GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH

16101 EUCLID BEACH BLVD, CLEVELAND, OH 44110 (216) 486-2300
For profit - Individual 99 Beds EPHRAM LAHASKY Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
1/100
#683 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: April 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Gardens of Euclid Beach has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns regarding the care and services provided, placing it in the poor category. It ranks #683 out of 913 nursing homes in Ohio, meaning it is in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #59 out of 92 in Cuyahoga County, suggesting only a few local options are performing better. The facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 12 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 58%, which is around the state average, indicating instability among staff. Notably, there were critical incidents where staff failed to provide timely CPR or call for emergency help, leading to the death of a resident, which raises serious red flags about the facility's emergency response capabilities. While there have been no fines, the overall picture suggests families should exercise caution when considering this nursing home for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
1/100
In Ohio
#683/913
Bottom 26%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
57 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 12 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Ohio average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 58%

12pts above Ohio avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: EPHRAM LAHASKY

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above Ohio average of 48%

The Ugly 57 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Sept 2025 12 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, review of emergency medical services (EMS) run report, staff interview, and facility policy revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, review of emergency medical services (EMS) run report, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation or timely call EMS for Resident #13, a resident with advance directives for a Full Code status (indication for healthcare providers to perform all possible lift-saving measures in the event of a cardiac or respiratory arrest). This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm/Subsequent Death on [DATE] at 5:40 P.M. when Resident #13 was found unresponsive and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #521 failed to initiate CPR. EMS was not called until [DATE] at 6:23 P.M. and arrived at the facility at 6:32 P.M. Upon arrival, EMS determined Resident #13 was deceased , CPR was not in progress by facility staff and EMS were informed Resident #13 had been pronounced deceased in the facility at 5:40 P.M. This affected one resident (#13) of ten residents reviewed for death. The facility census was 53. On [DATE] at 1:27 P.M., the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #615 were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on [DATE] at 5:40 P.M. when Resident #13 was found unresponsive and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #521 failed to initiate CPR or timely summon EMS services. The resident, who had advance directives for a Full Code status was subsequently pronounced deceased at the facility. The Immediate Jeopardy was abated on [DATE] when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: On [DATE] at 1:00 P.M. Managerial staff, Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) #601, the Administrator, and the DON met and reviewed data collaboratively. A root cause analysis was conducted and system failure identified LPN #521 did not know Resident #13's code status and did not initiate CPR. On [DATE] at 2:00 P.M. the Administrator and DON received education from [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS) #618 and [NAME] President of Operations (VPO) #617 on the following topics: where to locate advanced directives, CPR policy, Code Blue Flow Sheet, that hospice was not a code status and that advanced directives still need checked. The staff were educated to check the bed board, with a new process to add code status daily for staff and contracted service providers was also provided. Staff were educated to check the bed board, change of condition, communication during a code the crash cart, and staffing assignments. On [DATE] at 3:00 P.M. an Ad Hoc Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) was held. The meeting was held with the Administrator, the DON, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #613, Medical Director (MD) #614, Dietary Director #602, Social Services Director #557, Medical Records #582, Activity Director #513, ADON #615, Human Resources Director (HRD) #520, Director of Rehabilitation (DoR) #565, Wound Care LPN #603, and Environmental Services Director (ESD) #550. The Administrator and the DON educated management on where to locate advanced directives, the facility CPR policy, Code Blue Flow Sheet, that hospice was not a code status and that advanced directives still needed checked, and new bed board process to add code status daily for staff. Contracted service providers would be educated to check the bed board, change of condition, communication during a code, crash cart, and staffing assignments. A Root Cause analysis was reviewed. The facility would give each service provider a memo upon entering the building that stated the facility's new process, they were to sign off on the sign off sheet that they were given the memo and had read and understood. In addition, the facility would be emailing all appropriate service providers the memo. On [DATE] at 3:30 P.M. 32 Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs), 19 LPNs, four Registered Nurses (RN), seven housekeepers, six receptionists,16 therapists, and 2 activity employees were educated on where to locate advanced directives, CPR policy, Code Blue Flow Sheet, that hospice is not a code status and advanced directives still need checked, and the new bed board process to add code status daily for staff. Contracted service providers will be educated to check the bed board, change of condition, communication during a code and crash cart, and staffing assignments by ADON #615 and the DON. On [DATE] at 4:00 P.M. a whole house audit for 58 residents' code status orders were reviewed for accuracy by ADON #615. This would be reviewed daily during clinical meetings, and the DON/designee would update and check the code status for new admissions. On [DATE] at 4:30 P.M. 58 resident care plans were reviewed for accuracy by MDS Coordinator #613. On [DATE], ADON #615 audited all current nurse's CPR certification records to ensure nursing staff had current CPR certification. No nurses were permitted to work until their active CPR certification was verified by Administration. On [DATE] at 8:00 A.M. Former Director of Nursing (FDON) #604 ran the 72-hour audit report on 58 residents to assess for change of condition that was not addressed. No issues were identified. The DON/designee would audit the 24 hour and 72-hour report. On [DATE] at 10:30 A.M. the DON and ADON #615 audited the three LPNs and four CNAs on duty and had them locate in the electronic medical record where the resident's code status was located. On [DATE] at 12:00 P.M. the DON/designee completed a mock code blue drill to identify areas of struggle. On [DATE] at 2:00 P.M. the Administrator, RDCS #601, and Regional Director of Operations (RDO) #599, administered a hands-on and written post-test for all nurses working. RDCS #601 and RDO #599 went to the units and demonstrated how to use the overhead page. RDCS #601 demonstrated how and where to look in the electronic medical record for code status. RDCS #601 and RDO #599 demonstrated how to use the walkie talkies. Shortly after the demonstration, ADON #615 had the staff perform a return demonstration of locating code status in the electronic medical record. Beginning on [DATE], an audit of the bed board code status would be reviewed and updated five times per week on an ongoing basis. This would be completed by the DON. Results of the audit would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], mock code blue drills would be conducted five times per week on alternating shifts for four weeks, then weekly on alternating shifts for four weeks. The mock code scenarios would be provided on a code response form. Staff participating in the mock codes would document on the code blue documentation nurses note form to record action taken and was the form the facility utilizes to document codes at the facility. The form included the time the code was called, time CPR was started, the time the squad arrived, whether the resident was transferred, and a notation on when and why resuscitative efforts were terminated with a notation on the form that resuscitation can only be terminated by a paramedic or doctor and that a nurse cannot stop a code. The mock codes would be overseen by the DON or designee. The results of the audits would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], a code blue drill would be conducted five times per week on alternating shifts for four weeks, then weekly on alternating shifts for four weeks. These audits would be completed by the DON or designee using the code response form. Beginning on [DATE], the DON or designee would begin auditing 24-hour or 72-hour reports from the electronic medical record system to audit for any resident changes in condition, to ensure changes in condition were appropriately addressed. This would be completed five times per week on an ongoing basis. The results of the audits would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], interview questionnaires would be conducted with first floor staff on how to obtain help during emergency situations on alternating shifts five times per week for four weeks, then weekly for four weeks. These interviews would be conducted by the DON or designee. The results would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], the crash cart would be audited by the DON or designee to ensure all needed supplies are contained in the crash cart. The audits would take place on alternating shifts five times per week for four weeks, then weekly for four weeks. The results of the audits would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], the DON or designee would audit the first-floor staffing, to ensure scheduled staff members are present as scheduled, five times per week on random shifts for four weeks, then weekly on random shifts for four weeks. The results of the audits would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. On [DATE] at 4:00 P.M., RDCS #601 provided additional one-on-one education to LPN #521 regarding what the Code Blue form is and when to utilize it. LPN #521 verbalized understanding. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE], the deficiency remains at a Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility is still in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include:Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, asthma, hemiplegia/hemiparesis after a stroke affecting the left nondominant side, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, rectal cancer, and heart disease. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #13 revealed an order written on [DATE] for the resident to be a Full Code. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised on [DATE] revealed the resident had chosen to be a full code. Review of Resident #13's Hospice Care Hospice Services General Consents contract, dated [DATE], revealed the resident consented to hospice providing all services, supplies and medications related to his hospice diagnosis as ordered by his attending physician. The resident also selected he did not want to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Hospice services began as of [DATE]. An order was written on [DATE] to admit to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease and chronic kidney disease with heart failure. Hospice was to be notified of all changes, falls, medication errors, equipment issues, and death. Record review revealed no changes to the resident's advance directive status on this date. Review of the comprehensive significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was cognitively intact, rejected care daily, and had a life expectancy of less than six months. The assessment revealed the resident was receiving hospice services. Review of the resident's hospice notes dated [DATE] through [DATE] revealed no acute concerns were identified during this time period. The resident was assessed by the hospice nurse on [DATE] and [DATE]. The hospice note(s) identified the resident was a full code. Review of the hospice notes from Hospice Registered Nurse (HRN) #700 dated [DATE] revealed the following: Upon her arrival to the facility, she went to the second-floor nurses' station, and no staff were observed on the floor. HRN #700 went to Resident #13's room at approximately 5:35 P.M. LPN #521 and LPN #510 were in the resident's room along with facility aides. They were on speaker phone with the DON. LPN #521 reported she was unable to obtain the resident's blood pressure or oxygen level despite multiple attempts. HRN #700 noted the resident appeared to be actively transitioning. His pupils were fixed and dilated, respirations decreased to four to five breaths per minute, and his eyes were rolling to the back of his head. HRN #700 listened with her stethoscope to the resident's heart for three minutes but was unable to auscultate a heart rate. The resident was pronounced deceased at 5:40 P.M. The DON was notified via speaker phone. LPN #510 notified Medical Director (MD) #614 at approximately 5:43 P.M. who provided an order to release the resident's body to the funeral home. Hospice Director of Nursing (HDON) #701 was notified, and a death visit was initiated. Facility CNAs provided postmortem care. Multiple calls were made to Resident #13's emergency contacts but were unable to reach them. The crash cart was brought to the resident's room at approximately 6:15 P.M. and EMS arrived on scene approximately 20 minutes later at 6:35 P.M. HRN #700 asked the facility staff who had called EMS and why but received no answer from the facility staff. HRN #700 answered EMS's questions regarding Resident #13's health history and hospice eligibility. EMS voiced understanding and cleared the scene. HMD #702 was also updated on the resident's death. Review of the EMS run report for Resident #13, dated [DATE], revealed an unnamed facility staff called 911 at 6:23 P.M. for a cardiac/respiratory arrest with the priority listed as an emergency. EMS arrived at Resident #13's bedside on [DATE] at 6:32 P.M. The report indicated upon arrival a deceased male was found lying supine in bed after passing away at the facility at 5:40 P.M. per the facility staff. The report included Resident #13 was noted to be a hospice patient who had the facility staff and hospice personnel present at his passing. The narrative referenced there was confusion when contacting family and somehow 911 had been called at approximately 6:23 P.M., with contact made at 6:32 P.M., almost an hour after the patient had passed away. The nursing home managers apologized to EMS and stated they never should have been called. The narrative concluded by referencing the resident was DOA (dead on arrival) and left in the care of the facility and hospice staff. The section of the report indicating if CPR had been provided prior to EMS care was recorded as No. Review of a nursing progress note dated [DATE] at 8:20 P.M. (recorded as a late entry on [DATE] at 4:31 P.M.) revealed on [DATE] at 5:40 P.M., LPN #521 was notified by HRN #700 that Resident #13 was absent of vital signs. LPN #521 documented that, upon verification of the resident's code status of full code, emergency protocol was initiated. A Code Blue (a medical emergency signal indicating a cardiac or respiratory arrest) was paged overhead. A second nurse and a certified nurse aide (CNA) came to assist with the emergency bringing the crash cart (a cart where lifesaving equipment is stored) with them. The second nurse went to call 911 and print out the paperwork needed. Approximately 10 minutes after calling 911, EMS arrived and took over CPR. EMS was not notified that the resident was on hospice but there was still a full code. LPN #521 documented after several rounds of CPR, the lead EMS called the emergency physician and confirmed the time of death. Interview with LPN #521 on [DATE] at 9:50 A.M. revealed she did not know much about Resident #13, but stated Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #593 would be able to provide more information. Interview with CNA #593 on [DATE] at 9:55 A.M. revealed she regularly provided care for Resident #13. CNA #593 said the resident was on hospice but still wanted to be a full code. The CNA stated the resident was alert and oriented and liked to go on leave of absence (LOA) from the facility in his motorized wheelchair. CNA #513 said she worked with Resident #13 two days before he died. She stated she had a hard time helping him get comfortable due to a wound on his buttocks but stated he rarely complained about anything. Interview with LPN #521 on [DATE] at 11:25 A.M. revealed she took over care of Resident #13 at 3:30 P.M. when the day shift nurse left. LPN #521 denied receiving report from off-going nurse LPN #506, as report was given to a different unidentified nurse. LPN #521 stated she did not know when HRN #700 arrived at the facility. LPN #521 said CNA #555 came to her and said Resident #13 did not look good, so she went to the resident's room to check on him. LPN #521 said she checked for a pulse and was able to feel a faint one. HRN #700 was also in the room and LPN #521 said HRN #700 said Resident #13 did not have a pulse. LPN #521 said she went into CPR mode and HRN #700 assisted her. LPN #521 was unable to provide a time she began CPR and stated she did not complete a Code Blue sheet. LPN #521 said someone brought the crash cart to the resident's room while someone else called 911. LPN #521 said when EMS arrived, they told her there was nothing to do as the resident was a hospice resident. LPN #521 told EMS the resident was a full code. EMS then took over care of Resident #13 and replaced LPN #521 from performing CPR. LPN #521 stated she did not know what time EMS arrived or at what time they took over CPR. LPN #521 stated the EMS personnel placed a big box-like piece of equipment on the resident's chest. She did not know what it was. LPN #521 stated she had worked for the facility for approximately a month and had just received her nursing license in [DATE]. Interview with Medical Director (MD) #614 on [DATE] at 2:25 P.M. revealed he had provided care to Resident #13 for many years and had been his physician prior to the resident being admitted to the facility. MD #614 said he examined the resident about a week before his death, and the resident had no complaints at that time. The MD revealed there was nothing indicating Resident #13 might be developing a potential problem between that time and when he passed away. Interview with Hospice Director of Nursing (HDON) #701 on [DATE] at 10:15 A.M. revealed HRN #700 arrived at the facility at approximately 5:20 P.M. At 5:43 P.M. HRN #700 went to Resident #13's room after being unable to locate any staff to provide an update for her. When she entered the resident's room, facility staff were at the bedside attempting to obtain vital signs. HRN #700 used her stethoscope to auscultate a heart rate and after three minutes was unable to obtain an apical pulse. HDON #701 confirmed CPR was never started on Resident #13 at any time by facility staff. HDON #701 said EMS arrive at the facility at 6:35 P.M. EMS did not attempt CPR or any other life saving measures as the resident had died at 5:40 P.M. Interview with MD #614 on [DATE] at 12:27 P.M. verified at the time Resident #13 he was a full code. MD #614 said he believed Resident #13 was not ready to accept that his desire to be a full code did not align with his not wanting to go to the hospital again, especially since he had just been discharged from the hospital recently. When the resident passed away, the facility did call and tell him, but he stated it was just notification of death and not a question regarding if the resident should be coded. MD #614 was unaware EMS had been called 50 minutes after Resident #13 was pronounced deceased . Interview with HRN #700 on [DATE] at 2:12 P.M. revealed the facility had contacted hospice around 1:00 P.M. to let them know Resident #13 had vomited. HRN #700 said she called the facility and was placed on hold and then the call was disconnected. HRN #700 said she called back a second time and spoke with LPN #521 who informed LPN #506 (the resident's assigned nurse) HRN #700 was on the phone, but LPN #506 was busy and unable to speak with HRN #700 and advised her to call back around 3:00 P.M. as that was change of shift. HRN #700 said she arrived at the facility at approximately 5:20 P.M. and remained at the nurses' station looking for a staff member to update her but did not see anyone. HRN #700 stated she then went to Resident #13's room and found LPN #521 and LPN #510 at the bedside attempting to obtain a blood pressure and pulse without success. HRN #700 took out her stethoscope and attempted to obtain an apical pulse for three minutes but was unable to auscultate one. HRN #700 told LPN #521 and LPN #510 Resident #13 was actively passing. LPN #521 and LPN #510 contacted MD #614 to notify him, and she contacted the hospice medical director. HRN #700 said she was unaware Resident #13 was a full code as LPN #521 and LPN #510 did not inform her of that. HRN #700 said Resident #13 had blood on his gown and his pillow from the earlier coffee ground emesis. During the interview, HRN #700 revealed after speaking to the funeral home, LPN #521 and LPN #510 approached HRN #700 and LPN #521 and asked her to lie and say she (LPN #521) and HRN #700 had provided CPR. HRN #700 stated she refused to lie and state CPR was provided when it was not. HRN #700 said she also spoke with the facility's DON on the phone and said the DON was upset with hospice and that Resident #13 should have had an advance directive of ‘do not resuscitate'. HRN #700 said the DON was upset but she also told the DON she would not lie and say CPR had been provided. The DON had stated she had already told their corporate personnel that CPR had been provided to Resident #13. Interview with LPN #506 on [DATE] at 3:21 P.M. revealed she was aware Resident #13 had a full code status even though he was on hospice services. A call was placed to CNA #519 on [DATE] at 3:37 P.M. as she worked the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. on [DATE]. A message was received that the call could not be completed. A call was placed to CNA #555 on [DATE] at 3:58 P.M. as she worked on [DATE]. A recorded message indicated CNA #555's mailbox was full, and a message could not be left. A call was placed to CNA #621 on [DATE] at 4:06 P.M. as she worked the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. on [DATE]. A message was received that the call could not be completed. Interview with CNA #566 on [DATE] at 4:21 P.M. revealed she worked the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. on [DATE]. CNA #566 said she was in a room with another resident when a code was called. She stated she took the crash cart to Resident #13's room. She stated she did not remember if anyone was performing CPR. CNA #566 did not how long the code lasted or who called 911. CNA #566 revealed she was not certified in CPR. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 1:16 P.M. with LPN #510 who revealed she was working in the facility at the time Resident #13 had a change of condition, but she was not his nurse. When asked if chest compressions or breaths were performed on Resident #13, LPN #510 stated she was not sure. She stated she was at the resident's bedside, left the room, and passed the hospice nurse who was just walking into the room. LPN #510 stated she checked Resident #13's code status, called 911 and the DON, but did not recall what time. LPN #510 stated she got the crash cart, set the crash cart in the doorway of Resident #13's room, and left. She stated she did not know what happened after that. A follow up interview on [DATE] revealed LPN #510 clarified she had taken the crash cart to the room then started getting the paperwork together that EMS would need when they arrived. She stated she did not participate in a code. LPN #510 stated she believed the resident was a full code and checked the electronic medical record to confirm that. LPN #510 said when someone codes, she always checks the resident's code status before starting CPR. LPN #510 said no one directly asked her to lie and say CPR was started on the resident. Review of the facility policy Emergency Procedure-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) last revised [DATE] revealed the facility would identify a CPR team for each shift in the case of an actual cardiac arrest. To the extent possible, designate a team leader on each shift who was responsible for coordinating the rescue effort and directing other team members during the rescue effort. The CPR team in this facility shall include at least one nurse, one LPN and two CNAs. If an individual was found unresponsive, briefly assess for abnormal or absence of breathing. If sudden cardiac arrest was likely, begin CPR. Instruct a staff member to activate the emergency response system (EMS) and call 911. Instruct a staff member to retrieve the automatic external defibrillator (AED). Verify the code status of the resident. Continue with CPR until EMS arrives. Review of the facility policy Charting and Documentation last revised [DATE] revealed documentation of procedures and treatments would include care-specific details, including: the date and time the procedure/treatment was provided; the name and title of the individual(s) who provided the care; the assessment data and/or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/treatment; how the resident tolerated the procedure/treatment; whether the resident refused the procedure/treatment; notification of family, physician, or other staff, if indicated; and the signature and title of the individual documenting. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Master Complaint Number 2612264 and Complaint Numbers 2578214 and 1381901.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, closed record review, review of emergency medical services (EMS) run reports, review of the facility asses...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, closed record review, review of emergency medical services (EMS) run reports, review of the facility assessment and floor plan, review of facility staffing, policy review and interview, the facility failed to accurately assess and provide timely and necessary medical intervention for residents identified to have an acute change in condition. In addition, the facility failed to provide basic life support (BLS) and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) in accordance with BLS/CPR standards of practice, failed to maintain adequate staffing resources to allow for efficient and effective emergency response to residents' with cardiopulmonary arrest, and failed to have effective systems in place for staff to obtain timely assistance during a CPR code. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm/Subsequent Death for Resident #13, #58 and #74. This affected three residents (#13, #58, and #74) of 22 residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 53. Immediate Jeopardy began on [DATE] at approximately 12:30 A.M. when Resident #74 was assessed to have shortness of breath with a low oxygen saturation (71%). The nurse on duty failed to notify the physician or provide adequate intervention. The resident's oxygen saturation remained low (85% and 89%) when checked following the administration of aerosol treatment and application of Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) (a noninvasive ventilation system to administer supplemental oxygen) with no evidence of physician notification or medical intervention. At approximately 2:10 A.M. the resident was found on the floor of his room. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #532 began CPR per the resident's advance directives; however, the LPN did not check to see if the resident had a pulse prior to implementation. The other nurse on duty (LPN #633) took over 30 minutes to call 911 causing a delay in emergency medical services (EMS) response/assistance. EMS arrived at the facility at 2:57 A.M. and transported Resident #74 to a local hospital where he was pronounced deceased on arrival at the emergency room (ER) at 3:33 A.M. The Immediate Jeopardy continued on [DATE] when Resident #58 told Registered Nurse (RN) #511 she was having respiratory distress. RN #511 did not check the resident's vital signs before administering treatment and then left the resident unattended to get oxygen. When RN #511 returned, Resident #58 was unresponsive. Without assessing the resident's vital signs, RN #511 again left the resident to go to another floor to get help. Upon return to the resident's room, CPR was initiated without first assessing to see if the resident had a pulse and without use of a backboard (a necessary component to CPR which provides a firm, non-compressible surface and reduces mattress displacement allowing for effective compressions). EMS arrived onsite and took over CPR at 3:10 A.M. Resident #58 was subsequently pronounced deceased on arrival at the emergency room (ER) at 3:45 A.M. The unit Resident #58 resided on at the facility had just opened in [DATE] with single occupancy rooms for skilled residents. There was no staffing plan for this unit in the facility assessment. In addition, there was no communication system in place for emergent situations and staff working on the unit had to physically leave the unit to go to the second floor to get additional staff assistance when/if needed. The Immediate Jeopardy continued on [DATE] at 1:04 P.M. when LPN #506 failed to notify Medical Director (MD) #614 or provide medical intervention when Resident #13, (who had advance directives for a Full Code status) was assessed to have an acute change in medical condition. The resident had coffee ground emesis, was hypotensive (blood pressure of 87/60 (normal ranges from 120/80)), tachycardic (pulse of 114 (normal ranges from 60 to 100 beats per minute (bpm)), and an oxygenation level of 93 percent (%) (normal ranges from 95 to 100%) on room air. At 5:40 P.M., Resident #13 was found unresponsive with no intervention provided. EMS were not contacted until [DATE] at 6:23 P.M. and arrived at the facility at 6:32 P.M. Upon arrival, EMS determined Resident #13 was deceased , CPR was not in progress by facility staff, and EMS was informed that Resident #13 had been pronounced deceased at the facility at 5:40 P.M. On [DATE] at 4:20 P.M. the Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator, Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) #601, and Regional Director of Operations (RDO) #559 were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on [DATE] at 2:10 A.M., when the facility failed to ensure comprehensive systems were in place to timely identify and provide necessary intervention to Resident #74 who experienced an acute change in condition resulting in the resident's death. The Immediate Jeopardy continued on [DATE] and [DATE] when the facility continued to ensure comprehensive systems were in place to timely identify and provide necessary intervention to residents (#58 and #13) who experienced an acute change in condition resulting in resident death. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: On [DATE] at 4:30 P.M. during a TEAMS (virtual) call with [NAME] President of Operations (VPO) #617, [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS) #618 educated the Administrator, DON, RDCS #601, and RDO #599, on the facility CPR policy, emergency response processes, and code blue flow sheets related to how to respond to emergency situations and to notify others for help by use of walkie-talkie or overhead paging system. On [DATE] at 5:00 P.M., RDCS #601 and the Administrator provided education to Activities Director (AD) #513, Housekeeping Services Director (HSD) #550, the DON, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #615, Medical Records Director (MRD) #582, Maintenance Director #538, Director of Social Services (DSS) #557, Minimum Data Set Director (MDSD) #613, Dietary Manager (DM) #602, Human Resources Director (HRD) #520, and Wound Care Nurse (WCN) #603, on the CPR policy, emergency response processes, and code blue flow sheets related to how to respond to emergency situations and to notify others for help by use of walkie-talkie or overhead paging system. On [DATE] at 5:45 P.M. an Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was led by RDCS #601 and the Administrator who identified the root cause analysis to be lack of education on the facility CPR policy and emergency response/notification protocols. The members in attendance were identified to be AD #513, HSD #550, the DON, ADON #615, MRD #582, Maintenance Director #538, DSS #557, MDSD #613, DM #602, HRD #520, WCN #603 and Medical Director (MD) #614 via the telephone. On [DATE] at 6:45 P.M. RDCS #601 and RDO #599 educated all staff (32 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), 19 LPNs, four RNs, seven housekeeping staff, six receptionists, 16 therapists, and two activities staff) on the facility CPR policy, emergency response processes, and code blue flow sheets related to how to respond to emergency situations and to notify others for help. On [DATE] by 5:30 P.M. all 58 residents were assessed by the DON, WCN #603, and ADON #615 for any acute changes in condition. On [DATE] starting at 5:00 P.M., Corporate RN Basic Life Support Instructor #619 and Corporate LPN Basic Life Support Instructor provided CPR recertification to nine nurses (LPN #551, ADON #615, the DON, LPN #521, LPN #559, LPN #510, WCN #603, LPN #607, and LPN #504). All nurses who did not attend were removed from the schedule until they were able to provide updated CPR recertification. On [DATE] at 4:30 P.M., RDCS #601 conducted an audit on crash carts to ensure they were stocked and readily available for an emergency situation. On [DATE] at 6:00 P.M. all clinical staff (32 CNAs, 19 LPNs, and 4 RNs), received education by RCDS #601 and Former DON (FDON) #604 validating that code statuses were updated. Three resident orders (Resident #87, Resident #60, and Resident #23) were updated for code statuses. On [DATE] at 6:15 P.M., VPO #617, VPC #618, RDCS #601, RDO #599, the Administrator, and the DON met to discuss future staffing for when closed units opened. Beginning on [DATE], RDCS #601 initiated education to all clinical staff, also to include scheduler/HR, DON and the Administrator, to ensure there was always a minimum of one staff member on the first floor. On [DATE], the DON/Designee would perform mock code blues on alternating shifts five times a week for four weeks, then weekly on alternating shifts for four weeks. Audits would be documented on the code blue flow sheet. All audits performed would be recorded and reviewed during the weekly QAPI. Beginning on [DATE], CPR policy training would be conducted during new hire orientation and every six months with staff. The DON would be responsible to ensure that all new hires received the information during new hire orientation and would monitor the education (related to the CPR policy, emergency response processes, and code blue flow sheets on how to respond to emergency situations and to notify others for help) every six months. Beginning on [DATE], education topics were added to all new hire orientation training. The DON would ensure that if any employee received orientation at a sister facility, they would ensure all education topics were completed prior to starting on the floor. On [DATE] at 4:30 P.M. 58 resident care plans were reviewed for accuracy by MDS Coordinator #613. On [DATE] at 8:00 A.M. FDON #604 ran the 72-hour audit report on 58 residents to assess for change of condition that was not addressed. The DON/designee would audit the 24-hour and 72-hour report. On [DATE] at 12:00 P.M. the DON/designee completed a mock code blue drill to identify areas of struggle. On [DATE] at 2:00 P.M. the Administrator, RDCS #601, and RDO #599, administered a hands-on and written post-test for all nurses working. RDCS #601 and RDO #599 went to the units and demonstrated how to use the overhead page. RDCS #601 demonstrated how and where to look in the electronic medical record for code status. RDCS #601 and RDO #599 demonstrated how to use the walkie talkies. Shortly after the demonstration, ADON #615 had the staff perform a return demonstration of locating code status in the electronic medical record. Beginning on [DATE], an audit of the bed board code status would be reviewed and updated five times per week on an ongoing basis. This would be completed by the DON. Results of the audit would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], the DON or designee would begin auditing 24-hour or 72-hour reports from the electronic medical record system to audit for any resident changes in condition, to ensure changes in condition were appropriately addressed. This would be completed five times per week on an ongoing basis. The results of the audits would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], interview questionnaires would be conducted with first floor staff on how to obtain help during emergency situations on alternating shifts five times per week for four weeks, then weekly for four weeks. These interviews would be conducted by the DON or designee. The results would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], the crash cart would be audited by the DON or designee to ensure all needed supplies are contained in the crash cart. The audits would take place on alternating shifts five times per week for four weeks, then weekly for four weeks. The results of the audits would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. Beginning on [DATE], the DON or designee would audit the first-floor staffing, to ensure scheduled staff members are present as scheduled, five times per week on random shifts for four weeks, then weekly on random shifts for four weeks. The results of the audits would be reviewed through the facility's QAPI process. On [DATE] at 4:00 P.M., RDCS #601 provided additional one-on-one education to LPN #521 regarding what the Code Blue form was and when to utilize it. LPN #521 verbalized understanding. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] the deficiency remains at a Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility is still in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include: 1. Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), schizophrenia, depression, dependence on supplemental oxygen, heart disease, and a history of a stroke without residual effects from the stroke. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #74 revealed the following: An order dated [DATE] for one puff of a Ventolin inhaler every six hours as needed for asthma, and Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 milligrams (mg) per 3 milliliters to be inhaled every six hours as needed for wheezing. An advance directive order dated [DATE] for a Full Code (attempt all life-saving treatment) if his heart were to stop beating. An order dated [DATE] for oxygen to be administered continuously at four liters per minute via nasal cannula. An order written [DATE] to apply Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) (a noninvasive ventilation system to administer supplemental oxygen) 45 minutes intermittently as often as possible throughout the day, every three hours for low oxygen levels. Review of the Medicare five-day comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #74 dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, became short of breath when lying flat, and received oxygen as well as non-invasive ventilation. Review of the care plan related to Advance Directives for Resident #74, last revised on [DATE] revealed to implement full code measures per the resident's request. Review of a nursing progress note for Resident #74 dated [DATE] at 4:00 A.M. revealed LPN #532 documented at the start of her shift the resident was alert and oriented. At approximately 12:30 A.M., Resident #74 was lying flat. LPN #532 elevated the resident's head of the bed and checked his oxygen level. The resident's oxygen level was 71% (abnormal low). LPN #532 had Resident #74 use his as needed Ventolin and Ipratropium aerosol for shortness of breath. Upon completion of the breathing treatment, LPN #532 re-checked the resident's oxygen level, and it had increased to 85% (which remained below normal range). The note included LPN #532 applied the resident's BiPAP around 1:00 A.M. then re-checked his oxygen level after using it for a short while, and his oxygen level increased to 89% (remained below normal range). There was no evidence the physician was notified or evidence of adequate intervention to address this change in the resident's condition. Continued review of the nursing progress note authored by LPN #532 revealed at 2:10 A.M., LPN #532 went to check on Resident #74 and was met in the hallway by Resident #74's roommate who informed the nurse that Resident #74 was on the floor. The progress note revealed LPN #532 immediately began CPR with CNA #610 assisting with the code. The CNA re-applied Resident #74's oxygen. The note included at 2:38 A.M., 911 (EMS) was called to transport the resident to the hospital. CPR continued until EMS arrived and took over care. LPN #532 notified the Director of Nursing (DON), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) the Medical Director (MD), and the resident's next of kin regarding what happened and his transport to the local emergency room (ER). LPN #532 documented on [DATE] at 4:28 A.M. that she contacted the ER and was informed Resident #74 had passed away. Review of the EMS Run Report, dated [DATE], revealed EMS received a call from the facility at 2:44 A.M. and arrived at the facility at 2:57 A.M. Resident #74 was found by EMS with CPR being performed on the floor by facility staff. After EMS arrived, they confirmed asystole (no pulse) on a monitor, they took over CPR and transported Resident #74 to the local hospital emergency room where he was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:33 A.M. An interview with LPN #532 on [DATE] at 4:09 P.M. revealed she always worked the night shift from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. and she was typically assigned to work on the second floor. She verified she was the nurse assigned to care for Resident #74 on ([DATE]) the night the resident coded and passed away. LPN #532 stated on this night she had the resident sit up on the edge of his bed, she gave him his inhaler and then breathing treatment for shortness of breath. LPN #532 stated she felt Resident #74 was feeling better after his breathing treatment. LPN #532 said about an hour later she went to see how the resident was feeling and was informed by Resident #74's roommate that the resident was on the floor. LPN #532 said she yelled for help immediately and CNA #610 said she was CPR certified and offered to help. LPN #532 said she did not check to see if Resident #74 had a pulse, she just started CPR. LPN #532 stated that LPN #633 called 911 but it took LPN #633 30 minutes before she called 911 for emergency services. LPN #532 stated she did not know why it took LPN #633 so long to call 911. LPN #532 stated she later contacted the hospital and was told Resident #74 had expired. LPN #532 stated she was orienting LPN #633 that shift, and LPN #633 brought the crash cart to Resident #74's room. During the interview LPN #532 stated LPN #633 and CNA #610 no longer worked at the facility but did not provide any additional information related to why. An interview on [DATE] at 11:35 A.M. with Medical Director (MD) #614 revealed EMS should be called immediately for any resident who goes into cardiac arrest. Medical Director #614 also stated the nurse should check for a pulse before starting CPR. A telephone interview with LPN #633 on [DATE] at 6:49 P.M. revealed she had only worked for the facility for a few weeks. During the interview, she stated she remembered the night of [DATE] when Resident #74 coded as stated it was very frightening. LPN #532 had yelled for help after the LPN had found the resident on the floor. CNA #610 was assisting LPN #532, so LPN #633 stated she went back to the nurses' station to try and find information about the resident so she could call for help. LPN #633 said she tried to call 911 but was unable to figure out how to use the facility phone. LPN #633 said she finally used her personal phone to call 911. LPN #633 said she did not know the address of the facility to provide to EMS. LPN #633 then said she printed off a copy of the face sheet for EMS and then had to go downstairs to get the copy. She stated she did not know the code to allow the squad to enter the facility. LPN #633 stated after the incident she changed her status to as needed and had not worked at the facility since. 2. Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, high blood pressure, congestive heart failure (CHF), major depressive disorder, and altered mental status. Review of the physician's orders dated [DATE] for Resident #58 revealed the following orders: skilled level of care and skilled assessment and monitoring every shift, full code status, head of the bed should be elevated to 45 degrees or higher to ease her breathing, use of an Albuterol inhaler one puff every six hours as needed for shortness of breath, Ipratropium Bromide 0.02% solution aerosol four times a day for asthma, and Albuterol-Budesonide aerosol 90-80 micrograms every six hours as needed for wheezing. Review of Resident #58's care plan (initiated [DATE]) revealed on [DATE] the care plan was updated to include the resident was known to refuse her oral inhaler, and the physician should be notified on refusals. There was no code status listed on the care plan. Review of the progress notes for Resident #58 dated [DATE] through [DATE] revealed Resident #58 had no complaints of respiratory distress or other complaints. There were no progress note entries made by nursing on [DATE]. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 admission assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #58 was severely cognitively impaired, required moderate to maximum assistance for all activities of daily living, had shortness of breath when lying flat, and was a smoker. The resident received speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy. Review of a progress note documented on [DATE] at 3:44 A.M. and authored by RN #511 revealed Resident #58 had activated her call light. RN #511 responded to the call light and the resident complained of being short of breath. RN #511 gave the resident her Albuterol inhaler and elevated the head of the resident's bed. The inhaler and elevating the head of the resident's bed was ineffective. RN #511 then initiated a breathing treatment and left the resident sitting on the edge of her bed. A few minutes later Resident #58 activated her call light again and told the nurse she needed oxygen. RN #511 left the room to get an oxygen concentrator. When RN #511 returned to the room, Resident #58 was laying across her bed and was unresponsive. The note revealed RN #511 then left the resident again and went up to the second floor to get another nurse, LPN #532. The note documented the nurses immediately started CPR while an unidentified CNA called 911 at 2:51 A.M. The progress note revealed the resident's heart rate was documented to be 188 beats per minute and oxygen was 57% (abnormal low). EMS arrived at 3:10 A.M. CPR was performed then by EMS. Resident #58 was transported to the ER, and the physician, DON and emergency contact were notified. Review of the EMS run report dated [DATE] revealed 911 received a call at 2:53 A.M. that Resident #58 needed emergency assistance and they arrived at the resident at 3:04 A.M. The resident was found lying in bed with facility staff performing CPR. Per staff, the resident was complaining of respiratory distress and staff left to get a breathing treatment and when they returned the resident was unresponsive, apneic and pulseless. Staff stated they then called EMS and started compression only CPR. EMS arrived and took over CPR. The resident was transported to the hospital with continuous CPR being provided but remained in asystole during transport. Review of the progress note dated [DATE] at 4:15 A.M. authored by RN #511 revealed the nurse called the hospital to get Resident #58's status and was told Resident #58 passed away at 3:45 A.M. An observation conducted on [DATE] at 2:40 P.M. revealed no staff were present on the first-floor nursing unit and no staff were observed in any of the resident occupied rooms on the unit. Six residents were present on the unit at the time of the observation (Resident #22, #26, #31, #35, #46, and #61). An interview with CNA #579 on [DATE] at 3:00 P.M. revealed she was assigned to care for the residents on the first floor today ([DATE]), but she came up to the second floor. When asked why she was on the second floor instead of her assignment on the first floor she stated I don't remember why she had come up to the second floor. CNA #579 confirmed she was not CPR certified and was unaware the facility had a CPR team. CNA #579 then went to the elevator and returned to the first floor. CNA #579 verified the first floor had been left without a staff member while she was on the second floor. On [DATE] at approximately 2:00 P.M. observation of the room Resident #58 had occupied revealed it was at the very end of the hallway farthest away from the elevator. In order for RN #511 to get help from the second floor, she walked 137.5 feet from the resident's bed to the first floor elevator, pushed the button to call the elevator, waited (an unknown amount of time) for the elevator to arrive, ascend to the second floor and locate the staff for help, then return to the resident's room. This distance was verified by Administrator #600 and Regional Director of Clinical Services #601 during an interview on [DATE] at 12:15 P.M. LPN #532, who was the nurse assigned to the second floor during interview as part of the on-site investigation stated she would estimate it would have taken two to three minutes for RN #511 to obtain assistance for Resident #58. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 11:25 A.M. revealed she had worked for the facility for several years as a night shift supervisor but had only been the DON for a few weeks. She stated the nurse assigned to the first floor also had residents assigned to her on the second floor and the facility recently (date not provided) changed staffing to always have a CNA working on the first floor. If an emergency were to occur, the CNA would call for help. The CNA could overhead page for help but most likely they would run to the second floor for help. Interview with RN #517 on [DATE] at 2:50 P.M. revealed she had worked for the facility for approximately one month. RN #517 was not aware the facility was supposed to have a code team consisting of one nurse and two CNAs and she was not aware the facility had a code blue documentation sheet. She further stated she received no information during orientation regarding mock code exercises. Interview with LPN #521 on [DATE] at 2:55 P.M. revealed she had worked for the facility for approximately one month. LPN #521 was not aware the facility was supposed to have a code team consisting of one nurse and two CNAs and she was not aware the facility had a code blue documentation sheet. She further stated she received no information during orientation regarding mock code exercises. Interviews with CNA #563 and CNA #523 on [DATE] at 3:05 P.M. revealed neither one was aware that there was a CPR team on each shift or that they were to be assigned to it. CNA #563 said she was certified in CPR for another facility and CNA #523 said she used to be CPR certified through the facility when they offered it, but it expired a few years ago. Interview with Former DON (FDON) #604 on [DATE] at 3:10 P.M. revealed she was unaware the facility was supposed to have a CPR team on each shift and revealed the CNA staff were not CPR certified. FDON #604 stated the facility did not have a crash cart policy and she had never seen a code blue documentation sheet. FDON #604 stated the facility had not yet come up with a plan regarding how the first-floor staff were to obtain help since the incident with Resident #58 had just occurred and they had not had time to determine how to fix the problem. The FDON stated they always had the capability of overhead paging and thought everyone knew how to do that. FDON further revealed that RN #511 should not have had to leave an unresponsive resident to obtain help. Interview with RDO #599 on [DATE] at 3:30 P.M. revealed she was unaware of the facility's CPR policy indicating there was a code team assigned to each shift consisting of one nurse and two CNAs and that the CNAs were not certified in CPR. She was unable to provide any information on mock code in-services. Interview with RN #511 on [DATE] at 4:30 P.M. revealed she was assigned to the first floor on [DATE]. She stated she preferred to be the one assigned to the first floor as opposed to an aide as she felt a nurse should be the first line of defense for the building. RN #511 confirmed she was also assigned residents on the second floor as well. During the interview, RN #511 revealed on [DATE] Resident #58 had activated her call light, and she went to her room to see what the resident needed. The resident said she was short of breath. RN #511 elevated the head of the resident's bed then went to the medication cart and brought the resident's Albuterol inhaler to use. The resident inhaled two puffs. Before RN #511 was able to leave the room, Resident #58 stated the inhaler was not helping and requested an aerosol treatment. RN #511 obtained the resident's Albuterol-Budesonide aerosol 90-80 micrograms and started the aerosol treatment. Resident #58 then requested oxygen be obtained. There was no evidence the RN conducted a comprehensive assessment (including vital signs or physical respiratory assessment) of the resident during this time Continued interview with RN #511 revealed she then left the first floor, went up to the second floor, and retrieved an oxygen concentrator and oxygen tubing which she then took back down to the resident's room. RN #511 stated she had left Resident #58 sitting up in bed when she went to get the oxygen and when she returned to the room, RN #511 found the resident lying on the bed. RN #511 said she nudged the resident, but nothing happened, and the resident did not respond. RN #511 said she was the only person working on the floor, so she had to leave the resident's room, go to the elevator, push the button for the elevator, take the elevator to the second floor then yell for help. The RN revealed LPN #532 and an unidentified aide came to RN #511's assistance and they returned to the first floor. When asked if there was any other way to obtain help, RN #511 reported no, she was not able to overhead page and stated staff had had requested walkie talkies in order to obtain assistance from the second floor, but nothing had come from it. RN #511 also revealed the facility did not have an AED to use on a resident who went into cardiac arrest. RN #511 said she and LPN #532 took the crash cart to Resident #58's room and the unidentified aide called 911. Upon entering Resident #58's room, RN #511 stated she and LPN #532 began CPR with the resident. The RN revealed they did not place a backboard under the resident. RN #511 stated prior to initiating CPR she did not check for a pulse, and the facility did not have an AED to determine if a resident required a shock to restart her heart. RN #511 said she and LPN #532 continued CPR until EMS arrived at which time the resident was transferred to the local ER. RN #511 said the evening shift nurse, LPN #544, had not reported anything unusual about Resident #58 at the earlier change of shift. Interview with LPN #532 on [DATE] at 4:09 P.M. revealed she was typically assigned to work on the second floor. During the interview LPN #532 revealed she remembered when Resident #58 coded. LPN #532 said the resident was in respiratory distress and RN #511 gave her an inhaler, then an aerosol treatment, then had to retrieve oxygen the resident wanted from the second floor. LPN #532 said the next thing she knew RN #511 returned to the second floor calling for help. LPN #532 said she and an unidentified aide went back to the first floor with RN #511. RN #511 and LPN #532 grabbed the crash cart and went to the resident's room while the aide called 911. LPN #532 said she thought Resident #58 had a pulse still as the pulse oximeter was picking up an oxygenation level. She stated RN #511 did not check for a pulse before starting CPR. LPN #532 said CPR continued until EMS arrived and took over. They transported Resident #58 to the ER where she was pronounced expired. Interview with DoR #565 on [DATE] at 10:50 A.M. revealed he had worked with Resident #58 on [DATE] and denied the resident had any concerns, complaints of shortness of breath, not feeling well, or chest pain. The DoR revealed the resident presented as per her normal and there was nothing out of the ordinary with the resident. The DoR revealed he was surprised when he heard the next day the resident had passed away. Interview with LPN #510 on [DATE] at 11:15 A.M. revealed she recalled Resident #58. The LPN revealed the resident was on the first floor in the new unit that opened sometime in [DATE]. LPN #510 said the resident was alert, independently mobile, and knew what she wanted. Resident #58 never complained about being short of breath, not feeling well, or chest pain. Interview with MD #614 on [DATE] at 11:35 A.M. revealed he was the only physician for the [TRUNCATED]
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 interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of resident changes in condition. This affected two residents (#13 and #85) of 22 residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 53.Findings include:1.Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, asthma, hemiplegia/hemiparesis after a stroke affecting the left nondominant side, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, rectal cancer, and heart disease. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #13 revealed an order written on [DATE] for the resident to be a full code (perform all life saving interventions). An order was written on [DATE] to admit to hospice with a terminal diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease and chronic kidney disease with heart failure. Hospice was to be notified of all changes, falls, medication errors, equipment issues, and death. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised on [DATE] revealed the resident had chosen to be a full code. Review of the comprehensive significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was cognitively intact, rejected care daily, and had a life expectancy of less than six months. The assessment revealed the resident was receiving hospice services. Review of the nursing progress notes revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #506 documented on [DATE] at 3:31 P.M. revealed Resident #13 had a coffee ground emesis. His blood pressure was low at 87/60, his pulse was high at 114 beats per minutes, and his oxygen level on room air was 93%. LPN #506 notified the unnamed hospice nurse on who informed her HRN #700 would come to the facility to assess the resident. The documentation did not indicate MD #614 was notified of the resident's status. Review of a note dated [DATE] at 8:20 P.M. (recorded as a late entry on [DATE] at 4:31 P.M.) revealed on [DATE] at 5:40 P.M., LPN #521 was notified by Hospice Registered Nurse (HRN) #700 that Resident #13 was absent of vital signs. LPN #521 documented that, upon verification of the resident's code status of full code, emergency protocol was initiated. A Code Blue (a medical emergency signal indicating a cardiac or respiratory arrest) was paged overhead. A second nurse and a certified nurse aide (CNA) came to assist with the emergency bringing the crash cart (a cart where lifesaving equipment is stored) with them. The second nurse went to call 911 and print out the paperwork needed. Approximately 10 minutes after calling 911, EMS arrived and took over CPR. EMS was not notified that the resident was on hospice but there was still a full code. LPN #521 documented after several rounds of CPR, the lead EMS called the emergency physician and confirmed the time of death. Interview with Medical Director (MD) #614 on [DATE] at 12:27 P.M. revealed Resident #13 was a full code but his wishes were not congruous with his physical status. It was an ongoing conversation between the resident and hospice. MD #614 said Resident #13 was not ready to accept his desire to be a full code did not match with his not wanting to go to the hospital again, especially since he had just been discharged from the hospital recently. MD #614 said he was not made aware by the facility that Resident #13 had a coffee ground emesis, had been hypotensive and tachycardic that day. All he was told was that the resident had vomited and then felt better. If he had been notified of the resident's condition he would have advised Resident #13 be sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation since he was a full code. 2.Resident #85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, COPD, heart disease, high blood pressure, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis to the left nondominant side following a stroke. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #85 revealed an order dated [DATE] for the resident to be a full code. Review of the comprehensive quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #85 was independent for all personal care, had no pain, and did not have a life expectancy of less than six months. The resident had now wounds and was receiving no special treatment of any sort. Review of the nursing progress notes for Resident #85 revealed on [DATE] at 10:20 A.M. LPN #634 was in the resident's room during morning medication administration. Resident #85 complained of chest pain and constipation. LPN #634 checked the resident's vital signs and obtained a blood pressure of 140/80, a heart rate of 84, and an oxygenation level of 96% on room air. LPN #634 advised the resident to go to the emergency room (ER) by 911. Resident #85 refused saying he knew his pain was due to being constipated. The resident was offered an as needed breathing treatment and Miralax for the constipation. LPN #634 documented on [DATE] at 11:03 A.M. that she was notified by housekeeping Resident #85 was on the floor in the bathroom. Upon entering the bathroom LPN #634 found the resident lying face down on the floor and was unresponsive. LPN #634 attempted to obtain vitals without success but the resident did have a weak pulse. LPN #634 initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 911 was called. The resident was placed on 10 liters of oxygen via a nonrebreather mask and also suctioned him at 11:10 A.M. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived at 11:16 A.M. and took over CPR from LPN #634. He waws transferred to the ER at 11:26 A.M. No documentation was found indicating the facility notified MD #614 of the resident's complaint of chest pain. Interview with MD #614 on [DATE] at 11:35 A.M. revealed he had not been notified Resident #85 was having chest pain 40 minutes prior to being found unresponsive. MD #614 did have a history of being noncompliant with care but said he should have been notified the resident was having chest pain. Review of the facility's Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, last updated [DATE], revealed the nurse will notify the resident's physician when there has been a(an): accident or incident involving the resident; discovery of injuries of an unknown source; adverse reaction to medication; a significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/mental condition; a need to alter the resident's medical treatment significantly; refusal of treatment or medications two or more consecutive times; a need to transfer the resident to a hospital/treatment center; discharge without proper medical authority; and a specific instruction to notify the physician of changes in the resident's condition. A significant change of condition is a major decline or improvement in the resident's status that: will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions; impacts more than one area of the resident's health status; requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision to the care plan; and ultimately is based on the judgment of the clinical staff and the guidelines outlined in the Resident Assessment Instrument. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number 1381901.
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, the facility failed to ensure Resident #29 was provided corrective lens and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #29 was provided corrective lens and vision care appointments per physician orders. This affected one resident (Resident #29) of one resident reviewed for vision services. The facility census was 53.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus with proliferative diabetic retinopathy with bilateral macular edema.Review of the [DATE] quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #29 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of four out of 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #29 was noted under Section B to have adequate vision with corrective lenses. Review of the care plan for Resident #29 which was last reviewed on [DATE] revealed impaired visual function related to hypertension and diabetes. Interventions listed were to arrange consultation with an eye care practitioner as required. Review of the physician order dated [DATE] from Resident #29's optometrist revealed a prescription for glasses with an expiration date of [DATE]. Review of the physician order dated [DATE] for Resident #29 revealed an order for an optometrist appointment on [DATE] at 9:10 A.M.Review of the nursing progress notes from [DATE] to [DATE] did not reveal any evidence that Resident #29 went to the appointment with the optometrist on [DATE] or if it had been rescheduled within that time frame. Review of the outside ophthalmologist physician notes dated [DATE] for Resident #29 revealed a diagnosis of proliferative diabetic retinopathy of both eyes with macular edema associated with type two diabetes mellitus and bilateral pseudophakia (condition where the natural lens of the eye has been replaced with an artificial intraocular lens). Recommendations were to return for a follow-up appointment in five to seven months.Review of the physician order dated [DATE] revealed an order for an eye appointment at the outside ophthalmologist on [DATE] at 8:15 A.M.Further review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed no documentation to show he attended the [DATE] ophthalmologist appointment. Review of the nursing progress notes for Resident #29 did not reveal any evidence of why Resident #29 did not attend the physician ordered appointment on [DATE] or if it was rescheduled.A phone interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:58 P.M. with Resident #29's Power of Attorney (POA) and revealed she had reported Resident #29's missing glasses last week but had not heard any additional information since then. Resident #29's POA stated he went on a leave of absence (LOA) from the facility in mid-July, did not have his glasses on when he was picked up and she had not seen the glasses during recent visits.An observation on [DATE] at 4:15 P.M. of Resident #29 revealed he was sitting up in his bed and was not wearing his glasses. Interview at the time of the observation with Resident #29 revealed his glasses had been missing for a while but he was unsure how long.An observation on [DATE] at 4:20 P.M. with Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) #562 revealed she was unable to locate Resident #29's glasses in his room and was unaware his glasses were missing.An interview on [DATE] at 7:26 A.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) #581 confirmed she was made aware of Resident #29's missing glasses yesterday and was unable to order replacement glasses because his prescription was expired. DON #581 stated there was a physician order dated [DATE] to schedule an eye exam with no directions specified in the order. DON #581 confirmed the nurse should have called to schedule an eye exam when the order was placed. An interview on [DATE] at 9:10 A.M. with DON #581 confirmed she was unable to provide additional evidence related to the [DATE] eye appointment for Resident #29 or why it was not kept or rescheduled.An interview on [DATE] at 1:45 P.M. with Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) #601 and Regional Director of Operations (RDO) #599 confirmed the facility was unable to provide evidence why Resident #29 did not attend the [DATE] ophthalmologist appointment or why a follow up had not been scheduled since then. Interview on [DATE] at 2:47 P.M. with RDCS #601and RDO #599 confirmed they were unable to provide a facility policy related to vision appointments, ancillary appointments or physician orders being followed.This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number 1381901 and Complaint Number 1381896.
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

