HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON

1050 CLINTON STREET, IRONTON, OH 45638 (740) 532-6096
For profit - Corporation 125 Beds ECC TRUST Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#476 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Harbor Healthcare of Ironton has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Their state rank is #476 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing them in the bottom half, and they are ranked #4 out of 4 in Lawrence County, meaning there are no better local options. Although the facility is improving, having reduced issues from 23 in 2023 to only 2 in 2025, they still face serious staffing challenges, with a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 and a high turnover rate. Additionally, they have concerning fines totaling $75,265, which are higher than 84% of Ohio facilities, and less RN coverage than 96% of state facilities, potentially impacting the quality of care. Specific incidents of concern include a critical failure to ensure a safe discharge for a resident with multiple serious health conditions, and a serious incident where a resident fell and sustained severe injuries due to inadequate assistance during ambulation, highlighting both weaknesses in care procedures and the need for improvement.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In Ohio
#476/913
Bottom 48%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
23 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$75,265 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 23 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-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

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Ohio average (3.2)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $75,265

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: ECC TRUST

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident#25 revealed an admission date of 07/21/22 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident#25 revealed an admission date of 07/21/22 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus type two, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and liver disease. Review of the nursing progress notes and resident census revealed Resident # 25 was transferred to the local hospital on [DATE]. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence the state Ombudsman was notified of Resident #25's transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. Interview on 01/28/25 at 1:23 P.M. with the Administrator revealed the Ombudsman was not notified in writing of the transfer to the hospital on [DATE] for Resident #25. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #76 revealed an admission date of 02/03/23 with diagnoses including basal cell carcinoma, peripheral vascular disease, respiratory failure with hypoxia, hepatitis A, kidney failure, and neoplasm of bladder and kidney. Review of the nursing progress notes and resident census revealed Resident #76 was transferred to the local hospital on [DATE], 07/22/24 and 07/28/24. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence the state Ombudsman was notified of Resident #76's transfers to the hospital on [DATE], 07/22/24 and 07/28/24. Interview on 01/28/25 at 1:23 P.M. with the Administrator revealed the Ombudsman was not notified in writing of the transfers to the hospital on [DATE], 07/22/24 and 07/28/24 for Resident #76. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the state Ombudsman's office was notified of resident discharge or transfer from the facility as required. This affected three (Resident #25, #76 and #99 ) of four residents reviewed. The facility census was 102. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #99, revealed an admission date of 09/12/24 and readmission date of 10/17/24. Diagnoses included but were not limited to infectious gastroenteritis and colitis, difficulty walking, abnormal posture, cerebral infarction and fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur. Review of the nursing progress notes and resident census record revealed Resident #99 was transferred to the local hospital on [DATE] and 11/28/24. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence the state Ombudsman was notified of Resident #99's transfers to the hospital. Interview on 01/28/25 at 1:23 P.M. with the Administrator revealed the Ombudsman was not notified in writing of the transfers to the hospital for the dates of 10/05/24 and 11/28/24 for Resident #99.
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan that addressed dementia care and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan that addressed dementia care and specific symptoms for depression care. This affected two (Resident #4 and #47) of five reviewed for dementia and depression. Facility census was 102. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #4, revealed an admission date of 10/22/21. Diagnoses included but were not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, dementia, and unspecified dementia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15. The resident was assessed to require substantial/maximal assistance with toilet hygiene, shower/bathe self, bed mobility, and transfers. This resident was also assessed to have non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression and bipolar disorder. Review of medical record revealed no plan of care for dementia care for Resident #4. Interview on 01/28/25 at 1:52 PM with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #30 verified Resident #4 does not have a plan of care for dementia and the resident does have the diagnosis with moments of forgetfulness. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #47, revealed an admission date of 07/23/20. Diagnoses included but were not limited to vascular dementia, adult failure to thrive, major depressive disorder, and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 out of 15. The resident was assessed to require total dependence on toilet hygiene, shower/bathe self, bed mobility and transfers. This resident was also assessed to have depression. Review of the plan of care revised on 02/28/23 revealed Resident #47 has an alteration in mood related to diagnosis of depression with no specific symptoms or behaviors noted. Review of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ 9) dated 12/04/24, that is used to indicate a resident's severity of depression, revealed for Resident #47 to have answered yes to feeling tired or having little energy for a symptom presence. Interview on 01/28/25 at 2:46 P.M. with LSW #30 verified Resident #47 had indicated a symptom of depression of feeling tired or having little energy and it was not indicated on his care plan.
Apr 2023 21 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0624 (Tag F0624)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, review of an Against Medical Advice (AMA) form, hospital record review, review of the pol...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, review of an Against Medical Advice (AMA) form, hospital record review, review of the policy and procedure titled Discharging a Resident without a Physician's Approval policy and interviews with facility staff, Physician #399, a Patriot Emergency Medical Service representative, and an Amedysis Home Health representative, the facility failed to ensure a safe and orderly discharge for Resident #94, who had diagnoses including respiratory failure, protein-calorie malnutrition, osteomyelitis, cerebral infarction, sepsis, COVID-19 and dementia when the resident was discharged to an unsafe home environment on [DATE]. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy on [DATE] at approximately 1:32 P.M., after the facility originally initiated and then allowed Resident #94 to discharge to a documented unsafe environment indicating the discharge was Against Medical Advice (AMA). Resident #94 had multiple medical conditions that required continual care including multiple skin tears, a Stage IV (full thickness skin loss extending through the fascia) pressure area to her coccyx, a Stage II (partial thickness skin loss) pressure area to her right heel, and antibiotic therapy for treatment of diagnosed cellulitis to her right upper extremity. In addition, Resident #94 was dependent on staff with a two-person, physical assist for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene and was dependent on staff with a one-person physical assist for eating and locomotion. The risk for actual harm, injury or death occurred on [DATE] as the facility lacked evidence to support a comprehensive and individualized discharge plan to meet the resident's total nursing and medical needs (i.e. antibiotic therapy, insulin therapy, wound care) at home or evidence the resident was requesting an AMA discharge. Resident #94 had no guardian or power of attorney (POA). The physician was unaware of the discharge at the time it occurred. The facility provided no discharge teaching or preparation for the discharge to the resident or family prior to the resident leaving. Resident #94 expired on [DATE] according to her obituary (published [DATE]). This affected one resident (#94) of three residents reviewed for transfer/discharge. The facility census was 92. On [DATE] at 4:50 P.M. the Administrator, the Director of Nursing (DON), Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999, and [NAME] President of Clinical Services #998 were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on [DATE] when the facility failed to provide a safe and orderly discharge to home for Resident #94, who was picked up from the facility by medical transport arranged by family members. There was no evidence to support the resident's medical conditions, treatments, or upcoming appointments including any necessary provisions of care were coordinated to ensure the resident's total care needs were met after discharge. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: • An AD-Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was conducted on [DATE]. Members at the meeting included the Administrator (CEO), Director of Nursing (DON), Regional Nurse Consultant, Assistant Director of Nursing, Medical Director via phone, Dietary Manager, Social Service Assistant, Medical Records, MDS Coordinator, Human Resources, Business Office Manager, Assistant Business Office Manager, Admissions Coordinator, Social Services Assistant, Staffing Coordinator, Assistant Dietary Director, Therapy Program Manager, and House Keeping Supervisor. The meeting was held to discuss and review abatement actions regarding the identified concern. • On [DATE] the medical records of residents who discharged in the past year were reviewed to identify other residents who had been discharged against medical advice. This audit was completed by the Regional Nurse Consultant with no concerns identified. • On [DATE] a new process, Discharge Against Medical Advice was developed and implemented through collaboration between the Administrator, DON, and Clinical Nurse Consultant to guide staff through a discharge Against Medical Advice. • On [DATE] a new policy was implemented for Discharges Against Medical Advice. The policy includes: o Requirement to notify attending physician of a request by a resident or his/her representative, for discharge. o If the physician determines that the discharge is medically contraindicated, their determination will be discussed with the resident and/or representative. o If discharge is still desired after discussion, reasons for request, risks of leaving and possible alternatives will be discussed. o If discharge is still chosen, then a Release from Responsibility for Discharge Against Medical Advice form will be completed. o Document circumstances and actions taken in the clinical record. • On [DATE] education regarding this policy and use of the accompanying form was initiated on with Licensed Nurses and provided by the Regional Nurse Consultant. Training is being continued with each oncoming shift prior to duty and provided by the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Staff Development Coordinator or a Clinical Nurse Consultant. No licensed nurse will be permitted to work without training after [DATE]. On [DATE] there were 6 licensed nurses educated with completion of post-test, including 3 agency nurses. On [DATE], all remaining nurses, 14 facility nurses and 3 agency nurses, were educated with post testing completed with the exception of 2 licensed nurses that are currently on medical leave. They will be provided education prior to returning to active duty. All education on [DATE] was provided prior to the start of the nurse's shift. Education material will be added to the orientation process for licensed nurses. • A new Discharge Checklist related to Safe Discharge was developed and implemented [DATE] through collaboration between the Administrator, DON, and CNC to guide nurses in completing all tasks associated with a safe discharge. The checklist includes: o Pre-Discharge tasks including o Obtain MD order for discharge. o Inform resident and representative of discharge. o Notify Social Service Director and Dietary Manager of order for discharge. o Obtain orders for home care. o Arrange for home care as ordered. o Schedule follow-up appointments o Notify pharmacy of upcoming discharge o Complete discharge instruction form o Initiate Discharge Summary form. o At Discharge tasks include: o Orders called in or written prescriptions / med list provided (if medications sent home) o Review Discharge instructions with Resident / Resident Representative o Complete Skin assessment and record findings o Obtain Vital Signs and record. o Discontinue IV's if indicated. o Remove wanderguards, Alarms or Safety equipment not accompanying resident at discharge. o Complete Personal Belongings Inventory and obtain signature. o Remove name band if used. o Assist resident to vehicle, if not transported via ambulance o Document in progress note condition at discharge, time left, how transported, who accompanied, instructions provided and any other pertinent discharge information. o Post Discharge Tasks: o Secure any non-electronic resident records, if any, for Medical Records to collect o Place any medications not sent with resident in designated location for return. o Narcotics to be removed from cart by designated individuals to be secured and destroyed in accordance with state guidance. o Pharmacy, Dietary, housekeeping to be notified of discharge o Equipment removed from room. o Name removed from door. o Discharge (D/C) Summary completed. • On [DATE] education regarding this form was initiated on with Licensed Nurses and provided by the Regional Nurse Consultant. Training is being continued with each oncoming shift prior to duty and provided by the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Staff Development Coordinator, or a Clinical Nurse Consultant. No licensed nurse will be permitted to work without training after [DATE]. On [DATE] there were 6 licensed nurses educated with completion of post-test, including 3 agency nurses. On [DATE], all remaining nurses, 14 facility nurses and 3 agency nurses, were educated with post testing completed except for 2 licensed nurses that are currently on medical leave. They will be provided education prior to returning to active duty. All education on [DATE] was provided prior to the start of the nurse's shift. Education material will be added to the orientation process for licensed nurses. • A second QAPI meeting was held on [DATE] which included the Administrator (CEO), Director of Nursing, Regional Nurse Consultant, Assistant Director of Nursing, Dietary Manager, Social Service Assistant, Medical Records, MDS Coordinator, Human Resources, Business Office Manager, Assistant Business Office Manager, Admissions Coordinator, Social Services Assistant, Staffing Coordinator, Assistant Dietary Director, Therapy Program Manager, and House Keeping Supervisor, to discuss and review new processes put into place to prevent recurrence of alleged deficient practice. Medical Director participation was conducted via phone following the meeting with approval given for the plan and additional processes • On [DATE] the facility conducted a root cause analysis and determined the Social Service Director did not follow established standards of practice. • On [DATE] the Regional Nurse Consultant reviewed the medical records of all current residents who admitted for short term stays for information suggesting that the planned discharge location/conditions may be unsafe with no concerns identified. • On [DATE] a form was developed to review with resident contemplating a discharge Against Medical Advice requiring review by the resident and or resident representative, acknowledging: o The risks of discharge o The benefits of remaining in the facility o Availability of other Health Care Providers o Release of responsibility for adverse effects resulting from the discharge; including the physician, the facility and its agents or employees • The AMA Discharge Information Sheet includes: o Date of Discharge o Destination o Attending physician and phone number o Pharmacy to be used and phone number. o Discharge Medication list to include times, instructions and reason for use o Treatments being provided. o Assistive Devices being used. o Resident education provided o Community Agencies needed and contact numbers (if applicable) o Additional instructions • The form was to be signed by the resident or Resident Representative, acknowledging review of information, and understanding. The form was to be signed by the nurse reviewing the information with the resident or Resident Representative. If the resident or resident representative refused to sign the form, after it had been reviewed, it should be noted that the information was provided and reviewed by witnesses. • On [DATE] education was provided to the Social Service Director by the Administrator including expectations in the event information is conveyed regarding the appropriateness/safety of the discharge location. Expectations to include immediately communicating concerns to Administrator, any concerns with discharge that may be unsafe so that appropriate investigation and discharge planning can be conducted. • Pre-discharge and At-Discharge Sections of the checklist will be reviewed by the nurse on duty to verify that all tasks have been completed prior to discharge. • Monitoring of effectiveness of the new measures is achieved by initial completion of post-tests following education to assure comprehension of training, for all licensed nurses who were trained. Following initial education, retesting of 10% of the nurses weekly will be completed x 6 weeks. Testing will be completed by Unit Directors, Staff Development Coordinator, Assistant Director of Nursing, Director of Nursing or Clinical Nurse Consultant. • Monitoring of completed checklist for review will be completed during the daily clinical meeting, Monday through Friday X 8 weeks and then 3 X week x 8 weeks, to assure that all tasks have been completed as indicated. This review will be completed by the Unit Directors, Staff Development Coordinator, Assistant Director of Nursing, Director of Nursing. • Findings of the reviews will be reported to the facility's Quality Assurance and Assessment Committee. Any abnormalities or concerns identified will be immediately addressed and corrected with re-education as needed. • On [DATE] from 11:00 A.M. to 11:20 A.M. interviews with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #180, LPN #640 and LPN #890 revealed each employee had received training related to new policies on Admission, Transfers and Discharges along with proper AMA procedures. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility was still in the process of implementing their corrective action and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include: Review of Resident #94's closed medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was transported home on [DATE] per emergency medical services. Resident #94 had diagnoses including respiratory failure, protein-calorie malnutrition, osteomyelitis, cerebral infarction, sepsis, COVID-19, arthropathy, gout, and dementia. Review of a hospital admission report, dated [DATE] revealed the resident was admitted with diagnoses including a weak cough, shortness of breath, and hypoxia. The resident was assessed to have bilateral leg contractures, bilateral hand contractures, and a Stage IV sacral wound that required daily dressing changes. The hospital report also noted the resident was alert to self, and unable to determine place or time. The resident was discharged from hospital for short-term (nursing home) placement. Review of the plan of care, dated [DATE] and updated [DATE] after resident's admission, revealed the resident had a discharge plan of care related to knowledge deficit for possible discharge home. Interventions included assistance with obtaining prescriptions, arranging transportation as needed, discuss with resident/representative the amount of assistance needed, evaluate resident's motivation to return to the community, make arrangements regarding community support, and provide contact numbers for community referrals. Review of Social History and Discharge Plan, dated [DATE] revealed the resident was oriented to self and able to answer some historical questions but does not seem aware of her condition or prognosis at the time of admission to the facility. Living arrangements noted the resident was living in her daughter's home, and also noted after this recent hospitalization, the daughter stated the resident has become more care than she can give. Review of a nursing assessment, dated [DATE] at 2:19 P.M. revealed the resident was alert and oriented to person and staff were unable to determine if the resident was alert to time or situation. The resident had short term memory impairment and impaired decision-making abilities. Review of the comprehensive 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #94 a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview. Resident # 94 was assessed to have short-term and long-term memory problems. The resident was also assessed to have the inability of identifying the current season, location of her room, staff names and faces, or that she was in a nursing home. The assessment indicated Resident #94 was dependent on two staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Review of nursing assessment dated [DATE] at 1:48 P.M. revealed the resident was alert and oriented to person and staff were unable to determine if the resident was alert to time or situation. Resident responded to name but did not answer questions when asked. Review of a social service assessment, dated [DATE] at 2:54 P.M. revealed the resident was alert to self but refused to respond to multiple assessments. Additionally, the resident had a diagnosis of dementia so there was an assumption of both short-term and long-term memory loss. The resident was also documented as needing assistance with decision making. Review of a physician progress note, dated [DATE] revealed the resident was alert and pleasantly confused. A complete review of systems was limited due to dementia, and the resident was unable to provide a meaningful history at the time this assessment was conducted. Review of a social service (SS) note, dated [DATE] revealed Social Services Director #470 spoke with the daughter of Resident #94 on this date and discussed the possibility of palliative care. The daughter was also informed the resident's 20th day in the facility would be on [DATE]th, and that insurance would decrease payment to 80 percent of her bill with no source of secondary insurance. The note revealed the Social Service Director then explained they could apply for Ohio Medicaid, pay privately, or the resident could return home. The note indicated the daughter was to discuss the options with family members. Review of a social service note, dated [DATE] at 12:37 P.M. revealed the family wanted to take the resident home. However, the note also revealed a previous hospice provider was documented as refusing take the resident as a patient due to previous problems with the family and medication issues (at home). Another provider was suggested but was declined with the daughter stating she could not take care of her mom. The note revealed family was then agreeing to apply for Medicaid services with the resident staying at the facility. Review of a social service (SS) note, dated [DATE] at 12:44 P.M. revealed Social Service Director (SSD) #470 notified the Administrator and Director of Nursing Resident #94 was no longer discharging to her home. Review of a social service note, dated [DATE] at 2:56 P.M. revealed the family of Resident #94 had changed their mind and would be taking the resident home via voicemail received by the facility. The note indicated SSD #470 attempted to contact resident family members with no success and indicated the facility does not know how the resident will be transported home, and all discharge arrangements were canceled due to previous conversations with the resident planning to remain at the facility. The note revealed staff did not think this was a safe discharge, and that Hospice had declined to take the resident as they had indicated the resident's home situation was unsafe. The note revealed an AMA form was completed and ready for family to sign when they take the resident from the facility. Review of a social service (SS) note, dated [DATE] at 4:01 P.M. revealed SS was finally able to get in contact with resident's daughter. She confirmed her sister was going to pick up the resident and take her home (on this date) today. SS reminded the daughter that this was the last day the resident could reside in the facility without another payer source, and she stated she understood. The note indicated SS had talked to her (the daughter) about applying for Medicaid, which family declined to do. Social Service has made follow-up appointments for the resident's Primary Care Physician (PCP) and Wound Care and was waiting to see if home health would pick the resident up for their services. Review of a social service note, dated [DATE] at 8:12 A.M. revealed the resident was not picked up by her family last night as they stated they would. The resident was now remained in the facility without a payer source. Social Services had explained this to the resident's daughter multiple times. Social Service attempted to contact both daughters this morning and received a message that neither of their voice mail systems had been set up. The note indicated, will continue to contact them. Review of a physician note, dated [DATE] at 9:43 A.M. revealed the resident was seen and diagnosed with cellulitis to her right upper extremity, and received treatment with the antibiotic, Doxycycline 100 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily for seven days. The note revealed the resident's cognition remained at baseline per previous documentation. The resident was alert to person and place with abnormal memory and recall. Review of a physician's orders revealed an order, dated [DATE] for Doxycycline 100 mg by mouth twice daily for seven days. This was provided for a new diagnosis of right upper arm cellulitis. The resident was also documented as being septic when the antibiotic was prescribed. Review of a social service note, dated [DATE] at 3:30 P.M. revealed social service staff had continued to attempt to contact resident's daughters. SS was finally able to talk to daughter again, who stated she only had a moped and another family member had two flat tires on their vehicle. The daughter stated she would call back in 10 minutes, but SS still had not heard from her. SS talked to Administration about this and was told the facility should wait until Monday [DATE], and if family had not yet come to get Resident #94, then the facility should contact Adult Protective Services (APS) and the Ombudsman. The note revealed it was agreed this discharge would be Against Medical Advice (AMA). However, the note did not include any additional information as to how or why the discharge was an AMA discharge. Review of a nursing note, dated [DATE] at 1:32 P.M. revealed Resident #94 discharged home today and was transferred via stretcher per Patriot ambulance service. The resident was unable to sign AMA paperwork due to her bilateral hands being contracted. No family members were present to give discharge instructions to. The note indicated staff spoke with family via phone. Discharge medications and an instruction summary were sent with resident. The resident was to receive home health per Amedisys. Follow up appointments date, time, and phone number were sent to the family. All departments notified of discharge. Review of the Against Medical Advice form revealed the form was documented as being provided on [DATE] and was unsigned by the resident or family members. The signature block reflected the resident was transported by Patriot Ambulance Service and family was not present. The bottom of the form reflected Resident #94 was unable to sign the document due to bilateral hand contractures. No facility staff signature was evident on this form. Review of a social services note, dated [DATE] at 1:34 P.M. revealed Resident #94 was discharged to her home by ambulance on [DATE]. She was admitted to this facility on [DATE] from the hospital where she had presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath, a weak cough, and hypoxia. She came to this facility for post-hospitalization rehabilitation with plans to return to her home. While at this facility, she did not participate much with any of the therapy services and did not allow other departments to do a lot of the stuff they were required to do. On multiple occasions, the resident refused to allow SS to complete any of the assessments that were required. When her insurance cut her services, as was expected and had been explained to family, there was significant confusion between the daughters about whether or not Resident #94 was returning home or staying at the facility and applying for Medicaid. Staff had great difficulty in contacting family as they would not answer their phones, nor would they make decisions. On the day the resident was supposed to discharge, social services finally was able to contact the daughter, who stated she only had a moped to bring her mother home. She stated she would talk to family and call SS back in 10 minutes. SS never heard back from her. Over the weekend, family made arrangements for the resident to be taken home by ambulance. There was no one to sign the AMA paperwork. The note revealed staff did not feel this was a safe discharge and attempted to have AMA papers signed, but the resident was unable to do so and family was not present. Family had been informed this discharge would be AMA. Social Services contacted Kentucky Adult Protective Services and made a report of concern. Staff attempted to set up Community Hospice, but they would not admit the resident due to past experience with the resident's family and missing medications. SS was able to make a referral for Skilled Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) and nursing with Amedysis Home Health. Durable Medical Equipment was ordered from WeCare Medical to be delivered to Resident #94's home. A follow up appointment was made with Physician #799. The note indicated social services staff would make a post discharge follow up phone call. Telephone Interview with Amedysis Representative #1000 on [DATE] at 03:16 P.M., revealed a referral was made by the facility on [DATE] and multiple calls were made to get into contact the family of the resident without success. The agency also attempted to complete a drive-by which was also not successful to make contact. Representative #1000 revealed their agency had received information the resident had expired on [DATE], and the ca
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, review of facilities fall investigation and facility policy review, the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, review of facilities fall investigation and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure adequate assistance and safety interventions were in place to prevent falls during resident ambulation. This affected one resident (#27) of four residents reviewed for falls. Actual harm occurred on 02/20/23 when Resident #27, who required extensive assistance from one staff for ambulation sustained a fall resulting in a subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the space between the brain and the surrounding membrane), posterior head laceration and traumatic closed displaced fracture of shaft of right femur requiring surgical repair. At the time of the fall, State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #560 failed to utilize a gait belt while ambulating the resident. Additionally, the facility failed to comprehensively investigate the fall and implement individualized interventions to prevent further falls for Resident #27. The facility census was 92. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #27 revealed an initial admission date of 01/23/23 with the latest readmission of 03/09/23 with diagnoses including traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, fracture of shaft of right femur, respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), end stage renal disease (ESRD), asthma, diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, depression, sleep apnea, heart failure, dysphagia, hypertension, generalized muscle weakness, difficulty, constipation, hypothyroidism, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, hyperlipidemia, chronic pain syndrome, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, folate deficiency anemia and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed a score of 60 indicating the resident was at high risk for falls. Review of the plan of care dated 01/25/22 revealed the resident was at risk for injury, falls related to medications. Interventions included frequently used items within reach, medications/treatments as ordered, observe for unsteady balance or gait and assist as needed and therapy screens as needed. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, made himself understood and had no cognitive deficit as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. Review of the progress note dated 02/20/23 at 5:45 P.M., revealed the aide toileting the resident reported the resident lost his balance and fell backwards onto the ground. The resident complained of right hip/leg pain and was unable to straighten his leg out and yelled out in pain. The resident sustained a laceration to the back of his head with a knot. 911 was called and the resident was transported to the local emergency room. Review of the progress note dated 02/20/23 at 10:57 P.M., revealed Resident #27 was admitted to the local hospital with a brain bleed and fractured skull. Review of the incident report dated 02/20/22 revealed the nurse was called to the resident's room per STNA #560 where the resident was lying on the floor. The resident stated he fell backwards while walking back from the bathroom with assistance. The nurse completed a head-to-toe assessment and called 911. The incident report documented the resident had a posterior head laceration. STNA #560 stated the resident said his knees were going to give out and she attempted to move the wheelchair behind him, but he fell before the wheelchair could be placed underneath him. Review of the facility investigation dated 02/20/23 revealed on 02/21/23 the interdisciplinary team (IDT) reviewed the resident's witnessed fall on 02/20/23. The note documented the resident was being assisted back from the toilet by two aides (STNA #560 and unknown aide) when the resident stated his legs were going to give out. The STNA attempted to place the wheelchair under the resident, but he sustained a fall before he could be assisted into the wheelchair. The STNA was re-educated on proper gait belt use and lowering resident to the ground. Following the incident, on 02/20/23 the resident's plan of care was updated to reflect staff were educated on using gait belt safely, Review of a hospital discharge continuity form, dated 03/09/23 revealed the resident was treated for subarachnoid hemorrhage and traumatic closed displaced fracture of shaft of right femur which required the surgical procedure open reduction and internal fixation of the right femur. On 03/28/23 at 11:26 A.M., an interview with Resident #27 revealed STNA #560 was assisting him to the bathroom, and he told her his knees were getting weak and the STNA told him to take a step. Resident #27 revealed when he took a step he fell, and his knee hit the wall. He revealed the STNA did not have a gait belt in use when ambulating him to the bathroom. He revealed there was only one STNA assisting him at the time of fall. He further revealed only the therapy staff utilized a gait belt. On 04/05/23 at 9:06 A.M., interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999 verified STNA #560 was not utilizing a gait belt while ambulating Resident #27 to the bathroom. On 04/05/23 at 9:16 A.M., interview with Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) #800 revealed all residents had a gait belt in their room for use. She revealed each resident was given a gait belt for use until discharge and the gait belt was then sent to laundry. She revealed all residents in therapy had a gait belt in place during the session in case of loss of balance. She revealed any resident who required extensive (staff) assistance should have a gait belt in place and the STNA staff should use the gait belt for transfers and ambulation. Review of the facility policy titled, Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents, dated 07/2017 revealed in order to promote the safety and well-being of staff and residents, and to promote quality care, this facility used appropriate techniques and devices to lift and move residents. Staff responsible for direct resident care would be trained in the use of manual (gait/transfer belts, lateral boards) and mechanical lift devices. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00141044.
