Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc

2305 Silver Stream Lane, Wilmington, NC 28401 (910) 362-3621
For profit - Corporation 110 Beds PEAK RESOURCES, INC. Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
15/100
#369 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Peak Resources-Wilmington has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided, which places it in the bottom tier of nursing homes. Ranking #369 out of 417 in North Carolina means it is in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and it is the least favorable option in New Hanover County at #11 out of 11. Although the facility shows an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 16 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, there are still serious shortcomings, including a concerning incident where a resident was subjected to inappropriate touching by another resident. Staffing is below average with a 2/5 rating, and while turnover is slightly better than the state average at 43%, RN coverage is lacking compared to 80% of other facilities in North Carolina. Additionally, the facility has incurred $35,483 in fines, which indicates potential compliance issues that families should consider carefully.

Trust Score
F
15/100
In North Carolina
#369/417
Bottom 12%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
16 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near North Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$35,483 in fines. Higher than 90% of North Carolina facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below North Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below North Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $35,483

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: PEAK RESOURCES, INC.

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, and Physician Assistant (PA), the facility failed to protect the res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews with resident, staff, and Physician Assistant (PA), the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse when the resident reported pain during care and the Nurse Aide (NA) willfully disregarded the resident's complaint and continued to provide care to the resident despite the NA's knowledge that she was hurting the resident. The deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #25). The findings included: Resident # 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including [a condition where there is partial paralysis of all four limbs], chronic pain, anxiety, and neuromuscular dysfunction (a problem with the nerves that control muscles and communication between them, resulting in muscle weakness, fatigue, and loss of function). Resident #25's care plan included a problem area (initiated on 09/09/21) of an activities of daily living (ADL) deficit related to [a condition where there is partial paralysis of all four limbs]. The interventions included to ensure effective pain management prior to ADL activity (initiated on 09/09/21). The care plan also included the problem area (initiated on 09/09/21) of potential pain related to chronic pain. The interventions included handle the resident gently (initiated 09/09/2021) and position resident for comfort (initiated 09/09/21). Resident #25's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated her cognition was fully intact. She had no behaviors and no rejection of care. She had functional limitations with range of motion on both sides of her upper and lower extremities and required assistance with toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, bathing and bed mobility. Resident #25 received routine and as needed pain medication and experienced moderate pain frequently. She was administered opioid medication. The facility's 5-day investigation report completed by the Administrator and submitted to the state on 11/13/24 indicated the facility was made aware of an abuse allegation on 11/08/24 at 11:00 AM for an incident that occurred on 11/03/24 involving NA #6 and Resident #25. The abuse allegation summary indicated Resident #25 requested a grievance after receiving care from NA #6 that she described as rough. The resident reported that she complained of pain and discomfort during the care and NA #6 ignored her requests to stop and kept providing care. NA #6 stated that she heard the resident tell her that she was being rough and was in pain but continued to provide the care anyway. NA #6 did not provide any reason for continuing to provide care to Resident #25 despite being asked to stop. NA #6 was placed on leave on 11/08/24 for the facility to complete an investigation of the incident and was terminated on 11/13/24. A typed statement completed by the Director of Nursing (DON) dated 11/08/24 indicated she (the DON) spoke with NA #6 regarding Resident #25's statement. The NA stated she did provide care for the resident in question on the weekend. When asked if the resident told her that she was hurting her while providing care, NA #6 replied, Yes, I did hear her say that. When asked what she did after hearing the resident say that, NA #6 replied, I continued to finish performing care. NA #6 stated she did not respond to the resident after hearing her say she (NA #6) hurt her. The DON explained to NA #6 that if a resident says that she is hurting during care, then she needs to stop doing what she is doing and re-evaluate how to do the care. An interview was conducted on 03/07/25 at 12:45 PM with Resident #25. She said on 11/03/24 around 10:30 AM NA #6 gave her a bath and provided incontinence care and was rough while providing the care. Resident #25 said NA #6 pushed on her back and side while turning and cleaning her, and it hurt. Resident #25 said she told NA #6 to stop, that it was hurting, but NA #6 did not stop. Resident #25 said her pain was mostly on her backside. She said she had chronic pain in her back, but after the bath and incontinence care, she had increased pain but had no bruise or injury. She said she was not scared or tearful and had no physical or emotional injuries. She indicated she was just concerned that the NA did not stop when she was asked to stop multiple times. An interview was attempted with Nurse Aide #6, but she was not available for interview. An interview was conducted on 03/07/25 at 10:00 AM with the Physician Assistant (PA) and Administrator. Both stated on 11/3/24 NA #6 should have stopped Resident #25's ADL care when the resident complained of pain and told the nursing aide to stop. The Administrator said NA #6 did not stop ADL care when the resident asked her to stop. The Administrator indicated she asked NA #6 why she did not stop, she gave no answer. An interview was conducted on 03/07/25 at 1:00 PM with the DON. She stated on 11/03/24, NA #6 should have stopped incontinence care immediately when asked to stop and she did not. The facility provided a corrective action plan that was not acceptable to the State Agency. When identifying other residents who had the potential to be affected by the deficient practice, the facility completed resident interviews only with alert and oriented residents on NA #6's assignment. The facility did not consider that all residents had the potential to be affected by abuse and did not interview all alert and oriented residents in the facility to ensure no other residents had been affected by the same deficient practice. The facility provided education on abuse and behaviors only to nursing staff. Other facility staff, to include therapy staff who provided hands on resident care and had the potential to encounter residents who refused care, were not provided with education. Additionally, the facility's monitoring audits did not include any observations of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews with staff and Physician Assistant, the facility failed to follow the plan of care for 2 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews with staff and Physician Assistant, the facility failed to follow the plan of care for 2 staff members to assist with activities for daily living (ADL) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #25) whose care plans were reviewed. The findings included: Resident # 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including [a condition where there is partial paralysis of all four limbs], chronic pain, anxiety, and neuromuscular dysfunction (a problem with the nerves that control muscles and communication between them, resulting in muscle weakness, fatigue, and loss of function). Resident #25's care plan initiated on 12/12/23 included a focus area of activities of daily living (ADL) deficit related to [a condition where there is partial paralysis of all four limbs]. A care plan intervention included Resident #25 required 2 or more staff members for care at all times. Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had no cognitive impairments and needed substantial to maximum assistance for personal hygiene. An interview was conducted on 03/07/25 at 12:45 PM with Resident #25. She said on 11/03/24 NA #6 was alone when she performed resident's ADL care and repositioning, and that there should have been two NAs who changed her and turned her. A brief description of Resident #25's grievance interview dated 11/08/24 from the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she spoke with Nurse Aide (NA) #6 regarding Resident #25's statement about being treated roughly by NA #6 during her personal care on 11/03/24. NA #6 stated she did provide care for the resident in question on the weekend. I asked her how many people were in the room providing care during this time. She stated, it was just me. I explained to NA #6 that the resident had a care plan for 2-people to provide care and that she needed to have a second person with her. NA #6 responded with an okay. An interview was conducted on 03/06/25 at 3:15 PM. with Nurse #5 during which she stated on 11/03/24, NA #6 who provided the bath and ADL care for Resident #25 should not have done it alone. Nurse #5 added per the resident's care plan stated Resident #25 required 2 staff for all care. Nurse #5 also stated, whenever care was provided to Resident #25, there should always be 2 staff present, and there wasn't. An interview was not conducted with NA#6 due to being unavailable to interview. An interview was conducted on 03/07/25 at 1:00 PM. with the DON. She stated on 11/03/24 there should not have been only one NA giving Resident #25 ADL care, and that there should have been 2 NAs per resident's care plan. An interview was conducted on 03/07/25 at 10:00 AM with the Physician Assistant (PA) and Administrator. They stated per Resident #25's care plan there should have been two nursing aides assisting with her care, not just NA #6.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide supervision to Resident #44, a severely cognitively impaired resident, who was inadvertently let out of the facility by some visiting children, who held the front door open preventing the wander guard system from locking the door, and she exited the building. The resident was outside without staff knowledge for approximately 5 minutes, where she self-propelled her wheelchair to the curb cut for wheelchairs leading to the parking lot, and overturned hitting her head, resulting in her having to be transported by emergency medical services (EMS) to the emergency department for evaluation and treatment. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for supervision to prevent accidents. The findings included: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include cognitive communication deficit and unspecified dementia with agitation. A physician's order dated 10/2/2024 for Resident #44 was to check for wander guard placement on resident and to test the battery every shift and to check wander guard expiration date and replace prior to expiration date. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #44 was severely cognitively impaired. She was coded for using a wheelchair for mobility and being dependent on staff for transfers to wheelchair. Resident #44 was not coded for wandering behavior or for wearing a wander guard. The care plan for Resident #44 initiated on 1/5/2023 and reviewed on 1/19/2025 revealed a plan of care for cognitive loss/ dementia-resident has a history of alteration in cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to dementia with a goal of being able to communicate basic needs on a daily basis for the next 90 days. Interventions included to ask yes/no questions in order to determine the resident's needs and cue, reorient, and supervise as needed. The care plan included resident experiences wandering (moves with no rational purpose, seemingly oblivious to needs or safety, resident is difficult to redirect) with a goal for her to not injure/harm- self secondary to wandering for next 90 days. Interventions included to assure resident has proper fitting and appropriate foot attire; to equip resident with a device that alarms when she wanders close to exit doors; check for proper functioning of device daily; and check placement every shift. Review of the February Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #44 revealed on 2/14/2025 on the 3:00 PM-11:00 PM shift Nurse #14 documented the wander guard was on Resident #44's right ankle and the battery was working. A nurses' progress note written by Nurse #14 on 2/14/2025 at 8:59 P.M. read in part, Resident observed on ground after attempting to exit facility in wheelchair without assistance. Had previously propelled self in wheelchair from door to door in facility on multiple occasions this shift; stating she was leaving and going back to [NAME] Falls. Redirection by this writer and other staff of multiple attempts without success; resident setting off multiple facility door alarms from wader guard. Children exiting facility during her many attempts to leave inadvertently assisted resident out front door by mistake, which resulted in resident sustaining a fall out of her wheelchair onto the ground; resulting in laceration to right scalp just above ear. Neuro checks within normal limits, 911 activated. Healthcare Provider notified via on call as well as resident's Responsible Party (RP) and also the Director of Nursing. Transferred to the emergency department for further evaluation and treatment. No acute distress upon departure from this facility. Respirations even and unlabored. Moves all extremities without complaints of pain. Remains at baseline. Scalp wound covered with compression bandage to control bleeding. Hemostasis achieved by the time of paramedics' arrival. Resident was alert and talking. Denied pain or discomfort at that time. Report to oncoming as well. A Fall Report completed by Nurse #14 dated 2/14/2025 at 8:44 P.M. revealed Resident #44 was found outside on facility grounds lying on the pavement. She was noted to have a laceration to the right side of her scalp, just above the ear. Resident #44 was alert, and she was not complaining of pain. A possible contributing factor was listed as dementia/progressive cognitive decline. The interventions for Resident #44 listed direct pressure to wound and transferred to the hospital emergency department. A telephone interview was completed with Nurse #14 on 3/6/20205 at 4:17 P.M. Nurse #14 stated that on 2/14/2025 she was working the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 PM shift. She further stated Resident #44 was very active in her wheelchair that night and was going from door to door in the facility trying to exit and was setting off the wander guard door alarms. She further stated that she was chasing Resident #44 all evening trying to redirect her away from the doors. Nurse #14 indicated that she had retrieved Resident #44 each time she had set off the door alarms that evening. She further indicated that at around 7:30 P.M. as she was starting her medication pass, she had noticed 2 young girls approximately [AGE] years old to [AGE] years old exiting the facility. Nurse #14 stated that about 5 minutes after she noticed the girls leaving, they had come running back into the facility stating a resident was outside on the ground. She stated the young girls must have held the door open for Resident #44, because otherwise the doors would have locked when she got too close, and the alarms would have continued to go off. Nurse #14 indicated the alarms were not going off when Resident #44 was found outside in front of the facility at the end of the sidewalk in the yellow area for wheelchair access to the parking lot. She stated that Resident #44 was lying on her right side and there was blood coming from a laceration on her scalp. Nurse #14 stated it was dark outside but there were lights in the parking lot, so she was able to assess the resident. She stated she left Resident #44 outside with Nursing Assistant (NA) #9, and she ran to call 911, and notify the provider and the Responsible Party (RP). Nurse #14 indicated the Nursing Supervisor was outside administering first aid to Resident #44 while she was notifying everyone. The emergency department encounter note written by the Emergency Department Physician on 2/14/2025 read in part that Resident #44 was brought to the hospital by ambulance for an unwitnessed fall. She was found in the parking lot of the nursing facility, and it was unknown if she had a loss of consciousness, no blood thinners, and she was not in any acute pain. The report further read that Resident #44 sustained a 1 centimeter (cm) jagged abrasion to forehead and it was repaired with 4 steri strips. Computed tomography (CT) scans of the head and neck were completed for Resident #44 with no evidence of intracranial pathology, fracture, or malalignment. Resident #44 was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and discharged back to the facility on 2/15/2025. A telephone interview was completed with Nursing Assistant (NA) #9 on 3/7/2025 at 10:07 AM. NA #9 stated that Resident #44 managed to get outside on 2/14/2025 because some young girls held the door open for her. She further stated that she ran outside with Nurse #14 when the children came running back into the facility and stated a resident was outside lying on the ground. NA #9 indicated Resident #44 was found outside at the end of the sidewalk that leads to the parking lot. She further indicated that Resident #44 was bleeding from her head and that the Unit Supervisor came outside and was applying pressure and a dressing to the wound. NA #9 stated that she and the Unit Supervisor waited with Resident #44 until EMS arrived and took her to the emergency department. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Supervisor on 3/5/2025 at 3:50 P.M. The Unit Supervisor explained that on 2/14/2025 at around 7:30 P.M. someone came and told her Nurse #14 needed assistance outside with a resident. She stated when she ran outside, she found Resident #44 at the end of the sidewalk where the curb is lower for the wheelchairs to exit to the parking lot. The Unit Supervisor further stated that it was dark outside but there were security lights in the parking lot so she could see the resident. She indicated that Resident #44's wheelchair was overturned, and she was lying on her right side on the sidewalk and Nurse #14 was already assisting the resident. The Unit Supervisor further indicated she and NA #9 had stayed with the resident until EMS arrived, and Nurse #14 went and called the provider and EMS. She stated Resident #14 had a laceration to her head and that she had applied a pressure dressing to get it to stop bleeding. The Nursing Supervisor further stated that she was told some young girls about [AGE] years old or [AGE] years old had held the door open for Resident #44 and that was how she was able to get outside with a wander guard on. An observation and interview with the Unit Supervisor of Resident #44's wander guard was completed on 3/5/2025 at 4:25 P.M. The Unit Supervisor stated there was a machine on each hall that was for testing the wander guards to make sure the batteries were functioning properly. The wander guard was intact to Resident #44's right ankle and when the Unit Supervisor scanned it with the machine a light came on indicating the wander guard was functioning properly. An interview and observation of the facility wander guard system was completed with the Maintenance Director on 3/6/2025 at 9:35 A.M. The Maintenance Director stated the front lobby door was locked automatically every day from 8:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. He further stated that after 8:00 P.M. a code was needed to unlock the keypad and open the door. The Maintenance Director indicated that during the day there was a receptionist that monitored the door and at night the door was locked to keep the residents from wandering outside. He demonstrated that when a person wearing a wander guard got within approximately 5 feet of the exit doors the wander guard would begin to chirp. The Maintenance Director stated that as the resident approached closer the alarm would chirp louder and faster, and if the resident was within a few inches of the door, it would automatically lock. He further stated that if the door was being held open and was unable to reset then once the person with wander guard got over 5 feet away from the door outside the alarm would stop. The Maintenance Director measured the distance from the front door to the edge of the sidewalk and the parking lot as 60.8 feet. The facility and the parking lot is located off of a cul-de-sac on a dead-end street with not a lot of traffic except visitors to the facility. An interview was completed with Receptionist #1 on 3/7/20205 at 11:55 A.M. Receptionist #1 stated that she had worked at the facility for 2 years. She further stated that part of her responsibilities included preventing residents with wander guards from exiting the building. Receptionist #1 stated she worked Monday through Friday and from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. and that Receptionist #2 worked from 4:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Receptionist #1 Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M. on the weekend. She indicated that someone was responsible for monitoring the door when she was at lunch. Receptionist #1 stated she checked the elopement book several times a week to make sure nobody had left or had been added to the list. She further stated the book contained current pictures of the residents that wore wander guards and were not allowed outside without supervision. She stated that she usually tried to distract residents from setting off the alarm and get them away from the door. Receptionist #1 further stated if she was unable to distract the residents or they became agitated she would call the nurse for help. She further stated that she recalled that Receptionist #1 called in on 2/14/2025, so there was no one assigned to watch the front door from 4:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M . An interview was completed with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/7/2025 at 10:55 A.M. The DON stated that she heard Resident #44 got outside because some children had held the front door open for her. She further stated that the doors were unable to lock when Resident #44 got too close to the door because they were holding the door open. The DON stated that Resident #44 was only outside for about 5 minutes, and it was unfortunate that her wheelchair had turned over at the end of the sidewalk and she was injured. She stated that she did not expect someone wearing a wander guard to be found outside and injured. An interview was completed with the Administrator on 3/7/2025 at 9:45 A.M. The Administrator stated that the facility employed a receptionist that worked from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and another one that usually works 4: 30 P.M to 8:00 P.M. She stated that the receptionist for the 4:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. shift had called in sick on 2/14/2025. The Administrator further stated that it was everyone's responsibility to respond if a wander guard alarm was going off. She indicated she didn't believe the incident involving Resident #44 that occurred on 2/14/2025 was the facility's fault, because some children had held the door open for her. The Administrator stated that Resident #44 was only outside for a few minutes, but unfortunately, she had already fallen out of her wheelchair when she was found. She further stated there was sign in the lobby by the front door that says, Please check with Nurse before assisting residents outside.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide nutritional supplements to 1 of 11 residents reviewed for nutrition ( Resident #89). Findings included: Resident #89 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of protein calorie malnutrition, Alzheimer's, and dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). Review of Resident #89's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident had cognitive impairment, severe cognitive impairment, and hold food in mouth or cheeks after meals, coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing and weight loss. Review of Resident #89's electronic health record revealed the following weights were recorded: 10/20/2024 130.4 Pounds (Lbs.) 10/27/2024 132.8 Lbs. 11/03/2024 133.2 Lbs. 11/10/2024133.1 Lbs. 11/17/2024 133 Lbs. 12/17/2024 132.8 Lbs. 1/08/2025 118.2 Lbs. 2/05/2025 116.2 Lbs. 2/24/2025 103 Lbs. 3/01/2025 106.3 Lbs. 3/03/2025 104.9 Lbs. A review of Resident #89's care plan revealed a problem initiated on 10/23/24 and last revised on 2/20/25 of nutrition impairment related to multiple chronic diseases, cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's, protein calorie malnutrition, underweight status, increased nutrient needs with a pressure ulcer, mechanically altered diet, and honey thick liquids. Interventions indicated to provide and serve supplements as indicated. Review of Resident #89's physician orders revealed an order dated 2/19/25 for frozen nutritional cup with meals. A review of Resident #89's electronic health record revealed an interdisciplinary team note dated 2/27/25 which indicated in part resident with noted weight loss and nutritional decline the past few months, worsening dysphagia and dislikes pureed foods. Resident #89 had significant weight loss this month and was primarily only consuming frozen nutritional magic cups, yogurts, and pureed desserts with meals. Observation of resident on 3/3/25 at 12:50 PM revealed resident in bed with his meal tray in front of him. The meal tray ticket on the tray indicated Resident #89 was to receive a regular pureed diet with honey thickened liquids. The meal tray ticket indicated Resident #89 was to receive a frozen nutritional treat. The meal tray ticket indicated to send frozen nutritional cup. No frozen nutritional treat was noted on the meal tray. An interview with the Registered Dietitian (RD) on 3/5/25 at 4:00 PM revealed Resident #89 had weight loss and was to receive a nutritional supplement. The RD indicated he was not aware of Resident #89 receiving the frozen nutrtional treat as ordered. The RD stated he was not informed of a problem with the supplier of the supplement and that the resident should receive the nutritional supplement as ordered. An observation of Resident #89's lunch meal on 3/6/25 at 12:50 PM revealed resident was sitting up at his bedside with his meal tray in front of him. Resident #89 had a pureed meal with honey thick lemonade. No frozen nutritional treat was observed on the meal tray. Resident #89's meal tray had a small dish of pudding on the tray that was unopened. An interview with the Dietary Manager on 03/06/25 at 2:00 PM revealed the facility was out of several items including the frozen nutritional treat that week and were waiting for a food vendor shipment at the end of the week. The Dietary Manager stated that they should have frozen nutritional treats and other needed items on hand per the physician orders and they did not. She said she was new to the position and was still learning about the facility and the ordering process. The Dietary Manager stated that today the kitchen sent pudding instead of the frozen nutritional treat.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to honor food preferences for 1 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to honor food preferences for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident # 76) reviewed for meal preferences. Findings included: Resident #76 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux. Resident #76's care plan dated 4/30/23 revealed a nutritional status problem that was last revised on 2/26/25. The nutritional status problem indicated Resident #76 had potential for nutritional and hydration impairment and the approaches indicated to determine resident's food likes and dislikes. Resident #76's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed resident was cognitively intact, had no weight recorded and weight loss or weight gain was coded as no or unknown. Resident #76's electronic health record revealed a dietary progress note written by the Registered Dietitian (RD) dated 12/23/24 which indicated the resident received a regular diet with thin liquids and received vanilla ice cream and extra sandwiches with lunch and dinner. A grievance filed on behalf of Resident #76 dated 2/3/25 indicated the resident was not supposed to receive rice but she received rice on two occasions in the last week. The steps taken to investigate revealed the Dietary Manager was interviewed and she stated that the meal tickets were misread by the staff preparing the meal tray. The corrective action revealed that the kitchen staff was instructed to thoroughly read the meal tickets and the diet order was updated on 2/3/25 for no rice. Resident #76's electronic health record revealed a physician order dated 2/3/25 for a regular diet with no rice. A list of alternate entrees indicated the following items were always available: hamburger, cheeseburger, deli sandwich, chef salad, grilled cheese and the sides were French fries, potato chips, tossed salad, cream of tomato soup, and chicken noodle soup. An interview and meal observation of Resident #76 were conducted on 3/03/25 at 12:50 PM. Resident #76 was in bed with a meal tray on the overbed table in front of her. The meal ticket indicated Resident #76 was to receive a regular diet with extra items, a peanut butter sandwich and vanilla ice cream. No vanilla ice cream was observed on the meal tray. Resident #76 stated she does not like peanut butter sandwiches, and she was not able to eat the fish that was served. Resident #76 stated she tried to eat the fish twice before and it made her sick. Resident #76 stated she asked for a salad yesterday and today for lunch and was told the facility did not have any dressing so she could not get a salad as requested. She stated she just ate her cake for lunch. Resident #76 stated she frequently received foods that she did not like or could not eat so she just ate snacks her family provided, or she did not eat. An interview was conducted with the corporate Dietary Consultant on 3/3/25 at 2:45 PM. The Dietary Consultant stated the Dietary Manager was only in the position for a few weeks and she (the Consultant) assisted at the facility a few days per week. The Dietary Consultant stated resident preferences are updated as needed. The Dietary Consultant indicated that residents could request a salad anytime per their preference as part of the always available options. The Dietary Consultant stated she expected the facility would have salad dressing available. If pre-made salad dressing was not available, the facility could have made salad dressing from scratch. The Dietary Consultant indicated a resident should receive items as requested per their preference and the items should be available. An interview and observation of Resident #76's dinner tray on 3/4/25 at 6:00 PM revealed she was served greens, mashed potatoes, barbecue chicken, fruit cocktail and a grilled cheese sandwich. Resident #76 stated she does not eat greens, and the potatoes did not taste good. Resident #76's meal tray ticket indicated the resident was to receive vanilla ice cream and a grilled cheese sandwich in addition to the regular diet. An interview was conducted with the Registered Dietitian (RD) on 3/5/25 at 4:00 PM. The RD stated items should be available to meet residents' preferences. The RD stated he visited Resident #76 at times when he was in the facility. The RD reviewed Resident #76's record and stated it looked like neither he nor the Dietary Manager had updated the resident's profile of preferences since last year. The RD stated that the Dietary Manager was supposed to update resident preferences quarterly and as needed. The RD stated the Dietary Manager was new to the position and was still learning. The RD stated he was not aware that Resident #76 did not eat fish or collards and did not like peanut butter sandwiches. A meal observation and interview with Resident #76 on 3/6/25 at 12:50 PM revealed the resident was in bed with the head of bed elevated and the meal tray was in front of resident on the overbed table. The meal tray consisted of a chef salad with ranch dressing, peanut butter sandwich, water and iced tea. The meal ticket indicated resident was to receive a salad with French dressing. Resident #76 stated she does not eat the peanut butter sandwiches they keep sending on her meal trays. Resident #76 stated she liked the salad and was eating it with ranch dressing even though she had requested French dressing. An interview with the Administrator on 3/7/25 at 4:30 PM revealed she expected that resident preferences would be honored and that food items would be available to meet resident preferences.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A grievance reporting form dated 1/15/2025 completed by Director of Nursing (DON) stated an incident happened on the 11:00 P....