Based on observation, record review, clinical nursing assistant orientation program staff sign off review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate supervision w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, clinical nursing assistant orientation program staff sign off review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate supervision was provided for residents requiring supervision while smoking and failed to ensure residents did not have smoking items in their personal possession. This affected two residents (Resident #45 and #49) of three residents reviewed for smoking. The facility identified 26 residents (Residents #4, #5, #6, #7, #12, #13, #14, #15, #17, #18, #22, #26, #40, #41, #43, #44, #45, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #60, #61, and #63) who smoked. The facility census was 53. Findings include:Observation on 08/18/25 at 2:25 P.M. of the outside smoking area revealed three residents (Resident #45, #49 and #60) smoking outside without supervision. At the time of the observation, the Administrator confirmed residents were without staff supervision and stated he did not know if those resident's required supervision, but if they required supervised smoking, a staff member should have been present. Review of the facility approved smoking times included 9:10 A.M.-9:30 A.M., 11:00 A.M.-11:20 A.M., 1:30 P.M.-1:50 P.M., 3:30-3:50 P.M., 6:30 P.M.-6:50 P.M. and 7:40 P.M.-8:00 P.M. Review of the 08/19/25 facility resident smoker list revealed only two residents (Resident #12 and #51) of 26 residents listed as requiring smoking supervision. (However, Residents #12 and #51 were also assessed as requiring supervision).1. Review of the medical record for Resident #45 revealed and admission date of 11/23/17. Diagnoses included acute on chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), vascular dementia, schizophrenia and nicotine dependence. Review of the 02/06/25 signed facility smoking policy resident contract for Resident #45 revealed any resident with restricted smoking privileges requiring monitoring shall have the direct supervision of a staff member at all times while smoking. Residents with restricted smoking privileges are not permitted to keep cigarettes, and other smoking articles in their possession. Review of the 05/29/25 smoking safety screen for Resident #45 revealed supervision was required for safe smoking. Review of the 06/11/25 Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #45 revealed intact cognition. Resident #45 was noted to require supervision for walking 150 feet and was independent for most activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the care plan for Resident #45 which was last reviewed on 07/08/25 revealed Resident #45 had a history of smoking in the community and in the facility. Interventions listed included complete a smoking evaluation per facility guidelines, and the resident will follow the facility smoking policy. Observation on 08/28/25 at 8:11 A.M. in Resident #45's room revealed Resident #45 sitting on his bed and an empty pack of cigarettes and a lighter on his bedside table. Interview at the time of the observation with Resident #45 revealed he did not have any more cigarettes but had taken the cigarette lighter from a table in the outside smoking area and was going to dispose of it but had not done it yet. At the time of the observation, Director of Nursing (DON) #581 confirmed the smoking items in Resident #45's room and confirmed he was not supposed to have smoking items in his possession. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/12/23. Diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of lower lobe of the right lung, COPD and nicotine dependence. Review of the 02/06/25 signed facility smoking policy resident contract for Resident #49 revealed any resident with restricted smoking privileges requiring monitoring shall have the direct supervision of a staff member at all times while smoking. Residents with restricted smoking privileges are not permitted to keep cigarettes, and other smoking articles in their possession. Review of the 05/29/25 smoking safety screen for Resident #49 revealed supervision was required for safe smoking. Review of Resident #49's care plan last reviewed on 06/12/25 revealed Resident #49 had a history of smoking in the community and in the facility. Interventions listed included complete a smoking evaluation per facility guidelines, and the resident will follow the facility smoking policy. Review of the 08/09/25 quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment revealed Resident #49 had intact cognition and was independent for ADL. Interview on 08/28/25 at 8:30 A.M. with Resident #49 who was sitting in his wheelchair next to the nurses' station revealed he thought he was at a credit union and was looking for donations. When Resident #49 was asked where he kept his money, Resident #49 proceeded to roll up the seat cushion on the left side of his wheelchair which revealed a pack of cigarettes. DON #581 was standing at the nurses' station at the time of the observation and confirmed Resident #49 had cigarettes in his possession and was not supposed to. Review of the undated clinical nursing assistant orientation program staff sign off sheet revealed staff are oriented to resident smoking locations, times, protocols and safety as part of the 'on the floor' competencies. Review of the facility policy called Smoking Policy-Residents Acknowledgement, revised December 2016, revealed prior to and upon admission, residents shall be informed of the facility smoking policy, and designated smoking areas. Smoking is only permitted in the designated resident smoking area which is located outside of the building. Smoking is only permitted during designated times for residents that require supervision. Upon admission the resident will be evaluated to determine if he or she is a smoker or non-smoker and ability to smoke safely with or without supervision (per a completed Safe Smoking Evaluation). Any resident with restricted smoking privileges requiring monitoring shall have the direct supervision of a staff member at all times while smoking. Residents with restricted smoking privileges are not permitted to keep cigarettes, pipes or other smoking articles in their possession. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Numbers 2578214 and 1381901.
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 F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered labs were completed timely as required. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered labs were completed timely as required. This affected one resident (Resident #53) of 22 residents reviewed for physician orders. The facility census was 53. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 09/08/23. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the left non-dominant side, type II diabetes mellitus, history of suicidal behavior, alcohol abuse and cocaine abuse. Review of the physician order dated 11/21/23 for Resident #53 revealed an order for a BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel) and CBC (Complete Blood Count) to be completed every three months with no further directions specified. Review of the medical record for Resident #53 revealed no evidence of a BMP or CBC being completed on 07/15/25 as ordered. Review of the care plan last reviewed on 07/23/25 for Resident #53 revealed resident at risk for adverse effects related to use of psychoactive medications and diagnosis of depression. Resident #53 also had a diagnosis of depression related to pain management needs. Intervention for both listed included obtain lab results as ordered and notify the physician of abnormal values. Review of the 08/15/25 annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #53 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #53 was also noted to have a diagnosis of depression and received antidepressant, antiplatelet and anticonvulsant medications. Interview on 08/25/25 at 3:14 P.M. with Regional Director of Clinical [NAME] (RDCS) #601 confirmed the BMP and CBC was last completed on 04/15/25 but was unable to provide evidence that the BMP and CBC were completed as physician ordered on 07/2025. Interview on 09/03/25 at 2:47 P.M. with RDCS #601and Regional Director of Operations (RDO) #599 confirmed they were unable to provide a facility policy related to physician orders being followed. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number 1381901.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interviews, observation, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #3, #29, #45, #49, #53, #63, #41, #7, #44, #1, #2, and #5 were provided assistance with activities of daily living for showering. This affected 12 residents (#3, #29, #45, #49, #53, #63, #41, #7, #44, #1, #2, and #5) of 22 resident records reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility identified 44 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #16, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #25, #27, #29, #30, #32, #36, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #45, #47, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #61, #62, and #63) who required staff assistance for showers and bathing. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an original admission date of 04/15/23. Diagnoses included but were not limited to end stage renal disease with dependence upon renal dialysis, type two diabetes mellitus with retinopathy, morbid obesity, hemiplegia and hemiparesis. Review of the 05/27/25 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #3 revealed intact cognition and Resident #3 was dependent on staff for bathing. Review of the facility resident shower book revealed Resident #3's room number was not listed on any of the shower schedules for any day or any of the three shifts. No evidence was found for any shower sheets for Resident #3 from 06/01/25 to 08/26/25. Review of the medical record shower/bath task for Resident #3 for the past thirty days from 07/28/25 to 08/28/25 revealed one recorded shower on 07/28/25. An interview on 08/28/25 at 7:55 A.M. with Resident #3 revealed he was supposed to get showers on Tuesdays and Thursdays but did not always get his showers twice a week. Resident #3 stated he did not get a shower yesterday and was hoping to get a shower today. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 05/04/21. Diagnoses included but were not limited to unspecified fracture of left lower leg, type two diabetes mellitus with proliferative diabetic retinopathy with bilateral macular edema, stage two chronic kidney disease (CKD), vascular dementia, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis. Review of the 06/22/25 quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #29 revealed severe cognitive impairment. Resident #29 was noted to require maximum assistance with bathing. Review of Resident #29's care plan, last reviewed 07/08/25, revealed an activity of daily living (ADLs) performance deficit related to diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis. Resident #29 was noted to require maximum assistance with bathing. Review of the shower schedule for Resident #29 revealed showers were to be given on Wednesday and Saturday on second shift. Review of the shower sheets for Resident #29 from 06/01/25 to 08/26/25 revealed a shower sheet for 06/04/25, 06/21/25, 07/09/25, and 07/22/25. No additional sheets were found in the facility shower sheet book. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) shower/bath task tab for Resident #29 revealed for the past 30 days between 07/28/25 to 08/28/25 a bed bath on 07/31/25 and on 08/14/25. No additional bathing was recorded under the task. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #45 revealed an admission date of 11/23/17. Diagnoses included but were not limited to chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) , vascular dementia and schizophrenia. Review of the 06/11/25 quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #45 revealed intact cognition and set up required for bathing. Review of the care plan last reviewed on 07/08/25 for Resident #45 revealed an ADL self-care deficit related to severe vascular dementia and impaired balance. Resident #45 was noted to require set up for bathing. Review of the shower schedule for Resident #45 revealed showers were to be completed on Wednesdays and Saturdays on second shift. Review of the facility shower book revealed no shower sheets for Resident #45. Review of the EMR shower/bath task tab for Resident #45 revealed no recorded showers for the past 30 days between 07/28/25 to 08/28/25. An observation on 08/28/25 at 8:11 A.M. of Resident #45 revealed his hair was heavily oily and he presented as unkempt as if he had not had a shower in some time. Resident #45 was alert, but did not participate in an interview. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/12/23. Diagnoses included but were not limited to malignant neoplasm of lower lob of right bronchus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), moderate protein-calorie malnutrition and anorexia. Review of the 08/09/25 annual MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #49 revealed intact cognition and dependence on staff for bathing. Review of the care plan for Resident #49, date initiated 03/01/23, revealed a self-care performance deficit related to impaired cognitive function and COPD. Resident #49 was noted to be dependent upon staff for bathing. Review of the shower book revealed Resident #49 was scheduled to receive showers on Mondays and Thursdays during the second shift. Review of the shower sheets for Resident #49 from 06/01/25 to 08/26/25 revealed a shower sheet for 06/02/25, 06/04/25, 06/09/25, 06/12/25, 06/16/25, 07/31/25, 08/11/25, and a refusal on 08/25/25. No additional shower sheets were found. Review of the EMR shower/bath task tab for Resident #49 revealed no recorded bathing for the past 30 days from 07/28/25 to 08/28/25. An interview on 08/28/25 at 9:32 A.M. with Resident #49 revealed he would give himself a bath. When asked if the staff assisted him with showers, Resident #49 stated he was not sure. 5. Review of the medical record for Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 09/08/23. Diagnoses included but were not limited to hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting left non-dominant side, and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the 08/15/25 annual MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #53 revealed intact cognition and moderate assistance required for bathing. Review of the care plan for Resident #53, date initiated 09/14/23, revealed ADL self-care deficits which required moderate assistance from staff for bathing. Review of the facility shower schedule revealed Resident #53 was scheduled to be bathed on Tuesdays and Fridays. Review of the shower sheets for Resident #53 from 06/01/25 to 08/26/25 revealed shower sheets for 06/10/25, 06/17/25, 06/24/25, 07/22/25, 07/29/25. No additional shower sheets for Resident #53 were found in the shower book. Review of the EMR shower/bath task tab for Resident #53 revealed a bed bath on 08/01/25 and a bath on 08/24/25. No additional bathing was recorded under the task section for Resident #53. An interview on 08/28/25 at 7:52 A.M. with Resident #53 revealed Resident #53 stated they were not getting showers twice a week. Resident #53 stated maybe once a week they would get a shower but definitely not twice a week and they would like a shower twice a week. 6. Review of the medical record for Resident #63 revealed and admission date of 07/28/25. Diagnoses included but were not limited to displaced bimalleolar fracture of right lower leg, COPD, malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of female breast, and stage three CKD. Review of the 08/04/25 admission MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #63 revealed intact cognition and maximum assistance required for bathing. Review of the care plan for Resident #63, last reviewed on 08/11/25, revealed a self-care deficit related to right leg fracture, COPD and CKD and was dependent upon staff for bathing. Review of the facility shower schedule revealed Resident #63 was scheduled for showers on Tuesdays and Friday on third shift. Review of the facility shower book from 07/28/25 to 08/26/25 revealed no recorded shower sheets. Review of the EMR shower/bath task tab for Resident #63 revealed a shower on 07/29/25, 07/31/25, 08/05/25, and 08/21/25 for the past 30 days from 07/28/25 to 08/28/25. An interview on 08/28/25 at 9:51 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #607 revealed LPN #607 stated they thought Resident #63 was independent for showering. 7. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) hemiplegia and hemiparesis affected left side and generalized muscle weakness. Review of Resident #41's MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 06/24/25, revealed the resident was substantial/maximal assistance for showering bathing. Resident #41 had a Brief Mental Status of 14, revealing he was cognitively intact. Review of the care plan dated 06/18/25 revealed Resident #41 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to diagnoses of hemiplegia/hemiparesis, congestive heart failure, schizophrenia, muscle wasting and tremors. Interventions specific to bathing/showering revealed to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Bathing assistance with one to two staff members. Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Review of the shower schedule revealed Resident #41 should have had showers on Wednesday and Saturdays during the first shift during the week. Review of the shower book for July and August 2025, revealed Resident #41 had no showers during the Months of July and August 2025. Resident #41 was offered a shower on 07/09/25 and refused. Review of the EMR task tab for bath/shower from 08/03/25 to 09/03/25, revealed the resident had a bed bath on 08/24/25; no other showers or refusals given for the last 30 Days for Resident #41, were documented in the tasks. An interview on 09/02/2025 at 12:01P.M. with Resident #41 confirmed he had not been receiving the showers as scheduled. 8. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), generalized muscle weakness, morbid obesity, and need for assistance with personal care. Review of Resident #7's MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was dependent on staff for showering bathing. Resident #7 was severely cognitively impaired and could not answer the Brief Interview for Mental Status. Review of the plan of care revised 06/19/25, revealed Resident #7 had ADL self-care performance deficit and was at risk for skin breakdown due to decreased mobility, desensitization of skin, incontinence, impaired cognition and communication, pain management needs, risk of medication side effects, and diagnoses of hemiplegia. Interventions included skin assessments to be done weekly and as needed. Interventions specific to bathing/showering revealed to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Review of the shower schedule book revealed Resident #7's room did not have shower days scheduled. Review of the facility shower book for July and August 2025, revealed Resident #7 had no showers given or offered for all of July or August 2025. Review of the EMR task tab for shower/bath revealed Resident #7 had no other showers or bed baths documented for the last 30 Days between 08/03/25 to 09/03/25. 9. Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 04/27/07 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side, COPD, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, peripheral vascular disease, and essential hypertension. Review of Resident #44's quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was dependent on staff assistance for showering bathing. Resident #44 had a Brief Mental Status was 14, which revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the plan of care revised 07/09/25 revealed Resident #44 had an ADL performance deficit, was at risk for skin breakdown due to decreased mobility, incontinence, desensitization of skin, pain management needs, risk of medication side effects, and diagnoses of cerebral vascular accident. Interventions included: report changes in ADL abilities to the nurse and the physician as needed. The resident needs staff assistance with ADL including dressing, grooming, personal hygiene, and oral care. Staff to monitor signs and symptoms of skin breakdown and notify appropriate staff, and skin assessments to be done weekly and as needed. Interventions specific to bathing/showering revealed to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Review of the shower schedule revealed the Resident #44 should have had showers on Mondays and Thursdays during the first shift during the week. Review of the shower book for July and August 2025, revealed Resident #44 had one shower offered on 07/31/25. There were no other showers/bed baths offered, refused, or given. Review of the EMR shower/bath task tab revealed Resident #44 had no showers/bed baths or refusals given for the last 30 days from 08/03/25 to 09/03/25. 10. Record review for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 03/25/25. Diagnoses included altered mental status, acute kidney failure, unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired. He did not have any functional limitation in range of motion. There was no impairment for upper or lower extremities on either side. He used a wheelchair. He required partial to moderate assistance for shower/bathing and supervision or touching assistance for personal hygiene. Review of the care plan dated 05/19/25 revealed Resident #1 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to diagnoses of above knee amputation, history of falls, hypertension, orthostatic hypotension, pneumonia, cardiovascular accident (CVA), hyperlipidemia and insomnia. Interventions specific to bathing/showering revealed to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Review of the shower schedule for Resident #1 revealed shower days were every Monday and Thursday. Record review of the shower sheet book revealed Resident #1 was showered/bathed 06/09/25, 06/12/25, 06/16/25, 06/19/25, 07/07/25, 07/10/25, 07/22/25 and 07/31/25. Review of the documentation for Resident #1 in the EMR shower/bath task tab for the last 30 days between 08/03/25 and 09/03/25 revealed a bed bath on 08/24 and a refusal on 09/01. 11. Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 01/14/25 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominant side, diabetes mellitus type two, need for assistance with personal care, age related cataract bilaterally, hypertensive retinopathy bilaterally and dementia. Record review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was severely cognitively impaired. He had functional limitations in range of motion impairment on both sides. He was dependent on staff for all ADLs. Review of the care plan dated 06/27/25 revealed Resident #2 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to dementia, cardiovascular accident with right side hemiplegia. He had limited mobility and dysphagia with need for tube feeding due to eating nothing by mouth. Interventions specific to bathing/showering were to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. The resident wa totally dependent on staff to provide bath/shower as necessary. Review of the shower schedule for Resident #2 revealed his shower days were Tuesday and Friday. Review of shower sheets in the shower book revealed Resident #2 was bathed 06/06/25, 06/10/25 and 06/24/25. Review of the shower/bath task tab in the EMR for the last 30 days between 08/03/25 and 09/03/25 revealed a single bed bath on 08/06/24. 12. Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 08/30/23. Diagnoses included quadriplegia C5-C7 incomplete, personal history of malignant of neoplasm of prostate, pressure ulcer of left buttock stage three and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of the annual MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had intact cognition. He had functional limitations in range of motion (ROM) impairment on both sides of the upper and lower extremity. He used a wheelchair. He was independent for eating. He required substantial/maximal assistance from staff for upper body dressing and was dependent on staff for all other ADL's. Review of the care plan dated 07/11/25 revealed Resident #5 had ADL self-care performance deficits related to C6 spinal cord injury with incomplete quadriplegia. Interventions, specifically for bathing/showering revealed checking nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Review of the shower schedule for Resident #5 revealed shower days were every Wednesday and Saturday. Review of the shower sheet book for Resident #5 revealed showers on 05/07/25, 05/10/25, 05/14/25, 06/21/25 and 07/08/25. There were no shower sheets for August 2025. Review of the EMR under the shower/bath task tab revealed Resident #05 was given a bed bath on 08/24/25 during the last 30 days from 08/03/25 to 09/03/25. An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #510 on 08/26/25 at 10:25 A.M. confirmed there was a shower book kept on the second floor of the facility for residents who lived on both the first and second floor. If a resident received a shower, a shower sheet was filled out and kept in the shower book. An interview on 08/28/25 at 8:00 A.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #541 revealed the shower book should have a shower schedule for each resident. After completing a shower, staff would fill out a shower sheet and complete the shower task in the EMR under the shower/bath tab. The shower sheet was given to the nurse. If the CNA noticed anything abnormal with the resident during the shower, the nurse would be notified to observe the resident. An interview with CNA #563 on 08/28/25 at 8:18 A.M. revealed a shower aide was assigned to showers and worked Monday through Friday for eight hours. CNA #563 stated she worked some weekends and picked up as an aide too. CNA #563 stated the shower schedule was in the shower book. CNA #563 stated she filled out a refusal form if a shower was refused by the resident and filled out a shower sheet every time she gave a shower. CNA #563 stated she provided showers for all the residents on the second floor which consisted of four halls so she could have 12 showers to do in one shift. CNA #563 stated she had been pulled to go out on appointments with residents during the month of August and had not been able to complete her showers. In her absence, the aides were supposed to complete their resident showers if she was not there. Sometimes they are short staffed and have three aides instead of five so she gets pulled to be an aide rather than the shower aide. CNA #563 stated the aides were instructed that when there was no assigned shower aide, they are all responsible to complete their resident's shower. An interview on 09/03/25 at 11:00 A.M. with a follow up interview at 1:30 P.M. with DON #581 confirmed she had provided the complete book of shower sheets and was unable to provide additional evidence of showers provided to Resident #3, #29, #45, #49, #53, #63, #41, #7, #44, #1, #2, and #5. DON #581 verified the information in the shower book and in the EMR under the task tab revealed what was charted was what was completed. Review of the facility policy, Shower/Tub Bath, dated 10/2010, revealed the purpose of this procedure was to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin. The following information should be recorded on the resident's Activity of Daily Living (ADL) record and/or in the resident's medical record: date and time the shower/tub was performed, name and title of the individual who assisted the resident with the shower/tub bath, all assessment data obtained during the shower/tub bath, how the resident tolerated the shower/tub bath, if the resident refused, what intervention was taken and the signature with title of the person recording the data. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number 1381901.
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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility assessment review, the facility failed to maintain sufficient level...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility assessment review, the facility failed to maintain sufficient levels of competent staff to ensure residents received the care needed to maintain the highest quality of life. This affected two residents (#58 and #74) and had the potential to affect six additional residents (#22, #26, #31, #35, #46, and #61) who resided on the first floor unit of the facility. The facility census was 53.Findings include:1. Review of the closed medical record revealed Resident #74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), schizophrenia, depression, dependence on supplemental oxygen, heart disease, and a history of a stroke without residual effects from the stroke. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #74 revealed the following: An order dated [DATE] for one puff of a Ventolin inhaler every six hours as needed for asthma, and Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 milligrams (mg) per 3 milliliters to be inhaled every six hours as needed for wheezing. An advance directive order dated [DATE] for a Full Code (attempt all life-saving treatment) if his heart were to stop beating. An order dated [DATE] for oxygen to be administered continuously at four liters per minute via nasal cannula. An order written [DATE] to apply Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) (a noninvasive ventilation system to administer supplemental oxygen) 45 minutes intermittently as often as possible throughout the day, every three hours for low oxygen levels. Review of the Medicare five-day comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #74 dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, became short of breath when lying flat, and received oxygen as well as non-invasive ventilation. Review of the care plan related to Advance Directives for Resident #74, last revised on [DATE] revealed to implement full code measures per the resident's request. Review of a nursing progress note for Resident #74 dated [DATE] at 4:00 A.M. revealed LPN #532 documented at the start of her shift the resident was alert and oriented. At approximately 12:30 A.M., Resident #74 was lying flat. LPN #532 elevated the resident's head of the bed and checked his oxygen level. The resident's oxygen level was 71% (abnormal low). LPN #532 had Resident #74 use his as needed Ventolin and Ipratropium aerosol for shortness of breath. Upon completion of the breathing treatment, LPN #532 re-checked the resident's oxygen level, and it had increased to 85% (which remained below normal range). The note included LPN #532 applied the resident's BiPAP around 1:00 A.M. then re-checked his oxygen level after using it for a short while, and his oxygen level increased to 89% (remained below normal range). There was no evidence the physician was notified or evidence of adequate intervention to address this change in the resident's condition. Continued review of the nursing progress note authored by LPN #532 revealed at 2:10 A.M., LPN #532 went to check on Resident #74 and was met in the hallway by Resident #74's roommate who informed the nurse that Resident #74 was on the floor. The progress note revealed LPN #532 immediately began CPR with CNA #610 assisting with the code. The CNA re-applied Resident #74's oxygen. The note included at 2:38 A.M., 911 (EMS) was called to transport the resident to the hospital. CPR continued until EMS arrived and took over care. LPN #532 notified the Director of Nursing (DON), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) the Medical Director (MD), and the resident's next of kin regarding what happened and his transport to the local emergency room (ER). LPN #532 documented on [DATE] at 4:28 A.M. that she contacted the ER and was informed Resident #74 had passed away. Review of the EMS Run Report, dated [DATE], revealed EMS received a call from the facility at 2:44 A.M. and arrived at the facility at 2:57 A.M. Resident #74 was found by EMS with CPR being performed on the floor by facility staff. After EMS arrived, they confirmed asystole (no pulse) on a monitor, they took over CPR and transported Resident #74 to the local hospital emergency room where he was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:33 A.M. An interview with LPN #532 on [DATE] at 4:09 P.M. revealed she always worked the night shift from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. and she was typically assigned to work on the second floor. She verified she was the nurse assigned to care for Resident #74 on ([DATE]) the night the resident coded and passed away. LPN #532 stated on this night she had the resident sit up on the edge of his bed, she gave him his inhaler and then breathing treatment for shortness of breath. LPN #532 stated she felt Resident #74 was feeling better after his breathing treatment. LPN #532 said about an hour later she went to see how the resident was feeling and was informed by Resident #74's roommate that the resident was on the floor. LPN #532 said she yelled for help immediately and CNA #610 said she was CPR certified and offered to help. LPN #532 said she did not check to see if Resident #74 had a pulse, she just started CPR. LPN #532 stated that LPN #633 called 911 but it took LPN #633 30 minutes before she called 911 for emergency services. LPN #532 stated she did not know why it took LPN #633 so long to call 911. LPN #532 stated she later contacted the hospital and was told Resident #74 had expired. LPN #532 stated she was orienting LPN #633 that shift, and LPN #633 brought the crash cart to Resident #74's room. During the interview LPN #532 stated LPN #633 and CNA #610 no longer worked at the facility but did not provide any additional information related to why. An interview on [DATE] at 11:35 A.M. with Medical Director (MD) #614 revealed EMS should be called immediately for any resident who goes into cardiac arrest. Medical Director #614 also stated the nurse should check for a pulse before starting CPR. A telephone interview with LPN #633 on [DATE] at 6:49 P.M. revealed she had only worked for the facility for a few weeks. During the interview, she stated she remembered the night of [DATE] when Resident #74 coded as stated it was very frightening. LPN #532 had yelled for help after the LPN had found the resident on the floor. CNA #610 was assisting LPN #532, so LPN #633 stated she went back to the nurses' station to try and find information about the resident so she could call for help. LPN #633 said she tried to call 911 but was unable to figure out how to use the facility phone. LPN #633 said she finally used her personal phone to call 911. LPN #633 said she did not know the address of the facility to provide to EMS. LPN #633 then said she printed off a copy of the face sheet for EMS and then had to go downstairs to get the copy. She stated she did not know the code to allow the squad to enter the facility. LPN #633 stated after the incident she changed her status to as needed and had not worked at the facility since. 2.Review of the record revealed Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, high blood pressure, congestive heart failure (CHF), major depressive disorder, and altered mental status. Review of the physician's orders dated [DATE] for Resident #58 revealed the following orders: skilled level of care and skilled assessment and monitoring every shift, full code status, head of the bed should be elevated to 45 degrees or higher to ease her breathing, use of an Albuterol inhaler one puff every six hours as needed for shortness of breath, Ipratropium Bromide 0.02% solution aerosol four times a day for asthma, and Albuterol-Budesonide aerosol 90-80 micrograms every six hours as needed for wheezing. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 admission assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #58 was severely cognitively impaired, required moderate to maximum assistance for all activities of daily living, had shortness of breath when lying flat, and was a smoker. The resident received speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy. Review of Resident #58's care plan, date initiated [DATE], revealed on [DATE] the care plan was updated to include that the resident was known to refuse her oral inhaler and the physician should be notified on refusals. There was no code status listed on the care plan. Review of the progress notes for Resident #58 dated [DATE] through [DATE] revealed Resident #58 had no complaints of respiratory distress or other complaints. There were no progress note entries made by nursing on [DATE]. Review of a progress note dated [DATE] at 3:44 A.M. authored by RN #511 revealed Resident #58 had activated her call light. RN #511 responded to the call light and the resident complained of being short of breath. RN #511 gave the resident her Albuterol inhaler and elevated the head of the resident's bed. The inhaler and elevating the head of the resident's bed was ineffective. RN #511 then initiated a breathing treatment and left the resident sitting on the edge of her bed. A few minutes later Resident #58 activated her call light again and told the nurse she needed oxygen. RN #511 left the room to get an oxygen concentrator. When RN #511 returned to the room, Resident #58 was laying across her bed and was unresponsive. RN #511 went up to the second floor to get another nurse (LPN #532). The nurses immediately started CPR while an unidentified CNA called 911 at 2:51 A.M. The residents heart rate was 188 beats per minute and oxygen was 57% via nasal cannula. EMS arrived at 3:10 A.M. CPR was performed. Resident #58 was taken to the ER and the physician, DON and emergency contact were notified. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 11:25 A.M. revealed she had worked for the facility for several years as a night shift supervisor but had only been the DON for a few weeks. She stated the nurse assigned to the first floor also had residents assigned to her on the second floor and the facility recently changed staffing to always have a CNA on the first floor for staffing. If an emergency were to occur, the CNA would call for help. The CNA could overhead page for help but most likely they would run to the second floor for help. An observation conducted on [DATE] at 2:40 P.M. revealed no staff were present on the first-floor nursing unit and no staff were observed in any of the resident occupied rooms on the unit. Interview with RN #606, RN #517, and LPN #521 on [DATE] from 2:45 P.M. revealed all three nurses had worked for the facility for a month or less. None of them were aware of the facility having a code team consisting of one nurse and two CNAs. They all agreed they had not seen or heard of a Code Blue documentation sheet. All three confirmed there had been no in-services for mock codes and they were not trained on it during orientation. An interview with CNA #579 on [DATE] at 3:00 P.M. revealed she was assigned to care for the residents on the first floor but she came up to the second floor. When asked why she was on the second floor instead of her assignment on the first floor she stated I don't remember why she had come up to the second floor. CNA #579 confirmed she was not CPR certified and was unaware the facility had a CPR team. CNA #579 then went to the elevator and returned to the first floor. CNA #579 verified the first floor had been left without a staff member while she was on the second floor. Interviews with CNA #563 and CNA #523 on [DATE] at 3:05 P.M. revealed neither one was aware that there was a CPR team on each shift nor who was to be assigned to it. Interview with Former DON (FDON) #604 on [DATE] at 3:10 P.M. revealed the facility had not yet come up with a plan regarding how the first-floor staff were to obtain help since the incident with Resident #58 had just occurred and they had not had time to determine how to fix the problem. FDON #604 stated they always had the capability of overhead paging and everyone knew how to do that. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #511 on [DATE] at 4:30 P.M. revealed she was assigned to the first floor on [DATE]. She preferred to be the one assigned to the first floor as opposed to an aide as she felt a nurse should be the first line of defense for the building. RN #511 confirmed she was also assigned residents on the second floor as well. She stated Resident #58 activated her call light and RN #511 went to her room to see what the resident needed. The resident said she was short of breath. RN #511 elevated the head of the resident's bed then went to the medication cart and brought the resident's Albuterol inhaler to use. The resident inhaled two puffs. Before RN #511 was able to leave the room, Resident #58 said the inhaler was not helping and requested an aerosol treatment. RN #511 obtained the resident's Albuterol-Budesonide aerosol 90-80 micrograms and started the aerosol treatment. Resident #58 then requested oxygen be obtained. RN #511 left the first floor, went up to the second floor and retrieved an oxygen concentrator and oxygen tubing which she then took back down to the resident's room. RN #511 had left Resident #58 sitting up in bed when she went to get the oxygen and when she returned to the room, RN #511 found the resident lying on the bed. RN #511 said she nudged the resident, but nothing happened, and the resident did not respond. RN #511 said she was the only person working on the floor, so she had to go to the elevator, push the button for the elevator, take the elevator to the second floor then yelled for help. LPN #532 and an unidentified aide came to RN #511's assistance and they returned to the first floor. When asked if there was any other way to obtain help, RN #511 said no, she could not overhead page and they had requested walkie talkies in order to reach assistance from the second floor, but nothing had come from it. RN #511 also confirmed the facility did not have an AED to use on a resident who went into cardiac arrest. RN #511 said she and LPN #532 took the crash cart to Resident #58's room and the unidentified aide called 911. Upon entering Resident #58's room, RN #511 and LPN #532 immediately began CPR on the resident in her bed, and they did not place a backboard under the resident. RN #511 said she did not check a pulse, and the facility did not have an AED to determine if a resident needed shocked to restart the heart. RN #511 said she and LPN #532 continued CPR until EMS arrived and transferred the resident to the local emergency room (ER). RN #511 said the evening shift nurse, LPN #544, did not report anything unusual about Resident #58 at the earlier change of shift. Interview with LPN #532 on [DATE] at 4:09 P.M. revealed she was typically assigned to work on the second floor. LPN #532 confirmed she remembered when Resident #58 coded. LPN #532 said the resident was in respiratory distress and RN #511 gave her the inhaler, then an aerosol treatment, then retrieved the oxygen the resident wanted from the second floor. LPN #532 said the next thing she knew RN #511 returned to the second floor calling for help. LPN #532 said she and an unidentified aide went back to the first floor with RN #511. RN #511 and LPN #532 grabbed the crash cart and went to the resident's room while the aide called 911. LPN #532 said she thought Resident #58 had a pulse still as the pulse oximeter was picking up an oxygenation level. She stated RN #511 did not check for a pulse before starting CPR. LPN #532 said CPR continued until EMS arrived and took over. They transported Resident #58 to the ER where she was pronounced deceased . Interview with LPN #510 on [DATE] at 11:15 A.M. revealed she did remember Resident #58. The resident was on the first floor in the new unit that opened sometime in [DATE]. LPN #510 said the resident was alert, independently mobile, and knew what she wanted. Resident #58 never complained about being short of breath, not feeling well, or chest pain. LPN #510 said they were all shocked when Resident #58 died. LPN #510 said staffing for the first floor was that the nurse covered the residents on the first floor as well as two units on the second floor. On night shift, a CNA was assigned to the first floor and could not leave the unit without another staff member replacing the aide. Review of the Facility Assessment, dated [DATE], revealed staff training, staff education and competencies training program includes an orientation process and ongoing training for all new and existing including managers, nursing, and other direct care staff, individuals providing services under contractual arrangement, and volunteers consistent with their expected roles. The facility completes an emotional need assessment and develop a curriculum and training plan based on staff need and resident characteristics. The content at a minimum includes effective communication; resident rights and facility responsibilities; abuse, neglect, and exploitation; infection control; culture change/person-centered care; dementia management and abuse prevention; special needs of residents; caring for residents who are cognitively impaired; identification of resident changes in condition; cultural competency/trauma informed care; QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement); compliance and ethics; emergency preparedness; and workplace hazards. The facility conducts a formal evaluation of the training program. The purpose statement noted the purpose statement of this assessment is to determine what resources are necessary to care for our residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies. Facility resources included all personnel, including managers, nursing and other direct care staff (both employees and those who provide services under contract), and volunteers, as well as their education and/or training and any competencies related to resident care. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number 1381901.
