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.