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A grievance reporting form dated 1/15/2025 completed by Director of Nursing (DON) stated an incident happened on the 11:00 P.M. to 7 A.M. shift on 1/14/2025 involving Nurse Assistant (NA) #1 and Resident #54 and Resident #85. A description of the grievance indicated NA #1 was speaking rudely to the resident, slamming doors, and slamming water cups on the table. She didn't change the resident when she came into the room. The grievance was investigated by the DON. The conclusion of the investigation was that NA #1 didn't provide good customer service. The corrective action taken was that NA #1 was suspended pending an investigation, education, and she was not to take care of Residents #54 and #85. The grievance reporting form indicated NA #1 had received education regarding customer service and treatment of residents with dignity and respect. The form included no indication that other residents were interviewed to determine if they had experienced similar behaviors when NA #1 was assigned to their care. a. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #54 dated 11/15/2024 revealed she was cognitively intact, had no behaviors, and required assistance of staff with toileting, bed mobility, and transfers. She was coded for using a walker and a wheelchair for mobility. An interview was completed with Resident #54 on 3/7/2025 at 8:20 A.M. Resident #54 stated she recalled the incident that occurred with NA #1 on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M shift on 1/14/2025. She further stated that NA #1 seemed mad when she came into her room to change her that night, because she turned on both bright lights, was being loud, cursing and slamming things around. Resident #54 stated she had asked NA #1 to pick something up off the floor for her and that NA #1 had started cursing and yelling at her and said she wasn't going to change her and left slamming the door. She stated that it made her feel bad and like there was something wrong with her for NA #1 to act that way. Resident #54 stated she couldn't understand why NA #1 would treat her like that and it made her feel sad. She indicated that she told the Medication Aid (MA) on the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift about the incident and the DON came and filled out the grievance for her. b. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility 8/27/2024. The quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #85 dated 12/4/2024 revealed Resident #85 was cognitively intact. An interview was conducted with Resident #54's roommate, Resident #85, on 3/7/2025 at 8:27 A.M. Resident #85 stated that on 1/14/2025 at 4:00 A.M when NA #1 came into the room to change Resident #54 she was being very loud and cursing. She further stated that NA #1 slammed Resident #54's bedside table against the wall and her (Resident #54) pink plastic water cup had fallen off and broke. Resident #85 indicated that NA #1 was mad and left the room without changing Resident #54. She stated when NA #1 was acting that way it made her feel like she didn't have any rights. An interview was completed with Medication Aid (MA) #1 on 3/7/2025 at 8:35 A.M. MA #1 stated that on 1/14/2025 both Resident #54 and Resident #85 had complained to her about NA #1 being rude. She further stated that Resident #85 had shared that NA #1 was rude and slamming doors. MA #1 indicated she had informed the DON, and she said she would handle it. A facility employee action form-performance for NA #1 indicated NA#1 was written up and suspended on 1/15/2025 for residents' complaints of poor attitude, slamming doors, slamming cups on table, and not picking up something from the floor when asked. It was noted on the form that NA #1 was suspended from 1/15/20205 through 1/17/2025 and that she refused to sign the form. A telephone interview was completed with NA #1 on 3/7/2025 at 10:13 A.M. NA #1 stated that she had worked at the facility for 3 years. She further stated that when she was suspended the DON had told her she was being accused of being rude and slamming things. NA #1 indicated that she was not allowed to go in Resident #54's and Resident #85's room anymore. She further indicated she could not recall ever having an incident with Resident #54 or Resident #85. NA #1 stated she could not recall receiving any customer service education but that she had received education on dignity, respect, and abuse. She further stated most of the education provided was through online healthcare training. An interview was completed with the DON on 3/7/2025 at 09:00 A.M. The DON stated that when the incident occurred between NA #1 and Resident #54 in the presence of Resident #85 on 1/14/2025, there had already been a prior event just a few days before involving the same allegations with another resident (Resident #26). She further stated that NA #1 was written up for the first incident but received a 2-day suspension for the incident involving Resident #54 because it was starting to be a pattern. The DON indicated that NA #1 was suspended for poor customer service, for speaking rudely and being loud, slamming doors, and not changing the resident. She further indicated that NA #1 refused to sign the employee action performance form. The DON explained NA #1 was not a friendly type person and could come across as abrasive at times. The DON stated that customer service was a topic they focused on at the monthly staff meetings, and that was covered in the online healthcare training provided by the facility. An interview was completed with the Administrator on 3/7/2025 at 9:45 A.M. The Administrator stated that NA #1 was suspended for her poor customer service and rude behavior. She further stated when a disciplinary issue arose with a staff member, the facility followed the procedure outlined in the employee handbook, verbal counseling, written warning, suspension, and termination. The Administrator indicated that she considered being rude, loud, and slamming doors a customer service issue. She further indicated that she expected the residents to be treated with dignity and respect. Based on resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to treat residents in a dignified manner as evidenced by staff interactions with residents that included cursing, slamming doors and arguing with residents for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #26, Resident #54, and Resident #85). Findings included: 1. Resident #26 was admitted on [DATE]. A review of Resident #26's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident was cognitively intact, had no behaviors, required assistance with bed mobility, transfers and toileting and was non-ambulatory. a. Review of a grievance form dated 11/11/24 indicated a grievance was completed by the Director of Nursing (DON) on behalf of Resident #26. The form indicated an incident occurred on 11/11/24 during the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift between Nursing Assistant (NA) #5, Resident #26 and her family member. The incident was witnessed by the DON. The form indicated that the DON was called to Resident #26's room by the family member. A typed statement attached to the form signed by the DON dated 11/11/24 indicated: the nurse alerted the DON that the family member wished to speak with a manager. The DON went to Resident #26's room and observed NA #5 was removing dirty linens from the room and the family member was removing gloves from her hands. The family member started to explain that upon her arrival to visit she walked into the room and noticed it smelled of urine. The family member expressed concern about Resident #26's care and asked NA #5 when Resident #26 last received incontinence care. The statement indicated that as the DON, the family member and Resident #26 were talking, NA #5 came back into the room and started arguing with the family member and Resident #26. The DON informed NA #5 that she was being rude and asked her to leave the room. The family member said something, NA #5 responded using curse words and left the room. The family member stated she did not want NA #5 to provide care to Resident #26 again. The investigation concluded that NA #5 was disrespectful to the family member and the resident. Corrective action was taken and indicated that NA #5 was not to provide care for Resident #26 again. Education was provided to NA #5 regarding customer service verbally on 11/11/24 and in writing on 11/12/24. Attempts to interview NA #5 on 3/6/25 and 3/7/25 at 9:00 AM were unsuccessful. Voice messages were left and text messages sent with no return call. An interview was conducted on 3/7/25 at 11:50 AM with Nurse #4 who was assigned to Resident #26 on 11/11/24. Nurse #4 indicated he was working on 11/11/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM when Resident #26's family member came to him (Nurse #4) and had care concerns for the resident. Nurse #4 stated the family member requested to talk to the DON. Nurse #4 stated he informed the DON, and she went to Resident #26's room to talk to the family member. Nurse #4 indicated he was not involved in the discussion that ensued. Nurse #4 stated he worked with NA #5 a few times and was not aware of any problems. An interview with the DON on 3/7/25 at 12:37 PM revealed she was informed on 11/11/24 by Nurse #4 that Resident #26's family member had concerns regarding the resident's care and requested to speak with her. The DON stated she went to Resident #26's room and observed NA #5 and the family member were completing the resident's care. The DON stated she observed NA #5 arguing with the family member and Resident #26. The DON indicated NA #5 cursed in front of Resident #26. The DON asked NA #5 to leave the room. The DON stated she did not think Resident #26 was affected by the altercation at the time, but she did not recall. The DON indicated NA #5 received a written warning regarding cursing and arguing with the family member and the resident. The DON stated she started in the position at the facility in late August of 2024 and she did not know NA #5 at the time of the incident. The DON stated she was not aware of any reports of other issues involving NA #5. The DON stated she was not sure why there were customer service issues with staff members and there seemed to be a pattern of issues. The DON indicated arguing with a resident and family member and cursing were not appropriate behaviors and did not demonstrate treating a resident with dignity and respect. b. A review of a grievance reporting form dated 1/10/25 completed by Resident #26's family member stated an incident happened on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 1/9/25 involving Nursing Assistant (NA) #1. A description of the grievance indicated that the family member witnessed NA #1 being rude and arguing with the resident, the resident was not provided with good customer service and the NA was slamming doors. NA #1 had an attitude with the resident when asked to pick something from the floor, cursed at her, refused to pick up the item and left the room. The grievance was referred to the DON to investigate. The conclusion of the investigation was that NA #1 did not provide good customer service. The corrective action taken was that the NA was not to be assigned to the hallway that Resident #26 resided or in her room. The grievance reporting form indicated NA #1 received education regarding customer service and treatment of residents with dignity and respect. The form included no indication that other residents were interviewed to determine if they had experienced similar behaviors when NA #1 provided care. An interview was conducted with Resident #26 on 3/7/25 at 2:00 PM. Resident #26 stated she recalled the incident with NA #1 in January. Resident #26 stated that night, NA #1 came in and she was really mad. Resident #26 indicated she could tell NA #1 was mad because she kept slamming the door, she was rude and abrupt and refused to pick something up for her from on the floor. Resident #26 stated it upset her how NA #1 treated her. An interview with the Administrator on 3/7/25 at 8:30 AM revealed that NA #1 received a verbal warning and education regarding customer service and was not to be assigned to Resident #26's room. The Administrator stated the facility was going through the process with NA #1 according to the facility human resources policy. The Administrator stated NA #1 did not treat Resident #26 with dignity and respect. The Administrator indicated that she expected that all residents would be treated with dignity and respect. An interview conducted with the Director of Nursing on 3/7/25 at 9:00 AM indicated Resident #26's responsible party voiced a grievance that NA #1 was rude and disrespectful on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 1/9/25. The DON stated she interviewed NA #1 as part of the investigation and NA #1 stated she did not think she (NA #1) was rude. The DON stated NA #1 can be abrasive and can come across as not very nice. The DON stated she did not want to say it was just the NA's personality to not be nice, but maybe that was the problem. The DON indicated she (the DON) started in the position in August 2024, she had not gotten to know NA #1 and was not familiar with the care she provided. The DON stated that a few days after this incident there was an incident with another resident (Resident #54) and NA #1, and this indicated there was a pattern of concerns with this NA. The DON stated NA #1 was not written up for this incident on 1/9/25 and was not suspended for this incident. The DON indicated she addressed the issue as a customer service issue not an abuse issue. The DON indicated she interviewed some of the nurses that work the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift and they did not report a concern regarding NA #1. The DON stated she thought there was training on the computer regarding customer service, but she did not know how often it was required. The DON stated the facility conducted a monthly meeting that was mandatory, and customer service was discussed but staff didn't always attend. NA #1 did not attend the meeting in February. There were two halls that NA #1 was not allowed to work on. The DON stated the facility was progressing through the steps of the human resources process to address the issues with this NA. The DON indicated she interviewed some residents following the incidents with NA #1 but did not record this information. The DON stated it was not appropriate for NA #1 to curse at or in front of a resident, to be rude or refuse to provide care. An interview was conducted with the NA #1 on 3/7/25 at 10:30 AM. NA #1 confirmed she was assigned to Resident #26 on 1/9/25 from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. NA #1 indicated the DON never talked to her about an incident with Resident # 26 or any other resident. NA #1 stated she did not recall any problems with Resident #26 and was assigned to her a few weeks ago. NA #1 stated she did not recall having any education in January regarding customer service. NA #1 stated she might have had an online in-service regarding customer service and resident rights a few months ago but she did not recall. A telephone interview was conducted with Nurse #3 on 3/7/25 at 1:35 PM. Nurse #3 indicated he was working on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 1/9/25 when the incident occurred between Resident #26 and NA #1. Nurse #3 stated there were incidents with other residents and NA #1 prior to this incident. Nurse #3 stated he was aware there was another resident that requested to not have NA #1 provide her care due to her attitude. Nurse #3 stated he had witnessed episodes including the night of 1/9/25 in which NA #1 was argumentative and rude to Resident #26, but he had not reported the incidents because he did not realize it was a dignity issue. An interview was conducted with Nurse #1 on 3/7/25 at 10:05 AM. Nurse #1 stated she worked 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift sometimes and worked with NA # 1. Nurse #1 indicated NA #1 was thorough with her work but was not friendly and came across as rude sometimes.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews with staff and residents, the facility failed to provide a clean, homelike environment for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews with staff and residents, the facility failed to provide a clean, homelike environment for 4 resident rooms on 2 of 5 halls reviewed for the environment (200 hall and 300 hall). Findings: Review of the resident council meeting minutes revealed the minutes dated 12/10/24 indicated a concern of resident rooms were not clean. a. The following observations were made of room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 3/3/25 at 12:00 PM Observation of Bed 2 revealed the top of the nightstand was cluttered and dirty with a sticky substance and an unwrapped cough drop was stuck to the top. Scratches were observed on the front of the nightstand. The floor under Bed 2 and around the bed was observed with cough drop wrappers, food and other debris. The dressers for both residents in the room had scratches and the drawers did not fully close. The privacy curtain was observed with scattered orange food stains. Observation of Bed 1 revealed the nightstand was scratched and cluttered, and a recliner chair was piled with pillows and linens. A bag of incontinence pads was observed on the floor. On 3/4/25 at 2:15 PM. room [ROOM NUMBER] Beds 1 and 2. The dressers in the room had scratches and the drawers did not fully close. A recliner chair piled with pillows and linens was observed beside the resident in Bed 1. The floor underneath and around Bed 2 was observed with cough drop wrappers, food and other debris. The nightstand was cluttered with multiple tubes and bottles of creams and lotions, the drawers of the nightstand would not close The privacy curtain was observed with stains. A bag of incontinence pads was observed on the floor. On 3/5/25 at 1:30 PM room [ROOM NUMBER]. Beds 1 and 2. The dressers in the room had scratches and the drawers did not fully close. A recliner chair piled with pillows and linens was observed beside the resident in Bed 1. The floor underneath and around Bed 2 was observed with cough drop wrappers, food and other debris. The nightstand was cluttered with multiple tubes and bottles of creams and lotions, the drawers of the nightstand would not close The privacy curtain was observed with stains. A bag of incontinence pads was observed on the floor. On 3/6/25 at 1:45 PM room [ROOM NUMBER]. Beds 1 and 2. The dressers in the room had scratches and the drawers did not fully close. A recliner chair piled with pillows and linens was observed beside the resident in Bed 1. The floor underneath and around Bed 2 was observed with cough drop wrappers, food and other debris. The nightstand was cluttered with multiple tubes and bottles of creams and lotions, the drawers of the nightstand would not close The privacy curtain was observed with stains. A bag of incontinence pads was observed on the floor. b. The following observations were made of room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 3/3/25 at 12:15 PM. Soiled towels were observed on the floor in the bathroom. A soiled brief was noted on top of the plastic cabinet in the bathroom. A green plastic soda cap was observed under the bed by the wall. The bed rails were visibly dirty and sticky. The bedside table was cluttered with bottles of lotion and tubes of cream. There were scratches on the dressers. A recliner chair was piled with bed linens, pillows and personal items. A rollator (a rolling walker with a seat) was piled with personal items in the corner of the room by the window. The resident in the window bed was not ambulatory. On 3/4/25 at 2:45 PM. The bedside table was observed to be cluttered with bottles of lotion and tubes of cream. The front of the dressers were scratched. The floor in the room was dirty with a white substance observed and various food debris and trash. A soda bottle cap was observed on the floor under the bed by the wall, an empty plastic medication cup and a plastic drinking cup were observed. An empty soda bottle was on the floor next to the bed. A recliner chair was piled with bed linens, pillows and personal items. A rollator piled with personal items was observed in the corner by the window bed. The resident in the window bed is not ambulatory. On 3/5/25 at 1:30 PM: The bedside table was observed to be cluttered with bottles of lotion and tubes of cream and the front of the dressers were scratched. The green soda cap was by the wall, an empty plastic medication cup and a plastic drinking cup were observed. An empty soda bottle was on the floor next to the bed. Items were piled in the recliner chair including bed linens, pillows and personal items. The unused rollator was in the corner piled with items. On 3/6/25 at 1:45 PM. The bedside table was observed to be cluttered with bottles of lotions and tubes of cream and the front of the dressers were scratched. The same green bottle cap was in the same place under the bed as it had been the past 3 days. The plastic cup and plastic medicine cup were observed in the same place under the resident's bed. The over bed table was covered in sticky substance. c. The following observations were made of room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 3/3/25 at 12:20 PM. Black marks were observed on the wall beside the bed and the overbed table was observed with a sticky substance. On 3/4/25 at 2:20 PM. Black marks were observed on the wall beside the bed and the overbed table was covered with a sticky substance. On 3/5/25 at 1:45 PM. Black marks were observed on the wall beside the bed and the overbed table was covered with a sticky substance. d. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] and interview with the resident representative was conducted on 3/3/25 at 11:45 AM and revealed the floor was dirty and sticky. The resident representative stated the room did not get cleaned regularly and the floor needed to be swept and mopped more frequently. An interview on 3/03/25 at 2:41 PM with Resident #28 in room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed there were black marks on the wall beside the bed. Resident #28 stated her room was cleaned every 3 days. Resident #28 stated she tried to not get her room too dirty since it doesn't get cleaned that often and she tries to clean up for herself as much as she can. Interviews were conducted with Housekeepers #1 and #2 on 3/4/25 at 9:30 AM. Housekeepers #1 and #2 stated all rooms were supposed to be cleaned daily but sometimes when there are call outs or someone was scheduled to be off, they were not able to clean all the rooms. Housekeepers #1 and #2 stated the facility was usually staffed with 3 housekeepers and a floor technician. Housekeeper #1 and #2 stated even when they were fully staffed, it was hard to get everything done as they were assigned 20 or more resident rooms plus the common areas and offices. Housekeepers #1 and #2 stated they completed the 5 steps of cleaning resident rooms which consisted of empty trash, clean the horizontal surfaces, spot clean the vertical surfaces, dust mop and damp mop the room. An interview was conducted with the Housekeeping Account Manager on 3/5/25 at 10:00 AM. The Account Manager stated she was the manager of the housekeeping department. The Account Manager stated the housekeeping department was fully staffed with 10 employees. The Account Manager indicated the facility was staffed with 3 housekeepers and a floor technician daily. The Account Manager indicated all resident rooms were to be cleaned daily as well as the common areas. The Account Manager indicated she was in the position with the contracted company in the facility for the past 8 months. The Account Manager indicated she completed daily rounds to spot check random rooms for cleanliness and she had found that rooms were not always done per standard. The Account Manager stated she brought it to the assigned staff member's attention when she found rooms not meeting the standard. The Account Manager stated she had new staff members and had call outs which impacted on the cleaning of the rooms. The Account Manager indicated she received some grievances recently regarding the cleanliness of the facility and was trying to address them. The Account Manager stated she expected the following to be completed in each room: empty the trash, clean the trash can, put in extra bags, disinfect the horizontal surfaces including door knobs, air conditioner, light fixtures, disinfect the vertical surfaces including the walls, dust and damp mop the floors. Each housekeeper was assigned approximately 20 rooms per day plus cleaning of the common areas and the offices. An interview was conducted with the Unit Manager on 3/5/25 at 11:45 AM. The Unit Manager stated he assumed that the rooms were cleaned daily or at least every other day. The Unit Manager indicated it was a team effort to keep rooms clean and clutter free, but he did not know who should clean the rooms of spills or trash when housekeeping was not available or who removed no longer used medical equipment from rooms. The Unit Manager stated the managers were assigned rooms to complete concierge rounds daily which consisted of observing the cleanliness of the rooms. A resident council meeting was held on 3/5/25 at 1:30 PM as part of the recertification survey process. The resident council meeting included a sample of cognitively intact residents. The residents in attendance at the meeting stated the cleanliness of the rooms was improving but the floors in their rooms were often sticky. A follow-up interview and observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] was completed with the Housekeeping Account Manager on 3/6/25 at 2:20 PM. The Housekeeping Account Manager stated there was an issue with clutter in the rooms and the facility planned on working on this. The Housekeeping Account Manager indicated the privacy curtains were supposed to be cleaned monthly and as needed. The Housekeepers were expected to check the privacy curtains daily and if soiled replace it. The Housekeeping Account Manager stated the housekeepers can't clean the surfaces in the rooms due to the clutter and they don't think they can move anything in the rooms. An interview with the Administrator on 3/7/25 at 2:30 PM revealed that she expected that resident rooms would be clean, homelike and clutter free. The Administrator stated that the scratched furniture should be addressed.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to assess Resident #4 before transferrin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Nurse Practitioner interviews the facility failed to assess Resident #4 before transferring her back to bed after she was found on the floor for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for falls. The findings included: Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #4's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, failure to thrive, and cerebrovascular disease. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #4 had severe cognitive impairment and required one-person supervision with transfers. There were behaviors and rejection of care noted during the assessment reference period. There was also a history of falls since admission to the facility. The MDS also revealed that Resident #4 had a prognosis of less than 6-months to live and received Hospice care. Resident #4's Medication Administration Record dated 04/2024 revealed the resident was only receiving one medication, Tylenol 500-milligrams three times a day. Review of an initial allegation report dated 04/17/24 at 1:20 PM read, staff reported Resident #4 was observed in bed with a hematoma over right eye, an injury of unknown origin. The resident was not interviewable. The facility staff-initiated skin checks and interviews for residents on the same wing. Staff interviews were initiated. The resident appeared at baseline currently and will be monitored for any negative outcomes. The initial allegation report was completed by Former Administrator #1. A handwritten statement from NA #2 read in part, On 04/17/2024 at 6:30 AM., I found resident #4 on the floor on her mat. She didn't seem hurt, but I placed her up and placed her back on the bed. I changed her and put the bed at the lowest position. The statement was signed by NA #2. A phone interview was conducted on 09/17/24 at 9:57 AM with Nurse Aide (NA) #2. NA #2 confirmed that she was working the night 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 04/16/24. She stated she was walking past Resident #4's room and found her lying flat on the floor on her fall mat. NA #2 stated she was exhausted that night, and normally would have requested assistance from the nurse but instead she lowered resident's bed and put the resident back in bed. NA #2 stated the resident did not appear to be injured or in any pain. NA #2 stated she should have gone to get the nurse to assess the resident before putting her back to bed and was fired for it. An interview was conducted on 09/17/24 at 1:30 PM with Nurse #1. He confirmed that he was working the day shift on 04/17/24. He stated NA #3 approached him about something. It was reported to him that Resident #4 had a hematoma above her eye, and that NA #2 got her back into the bed without being assessed. Nurse #1 stated that it was not reported to him that Resident #4 had fallen until after NA #2 had transferred her back to bed. He stated when he found out he did go and fully assess Resident #4 for injuries, completed neuro-check, and range of motion but could not identify any other injuries sustained from the fall, except for the hematoma above the resident's eye. After the assessment, Nurse #1 stated he notified the Medical Director (MD)/Physician Assistant (PA), Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and resident's Responsible Party (RP). A handwritten statement from NA #3 read in part, I entered Resident #4's room to perform patient care, and noticed a knot on patient's forehead. I notified my nurse and nurse manager. The statement was signed by NA #3. An interview was conducted on 09/18/24 at 9:53 AM with NA #3. NA #3 confirmed that she was working the 7:00 to 3:00 PM day shift on 04/17/24. NA #3 stated she recalled that while making her morning rounds of her residents on the 200-hall, she observed Resident #4 lying in bed with a goose-egg hematoma over her left eye. She said she reported it to Nurse #1 who came, assessed the resident, and notified the Physician Assistant (PA) to also assess, which she did. NA #3 stated the resident did not appear in pain and ate well that morning. NA #3 stated the resident was a one-person assist with transfers, and could pivot and transfer with one NA. NA #3 stated during morning report, before making her rounds NA #2 never mentioned Resident #4 had a fall or injury. An interview was conducted on 09/18/24 at 9:50 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Consultant. The DON stated when a resident had a fall they have to be assessed by a nurse before being moved. The NAs should never get anyone up including Resident #4 without an assessment from the nurse. Once the nurse assessed the resident and deemed it safe to move the resident then the resident can be assisted back to bed or chair. They both stated that any resident that had a fall should be assessed by a nurse for injury before being moved. An interview was conducted on 09/18/24 at 12:45 PM with the Physician Assistant (PA). She stated that any resident that had a fall should be assessed by a nurse for injury before being moved. An interview was conducted on 09/19/24 at 1:15 PM with the Administrator. She stated that any resident that had a fall should be assessed by a nurse for injury before being moved.
Feb 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff, and the Physician Assistant interviews the facility failed to notify the physician ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff, and the Physician Assistant interviews the facility failed to notify the physician of a residents change in condition and transport to the hospital for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for hospitalization. Findings included. Resident #1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included heart failure, respiratory failure, diabetes, anemia, and GI (gastrointestinal) bleeding. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. She was dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers, and activities of daily living (ADLs.) She exhibited no rejection of care. A progress note dated 02/11/24 at 2:00 PM documented by Nurse #1 revealed he was called to Resident #1's room by the Nurse Aide who stated that Resident #1 had some vaginal bleeding. Upon exam a small amount of dark brown blood was observed on the brief with a few clots. Her abdomen was soft and non-tender, bowel sounds were active. Resident #1 denied abdominal, vaginal, or rectal pain. Her blood pressure was 126/76, pulse 78, respirations were 20 breaths per minute and temperature 97.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Her Pulse Oximetry (measure of blood oxygen saturation) was 96% on 2 liters of oxygen via nasal cannula. A progress note dated 02/11/24 at 2:30 PM documented by Nurse #1 revealed EMS (emergency medical services) was here, report given. Resident #1 left via stretcher to the emergency department. During an interview on 02/28/24 at 1:00 PM Nurse Aide #1 stated she was routinely assigned to Resident #1. She stated she arrived to work at 7:00 AM on the day Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. She reported around lunch time that day Resident #1 told her she was soaked and need to be changed so she provided incontinence care at that time. She reported she observed a moderate amount of blood on her glove that was bright red, not pink tinged, and covered from the fingertips of her glove to the palm of her hand along with blood clots. She immediately reported this to Nurse #1. She stated during that time Resident #1 was saying she wanted to go to the hospital. She reported that Resident #1's Responsible Party (RP) came in the facility during that time and also wanted her to go to the hospital. During a phone interview on 02/29/24 at 1:48 PM Nurse Aide #2 stated she assisted Nurse Aide #1 on the day Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. She reported that around 1:30 to 2:00 PM Nurse Aide #1 asked her to help provide incontinence care to Resident #1. She stated she observed a substantial amount of blood with blood clots. She stated there were a few blood clots observed, some were large and some small and described it as being similar to a heavy menstrual cycle. She stated Nurse #1 was notified immediately. During a phone interview on 02/28/24 at 3:50 PM Nurse #1 reported he was Resident #1's assigned nurse on the day she was transported to the hospital. He stated around 1:30 PM the Nurse Aide informed him that she had vaginal bleeding. He completed a full assessment, and she was awake and oriented to person, place, and time. She had no pain, no shortness of breath, and stated she had a small amount of bleeding, Her vital signs were stable. He stated Resident #1's Responsible Party (RP) came in during that time and also told him she wanted her sent out to the hospital due to bleeding. He stated he called the Director of Nursing who told him to send Resident #1 to the hospital. He stated he did not notify the physician of a change in condition or that Resident #1 would be transferred to the hospital. He stated he should have called the physician, but he got sidetracked with another resident. He stated the process was that anytime a resident had a change in condition and needed to be sent out to the hospital you were required to notify the providers. He stated he forgot to do that. During an interview on 02/29/24 at 10:40 AM the Physician Assistant stated Resident #1 was transported to the hospital on [DATE] due to complaints of bleeding. She reported Resident #1 had a history of GI bleeding and they monitored her hemoglobin and hematocrit depending on her clinical assessment. She stated the providers should have been notified that Resident #1 was having vaginal bleeding on 02/11/24 and was being transferred to the hospital and indicated that was not done. During an interview on 02/29/24 at 4:30 PM the Director of Nursing stated Nurse #1 should have notified the providers that Resident #1 had vaginal bleeding and was being sent to the hospital. She reported Nurse #1 failed to notify the physician.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff, and the Physician Assistant interviews the facility failed to hold a short acting i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff, and the Physician Assistant interviews the facility failed to hold a short acting insulin as ordered by the physician for blood sugar readings less than 120 mg/dl (milligrams per deciliter). This resulted in the resident receiving 20 additional units of insulin. There was no significant outcome related to the insulin administration. This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration. Findings included. Resident #1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included heart failure, respiratory failure, GI (gastrointestinal) bleeding, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. She was dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers, and activities of daily living (ADLs.) She received insulin. A physicians order dated 01/03/24 for Resident #1 revealed Insulin Lispro 100 units/milliliter administer 10 units subcutaneous before meals. Hold for blood sugar less than 120 mg/dl. Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated February 2024 revealed on 02/02/24 at 7:30 AM Resident #1's blood sugar reading was recorded by Nurse #2 as 108 mg/dl. The insulin administration site was documented as 10 units of insulin administered into the abdomen. Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated February 2024 revealed on 02/02/24 at 11:30 AM Resident #1's blood sugar reading was recorded by Nurse #2 as 114 mg/dl. The insulin administration site was documented as 10 units of insulin administered to the left arm. During a phone interview on 02/29/24 at 1:00 PM Nurse #2 stated she was assigned to Resident #1 at times and did not recall the details of her care. She stated she did not recall the parameters regarding holding Resident #1's insulin. She stated she did not recall what occurred on 02/02/24. She did not provide any additional information. During an interview on 02/29/24 at 3:45 PM the Physician Assistant stated Resident #1 was diabetic and received sliding scale insulin before meals. She also had orders for an additional 10 units of insulin lispro before meals with orders to hold the additional 10 units of insulin lispro if the blood sugar was 120 mg/dl or less. She stated Resident #1 should not have received the 10 units that was administered on 02/02/24 at 7:30 AM or at 11:30 AM for blood sugar readings of 108 and 114 mg/dl. She stated Resident #1's blood sugar later that day at 4:30 PM was 132 mg/dl. so there was no significant outcome. During an interview on 02/29/24 at 4:30 PM the Director of Nursing stated Nurse #2 should have followed the physicians order and held the insulin for Resident #1. She indicated education would be provided.