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications in the medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications in the medication cart were labeled and stored in proper containers. This had the potential to affect 30 Residents (#2, #6, #8, #16, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #25, #26, #30, #31, #33, #35, #36, #37, #39, #42, #43, #44, #45, #46, #47, #49, #50, #52, #60, and #61) who received medications from the medication carts reviewed. The facility census was 53. Findings include:Observation on 08/20/25 at 3:15 P.M. of the medication cart on the sycamore hall revealed there were 15 loose pills of various shapes and colors in the bottom of the medication cart. Interview on 08/20/25 at 3:15 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #606 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #559 confirmed 15 loose pills of various shapes and colors in the bottom of the medication cart for the sycamore hall. RN #606 & LPN #559 confirmed they were not able to identify the 15 pills nor to whom the 15 pills were prescribed. Observation on 08/20/25 at 3:21 P.M. of the crystal [NAME] hall medication cart revealed there were 20 loose pills of various shapes and colors in the bottom of the medication cart. Interview on 08/20/25 at 3:21 P.M. with LPN #607 confirmed 20 loose pills of various shapes and colors in the bottom the nurse of the crystal [NAME] hall medication cart. LPN #607 confirmed she was not able to identify the 20 pills nor to whom the 20 pills were prescribed. Observation on 08/20/25 at 3:47 P.M. of the carousel hall revealed there were 5 loose pills of various shapes and colors in the bottom of the medication cart. Interview on 08/20/25 at 3:47 P.M. with LPN #578 confirmed five loose pills of various shapes and colors in the bottom of the medication cart for the carousel hall cart confirmed she was not able to identify the five pills nor to whom the five pills were prescribed. Review of the facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated 04/07, revealed drugs and biologicals should be stored in the packaging in which they are received and the nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medication storage. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2578214.
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 F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the policy pertaining to use and storage of food in resident room refrigerators was impleme...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the policy pertaining to use and storage of food in resident room refrigerators was implemented and addressed temperature monitoring for food safety. This affected four residents (Residents #4, # 9, #43, and #44) of four residents reviewed for personal food storage. The facility identified seven residents (Residents #4, #9, #16, #36, #43, #44 and #47) as storing food in room refrigerators. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1.Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 08/20/09. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis, morbid obesity and polyneuropathy. Review of the 07/15/25 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #44 revealed he was cognitively intact, received a no added salt (NAS) diet, and required set up for meals. An observation on 08/21/25 at 1:45 P.M. with Regional Dietary Manager (RDM) #598 revealed Resident #44's refrigerator had a plastic sleeve on the outside of it with an undated temperature monitoring log with the first eighteen days completed. The temperature monitoring logs behind it were dated from January, February and March 2025. No additional temperature logs were found. An interview on 08/21/25 at 1:40 P.M. with the Administrator revealed the maintenance department was to monitor the resident room refrigerators and there were three residents with refrigerators in their rooms. The Administrator did not identify the three residents. An interview on 08/21/25 at 1:40 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #521 revealed there were four residents (Residents #4, #9, #43, and #44) on the second floor with refrigerators in their rooms. An interview on 08/21/25 at 2:44 P.M. with Maintenance #538 revealed Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) were responsible to monitor resident refrigerator temperatures. An interview on 08/21/25 at 2:47 P.M. with CNA #523 revealed CNA #523 stated it was the nurses' responsibility to check the resident refrigerator temperatures. An interview on 08/21/25 at 2:51 P.M. with LPN #521 revealed she was never told to check resident room refrigerators or monitor refrigerator temperatures. LPN #521 stated upon further checking there were seven residents with resident room refrigerators (Residents #4, #9, #16, #36, #43, #44, and #47). An interview on 08/28/25 at 10:02 A.M. with Resident #44 revealed “sometimes” the staff checked his refrigerator and he did not think it was checked weekly. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 08/01/20. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, hemiplegia and hemiparesis. Review of the 07/22/25 five-day admission MDS 3.0 assessment revealed intact cognition. Resident #43 was noted to receive a regular diet, require set up for meals and was dependent upon staff for activities of daily living (ADL). An observation on 08/21/25 at 1:47 P.M. with RDM #598 of Resident #43's room refrigerator revealed no temperature monitoring logs in or around the refrigerator. An interview on 08/28/25 at 10:04 A.M. with Resident #43 revealed she was unaware if anyone was monitoring her room refrigerator and had never observed someone checking the refrigerator. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 09/09/24. Diagnoses included gastroparesis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and type II diabetes mellitus. Review of the 06/18/25 quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #9 revealed intact cognition. Resident #9 was noted to receive a NAS, Reduced Concentrated Sweets diet, was independent for meals and dependent on staff for ADL. An observation on 08/21/25 at 1:49 P.M. with RDM #598 of Resident #9's room refrigerator revealed no temperature monitoring logs on and around the refrigerator. Interview at the time of observation with Resident #9 revealed no one had checked his refrigerator “in a long time”. An interview on 08/28/25 at 10:06 A.M. with Resident #9 revealed someone had checked his refrigerator yesterday but was unsure the last time prior to yesterday whether the temperature or the items inside were checked. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 03/20/25. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, morbid obesity and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the 07/01/25 quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #4 revealed intact cognition. Resident #4 was noted to receive a regular diet, required set-up for meals and was dependent upon staff for ADL. An observation on 08/21/25 at 1:54 P.M. with RDM #598 of Resident #4's room refrigerator revealed no temperature monitoring log on or around the refrigerator. A 12.05-ounce (oz) plastic container of pre-prepared beef stew was found and had an expiration date of 07/03/25, an eight-ounce container of parmesan cheese was found with an expiration date of 08/19/23. Interview with RDM #598 at the time of the observation verified the findings. An interview on 08/28/25 at 10:08 A.M. with Resident #4 revealed she was unsure if anyone ever checked her refrigerator or monitored temperatures and stated if they had then it was not being done consistently. Review of the facility policy titled Food Brought in for Patients and Residents, dated 11/27/17, revealed food brought to residents by family or visitors will be handled and stored in a safe and sanitary manner and may be stored in personal refrigerators in resident rooms. Food items that require refrigeration must be labeled, dated and will be held in the refrigerator for three days after the date on the label then discarded by staff. Foods considered unsafe or beyond the expiration date will be discarded by staff. The policy did not specify any procedure or instructions related to maintaining and monitoring safe food temperatures in resident room refrigerators. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2578214.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review, job description review, and interview, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attai...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, job description review, and interview, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 53. Findings include: A review of the facility job description labeled Administrator revealed the purpose of the position was to establish and maintain systems that were effective and efficient to operate the facility in a manner to safely meet the residents' needs in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. The job description further stated the administrator would determine the personnel requirements of the facility and hire or arrange for sufficient staff to implement the facility policies and procedures. The administrator would develop a monitoring system to assure compliance with federal, state and local requirements. Specific requirements were as follows: Established systems to enforce the facility policies and procedures Establish written personnel policies and individual job descriptions Supervise all department supervisors and administrative staff Develop one-to-one relationships with residents and families Assume responsibility for ensuring that equipment is in operating orderA review of the facility job description labeled Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the purpose of the position was to provide nursing management, set resident care standards for all direct care providers and provide complete supervision and management of the nursing department. The job description further stated the Director of Nursing would assess resident needs and interview, hire and terminate adequate nursing personnel, set resident care standards in accordance with accepted current standards of care to provide high quality of care to residents, supervise and manage all aspects of the nursing department and assess direct and supervise residents' care needs.A review of the facility job description labeled Maintenance Supervisor revealed the purpose of the position was to develop and implement facility maintenance policies and procedures. The job description further stated the Maintenance Supervisor shall develop and implement a monitoring system for the maintenance department and make recommendations for implementation to assure compliance with federal, state and local requirements. The Maintenance Supervisor would supervise the entire operation of the maintenance department. On 08/18/25 at 9:36 A.M. an interview with the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) #599, Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) #600 and Director of Clinical Services #601 revealed LNHA #600 had been at the position for one week. The interview further revealed there had been six previous administrators over the past year. RDO #559 stated the Director of Nursing was new in the position as well. RDO #559 stated the previous administrator and director of nursing were transferred to a sister facility 08/13/25.A review of an email from [NAME] President of Operations #617 to RDO #599 dated 08/18/25 with the subject listed as Euclid Administrators revealed a total of seven LNHAs in the last year. LNHA #631 from 03/20/24 to 08/25/24 LNHA #630 from 08/26/24 to 11/25/24 LNHA #629 from 11/25/24 to 02/11/25 LNHA #628 from 02/12/25 to 07/14/25 LNHA #627 from 07/14/25 to 08/09/25 LNHA #626 from 08/09/25 to 08/13/25 and LNHA #600 from 08/13/25 through current.A review of a document titled; Director List for the Last Year revealed there were four DONs in the last year: Registered Nurse (RN) #623 from 02/01/24 to 03/10/25 RN #622 from 03/10/25 to 04/07/25 RN #604 from 04/07/25 to 08/11/25 and RN #581 from 08/10/25 through current.A review of a document titled; Maintenance Directors revealed three Maintenance Directors in the last year: Maintenance Director (MD) #624 from 04/15/24 to 05/31/25 MD #625 from 05/22/25 to 08/09/25 and MD #538 from 08/09/25 through current.During the annual and complaint surveys, observations, record reviews, and interviews, resulted in concerns related to the overall operation of the facility including but not limited to, care planning, environmental and equipment concerns, activities of daily living care, treatment to maintain vision, laboratory services, accurate facility assessment, documentation issues, staff orientation and training, quality assurance committee, resident food storage, accident prevention, infection control regarding oxygen tubing, pharmacy reviews, food storage, dignity, quality of care and medication storage. The facility failed to provide evidence that administrative staff, including the Administrator and/or DON, had effective systems in place to timely identify and correct quality, care and environmental concerns. A. The facility failed to ensure an accurate care plan was indicative of oxygen use for one resident (Resident #55) of three reviewed for oxygen use. B. The facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary homelike environment and failed to ensure garbage was disposed of properly. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility.C. The facility failed to initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or call emergency medical services (EMS) for Resident #13 resulting in immediate jeopardy and death. D. The facility failed to ensure showers/bathing was completed and documented as required for twelve residents (Residents #1 #2, #3, #5, #7, #29, #41, #44, #45, #53, and #63) of 44 residents who required staff assistance for showers and bathing.E. The facility failed to ensure physician ordered labs were completed timely for Resident #53.F. The facility failed to ensure medical record documentation included weekly skin assessments as ordered and care planned for 11 residents (#1, #3, #7, #9, #29, #44, #45, #49, #53, #63, and #69) and failed to ensure the change of condition and subsequent death of Resident #76 was documented in the medical record. This affected 12 residents (#1, #3, #7, #9, #29, #44, #45, #49, #53, #63, #69 and #76) of 22 residents reviewed for complete resident records.G. The facility failed to have an updated and accurate facility assessment to indicate sufficient staffing for the first floor. This had the potential to affect six residents identified as residing on the first floor (Residents #22, #26, #31, #35, #46 and #61).H. The facility failed to ensure Resident #29 was provided corrective lens and vision care appointments per physician orders.I. The facility failed to ensure a complete orientation of new certified nurse assistants and licensed nurses. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility.J. The facility failed to ensure sufficient competent staffing on the first floor which had the potential to affect six residents (#22, #26, #31, #35, #46 and #61) who resided on the first floor of the facility.K. The facility failed to ensure quality assurance team consisted of the required members. This had the potential to affect all residents living in the facility.L. The facility failed to ensure resident personal refrigerators were monitored for temperatures and food spoilage.M. The facility failed to ensure appropriate supervision during smoking times and failed to ensure residents did not have smoking items in their personal possession which affected Resident #45 and #49.N. The facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was dated when changed for Resident #39 and #55.O. The facility failed to ensure pharmacy reviews were completed monthly for Resident #4 and #53.P. The facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of changes in condition for Resident #13 and #85.Q. The facility failed to ensure a catheter drainage bag was covered for Resident #27.R. The facility failed to ensure medications were properly secured.S. The facility failed to ensure appropriate quality of care for three residents (Resident #13, #58, and #74) resulting in immediate jeopardy and death. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Numbers 2578214 and 1381901.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary homelike environment was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary homelike environment was provided for residents. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 53.Findings include:On 08/18/25 between 12:00 P.M. and 1:45 P.M. an initial observational tour of the building was conducted. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have pealing wallpaper and a missing corner piece protector on the left side of the wall between the television stand and the bathroom that exposed the bare wall. The bathroom floor was noted to be coming up. A piece of vinyl approximately six foot by five foot was noted on the bathroom wall across from the toilet that was curved onto the left side of the wall. The toilet was noted to be dirty. There were two full urinals hanging off the garbage can by the bed. There were gnats crawling at the sink and in a wash basin. The aforementioned was verified by Housekeeping and Laundry Supervisor #550 at the time of the observation. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have a ceiling tile with a large brown stain on it that appeared to be wet. Resident #31 stated it was reported to the Administrator several days ago and maintenance came to fix it. Resident #31 further stated the ceiling tile was replaced but the pipes were not looked at as to a possible cause.On 08/19/25 at 10:35 A.M. peeling wallpaper by the second-floor elevator exposing the wall was noted. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have visible rust around the sink in the room. The wall between the door and the sink was noted to have gouges and large black scuffs on it. The aforementioned was verified by [NAME] President of Plant Operations (VPO) #605 and Maintenance Director (MD) #538 at the time of the observation. VPO #605 also verified the bathroom wall damage in room [ROOM NUMBER] noted on 08/18/25. VPO #605 stated the curving piece of vinyl that was placed on the wall across from the toilet was not a proper fix for possible wall damage. VPO #605 stated the vinyl sheet should have been cut and pieced at the corner. Further interview with VPO #605 revealed there are no regular cite visits by him in regard to general upkeep and cleanliness of the building. VPO #605 stated a mock survey was conducted in April of this year and a general inspection was in July. An interview with MD #538 revealed he was only in his role for two weeks.On 08/19/25 at 11:30 A.M. an interview with Regional Director of Operations (RDO) #599 revealed room rounds are done and recorded on Room Round sheetsOn 08/27/25 between 10:00 A.M. and 11:15 A.M. an extensive tour of the building was conducted with the following findings: A brown stained ceiling tile in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted and verified by Certified Nurse Assistant #621. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have visible dirt and debris behind the door extending outward to be visible on the other side of the door. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have visible dirt and debris behind the door extending outward to be visible on the other side of the door and the window curtains were not hung correctly. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have visible dirt and debris behind the door extending outward to be visible on the other side of the door. The toilet was not clean with visible dirt under the inner rim. A built up dirt ring was noted within the toilet bowl. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have a large dried red substance on the floor that appeared to be sauce. The privacy curtain was soiled. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a gouged and damaged wall between the television stand and the bathroom. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have chipped tile on the floor. Peeling paint was noted by the baseboard and closet door. There was no baseboard between the television stand and the bathroom. The wall was exposed. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have peeling paint on the wall. There was no baseboard on the wall between the closet and door exposing the wall. The top of the heating unit had built up visible dirt. room [ROOM NUMBER] had built up visible dirt on the heating unit. The bathroom had peeling wall paper with exposed wall to the left of the sink. There was visible dirt on top of the backsplash of the bathroom sink. room [ROOM NUMBER] had visible dirt and debris behind the door. room [ROOM NUMBER] had visible dirt and debris behind the door. room [ROOM NUMBER] had visible dirt and debris behind the door. There was no baseboard between the entry door and the closet. The wall was exposed with a hole in it. The privacy curtain was not hung correctly. room [ROOM NUMBER] had peeling wallpaper Above the closet and below the sink. The privacy curtain was torn. The baseboard between the sink and closet was coming off. The window curtains were not hung correctly. There was rust noted around the sink. Built up dirt and debris was noted behind the entry door and coming out from under the closet. There was built up dust on top of the heating unit. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have a privacy curtain that was not hung correctly. There was wall damage noted to the left of the entry door in the hall between the lower rail and baseboard. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have wall damage to the lower wall between the television stand and the bathroom. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have a heating unit without a cover on it. There was wall damage between the television stand and the bathroom. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have peeling wallpaper. There was visible dirt and debris behind the door. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have peeling wallpaper. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have window curtains not hung correctly. There was peeling wallpaper on the lower right hand corner of the wall between the bathroom and the door. room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have build up visible dirt behind the door. There was built up visible dirt on top of the heating unit. The back left wall of the bathroom was noted to have no wallpaper and wall damage.The aforementioned was verified by Housekeeping and Laundry Supervisor #550 at the time of the observations.On 08/27/25 at 10:40 A.M. an interview with Housekeeper #575 revealed the department was short-staffed and deep cleaning of resident rooms had not been done.A review of the documents titled; Room Rounds dated 07/01/25, 07/02/25, 07/03/25, 07/07/25, and 07/14/25 revealed multiple issues with wallpaper and housekeeping. On 08/19/25 at 11:30 A.M. RDO #599 verified the dates for July 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 14th and no further room checks after 07/14/25. RDO #599 was unable to say how often room rounds were conducted as she was new to the position.A review of the document titled; Gardens of Euclid Beach TELS Mock survey dated 04/08/25 revealed The overall appearance of the facility including condition of the roof and obstructed doorways was a work in progress. Renovation was noted to be in progress. Landscaping beds were not welcoming and not kept up. A fence in the front of the building was noted to be not in good repair. There was trash noted along the back of the building.A review of an email dated 07/17/25 to VPO #605 and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator #627 revealed there was a bulk of cosmetic stuff in the building that can be fixed with mud and paint. The email further revealed the TELS system (a system for logging needed building repairs) should be addressed daily.A review of an untitled document that was identified as the deep cleaning schedule by RDO #599 revealed rooms are to be deep cleaned weekly. There was no cleaning schedule noted for deep cleaning for the units on the first floor.A review of the document titled; daily room cleaning checklist that was undated revealed The toilet seat is to be clean and sanitized and the outer bowl of the toilet is to be cleaned down to the floor. The underside of the toilet seat and inner bowl of the toilet is to be cleaned. The room is to be spot swept for large trash and food items. Sweep behind and under beds and furniture as well as possible. The room and bathroom is to be mopped in its entirety starting from the window wall and working to the entry door.A review of the policy titled; Quality of Life-Homelike Environment dated 05/2017 Revealed residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment and encouraged to use personal belongings to the extent possible. The facility staff and management shall maximize to the extent possible the characteristics of the facility that reflect A personalized, home like setting. These characteristics include a clean sanitary and orderly environment.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Numbers 2578215, 2578214, 1381903, 1381901, and 1381896.
Jan 2024 2 deficiencies
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed for all state tested nursing assistants (STNA's). This had the potential to affect all...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed for all state tested nursing assistants (STNA's). This had the potential to affect all 55 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of STNA #204's personnel file revealed a hire date of 06/08/22. There was no annual performance evaluation noted in her file. Interview on 01/31/24 at 12:26 P.M. with the Administrator verified STNA #204 did not have an annual performance evaluation in her file. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00150100.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was posted. This had the potential to affect all 55 residents residing in the facility. Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was posted. This had the potential to affect all 55 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation and interview on 01/30/24 at 9:03 A.M. with the Business Office Manager (BOM) #200 of the daily posted staffing revealed the last posted staffing information was dated 01/25/24. There were additional staffing sheets placed behind the one dated 01/25/24 and were noted to be dated for 01/06/24, 01/07/24, 01/08/24, 01/09/24, 01/10/24, 01/11/24, 01/18/24, 01/22/24 and 01/24/24. BOM #200 verified daily staffing was not posted since 01/25/24. Interview on 01/30/24 at 10:00 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she was responsible for posting the daily nurse staffing. She stated she had taken the staffing sheets with her and had not posted them so they would be available for residents and visitors to view.
Dec 2023 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, facility policy review and review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Consideration...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, facility policy review and review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Considerations for Preventing Spread of COVID-19, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection. This affected one resident (#21) and had the potential to affect fifteen residents (#5, #9, #17, #18, #19, #22, #23, #26, #29, #32, #33, #35, #40, #42, #44) who resided on the Sycamore Unit (rooms 202 through 213). The facility census was 57. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #21 revealed an admission date of 06/17/21 with diagnoses including type II diabetes, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #21 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Review of the care plan dated 10/31/23 revealed Resident #21 had signs and symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19) positive coronavirus testing positive. Interventions included preventing the spread of infection to others, placing in isolation, and staff to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during all care. Review of the current immunization record revealed Resident #21 was up to date for all COVID-19 related immunizations. Review of the physician orders dated 12/01/23 revealed Resident #21 had an order in place for droplet isolation precautions, gown, gloves, N95 mask, and face shield required every shift for COVID-19 positive. Review of the progress note dated 12/01/23 at 12:33 P.M. revealed a COVID-19 test was performed on Resident #21 with positive results. Resident #21 had no symptoms and was in bed resting comfortably with a call light in reach. Resident #21 was placed on isolation precautions. Interview on 12/04/23 at 8:43 A.M. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #825 revealed Resident #21 tested positive for COVID-19. Observation on 12/04/23 at 8:43 A.M. revealed a PPE bin outside of Residents #21 room that included masks, gloves, and gowns. Observation and interview on 12/04/23 at 8:46 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #831 exiting Resident #21 room and standing at the medication cart outside of the room. LPN #831 was observed to be wearing an N95 mask and no other PPE. LPN #831 revealed Resident #21 was positive for COVID-19 and staff were to wear a mask, gown, and gloves. LPN #831 revealed staff were to don PPE prior to entering and doff upon exiting the room. LPN #831 revealed she changed her face mask once or twice a shift when she went on her lunch break. LPN #831 confirmed and verified she was not wearing a gown, gloves, face shield and/or goggles or a surgical mask over her N95 mask as she entered an exited Resident #21 room. LPN #831 was not observed entering any other resident's rooms after exiting Resident #21's room. Observation and interview on 12/04/23 at 8:59 A.M. revealed ADON #825 and State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #833 donning PPE to enter Resident #21 room. ADON #825 revealed any staff entering COVID-19 positive rooms, should wear full PPE including mask, gloves, and gowns. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document related to droplet precautions revealed everyone must clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room, make sure their eyes, nose and mouth were fully covered before room entry and remove face protection before room exit. Further review revealed staff must don proper PPE when entering a COVID-19 positive room that included a gown, N95 mask, face shield and/or goggles, and gloves. Review of the documents revealed the facility did not implement the protocol. Review of the facility document titled Isolation- Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, revised October 2018, revealed the facility had a policy in place that transmission-based precautions would be initiated when a resident develops signs and symptoms and at risk of transmitting the infection to other residents. Review of the document revealed appropriate notification would be placed on the room entrance door, front of the chart to alert staff and visitors, and gown, gloves and goggles would be worn. Review of the document revealed the facility did not implement the policy. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00148779.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment and failed to perform repairs in a timely manner. This affected 16 residents (Resident #24, Resident #42, Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment and failed to perform repairs in a timely manner. This affected 16 residents (Resident #24, Resident #42, Resident #36, Resident #56, Resident #32, Resident #14, Resident #52, Resident #43, Resident #38, Resident #3, Resident #23, Resident #8, Resident #26, Resident #19, Resident #18 and Resident #33). The facility census was 60. Findings include: A tour of the facility on 08/15/23 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. revealed the following findings on the second floor of the facility: -The elevator metal door frame on the first floor and second floor of the facility had paint chipped with the metal beneath the paint exposed. Inside the elevator the back wall had gouges in the wall and the floor of the elevator had ground in black stains. - On the second floor of the facility the dining room entrance windows had bubbling paint around the windows and the molding along the base of the room and the heating vents were broken, loose and not attached to the wall. - There was water damaged flooring by the ice machine with a rubber tube draining water from the ice machine in to a plastic bath basin on the floor behind the ice machine. - The chairs in the dining room had wooden arms and legs with gouges in the wood. - There were three common hallways on the second floor with tiled flooring with staining, ground in dirt, scuffs. The molding along the base of the walls had serval areas with missing, loose or damaged molding. - Resident #33's room had dried liquid stains on the floor, gouges in the wood on the door to the room, peeling wallpaper, rusty heating vent, and the counter for the sink had several gouges along the edge with exposed bare wood exposed. The above observations were verified by Housekeeper (HK) #60 on 08/15/23 at 11:55 A.M. - The shower room on the hallway with room numbers 202 to 212 had a rusty heating vent, broken plastic waste receptacle and an over-the-bed table with rusty metal legs and castors. The above observation was verified by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/15/23 at 11:50 A.M. -Resident #18's room had several wheel tread scuff marks on the floor, holes in the wall along the base of the wall by the sink area, and rusty and broken heating vents. The bathroom vent located on the ceiling had a thick layer of dust with a rusty heating vent, torn/stained wallpaper, and gouges in the wood on the bathroom door. - Resident #19's room had a sticky floor with dull dark stains and the heating vent was rusty and broken. The bathroom had peeling paint, stained floor tiles and gouges in the wood of the door. An interview with Resident #19 at the time of the observation revealed he tried not to look around his room and when laying in bed. Resident #19 stated he would only look at the ceiling or television to avoid observing the areas of the room in need of repair. - Resident #26's room had gouges in the bathroom door, heating vent covers falling off the wall, and damaged torn wallpaper on every wall of the room. An interview with Housekeeper (HK) #60 on 08/15/23 at 11:55 A.M. revealed the facility was in need of many repairs and there had been no major repairs completed in the resident rooms and common areas on the second floor of the facility. The floor scrubber was in need of repair for several months and the floors could not be cleaned properly. HK #60 stated Maintenance Director (MD) #61 was not able to complete all the work due to the amount of work needed in the facility. HK #60 confirmed the facility was in a general state of disrepair. HK #60 verified the above observations of Resident #18's, Resident #19's, Resident #26's room. - Resident #8's room had heating vents falling off the wall, gouges in the doors of the clothing closet and chipped tiles on the floor. An interview with Resident #8 at the time of the observation on 08/15/23 at 12:09 P.M. revealed she had noticed ants crawling on her sink and there was black mold located on the wall by her bed which the facility had covered with a square of plastic material. -Resident #23's room had peeling wallpaper with black stains along the wall above the floor molding, dull scuffed stained floors, gouges in the wood of the bathroom door, molding on the base of the wall along the floor was pulled away from the wall. -The hallway for room numbers 260 to 271 had two missing wood strips on the post and wall by the recreation room. - The four common hallways had ground in stains, with damaged molding along the base of the walls, and had several areas of damaged, peeling wallpaper. -The activity room had a dull, sticky floor. - An interview with Resident #3 on 08/15/23 at 12:10 P.M. indicated he had resided in the facility for one year and seven months and there had been no major changes in the appearance of the facility during his stay at the facility. - On 08/15/23 at 12:15 P.M. and interview with State Tested Nursing (STNA) #62 verified Resident #2's room had paint chipping with the bare plaster exposed on the walls, damaged, stained wallpaper, gouges in the wood of the bathroom door, rusty heating vent and the bathroom floor was dull with ground in stains. - Resident #38's room had a sticky floor, wallpaper and molding was damaged, chipped tiles on the floor, gouges in the wood of the bathroom door, and the tiles on the floor at the entrance of the bathroom had been replaced with gaps in the seams between the tiles. An interview with Resident #38 on 08/15/23 at 12:17 P.M. revealed he had lived in the facility for one year and there had been little change regarding repairs of the facility and his room. - Resident #43's room had peeling wallpaper, gouges in the wood of the bedroom door, and curtains falling off the curtain rod. - There were gouges in the wood of Resident #31's, Resident #8's, Resident #48's, Resident #28's, Resident #58's, and Resident #1's bedroom doors. - Resident #32's and Resident #57's room had damaged walls and floors. - Resident #14's room had peeling, stained wallpaper. - Resident #52's room had missing floor molding and peeling wallpaper. An interview with STNA #63 on 08/15/23 at 12:25 P.M. verified the observations of Resident #38's, Resident #43' Resident #32's Resident #14's and Resident #52's room. STNA #63 stated she had worked in the facility for one year and there had been no major repairs completed in the resident rooms. - Resident #56's room had curtains falling off the rod. - Resident #36's room had the heating vents falling off the wall, bedside table damaged with gouges, chips of wood missing. - Resident #42's room had stained, sticky bathroom floor and gouges in the wood of the bathroom door and paint chipping on the frame of the bathroom door. - Resident #25's room had missing molding under the heating vent with debris accumulated under the heating vent. An interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #64 on 08/15/23 at 12:50 P.M. verified the observation in Resident #56's, Resident #36's, Resident #42's and Resident #25's room. An interview with MD #61 on 08/15/23 at 2:26 P.M. indicated he was hired during the month of 04/2023 and the previous maintenance director had not maintained the work orders accurately to determine what repairs needed completed in the facility. MD #61 indicated he was unable to complete all the repairs and renovation projects in the building due to the amount of repairs needed and additional emergent repairs that had priority over the general repair needs in the facility. MD #61 stated the facility had a crew of maintenance workers from their sister facilities come in to assist for a short period of time to assist with repairing the floor tiles around the nursing station located on the second floor. MD #61 stated the amount of work needed to complete all the repairs needed in the facility was overwhelming. MD #61 confirmed the facility was generally in a state of disrepair. MG #61 stated he was only able to handle so much work at one time. MD #61 stated it was impossible for one person to complete all the repairs needed in the building. MD #61 indicated he had informed the Administrator of the need for additional maintenance personnel to assist with the major and minor repairs in the facility. MD #61 indicated the facility needed to obtain estimates from an outside company and then obtain approval from the owner. MD #61 stated he had not had time to call the outside companies to have estimates completed for the required repair projects. An interview with Housekeeping Director (HD) #65 on 08/15/23 at 2:56 P.M. indicated the facility had a floor scrubber which needed repaired since 04/2023 and had completely stopped working approximately three weeks ago. HD #61 stated the facility was currently awaiting delivery of a new floor scrubber. HD #65 agreed the facility needed many repairs. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145395 and is an example continued non-compliance from the surveys dated 07/26/23, 06/22/23, and 04/06/23.
Jul 2023 1 deficiency