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 review of Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage forms, medical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide accurate and timely notification of Medicar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage forms, medical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide accurate and timely notification of Medicare non-coverage. This affected one (Resident #149) of three residents reviewed for Medicare non-coverage. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #149 revealed an admission date of 11/25/22. Review of a physical therapy evaluation on 11/28/22 revealed the resident presented for therapy after hospitalization from 11/20/22 to 11/25/22 for pneumonia, hypotension, and septic shock. It stated she demonstrated unsteadiness on feet, gait impairments, and instability during standing. It stated she would be going to live with her daughter upon discharge. Review of a social history and discharge plan dated 11/28/22 revealed the resident lived with family prior to placement. A section for plans for length of stay stated short term with a question mark. It further stated her daughter wanted her to live with her upon discharge. A Minimum Data Set assessment completed 12/02/22 documented a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. It indicated the resident required limited assistance from one staff with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. A care conference summary on 12/07/22 stated the discharge goal was to go home with care giver, being daughter. No time frame was documented and no further discharge planning documented in the medical record. Review of a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form revealed Resident #149 was notified on 01/03/23 that her Medicare coverage would end on 01/04/23 (notified only one day prior to services ending). It was documented on the form that the resident decided to go home. Review of physical therapy notes revealed that, although the resident was notified that her Medicare coverage was ending on 01/04/23, she was provided with physical therapy on 01/05/23. Review of nurses progress notes on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse #320 documented Resident #149 left the facility at this time with family. No further information was documented (when she would be back). A physical therapy discharge summary on 01/06/23 stated the resident was discharged from therapy on 01/05/23. It further stated the patient was undecided of where to return to on discharge; will discharge to a family members home. It also stated the patient went to overnight visit with family at this time. The resident did not return to the facility after leaving on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. Interview with Assistant Business Office Manager #250 on 04/04/23 at 9:34 A.M. confirmed Resident #149 was notified on 01/03/23 that she was being cut from Medicare on 01/04/23. (only one day notice). She stated therapy tells her when residents are cut from Medicare. She stated she was not sure if the resident was really cut from Medicare on 01/04/23 but was told by someone (did not know who) to have the resident sign the Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage form since she was planning to go home. Interview with Therapy Director #800 on 04/04/23 at 9:45 A.M. revealed she thought the resident was cut from Medicare on 01/05/23 and confirmed the resident received therapy on 01/05/23, even though her notice of non-coverage stated she was cut on 01/04/23. She said there must have been a communication error amongst the staff. Interview with Social Service Director #470 on 04/04/23 at 10:00 A.M. revealed that Resident #149 was not to be cut from Medicare until 01/10/23. She confirmed the Notice of Non-Coverage of Medicare Form was signed by the resident on 01/03/23 and it stated coverage ended 01/04/23. She confirmed the resident did not return to the facility after leaving with her family on 01/05/23 (after being discharged from physical therapy). Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 1:24 P.M. revealed the resident wanted to go home so that is why the facility had her sign the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage Form on 01/03/23. She was unsure if the resident was actually cut from Medicare or not. Review of the facility policy titled Medicare Advanced Beneficiary Notice dated April 2021 revealed if a resident's Medicare Part A benefits are terminating for coverage reasons, the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form will be issued to the resident at least two calendar days before Medicare covered services end. The notice informs the resident of the pending termination of coverage and of his/her right to an expedited review of service determination.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a new Pre-admission Screening and Resident R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a new Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) document after a significant change occurred. This affected one (Resident #57) of nine PASRR documents reviewed. The census was 92. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an initial date of 07/23/20 with the latest readmission of 02/05/22 with the admitting diagnoses including congestive heart failure, acute and chronic respiratory failure, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, diverticulitis arthropathy, schizophrenia, dysphagia, history of COVID-19, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic embolism and thrombosis, anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, constipation, unilateral inguinal hernia, adult failure to thrive and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #57's PASRR document, dated 07/22/20, revealed under Section D: Indications of Serious Mental Health, the resident had no mental health diagnosis listed. But in review of his current face sheet/diagnosis list, he had the following diagnoses and dates of onset: schizophrenia (05/18/22). There was no documentation to support a PASRR document was completed after the one submitted on 07/22/20. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, made himself understood and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive deficit. The assessment indicated schizophrenia was not an active diagnosis. On 03/29/23 at 10:17 A.M., interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999 verified a significant change PASRR was not completed following the addition of the diagnoses of schizophrenia on 05/18/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage forms, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge plan for a resident who was no...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage forms, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge plan for a resident who was notified their Medicare coverage ended. This affected one (Resident #149) of three residents reviewed for Medicare non-coverage. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #149 revealed an admission date of 11/25/22. Review of a physical therapy evaluation on 11/28/22 revealed the resident presented for therapy after hospitalization from 11/20/22 to 11/25/22 for pneumonia, hypotension, and septic shock. It stated she demonstrated unsteadiness on feet, gait impairments, and instability during standing. It stated she would be going to live with her daughter upon discharge. Review of a social history and discharge plan dated 11/28/22 revealed the resident lived with family prior to placement. A section for plans for length of stay stated short term with a question mark. It further stated her daughter wanted her to live with her upon discharge. A plan of care dated 11/28/22 stated the resident had a risk for knowledge deficit related to possible discharge home. Interventions included assist with arranging transportation as needed, contact applicable home health agency as needed prior to discharge, discuss with resident/family amount of support available to resident upon discharge. The discharge plan was not updated after 11/28/22. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 12/02/22 documented a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. It indicated the resident required limited assistance from one staff with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. It indicated the resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer. A care conference summary on 12/07/22 stated the discharge goal was to go home with care giver, being daughter. No time frame was documented and no further discharge planning was documented in the medical record. Review of a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form revealed Resident #149 was notified on 01/03/23 that her Medicare coverage would end on 01/04/23 (notified only one day prior to services ending). It was documented on the form that the resident decided to go home. Review of physical therapy notes revealed that, although the resident was notified that her Medicare coverage was ending on 01/04/23, she was provided with physical therapy on 01/05/23. Review of nurses progress notes on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse #320 documented Resident #149 left the facility at this time with family. No further information was documented (when she would be back). Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #320 on 04/04/23 at 8:40 A.M. revealed Resident #149's daughter (not the one identified as who she would live with) took her out on 01/05/23. He said he did not remember where the resident was going or any other details about her leaving. A physical therapy discharge summary on 01/06/23 stated the resident was discharged from therapy on 01/05/23. It further stated the patient was undecided of where to return to on discharge; will discharge to a family members home. It also stated the patient went to overnight visit with family at this time. The resident did not return to the facility after leaving on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. A progress note by Social Service Director (SSD) #470 on 01/06/23 at 9:30 A.M. revealed it was reported Resident #149 had left the building overnight with a family member. Since she was Medicare, she is not able to go for overnight stay and was discharged from services here at the nursing home. SSD #470 contacted her first emergency contact, which was her sister, and was told Resident #149 was not there. She contacted the resident's daughter (identified as the one the resident was going to discharge home with) and she did not know that her mother had left the facility. She stated she must have gone with another daughter. SSD explained about Medicare and overnight visits. Told her that therapy says she has met all of her goals and was going to be discharged from their services on 01/10/23 anyway. Told her facility would make a referral for therapy services and make follow up appointment with physician, and will send her home with 5 days worth of medications (resident already gone at this point). Also talked about making referral for Passport services. It was not determined in the notes where the resident actually was at that time. It was noted the resident had been marked as discharged . On 01/06/23 at 1:09 P.M. a nurses note stated family members here. Medication list and prescriptions given to family. There was no evidence the family was provided with any education on providing care for pressure ulcers to the hips that the resident was receiving treatment for. The resident had a physician's order for a thin layer of santyl and cover with gauze and dressing twice daily to the left hip and paint right hip with betadine daily for a suspected deep tissue injury. The resident weighed 89 pounds. There was no evidence of any education regarding diet or nutrition. A progress note by SSD #470 on 01/06/23 at 3:33 P.M. stated she spoke to Resident #149's sister and another daughter (not the one she spoke to earlier and not the one identified to discharge home with). Explained post discharge services facility would provide. Note stated the resident will be staying at her sister's home. Follow up physician's appointment provided. Interview with Assistant Business Office Manager #250 on 04/04/23 at 9:34 A.M. confirmed Resident #149 was notified on 01/03/23 that she was being cut from Medicare on 01/04/23. (only one day notice). She stated therapy tells her when residents are cut from Medicare. She stated she was not sure if the resident was really cut from Medicare on 01/04/23 but was told by someone (did not know who) to have the resident sign the Medicare notice of non-coverage since she was planning to go home. Interview with Therapy Director #800 on 04/04/23 at 9:45 A.M. revealed she thought the resident was cut from Medicare on 01/05/23 and confirmed the resident received therapy on 01/05/23, even though her notice of non-coverage stated she was cut on 01/04/23. She said there must have been a communication error amongst the staff. Interview with Social Service Director #470 on 04/04/23 at 10:00 A.M. revealed that Resident #149 was not to be cut from Medicare until 01/10/23. She confirmed the notice of non-coverage of Medicare was signed by the resident on 01/03/23 and it stated coverage ended 01/04/23. She confirmed the resident did not return to the facility after leaving with her family on 01/05/23 (after being discharged from physical therapy). She confirmed there was no evidence of any discharge planning being done even though the resident was notified she was cut from Medicare and it had not been decided where the resident was going to go. She stated when the family returned for the resident's belongings on 01/06/23, the resident was at her sister's house (even though when she called there earlier, she was told the resident was not there). She confirmed the resident did not return with family to get her belongings and was not seen again after she left on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 10:15 A.M. revealed a discharge plan should have been developed when staff knew the resident wanted to go home and when she was notified she was being cut from Medicare. The facility provided the surveyor with a Discharge Instruction Summary that stated discharge was on 01/05/23 at 3:00 P.M. (even though resident left with family on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. and the nurse did not know she was being discharged ). It stated she was discharged to Home and was escorted to nursing home exit by staff. The instructions did not include medications or hip pressure ulcer treatments. It was not signed by the resident or family. Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 1:40 P.M. revealed the form was dated 01/05/23 because the resident left on 01/05/23 but the discharge instruction summary was actually given to the family on 01/06/23 when they came to pick up her belongings. She confirmed the form was not signed by resident or family. She stated the normal procedure was to have them sign that they received the form. She stated the facility did not actually know the resident was being discharged on 01/05/23 even though the form indicated it. She confirmed the resident was not discharged on 01/05/23 at 3:00 P.M. and was not helped out of the facility by staff even though the form indicated that. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 04/05/23 at 9:25 A.M. confirmed there was no evidence any instructions on pressure ulcer care was provided to the resident or family on discharge. Interview with Resident #149's daughter on 04/04/23 at 9:10 A.M. (the daughter who the resident had indicated she would live with on discharge) revealed she was not aware her other sister was taking the resident out of the facility on 01/05/23. She said the resident did return to the resident's sisters house after discharge and remained there about a week before she required hospitalization again. She stated the resident is now in another nursing home.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage forms, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to have a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the resident's s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage forms, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to have a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the resident's stay, a final summary of the resident's status, a reconciliation of medications, and a post-discharge plan of care developed with the resident/resident representative for a resident who was notified their Medicare coverage ended and left the facility. This affected one (Resident #149) of three residents reviewed for Medicare non-coverage. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #149 revealed an admission date of 11/25/22. Review of a physical therapy evaluation on 11/28/22 revealed the resident presented for therapy after hospitalization from 11/20/22 to 11/25/22 for pneumonia, hypotension, and septic shock. It stated she demonstrated unsteadiness on feet, gait impairments, and instability during standing. It stated she would be going to live with her daughter upon discharge. Review of a social history and discharge plan dated 11/28/22 revealed the resident lived with family prior to placement. A section for plans for length of stay stated short term with a question mark. It further stated her daughter wanted her to live with her upon discharge. A plan of care dated 11/28/22 stated the resident had a risk for knowledge deficit related to possible discharge home. Interventions included assist with arranging transportation as needed, contact applicable home health agency as needed prior to discharge, discuss with resident/family amount of support available to resident upon discharge. The discharge plan was not updated after 11/28/22. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 12/02/22 documented a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. It indicated the resident required limited assistance from one staff with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. It indicated the resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer. A care conference summary on 12/07/22 stated the discharge goal was to go home with care giver, being daughter. No time frame was documented and no further discharge planning was documented in the medical record. Review of a Notice of Medicare Non-coverage form revealed Resident #149 was notified on 01/03/23 that her Medicare coverage would end on 01/04/23 (notified only one day prior to services ending). It was documented on the form that the resident decided to go home. Review of physical therapy notes revealed that, although the resident was notified that her Medicare coverage was ending on 01/04/23, she was provided with physical therapy on 01/05/23. Review of nurses progress notes on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse #320 documented Resident #149 left the facility at this time with family. No further information was documented (when she would be back). Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #320 on 04/4/23 at 8:40 A.M. revealed Resident #149's daughter (not the one identified as who she would live with) took her out on 01/05/23. He said he did not remember where the resident was going or any other details about her leaving. A physical therapy discharge summary on 01/06/23 stated the resident was discharged from therapy on 01/05/23. It further stated the patient was undecided of where to return to on discharge; will discharge to a family members home. It also stated the patient went to overnight visit with family at this time. The resident did not return to the facility after leaving on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. A progress note by Social Service Director (SSD) #470 on 01/06/23 at 9:30 A.M. revealed it was reported Resident #149 had left the building overnight with a family member. Since she was Medicare, she is not able to go for overnight stay and was discharged from services here at the nursing home. SSD #470 contacted her first emergency contact, which was her sister, and was told Resident #149 was not there. She contacted the resident's daughter (identified as the one the resident was going to discharge home with) and she did not know that her mother had left the facility. She stated she must have gone with another daughter. SSD explained about Medicare and overnight visits. Told her that therapy says she has met all of her goals and was going to be discharged from their services on 01/10/23 anyway. Told her facility would make a referral for therapy services and make follow up appointment with physician, and will send her home with 5 days worth of medications (resident already gone at this point). Also talked about making referral for Passport services. It was not determined in the notes where the resident actually was at that time. It was noted the resident had been marked as discharged . On 01/06/23 at 1:09 P.M. a nurses note stated family members here. Medication list and prescriptions given to family. A progress note by SSD #470 on 01/06/23 at 3:33 P.M. stated she spoke to Resident #149's sister and another daughter (not the one she spoke to earlier and not the one identified to discharge home with). Explained post discharge services facility would provide. Note stated the resident will be staying at her sister's home. Follow up physician's appointment provided. Interview with Assistant Business Office Manager #250 on 04/04/23 at 9:34 A.M. confirmed Resident #149 was notified on 01/03/23 that she was being cut from Medicare on 01/04/23. (only one day notice). She stated therapy tells her when residents are cut from Medicare. She stated she was not sure if the resident was really cut from Medicare on 01/04/23 but was told by someone (did not know who) to have the resident sign the Medicare notice of non-coverage since she was planning to go home. Interview with Therapy Director #800 on 04/04/23 at 9:45 A.M. revealed she thought the resident was cut from Medicare on 01/05/23 and confirmed the resident received therapy on 01/05/23, even though her notice of non-coverage stated she was cut on 01/04/23. She said there must have been a communication error amongst the staff. Interview with Social Service Director #470 on 04/04/23 at 10:00 A.M. revealed that Resident #149 was not to be cut from Medicare until 01/10/23. She confirmed the notice of non-coverage of Medicare was signed by the resident on 01/03/23 and it stated coverage ended 01/04/23. She confirmed the resident did not return to the facility after leaving with her family on 01/05/23 (after being discharged from physical therapy). She confirmed there was no evidence of any discharge planning being done even though the resident was notified she was cut from Medicare and it had not been decided where the resident was going to go. She stated when the family returned for the resident's belongings on 01/06/23, the resident was at her sister's house (even though when she called there earlier, she was told the resident was not there). She confirmed the resident did not return with family to get her belongings and was not seen again after she left on 01/05/23 at 6:24 P.M. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 04/05/23 at 9:25 A.M. confirmed there was no evidence of a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the resident's stay, a final summary of the resident's status, a reconciliation of medications, or a post-discharge plan of care. Interview with Resident #149's daughter on 04/04/23 at 9:10 A.M. (the daughter who the resident had indicated she would live with on discharge) revealed she was not aware her other sister was taking the resident out of the facility on 01/05/23. She said the resident did return to the resident's sisters house after discharge and remained there about a week before she required hospitalization again. She stated the resident is now in another nursing home.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to ma...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming. This affected one ( Resident #41) of four residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 06/21/19 and diagnoses including vascular dementia, chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Minimum Data Set assessment completed 01/05/23 indicated cognitive impairment. It further indicated the resident required extensive assistance from two staff for transfers and extensive assistance from one staff for personal hygiene, bathing, dressing, and locomotion. A plan of care dated 11/01/19 stated the resident had a self care deficit and will be dressed and groomed appropriately. It indicated the resident would receive assistance from staff. Observations on 03/27/23 at 4:52 P.M., 03/28/23 at 3:04 P.M., and 03/29/23 at 8:10 A.M. revealed Resident #41 to have white hairs present on her chin and upper lip. Review of the medical record did not reveal any evidence of refusal of personal hygiene in the past three months. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #890 on 03/29/23 at 9:35 A.M. revealed staff are to shave female residents with facial hair weekly or as needed. She confirmed Resident #41 required assistance from staff with hygiene. She confirmed the resident had hair on her chin and upper lip. She stated she would have staff provide care for this.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed an admission date of 02/03/23 with diagnoses including sepsis, celluli...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed an admission date of 02/03/23 with diagnoses including sepsis, cellulitis of bilateral lower extremities, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, peripheral vascular disease, and hypertension. Review of the nursing progress notes revealed a note dated 02/04/23 at 2:00 A.M. The nurse assessed Resident #85 skin and wounds to bilateral lower extremities. The nurse removed ace wrap, Kerlix, and four by four gauze pads. The wounds were cleansed, measured and re dressed. There was notable bleeding and drainage noted to wounds. The wounds on the right lower extremity was noted to be necrotic. Review of the comprehensive Medicare five day MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #85 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. Resident #85 required assistance with activities of daily living. Resident #85 was coded with six venous/arterial ulcers with infection and treatment. Review of the plan of care dated 02/27/23 indicated Resident #85 had impaired skin integrity related to mixed vascular wounds to bilateral legs and feet. Interventions included administer medications and treatments as ordered, encourage resident to allow evaluation of bilateral lower extremities, encourage resident to ask for assistance to prevent trauma to wounds, observe for signs and symptoms of infection or worsening of wounds and notify the physician as needed. Review of the physician orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #85 had orders to cleanse bilateral lower legs with wound cleanser, apply Xeroform to wounds, cover with dressings (four by four gauze pads), and wrap in Kerlix daily. Review of the medication administration record for 03/20/23 revealed Resident #85 received wound care daily on day shift. There was no documentation of wound care as needed. Review of the weekly wound assessments dated 03/08/23, 03/15/23, 03/23/23 and 03/28/23 revealed Resident #85 wounds to bilateral lower extremities were healing. An observation on 03/29/23 at 10:05 A.M. revealed Resident #85 was lying in bed. Resident #85 was lying on his left side, and the outer Kerlix dressing was missing from right lower extremity exposing the venous ulcers. An observation on 04/03/23 at 10:20 A.M. revealed Resident #85 was seated in wheelchair in his room. The outer Kerlix dressing was missing from his right lower extremity, and was hanging loose and bunched at the ankle of left lower extremity. Resident #85 bilateral lower extremities were red and purple in color, had edema and no drainage was noted. The small pieces of Xeroform were noted to be covering the wound beds. An interview on 04/03/23 at 10:20 A.M. with Resident #85 revealed the dressing to his bilateral lower extremities had been off since last night and that it happened a lot. An interview on 03/29/23 at 10:07 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #255 confirmed by observation that Resident #85 wounds to bilateral lower extremities were not covered. An interview on 03/29/23 at 10:30 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed by observation that Resident #85 wounds to bilateral lower extremities were not covered. Based on observation, record review, interview, the facility failed to identify, assess and monitor skin conditions for Resident #57 and failed to ensure Resident #85's physician ordered wound dressings were in place. This affected two residents ( #57 and #85) of five residents review for skin conditions. The facility census was 92. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an initial date of 07/23/20 with the latest readmission of 02/05/22 with the admitting diagnoses including congestive heart failure, acute and chronic respiratory failure, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, diverticulitis arthropathy, schizophrenia, dysphagia, history of COVID-19, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic embolism and thrombosis, anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, constipation, unilateral inguinal hernia, adult failure to thrive and major depressive disorder. Review of the plan of care dated 07/22/20 revealed the resident was at risk for alteration in skin integrity related to diabetes, mobility status, nutritional status. Interventions included assist with incontinence care approximately every two hours and as needed, encourage mobility as tolerated, encourage to offload heels as much as resident will comply, encourage/assist to turn and reposition approximately every two hours as much as resident will comply, medications/supplements as ordered, pressure redistribution mattress for bed as needed, Registered Dietician (RD) consult as needed and treatments as ordered. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, made himself understood and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive deficit. The resident required extensive assistance of two for bed mobility, dependent on two staff for transfers, toileting and was non-ambulatory. The resident was always incontinent of both bowel and bladder. The assessment indicated the resident had no skin issues. Review of the monthly physician orders for April 2023 identified an order dated 05/16/22 for weekly skin assessments every Thursday night. On 03/27/23 at 1:11 P.M., observation of the resident revealed multiple scabbed areas to right lower leg with a Band-Aid covering an area with active bleeding. Review of the medical record revealed no documented evidence the scabbed areas were assessed or monitored. On 03/29/23 at 4:30 P.M., interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999 verified the scabbed areas was not identified, assessed or monitored.
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 observations, staff interviews, review of medical records, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, review of medical records, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure adequate care and services were provided to prevent worsening of contracture's. This affected two residents (#2 and #52) out of two residents reviewed for limited range of motion. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #2 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including hemiplegia, Bell's Palsy, and contracture. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/02/23, revealed this resident was rarely/never understood. This resident was assessed to be dependent upon two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and to be dependent upon one staff member for eating. This resident was assessed to have functional limitation in range of motion to bilateral upper and lower extremities. This resident was assessed to not have any recorded minutes of physical therapy, occupational therapy, or passive or active range of motion during the look-back period. Review of the active care plans for this resident revealed no evidence of a plan of care addressing contracture's or limited range of motion. Review of the active physicians orders for this resident revealed no orders for range of motion exercises, splints, or other devices to prevent the development or worsening of contracture's. Review of the Occupational Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 03/30/23, revealed reason of referral to be resident presents with reported decline by staff resulting in need for skilled therapy to address decline in range of motion. Observation on 03/28/23 at 4:10 P.M. revealed Resident #2 was lying in bed and had contracture's present to both hands and feet. No splints or other devices were observed to be used. Interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #350 on 03/28/23 at 4:20 P.M. verified Resident #2 had contracture's to both hands and both feet and did not have any splints or devices ordered to be in place. CNA #350 stated the facility did not have a restorative program and there was no schedule for range of motion exercises to be performed for residents. Interview with the Administrator on 03/29/23 at 9:50 A.M. verified the facility did not currently have a restorative program in place. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #890 on 03/29/23 at 12:10 P.M. revealed Resident #2 did not have any orders for splints, other devices, or range of motion exercises to be performed. Interview with Occupation Therapist (OT) #801 on 03/30/23 at 10:45 A.M. revealed Resident #2 was evaluated and was going to begin treatment with Occupational Therapy which included passive range of motion and stretching exercises and also a trial with a soft splint/palm guard to both contracted hands. OT #801 could not verify there had been a decline in the contracture's for Resident #2. Interview with CNA #135 on 04/03/23 at 3:35 P.M. revealed the employee was unsure if residents were supposed to receive passive range of motion during care and did not know where to look to find out. CNA #135 verified range of motion exercises were not being performed on Resident #2 during care. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an initial admission date of 08/16/21 with the latest readmission of 03/23/23. Diagnoses included quadriplegia, cervical disc disorder, acute transverse myelitis in demyelinating disease of central nervous system, polyosteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, anemia, chronic viral hepatitis C, stiffness of unspecified joint, resistance to multiple antibiotics, major depressive disorder, hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy, contracture of unspecified joint, osteoporosis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder and bipolar disorder. Review of the nursing admission screening/history dated 08/16/21 revealed the resident had contracture's to the left hand, right hand, had foot drop and wears brace/boot for prevention and had foot drop to the left foot. Review of the OT evaluation and plan of treatment dated 08/17/21 revealed the resident right and left hand where within functional limits. Review of the OT evaluation and plan of treatment dated 11/15/22 revealed the resident's right and left hand were within functional limits. Review of the OT Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed a restorative or maintenance program was not indicated at that time. The summary indicated the resident's prognosis to maintain current level of function was good with consistent staff follow through. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, makes herself understood and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive deficit. Review of the mood and behavior revealed the resident displayed no behaviors. The resident required extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility, dependent on two staff for transfers and toileting use. The assessment indicated the resident had no function impairment to upper extremities and functional impairment to both lower extremities. Review of the monthly physician's orders for April 2023 identified an order dated 12/15/21 contracture boot right foot drop every shift. Review of the plan of care revealed no care plan addressing the resident's foot drop or contracture's to hands. Review of the OT evaluation and plan of treatment dated 03/30/23 revealed the resident's right thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, little finger were now impaired. The evaluation indicated the functional limitations were from contracture. The evaluation documented the resident refuses resting hand splint. OT recommendations included passive range of motion (PROM) stretching and increasing tolerance for use of resident hand splint for right hand and PIP (proximal interphalangeal) joints. On 03/27/23 at 2:16 P.M., observation of Resident #52 revealed the resident was observed with contracture to right hand/fingers. Resident #52 was not able to open her hand fully when asked if she was able to open her hand. The resident stated, her hand had gotten worse since being admitted to the facility. Further observation revealed the resident had foot drop to right and left foot. On 3/29/23 at 9:50 A.M., interview with the Administrator revealed the facility currently had no restorative program in place. On 3/29/23 at 12:10 P.M., interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #860 revealed the nursing staff did not do ROM with resident and was unsure how the facility monitored for worsening of contracture's. On 03/29/23 at 1:25 P.M., interview with Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) #800 verified the resident's right had was contracted but the resident refused splints to both the right hand and the contracture boot to the right foot. On 04/04/23 at 10:46 A.M., interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999 verified the resident had no program in place to prevent further decline in the resident's contracture's. On 04/04/23 at 09:43 AM interview with OT #800 revealed she had worked with the resident on multiple occasions. She revealed they code range of motion in two different categories. She said within normal limits (WNL), the resident had full function and within functional limits (WFL), the resident has impairments but is still able to function. She revealed the resident's impairments now prevent her to complete certain tasks. She revealed the facility currently had no restorative program and the ROM should be completed with activities of daily living (ADL) care by the floor staff. On 04/04/23 at 10:46 AM interview with CNC #999 confirmed the facility had no interventions in place to maintain the resident's ROM. Review of the facility titled Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, revised 07/2017, revealed residents will not experience an avoidable reduction in range of motion. Residents with limited range of motion will receive treatment and services to increase and/or prevent a further decrease in ROM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure physician ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were in place for the administration of oxygen and failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered by the physician. This affected two residents (#1 and #345) out of the four residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #1 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/21/23, revealed this resident had mildly impaired cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 10 out of 15. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and to be independent with setup help only for eating. This resident was assessed to use oxygen while a resident of the facility. Review of the care plan, dated 07/28/22, revealed this resident had actual/at risk for impaired gas exchange. Interventions included to auscultate breath sounds as ordered, diagnostics as ordered, and medications/treatments as ordered. Review of the active physicians order, dated 08/08/22, revealed this resident had orders for the administration of oxygen at two liters per minute by nasal cannula as needed. Observation on 03/27/23 at 12:40 P.M. revealed Resident #1 was sitting in a wheelchair in her room and had oxygen being administered by nasal cannula at a rate of five liters per minute by nasal cannula. Observation on 03/28/23 at 8:08 A.M. revealed Resident #1 was lying in bed and had oxygen being administered by nasal cannula at a rate of five liters per minute by nasal cannula. Observation on 03/29/23 at 9:25 A.M. revealed Resident #1 was sitting up in a wheelchair in her room with oxygen being administered at a rate of five liters per minute by nasal cannula. Observation and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #890 on 03/29/23 at 11:20 AM verified Resident #1 was receiving oxygen at a rate of five liters per minute when the physicians order indicated two liters per minute of oxygen to be administered. LPN #890 immediately changed the administration of the oxygen to two liters per minute. 2. Record review for Resident #345 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including abnormal finding of the lung field and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Review of the care plan, dated 03/24/23, revealed this resident had actual/risk for impaired gas exchange related to oxygen dependence. Interventions included medications/treatments as ordered - see Medication Administration Record (MAR)/Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for specific instructions. Review of the active physicians orders for Resident #345 revealed no order for the administration of oxygen therapy. Observation on 03/28/23 at 8:12 A.M. revealed Resident #345 was lying in bed with oxygen being administered at a rate of two liters per minute by nasal cannula. Observation on 03/29/23 at 9:00 A.M. revealed Resident #345 was lying in bed with oxygen being administered at a rate of two liters per minute by nasal cannula. Observation and interview with LPN #890 on 03/29/23 at 10:40 A.M. verified Resident #345 was being administered oxygen at a rate of two liters per minute by nasal cannula without a physicians order. LPN #890 verified there should be an order in place for the administration of oxygen to a resident. Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration, revised 10/2010, revealed in preparation to review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration. Adjust the oxygen flow device so that it is comfortable for the resident and the proper flow of oxygen is being administered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, the facility failed to provide Resident #2 a prescribed medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, the facility failed to provide Resident #2 a prescribed medication. This affected one resident (#2) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 11/06/22 with diagnoses including hemiplegia, Bell's Palsy and contracture. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed this resident was rarely/never understood. This resident was assessed to be dependent upon two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and to be dependent upon one staff member for eating. Review of the physician orders dated March 2023 revealed Resident #2 was ordered Reglan 5 milligram (mg) tablets, give two tablets to equal 10 mg, via gastrointestinal tube four time daily at 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated March 2023 revealed Resident #2 did not receive the medication Reglan as ordered on 03/29/23 at 12:00 P.M. An observation on 03/29/23 at 12:10 P.M. of medication administration for Resident #2 with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #890 revealed the medication Reglan was not available for administration. An interview on 03/29/23 at 3:05 P.M. with LPN #890 confirmed there was not any Reglan available for administration to Resident #2. The LPN stated she called the pharmacy for re order and delivery.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #27 revealed an initial admission date of 01/23/23 with the latest readmission of 0...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #27 revealed an initial admission date of 01/23/23 with the latest readmission of 03/09/23 with the admitting diagnoses including traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, fracture of shaft of right femur, respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), end stage renal disease (ESRD), asthma, diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, depression, sleep apnea, heart failure, dysphagia, hypertension, generalized muscle weakness, difficulty, constipation, hypothyroidism, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, hyperlipidemia, chronic pain syndrome, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, folate deficiency anemia and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the plan of care dated 01/23/23 revealed the resident was at risk for complications from cardiac disease related to congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, history of myocardial infarct, hyperlipidemia and atrial fibrillation. Interventions included diagnostics as ordered, encourage rest periods to avoid overtiring, medications and treatments as ordered and vital signs as ordered and as needed. Review of the pharmacy recommendation dated 03/10/23 revealed the pharmacist recommended to change the administration times of the medication Midodrine from 9:00 A.M., 3:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. to upon rising, mid day and late afternoon (no later than 6:00 P.M.) and monitor blood pressure at least weekly as directed by the prescriber. The physician agreed with the recommendation as written. Review of the resident's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, made himself understood and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating no cognitive deficit. Review of the monthly physician orders for April 2023 identified an order dated 03/09/23 Midodrine 10 milligrams (mg) by mouth three times a day for dizziness. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2023 revealed the medication Midodrine 10 mg by mouth three times a day was continued to be given at 9:00 A.M., 3:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. On 04/05/23 at 10:27 A.M., interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999 verified the pharmacy recommendation was not implemented as physician ordered. Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure irregularities identified by the pharmacist were reported to the physician and acted upon timely. This affected two (Residents #27 and #46) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an admission date of 07/02/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, malignant neoplasm of the breast, lymphedema, hypertension, and [NAME] Body Dementia. The resident had received an antipsychotic medication (Quetiapine 50 milligrams at bedtime) since admission. Review of monthly pharmacy reviews since admission revealed the pharmacist indicated to see report for irregularities on 11/15/22, 12/30/22, and 02/24/23. Review of the pharmacy report for 11/15/22 revealed it stated the resident received an antipsychotic (Quetiapine) but did not have an A1C or fasting lipids documented as being done in the previous 12 months. It was recommended that the lab testing be completed as antipsychotic drugs have been associated with metabolic abnormalities, including increased waist circumference, weight gain, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. On 11/22/22 the nurse practitioner signed that she agreed with the recommendation and to implement the plan to obtain lab on next convenient lab day and at least annually thereafter. Review of the medical record did not reveal any evidence that the fasting lipid blood test had been completed as recommended. In addition, the pharmacy recommendations for 12/30/22 and 02/24/23 were not available in the medical record. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 04/05/23 at 9:30 A.M. confirmed the fasting lipids were not completed for Resident #46 as recommended by the pharmacist and the nurse practitioner on 11/22/22. She further stated the facility was unable to find the pharmacy recommendations from 12/30/22 or 02/24/23.
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, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #57's medication reg...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #57's medication regimen was free of unnecessary medications when they failed to obtain physician ordered blood pressure (BP) to monitor the effectiveness of antihypertensive medication. This affected one resident (#57) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an initial date of 07/23/20 with the latest readmission of 02/05/22 with the admitting diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF), acute and chronic respiratory failure, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus, diverticulitis arthropathy, schizophrenia, dysphagia, history of COVID-19, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic embolism and thrombosis, anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia (HLD), hypertension (HTN), constipation, unilateral inguinal hernia, adult failure to thrive and major depressive disorder. Review of the plan of care dated 07/22/20 revealed the resident was at risk for complications from cardiac disease related to CHF, CVA, HTN, hyperlipidemia. Interventions included diagnostics as ordered, medications and treatments as ordered, observe efficacy and for adverse effects and observe for signs/symptoms of hypo/hypertension and chest pain, notify physician as needed. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, made himself understood and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive deficit. Review of the monthly physician orders for April 2023 identified an order dated 11/28/22 Norvasc 10 milligrams (mg) by mouth daily for blood pressure with the special instructions to hold if systolic blood pressure (SBP) was less than 100 or pulse less than 60. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for January 2023, February 2023 and 03/01/23 to 03/29/23 revealed the resident's blood pressure and pulse were not obtained prior to the administration of the medication Norvasc 10 mg. On 03/29/23 at 03:38 PM, interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999 verified the resident's blood pressure and pulse were not obtained prior to the administration of the medication Norvasc 10 mg. Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medication, dated 04/19 revealed medications are administered in a safe and timely manner and as prescribed. The following information is checked/verified for each resident prior to administering medications: allergies to medications and vital signs as necessary.