Jan 2024 13 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistant, and staff interviews, the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistant, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect a vulnerable female resident's right to be free from sexual abuse when Resident #62 was observed by Nurse Aide (NA) #1 to have his hand under a severely cognitively impaired resident's (Resident #57) dress above the resident's thigh. A reasonable person would not expect to experience intentional inappropriate touching in their home and would have experienced intimidation and fear. This was for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #57). Findings included: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included stroke with weakness, non-traumatic brain dysfunction, depression, and vascular dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #62 was moderately cognitively impaired and did not exhibit any behaviors. He required extensive assistance with one staff physical assistance with transfers and bed mobility, used a wheelchair and had no impairments. Resident #62 received antidepressant medications. A plan of care dated 11/20/23 for behavioral symptoms not directed toward others (scratching self, removes briefs, and urinates on self) with a goal that resident would not harm self/and or others secondary to socially inappropriate and or disruptive behaviors with interventions to include: when resident begins to become socially inappropriate/disruptive, provide comfort measure for basic needs, provide care, activities and a daily schedule that resembles the resident's prior lifestyle, avoid over stimulation, maintain a calm environment and approach toward the resident. Assess whether the behavior endangers the resident and or others. A plan of care dated 11/23/23 was also in place for history of alteration in cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought process with a goal that the resident would be able to communicate basic needs on a daily basis. Interventions included ask yes/no questions in order to determine the resident's needs, keep the residents routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible in order to decrease confusion. Reorient and supervise as needed. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included early onset Alzheimer's Disease, traumatic subdural bleed, anxiety, need for assistance with personal care, muscle wasting and atrophy. The Minimum Data Set quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #57 was severely impaired and demonstrated no behaviors. Resident #57 required extensive assistance of two staff with bed mobility, transfers, and eating. Resident #57 was totally dependent on one staff physical assistance with toileting and used a wheelchair. Review of Resident #57's care plan updated on 12/01/23 revealed a plan of care for history of alteration in cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to early onset Alzheimer's Disease and for communication deficit related to little speech with a goal that resident would be able to communicate basic needs on a daily basis with interventions to include use paddle call bell as able for ease of use, keep the resident's routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible and allow time for resident to express needs or wants, repeat resident requests to assure understanding, and anticipate and meet needs. A written statement dated 12/11/23 by Nurse Aide #1 revealed As I was walking down the hall, I heard [Resident #57] making sounds. As I got closer to the TV room, I saw [Resident #62] with his hand under her dress. I immediately took the trash and sat it on the floor and removed her [Resident #57] from the TV room and explained that it was inappropriate. I asked him why he did what he did and he stated he did not know. An interview was conducted with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 01/08/24 at 4:00 PM. NA #1 revealed on the day of 12/11/23, Resident #57 was in the day room waiting to go to activities. When NA #1 headed back down the hall toward the day room, she heard a noise coming from the day room. NA #1 stated Resident #57 made a distinct sound any time anyone touched her. NA #1 described the sound and stated it was like a giggle, because she would be smiling so it seemed as though it was a giggle, but it was just a distinct sound Resident #57 always made. NA #1 stated that was the sound she heard as she was heading down the hall toward the day room. Resident #62 was in his wheelchair sitting next to Resident #57 who was sitting in her Geri chair. As she entered the day room, she noticed Resident #62's hand was up Resident #57's dress. The NA stated she could not see Resident #62's hand and did not know what his hand was doing while it was under the dress and did not recall seeing any movement of the hand while it was under the dress. She stated she immediately approached Resident #57 and Resident #62 and Resident #62 pulled his hand out from under Resident #57's dress as soon as he saw her (NA #1). NA #1 explained she asked Resident #62 what are you doing? followed by why would you do that? NA #1 reported Resident #62's response was I don't know. NA #1 stated she had never seen Resident #62 demonstrate this kind of behavior before. She stated she separated the residents immediately and brought Resident #57 to her room and Resident #62 to his room. NA #1 reported she immediately reported what she had observed to the Unit Manager, the Director of Nursing, and the Physician Assistant. NA #1 stated Resident #57 was her usual smiley self and did not seem to understand or know what was happening. NA #1 stated the staff were instructed to monitor Resident #62 every 30 minutes after this occurred. NA #1 added, after Resident #62 was brought to his room, he did not seem to recall what had happened when he was asked why he had his hand under Resident #57's dress. A follow up interview via phone on 01/09/24 at 5:30 PM with NA #1 revealed on the day of 12/11/23, Resident #57 was wearing a dress that came to right above her knee. NA #1 stated the only thing she saw was Resident #62's hand under her dress and could not say if he was inside her brief from where she was standing in the hallway. She did not see his hand moving underneath the dress. She stated his hand did not look wet when he pulled it out from Resident #57's dress but she did not touch or smell his hand. She stated she could see Resident #57's thigh and Resident #62's hand was higher than her thigh. NA #1 added it took two staff to change Resident #62 because it was very difficult to release the tension on her legs. NA #1 stated and anytime they changed Resident #57 she made the same sound she heard when she saw Resident #62 with his hand up her dress. NA #1 stated Resident #62 also had very weak hands and she did not think he would have the strength to open Resident #57's legs. NA #1 stated there were no other residents in the day room and she did not know how long Resident #62 was in the day room with Resident #57. NA #1 stated Resident #62 required assistance getting into his wheelchair, but he could propel himself throughout the facility. NA #1 stated after this incident occurred Resident #62 stayed in his room and 30-minute checks were started. An interview was conducted with the Unit Manager on 01/08/24 at 4:15 PM. The Unit Manager (UM) stated NA #1 came to her and reported to her and the Director of Nursing Resident #62 had his hand under Resident #57's dress and that she had separated them. The UM stated she got the Physician Assistant and the three of them went to see Resident #57 immediately. When she arrived to the room, Resident #57 was sitting in her Geri chair and was not in any distress. They transferred her to the bed. The UM stated Resident #57's brief was completely intact. They took the brief down and the PA assessed her. There were no visible signs of physical trauma, no redness, and no bruising. The UM stated Resident #57 was at her baseline with her cognition and had no change in her affect during the assessment. A nursing progress note written on 12/11/23 by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #62 was witnessed by a nurse aide in the common TV room with other residents. A male resident [Resident #62] was observed with his hand up the dress of a female resident [Resident #57]. The Nurse Aide immediately separated the residents to ensure safety. Unit Manager, DON and Administrator notified. A nursing progress note written by the DON on 12/11/23 at 4:10 PM revealed Resident [#57] was sitting in a wheelchair in the common area TV room with other residents. A male resident was observed by staff to have his hand up this resident's dress. Staff member immediately separated the two residents, taking Resident [#57] to the nurse's station for close supervision. Resident [#57] did not appear to have any non-verbal cues of being traumatized. The resident's mood appeared to be at baseline. The resident's baseline was non-verbal and smiling. The PA and DON had staff put Resident [#57] into bed for an assessment. The PA and DON performed a visual assessment of the resident. There was no visible physical or emotional trauma observed. A Physician Assistant (PA) progress note written on 12/11/23 at 3:10 PM revealed she was notified by staff that another resident [Resident #62] was seen having inappropriate sexual contact with Resident [#57]. The PA and DON went in to see Resident [#57] immediately after the incident was reported. Resident [#57] resting comfortably in her bed. She was smiling and pleasant when spoken to by PA. She appeared at her baseline for mentation and affect. She had no signs of trauma on exam. Staff to monitor closely. A review of the Physician Assistant's assessment conducted on 12/11/23 at 3:10 PM revealed, in part, vital signs temperature 97.8F, heart rate 70 beats per minute, respiration rate 16 breaths per minutes, blood pressure 128//70. Resident #57 was alert and in no acute distress. Genitourinary (perineal area) showed no outward signs of trauma or redness, and no bruising. Skin was intact. Resident confused at baseline with incoherent garbled speech. An interview was conducted with the Physician Assistant on 01/10/24 at 9:47 AM. The PA reported she was notified by the Unit Manager that Resident #62 was observed with his hand up Resident #57's dress. She stated she knew Resident #57 very well and went to assess her. The PA reported Resident #57 was not demonstrating any signs of distress or agitation. She was smiling when she entered the room and seemed her complete normal self. The PA stated once the Unit Manager and the DON were able to separate her legs due to her being so rigid, the PA noticed her brief was completely intact. The PA added, while she assessed her perineal area, Resident #57 did not push her hand away or seem as though it was bothering her to be examined. There was no redness to her hips, thighs or groin and no evidence of trauma. The PA stated after she assessed Resident #57, she went to assess Resident #62. The PA stated Resident #62 had no recall of what he had done. The PA stated Resident #62 had never had any sexual behaviors in the past and she was surprised that this had even happened. The PA stated Resident #62 has had no sexual behaviors since 12/11/23 and he was monitored every 30 minutes by staff until he was seen by the Psych Nurse Practitioner. A nursing progress note written on 12/11/23 at 4:38 PM by the DON revealed Resident #62 was to be on every 30-minute safety checks until evaluated by Psychiatry. Staff were informed. A written statement dated 12/11/23 by the DON revealed DON spoke to [Resident #62] regarding event that occurred and was witnessed today in the common TV room by nurse aide. [Resident#62] had no memory of the event and stated, I did not do anything. A review of the Resident Observation / 30 Minutes Monitoring Tool revealed as of 12/11/23 every 30 minutes starting at 3:30 PM until 12/21/23 at 7:30 AM, Resident #62 had been documented as being visually monitored every 30 minutes on all shifts as evidenced by the nursing initials, with a time and date. A nursing progress note written by the DON on 12/11/23 at 4:39 PM revealed nursing staff were instructed by DON to watch for any change in physical, emotional, or psychological demeanor of Resident #57 and notify the DON if any change was observed. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #17 on 12/12/23 at 1:13 PM revealed Resident #62 was being monitored frequently. Resident noted in bed resting. A nursing progress note written by Nurse #17 on 12/12/23 at 6:40 AM revealed continued to monitor Resident #62 throughout the night. Resting in bed. A Social Worker (SW) progress note written on 12/12/23 at 9:34 AM revealed the clinical team discussed a room change for Resident #62. Resident #62 would be moving to a new room away from Resident #57. A nursing progress note written by the DON on 12/12/23 at 11:47 AM revealed notified Psychiatry Nurse Practitioner regarding recent event involving Resident #62. The note indicated that a complete medication review would be performed by the Psych Nurse Practitioner when she would see the resident next week. A 5 day investigation summary was written by the Administrator on 12/15/23 was as follows: On 12/11/23 at 3:03 PM nurse aides notified the Unit Manager that she witnessed a male resident [Resident #62] with his hand up the dress of female resident [Resident #57] in the common area TV room. Nurse Aide separated the residents immediately. The DON and Administrator were notified by the Unit Manager of the event. The Administrator notified Corporate Compliance and the DON notified the local police department. The Administrator submitted an initial report to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on 12/11/23 at 5:20 PM. and submitted a completed investigation report on 12/15/23. These reports included in part: The Physician Assistant and the DON visually assessed Resident [#57] for visible trauma and resident's brief was intact. No trauma identified. On 12/11/23, the PA evaluated Resident #62 with nothing remarkable noted. Two floor Unit Managers began skin checks and interviews with residents on the 300 short hall. Police arrived and took statement from the Administrator and DON. On 12/11/23 the facility initiated 30-minute checks on [Resident #62] until Resident was evaluated by Psych Services. Resident [#62] was interviewed on 12/11/23 and he stated he did not recall the incident. On 12/13/23 the facility initiated a room change for Resident [#62] from station 3 to station 2. Based on staff statements, observation and facility investigation, the allegation of abuse was substantiated. Resident [#62] was moved to a different station in the building to limit any interaction between the two residents Resident [#57] has not suffered any observable psychosocial harm from the incident. Resident [#62] was referred to psych services and has been scheduled to be seen on 12/21/23 with an accompanying medication review. Resident [#62] has had no further episodes of sexually aggressive behavior. Resident [#62] will continue to be monitored for any adverse effects related to this incident. Resident [#62] will continue to be on every 30 minute checks by staff until psych visit was completed and medication review has been conducted and deemed effective. Resident [#62]'s care plan and profile have been updated to reflect this behavior. A review of an updated care plan dated 12/14/23 revealed Resident #62 had a plan of care for having physical behavioral symptoms toward others (abusing others sexually) with a goal that resident would not harm others secondary to physically abusive behavior with interventions to include avoid power struggles with resident, avoid over stimulation, maintain a calm environment and approach to the resident, assess whether the behavior endangers the resident and or others. Intervene, as necessary. A Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner note dated 12/21/23 for Resident #62 revealed under assessment and plan: Major neurocognitive disorder likely due to vascular dementia with likely associated depression. Lexapro (antidepressant) started by the Primary Care Physician currently at 10 milligrams (mg) by mouth daily. Informed by the DON that Resident #62 had inappropriate sexual behaviors recently towards a peer. Will taper Lexapro and start Sertraline (antidepressant) to aide in decreasing hypersexual behaviors due to the high incidence of a common side effect of sexual dysfunction/hyposexuality with Sertraline. An interview was conducted with the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) via phone on 01/11/23 at 10:19 AM. The NP revealed she was notified Resident #62 had inappropriate sexual behaviors recently towards a female resident. She stated she evaluated Resident #62 and there had been no previous history of sexual behaviors and none since 12/11/23, but she had discontinued the Lexapro and started Sertraline to aide in decreasing hypersexual behaviors. The NP stated Sertraline had a very strong side effect of decreasing sexual urges. A review of the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner orders for Resident #62 on 12/21/23 revealed decrease Lexapro to 5 mg by mouth daily for 7 days then discontinue. Sertraline 25 mg by mouth daily for 7 days then increase to 50 mg by mouth daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #62 received the medications as ordered as evidenced by a nursing check mark on the MAR from 12/21/23 through 01/11/24. An observation was conducted of Resident #57 on 01/08/24 with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 at 4:10 PM. NA #1 attempted to reposition Resident #57's arm and she did make a giggle like sound, and she was smiling. NA #1 attempted to reposition Resident #57's legs and when she touched her legs, they were difficult to open with significant resistance from Resident #57. An observation of Resident #62 on 01/08/24 at 10:00 AM revealed an alert resident lying in bed resting in his room. Writer attempted to interview Resident #62 on 01/08/24 at 10:00 AM. He was confused and not able to answer questions reliably. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing on 01/12/23 at 12:30 PM. The DON reported the residents were in a common area 12/11/23 and the staff had no way of knowing Resident #62 was going to put his hand up Resident 57's dress. The DON added, Resident #62 had never demonstrated any sexual behaviors. The DON stated we monitored Resident #62 every 30 minutes until he was seen by psych services. She stated since that event happened, Resident #62 rarely came out of his room, but he was now on a different hall and did not go anywhere near Resident #57's hall. The DON stated they monitored the resident for 10 days, he was evaluated by psych, had a med change and no other issues since so they thought they had done all they could do. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 01/12/23 at 1:45 PM. He stated he completed the initial report within 2 hours and submitted it to the state and completed a 5- day investigation. He stated he notified the police and Adult Protective Services. The Administrator stated he monitored the two residents and did education with staff regarding the types of abuse and who to report it to, but he did not do continued audits. The Administrator provided the in-service records regarding abuse education and stated all the information he had was in the file. There were no audits found in the file.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of a resident's controlled medi...