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physical environment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected three re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physical environment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This affected three residents (#28, #31 and #52) and had the potential to affect additional residents residing on the Over the Falls, Sycamore, and Pier units. The facility census was 56. Findings include: On 07/26/23 environmental observations revealed the following: a. On 07/26/23 at 9:30 A.M. observation of Resident #28 and #52's room revealed the floor was dirty and sticky with visible track marks from Resident #52's power wheelchair. Observation revealed dirty linen, clothes, trash, food, and debris on the floor, on the resident's bed, under the bed, and at the entrance of the doorway. Interview on 07/26/23 at 9:35 A.M. with Staff Member (SM) #800 confirmed the condition of Resident #28 and #52's room as noted above. During the interview, SM #800 revealed the dirt on the floor came from the wheels of Resident #52 wheelchair. SM #800 verified the open boxes of cereal had been spilled onto the floor, old food boxes and food had likely been on the floor for days, and the presence of dirty and soiled linen piled on the bed and under the bed. Resident #52 bed had a small spot clear of debris for sleeping. b. On 07/26/23 at 9:45 A.M. observation of the second floor shower room located on the Sycamore unit, revealed dirty linen with visible brown stains on the washcloths and brown substance smeared on the floor, an open bag of dirty linen spilling onto the floor, and trash and debris. This shower room was noted to be used for resident showers. Interview on 07/26/23 at 9:45 A.M. with SM #801 confirmed the above findings of the shower room. SM #801 also indicated staff had assigned rooms to clean, but due to how staff were scheduled, some rooms/areas had not been cleaned for the prior two days. c. On 07/26/23 at 9:51 A.M. observation of Resident #31's room, located on the Over the Falls unit, revealed the floor was dirty and sticky with open and crushed grape jelly packets into the floor, and a soiled brief on the floor adjacent to the bed. Interview on 07/26/23 at 9:52 A.M. with SM #802 confirmed the condition of Resident #31's room as noted above. d. Observation on 07/26/23 at 10:00 A.M. of the carpet located in the hallway of the second-floor unit, The Pier, revealed the carpet was dirty with various stains. There were multiple stains throughout the unit including one big black spot and multiple other spots that varied in color. Interview on 07/26/23 at 10:02 A.M. with SM #801 confirmed the carpet condition located on The Pier unit. Review of the resident council meeting minutes from the meetings held 04/26/23, 05/30/23, 06/27/23, and 07/25/23 revealed residents present generated concern forms for the maintenance, housekeeping, and laundry departments. Review of the concern log dated April, May, and June 2023 revealed a concern was voiced during the resident council meeting dated 04/26/23 that resident rooms, dining room, and restorative were not cleaned. Review of the facility undated document titled Cycle Cleaning revealed the facility had a policy in place to identify the functional areas in the facility that require cleaning and to use cycle cleaning schedules to outline the frequencies and maintain regularly scheduled environmental service tasks. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00144809. This deficiency is also an example of continued non-compliance to the survey dated 04/06/23 and 06/22/23.
Jul 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14 was reasonab...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14 was reasonably accommodated with a wheelchair that was safe and functional. This affected one resident (#14) out of six residents (#14, #24, #25, #34, #55, and #56) reviewed for the accommodation of a well-fitting safe wheelchair and had the potential to affect 41 residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #19, #21, #22, #23, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #41, #42, #44, #45, #47, #49, #50, #51, #55, and #57) who required the use of a wheelchair. The facility census was 56. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #14 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left and right side, dementia, and history of falling. Review of the care plan dated 02/03/23 revealed Resident #14 had an activities of daily living deficit related to dementia, impaired balance, frequent falls, epilepsy, and left and right hemiparesis related to cerebrovascular accident. Intervention included transfer with mechanical lift with two staff assist. The care plan did not include the form/ ability of locomotion he required such as wheelchair. There was also nothing in his care plan regarding the leg rests of his wheelchair repeatedly breaking. Review of the Activity Log Details dated 03/03/23 revealed an outside vendor repaired Resident #14's leg rests. (The facility had no other notes regarding repairing/ replacing Resident #14's leg rests other than 03/03/23 and/ or placing another request for new leg rest and/ or repair of). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident 14's cognition was not assessed. He required extensive assistance from two staff with bed mobility and was totally dependent of two staff with transfers. He was unable to ambulate, and locomotion of his wheelchair required total dependence of one staff. Review of the July 2023 Physician Orders revealed Resident #14 had a physician order dated 03/03/23 to transfer with a mechanical lift. There was nothing in his physician order regarding locomotion/ and/ or wheelchair use. Interview on 07/10/23 at 9:33 A.M. and on 07/11/23 at 8:43 A.M. with Resident #14's legal guardian revealed the facility lost Resident #14's personal specialty wheelchair and the one they had gave him to use was not safe and did not fit him well. She revealed the leg rest on the wheelchair was broken and felt it had been broken ever since they gave him the chair but stated, it had been broken since the beginning of June 2023. She revealed he continuously slid down in the chair, and he could not properly sit upright like he did in his personal chair. She revealed she was upset as she brought up this concern several times and that they still refused to accommodate by providing a chair that was not broken and that he would not slide down in. She revealed the staff then do not get Resident #14 out of bed and/ or they lay him back down early because he constantly slides down which then causes him to become restless in bed. She revealed he then attempts to climb out of bed because he does not want to lay in bed all the time. She revealed Resident #14 had three falls attempting to get out of bed within the last month and felt it was because he cannot be up in a wheelchair as long as he was used to. She revealed the facility was attempting to get a new chair as it had been submitted and awaiting insurance approval but that the process had already taken a long time, and the facility had no knowledge how much longer he would have to go without a proper chair. Observation on 07/10/23 at 10:01 A.M. revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #601 assisted Resident #14 out of bed to his wheelchair by placing his wheelchair next to his bed and assisted Resident #14 to stand and pivot to his chair. During observation STNA #601 stated Resident #14's left leg rest was broken, and she felt it was unsafe. She revealed the leg rest does not lock in place, so it continuously opens and swings outward and inward causing a safety concern in the hallway for other residents walking by, as they could possibly trip over it and/ or as the leg rest opens and closes continuously non-stop, Resident #14 slides down in his chair. She revealed they reposition him frequently but that Resident #14 continuously slides down because the leg rest goes outward and then the leg rest was not able to support his weight. She revealed she felt this was a fall/ safety concern and revealed that he appeared uncomfortable in the wheelchair as he does not appear to fit well in it. She revealed for several months it had been like that and that therapy knew that the footrest was broken but it does not get repaired. Observation on 07/10/23 from 10:25 A.M. to 11:15 A.M. revealed Resident #14 sitting in front of the nursing station. Observation revealed his left foot/ leg continuously caused the footrest to swing back and forth causing Resident #14 to slide down in his chair. Resident #14 was observed to lose contact with the footrest and attempt to search for the footrest with his leg/ foot causing Resident #14 to further slide down in his chair. During the observation staff was observed repositioning him back up in his wheelchair but then the process of the leg rest swinging in and out began again with him sliding down in the chair. During the observation he appeared to clench his jaw and facial grimace as he tried to support his positioning; however, because of the left leg rest being broke he slid down. Interview on 07/10/23 at 10:33 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #606 verified the left footrest was broken as it was unable to lock in place. She also verified Resident #14 appeared uncomfortable as he kept sliding down in his chair. Observation on 07/10/23 at 10:48 A.M. with Speech Therapist (ST) #607 and Physical Therapy Assistant #608 were walking by Resident #14 and saw that he was sliding down in his chair. They attempted to reposition him back up in his chair. Interview on 07/10/23 at 10:48 A.M. with ST #607 and PTA #608 revealed the left footrest had been broken and stated maybe two to three months that it had been broken. They revealed the facility was attempting to get Resident #14 a new wheelchair and were awaiting on insurance approval. They verified that the broken footrest was causing the leg rest to open and close continuously back and forth which as a result Resident #14 slid down in his chair and required frequent staff repositioning. PTA #608 revealed, not sure what else we can do as we are waiting for approval on a new chair. Interview on 07/10/23 at 11:06 A.M. with Rehabilitation Director #609 verified the left leg rest of Resident #14's wheelchair was broken causing the leg rest to continuously go in and out as Resident #14 attempted to support himself. He verified Resident #14 continuously slid down in the chair and needed frequently staff assistance to pull him back up in his chair. He revealed that the facility had the footrest repaired/ replaced maybe six weeks ago but that the leg rest almost immediately breaks again because of how he sits and pushes against the leg rest. He revealed that he had his own custom wheelchair but that possibly during the transition from a previous facility to this facility it was lost, but this was before he was hired, so he knew no details regarding his personal custom specialty chair. He revealed Resident #14 was in one of the facility chairs as a backup and had been for several months. He revealed they submitted for a new wheelchair but were awaiting insurance approval, and he was not aware how long that was going to be as sometimes is a lengthy process especially since he was not actually due for a new chair through his insurance as his old one was only a few years old. He revealed that the facility could not keep replacing the footrests especially since they had a new chair on order, he could not see the facility paying for repairs on the old chair that was not even his. He was asked if he felt it was the facility responsibility to reasonably accommodate Resident #14 with a wheelchair that functioned, and he stated that was something to discuss with the facility administration but that the facility currently could not just keep getting his leg rests repaired as they seemed to break again. Interview on 07/10/23 at 12:36 P.M. with Rehabilitation Director #609 verified the last time his left leg rest was repaired was on 03/03/23. He revealed he had no documented evidence when the leg rest had broken again, and he revealed he had not ordered a new leg rest and/ or contacted the outside vendor to repair instead he stated again since a new chair was on order, they were not going to repair the leg rest on his old chair. He verified the new chair was awaiting insurance approval and had no idea how long it would be to get a new chair, at times this process can be timely. He also verified he had no other documentation regarding Resident #14's wheelchair. Observation on 07/10/23 from 2:07 P.M. to 2:18 P.M. revealed Resident #14 continued to sit in front of the nursing station, and his left footrest continued to swing in and out, and Resident #14 continued to slide down in her chair. Observation on 07/10/23 at 2:17 P.M. revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #611 stated to STNA #601 that they needed to lay down Resident #14 as he kept sliding down as she said that they had pulled him up multiple times and it was not helping as he kept sliding down because of the broken footrest. They proceeded to lay Resident #14 down. Interview on 07/10/23 at 4:55 P.M. with the Administrator and Director of Rehabilitation #609 verified per their facility policy it stated the facility would provide devices such as wheelchairs to assist with a resident mobility. Interview on 07/10/23 at 5:00 P.M. with STNA #601 verified RN #611 and STNA #601 laid down Resident #14 because he continuously slides down in his chair because of the broken footrest. She revealed Resident #14 did not like to be in bed as then he attempted to climb out of bed and has had falls in the past because he attempted to get out of bed. She re-verified Resident #14's left leg rest had been broken for at least a couple months. Review of the facility policy labeled, Assistive Devices and Equipment dated January 2020, revealed the facility maintained and supervised the use of assistive devices and equipment for residents. The policy revealed certain devices and equipment that assist with a resident mobility, safety, and independence were provided for the residents such as wheelchairs, walkers, and canes. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00144102.
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 interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14's legal guar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14's legal guardian's allegation of misappropriation was investigated and/ or followed up on in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#14) out of three residents reviewed for misappropriation. The facility census was 56. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #14 had an admission date of 07/29/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left and right side, dementia, and history of falling. There was nothing documented in his medical record regarding Resident #14 legal guardian's concern of misappropriation of his personal wheelchair made in June 2023. There was no documented evidence in his medical record that a personal inventory was completed on admission. Review of the care plan dated 02/03/23 revealed Resident #14 had an activities of daily living deficit related to dementia, impaired balance, frequent falls, epilepsy, and left and right hemiparesis related to cerebrovascular accident. Intervention included transfer with mechanical lift with two staff assist. The care plan did not include the form/ ability of locomotion such as wheelchair. Review of the grievance log dated 05/01/23 to 07/10/23 revealed no grievances regarding Resident #14's missing wheelchair. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident 14's cognition was not assessed. He required extensive assistance of two staff with bed mobility and was totally dependent of two staff with transfers. He was unable to ambulate, and locomotion of his wheelchair required total dependence of one staff. Interview on 07/10/23 at 9:33 A.M. and on 07/11/23 at 8:43 A.M. with Resident #14's legal guardian revealed Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and that he came from another facility. She revealed when he was admitted she had followed the other facilities van as they transported him to the current facility and that he was in his own personal customized wheelchair. She revealed the facility then at some point lost Resident #14's wheelchair and she had reported it numerous times, but the facility had frequent turnover of management staff and never seemed to investigate/ follow-up on his missing wheelchair. She revealed she had contacted the Administrator at the beginning of June 2023 and had an approximate 40-minute conversation regarding her concern that the facility had lost his wheelchair after he had moved into the facility, and previous management consistently stated they would investigate the situation but felt she was getting the run around as nobody would get back to her with a resolution. She revealed after her conversation with the Administrator the beginning of June 2023, the Administrator told her that she was new at the facility and that she would investigate and research his missing wheelchair. She revealed she contacted the Administrator again approximately two and a half weeks later and she still had done nothing about the missing chair: no investigation and/ or nothing to resolve the situation. She revealed it seemed like the same thing continued to occur as the management changed frequently and they say they were new and always say they do not know anything about the incident and/ or in her opinion resolve the situation. She revealed she was upset as it only left Resident #14 to continue to not have a wheelchair that was safe and well fitting. Interview on 07/10/23 at 4:55 P.M. with the Administrator revealed Resident #14's legal guardian contacted her approximately two weeks ago regarding Resident #14's missing wheelchair. She verified she had not completed an investigation regarding Resident #14's missing wheelchair. She revealed she had no documentation a previous investigation had ever been completed regarding the missing wheelchair. She verified there had been no personal inventory completed on admission so was unable to determine if a wheelchair came with him. She also verified there was nothing placed on the grievance log regarding Resident #14's legal guardian's concerns voiced regarding the misappropriation. Observation on 07/10/23 at 10:01 A.M. revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #601 assisted Resident #14 out of bed to his wheelchair by placing his wheelchair next to his bed and assisted Resident #14 to stand and pivot to his chair. During the observation STNA #601 stated Resident #14's left leg rest was broken and that she felt it was unsafe. She revealed the leg rest does not lock in place so continuously opens and swings inward and outward causing a safety concern in the hallway for other residents walking by, as they could possibly trip over it and/ or as the leg rest swings opened and closes continuously non-stop, he slides down in his chair. She revealed they reposition him frequently, but Resident #14 continues to slide down because the leg rest goes outward, and it was not able to support his weight. She revealed she felt this was a fall/ safety concern and revealed that he appeared uncomfortable in the wheelchair as he does not appear to fit well in it. She revealed for several months it had been like that, and therapy knew it was broken but it does not get repaired. Observation on 07/10/23 from 10:25 A.M. to 11:15 A.M. revealed Resident #14 sitting in front of nursing station. Observation revealed his left foot/ leg continuously caused the footrest to swing back and forth causing Resident #14 to slide down in his chair. Resident #14 was observed to lose contact with the footrest and attempt to search for the footrest with his leg/ foot causing Resident #14 to further slide down in his chair. During the observation staff was observed repositioning him back up in his wheelchair but then the process of the leg rest swinging in and out began again with him sliding down in the chair. During the observation he appeared to clench his jaw and facial grimace as he tried to support his positioning; however, because of the left leg rest being broken, he slid down. Review of the facility policy labeled, Personal Property, dated September 2012, revealed the resident's personal belongings shall be inventoried and documented upon admission. The policy revealed the facility would promptly investigate any complaints of misappropriation or mistreatment of resident property. Review of the facility policy labeled, Resident Abuse, last revised 02/01/17, and revealed misappropriation of resident property was the deliberate misplacement, exploitation or wrongful, temporary, or permanent use of resident's belongings without the resident's consent. The policy revealed the abuse coordinator, or his designee shall investigate all reports or allegations. The policy revealed upon completion of the investigation a detailed report shall be prepared. Review of the facility policy labeled, Assistive Devices and Equipment, dated January 2020, revealed the facility maintained and supervised the use of assistive devices and equipment for residents. The policy revealed if residents provide their own assistive devices these items were documented as personal property and made available fir that resident's use only. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00144102.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14 was transfer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14 was transferred by use of a mechanical lift as ordered by the physician, care plan, and State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) report sheet. This affected one resident (#14) out of three residents (#14, #25 and #34) reviewed for staff assistance with transfers and had the potential to affect 22 residents (#2, #3 #4, #5, #6, #8, #14, #21, #24, #26, #30, #32, #34, #36, #37, #41, #43, #44, #45, #46, #49, and #54) who required staff assistance with transfers. The facility census was 56. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #14 had an admission date of 07/29/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left and right side, dementia, and history of falling. Review of the care plan dated 02/03/23 revealed Resident #14 had an activities of daily living deficit related to dementia, impaired balance, frequent falls, epilepsy, and left and right hemiparesis related to cerebrovascular accident. Intervention included transfer with mechanical left with two staff assist. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident 14's cognition was not assessed. He required extensive assist of two staff with bed mobility and was totally dependent of two staff with transfers. He was unable to ambulate, and locomotion of his wheelchair required total dependence of one staff assistance. Review of the July 2023 Physician Orders revealed Resident #14 had a physician order dated 03/03/23 to transfer with a mechanical lift. Review of undated facility form (STNA report sheet) labeled; Crystal [NAME] Important Information revealed Resident #14 was to be transferred with a mechanical lift. Observation on 07/10/23 at 10:01 A.M. revealed STNA #601 assisted Resident #14 out of bed to his wheelchair by placing his wheelchair next to his bed and assisted Resident #14 to stand and pivot to his chair. Interview on 07/10/23 at 10:27 A.M. with STNA #601 verified that she did not realize Resident #14 had a physician order for a mechanical lift and the care plan and STNA report sheet stated to transfer Resident #14 with a mechanical lift. She revealed she had worked at the facility several months and had never transferred Resident #14 with a mechanical lift, and she had always used just one staff assist. Interview on 07/10/23 at 12:36 P.M. with Rehabilitation Director #609 revealed that Resident #14 had a physician order to be transferred with a mechanical lift. He stated, since he had a physician order he should have been transferred in that manner. However, he revealed he felt it also depended on if the STNA was strong and experienced they could possibly transfer Resident #14 with one assist as they had been working with him in therapy, but that it also depended on Resident #14's status, if he was tired and/ or if the staff was not experienced and/ or strong, then he should be transferred with a mechanical lift. He revealed he stated, I know that does not answer the question regarding how staff should safely transfer Resident #14 so really, they should go by the physician order and/ or nursing should then decide. Interview on 07/10/23 at 1:56 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #606 revealed the STNA's were to go by the STNA report sheet on how residents were to be transferred. She verified Resident #14 had a physician order to transfer with a mechanical lift and that it also stated Resident #14 required a mechanical lift on the STNA report sheet. Interview on 07/10/23 at 4:21 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified Resident #14 had a physician order to be transferred with a mechanical lift, and that it was identified in the care plan as well as on the STNA report sheet to use a mechanical lift. She revealed that staff should not use discretion instead should follow the physician order, and/ or care plan. Review of the facility policy labeled, Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents, dated July 2017, revealed in order to protect the safety and wellbeing of staff and residents and to promote quality of care the facility used appropriate techniques and devices to lift and move residents. The policy revealed nursing staff in conjunction with rehabilitation staff shall assess individual resident's needs for transfer assistance on an ongoing basis. The policy revealed staff would document needs in the care plan. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00144102.
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 interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14 and Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, record review, and facility policy review the facility did not ensure Resident #14 and Resident #55 had their fall prevention interventions in place as identified in their plan of care and/ or physician orders. This affected two residents (#14 and #55) out of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 56. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #14 had an admission date of 07/29/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting his left and right side, dementia, and history of falling. Review of the care plan last revised 02/03/23 revealed Resident #14 was at risk for injury related to falls due to recurrent falls, balance problem, incontinence, impulsivity with poor safety awareness, risk of medication side effects, diagnosis of epilepsy, left and right hemiparesis due to cardiovascular accident, and dementia. Interventions included bed against the wall, call light within reach, appropriate footwear when transferring, mat to right side of bed, and parameter mattress. Review of the undated facility form labeled State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) report sheet, [NAME] Important Information revealed Resident #14's wheelchair was to be kept in the hallway. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident 14's cognition was not assessed. He required extensive assistance of two staff with bed mobility and was totally dependent of two staff with transfers. He was unable to ambulate, and locomotion of his wheelchair required total dependence of one staff. Review of the Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 was at high risk for falls because he had a history of falls, he had diagnoses that placed him at risk for falls, and he overestimated or forgot his limits. Review of the July 2023 physician orders revealed Resident #14 had a physician order dated 08/23/22 to have his wheelchair in the hallway at all times when he was in his bed. Observation on 07/10/23 at 8:05 A.M. revealed Resident #14 was in his bed and his wheelchair was positioned inside his room within Resident #14's eyesight. Observation on 07/10/23 at 10:01 A.M. revealed STNA #601 assisted Resident #14 out of bed to his wheelchair that had continued to be in his room. Interview on 07/10/23 at 10:27 A.M. with STNA #601 verified that Resident #14's wheelchair was in his room at the start of her shift and that it had continued to remain in his room until she got him up at 10:01 A.M. She verified he had a physician order to keep his wheelchair in the hallway because when he sees it, he attempts to get out of bed to get to his wheelchair which then can result in him falling. Interview on 07/10/23 at 4:21 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified Resident #14 had a physician order and a fall intervention to keep his wheelchair in the hallway when he was not in the wheelchair as he attempted to try to get out of bed to his wheelchair. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #55 revealed an admission date of 04/24/23 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, diabetes, muscle weakness, aphasia, hemiplegia affecting right dominant side, epilepsy, and repeated falls. Review of the Fall Investigation dated 04/24/23 revealed Resident #55 was found on the floor in the hallway. The long-term intervention listed on the investigation was to add a sign, Call Don't Fall reminder to his room. Review of the Fall Investigation dated 04/29/23 revealed Resident #55 had fallen out of his chair at the nursing station. Resident #55 stated he was trying to lock the locks on his chair, and he leaned to the side too much. The investigation revealed non-slip Dycem (a rubber like surface that was non-slip material used to prevent sliding) was added to his wheelchair seat. Review of the Medicare five-day MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 had impaired cognition. He required extensive assistance of two staff with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. He was unable to ambulate. Review of the care plan dated 05/01/23 revealed Resident #55 was at risk for injury related to falls due to history of frequent falls, impaired cognition with impulsivity and poor safety awareness, gait and balance problems, and diagnoses included traumatic brain injury and right hemiplegia with foot drop. Interventions included call light in reach, a Call Don't Fall sign as a reminder to call for assistance, non-slip Dycem to wheelchair seat, and bedside commode in room. Review of the Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 was at high risk for falls due to history of falls, he had diagnoses that were high risk for falls, and he overestimated and forgot his limits. Observation and interview on 07/10/23 at 1:26 P.M. revealed Resident #55 were lying in bed in his room. His wheelchair was to the side of his bed without Dycem in place and a sign, Call Don't Fall was not located in his room. Resident #55 then was observed to get into his wheelchair and self-propel to the bathroom without the Dycem to his wheelchair. Interview with Resident #55 revealed he had cognitive impairment and went from subject to subject and could not provide details regarding his falls and/ or fall interventions. Interview on 07/10/23 at 1:56 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #606 verified Resident #55 did not have the following fall interventions as identified in his care plan in place: a sign in his room reminding to call for assistance and Dycem in his wheelchair. Interview on 07/10/23 at 4:21 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified Resident #55 had care planned fall preventative interventions including: Dycem to wheelchair and a sign reminding him not to self-ambulate in his room. Review of the facility policy labeled, Falls- Clinical Protocol, last revised March 2018, revealed for a resident who had fallen the staff and practitioner would begin to try to identify possible causes. The policy revealed based on the assessment the staff and physician would identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent subsequent falls and address the risks of clinically significant consequences of falling. The policy revealed the staff and physician would monitor and document the individual's response to interventions intended to reduce falling. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00144102.
Apr 2023 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 was treated with respect and dignity. This affec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 was treated with respect and dignity. This affected one resident (#48) of one resident reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #48 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, muscle weakness, and unspecified mood disorder. Review of a progress note dated 02/14/23 at 12:05 P.M. revealed Resident #48 requested assistance regarding Social Security benefits from Former Social Services (FSS) #900. FSS #900 changed the time for Resident #48 to meet with her and Resident #48 became verbally aggressive. FSS #900 informed Resident #48 she was disrespectful, and her behavior was unacceptable. Review of a progress note dated 02/15/23 at 11:00 A.M. revealed Resident #48 went to FSS #900's office and asked if they were going to continue to work on her Social Security benefits by stating are we going to make the call or what. FSS #900 told Resident #48 that unless she apologized for her behavior the previous day, she would not assist her. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/29/23 revealed Resident #48 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and required one-person assist for activities of daily living (ADL) care. Interview on 04/04/23 with Resident #48 revealed she had not received assistance with her Social Security benefits. Resident #48 revealed FSS #900 did not like her and always ignored her request. Resident #48 revealed she attempted to start the process on her social security benefits so she could discharge home. Interview on 04/05/23 at 9:19 A.M. with Social Work Director (SWD) #533 revealed she was aware Resident #48 required assistance with her social security benefits but had not been assisted as of the time of the annual survey. Interview on 04/06/23 at 8:48 A.M. with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) verified the above findings. Interview also revealed FSS #900 was no longer employed at the facility. The administrative staff indicated they were unaware of the interactions between FSS #900 and Resident #48, despite it being documented in the resident's electronic medical record. Review of the facility document titled Dignity revised February 2021, revealed residents would be treated with dignity and respect, and staff would speak respectfully to residents, at all times. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00141540.
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 F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 was screened for services and placement in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 was screened for services and placement in the nursing facility. The facility also failed to notify the appropriate State agency (the Ohio Department of Mental Health) when two residents (#4 and #48) with a level two mental illness had a significant change in condition. This affected two residents (#4 and #48) of two residents reviewed for Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASARR). The facility census was 58. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #48 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, muscle weakness, and unspecified mood disorder. Review of a PASARR evaluation dated 01/04/23 revealed Resident #48 had a level two mental illness. In addition, the PASARR result notice dated 01/04/23 revealed a referral was made for a level two evaluation. Further review of Resident #48's hard chart and electronic medical record (EMR) revealed no level two evaluation results. Review of the progress note dated 03/20/23 timed 4:30 P.M. revealed Resident #48 was sent out to and subsequently admitted to a local psychiatric hospital. Review of Resident #48's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed Resident #48 returned to the facility on [DATE]. There was no evidence the Ohio Department of Mental Health was notified of Resident #48's admission to the psychiatric hospital. Review of the quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/29/23 revealed Resident #48 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and required a one-person assist for activities of daily Living (ADLs). Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 11:00 A.M. confirmed the lack of notification to the Ohio Department of Mental Health for Resident #48. Interview with Social Work Director (SWD) #533 on 04/05/23 at 9:19 A.M. confirmed the above findings. Resident #48 required a significant change PASARR and level two evaluation which were not completed as required. 2. Record review revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] for suicidal ideations. Resident #4 had diagnoses including spondylosis, malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depressive, dementia, hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome, insomnia, incisional hernia, dysthymic disorder (mild form of depression), colon cancer, and migraine. Review of the PASARR evaluation dated 02/06/23 revealed Resident #4 had a level two mental illness. Review of the EMR revealed Resident #4 returned to the facility on [DATE]. There was no evidence the facility notified the Ohio Department of Mental Health of Resident #4's admission to the psychiatric hospital. Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 11:00 A.M. confirmed the lack of notification to the Ohio Department of Mental Health for Resident #4. Interview with Social Work Director (SWD) #533 on 04/05/23 at 9:19 A.M. confirmed the above findings. Resident #4 required a significant change PASARR and level two evaluation which were not completed as required. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00141540.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 received timely assistance with applying for Soc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 received timely assistance with applying for Social Security benefits from social service staff. This affected one resident (#48) of one resident reviewed for resident rights. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #48 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, muscle weakness, and unspecified mood disorder. Review of a progress note dated 02/14/23 at 12:05 P.M. revealed Resident #48 requested assistance regarding Social Security benefits from Former Social Services (FSS) #900. FSS #900 changed the time for Resident #48 to meet with her and Resident #48 became verbally aggressive. FSS #900 informed Resident #48 she was disrespectful, and her behavior was unacceptable. Review of a progress note dated 02/15/23 at 11:00 A.M. revealed Resident #48 went to FSS #900's office and asked if they were going to continue to work on her Social Security benefits by stating are we going to make the call or what. FSS #900 told Resident #48 that unless she apologized for her behavior the previous day, she would not assist her. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/29/23 revealed Resident #48 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and required one-person assist for activities of daily living (ADL) care. Interview on 04/04/23 with Resident #48 revealed she had not received assistance with her Social Security benefits. Resident #48 revealed FSS #900 did not like her and always ignored her request. Resident #48 revealed she attempted to start the process on her social security benefits so she could discharge home. Interview on 04/05/23 at 9:19 A.M. with Social Work Director (SWD) #533 revealed she was aware Resident #48 required assistance with her social security benefits but had not been assisted as of the time of the annual survey. Interview on 04/06/23 at 8:48 A.M. with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) verified the above findings. Interview also revealed FSS #900 was no longer employed at the facility.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a secure manner and m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a secure manner and medications where labeled with residents' names and date opened. This affected three residents (#48, #15 and #51) and had the potential to affect all 58 residents in the facility who received medications from medication carts 1, 2, 3 and 4. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #48 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, muscle weakness, and unspecified mood disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/29/23 revealed Resident #48 was alert and oriented to person, place, time and required a one-person assist for activities of daily living. Observation on 04/04/23 at 8:18 A.M. of Resident #48's bedside table revealed two unidentified white pills, circular in shape, sitting in a small plastic cup. Interview on 04/04/23 at 8:18 A.M. with Resident #48 revealed she was provided the pills by overnight staff but did not take them. Resident #48 revealed staff did not monitor if she swallowed the pills or not. Interview on 04/04/23 at 8:33 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #584 confirmed the two identified white pills sitting on Resident #48's bedside table. Interview on 04/04/23 at 8:50 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #517 revealed pills should not be left at the bedside and residents should be monitored during administration. Observation on 04/04/23 at 8:50 A.M. revealed RN #517 entered Resident #48's room and removed the pills. 2. Observation of medication cart 1 on 04/04/23 at 1:36 P.M. revealed 43 loose unidentifiable medications at the bottom of the drawers. Interview during the observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #580 verified the findings. 3. Observation of medication cart 2 on 04/04/23 at 1:50 P.M. revealed 30 loose unidentifiable medications at the bottom of the drawers. Interview during the observation with LPN #579 verified the findings. 4. Observation of medication cart 3 on 04/04/23 at 2:15 P.M. revealed 44 loose unidentifiable medications at the bottom of the drawers. Interview during the observation with LPN #579 verified the findings. 5. Review of medical record for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 11/23/21. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus with diabetic peripheral angiopathy without gangrene. Review of plan of care dated 12/23/21 revealed Resident #15 had diabetes. Review of the medication administration record revealed Resident #15 was ordered 19 units of Humalog solution (11/29/21) before meals and 10 units of Glargine solution (11/29/21) at bedtime. On 04/04/23 at 2:15 P.M. observation of cart 3 revealed an opened vial of Lantus insulin for Resident #15 which was not dated. Interview during the observation with LPN #579 verified the findings. 6. Review of medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 08/12/22. Diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, long term use of insulin, and sarcoidosis of the lung. Review of the medication administration record revealed Resident #51 was ordered 20 units of Novolog flexpen solution (09/23/22) at bedtime. On 04/04/23 at 2:15 P.M. observation of cart 3 revealed an insulin flexpen for Resident #51 that was not dated. In addition, observation of the medication cart revealed an opened insulin vial of Humulin and Glargine with no resident name or date opened documented. Interview during the observation with LPN #579 verified the findings. 7. Observation of medication cart 4 on 04/04/23 at 1:36 P.M. revealed 41 loose unidentifiable medications at the bottom of the drawers. Interview during the observation with LPN #583 verified the findings. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration, dated 2021 revealed staff were to maintain a clean an organized medication cart. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00141540.
CONCERN (F)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

