursing And Rehabilita on Any Federal Watch List?

Magnolia Gardens Center for Nursing and Rehabilita 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.