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 prevent the misappropriation of a resident's controlled medication, (60 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (mg) pills), which were prescribed by the physician for pain for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for misappropriation of property (Resident #97). Findings included: Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, pain, adult failure to thrive and COVID-19. The physician's order for Resident #97 dated 10/20/23 was Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5-325 mg once every 4 hours as needed (PRN) for severe pain. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #97 had severely impaired cognition. She reported almost constant moderate pain and had received as needed opioid pain medication during the assessment look back period. On 10/31/23 Resident #97's PRN order for Oxycodone-Acetaminophen was discontinued. Review of the Controlled Substance Count Summary Report dated 10/31/23 through 11/01/23 documented that Nurse #1 and Nurse #5 wasted 60 Oxycodone-acetaminophen that belonged to Resident #97 leaving a balance of zero. The reason was the medication had been discontinued by the physician. An Initial Allegation report revealed the facility became aware of the possible misappropriation of a controlled medication on 11/01/23 and an investigation was initiated. Staff reviewed the narcotic count, and the medication (Resident #97's Oxycodone-Acetaminophen) was last known per interviews to be in the facility at the end of 3rd shift/beginning of 1st shift on 11/01/23 with the count off with the oncoming 2nd shift nurse (Nurse #5). Police and Adult Protective Services were notified. The Investigation Report submitted on 11/07/23 revealed the accused employee was Nurse #1 for an allegation of diversion of Resident #97's drugs. Nurse #1 was placed on administrative leave pending the investigation. The allegation was substantiated and Nurse #1 and terminated from employment on 11/6/23. In an interview with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) nurse on 01/10/24 at 1:25 PM she stated she worked on the medication cart the day shift on 10/31/23 which was the day before the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen came up missing. She counted the narcotics at the beginning of the shift and the end of the shift-both counts were correct. Resident #97 had a blister pack (card) of 60 blue Oxycodone/Acetaminophen in the count. She explained the pills were not from the pharmacy the facility used. She explained Resident #97 was admitted with all her own medications from home. There was an active order for PRN (as needed) Oxycodone/Acetaminophen at the beginning of the shift, but the order was discontinued during the shift by the provider. She stated she left the pills locked in the medication cart even though the order had been discontinued until it could be sent back to the pharmacy to be wasted per facility and pharmacy protocol. She explained she had left the discontinued medication in the locked cart at the end of her shift instead of processing it to be returned to the pharmacy because she was tired. In an interview with Nurse #12 on 01/11/24 at 3:10 PM he stated on 10/31/23 when he counted the narcotics on the medication cart at the beginning of his shift with the SDC Nurse the count was correct. The SDC Nurse had told him the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen for Resident #97 had been discontinued but remained in the cart until it could be sent to the pharmacy to be wasted. He didn't know what to do with the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen because it had been brought in by the family from a different pharmacy, so he left it in the cart to be counted. In an interview with Nurse #6 on 01/11/24 at 10:50 AM he stated he had worked 3rd shift on 10/31/23 into the morning of 11/01/23. He said he counted the narcotics with Nurse #12 at 11:00 PM on 10/31/23 and the 60 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen pills for Resident #97 were in the cart. At 7:00 AM on 11/01/23 he counted the narcotics again on the cart with Nurse #1 who was coming onto first shift and the bubble pack of 60 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen were in the drawer and in the count. The count was correct when he left his shift. In an interview with Nurse #5 on 1/10/24 at 3:20 PM she stated she reported to work on 11/01/23 to relieve Nurse #1 on the 300 long hall medication cart. Resident #97's 60 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen pills showed on the computer screen as discontinued during the narcotic count. Nurse #1 and Nurse #5 finished the rest of the count and went back to the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen because it wasn't in the cart. Typically, discontinued bubble packs were kept on the right in the narcotic drawer when they were discontinued, and it wasn't there (the active bubble packs were kept on the left in the drawer). She asked Nurse #1 where the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen pills were, and Nurse #1 told her the Nurse Coordinator had it and was taking care of it; that it just needed to be cleared from the count and it took two nurses to clear it. Because Nurse #1 was a new employee, she showed Nurse #1 how to clear the medication from the count on the computer. She then went to the Nurse Coordinator she saw in the hall to ask if she had the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen to send back to the pharmacy. The Nurse Coordinator told her she did not have the medication. She asked the SDC Nurse if she had them, called the pharmacy, checked the medication rooms and the other medication carts, but the pills were not found. She and the Nurse Coordinator thoroughly checked all the medication carts. When the pills could not be found she and the Nurse Coordinator went to the DON. In an interview with the Nurse Coordinator on 01/10/24 at 1:40 PM she stated on 11/01/23 Nurse #5 asked her if she had taken care of the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen that had been discontinued for Resident #97 and she (Nurse Coordinator) said, no. Nurse #5 told her she was suspicious about where the narcotics were because for 2 days they had counted the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen in the medication cart and suddenly the pills were not in the cart. She and Nurse #5 reported immediately to the DON that the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen pills were missing. She noted Nurse #5 called the pharmacy that day and they had not received them. She and Nurse #5 went through both medication carts on the 300 halls and all the medication rooms. She noted when narcotics were sent back to the pharmacy for disposal, they were locked in the 200 hall medication room because that was where pharmacy picked up and dropped off medications. They checked the 200 hall medication room and they were not there either. The following statement written by Nurse #1 dated 11/01/23 was reviewed: I did morning count without seeing narc [narcotic] screen. I never saw what was supposed to match screen. I only counted meds in the cart. At 3 pm count, I noticed meds were listed that wasn't in the cart, I asked 3-11 nurse [Nurse #5] to show me how to remove meds that have been sent back. 3-11 nurse showed me how to remove them and then we counted cards. I gave report and clocked out and left the facility. In an interview with Nurse #1 via telephone on 1/10/24 at 2:12 PM she stated on 11/01/23 herself and another nurse wasted the 60 Oxycodone/Acetaminophen tablets that belonged to Resident #97 and that the other nurse, Nurse #5, witnessed her wasting the pills. She put the pills in the drug buster container to dissolve the discontinued pills, Nurse #5 witnessed it, and witnessed her taking the pills out of the electronic narcotic reconciliation record in the computer. She stated she had only been at the facility for 2 weeks and didn't know how to send pills back to the pharmacy because she had not been trained in the procedure, so she did what most facilities do and wasted the pills. She stated she popped the pills into a cup and put them in the drug buster, and Nurse #5 co-signed that the drugs were wasted. She could not recall how many pills were wasted, 59 or 60. She was told later by the Director of Nursing (DON) 60 pills were missing but it may have been 59. She said she was kept at the facility on 11/01/23 until 9:00 PM. The police came and found no wrongdoing. She insisted she didn't do anything wrong as a nurse wasted the pills with her (Nurse #5). The written statement Nurse #1 provided to the facility on [DATE] was reviewed with her. She stated the statement she wrote was written late at night and was not completely accurate. She recanted the above explanation that she had wasted the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen and stated it was not true that she and Nurse #5 wasted the pills. She clarified she had just said that the pills were wasted because she didn't want to get anyone else in trouble because, in fact, she never saw the card of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen in the cart. She stated she told the story about wasting the pills to avoid causing trouble for any other nurses. She confirmed she never actually wasted the medication with Nurse #5 like she told the police and had just repeated during this conversation. She stated she had no idea where the pills went. She concluded she never came back to work at the facility because she didn't want to work there. In an interview with the DON on 01/09/24 at 1:15 PM she stated she was working at the facility when the drugs were determined to be diverted from Resident #97. She reported the facility substantiated Nurse #1 had taken the 60 pills that belonged to Resident #97. She was told by the Corporate Consultant that because it was an isolated incident no plan of correction was needed so she did not do one. She stated she re-educated the nursing staff on completion of a narcotic reconciliation count and emphasized during the training that a nurse was to never sign that a medication had been wasted when it had not. In a follow up interview with the DON on 01/12/24 at 11:50 AM she stated no drugs should ever be diverted, the narcotic count should always be correct, and nurses should never sign that they wasted a medication when they had not. She concluded if an investigation had been started at the time the narcotic count was incorrect the diversion may have been stopped. In an interview with the Administrator on 01/12/24 at 10:30 AM he explained he was not the administrator at the facility when this had occurred but would expect drugs to never be diverted from any facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff and Physician Assistant interviews, the facility failed to assess and implement t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff and Physician Assistant interviews, the facility failed to assess and implement treatments to two skin impairment areas for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #73) observed. Findings included: Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included adult failure to thrive, Alzheimer's, anxiety, and stroke. The Minimum Data Set significant change assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #73 was severely cognitively impaired and demonstrated no behaviors. Resident #73 had no impairments, used a wheelchair, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had no skin issues. Resident #73 required extensive assistance with one staff physical assistance with bed mobility and 2 staff physical assistance with transfers. A review of Resident #73's care plan revealed a plan of care was in place on 10/11/23 and updated on 12/10/23 for wandering (moves with no rational purpose, seemingly oblivious to needs or safety) with a goal that resident would wander safely within specified boundaries. Approaches included develop a pathway for resident to follow and keep pathway free of obstacles. During the initial tour of the facility upon arrival on 01/07/24 at 2:00 PM Resident #73 was observed in the day room with family. She was noted to have a bloody bandage on her left hand and an open wound (uncovered with dried blood) to her right arm. She was confused and appeared to have no pain or discomfort. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 01/07/24 at 2:18 PM. Nurse #2 revealed she was not aware Resident #73 had a bandage on her left hand or an open area to her right arm. Nurse #2 stated she had not assessed Resident #73 as of this time. Nurse #2 reviewed the physician orders and did not see any orders to apply a bandage to the left hand for any reason. At this time, Nurse #2 assessed Resident #73 and she removed the bloody bandage from the left hand and noted it was actively bleeding. Nurse #2 stated Someone put a dressing on it, but there was no order or explanation in the nursing progress notes as to what had happened. Nurse #2 then assessed the right arm which was noted to be an open area with dried blood. Nurse #2 stated both areas looked like skin tears, but she was not made aware of any new skin tears. Nurse #2 reviewed the weekly skin assessments and she reported the last weekly skin assessment was done on 01/03/24 and Resident #73 did not have any preexisting or new skin impairments indicated by a checkmark at answer no. Nurse #2 reported this assessment was noted to be completed by Nurse #4. Nurse #2 stated she would let the Wound Treatment Nurse of the new skin impairments so that he could implement orders to treat. Nurse #2 stated she was not made aware of any new skin impairments on Resident #73 when she got report from Nurse #7 at the start of her shift on the morning of 01/07/24. A review of the physician orders on 01/07/24 at 2:30 PM revealed there were no treatment orders for the left hand or right arm skin impairments for Resident #73. A review of the Medication Administration and Treatment Administration records on 01/07/24 at 2:30 PM revealed there were no orders in place to treat a wound to the left hand or right arm for Resident #73. An interview was conducted with Nurse #4 on 01/11/24 at 4:00 PM. Nurse #4 reported she completed the assessment on 01/03/24, and at that time, Resident #73 did not have any skin impairments new or existing to document on the weekly skin assessment. Nurse #4 was not aware of any new skin impairments to Resident #73's left hand or right arm since 01/03/24. An interview was conducted with Nurse #7 via phone on 01/12/24 at 5:30 AM. Nurse #7 stated she worked the evening of 01/06/24 going into 01/07/24 and was assigned to Resident #73. Nurse #7 reported she was not aware of any new skin impairments on Resident #73's left hand or her right arm. If she noted there were any skin impairments, she would have documented her findings in the computer system and initiated an event so that the Wound Treatment Nurse could evaluate the resident. Nurse #7 denied putting a dressing on Resident #73's left hand due to a skin impairment and denied ever seeing the right arm impairment. Nurse #7 stated Resident #73 was prone to getting skin tears due to her wandering throughout the facility in her wheelchair, but Resident #73 slept through the night on 01/06/24 and did come out of her room. Nurse #7 stated she did not know how she would have obtained any skin impairments during her shift. An interview was conducted with Nurse #8 via phone on 01/12/24 at 5:30 PM. Nurse #8 reported she worked the day shift on 01/06/24 and she was not made aware of any skin impairments on Resident #73's left hand or right arm. She stated she did not put a dressing on Resident #73's left hand. Nurse #8 stated the Medication Aide #2 took over her assignment when she left at 3:00 PM on 01/06/24, but added, Medication Aides did not apply dressings to any type of wound. Nurse #8 indicated if the Medication Aide identified a skin tear or wound he would notify the nurse on duty to implement a treatment. An interview was attempted with the Medication Aide #2 who worked on 01/06/24 on the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift. Medication Aide #2 did not return the phone call. An interview with Nurse #5 on 01/11/24 at 2:00 PM revealed she was not aware of any skin impairments on Resident #73 when she worked on 01/06/24 from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Nurse #5 was not aware Resident #73 had a dressing to her left hand or an open area to her right arm on 01/06/24. Nurse #5 stated Medication Aide #2 was assigned to that hall on 01/06/24 and if he had identified any new skin issues he should have reported it to her. She stated Medications Aides do not implement dressing orders for any kind of wound. A review of a nursing progress note written by the Wound Treatment Nurse on 01/07/24 at 5:21 PM revealed this writer was made aware of skin tears on residents' right arm and left hand. Resident was assessed and a skin event was created and treatments entered into the medication administration record (MAR). Family in visiting this shift and made aware. Resident was active on the unit, and self-propelled in her wheelchair in the hall. Review of the physician orders on 01/08/24 at 8:00 AM revealed an order for Resident #73 was started on 01/07/24 for left hand skin tear and right arm skin tear to be cleansed with normal saline or wound cleanser, skin prep edges, calcium alginate gel, and cover with dry dressing daily on Monday/Wednesday/Friday and as needed every shift. Review of the Medication Administration Record on 01/08/24 at 8:00 AM revealed the order was on the MAR as written and signed off as completed by the Wound treatment Nurse on 01/07/24. An interview was conducted with the Wound Treatment Nurse on 01/10/24 at 3:10 PM. The Wound Treatment Nurse revealed whenever the nurses identify a new skin area they were to document their findings in the progress note and create a skin event in the computer system. He stated this would alert him that there was a new area to assess. The Wound Treatment Nurse stated he was never made aware of any skin impairments to Resident #73 until the late afternoon on 01/07/24. He stated once he was made aware, he went to Resident #73 and assessed her and found her to have two skin tears: one to the left hand and one to the right arm. He stated Resident #73 was rarely in her room and she would self-propel in her wheelchair throughout the facility and often would bump into the walls or carts and get skin tears. He stated he believed that was how she obtained the one to her left hand and right arm. The Wound Treatment Nurse reported he implemented orders right away to treat and updated her care plan. The Wound Treatment Nurse stated he would have expected whoever identified those skin tears at the time and decided to put a bandage on it, should have notified the PA and RP of the new skin tears and obtained an order from the PA for a wound treatment. An interview was conducted with the Physician Assistant (PA) on 01/10/24 at 4:00 PM. The PA revealed anytime a resident had skin injuries she would expect the nursing staff to notify her or the Physician and the Wound Treatment Nurse and obtain orders to treat the skin. The PA added, she would not expect a nurse to apply a dressing to any wound without assessing the wound or obtaining orders and would have expected the new finding to be documented. The PA added, there was a process in place for managing wounds and the nurses should be following it. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/12/24 at 12:30 PM. The DON stated whoever applied the dressing to Resident #73 should have documented their assessment and initiated a skin event for the Wound Treatment Nurse to assess. The DON added, the nurse should have notified the Physician Assistant for orders to treat the skin impairments and notified the Wound Treatment Nurse according to the process.