2. On 04/03/23 at 10:37 A.M. Resident #164's privacy curtain was observed to have dark brown stains and splatter marks on the left bottom corner. On 04/03/23 at 10:40 A.M. interview and observation w...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 04/03/23 at 10:37 A.M. Resident #164's privacy curtain was observed to have dark brown stains and splatter marks on the left bottom corner. On 04/03/23 at 10:40 A.M. interview and observation with Housekeeper #503 confirmed the curtain stains and splatter marks. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment for residents. This affected five residents (#10, #16, #21, #54 and #164) of 58 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. On 04/04/23 from 9:45 A.M. to 10:05 A.M. environmental observations revealed the following concerns: Resident #10 had approximately 10 strips of clothing/fabric hanging over the electrical outlet and the baseboard heating unit of the room. The base baseboard molding located by Resident #16's headboard was peeled back and hanging from the wall. There was also a drywall patch behind the headboard that needed sanding; the drywall plaster was uneven and spread haphazardly over the patch. Observation of Resident #21 and #54's room revealed the baseboard heater did not have a cover over the heating elements. On 04/04/23 at 1:38 P.M. interview with the Administrator and Maintenance staff verified the above findings.
CONCERN (F)

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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement safe and responsible smoking practices and p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement safe and responsible smoking practices and policies. This affected one resident (#48) of one resident reviewed for smoking and had the potential to affect all 58 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #48 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, muscle weakness, and unspecified mood disorder. Review of a smoking safety screen assessment. dated 12/19/22 revealed Resident #48 was safe to smoke without supervision upon admission. Further review of the assessment revealed Resident #48 required supervision to smoke during assigned smoke breaks, although she was an independent smoker. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/29/23 revealed Resident #48 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and required one-person assist for activities of daily living. Review of the care plan dated 04/01/23 revealed Resident #48 was found smoking in her room on 02/06/23. Observation of Resident #48's room on 04/04/23 at 8:18 A.M. revealed a green lighter located on Resident #48's bedside table and a white lighter located near the sink adjacent to her bed. Interview with State Tested Nursing Assistant #584 at the time of observation verified the resident had a lighter in her room. 2. Observation on 04/03/23 at 11:38 A.M. revealed more than 10 cigarette butts in the courtyard's combustible trash containers. Further observation revealed ash trays and metal containers with self-closing cover devices were available in the courtyard. Interview with the maintenance director verified this finding at the time of observation. The maintenance director verified the courtyard was a smoking area and residents should not be placing butts in the trash container.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the State Ombudsman was notified of resident transfers ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the State Ombudsman was notified of resident transfers to the hospital. This affected three residents (#4, #19 and #164) and had the potential to affect all 58 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including spondylosis, malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depressive, dementia, hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome, insomnia, incisional hernia, dysthymic disorder (mild form of depression), colon cancer, and migraine. Review of the nursing progress note dated 02/17/23 at 1:43 P.M. revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the hospital for suicidal ideations. Review of the electronic medical record revealed no evidence the State Ombudsman was notified of Resident #4's transfer to the hospital. Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 6:30 P.M. confirmed the facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of Resident 4's transfer to the hospital. Review of the facility's undated policy titled Transfer and Discharge (including AMA [agains medical advice]) revealed the facility would maintain evidence the notice of transfer and/or discharge was sent to the ombudsman. 2. Record review revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of nursing progress notes dated 03/28/23 timed 8:22 P.M. and 03/29/23 timed 3:38 A.M. revealed Resident #19 was sent out and subsequently admitted to the local hospital for a kidney infection. Review of the electronic medical record revealed no evidence the State Ombudsman was notified of Resident #19's transfer to the hospital. Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 6:30 P.M. confirmed the facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of Resident 19's transfer to the hospital. Review of the facility's undated policy titled Transfer and Discharge (including AMA [agains medical advice]) revealed the facility would maintain evidence the notice of transfer and/or discharge was sent to the ombudsman. 3. Record review revealed Resident #164 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including syringomyelia/syringobulbia (fluid filled cyst on spinal cord), hemiplegia/hemiparesis, stroke, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, diabetes, morbid obesity, aphasia following stroke, major depressive, schizophrenia, and bipolar. Review of nursing progress note dated 03/20/23 timed 4:08 P.M. revealed Resident #164 was sent out and subsequently admitted to the hospital for suicidal ideation and self-harm. Review of the electronic medical record revealed no evidence the State Ombudsman was notified of Resident #164's transfer to the hospital. Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 6:30 P.M. confirmed the facility did not notify the State Ombudsman of Resident 164's transfer to the hospital. Review of the facility's undated policy titled Transfer and Discharge (including AMA [agains medical advice]) revealed the facility would maintain evidence the notice of transfer and/or discharge was sent to the ombudsman.
Feb 2023 1 deficiency
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment and failed to perform repairs in a tim...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment and failed to perform repairs in a timely manner. This affected 25 residents (#15, #17, #57, #39, #22, #44, #11, #12, #59, #54, #34, #35, #33, #5, #51, #9, #2, #60, #18, #26, #43, #56, #41, #19 and #49) and had the potential to affect all the residents in the facility. The facility census was 64. Findings include: Observations during the tour of the facility on 01/31/23 at 2:05 P.M. revealed the following findings: • The second floor of the facility three tiled hallways were dull, scuffed, dried liquid spills, built-up grime/dirt along all the edges of the hallways. The molding was damaged in multiple areas with plaster chunks missing from various places along the floor molding and corners. • One hallway on the second floor was carpeted. The carpet had several black stains. The transition bar was missing where the tiled hallway floor met the carpeted hallway. The transition bar between the carpet and tile was missing at the entrance to Resident #35's room and Resident #53's room. • In Resident #9's, Resident #17's, Resident #57's, Resident #2's, Resident #60's, Resident #18's, Resident #26's, Resident #43's, Resident #56's, Resident #41's, Resident #19's and Resident #49's rooms had several areas of the wallpaper peeling and damaged in their rooms. • In Resident #26's room the floor was sticky, stained, had dried liquid and dirt build-up along the edges of the walls. • The activity office/activity room had a rusty metal door frame, dirty floors with stains and dirt/grime build-up along the edges of the walls. This observation was verified with Activity Co-Director #78 and Activity Co-Director #79 at 3:50 P.M. on 01/31/23. The staff indicated the residents used the activity office for activities. • The shower room close to room [ROOM NUMBER] had puddles of water on the floor with a bath towel soaked with water lying under the sink. There were several cracked floor tiles; the shower room floor was dirty with dirt sediment present in the puddled water. There were two leg rests detached from a wheelchair lying on the floor. • There were 16 resident's rooms (Resident #15, Resident #17, Resident #57. Resident #39, Resident #22, Resident #44, Resident #11, Resident #12, Resident #59, Resident #54, Resident #39, Resident #34, Resident #35, Resident #33, Resident #5, Resident #51) with the entrance doors scratched with gouges in the wood and black discoloration along the bottom of the doors. • Resident #35's room had two holes in the door to her bathroom, rusty covers on the heating vents, and the heating vent damaged and falling off the vent. The wallpaper was damaged on the right corner of the wall leading to the sink. All four walls in the bathroom had peeling wallpaper with brown discoloration exposed underneath the wallpaper. An interview with Administrator on 01/31/23 at 4:22 P.M. indicated the facility had a black mold problem. A company was contracted to remove the black mold and all residents on the first floor of the facility were moved to the second floor of the facility in 2021. Three resident rooms on the second floor were shut down and plastic placed over the doorways to prevent black mold from spreading to other areas of the facility. The remediation company was supposed to remove all the black mold and replace the affected drywall boards. The second phase of the black mold recovery would start during the month of 02/2023 and the plumbing would be repaired or replaced as needed. The Administrator indicated she had an extended leave of absence from the facility until 10/2022. The Administrator indicated she had terminated the maintenance director for failure to perform his job duties and neglecting the repairs needed in the facility. An interview with Resident #31 on 01/31/23 at 3:40 P.M. indicated she had lived in the facility for four years and there had been no updates or repairs completed in her room. Resident #31 pointed to her bathroom door which had two holes the size of a 50-cent piece, the nonskid strips on the floor next to her bed were worn away and one partial strip was still glued to the floor. Resident #31 pointed to holes in the wallpaper on left wall next to the bathroom. The curtains were falling off the curtain rod, and the sink had a rusty ring around the outside lip of the sink. The privacy curtain was soiled. An interview with Housekeeper (HK) #80 on 02/01/23 at 8:40 A.M. agreed the facility was in a state of disrepair. HK #80 stated the facility did not have enough housekeeping staff to ensure all areas of the facility were cleaned properly. HK #80 stated the current mops the facility provided did not adequately clean the tiled floors. The housekeeping staff would have to bend down on their hands and knees to scrub the floor to remove the stains/spills from the hallways. The facility's floor scrubber was broken for three to four months, and the Administrator was notified and was still awaiting approval for the repair of the floor scrubber. The facility did not have the product available to wax the floors and only had the product available to strip the floors. HK #80 stated the facility used to staff the housekeeping department so two or three resident rooms could be deep cleaned, floors stripped and waxed each week. It was impossible to clean the facility properly with the current number of housekeeping staff. An interview with HK #81 on 02/01/23 at 9:01 A.M. indicated the facility did not have enough staff to clean the facility properly. The machine used to buff the floors was not working and the Administrator was notified months ago and was informed the owner had not approved the repairs/replacement of the equipment needed to ensure the floors in the facility were cleaned properly. The facility currently had no product to wax the floors and was awaiting approval from the owner of the facility to purchase the cleaning products. HK #81 stated there was one dryer that was broken since October 2022 and the other dryer in the year 2021 had been broken. HK #81 had notified the owner of the need to repair/replace the dryers in 2021 and 2022 and still not received approval to have the dryers repaired/replaced. The company hired to complete the black mold remediation did not finish the removal of the black mold. All residents on the first floor were moved to the second floor out of the rooms where the black mold was discovered. HK #81 indicated there were problems with the plumbing and toilets overflowing and hadn't received approval to have a plumber repair the pipe leaks and other issues. An interview with Housekeeping Supervisor (HS) #82 on 02/01/23 at 9:18 A.M. verified the above observations. HS #82 stated the machines used for scrubbing the floors and buffing the floors were not working and had not received approval to repair/replace the equipment. HS #82 indicated she had requested the facility hire additional staff to clean the facility properly but had not received approval. HS #82 stated the facility had a lower wage offered in comparison to similar facilities and was difficult to attract employees to work at the facility. HS #82 stated one housekeeper had just resigned to work at another facility for higher wages. HS #82 indicated the housekeeping staff do mop the floors, but the mops do not remove the stains, scuffs, ground in grime, or liquid stains. HS #82 stated she assisted the housekeeping staff with cleaning the facility but was unable to clean all areas as needed due to the need for additional staff. HS #82 indicated the current staff work very hard and do the best they can with the supplies and staff provided by the facility. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00139289.
Oct 2019 23 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #107 had care plan meeti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #107 had care plan meetings as required. This affected one (Resident #107) of two residents reviewed for care plan meetings. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #107 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic viral hepatitis C, retention of urine and prostate cancer. Resident #107 was interviewed on 10/06/19 at 11:32 A.M. and stated he had not been invited to or participated in any care plan meetings since he was admitted . Further review of the medical record for Resident #107 revealed no documentation that any care plan meetings had been held. Social Worker (SW) #89 was interviewed on 10/08/19 at 10:00 A.M. and stated resident care conferences were held quarterly. SW #89 verified on 10/08/19 at 10:59 A.M. that no care conferences had been held with Resident #107 since his admission on [DATE].
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate advanced directive information was present th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate advanced directive information was present throughout the medical record for Resident #12. This affected one of one resident (Resident #12) reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, Alper's disease (a progressive neurological disorder), paranoid schizophrenia and psychosis. Review of the physician's orders for October 2019 revealed Resident #12 was a full code. Further review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed a red sheet of paper under the advanced directive tab with do not resuscitate comfort care (DNRCC) printed on it. Registered Nurse (RN) #158 was interviewed on 10/09/19 at 11:24 A.M. and verified Resident #12's code status was DNRCC, and the physician's order for full code was incorrect.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) form was given to Resident #73 upon the discontinuation of sk...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) form was given to Resident #73 upon the discontinuation of skilled services. This affected one (Resident #73) of three residents reviewed for proper notices of non-coverage. The facility census was 112. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #73 revealed Resident #73 was given a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) on 09/26/18 indicating skilled services was would be discontinued on 09/28/19. Review of census records revealed Resident #73 remained in the facility. Further review of the medical record revealed Resident #73 did not receive a SNF ABN as required. Interview with Social Worker #89 on 10/08/19 at 10:55 A.M. verified the lack of notice. He stated he was unaware that a SNF ABN form needed to be issued when residents remained in the facility and were discontinued from Medicare services.
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 interview, record review and physician notes, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was initiated for a resident ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and physician notes, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was initiated for a resident admitted with a chronic cough. This affected one resident (Resident #64) of 35 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included respiratory failure with hypoxia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, cerebral infarction, tracheostomy and type II diabetes. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. She required extensive assistance of two staff for most activities of daily living including transfers, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of the nurse practitioner notes dated 09/10/19 indicated the resident was evaluated for a low grade temperature of 99.1 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The note stated the resident was having a frequent most cough. Per this note, the nurse practitioner stated the resident has had a chronic moist cough. Review of the care plans initiated for this resident from her admission to present showed no care plan for care of her chronic cough. Interview with Resident #64 on 10/08/19 at 9:10 A.M. revealed the resident has had a chronic cough since she had her tracheostomy placed. She stated that the cough just seemed to happen more often since her tracheostomy was removed. She stated it was the worst at night and sometimes kept her awake. When asked if she received medicine for her cough, she stated she did not think so. Interview with Regional Nurse #158 on 10/09/19 at 11:30 A.M. revealed the resident did have a care plan for alteration in breathing but this care plan did not address her chronic cough. She verified there was no care plan initiated for this resident's chronic cough.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents care plans were updated to meet the residents need...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents care plans were updated to meet the residents needs. This affected one resident (Resident #43) of 35 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His admitting diagnoses included epilepsy, heart failure, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, dementia and Clostridium Difficile (C. Diff), a highly contagious bacteria, in the stool. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. She required extensive assistance for most activities of daily living, including toileting. She was totally dependent on staff for transfers and eating. Review of the physician's orders revealed on 09/24/19 she was diagnosed with C. Diff in her stool, and she was placed on isolation precautions. Review of the resident's plan of care dated 09/30/19 indicated Resident #43 was on contact isolation precautions related to C. Diff in her stool. Interventions included: All staff were to use personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care to the resident; Dispose of soiled linens or clothing per contact isolation guidelines in dedicated waste and laundry receptacles; and use alcohol based cleaners when cleaning resident's tables, bed rails, sinks and toilet etc. Per the guidelines of cleaning of rooms of resident's with C-diff, alcohol based cleaners and alcohol based hand sanitizers do not kill the spores of C. Diff. Interview with Regional Nurse #158 on 10/08/19 at 9:40 A.M. revealed the intervention of the use of alcohol based cleaners for the resident's room was not updated/changed to the use of bleach cleaner.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe and accurate discharge for Resident #313 . This affec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe and accurate discharge for Resident #313 . This affected one resident (Resident #313) of two residents reviewed for the discharge process. Findings include: Review of the medical record of Resident #313 revealed an admission date of 06/17/19. Her admitting diagnoses included type II diabetes, pneumonia, heart failure, hypothyroidism and atrial fibrillation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident was alert and oriented. She required supervision of one staff for most activities of daily living, including personal hygiene and toileting. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/06/19 at 9:30 A.M. revealed that residents, depending on their insurance, can be discharged with their medications from the medication cart. She stated the discharging nurse will reconcile the discharge medications against the resident's medication card to make sure the resident is getting the correct medication. The DON stated that Resident #313's sister came to the facility a couple days after discharge because the resident was given, along with her own medication, the medication of two other residents, Resident #82 and Resident #26. The DON also stated that when she realized what had happened, she initiated a concern form and did an investigation. The DON also stated at this time that she asked the sister if the resident was ok since according to the sister she was taking the medication. The sister stated the resident was fine. Further review of this resident's closed record on 10/06/19 at 11:00 A.M. revealed the resident was discharged with a medication card of Omeprazole (medication to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease) 20 milligrams (mg) to be taken daily belonging to Resident #82 and another card of Omeprazole 20 mg to be taken daily belonging to Resident #26. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #301 on 10/06/19 at 12:12 P.M. revealed she was the nurse who actually discharged the resident. When asked about how she gave the resident her medications to take home, she stated she took the cards out of her slot in the medication cart and then she compared them with the discharge medication list. When asked how the resident still got the medication cards of two other residents when she did the medication reconciliation, she stated she did not know. Interview with the DON on 10/06/19 at 1:15 P.M. verified the resident was discharged with the medication cards of two other residents. This deficiency substantiates complaint number OH00107332.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was intervention for prevention of functi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was intervention for prevention of functional decline in abilities for Resident #48, who declined in bed mobility, transfers, eating and toileting. This affected one of six (Resident's #5, #48, #75, #99, #109, and #163) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 112. Findings included: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including sarcoidosis, psychosis, symbolic dysfunction, abnormality of gait, difficulty in walking, peptic ulcer, altered mental status, insomnia, dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension and muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident required supervision for bed mobility and toileting, and she was independent with transfers and eating. Review of the 07/31/19 MDS 3.0 assessment revealed the resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility and toilet use, required supervision for transfers and limited assistance for eating. Further review of the assessment revealed the resident did not receive restorative services or therapies. Further review of the resident record did not yield documentation of restorative services or physical/occupational therapies or an assessment documenting the decline in function. Review of the physician orders did not yield orders for restorative services or physical/occupational therapies. Observation of the resident from 10/06/19 to 10/09/19 revealed the resident appeared confused, wandered aimlessly through out the secure floor and utilized a low bed. Interview on 10/08/19 at 3:47 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #16, the MDS coordinator, she stated that the time frame for looking at the resident is a seven-day period, and due to the residents diagnosis of dementia she may have fluctuated and needed more assistance on those days, but she had not changed. Review of the May 2019 MDS 3.0 assessment and revealed the decline had begun there with no intervention. The surveyor questioned why restorative was not started when the resident began to decline, she stated they did not have restorative. Review of the activity of daily living (ADL) care plan revealed no documentation of the stated fluctuation of functional status. Interview on 10/0919 at 7:50 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #134, she stated the resident required full care with bathing, hygiene, dressing and grooming; however, if she was set-up she was able to feed herself.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #75) received nail care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #75) received nail care of five Residents (#16, #75, #99, #109, and #163) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 112. Findings included: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, vascular dementia without behavior disturbance, major depression, other specific joint derangements. Review of the annual comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident required extensive assistance of one staff for personal hygiene. On 10/06/19 at 11:20 A.M. observation of the resident revealed his left arm was contracted at the wrist and elbow. The resident had full use of the right hand. The right hand was noted to have long dirty finger nails. With the contractures of the left hand, the resident would not be able to clean or clip his nails. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #101 on 10/07/19 at 3:25 P.M. revealed the state tested nursing assistants (STNA's) and the nurses both do nail care, and activities does them at times. She stated it just depended on who had time. She stated she cuts Resident #75's nails personally once a month. After being informed his nails were long and dirty, she stated the STNA's were to clean them. Review of the progress notes for the last three months did not indicate the resident refused care. Review of the care plan dated 04/07/19 indicated the resident required assistance with bathing and grooming, and the nurse would assist. Review of the activity of daily living policy and procedure dated 03/2018 stated Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene.
CONCERN (D)