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, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide an appropriate diagnosis fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide an appropriate diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic medication and failed to provide a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for a resident without behaviors. This affected two residents (Resident #26 and Resident #46) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1. Record Review of Resident #26 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following medical diagnoses: cerebrovascular disease, morbid obesity, asthma, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, expressive-receptive language disorder, anxiety, pseudobulbar affect, low back pain, intervertebral disc degeneration, dementia, abnormalities of gait and movement, dysphagia, abnormal posture, depression, COVID-19, depression, chronic kidney disease stage 3, muscle weakness, arthropathy, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on 01/05/23 revealed she was unable to make her needs known as she was rarely/never understood. Review of Physician Orders revealed this resident is receiving the following medication: Seroquel 25 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth (PO) twice daily for dementia with behavioral disturbance. On 04/04/23 at 03:55 P.M. , Interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant #999 verified that dementia with behavioral disturbance is not an acceptable diagnosis for the use of Seroquel. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an admission date of 07/02/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, malignant neoplasm of the breast, lymphedema, hypertension, and [NAME] Body Dementia. The resident had received an antipsychotic medication (Quetiapine 50 milligrams at bedtime) since admission. Review of a MDS completed 07/25/22 revealed the resident had cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance from staff with activities of daily living. It indicated the resident was receiving an antipsychotic medication and had a gradual dose reduction on 07/15/22. Review of a quarterly MDS completed 01/19/23 revealed cognitive impairment, extensive assistance needed with activities of daily living, antipsychotic use, and no behaviors exhibited (including hallucinations and delusions). Observations on 03/29/23 at 10:08 A.M., 10:25 A.M., and 1:03 P.M. and on 03/30/23 at 9:21 A.M. revealed the resident to be pleasant with no behavioral issues noted. Interview with Resident #46's daughter on 03/29/23 at 7:39 A.M. revealed the resident received the antipsychotic medication to help her sleep at night but did not have any behavioral issues. Interview with nursing assistant #600 on 03/29/23 at 10:25 A.M. revealed Resident #46 did not have any type of behavioral issues. A plan of care dated 02/16/23 stated the resident had a psychotic disorder: Altered thought process related to dementia with psychotic features/delusions/hallucinations. The plan of care further stated to observe for worsening or improvement in symptoms for which the psychotropic medication was prescribed and notify the physician as needed. The facility had behavior monitoring records in place with target behaviors identified as crying, agitation, and yelling. Review of the monitoring records for January, February, and March 2023 revealed no behaviors were exhibited. Review of a physician's progress note 03/01/23 revealed resident was seen at request of facility for review of pharmacy recommendations. Is currently prescribed Quetiapine 50 milligrams at bedtime for diagnosis of behaviors. Recommendation is for gradual dose reduction. Staff report no adverse side effects from medication and family is refusing medication dose change. No change was made to the antipsychotic medication. Interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant #999 on 04/04/23 at 3:18 P.M. confirmed Resident #46 had not had a reduction in the antipsychotic medication, as indicated on the MDS. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 04/05/23 at 9:30 A.M. confirmed Resident #46 had not exhibited any type of behaviors in the past three months and should have had a reduction in the antipsychotic medication. Review of the facility policy titled Tapering Medications and Gradual Drug Dose Reduction revised April 2007 revealed the attending physician and staff will identify target symptoms for which a resident is receiving various medications. The staff will monitor for improvement in those target symptoms and provide the physician with that information. The staff and practitioner will consider tapering of medications as one approach to finding an optimal dose or determining whether continued use of a medication is benefiting the resident. Residents who use antipsychotic drugs shall receive gradual dose reductions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue the use of such drugs. Within the first year after a resident is admitted on an antipsychotic medication or after the resident has been started on an antipsychotic medication, the staff and practitioner shall attempt a gradual dose reduction in two separate quarters (with at least one month between attempts) unless clinically contraindicated. After the first year, the facility shall attempt a gradual dose reduction annually, unless clinically contraindicated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure significant medication errors ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure significant medication errors did not occur. This affected one resident (#27) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 92. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #27 revealed an initial admission date of 01/24/22 with the latest readmission of 03/09/23 with the admitting diagnoses including traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, fracture of shaft of right femur, respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), end stage renal disease (ESRD), asthma, diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, depression, sleep apnea, heart failure, dysphagia, hypertension, generalized muscle weakness, difficulty, constipation, hypothyroidism, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, hyperlipidemia, chronic pain syndrome, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, folate deficiency anemia and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the hospital discharge continuity dated 01/28/22 revealed the resident was discharged with the following physician orders, Buspar (medication used to treat anxiety) 10 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily, Risperdal (medication used to treat certain mental/mood disorders) 1.5 mg by mouth twice daily and Senokot-S (medication used to treat constipation) 8.6-50 mg with the special instructions to take three tablets by mouth twice daily. Review of the pharmacy recommendation dated 01/31/22 revealed the pharmacist notified the facility of the following medication errors related to transcription errors during the monthly drug regimen review. The resident was to receive Risperdal 1.5 mg by mouth twice daily and the physician order was transcribed as Risperdal 3 mg by mouth twice daily. The order was transcribed as twice the dose ordered which could lead to the side effects, agitation, sedation, anxiety, headache, tremors, dizziness, increased heart rate and musculoskeletal pain. The resident was to receive Buspar 10 mg by mouth twice daily and the physician order was transcribed as Buspar 5 mg by mouth twice daily. The transcribed dose was half the physician ordered dose which could reduce the effectiveness of the medication for the resident's anxiety. The resident was to receive Senokot-S 8.6-50 mg with the special instruction to give three tablets by mouth twice daily and the physician order was transcribed as Senna 8.6 mg by mouth twice daily. The Senna 8.6 mg did not contain the Colace (stool softener) contained in the Senna-S 8.6-50 mg leading to potential issues with constipation and/or difficulty having bowel movement. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for January and February 2022 revealed Resident #27 received the wrong dose of Buspar 5 mg by mouth twice daily and Senokot 8.6 mg by mouth with the special instructions to give three tablets twice daily from 01/28/22 to 02/02/23. The resident also received the wrong dose of Risperdal 3 mg by mouth twice daily from 01/28/22 to 02/03/23. Review of the hospital discharge continuity dated 02/05/22 revealed the resident was discharged with the following physician Xarelto 15 mg by mouth twice daily until 02/24/22 then Xarelto 20 mg by mouth daily. Review of the pharmacy recommendation dated 02/07/22 revealed the pharmacist notified the facility of the following medication error related to transcription error. The resident was to receive Xarelto (medication used to thin the blood) 15 mg by mouth twice daily until 02/24/22 and then Xarelto 20 mg by mouth daily. The pharmacy recommendation indicated the resident was receiving both the Xarelto 15 mg by mouth twice daily and the Xarelto 20 mg by mouth daily at the same time which could lead to increased risk of bleeding. Review of the MAR for February 2022 revealed the resident received both Xarelto 15 mg by mouth twice daily and Xarelto 20 mg by mouth daily on 02/06/22 and on 02/09/22. Review of the resident's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, made himself understood and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating no cognitive deficit. On 04/03/23 at 3:43 P.M., interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the medication errors related to the wrong doses of Risperdal, Buspar, Senokot and Xarelto. Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications, dated 04/19 revealed medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #85's medication was properly stored. This had the potential to affect 21 cognitively impaired, ambulatory residents. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed an admission date of 02/03/23 with diagnoses including sepsis, cellulitis of bilateral lower extremities, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, peripheral vascular disease, Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) of nasal passage, colonized. Review of the comprehensive Medicare five day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #85 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Resident #85 was coded as receiving an antibiotic. Review of the physician orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #85 was ordered Juven oral packet (nutritional supplement) give one packet by mouth mixed with six ounces of water two times a day for wound healing in morning and afternoon. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated March 2023 revealed Resident #85 received medication Juven two times daily every day in 03/23. There were no refusals documented. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 03/28/23 and 03/29/23. The nursing notes were silent on resident refusal of medication. Review of the plan of care dated 03/29/23 revealed Resident #85 was non compliant related to taking medications. Interventions included continue to encourage the resident to comply with medications, and if resident continues to decline care, leave safely alone and reproached later. An observation on 03/29/23 at 10:05 A.M. revealed Resident #85 was lying on his left side in bed. A cup of orange grainy drink, approximately six ounces, with a spoon/straw was on the bedside table. The drink smelled like oranges. An interview on 03/29/23 at 10:07 with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #255 confirmed and verified a cup of orange drink was on the bedside table that looked like medication. An interview on 03/29/23 at 10:08 A.M. with Resident #85 revealed the cup on bedside table was medication. The resident stated he doesn't always take that particular medication. The nurse working last night left it on the table. An interview on 03/29/23 at 10:22 A.M. with LPN #101 confirmed and verified the orange drink was orange flavored Juven. Resident #85 takes the medication for wound healing and does refuse to take the medication quite a bit. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration dated 10/2010 indicated the nurse was to stay with the resident until all medications were taken. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage dated 11/2010 indicated all drugs were to be stored in safe locked place.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dental services were provided for a resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dental services were provided for a resident with dental concerns. This affected one resident (#9) who was reviewed for dental concerns. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Record review for Resident #9 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including hemiplegia affecting the right dominant side, aphasia, morbid obesity, dysphagia, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/25/23, revealed this resident had moderately impaired cognition based off of staff interview. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility, extensive assistance from one staff member for eating, and to be dependent upon two staff members for transfers and toileting. Review of the dental visit note, dated 08/29/19, revealed this resident refused dental services during the visit. Review of the care plan, dated 09/19/19, revealed this resident was at risk for impaired dental status. Interventions included dental consult when ordered and per resident choice. Review of the facility Oral/Dental Status Assessment, dated 01/17/23, revealed this resident was assessed to have obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. Further record review for this resident revealed no evidence of dental services being offered or provided since 08/29/19. Observation on 03/28/23 at 8:39 A.M. revealed Resident #9 was observed lying in bed and had missing/broken upper teeth, no lower teeth, and likely cavities to upper teeth evidenced by areas of black discoloration. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Clinical Nurse Consultant #999 on 04/04/23 at 9:20 A.M. verified there was no evidence of dental services provided or offered to Resident #9 since 08/29/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure accurate and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete physicians orders for the administration of medication and wound care treatments. This affected two residents (#2 and #195) who were reviewed for medication administration and wound care treatment. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #2 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including acute and chronic respiratory failure, contracture's, and Bell's Palsy. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/02/23, revealed this resident was rarely/never understood. This resident was assessed to be dependent upon two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and to be dependent upon one staff member for eating. Review of the care plan, revised 03/08/22, revealed this resident had an Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) self care deficit. Interventions included geri-chair for locomotion, personal hygiene with one assist, and transfer with hoyer/mechanical lift and two assist. Review of the active physicians order, dated 03/02/23, revealed an order to administer 30 milligrams (mg) of Guaifenesin liquid (a medication for cough) three times a day. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 03/02/23 through 03/29/23 revealed staff had documented 30 mg of Guaifenesin had been administered to Resident #2 three times a day. Observation and interview during medication administration to Resident #2 on 03/29/23 at 12:10 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #890 verified the physicians order for the administration of Guaifenesin liquid stated to administer 30 mg of the medication. The bottle of Guaifenesin liquid located on the medication cart was observed to provide 100 mg per 5 milliliters (ml) of the medication. LPN #890 verified the bottle of Guaifenesin liquid located on the medication cart was the one nurses always used to administer the medication to Resident #2. LPN #890 verified according to the physicians order and the strength of the Guaifenesin liquid available on the medication cart, approximately 1.3 ml of the medication should be administered to Resident #2. LPN #890 stated this dosage was not appropriate and stated she had been administering 30 ml of the Guaifenesin liquid to Resident #2 which would equal 600 mg of the medication, which was a more appropriate dosage. LPN #890 stated she would contact the physician for clarification of the order for Guaifenesin as the order was inaccurate. Interview with LPN #890 on 03/29/23 at 3:05 P.M. verified the physician had been contacted for clarification of the Guaifenesin liquid order for Resident #2 and the order had been changed to administer 30 ml equaling 600 mg, which was the appropriate dosage. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #195 revealed an admission date of 03/13/23 with diagnoses of acute osteomyelitis of the left foot,cerebral infarct, type two diabetes mellitus, and hemiplegia of left side. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 03/13/23 3:00 P.M. Resident #195 arrived at the facility with a wound to left lateral great toe area and wound vac in place. Review of the comprehensive Medicare five day MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #195 was cognitively intact. Resident #195 was admitted with a surgical wound with treatment. Review of the physician orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #195 had an order stating change the wound vac to left foot on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with 75 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) daily. Review of the weekly wound assessments dated 03/14/23, and 03/22/23 indicated Resident #195 wound to left foot was healing with measurements remaining the same. Review of the plan of care dated 03/14/23 revealed Resident #195 had non pressure wound with impaired skin integrity related to osteomyelitis to left foot and a wound vac. Interventions included encourage resident to ask for assistance to prevent trauma to wound, medication and treatments as ordered, observe for signs and symptoms of infection, and report to physician. An observation of wound care on 03/29/23 at 9:21 A.M. with LPN #101 for Resident #195, revealed the LPN reviewed the physician order for wound care to gather supplies. LPN #101 stated the order was not complete and she would ask the nurse manager. LPN #101 returned and stated the nurse manager was going to confirm order with physician to include cleansing the wound with wound cleanser, pat dry, cut black foam to fit inside of the wound bed, cover with clear opsite dressing, hook up wound vac tubing and set the pressure. The LPN provided wound care to Resident #195 with no concerns noted as LPN #101 followed new orders received at 9:30 A.M. Review of the facility policy titled Wound Care dated 10/2010 revealed the facility did not verify accuracy of wound care with the physician.