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interviews with the Physician Assistant (PA), Responsible Party (RP), resident, and sta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interviews with the Physician Assistant (PA), Responsible Party (RP), resident, and staff, the facility failed to facilitate an optometrist appointment for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for vision (Resident #20). Findings included: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included dry-eye -syndrome of bilateral lacrimal glands (glands are located within the orbit above the lateral end of the eye, and continually releases fluid which cleanses and protects the eye's surface as it lubricates and moistens it). Resident #20's admission physician orders dated 1/10/23 indicated the resident had an optometrist appointment scheduled for 3/11/23 at 11:45 AM. A review of the Electronic Medical Record for Resident #20 revealed a calendar that listed appointments the resident was scheduled for. The calendar indicated the 3/11/23 optometrist appointment was cancelled due to the resident experiencing loose stools. Resident #20's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated that resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #20's most recent Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 01/2024 revealed to give resident carboxymethylcellulose sodium eye drops 1-drop in both eyes three times per day and as needed for dry-eye-syndrome of bilateral lacrimal glands with a start date of 01/10/23. A review of Resident #20's medical record on 01/07/24 revealed no evidence that Resident #20's 3/11/23 appointment had been rescheduled. An interview conducted with the facility's Transportation Scheduler/Central Supply Clerk on 01/10/24 at 8:08 AM. He said he scheduled outside appointments for residents. The Transportation Scheduler/Central Supply Clerk said Resident #20 had a 03/11/23 eye appointment scheduled but that nursing cancelled resident's appointment due to her having loose stools. He said he did not know why the eye appointment was not rescheduled after nursing staff cancelled it. He indicated nursing staff never let him know it needed to be re-scheduled. He said the facility did not have a good follow-up process in place to reschedule missed, refused, or cancelled appointments. An interview was conducted with Resident #20 and her Responsible Party (RP) on 01/10/24 at 10:13 AM. The RP revealed Resident #20 had an eye appointment set-up for 03/11/23 but it was cancelled. She indicated as far as she knew the eye appointment was never rescheduled and should have been rescheduled by the nurse who cancelled it. Resident #20 said she had never been seen by an eye doctor since she had been at the facility. The resident and RP both said an eye appointment was warranted due to the resident's dry-eyes, which needed to be checked on from time to time. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Unit Manager on the 100/200 halls on 01/11/24 at 1:20 PM. He revealed Resident #20's cancelled 03/11/23 eye appointment should have been rescheduled and did not know why it wasn't. He said the facility's scheduling process needed to be improved. He explained there was no specific procedure put down on paper. He indicated the resident's missed eye appointment was brought to his attention today (1/11/24). He stated the eye appointment was re-scheduled for 01/19/24 at 1:40 PM. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:00 AM with the Physician Assistant (PA). She revealed that it was her expectation that Resident #20's cancelled 03/11/23 eye appointment should have been rescheduled and was not. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:25 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON). DON further revealed it was expected for Resident #20 to have seen an optometrist timely, after it was cancelled on 03/11/23. The DON then said she was ultimately responsible for not following up with missed or rescheduled physician visits, and for the facility not having a clear process and procedure put down on paper to re-schedule or follow-up on completed physician visits. An interview conducted with the Administrator on 01/10/24 at 1:57 PM revealed Resident #20 should not have been overlooked for an outside appointment. The Administrator further revealed Resident #20 should have seen an optometrist if scheduled or if the resident/RP requested to see one.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff and Physician Assistant interviews, the facility failed to perform daily skin ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff and Physician Assistant interviews, the facility failed to perform daily skin assessments to assess for any signs or symptoms of a scabies infection on a resident (Resident #73) who was sharing a room with another resident (Resident #3) who had an active diagnoses of scabies and was on isolation precautions for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for infection control. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. Findings included: Review of the facility's scabies policy dated July 2019 revealed the purpose of the policy was to treat residents infected with and sensitized to Sarcoptic Scabiei (scabies) and to prevent the spread of scabies to other residents and staff. The treatment included, in part, a resident sharing a room with a suspected scabies case should be examined carefully for scabies. If symptoms were present, the resident should be treated and if symptoms were not present, daily assessments should be made. Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, in part, Alzheimer's, anxiety, and stroke. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, in part, active scabies infection and history of scabies infection. A nursing progress note written by the Wound Treatment Nurse (WTN) on 01/02/24 at 11:15 AM revealed resident had a new abrasion on right calf. The wound measured 5.5 x 4 x 5 x 0.1 with 100% granulation (healthy tissue). The wound was cleansed and a dry dressing placed. Resident stated it itched and denied pain. Resident observed using mattress to scratch leg upon entry to the room. Review of the physician orders written on 01/03/24 revealed an order for Permethrin 5% cream to be applied to affected area and removed in 8 hours, once removed, repeat administration of Permethrin 5%, and remove in 8 hours and an order for Ivermectin (a medication to kill parasites) 200 mg; give one dose daily for 14 days. During the initial tour on 01/07/24 at 2:00 PM, an observation of Resident #73's door to her assigned room revealed there was a sign indicating contact precautions. The sign indicated to use personal protective equipment to include gloves and gown when providing care. The personal protective equipment was available on the door for use. The sign also indicated to see nurse prior to entering. On 01/07/24 at 2:00 PM, Resident #73 was observed in the day room with family. An interview was conducted with a family member while in the day room on 01/07/24 at 2:00 PM. The family member indicated she did not know why Resident #73 had a sign on her door indicating the room was on contact precautions. The family member stated when she visited Resident #73, they usually were out of the room and in the day room or outside if the weather was nice. An interview was conducted with Nurse #2 on 01/07/24 at 2:35 PM. Nurse #2 stated Resident #3 (Resident #73's roommate) had a diagnosis of scabies since 01/03/24 and that was why there was a sign on the door for contact precautions. Nurse #2 reported she was not told that Resident #73 needed to remain in her room due to Resident #3's diagnosis. Nurse #2 stated Resident #3 did not get out of bed on her own nor did she come out of her room. Nurse #2 stated she did not assess Resident #73 to see if she had signs or symptoms of scabies and there was no order to assess Resident #73. Nurse #2 added, scabies was spread through contact and she believed Resident #73 did not wander on to Resident #3's side of the room. Nurse #2 stated she did not know if Resident #73 was demonstrating any signs or symptoms of scabies. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/07/24 at 2:45 PM. The DON stated she would speak with the family member regarding the contact precautions for Resident #73's room. A nursing progress note written on 01/07/24 at 3:46 PM revealed The DON spoke to the family member while she was visiting Resident #73 regarding the contact precautions for Resident #3. Without violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIIPA), she assured the family member that Resident #73 was safe to be in the room and that it [the infection] was only spread through contact and the two roommates do not touch each other. Reassured the family member that the facility was keeping a close eye on Resident #73 just as a precaution. A physician's order written by the DON on 01/07/24 at 3:46 PM for Resident #73 revealed an order indicating special instructions: complete daily skin check due to roommate's condition. Review of the Medication Administration Record revealed daily skin checks for Resident #73 started on 01/08/24 as evidenced by nursing initials and a check mark. An interview was conducted with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) Nurse on 01/09/24 at 11:14 AM. The SDC Nurse stated she was the infection control preventionist for the facility. The SDC nurse stated the Wound Treatment Nurse (WTN) first identified the abrasion on Resident #3's leg on 01/02/24 and that he noticed there were dry crusted scabs to her lower right leg. The SDC Nurse reported she did not believe the WTN realized what he was looking at right then, but on 01/03/24 she informed the WTN of Resident #3's history and recommended performing a line test. The SDC nurse explained the line test was conducted to identify the burrow line of the scabies. She added, the process was to draw a line with a marker, wipe the marker off and a visual marker under the skin confirmed the diagnoses of scabies. The SDC Nurse added at this time staff showered Resident #3, stripped her linens on the bed, and disinfected the mattress and the pillow. The SDC Nurse stated the WTN obtained an order for a topical ointment called Permethrin (a scabicide lotion) 5% to be applied at 4:00 AM and removed at 1:00 PM and reapplied on 01/03/24 at 1:00 PM and removed on 9:00 PM. The SDC Nurse added, additionally an oral medication called Ivermectin (an anti-parasite medication) 200 milligrams was ordered on 01/03/24 daily until 01/18/24 as a precautionary measure due to Resident #3's history of the scabies. The SDC Nurse stated once the cream was applied and 24 hours had passed, according to the facility policy, Resident #3 could have been taken off precautions, but since she had the history of scabies, they kept her on precautions until the oral medication prescription was completed. The SDC nurse stated the facility policy had no direct verbiage that Resident #73 was required to be on isolation. The SDC Nurse stated Resident #73 should have had an order in place to assess Resident #73's skin daily since she was sharing a room with Resident #3 to ensure she was not developing the scabies as well. The SDC Nurse added, she did not have a good reason as to why the skin assessments were not ordered for Resident #73, but it should have been ordered to assess, monitor and prevent the spread of further scabies since she was not required to stay in her room. An interview was conducted with the Regional Infection Control Consultant at the Public Health Department on 01/09/24 at 1:27 PM via phone. The Regional Infection Control Consultant stated it would be best practice to have the active resident with scabies alone in a room, but if that could not be done, then the roommate's skin should be monitored daily to assess for exposure. The Regional Infection Control Consultant stated if the exposed resident had been treated and the roommate had no signs or symptoms of exposure, the roommate would be fine to move about in the facility. An interview was conducted with the Physician Assistant (PA) on 01/10/24 at 12:10 PM. The PA revealed she would have expected skin assessments to be completed daily for Resident #73 to assess for any signs or symptoms of scabies to prevent further spread of the scabies especially since Resident #73 was allowed to come out of her room and wandered about the facility. She stated the order for skin assessments should have been in place the day Resident #3 was diagnosed. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/12/24 at 12:30 PM. The DON stated the SCD Nurse or the WTN should have initiated skin assessments on 01/03/24 the day Resident #3 was diagnosed with scabies especially since Resident #73 was allowed to come out of her room and wandered freely throughout the facility. The DON also added, the skin assessments should have started the day the order was written on 01/07/24 and not on 01/08/24.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement a care planned intervention by not p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to implement a care planned intervention by not placing a fall mat at the bedside for a resident with a history of falls (Resident #90). This occurred for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents. Findings included. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, muscle weakness and gait abnormality. A progress note dated 10/18/2023 at 08:00 AM documented by Unit Manager #1 revealed Resident #90 was observed on the floor next to her bed. An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) progress note dated 10/25/23 at 1:49 PM Resident #90 was at risk for falls and fell on [DATE]. She was observed beside the bed with no injuries. Interventions included: Fall mat to the dominant side of the bed. The care plan revised on 10/25/23 revealed Resident #90 was at risk for falls related to her diagnoses. Interventions included in part; fall mat to the non-dominant side of the bed and to keep the bed in low position. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #90 was cognitively intact. She required total staff assistance with transfers and used a wheelchair for mobility. She had one fall at the time of the assessment. During an observation and interview on 01/11/24 at 2:00 PM Resident #90 was observed lying in bed. She was alert and oriented. There was no fall mat at the bedside, and the bed was in low position. She stated there had never been a fall mat at her bedside and indicated she would want a fall mat at the bedside to prevent injuries if she fell. During an interview on 01/11/24 at 3:00 PM Nurse Aide #5 stated she was not Resident 90's assigned Nurse Aide and indicated the nurses were to inform the nurse aides of any new care planned interventions. During an interview on 01/11/24 at 3:15 PM Nurse Aide #12 stated she was the assigned Nurse Aide and routinely provided care to Resident #90. She indicated she was not aware Resident #90 was care planned to have a fall mat at the bedside, and she was not informed by the nurse. She stated Resident #90 did have a history of falls, but she did not recall her ever having a fall mat at the bedside. During an interview on 01/11/24 at 3:30 PM Unit Manager #1 stated Resident #90 would slide down off the edge of the bed and at times she would put herself on the floor. He stated fall interventions were decided on in the IDT meetings and if a floor mat was to be implemented it would be put in the electronic maintenance notification system by a member of the IDT team and then the Maintenance Director would be the person that placed the mat at the bedside. He stated he did not know why the mat was not placed by Resident #90's bed. The Maintenance Director was on leave during the survey and was unable to be interviewed. During an interview on 01/12/23 at 12:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the care planned interventions for Resident #90 should have been implemented and a fall mat should have been placed at the bedside. She stated she would make sure the fall mat was placed at the bedside immediately.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and the Physician Assistant's interview the facility failed to implement a process to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and the Physician Assistant's interview the facility failed to implement a process to maintain ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility to share necessary information on the resident's condition before and after dialysis treatments . This occurred for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #22) reviewed for dialysis care. Findings included. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. A physicians order dated 12/20/20 was in place for Resident #22 to receive Hemodialysis - three days per week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #22 was cognitively intact. He received hemodialysis. A care plan dated 12/01/23 revealed Resident #22 required hemodialysis and was at risk for associated complications. Interventions included in part; to receive dialysis treatments per the physicians order. During an interview on 01/11/24 at 1:30 PM Unit Manager #1stated residents were sent to dialysis with a communication binder that included a dialysis transfer form that the nurse would complete with the residents name, vital signs, assessment of the dialysis access site and any significant information. He indicated the residents nurse was responsible for ensuring the dialysis transfer forms were completed and sent with the resident to dialysis. He indicated there was no process in place to ensure the dialysis communication forms were being completed. He was not aware that Resident #22's dialysis transfers forms were not being completed. Review of Resident #22's dialysis communication notebook on 01/11/24 revealed no evidence that communication was relayed between the facility and the dialysis center on the dialysis transfer forms. The communication notebook for Resident #22 had the dialysis transfer forms in the notebook with dates ranging from 11/01/23 through 01/07/24 however the communication forms were not completed by the facility staff or the dialysis center to include assessments, vital signs, or any pertinent information regarding Resident #22. During an interview on 01/07/24 at 2:00 PM Resident #22 was observed lying in bed. He was oriented to person, place, and time. He stated he went to dialysis three days a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. He voiced no concerns with receiving dialysis services. He indicated he was not aware of a communication notebook that went with him to and from dialysis. During an interview on 01/11/24 at 1:00 PM Nurse #9 stated he routinely provided care to Resident #22, and he received hemodialysis three days per week at a nearby dialysis center. He stated the facility communicated with the dialysis center through the use of an individualized communication notebook that went with each resident to dialysis. The notebook contained information on a dialysis transfer form that included vital signs, assessment of the residents cognition, and assessment of the dialysis access site for the presence of a bruit and thrill (auscultation and palpation used to assess the arteriovenous fistula (dialysis access site) which indicated how well the dialysis access was functioning). He stated the dialysis transfer form also included any medications taken or withheld that morning, and any order changes or anything significant regarding the resident. He indicated the communication notebook was given to the resident or to the transportation aide when they left the facility. He stated following the dialysis treatment the dialysis staff would fill in their part on the dialysis transfer form with any pertinent information including vitals, weights, labs, or significant changes and this would be placed in the communication notebook and returned to the facility. He indicated the communication notebook was the primary form of communication between the facility and the dialysis center, and they would also call the dialysis center if or when needed. He stated he also documented the residents vital signs and assessment of the bruit and thrill in the residents electronic medical record. During an interview on 01/11/24 at 3:44 PM Physician's Assistant #1 stated communication was very important between the facility and the dialysis center staff. She indicated the expectation was for facility staff to send any pertinent information with the resident to dialysis and the dialysis center to communicate pertinent information after each dialysis treatment. She stated pertinent information would include in part; vital signs, weights, labs, medications administered, or behaviors. She indicated better communication was needed between the facility and the dialysis center. She stated she was not aware the dialysis communication forms were not being completed by the facility staff or the dialysis staff. During an interview on 01/11/24 at 4:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated she was not aware that the dialysis transfer sheets between the facility and dialysis staff were not being maintained. She stated after becoming aware of this during the survey, she set up a meeting for the following week to meet with the Director of the dialysis center to discuss better communication strategies. She stated they would be implementing a plan to improve this process.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, family and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident attended an outside medical appoint...