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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 was provided with glasses after a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 was provided with glasses after a vision exam indicated she required them. This effected one of one resident reviewed for vision. Findings included: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychosis, symbolic dysfunction, abnormality of gait, altered mental status, insomnia and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident's vision was adequate, and she had no corrective lens. Interview on 10/06/19 at 9:38 A.M. with the residents responsible party revealed the resident was admitted with glasses, but they have disappeared. She was unsure if the resident had been seen for vision consult. Review of the resident record revealed the resident was seen for a vision exam on 11/07/18 and had a prescription for glasses. Interview on 10/08/19 at 10:18 A.M. with the Unit Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #107, she stated she had never seen the resident with glasses. She stated she was not aware if the resident had glasses in her room. LPN #107 had been employed with the facility since 07/21/17 and had worked with the resident frequently. Interview on 10/08/19 at 11:04 A.M. with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #89, the surveyor asked if the resident received glasses as a result of her 11/07/18 eye appointment, and if she didn't, why not. He stated he would have to check his notes. He stated he had documentation that the resident had received new glasses in 10/2016. When surveyor asked where the glasses were, he indicated he would search the residents room. At 2:38 P.M., LSW #89 reported he could not find the glasses. The glasses that LSW #89 reported the resident had were from 10/2016 but not did not address the lack of glasses from the eye exam dated 11/07/18. Interview on 10/09/19 at 7:50 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #134, she indicated she had never seen the resident with glasses. STNA #134 had been employed with the facility since 06/06/19 and frequently worked with the resident. Observation and interview with Resident #48 on 10/09/19 at 9:40 A.M., the resident was in the activity room staring at the dry erase board that had the activity calendar on it, which was newspaper size print. The surveyor pointed to the word End and asked the resident if she knew what that word was. The resident lowered her face to approximately three inches from the board then looked at surveyor and giggled. The surveyor again asked the resident what the word was. The resident again lowered her face to the board to within three inches to see the word and again giggled then hugged the surveyor. The surveyor pointed to a group of three pumpkins on the bottom right of the calendar and asked the resident if she knew what they were. Again the resident lowered her face to within three inches of the calendar, then turned to look at the surveyor and smiled. The resident was not interviewable, however she consistently lowered her face towards the calendar to see the word and picture the surveyor was pointing to. The resident was observed without glasses on 10/06/19 at 2:02 P.M. ,10/07/19 at 10:35 A.M., 10/07/19 at 2:38 P.M., 10/08/19 at 10:18 A.M., 10/09/19 at 7:50 A.M. and 10/09/19 at 9:40 A.M.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #78's right hand splint was applied co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #78's right hand splint was applied correctly. This effected one of one resident reviewed for positioning. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, hypothyroidism, dysphagia, symbolic dysfunction and cerebral vascular accident. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and no splinting devices. Review of the physicians telephone orders dated 09/19/19 stated the resident was to wear bilateral resting hand splints at all times. Interview on 10/06/19 at 10:20 A.M. with the residents spouse revealed she thought the splints had been applied by the state tested nursing assistants (STNA's). The surveyor observed the resident was wearing bilateral hand splints, a left elbow pad and compression stockings. The right hand splint did not appear to be placed correctly due to the right hand fingers were curled under into his palm instead of stretched out over the the curve of the hand splint. Observation on 10/07/19 at 10:35 A.M., and 10/08/19 at 8:25 A.M. revealed the residents' right hand was curled under and not placed on the splint properly. Review of the Functional Maintenance Program in-service given by Occupational Therapy on 09/12/19 for the application of the residents splints indicated five staff were in-serviced. Interview on 10/08/19 at 8:28 A.M. with Therapy Staff #161 regarding the residents right hand splint, which is either not applied correctly or is ineffective. The splint was observed to be displaced to the point where the resident was able to ball his hand into a fist. She attempted to adjust the splint while it was on the resident, then had to remove it, stretch the residents fingers and hand then reapplied the splint. She continued to stretch the residents fingers, which insured the residents hand was open and his palm made contact with the splint and his fingers curled around the hump of the splint. She stated if the resident spasms or coughs, it could have caused the splint to dislodge. The surveyor asked Therapy Staff #161 how effective the splint was if it could be dislodge by coughing or spasms. She verified it was not effective and would have to be reassess by the therapy department. Interview on 10/08/19 at 9:01 A.M. with STNA #21, she stated they were in-serviced by the nurse on how to apply the splint, but it doesn't quite fit. She was afraid she would hurt the resident if she stretched out his fingers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and review of personnel files, the facility failed to ensure performance reviews were completed every 12 months and failed to ensure State Tested Nurse Aides (STNA) completed 12 hou...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of personnel files, the facility failed to ensure performance reviews were completed every 12 months and failed to ensure State Tested Nurse Aides (STNA) completed 12 hours of in-service education every twelve months. This affected two (STNA #131 and #166) of five STNA personnel files reviewed. Findings include: Review of five STNA personnel files revealed two STNA's #131 and #166 had been employed over a year. STNA #131 was hired on 01/09/00 and had no evidence of annual evaluations until this day, 10/09/19. STNA #166 was hired 01/09/13 and had no evidence of annual evaluations. Human Resource Director (HRD) #100 provided a performance evaluation indicating her date of hire was 06/06/19 and was not due for a three month evaluation until 09/02/19. Interview with HRD #100 verified annual evaluations were not completed on 10/09/19 at 4:30 P.M. Review of STNA #166's personnel file had no evidence she was provided 12 hours of in-service education annually. Interview with HRD #100 on 10/09/19 at 4:30 P.M. verified there was no documented evidence of STNA #166's in-service education.
CONCERN (D)