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** 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed an admission date of 02/03/23 with diagnoses including sepsis, celluli...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #85 revealed an admission date of 02/03/23 with diagnoses including sepsis, cellulitis of bilateral lower extremities, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, peripheral vascular disease, and Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) of nasal passage, colonized. Review of the comprehensive Medicare five day MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #85 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. Resident #85 was coded as having an active Multi-Drug Resistant Organism (MDRO). Review of the physician orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #85 was not prescribed an antibiotic and did not have an order for contact precautions. Review of the nursing progress notes revealed Resident #85 received a prescribed antibiotic for diagnosis of sepsis for 10 days; 02/05/23 through 02/13/23. Review of the plan of care dated 02/27/23 revealed Resident #85 had an acute infection with risk for complications related to sepsis and cellulitis of bilateral lower extremities. Interventions included diagnostics as ordered, medications and treatments as ordered and standard precautions. Review of the plan of care dated 02/27/23 revealed Resident #85 had MDRO colonization with a risk for acute infection related to history of MRSA. Interventions included diagnostics as ordered, medications and treatments as ordered and observe for efficacy and adverse effects of medications. Observations on 03/29/23 at 10:05 A.M., on 03/30/23 at 8:55 A.M., on 03/30/23 at 3:10 P.M. and on 04/03/23 at 10:20 A.M. of Resident #85 revealed no sign posted on door related to infection control or isolation precautions. An interview on 03/30/23 at 8:55 A.M. with Resident #85 revealed he was not aware of having any contagious infection. An interview on 04/03/23 at 2:14 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #195 revealed Resident #85 was not on any infection control precautions other than standard precautions. An interview on 04/03/23 at 2:26 P.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #85 was not on infection control precautions. An interview on 04/03/23 at 3:30 P.M. with MDS nurse #255 revealed and confirmed Resident #85 did not have an active diagnosis of MDRO in wounds. The MDS nurse stated Resident #85 hospital history and physical revealed Resident #85 had colonized MRSA in his nasal passages. The MDS nurse confirmed the comprehensive assessment was coded incorrectly. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #195 revealed an admission date of 03/13/23 with diagnoses of acute osteomyelitis of the left foot, MRSA, cerebral infarct, type two diabetes mellitus, and hemiplegia of left side. Review of the comprehensive Medicare five day MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #195 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. Resident #195 was admitted with a surgical wound with treatment, intravenous antibiotics and active diagnosis of MDRO. Review of the physician orders for March 2023 revealed Resident #195 received Vancomycin Hydrochloride 750 milligrams (mg) intravenously once daily, and Meropenem intravenous solution reconstituted one gram intravenously two times daily for osteomyelitis of left foot. There were no orders for isolation, or contact precautions. Review of nursing progress notes revealed Resident #195 received intravenous antibiotic as ordered. Review of the plan of care dated 03/14/23 revealed Resident #195 had infection risk related to wound. Interventions included diagnostics as ordered, medications and treatments as ordered, standard precautions, and observe for resolution or worsening. Review of the plan of care dated 03/14/23 revealed Resident #195 had MDRO colonization with a risk for acute infection related to history of MDRO. Interventions included diagnostics as ordered and notify the physician as needed, follow standard precautions or specific precautions for type of infection, mediations and treatments as ordered, see Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record for specific instructions, and observe for efficacy and adverse effects. Observations of Resident #195 on 03/28/23 at 2:29 P.M., 03/30/23 at 8:30 A.M., and at 2:30 P.M. revealed no sign posted on door related to infection control or isolation precautions. An interview on 03/28/23 at 2:29 P.M. with Resident #195 revealed she had osteomyelitis in her left foot. An interview on 04/03/23 at 2:14 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #195 revealed Resident #195 was not on any infection control precautions other than standard precautions. An interview on 04/04/23 at 11:02 A.M. with MDS nurse #255 revealed and confirmed Resident #195 did not have an active diagnosis of MDRO in wounds. The MDS nurse stated Resident #195 hospital history and physical and discharge instructions revealed Resident #195 did not have an active diagnosis of MDRO. The MDS nurse confirmed the comprehensive assessment was coded incorrectly. Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure five residents (#46, #52, #57, #85 and #195) Minimum Data Set (MDS) were accurate in the area of diagnoses, contracture's and psychotropic medications. This affected five of 26 sampled residents. The census was 92. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an initial admission date of 08/16/21 with the latest readmission of 03/23/23. Diagnoses included quadriplegia, cervical disc disorder, acute transverse myelitis in demyelinating disease of central nervous system, polyosteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, anemia, chronic viral hepatitis C, stiffness of unspecified joint, resistance to multiple antibiotics, major depressive disorder, hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy, contracture of unspecified joint, osteoporosis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder and bipolar disorder. Review of the nursing admission screening/history dated 08/16/21 revealed the resident had contracture's to the left hand, right hand, had foot drop and wears brace/boot for prevention and had foot drop to the left foot. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, makes herself understood and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive deficit. The resident required extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility, dependent on two staff for transfers and toileting use. The assessment indicated the resident had no function impairment to upper extremities and functional impairment to both lower extremities. Review of the plan of care revealed no care plan addressing the resident's foot drop or contracture's to bilateral hands. On 03/27/23 at 2:16 P.M., observation of Resident #52 revealed the resident was observed with contracture to right hand/fingers. Resident #52 was not able to open her hand fully when asked if she was able to open her hand. The resident stated, her hand had gotten worse since being admitted to the facility. On 03/29/23 at 10:17 A.M., interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant (CNC) #999 verified the MDS for Resident # 52 was coded inaccurately. On 03/29/23 at 1:25 P.M., interview with Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) #800 verified the resident's right had was contracted. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an initial date of 07/23/20 with the latest readmission of 02/05/22 with the admitting diagnoses including congestive heart failure, acute and chronic respiratory failure, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, diverticulitis arthropathy, schizophrenia, dysphagia, history of COVID-19, benign prostatic hyperplasia, chronic embolism and thrombosis, anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, constipation, unilateral inguinal hernia, adult failure to thrive and major depressive disorder. Review of the psychiatry initial consult dated 05/18/22 revealed the resident was being seen following a readmission from the hospital. The progress noted revealed the resident has an active diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder and was currently receiving Risperdal two milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily. The assessment and plan was schizoaffective disorder continue Risperdal, Buspar, Cymbalta and Depakote. The resident was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Insomnia. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, made himself understood and had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive deficit. The assessment indicated schizophrenia was not an active diagnosis. On 03/29/23 at 10:17 A.M., interview with CNC #999 verified the active diagnosis of schizophrenia was not coded on the MDS. 5. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an admission date of 07/02/22. The resident had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, malignant neoplasm of the breast, lymphedema, and hypertension. Review of physician's orders revealed an order for an antipsychotic medication (Quetiapine 50 milligrams at bedtime) since admission on [DATE]. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 07/25/22 revealed it indicated the resident received an antipsychotic medication and had a gradual dose reduction on 07/15/22. There was no evidence the resident had a gradual dose reduction of the medication. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment completed 01/19/23 revealed it indicated the resident had received an antianxiety medication for seven of the last seven days. There was no evidence in the record the resident was receiving any antianxiety medication in December 2022, January 2023 or currently. Interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant #999 on 04/04/23 at 3:18 P.M. confirmed the MDS assessments on 07/25/22 and 01/19/23 were inaccurate. She confirmed Resident #46 had not had a gradual dose reduction on 07/15/22 and had not received the antianxiety medication as indicated on the quarterly MDS of 01/19/23.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review for Resident #2 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including hemip...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review for Resident #2 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including hemiplegia, Bell's Palsy, and contracture. Review of the annual MDS assessment, dated 03/02/23, revealed this resident was rarely/never understood. This resident was assessed to be dependent upon two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and to be dependent upon one staff member for eating. This resident was assessed to have functional limitation in range of motion to bilateral upper and lower extremities. Review of the active care plans for this resident revealed no evidence of a plan of care for limited range of motion or contracture's. Observation on 03/28/23 at 4:10 P.M. revealed this resident was observed to have contracture's present to both hands and feet. Interview with the DON and Clinical Nurse Consultant #999 on 04/04/23 at 9:45 A.M. verified there was not a plan of care in place to address care of contracture's or limited range of motion for Resident #2. Review of the facility titled Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, revised 07/2017, revealed the care plan will be developed by the interdisciplinary team based on the comprehensive assessment, and will be revised as needed. The care plan will include specific interventions, exercises and therapies to maintain, prevent avoidable decline in, and/or improve mobility and range of motion. Interventions may include therapies, the provision of necessary equipment, and/or exercises and will be based on professional standards of practice and be consistent with state laws and practice acts. The care plan will include the type, frequency, and duration of interventions, as well as measurable goals and objectives. The resident and representative will be included in determining these goals and objectives. Documentation of the residents progress towards these goals and objectives will include attempts to address any changes or decline in the residents condition or needs. Based on observations, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for four residents (#2, #4, #52, and #79) of 23 sampled residents. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #79 revealed an admission date of 12/26/22 with diagnosis of respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), unspecified severe protein calorie deficiency, congestive heart failure, debility and shortness of breath. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #79 was cognitively intact as evidenced by Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam of 15 out 15. Resident #79 had active diagnoses of respiratory failure with hypoxia, risk of malnutrition, chronic obstructive respiratory failure and shortness of breath. Resident #79 was documented as having shortness of breath when lying flat and received oxygen. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2023 revealed Resident #79 received Ipratropium-Albuterol solution 0.5/2.5 milligrams/3 milliliters orally via nebulizer every four hours for shortness of breath, wheezing, COPD,and asthma. Nurse to record pre treatment breath sounds such as rhonci, crackles or normal breath sounds, pulse and respiratory rate. Resident received oxygen at two liters per min via nasal cannula and documented oxygen saturations. Review of the plan of care dated 01/26/23 revealed Resident #79 had impaired respiratory status with risk for gas exchange related to COPD, oxygen dependent, and respiratory failure. Interventions included diagnostics as ordered, notify physician as needed, medications and treatments as ordered and observe for efficacy and adverse effects. The plan of care did not include use of oxygen or respiratory assessment. Observations on 03/28/23 at 3:07 P.M., 03/29/23 at 1:10 P.M. and on 04/03/23 at 1:15 P.M. revealed Resident #79 noted to have a moist deep cough. Resident #79 was wearing oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula. An interview on 03/28/23 at 3:07 P.M. with Resident #79 revealed she had pneumonia before and knew what it felt like. Resident #79 stated the doctor ordered an x-ray. An interview on 03/29/23 at 1:20 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #101 revealed the LPN was agency staffing and had not worked with Resident #79 prior. LPN #101 stated Resident #79 had a horrible cough and just finished her Medrol dose pack for chronic bronchitis. LPN stated oxygen saturation was obtained and documented on the MAR. An interview on 04/04/23 at 4:00 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the plan of care for Resident #79 was not comprehensive and updated related to respiratory care and needs including oxygen therapy and respiratory assessment. 2. Record Review of Resident #4 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following medical diagnoses: diabetes mellitis type II, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3, osteoarthritis, bipolar disorder, congestive heart failure, anxiety, depression, dementia, COVID-19, and muscle weakness. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident was alert and oriented to person, place, and time and able to make her needs known and revealed resident is always incontinent of both bowel and bladder. Resident is also an extensive, two-person assist for activities of daily living including bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. Review of Resident-Centered Care Plan revealed this resident had a Urinary Incontinence Care Plan in place, effective 02/19/23 and an intervention to observe for incontinence every two hours and as needed. The facility was unable to provide any type of Bowel Incontinence Care Plan. Interview with Resident #4 on 03/28/23 at 08:26 A.M. stated that sometimes she doesn't get cleaned up appropriately following a bowel movement. Interview with the Administrator on 04/04/23 at 2:22 P.M. verified this resident does not have an active care plan for bowel incontinence. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an initial admission date of 08/16/21 with the latest readmission of 03/23/23. Diagnoses included quadriplegia, cervical disc disorder, acute transverse myelitis in demyelinating disease of central nervous system, polyosteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, anemia, chronic viral hepatitis C, stiffness of unspecified joint, resistance to multiple antibiotics, major depressive disorder, hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy, contracture of unspecified joint, osteoporosis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder and bipolar disorder. Review of the nursing admission screening/history dated 08/16/21 revealed the resident had contracture's to the left hand, right hand, had foot drop and wears brace/boot for prevention and had foot drop to the left foot. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had clear speech, understood others, makes herself understood and had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident had no cognitive deficit. Review of the mood and behavior revealed the resident displayed no behaviors. The resident required extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility, dependent on two staff for transfers and toileting use. The assessment indicated the resident had no functional impairment to upper extremities and functional impairment to both lower extremities. Review of the monthly physician's orders identified orders dated 12/15/21 contracture boot right foot drop every shift. Review of the plan of care revealed no care plan addressing the resident's foot drop or contracture's to hands. On 03/27/23 at 2:16 P.M., observation of Resident #52 revealed the resident was observed with contracture to right hand/fingers. Resident #52 was not able to open her hand fully when asked if she was able to open her hand. The resident stated, her hand had gotten worse since being admitted to the facility. Further observation revealed the resident had foot drop to right and left foot. On 03/29/23 at 1:25 P.M., interview with Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) #800 verified the resident's right had was contracted. On 04/04/23 at 10:46 A.M., interview with Clinical Nurse Consultant #999 verified the resident had no plan of care addressing the resident's contracture's or foot drop.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate antibiotic t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate antibiotic therapy was prescribed for the treatment of residents urinary tract infections. This affected four residents (#1, #19, #28, and #67) who were reviewed for prescribed antibiotic therapy during the annual survey. The facility census 92. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #1 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and dementia. Review of the results of urine culture, dated 03/19/23, revealed 10,000 - 100.000 colony formulating units per milliliter (cfu/ml) of the bacteria Escherichia coli (E-coli) was present. Review of the physicians order, dated 03/20/23 and discontinued on 03/21/23, revealed an order to administer 500 milligrams (mg) of Keflex (a broad spectrum antibiotic) three times a day for seven days for the treatment of a urinary tract infection. Review of the results of the sensitivity testing, dated 03/21/23, revealed no documentation of susceptibility of E-coli present to the medication Keflex. Review of the physicians order, dated 03/21/23, revealed an order to begin the administration of Macrobid (an antibiotic medication) for the treatment of the residents urinary tract infection. Interview with Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) #790 on 04/04/23 at 9:10 A.M. verified the physician had ordered Keflex for the treatment of Resident #1's urinary tract infection before the results of sensitivity testing had come back which indicated the medication Macrobid was more appropriate. 2. Record review for Resident #19 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and anxiety. Review of the results of the urine culture, dated 03/07/23, revealed over 100,000 cfu/ml of the bacteria E-coli was present. Review of the results of the sensitivity testing, dated 03/08/23, revealed no documentation of susceptibility of E-coli present to the medication Keflex. Review of the physicians order, dated 03/08/23, revealed an order to begin administration of Keflex three times a day for seven days for the treatment of a urinary tract infection. Interview with ICP #790 on 04/04/23 at 9:10 A.M. verified the sensitivity testing did not indicate Keflex was appropriate for the treatment of Resident #19's urinary tract infection. 3. Record review for Resident #28 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, overactive bladder, and hypertension. Review of the results of the urine culture and sensitivity testing, dated 03/13/23, revealed over 100,000 cfu/ml of the bacteria E-coli was present. There was no documentation of the susceptibility of E-coli present to the medication Keflex. Review of the physicians order, dated 03/13/23, revealed an order to begin administration of Keflex three times a day for seven days for the treatment of a urinary tract infection. Interview with ICP #790 on 04/04/23 at 9:10 A.M. verified the sensitivity testing did not indicate Keflex was appropriate for the treatment of Resident #28's urinary tract infection. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #67 revealed an admission date of 11/18/22 and a diagnosis of benign prostatic hypertrophy (enlarged prostate). The resident had an indwelling catheter. Review of hospital records revealed on 01/11/23 the resident presented to the emergency department for evaluation of dysuria (painful or difficult urination). Patient has a visible Foley catheter with cloudy urine present in the tubing. He also reports discomfort to the suprapubic region of abdomen. A urinalysis was completed on 01/11/23 which showed 2+ blood and a large amount of leucocytes. Resident #67 was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and an antibiotic (Levoquin 750 milligrams) was ordered daily for 14 days. The resident returned to the facility. Record review revealed Resident #67 received the Levoquin daily at the facility from 01/12/23 to 01/25/23. (14 days). Review of additional hospital records revealed on 01/12/23 it was noted by the hospital that the colony count showed three or more organisms, indicating a poor specimen. A repeat collection was suggested. There was no evidence a repeat urine culture was obtained to determine if the resident actually had a urinary tract infection or if the antibiotic the resident was taking was effective against the type of bacteria that might be present. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 04/05/23 at 9:42 A.M. confirmed the hospital records indicated the urine specimen was poor and a repeat urine culture was not done. Review of the facility policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship revised December 2016 revealed it stated when a culture and sensitivity is ordered, lab results and the current clinical situation will be communicated to the prescriber as soon as available to determine if antibiotic therapy should be started, continued, modified, or discontinued