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, family and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident attended an outside medical appointment since February 2023 regarding the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for medically related social services (Resident #20). Findings included: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included Rheumatoid arthritis. A review of Resident #20's medical record revealed Resident #20 was scheduled to see a Rheumatologist on 02/23/23, for a routine visit. Further review of the medical record revealed there was no documentation to indicate Resident #20 was seen by a Rheumatologist following the 02/23/23 order. Resident #20's Annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated that resident had moderate cognitive impairments. The resident needed extensive assistance for all activities for daily living. A review of Resident #20's most recent Medication Administration Record dated 01/2024 revealed she was receiving hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, and tramadol for pain. An interview was conducted with the facility's transportation scheduler/central supply clerk on 01/10/24 at 8:08 AM. He said he scheduled outside appointments for residents. The scheduler said Resident #20 had a 02/23/23 Rheumatologist appointment scheduled but had no idea why the resident never went to the appointment, after reviewing their transport service log for 02/2023. He said nursing never lets him know if an appointment was missed or refused or if another appointment needed to be made. He said he just set up appointments and put them on the calendar. An interview was conducted with Resident #20 on 01/10/24 at 10:13 AM. The resident said a Rheumatologist appointment was needed due to her Rheumatoid Arthritis which was painful and needed to be checked on from time to time. She reported the nursing staff she spoke with were unable to give a reason the 02/23/23 appointment was missed. Resident #20 stated she did not have any uncontrolled symptoms since the missed appointments but she wanted the follow up appointments with the Rhemalologist to review her arthritis medications. An interview with the Administrator on 01/10/24 at 1:57 PM revealed Resident #20 should have not missed her scheduled Rheumatologist appointment and that the facility needed to re-evaluate their outside physician visit process to ensure visits were kept. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Unit Manager on the 100/200 halls on 01/11/24 at 1:20 PM. He revealed Resident #20's Rheumatologist appointment should have been kept and was not able to find out why it was not kept. He said the facility's scheduling process needed to be improved. He said when the resident's 02/23/23 missed Rheumatologist appointment was brought to the facility's attention by the Surveyor, it was re-ordered on 01/10/24 for the next available date. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:00 AM with the Physician Assistant (PA). She revealed that it was her expectation that Resident #20's 02/23/24 Rheumatologist appointment should have been kept due to the resident having problems related to RA, and the need for RA follow-up and pain control. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:25 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON revealed it was expected for Resident #20 to have seen her Rheumatologist timely on 03/11/23. The DON said she was ultimately responsible for not following up with missed physician visits, and for the facility not having a clear process in place to ensure a resident attended their medical appointments. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 01/12/24 at 11:30 AM. The Administrator stated he expected residents' scheduled appointments to be set up and for residents to go to those appointments. The Administrator further revealed Resident #20 should have seen her Rheumatologist on 02/23/23 and for an unknown reason did not.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #59 was most recently admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, dementia, metabolic ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #59 was most recently admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, in part, dementia, metabolic encephalopathy, and traumatic subdural hemorrhage. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 had severely impaired cognition with a short term memory impairment. She was dependent for all care. Record review revealed hospice services for Resident #59 began on 04/20/23. Review of a care plan for Resident #59 dated 04/22/23 and revised on 12/01/23 documented the following problem: End of Life Care Hospice/Palliative. The goal was to keep Resident #59 comfortable with decreased pain by the next review. Interventions included, in part, to coordinate care with hospice and encourage participation in care plan meetings; family support; anticipate and provide all care needs; respect resident rights to refuse treatments or medications; encourage activities; monitor for status changes; and educate family related to end of life issues. Review of the facility documents revealed no care plan was available from the Hospice Provider. Review of the progress notes in the electronic record revealed notes from the Hospice Chaplain and the Social Worker. In an interview with the Administrator on 01/12/24 at 10:30 AM he stated he would expect any resident who received hospice services to have a care plan from hospice for nursing staff to access. In an interview with the DON on 1/12/24 at 11:50 AM she stated she had requested documentation for the past 4 months for all hospice residents to include care plans and progress notes. She said to improve communication going forward each resident on hospice would have a notebook at each nursing station. The notebook would contain the hospice care plan and progress notes. She was working on making sure residents who received hospice services had a physician order but had missed some and was not sure of the documentation that Medical Records received from hospice. She explained that Medical Records received the hospice documents and was supposed to scan them into the system. She had not been monitoring the hospice documentation. In an interview with Nurse #10 who cared for Resident #59 on 1/11/24 at 1:30 PM she stated the Hospice Nurse would ask her for a report on the resident when she arrived but did not report back when she left. She noted she had never seen a hospice care plan for Resident #59. In a telephone interview with the Hospice Director of Quality Compliance on 01/11/24 at 2:15 PM she stated the facility wanted all documents emailed to them. She reported there had been problems with the electronic system so documents had been hand delivered to the facility. She stated she did not know what documents had been delivered to the facility. She noted Hospice wanted to figure out where the communication break was and how to fix it. 3) Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included adult failure to thrive, Alzheimer's, anxiety, and stroke. A physician's order was written on 11/20/23 to admit to hospice care. A hospice agreement dated 11/20/23 was noted in the medical records and it was valid for 90 days (expiring on 01/18/24). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) significant change assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #73 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #73 was coded as receiving hospice services while a resident. A review of Resident #73's care plan revealed a plan of care was in place for end of life care/hospice with a start date of 11/21/23 and last reviewed 12/10/23 with a goal that resident would be kept comfortable and have decreased pain by the next review. Interventions included: coordinate care with hospice and encourage participation in care plan meetings, family support as needed, monitor for complaints of pain, discomfort, and anxiety, and provide comfort measures. A review of Resident #73's medical record revealed there was no hospice plan of care or any progress notes by the Hospice Nurse to support Resident #73 had been visited by the nurse. The only documented hospice records found for Resident #73 were handwritten progress notes by the Social Worker who had visited Resident #73 upon admission to hospice on 11/21/23, 12/10/23, and on 01/05/24. An interview was conducted with the MDS Nurse on 01/10/24 at 11:05 AM. The MDS Nurse revealed she was not aware that she needed to have a care plan from the hospice provider for Resident #73. She stated she would have to call the Corporate Office to find out the process. A follow up interview with the MDS Nurse on 01/10/24 at 11:27 AM revealed she spoke with the Corporate Office and they said the facility should have a care plan from the hospice provider and instructed the MDS Nurse to notify the hospice provider and have them send it to the facility's medical records department to be sure it was downloaded in the medical record. An interview was conducted with Medical Records on 01/12/24 at 10:50 AM. Medical Records confirmed Resident #73 was under hospice care since 11/21/23. Medical Records stated Resident #73's comprehensive care plan that addressed her specific hospice plan of care should have been provided to the facility by the hospice provider, but she had not received it. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/11/24 at 2:17 PM. The DON reported that it was important to have an updated hospice plan of care for any resident who was receiving hospice services because the plan would reflect the resident's current care that needs to be provided. The DON stated it was her expectation that there be a complete verbal and paper communication process between the hospice staff and her nursing staff. The DON added that she was ultimately responsible for not following up with the Hospice Provider as she should have, and for the facility not having a clear process in place to obtain and scan residents' hospice medical records timely into their electronic medical records and she would work toward achieving a better system between the hospice provider and the facility. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 01/12/24 at 11:30 AM. The Administrator stated it was his expectation that the Hospice Nurse and Hospice Provider follow the Nursing Facility Hospice Services Agreement dated 02/01/19 to provide to the facility all of the hospice documentation timely. A phone interview was conducted with the Hospice Liaison on 01/12/24 at 2:10 PM. The Liaison was the spokesperson for the Hospice Provider. She stated it was her expectation that Resident #73's complete hospice medical records be available to facility staff. Based on record review, staff interviews, and hospice staff interviews the facility failed to maintain communication and coordination of services provided by hospice in the medical record complete with hospice admission documentation, hospice plan of care, and hospice visit notes in the facility's electronic medical record and failed to obtain physician orders for hospice services for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for hospice, (Resident #60, Resident #59, and #73). Findings included: The Hospice Long Term Care Agreement for Hospice Services dated 02/01/2019 read in part: Hospice shall promote open and frequent communication with Facility and shall provide Facility with sufficient information to ensure that the provision of Facility Services under this Agreement is in accordance with the Hospice Patient's Plan of Care, assessments, treatment planning and care coordination. At a minimum, Hospice shall provide the following information to Facility for each Hospice Patient residing at Facility: Plan of Care, Medications and orders, Election form, and Certifications. Each Clinical record shall completely, promptly, and accurately document all services provided to, and events concerning, each Hospice Patient, including evaluations, treatments, progress notes, authorizations to admission to Hospice and/or Facility, physician orders entered pursuant to this Agreement and discharge summaries. Each record shall document that the specific services are furnished in accordance with this Agreement and shall be readily accessible and systemically organized to facilitate retrieval by either party. 1. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #60's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 with severe cognitive impairment. Resident #60 was coded as receiving Hospice services while a resident. A review of Resident #60's medical record revealed no: physician order for hospice services, hospice plan of care, facility hospice care plan, hospice patient information form, hospice certification statement, hospice nursing visit record forms, and no election of hospice form. The only documented hospice record found for Resident #60 were four handwritten Hospice Chaplain and Hospice Social Worker visit notes progress note located in resident's paper chart. An interview was conducted on interview with Medical Records on 01/11/24 at 9:50 AM. Medical Records confirmed Resident #60 was under Hospice care since 03/14/23. Medical Records stated resident's comprehensive care plan that addressed hospice care plan, hospice admission documentation, and hospice physician's order for hospice services should have been provided by hospice and were not. An interview was conducted on 01/11/24 at 12:40 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON). She revealed that it was her expectation that Hospice should have communicated more fully to facility staff as well as provided Hospice Nurse's complete visit documentation prior to leaving the facility and did not. She said hospice failed to provide them with Resident #60's complete hospice record complete with hospice admission documentation, hospice plan of care, hospice visit notes, and documented hospice physician order. The DON said it was her expectation that there be a complete verbal and paper communication process between hospice and her nursing staff, and there was not. The DON then said she was ultimately responsible for not following up with hospice as she should have, and for the facility not having a clear process in place to obtain and scan residents hospice medical records timely into their electronic medical records. An interview was conducted on 01/11/24 at 2:00 PM with the Hospice Nurse Aide (NA) #7. She stated Resident #60 was visited weekly by her weekly. She stated the resident was being well cared for by her and the facility's nursing staff. The NA revealed she provided facility nursing staff with a verbal summary of her visit. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 8:45 AM with Hospice Nurse #14. She stated the resident was visited weekly by her and 2-3-times per week by a Hospice Aide. She stated the resident was being well cared for by her and the facility's nursing staff and if further assistance was needed, the facility could reach her 24/7 by phone. The Hospice Nurse revealed that not all hospice documentation had been provided to the facility to scan into their electronic medical record. She said it was her expectation that Resident #60's complete Hospice medical records be available to facility staff. A follow-up interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:30 AM with the facility Administrator revealed that it was his expectation that the Hospice Nurse follow the Nursing Facility Hospice Services Agreement dated 02/01/19 to provide to the facility all of the Hospice documentation timely, which was not being done per Hospice agreement. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 2:10 PM with Hospice Liaison #1, which was a spokesperson for their Hospice Provider. She stated the resident was visited weekly by a Hospice Nurse and a Hospice Aide. She said it was her expectation that Resident #60's complete Hospice medical records be available to facility staff, per facility agreement, and were not.
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 observation and staff interviews the facility failed to: 1) maintain sanitizing solutions used in the kitchen at the strength recommended by the manufacturer; 2) maintain a clean and sanitize...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews the facility failed to: 1) maintain sanitizing solutions used in the kitchen at the strength recommended by the manufacturer; 2) maintain a clean and sanitized kitchen area for food preparation; and 3) ensure refrigerated items were sealed and labeled. These practices had the potential to affect food quality and kitchen sanitation safety. Findings included: 1. An initial kitchen tour was conducted on 01/07/24 at 5:00 PM with the Temporary Dietary Manager (DM) #1. An observation on 01/07/24 at 5:35 PM test strips were used to check the sanitizing solution in the kitchen's low temperature dishwasher during a rinse cycle. The solution in the washer's rinse cycle registered 0-parts per million (PPM) of sanitizer. The dishwasher was not being utilized at the time, being that dinner meal was still in progress. An observation on 01/07/24 at 5:30 PM test strips were used to check the sanitizing solution in the kitchen's only red sanitizing bucket and low temperature dishwasher. The solution in the bucket registered 0-parts per million (PPM) of quaternary sanitizer. DM #1 reported she or her staff did not check the strength of the sanitizing solution in the bucket when it was filled. DM said she did not know when the bucket was filled and did not know if it was utilized by kitchen staff or not. An interview was conducted on 01/07/24 at 5:40 PM with the DM #1. DM #1 reported that she or her staff did not check the strength of the sanitizing solution in the rinse cycles. Further observations revealed the 5-gallon rinse solution bucket next to the washer was nearly empty, revealing no sanitizing solution was available to be drawn up into the washer to sanitize the dishes. DM #1 reported she or her staff did not check the strength of the sanitizing solution in the washer rinse cycle prior to usage or checked that the empty 5-gallon rinse sanitizing solution bucket needed to be replaced. DM #1 said it was her first day at the facility and that she was asked by their corporate staff to fill in temporally until DM #2 returned from sick leave. DM #1 said she could not find a PPM log, or any record of washer rinse cycle being tested by staff, they only had a temp log. A follow-up interview and observation were conducted on 01/07/24 at 5:45 PM with the DM #1. She said the quaternary solution in the red sanitizer bucket and low-temperature dish washer rinse cycle needed to register 200 - 300 PPM when checked with the appropriate strips. She reported when the strength was less than this there was a chance that the surfaces being wiped down or dishes being washed were not properly disinfected. She commented that the strength of the sanitizing solutions in the bucket and dish washer should be checked throughout the day and should not have registered 0-PPM. The DM #1 was then observed to replace the empty 5-gallon rinse solution bucket with a new one and refilled the red bucket with sanitizing solution. After the replacements, she re-tested the red bucket and low temperature washer's rinse cycle with appropriate test strips, with both registering appropriate PPM. 2. Located in the kitchen revealed black tinged substances and debris littering the kitchen's floor and along the kitchen's baseboards, with multiple soiled kitchen rags discarded on the floor or left on top of tables and shelves used for food preparation. An interview was conducted on 01/07/24 at 5:05 PM with DM #1. The DM #1 stated the floors should have been swept and mopped before food preparation began and the soiled kitchen rags should not have been thrown on the floor or kept on top of food preparation areas but kept in red sanitizing buckets for safety and sanitation reasons, which they were not. She said kitchen staff were supposed to clean and mop the kitchen floors and wipe down the food preparation tables with sanitizing solution from the red sanitizing buckets, which they also did not do. The DM stated the food preparation tables and floors needed to be consistently cleaned and sanitized to prevent mold or water borne pathogens from developing. The DM stated the soiled kitchen rags she observed should not have been placed on top of the food preparation areas or thrown on the floor, which could adversely affect the health of residents. 3. An observation on 01/07/24 at 5:20 PM of the kitchen's reach in refrigerator with the DM #1 revealed two hard boiled eggs in a clear plastic bag open to air, undated and unlabeled. An interview was conducted with the DM #1 on 01/07/24 at 5:25 PM. DM #1 was unable to explain why the two hardboiled eggs were stored in the kitchen's reach-in refrigerated undated, unlabeled, and open to air. She said the DM monitored the items in the refrigerators and freezers weekly when conducting inventory. She stated the two hard-boiled eggs should have been sealed, dated, and not opened to air. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 01/07/24 at 6:00 PM. He reported it was his expectation for the facility's kitchen staff to follow all regulatory guidelines for food and kitchen sanitation safety, which they did not do.
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