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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents was discharged with the correct medication. This...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents was discharged with the correct medication. This affected one resident (Resident #313) of three residents reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record of Resident #313 revealed an admission date of 06/17/19. Her admitting diagnoses included type II diabetes, pneumonia, heart failure, hypothyroidism and atrial fibrillation. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was alert and oriented. She required supervision of one staff for most activities of daily living, including personal hygiene and toileting. Review of the discharge medications revealed she was ordered the following medications: • Amlodipine (medication to treat high blood pressure and chest pain) 10 milligrams (mg) daily • Aspirin (blood thinner) 81 mg by mouth daily • Doxazosin (medication to treat urinary retention and high blood pressure) 2 mg take one tablet by mouth daily • Ferrous Sulfate (iron supplement) 325 mg one tablet by mouth daily • Fluticasone (corticosteriod) 50 micrograms (mcg) 0.05% instill 2 sprays in each nostril once a day at 8 A.M. 12 noon, and 9 P.M. • Hydrochlorothiazide (diuretic) 25 mg one tablet one tablet my mouth • Levothyroxine (hormone)150 mcg take one tablet my mouth daily • Lidocaine Patch (local anesthetic) 9 % apply one patch topically to back daily. On for 12 hours off for 12 hours • Linzess (medication to treat irritable bowel syndrome) 145 mcg one capsule daily by mouth • Losartan potassium (medication to treat high blood pressure) 50 mg Take one tablet my mouth daily • Pantoprazole (medication to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease) 40 mg take one tablet by mouth daily • Torrance Ophthalmic drops (lubricating eye drops) instill one drop in each eye once a day • Vitamin B12 (supplement) 1000 mcg give take one tablet by mouth daily • Vitamin D3 (supplement) 2000 units take two tablets by mouth daily • Carvedilol (medication to treat high blood pressure and heart failure) 6.25 mg take one tablet by mouth two times a day • Floraster (probiotic) 250 mg take one capsule by mouth twice a day • Topiramate (nerve pain medication and anticonvulsant) 100 mg take one tablet by mouth twice a day • Gabapentin (nerve pain medication and anticonvulsant) 300 mg take one capsule by mouth three times a day. • Acetaminophen (pain medication and fever reducer) 325 mg take two tablets by mouth every 6 hours. • Qvar inhaler (corticosteriod) 80 mcg inhale two puffs by mouth twice a day • Ofloxacin (antibiotic) 0.9% eye drops instill one drop in right eye four times a day • Prednisolone AC (steroid) 1% Instill one drop in right eye four times a day • Atorvastatin (medication to treat high cholesterol) 80 mg take one tablet by mouth at bedtime • Loratadine (antihistamine) 10 mg take one tablet by mouth at bedtime. • Novolog Flex pen for insulin coverage subcutaneous (sq) four times a day • Toujeo Solostar insulin 300 units inject 38 units sq once a day at bedtime • Trulicily (diabetic medication) 1.5 mg / 0.5 milliliter (ml) administer 1.5 ml sq once a week on Tuesday at 5 P.M. The resident not only received the above medications to take home but also received two additional medication cards, one card of Omeprazole (medication to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease) 20 mg belonging to Resident #83 and one card of Omeprazole 20 mg belonging to Resident #26. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/06/19 at 1:30 P.M. verified the sister of Resident #313 did return the two other resident's medication cards that Resident #313 was given to take home.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review monthly pharmacy recommendations and interview, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose redu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review monthly pharmacy recommendations and interview, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction was attempted for Resident #108. This affected one resident (Resident #108) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #108 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included urinary tract infections, sickle cell trait, gout, vascular dementia, type II diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #108's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. She required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #108 was totally dependent on staff for transfers and locomotion on and off the unit. Review of the medication assessment from the MDS revealed the resident received seven injections of insulin, received an antidepressant seven of seven days, an antipsychotic seven of seven days and an anticoagulant seven of seven days. Review of the Pharmacy Physician Recommendation Form dated 02/20/19 revealed a recommendation from the pharmacist requesting the physician consider reducing Resident #108's Quetiapine (antipsychotic) to 25 milligrams one time a day. The physician agreed to attempt a dose reduction on 02/26/19. Review of physician orders from February 2019 to present revealed no order for an attempted gradual dose reduction of Quetiapine. Review of the resident's medication administration record (MAR) revealed the resident continued to receive Quetiapine 25 mg two times a day from February 2019 to present.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Al...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, Alper's disease (a progressive neurological disorder), paranoid schizophrenia and psychosis. Review of the significant change MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #12 dated 07/02/19 revealed Resident #12 had not rejected care during the assessment reference period. Review of the care plan for Resident #12 revealed she was noncompliant with care and would refuse care and medications. Review of the Medication Administration Record for June 2019 revealed Resident #12 had refused medications on 06/26/19, 06/27/19, 06/28/19, 06/29/19 and 06/30/19. LSW #89 was interviewed on 10/09/19 at 11:02 A.M. and verified the MDS assessment was coded inaccurately. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, glaucoma and amputation of the left lower leg. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #34 dated 07/05/19 revealed he had been coded as receiving antipsychotic medications seven days, anticoagulants (blood thinners) seven days, and diuretics (water pills) seven days during the assessment reference period. Review of Resident #34's physician's orders for June 2019 and July 2019 revealed no orders for antipsychotics, diuretics, or anticoagulants. Review of Resident #34's MARs for June 2019 and July 2019 revealed no antipsychotics, diuretics, or anticoagulants were administered to Resident #34. Registered Nurse (RN) #18 was interviewed on 10/09/19 at 11:03 A.M. and verified the MDS assessment was coded inaccurately. 4. Review of the closed medical record for Resident #115 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 07/15/19. Review of the discharge MDS 3.0 assessment for Resident #115 dated 07/15/19 revealed Resident #115 had been discharged to the hospital. Review of the medical record for Resident #115 revealed a physician order dated 07/12/19 stating Resident #115 was to be discharged home. Further review of the medical record for Resident #115 revealed home discharge instruction, dated 07/15/19. RN #18 was interviewed on 10/08/19 at 10:00 A.M. and verified Resident #115 was discharged home, and the MDS assessment was coded inaccurately. 5. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of the prostate, hypertension, Alzheimer's disease and chronic kidney disease. Resident #5's MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. She required extensive assistance for all activities of daily living including eating, personal hygiene and toilet use. The resident had been on hospice since April, 2019. Further review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed under section J1400, which asks if this resident has a condition or chronic disease that may result in a life expectancy of less than 6 month, the facility answered no. Interview with MDS Nurse, LPN #15, on 10/07/19 at 11:50 A.M. revealed this section was coded incorrectly, and the question should have been answered with a yes since the resident was a hospice resident. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessment was coded correctly for Resident #48 for vision, Resident #34 for medications, Resident #115 for discharge location, Resident #12 for refusal of care and Resident #5 for life expectancy. This effected five of 35 Residents (#5, #8, #12, #14, #16, #23, #26, #27, #34, #37, #43, #48, #51, #57, #58, #61, #64, #66, #75, #78, #79, #82, #92, #97, #99, #103, #104, #107, #108, #109, #111, #113, #115, #163 and #313) reviewed for assessment accuracy. The facility census was 112. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychosis, symbolic dysfunction, abnormality of gait, altered mental status, insomnia and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented the residents vision was adequate, and she had no corrective lens. Interview on 10/06/19 at 9:38 A.M. with the residents responsible party revealed the resident was admitted with glasses, but they have disappeared and she was unsure if the resident had been seen for vision consult. Review of the resident record revealed the resident was seen for a vision exam on 11/07/18 and had a prescription for glasses. Interview on 10/08/19 at 10:18 A.M with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #107, she stated she had never seen the resident wear glasses. She stated she was not aware if the resident had glasses in her room. LPN #107 had been employed with the facility since 07/21/17 and had worked with the resident frequently. Interview on 10/08/19 at 11:04 A.M. with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #89, the surveyor asked if the resident received glasses as a result of her 11/07/18 eye appointment, and if she didn't, why not. He stated he would have to check his notes. He stated he had documentation that the resident had received new glasses in 10/2016. When surveyor asked where the glasses were, he indicated he would search the residents room. On 10/08/19 at 2:38 P.M. LSW #89 reported he could not find the glasses. Interview on 10/08/19 at 2:38 P.M. with LPN#16 revealed the resident was capable of seeing fine and wandered around the facility without incident. She indicated the coding for vision was correct. Interview on 10/09/19 at 7:50 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #134 indicated she had never seen the resident with glasses. STNA #134 had been employed with the facility since 06/06/19 and frequently worked with the resident. Observation and interview with Resident #48 on 10/09/19 at 9:40 A.M., the resident was in the activity room staring at the dry erase board that had the activity calendar on it, which was newspaper size print. The surveyor pointed to the word End and asked the resident if she knew what that word was. The resident lowered her face to approximately three inches from the board then looked at surveyor and giggled. The surveyor again asked the resident what the word was. The resident again lowered her face to the board to within three inches to see the word and again giggled then hugged the surveyor. The surveyor pointed to a group of three pumpkins on the bottom right of the calendar and asked the resident if she knew what they were. Again the resident lowered her face to within three inches of the calendar, then turned to look at the surveyor and smiled. The resident was not interviewable, however she consistently lowered her face towards the calendar to see the word and picture the surveyor was pointing to. The coding of Adequate was incorrect.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the envionment was manintained in a clean manner and in good repair for all residents. This affected 27 (Residents #9, #10, #11, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the envionment was manintained in a clean manner and in good repair for all residents. This affected 27 (Residents #9, #10, #11, #12, #22, #34, #35, #55, #56, #57, #58, #61, #62, #65, #68, #69, #80, #86, #87, #93, #96, #97, #98, #99, #112, #163 and #365) of 112 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: An environmental tour was conducted on 10/09/19 between 9:45 A.M. and 10:33 A.M. with Housekeeping Supervisor (HSK) #6 and Maintenance Director (MD) #15. The following concerns were observed and verified during the tour by HSK #6 and MD #15; • The room belonging to Residents #10 and #93 contained a stained privacy curtain. • The room belonging to Residents #56 and #62 contained multiple holes in the walls. • The rooms belonging to Residents #69 and #97 contained tube feeding poles with a significant amount of dried and caked on tube feeding liquid. • The room belonging to Resident #99 contained bed sheets with large stains of unknown substances. • The rooms belonging to Residents #9, #65, #68 and #96 contained splotches on the ceiling of an unknown brown substance. • The room belonging to Resident #163 contained residue on the floor coming from a portion of the ceiling that was crumbling. • The rooms belonging to Residents #61 and #112 contained wall paper peeling off multiple areas of the walls. • The room belonging to Residents #12, #22 and #57 contained a cracked bathroom floor. • The room belonging to Resident #34 contained a broken cover to the phone cord with exposed wires. • The rooms belonging to Residents #34 and #55 contained caulking around the bathroom sink that was brown in color and peeling. • The room belonging to Resident #365 contained a overpowering odor of an unknown source. • The rooms belonging to Residents #80, #86, #87 and #98 contained air conditioning units that were dirty and had multiple broken levers and vents. • The room belonging to Resident #35 contained an air vent located above the bed that was brown in color. • The room belonging to Residents #86 and #98 contained a heater cover that was dislodged and on the floor. • The room belonging to Residents #11 and #58 contained a bathroom baseboard that was coming off the wall.
CONCERN (F)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview, review of personnel files and the abuse policy and procedure, the facility failed to develop and implement policies and procedures to include screening of all employees again...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, review of personnel files and the abuse policy and procedure, the facility failed to develop and implement policies and procedures to include screening of all employees against the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry to identify if an employee had a finding concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of resident property and failed to obtain reference checks. This affected six employee files (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #103, LPN #301, Director of Admissions #54, Housekeeping Assistant #82, Human Resource Director (HRD) #100 and the Administrator) of eleven personnel files reviewed for screening against the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry and four employee files (LPN #301, State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #35, STNA #151 and Floor Technician #83) of eleven personnel files reviewed for reference checks. This had the potential to affect all 112 residents residing in the facility resulting in substandard quality care. Findings include: Review of eleven personnel files revealed six staff were not checked against the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry. LPN #103, LPN #301, Director of Admissions #54 and Housekeeping Assistant #82 had no evidence they were screened using the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry. HRD #100 and the Administrator were not checked against the Nurse Aide Registry until 10/09/19. STNA #36, #83, #131, #151 and #166 had evidence they were screened on the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry and were in good standing. The identification of findings would be necessary to determine if any employee had actions identified that would validate allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents, or misappropriation of their property. Interview with HRD #100 on 10/09/19 at 5:20 P.M. stated she was not aware employees other than STNA's had to be checked against the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry for negative findings. She verified she had not being checking all new hires. HRD #100 provided a list indicating there were 179 staff hired since the last annual survey of 10/11/18. There were 91 staff identified as STNA's, and the remaining 88 staff should have been checked against the State of Ohio Nurse Aide Registry. Review of LPN #301, STNA's #35 and #151 and Floor Technician #83's personnel files lacked evidence their references had been checked prior to employment. Interview with HRD #100 on 10/09/19 at 4:30 P.M. verified references were not obtained on the four staff listed above. HRD #100 provided dates of service on a reference check form for two staff she had them fill out themselves. Review of the abuse prevention policy and procedure, revised November 2017, lacked indication that checking all staff against the State Nurse Aide Registry was part of screening. Review of the abuse policy and procedure, revised December 2016, indicated as part of the resident abuse prevention, the administrator will conduct employee background checks and will not knowingly employ or otherwise engage any individual who have had a finding entered into the State Nurse Aide Registry concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property.
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 interview, the facility failed to ensure staff washed their hands between handling soiled floor mats and clean steam table pans. This had the potential to affect 105 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff washed their hands between handling soiled floor mats and clean steam table pans. This had the potential to affect 105 residents out of a census of 112. Residents #27, #47, #61, #65, #69, #86 and #106 did not receive receive meals from the kitchen. Findings included: During the dinner tray line observation on 10/05/19 at 5:25 P.M. Staff #66 was noted to pick-up two debris laden rubber floor mats off of the floor and take them to the back of the kitchen near the dirty dish area. He then sprayed the mats down and put them back near the tray line. The mats still contained debris. He then placed three clean steam table pans beneath the steam table onto a stack of other clean pans without first washing his hands. This observation was verified with the Dietary Manager (DM) at the time of the observation. The DM removed the pans and placed them in the dirty dish area.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the medical director was an active participant of the Quality Assurance (QA) Committee. This had the potential to affect all r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the medical director was an active participant of the Quality Assurance (QA) Committee. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Review of the facilities sign-in sheet for the QA meeting minutes for the meetings held in June 2019, July 2019, August 2019 and September 2019 revealed no evidence the medical director attended the meetings. Interview with the Administrator on 10/09/19 at 3:25 P.M. verified the medical director did not attend the QA meetings as required.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand washing was performed during ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand washing was performed during care of a resident on isolation precautions, personal protective equipment was properly disposed of, proper signage was posted regarding the need for isolation precautions, and biohazardous waste was properly disposed of. This affected one (Resident #43) of one resident reviewed for isolation precautions and had the potential to affect all 112 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia and a Clostridium Difficile (a highly contagious bacteria) infection of the stool. A Minimum Data Set Assessment 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she had severe cognitive impairment, and needed extensive assistance for most activities of daily living including toileting. She was totally dependent on staff for transfers and eating. Review of physician orders dated 09/24/19 revealed Resident #43 was ordered to be placed on contact isolation precautions regarding a diagnosis of Clostridium Difficile infection of the stool. 1. Observation on 10/06/19 at 4:30 P.M. revealed two State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) #143 and #20 coming out of Resident #43's room. Both STNAs removed their personal protective equipment (disposable gloves and gowns) placed them in the trash, and exited the room without washing their hands. STNA #143 and STNA #20 then proceeded to use the hand sanitizer dispenser mounted on the wall. On 10/06/19 at 4:40 P.M. STNA #20 and STNA #143 verified they should have washed their hands before leaving Resident #43's room. 2. On 10/07/19 at 7:30 A.M. observation of Resident #43's room revealed there was no sign posted on the door to alert visitors and staff of the need for isolation precautions and used personal protective equipment was laying on the floor next to an overflowing trash can. On 10/07/19 at 7:50 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #301 verified the lack of a sign on the door indicating isolation precautions were necessary before entering and the trash can was overflowing. 3. Observation of Resident #43's room on 10/07/19 at 9:00 A.M. revealed a clear plastic bag in the corner of the room that contained contaminated personal protective equipment such as used gloves. Interview with Housekeeping Assistant (HA) #3 on 10/07/19 at 9:40 A.M. revealed the clear plastic bag with used gloves and other miscellaneous items was trash that she'd double bagged for disposal. When asked where the trash from the isolation room was disposed of, HA #3 said she took it to the dumpster. When asked what the facility policy was for disposal of biohazardous waste, she stated she was to put it in the dumpster. Interview with HA #82 on 10/07/19 at 10:50 A.M. regarding proper disposal of biohazardous waste revealed she placed trash from isolation rooms in a clear trash bag and took the bag to the dumpster. When asked if that was the facility policy on disposing of contaminated waste, she stated that it was. Interview with Housekeeping Manager (HM) #6 on 10/07/19 at 12:50 P.M. revealed she had just inserviced staff on infection control. HM #6 stated staff were educated that biohazardous waste, such as bags of trash from Resident #43's room, was to be placed in a red biohazard bag and should not be disposed of in the dumpster, but in a special container located in the basement.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0711 (Tag F0711)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure monthly physician's orders were signed and dated as required. This affected three (Residents #14, #111 and #114) of twenty eig...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure monthly physician's orders were signed and dated as required. This affected three (Residents #14, #111 and #114) of twenty eight residents reviewed. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Review of the medical records for Resident's #14, #111 and #114 on 10/07/19 between 1:00 P.M. and 2:00 P.M. revealed the monthly physician's orders were not signed for April 2019, May 2019, June 2019, July 2019, August 2019 and September 2019. Corporate Nurse #400 verified the lack of signatures in an interview on 10/07/19 at 2:05 P.M.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to have three years of state survey results, including complaint investigations, readily accessible to residents and the general public....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to have three years of state survey results, including complaint investigations, readily accessible to residents and the general public. This had the potential to affect all 112 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's public survey results book on 10/06/19 at 1:20 P.M. revealed a complaint survey dated 02/15/18 was the last survey included in the book. The Ohio Department of Health conducted surveys at the facility on 04/24/18, 07/12/18, 08/07/18 (violations issued), 10/04/18 (violations issued), 11/20/18, 12/03/18 (violations issued), 01/09/19, 03/25/19, 05/14/19 (violations issued), 06/11/19, 07/15/18, 08/05/19 and 09/05/19. The results of these surveys were not included in the survey book at the time of observation. On 10/06/19 at 3:05 P.M., the Administrator verified the survey results for the surveys listed above were not present in the book and readily available for review.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure posted nursing staff information was updated in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility ce...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure posted nursing staff information was updated in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 112. Findings include: Observation of the posted nursing staff information on 10/06/19 at 8:00 A.M. revealed the posted nursing staff information was from 10/04/19. Registered Nurse (RN) #128 verified the posted nursing staff information was not up to date in an interview on 10/06/19 at 8:15 A.M.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment contained all required information. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility censu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment contained all required information. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 112. Findings Include: Review of the facility assessment revealed the following: • All of the documentation in the assessment was on the previous owners letter head. • The census information contained in the assessment was out of date (from October 2018). • Contracts, memorandums of understanding, or other agreements with third parties to provide services or equipment to the facility during both normal operations and emergencies were noted to be for the previous owners of the facility, and no updated contracts were noted. Interview with the Administrator on 10/6/19 at 10:45 A.M. verified the above findings.
Oct 2018 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely disbursement of resident funds upon discharge from the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure timely disbursement of resident funds upon discharge from the facility. This affected one (Resident #332) of five residents reviewed for personal funds. The facility census was 133. Findings include: Review of Resident #332's closed medical record revealed an admission date of 03/01/16 and diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), pneumonia and multiple sclerosis. Review of nursing notes revealed Resident #332 discharged to another facility on 12/22/17. Review of Resident #332's resident account statement for the dates 09/30/17 through 12/29/17 revealed an ending balance of $28.35. Review of 2018 financial account information indicated Resident #332's funds were not dispersed and the resident's account was not closed until 09/13/18. On 10/04/18 at 11:14 A.M. Business Office Manager (BOM) #105 verified Resident #332's funds had not been dispersed until 09/13/18 and confirmed the resident had left the faciity on [DATE].
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments were accurately coded ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments were accurately coded for Resident #96 regarding falls, and Residents #62 and #128 regarding medications. This affected three residents (Residents # 62, #96 and #128) of 28 reviewed for assessments. Finding include: 1. Resident #96 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis) contractures of the knee and ankle and seizures. Review of nurses' notes dated 04/25/18 revealed Resident #96 had a fall that resulted in pain to the right thigh and right rib cage and was sent to the Emergency Room. Review of section of J of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed, Number of falls since prior assessment with injury that exclude major injury was coded to indicate zero falls. On 10/04/18 at 2:45 P.M. during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) #201 verified Resident #96's assessment was not accurately coded to reflect the fall on 04/25/18. 3. Review of the closed record for Resident #128 indicated an original admission date of 04/25/18, and a discharge date of 07/28/18. Diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances and pneumonia. Review of the 07/07/18 physician order indicated Resident #128 was ordered Levaquin (an antibiotic) 500 milligrams (mg) to be given once daily for seven days for pneumonia. Review of the July 2018 MAR indicated Resident #128 received Levaquin on 07/07/18, 07/08/18, 07/09/18, 07/10/18, 07/11/18, 07/12/18 and 07/13/18. Review of the 07/16/18 MDS 3.0 assessment indicated Resident #128 was not administered antibiotics during the assessment period. On 10/04/18 at 11:47 A.M. RN #201 confirmed Resident #128 had received an antibiotic on four days during the assessment period. RN #201 verified the MDS assessment dated [DATE] was inaccurately coded. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #62 revealed an admission date of 07/16/15. Diagnoses included hypertension, peptic ulcer, advanced dementia and psychosis. Review of the physician orders for July and August 2018 revealed the resident had orders for an antipsychotic medication and a diuretic. There was no order for an anticoagulant (blood thinner). Review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR) for July and August 2018 revealed Resident #62 had received an antipsychotic medication and a diuretic on seven days during the assessment period. Review of the MDS 3.0 dated 08/02/18 revealed the assessment had been coded to reflect the resident received an antipsychotic and an anticoagulant on seven days and no diuretic during the assessment period. An interview on 10/03/18 at 12:26 A.M. with RN #202 confirmed Resident #62 had not received an anticoagulant but did receive a diuretic during the assessment period. RN #202 verified the MDS dated [DATE] was inaccurately coded.
CONCERN (D)