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and Physician Assistant and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI) failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee put into place following a recertification and complaint investigation of 04/15/21 for three deficiencies that were originally cited in area of quality of care (F684), dietary services (F812) and infection control (880). These deficiencies were subsequently recited on the current recertification and complaint survey of 01/12/24. The continued failure during a previous survey of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F684: Based on observations, record review and staff and Physician Assistant interviews, the facility failed to assess two skin impairment areas and implement physician wound orders for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #73) observed. During a recertification and complaint survey of 04/15/21, the facility failed to follow the physician orders for compression stockings, pressure relief boots, and a resting left hand splint. F812: Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to: 1) maintain sanitizing solutions used in the kitchen at the strength recommended by the manufacturer; 2) failed to maintain a clean and sanitized kitchen area for food preparation; and 3) failed to ensure refrigerated items were sealed and labeled. These practices had the potential to affect food quality and kitchen sanitation safety. During a recertification and complaint survey of 04/15/21, the facility failed to discard green peppers that were spoiled and put an open date on thickened liquid containers that were opened and indicated to use within 7 days after opening. F880: Based on observations, record review and staff and Physician Assistant interviews, the facility failed to perform daily skin assessments to assess for any signs or symptoms of a scabies infection on a resident (Resident #73) who was sharing a room with another resident (Resident #3) who had an active diagnoses of scabies and was on isolation precautions for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for infection control. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. During a recertification and complaint survey of 04/15/21, the facility failed to implement the facility's COVID-19 Plan and Protocols for wearing the personal protective equipment required for providing care and services to residents who were quarantined and on enhanced observation droplet isolation precautions. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 01/12/24 at 1:45 PM. The Administrator stated he would not be able to speak as to why the quality assurance process did not work for the previous citations because he was not the Administrator until 11/07/23. The Administrator added a process would be in place for a thorough quality assurance process to ensure ongoing audits/monitoring, and education was provided and was effective to prevent repeat citations.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, residents, family members, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the Resident's right to f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, residents, family members, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the Resident's right to file a grievance and receive a written decision regarding the grievance investigation. This occurred for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for the grievance process (Residents #30, #59, #45, and #52). The findings included: The facility policy, Grievance Reporting, documented the following: 8. The resident, or person filing the grievance and/or complaint on behalf of the resident, will be informed of the findings of the investigation and the actions that will be taken to correct any identified problems. Such report will be made orally by the administrator, or his or her designee, within 5 working days of the filing of the grievance or complaint with the facility. The resident will also be offered a copy of the written grievance decision. The completed grievance form will be filed in the Social Services office. 1. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 was cognitively intact. Review of grievances filed since the last standard recertification survey on 08/18/22 revealed Resident #30 had filed 15 grievances with the facility dated 09/14/22, 06/01/23, 06/12/23, 08/11/23 x 2, 08/24/23 x 5, 10/03/23 x 3, 10/24/23 and 11/13/23. An interview was conducted with Resident #30 on 01/10/24 at 1:00 PM and she reported she had only received two (2) written grievance resolutions in the past. She explained she had not received a written resolution regarding the outcomes of the other grievances she had reported and had not been told verbally. In an interview with the Administrator on 1/11/24 at 4:00 PM he stated Resident #30 had been told verbally of grievance outcomes but was not provided a written resolution. He stated he believed the Social Worker was responsible for coordinating the grievance process. 2. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 had severely impaired cognition. Review of grievances filed since the last standard recertification survey on 08/18/22 revealed five (5) grievances had been filed on behalf of Resident #59 by her Power of Attorney (POA) dated 05/09/23, 05/18/23, 06/09/23, 10/09/23 and 10/25/24\3. A telephone interview was conducted with the POA for Resident #59 on 01/12/24 at 10:05 AM. She stated she had never been provided with a written resolution to any grievance she had filed with the facility. She noted she had several conversations with the previous Administrator who had informed her of what the facility was going to do for Resident #59. In an interview with the Administrator on 01/11/24 at 4:00 PM he stated the POA for Resident #59 had been told verbally of grievance outcomes but had not been provided a written statement of the grievance resolutions. In an interview with the Social Worker on 1/12/24 at 10:45 AM she stated she was the holder of the grievance log and concerns were given to her first. She then took the grievance forms to the clinical meeting each morning for discussion and distribution to the concerned Department Head. The Department Head was then supposed to process the complaint and let the complainant know the outcome of the investigation. This was done either in person verbally or by telephone. She stated the complainant was offered a copy of the completed grievance form when contacted. She said she would coordinate with the Administrator to change the process going forward to provide each complainant with a written resolution after the completion of an investigation. 3. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Minimum Data Set quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #45 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of grievances filed since the last standard recertification survey on 08/18/22 revealed two (2) grievances had been filed on behalf of Resident #45 by her Power of Attorney (POA) dated 07/20/23 and 07/26/23. A phone interview was conducted with the POA for Resident #45 on 01/10/24 at 1:00 PM and she reported she had never received a written resolution regarding the outcomes of the grievances she had reported and she had not been told verbally that the concerns had been addressed. An interview was conducted with the Social Worker (SW) on 01/11/24 at 2:10 PM. The SW revealed the process for managing the grievance forms was that any grievance that was written was given to her. She stated she would then bring them to the clinical meeting each morning for discussion and distribute the grievance to the appropriate department head. The SW continued and stated the department head was then supposed to address the concern and let the complainant know the outcome of the investigation. This was done either in person verbally or by telephone. The SW reviewed the grievance form filed on behalf of Resident #45 and confirmed that the complainant did not receive a written grievance summary for the two grievances that were filed on 07/20/23 and 07/26/23. The SW revealed that she did not know that she needed to provide a written grievance summary to a grievance/concern to the complainant and added, that she thought a verbal summary was okay. The SW stated she knows now that a written resolution should be provided to the complainant for each grievance filed. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 12:00 PM with the Maintenance Director. He stated he received the grievances regarding Resident #45 back in July 2023. The Maintenance Director recalled the two grievances having to do with trash on the floor and under the bed. He stated he and his assistant checked Resident #45's room and noted the room had been cleaned by the time they got in there. He stated education was provided to his housekeeping staff to be sure they were cleaning the rooms thoroughly including sweeping under the bed. The Maintenance Director added, once he was completed addressing the concern, he documented the conclusion of his investigation along with the date and his signature and gave it back to the Social Worker. The Maintenance Director stated he did not know he was supposed to notify the complainant in writing; he thought the Social Worker took care of that. In an interview with the Administrator on 01/12/24 at 12:30 PM, he revealed he understood that the providing a written resolution regarding a grievance needed to be provided to conform with the regulations and he would ensure that the process would be in place going forward. 4. Resident #52's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated that resident had no cognitive impairments. The resident needed limited assistance for all activities for daily living (ADL). A review of the facility's grievance log revealed two grievances from Resident #52, one for not cleaning his room for three weeks, and the second for constant roaches in his room. On the bottom page of the first grievance dated 05/30/23 read, Spoke with housekeeper and she told me she had done room daily. I will monitor the resident's room for the next month. On the bottom page of the second grievance dated 10/25/23 read, The Resident stated there's constantly roaches in his room and requested his room to be sprayed for bugs. Neither of the two grievance/concern forms reviewed had the back page summary or findings filled out, with copy grievance decision given to the resident was left blank and next line was checked NO for not given a copy. An interview was conducted on 01/08/24 at 12:00 PM with the Maintenance Director. He stated he did receive a grievance from Resident #52 on 10/25/24, per her request, to spray his room for pests. He said the facility and Resident #52's room was treated for pests by their exterminator company on 11/06/23. An interview was conducted on 01/10/24 at 12:10 PM with the Social Worker. She revealed Resident #52 did not receive a written grievance summary for his two grievances about his room needing to be cleaned and roaches in his room. The Social Worker (SW) revealed that she did not know until today that she needed to provide a written grievance summary to a grievance/concern complainant. She said she thought a verbal summary was okay. She said before today, she had only called or spoken to the complainant in person and verbally summarized the grievance, with nothing given to them in writing. She said now she knows to provide a written grievance summary to every complainant. An interview was conducted on 01/10/24 at 12:50 PM with Resident #52. He revealed he put in grievances that his room needed to be cleaned and roaches in his room. He said he did not receive a written grievance summary from the facility for any of his grievances. An interview was conducted on 01/10/24 at 3:00 PM with the Housekeeping/Laundry Manager. He stated he did receive a grievance from Resident #52 on 05/30/23, per her request, to clean his room. The Housekeeping Manager said his staff cleaned and waxed Resident #52's room, even though it was not scheduled to be deep cleaned. An interview was conducted on 01/12/24 at 11:30 AM with the facility's Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). They revealed they did not know a grievance/concern complainant needed to receive a written summary of their grievance findings.
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 review, staff interviews, and the Regional Ombudsman interview the facility failed to notify the Regional Ombuds...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and the Regional Ombudsman interview the facility failed to notify the Regional Ombudsman in writing when 2 of 2 sampled residents were discharged to the hospital (Resident #92, Resident #248). Findings included. a.) Resident #92 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #92 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #92's progress notes revealed he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #92's medical record on 01/08/23 revealed no documentation in the medical record that the Regional Ombudsman was notified of the transfer to the hospital. b.) Resident #248 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #248 had severely impaired cognition. Review of Resident #248's progress noted revealed he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the facility. Review of Resident #248's medical record on 01/08/23 revealed no documentation in the medical record that the Regional Ombudsman was notified of the transfer to the hospital. During an interview on 01/09/23 at 1:00 PM Social Worker #1 stated she was not aware that it was her responsibility to notify the Regional Ombudsman of resident transfers or discharges. She stated she began working in the facility in March 2023 and was not made aware of the notification requirement. During a phone interview on 01/10/23 at 10:00 AM the Regional Ombudsman stated she had not received notification from the facility of resident transfers or discharges over the last several months. During an interview on 01/10/23 at 3:00 PM the Administrator indicated he began working in the facility in November 2023 and was not aware the Ombudsman was not notified of resident transfers or discharges. He stated the Social Worker was responsible for the Ombudsman notification. He indicated the Ombudsman was contacted during the survey regarding this issue and she would be notified of all resident transfers and discharges moving forward.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 43% turnover. Below North Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 harm violation(s), $35,483 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 23 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $35,483 in fines. Higher than 94% of North Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc's CMS Rating?

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

How is Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc Staffed?

CMS rates Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the North Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc?

State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc during 2024 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 19 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc?

Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PEAK RESOURCES, INC., a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 110 certified beds and approximately 87 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Wilmington, North Carolina.

How Does Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the substantiated abuse finding on record and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc Stick Around?

Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for North Carolina nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc Ever Fined?

Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc has been fined $35,483 across 1 penalty action. The North Carolina average is $33,434. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Peak Resources-Wilmington, Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

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