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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure adequate assistance was provided during care for Resident #96 to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based record review and interview the facility failed to ensure adequate assistance was provided during care for Resident #96 to prevent a fall. This affected one resident (Resident #96) of two reviewed for falls. Finding Include: Resident #96 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of paraplegia (partial paralysis) contractures of the knee and ankle and seizures. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set MDS 3.0 dated 03/01/18 revealed Resident #96 was totally dependent on the assistance of two staff for bed mobility. Review of a Care Plan dated 03/27/18 revealed Resident #96 required extensive assistance of two staff for daily hygiene, grooming, dressing, bed mobility, toileting, and dressing. Review of nurses' notes dated 04/25/18 at 9:14 A.M. revealed Resident #96 had a fall at 12:50 A.M. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #300 was providing care to Resident #96 when he rolled off the bed onto the floor. Resident #96 was assessed and complained of right thigh pain. At 4:30 A.M. Resident #96 requested to go to the hospital due to shortness of breath and pain. At 5:40 A.M. 911 was called and the resident was sent to the local emergency room. The resident returned to the facility the same day. Review of a Hospital Summary dated 04/25/18 revealed Resident #96 was evaluated for complaint of pain following a fall with no evident injury. Review of a facility incident report dated 04/25/18 revealed STNA #300 was bathing Resident #96. STNA #300 rolled Resident #96 onto his side and he rolled off the bed onto the floor. Review of the Employee Warning Notice dated 4/27/18 revealed STNA #300 was counseled for not following Resident's #96 plan of care and failure to comply with safety standards. Interview on 10/03/18 at 10:19 A.M. with STNA #300 revealed she was unable to get assistance from the other STNAs on duty and provided care to Resident #96 by herself. On 10/03/18 at 3:40 P.M. the Director of Nursing verified Resident #96 suffered a fall on 04/25/18 when STNA #300 failed to ensure two staff were present during care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation of medication pass, record review and review of the facility schedule for meal times and Medication Administration policy the facility failed to ensure a medication administration...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation of medication pass, record review and review of the facility schedule for meal times and Medication Administration policy the facility failed to ensure a medication administration error rate of less than five percent. There were two errors out of 26 opportunities, resulting in a medication administration error rate of 7.69 %. This affected two residents (Residents #40 and #106) of seven residents observed for medication pass. The facility census was 133. Findings include : 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #106, who resided on the Sycamore unit, revealed an admission date of 06/07/18 and diagnoses including depression, diabetes, hypertension and arthritis. Observation of medication pass on 10/04/18 for Resident #106 revealed LPN #200 began preparing the medications at 9:19 A.M. LPN #200 retrieved the medications from the cart and placed Amlodipine, Hydrochlorothiazide and Lisinopril (all three for hypertension) aspirin, a multivitamin, Escitalopram (for depression) and Metformin (for diabetes) in a clear plastic medicine cup. At 9:35 A. M. LPN #200 took the medications to Resident #106 who was in her room. There was no breakfast tray in the resident's room. LPN #200 checked the resident's blood pressure, asked about pain but did not ask if the resident had eaten breakfast. Review of the October 2018 physician's orders revealed Resident #106 had orders for Amlodipine, aspirin, a multivitamin, Hydrochlorothiazide, Lisinopril, Escitalopram to be administered daily. Metformin extended release (ER) 500 milligrams (mg) was specifically ordered to be administered with meals at 8:00 A.M. On 10/04/18 at 9:42 A.M. LPN #200 confirmed Resident #106's order for Metformin ER 500 mg indicated it was specifically ordered to be given daily with breakfast, and was scheduled for administration at 8:00 A.M. LPN #200 confirmed there was no breakfast tray in Resident #106's room when she gave the resident the Metformin, and she did not know what time breakfast was served. LPN #200 verified she had not given Resident #106's Metformin with breakfast as ordered. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #40, who resided on the Carousel unit, revealed an admission date of 12/10/07 and diagnoses of diabetes, hypertension, anemia, heart disease, and vascular disease. Observation on 10/01/18 at 10:00 A.M. of the morning medication pass revealed LPN #200 placed Carvedilol (for heart failure) Docusate sodium (a laxative) ferrous sulfate (for anemia) Tamsulosin (for urinary retention) and a multivitamin in a clear plastic medication cup and gave the medications to Resident #40. Review of the October 2018 physicians orders revealed Resident #40 had orders for aspirin, Carvedilol, Docusate sodium, Tamsulosin, ferrous sulfate, and a multivitamin which were scheduled for 9:00 A.M. Glimepiride four mg (for diabetes) was specifically ordered to be given with daily with breakfast. On 10/01/18 at 10:25 A.M. LPN #200 confirmed Resident #40 was ordered to receive Glimepiride four mg daily with breakfast. LPN #200 verified she had not administered Glimepiride to Resident #40 with her breakfast as ordered. Review of the scheduled meal times provided by the facility revealed breakfast was served at 7:50 A.M. on the Sycamore unit and at 8:30 A.M. on the Carrousel unit. Review of the facility's Medication Administration policy dated 03/2010 revealed the policy stated a medication was to be given within 60 minutes of the ordered time and with food or liquid as applicable.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, menu review and interview, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff followed the menu spreadsheet when serving meals for all residents. This affected all 36 residents (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, menu review and interview, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff followed the menu spreadsheet when serving meals for all residents. This affected all 36 residents (Resident #21, #11, #329, #65, #31, #126, #7, #51, #30, #73, #3, #56, #53, #111, #91, #49, #66, #227, #32, #60, #127, #5, #74, #69, #40, #15, #39, #70, #125, #117, #79, #64, #119, #83, #33 and #67) residents who were ordered a mechanical soft diet or pureed diet. The facility census was 133. Findings include: Review of the 10/02/18 dinner menu spreadsheet indicated two, #16 scoops of pureed wheat bread and ½ cup of vegetable juice were to be served to residents ordered a pureed diet. A serving of ½ cup of shredded lettuce was to be served to residents ordered a mechanical-soft diet. Observation on 10/02/18 at 5:24 P.M. revealed [NAME] #113 served one, #16 scoop of pureed wheat bread to residents ordered a pureed diet. There was no vegetable juice on the meal trays for residents ordered a pureed-diet and there was no shredded lettuce on the meal trays for residents ordered a mechanical-soft diet. On 10/02/18 at 5:44 P.M. Certified Dietary Manager #107 verified [NAME] #113 did not follow the menu spreadsheet to ensure appropriate serving sizes and designated foods were served to provide adequate nutrition. [NAME] #113 should have served two, #16 scoops of pureed wheat bread and ½ cup of vegetable juice to the residents ordered a pureed diet and ½ cup of shredded lettuce to the residents ordered a mechanical soft diet.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 57 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: This facility is on CMS's Special Focus list for poor performance. Consider alternatives strongly.

About This Facility

What is Gardens Of Euclid Beach's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Ohio, 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 Gardens Of Euclid Beach Staffed?

CMS rates GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Gardens Of Euclid Beach?

State health inspectors documented 57 deficiencies at GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH during 2018 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 48 with potential for harm, and 7 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Gardens Of Euclid Beach?

GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH 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 EPHRAM LAHASKY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 56% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CLEVELAND, Ohio.

How Does Gardens Of Euclid Beach Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Gardens Of Euclid Beach?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Gardens Of Euclid Beach Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Gardens Of Euclid Beach Stick Around?

Staff turnover at GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Gardens Of Euclid Beach Ever Fined?

GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Gardens Of Euclid Beach on Any Federal Watch List?

GARDENS OF EUCLID BEACH is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.