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure wound care treatm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure wound care treatments were implemented and completed timely and according to physicians orders. This affected two residents (#19 and #99) out of the three residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 95. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #19 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including heart failure, type two diabetes mellitus, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/16/23, revealed this resident had intact cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 13 out of 15. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from two staff members for transfers, bed mobility, and toileting and to require extensive assistance from one staff member for eating. This resident was assessed to have one pressure ulcer which was unstageable due to the presence of slough and/or eschar (dead tissue). Review of the care plan, dated 01/17/23, revealed this resident had a pressure wound to the coccyx. Interventions included to administer treatments as ordered. Review of the physicians order, dated 02/01/23 and discontinued on 02/06/23, revealed an order to cleanse the pressure ulcer to the residents coccyx with in house wound cleanser, pat dry, apply Medihoney gel to the wound bed, and cover with gauze. Change dressing every day shift. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for 02/2023 revealed the treatment to the residents pressure ulcer was documented to have been completed as ordered on 02/05/23 and on 02/06/23. The treatment was documented as completed on 02/06/23 by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #279. Review of the progress notes, dated 02/05/23 and 02/06/23, revealed no documentation of refusal of treatment. Observation on 02/06/23 at 1:40 P.M. of Registered Nurse (RN) #375 and State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #199 completing wound care treatment to the pressure ulcer located on the coccyx of Resident #19 revealed the bandage covering the wound contained a hand written date of 02/04/23 and the initials of the nurse working on that day. Interview with RN #375 at the time of the observation verified the bandage was last changed on 02/04/23, two days prior, despite the fact the orders were for the wound care treatment to be completed every day. RN #375 stated the wound did not appear to have worsened since the last weekly assessment and measurement. Interview with Resident #19 on 02/06/23 at 2:05 P.M. revealed staff changed his wound treatment most days, but not all. Review of facility policy titled Wound Care, revised 10/2010, revealed to label tape with the date, time, and initials of the person changing the dressing. Record the completed treatment in the medical record. 2. Closed record review for Resident #99 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including heart failure, metabolic encephalopathy, diabetes mellitus, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, iron deficiency anemia, hypertension, muscle weakness, abnormal posture, retention of urine, and age-related physical debility. This resident was discharged from the facility on 01/13/23. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 01/03/23, revealed this resident had intact cognition evidenced by a BIMS assessment score of 15 out of 15. This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and to require limited assistance from one staff member for eating. This resident was assessed to have one unstageable pressure injury presenting as deep tissue injury which was present upon admission to the facility. Review of the hospital discharge summery, dated 12/27/22, revealed to continue treatment with , Medihoney gel to affected areas. Review of the nurses progress note, dated 12/27/22, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with numerous bandages in place to both lower extremities. The resident refused a skin assessment and stated the bandages had just been changed that day at the hospital. Review of the Nurse Practitioners progress note, dated 12/30/22, revealed Resident #99 was reported to have wounds to bilateral lower extremities with treatment in place. Review of the physicians order for Resident #99 revealed no orders for treatments to be completed to the pressure ulcer on the residents left heel from 12/27/22 through 12/31/22. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 12/27/22 through 12/31/22, revealed no documentation of the completion of wound care treatment to the pressure ulcer on Resident #99's left heel. Review of the physicians order, dated 01/01/23, revealed an order to cleanse the pressure injury to the residents left heel with in house wound cleanser, pat dry, apply Medihoney gel to the wound bed, and cover with heel dressing then wrap with kerlix. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 02/06/23 at 2:20 P.M. verified Resident #99 was admitted to the facility with a pressure ulcer on 12/27/22 and wound care orders were not implemented until 01/01/23. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00139531.
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #99 was fr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #99 was free from a significant medication error when the resident did not receive medication to treat heart failure. This affected one resident (#99) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The census was 95. Findings include: Review of Resident #99's closed medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, metabolic encephalopathy, diabetes mellitus, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, iron deficiency anemia, hypertension, muscle weakness, abnormal posture, retention of urine, and age-related physical debility. This resident was discharged from the facility on 01/13/23. Review of the physician's order, dated 12/27/22, revealed an order to administer one Sacubitril-Valsartan 24-26 milligram oral tablet (Entresto) twice a day. The medication is a combination medication used to treat heart failure. Review of the orders revealed no parameters noted for which to hold the medication. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 01/03/23 revealed the resident had intact cognition evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 15 (out of 15). This resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and to require limited assistance from one staff member for eating. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 12/2022 through 01/13/23 revealed Entresto no evidence the medication was administered as ordered on on 12/31/22 at 9:00 P.M., 01/04/23 at 9:00 A.M., or 01/04/23 at 9:00 P.M. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 02/06/23 at 3:00 P.M. verified there were no parameters set for which to not administer the medication Entresto to Resident #99 and also verified the resident was not documented to have received all ordered doses of Entresto. Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications, revised 04/2019 revealed medications were administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00139531.
Feb 2020 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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 record review, observation, and interviews the facility failed to notify the physician and hospice services after a res...

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 notify the physician and hospice services after a resident was found with copious amounts of sanguineous fluid visible in a tracheostomy mask and the tracheostomy tube. This affected one resident (Resident #2) out of three residents reviewed with tracheostomy care. The facility census was 120. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #2 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following medical diagnoses: malignant neoplasm of the larynx, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute bronchitis, hypoxia, mood disorder, tracheostomy, obstructive sleep apnea, anemia, dyspnea, and diabetes mellitus type II. This resident is non-verbal, but is alert and oriented to person, place, and time with a current BIMS score of 10 on the most recent MDS quarterly assessment completed on 02/17/20, indicating minimal/moderate cognitive impairments. This resident has no known drug allergies. Review of physician orders revealed this resident was to receive tracheostomy care each shift and as needed. On 02/25/20 at 10:52 A.M., observation of Resident #2's tracheostomy and trach oxygen mask observed with copious amounts of blood, suction machine at bedside, not plugged in. On 02/25/20 10:58 A.M. interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #201 verified the tracheostomy site for Resident #2 was unclean and observed with a moderate/large amount of sanguineous fluid. Tracheostomy mask had pooled red fluid collecting in the bottom of the reservoir and was noted to be bubbling on occasion during respirations by the resident. The nurse verified that the resident required suctioning and proceeded to suction the resident while providing trach care. No concerns on trach care as it was completed per sterile technique. Resident noted without any difficulty breathing or other respiratory problems. On 02/26/20 5:45 P.M. observation of Resident #2 revealed this resident had a large amount of tan sputum and mucous which has again collected in the tracheostomy mask. Director of Nursing(DON) notified and verified that this resident needed to be suctioned immediately. DON suctioned the resident without difficulty and provided trach care per sterile technique. DON verified during care that trach site is unkept and required care immediately to maintain a patent airway for the resident. Suction machine and ambu-bag in room. Review of Nursing Notes revealed neither the Physician or Hospice were notified of the condition of Resident #2 until 02/27/20. On 02/27/20 12:40 P.M. interview with the DON verified the facility did not notify the Physician or Hospice after the resident was found with bloody sputum which was collecting in his tracheostomy mask on 02/25/20. She verified these individuals should have been notified.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to assess a resident's activity interests a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to assess a resident's activity interests and provide on-going activities. This affected one of one sampled resident reviewed for activities (Resident #14). Findings include: Review of Resident #14's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: chronic respiratory failure, fever, chronic obstructive pyelonephritis, major depressive disorder, and anoxic brain. Review of Resident #14's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed no speech, rarely never understands, was rarely understood, and her cognition was severely impaired. Resident # 14 had no behavior and did not reject care. Staff assessment for activities revealed she did not read, liked listening to music, liked being around animals, did not keep up on the news, did not like to do things with groups of people, did not like participating in favorite activities, did not like spending time away from the nursing home, did not like spending time outdoors, and did not like participating on religious activities. Resident #14 was dependent on two staff for bed mobility and did not transfer in the previous seven days. Review of Resident #14 activities participation review dated 12/14/19 revealed she was bedfast, and the television was on in her room. There was no activity assessment conducted to determine Resident #14's music preference or television show preferences. Observation of Resident #14, in her room, on 02/25/20 at 10:32 A.M. and 2:54 P.M. revealed no music or television was on. On 02/26/20 at 8:55 A.M. revealed she was in her room, no music or television was on. At 11:06 A.M. Resident #14's television was on a recreational vehicle (RV) program. Interview of Activity Aide (AA) #16 on 02/27/20 at 9:50 A.M. revealed Resident #14 liked country music. AA #16 revealed she turned Resident #14's television on whatever channel it was on nothing. Interview of Activity Director (AD) #43 on 02/27/20 at 9:50 A.M. confirmed no activity assessment was conducted. AD #43 stated Resident #14 was not interviewable and the family was not here when she was. AD #43 confirmed Resident #14's television preferences or music preferences were not obtained. Review of the facility's activities and social services policy (dated December 2006) revealed residents shall have the right to choose the types of activities which they wish to participate in.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident did not receive an antibiotic that was listed as an allergy. This affected one (Resident #361) of one resident sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident did not receive an antibiotic that was listed as an allergy. This affected one (Resident #361) of one resident sampled for antibiotic use. The facility census was 120. Findings include: Review of Resident #361's medical record revealed an initial admission date of 12/31/19 and a re-entry date of 02/15/20. Diagnoses include, respiratory failure, acute bronchitis, and upper respiratory infection. Resident #361 was noted to have allergies to Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic), Diflucan ( an antifungal), Cephalexin (an antibiotic), Omnicef (an antibiotic), Paxil ( an selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor for depression and anxiety), and Zithromax ( an antibiotic). Reactions to all of these allergies were noted as unknown. Review of Resident #361's medicare 5 day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 dated for 02/20/20 revealed an intact cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15. Resident #361 required extensive assistance from one staff member for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use and was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #361's physician orders for February 2020, revealed an order dated for 02/15/20 for the resident to receive Omnicef ( Cefdinir, an antibiotic) 300 milligrams (mg) by mouth, two times a day for a upper respiratory infection for three days. Review of Resident #361's medication administration record (MAR) for February 2020, revealed resident received the ordered medication, Omnicef on 02/15/20 at 8:00 P.M. and on 02/16/20 at 8:00 A.M. before the order was discontinued. Review of a nursing progress note entered for Resident #361 on 02/15/20 at 6:15 P.M. revealed the charting system had identified a possible drug allergy for the medication Cefdinir 300 mg. Another note dated for 02/15/20 at 9:36 P.M. revealed the resident was started on antibiotic therapy with no signs or symptoms of adverse reactions. Interview on 02/25/20 at 4:30 P.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #110 confirmed Resident #361 had received two doses of an antibiotic medication that was listed on her allergy list. The ADON #110 also confirmed the floor nurse had received an alert from the charting system that there was an known allergy to this medication and did not clarify this with the physician prior to administration of the medication. Interview on 02/26/20 at 5:15 P.M. with Resident #361 revealed she knew she was allergic to some medication and antibiotics but she was not sure which ones they were.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure devices were in place to protect ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure devices were in place to protect the resident's palm from breakdown. This affected one of four sampled residents reviewed for impaired skin integrity (Resident #14). Findings include: Review of Resident #14's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: chronic respiratory failure, fever, chronic obstructive pyelonephritis, major depressive disorder, and anoxic brain. Review of Resident #14 significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed no speech, rarely never understands, was rarely understood, and her cognition was severely impaired. Resident #14 had no behavior and did not reject care. Resident #14 was dependent on two staff for bed mobility and did not transfer in the previous seven days. Resident #14 had limited range of motion of both side of upper and lower extremities. The resident's hands were contracted. Review of telephone orders revealed on 01/30/20 bilateral palm guards to decrease skin break down and improve skin integrity were ordered. Observation of Resident #14 on 02/24/20 at 10:30 A.M., at 11:30 A.M., at 2:30 P.M., and on 02/25/20 at 10:46 A.M., at 1:55 P.M., and 2:54 P.M. revealed no palm protectors were in place. Interview of State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #96 on 02/27/20 at 8:35 A.M. revealed she was unable to locate Resident #14's palm protectors on 02/26/20 so a washcloth was placed in her hands until new ones could be obtained. Interview of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #30 on 02/27/20 at 8:43 A.M. confirmed Resident #14 had no palm guards on 02/24/20 and 02/25/20.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Record review revealed Resident #316 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Record review revealed Resident #316 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, history of cerebrovascular disease, chronic respiratory failure, Stage III kidney disease and diabetes mellitus. The physician orders for 02/2020 included oxygen at four liters per nasal cannula, notify physician when oxygen saturation less than 90%, and change oxygen tubing weekly and as needed. On 02/24/20 at 10:58 A.M. Resident #316 was observed resting in bed receiving oxygen at four liters per nasal cannula. There was no date on the oxygen tubing. On 02/25/20 at 2:15 P.M. Resident #316 was observed being transported by therapy staff to the therapy department. No date was noted on the oxygen tubing. On 02/25/20 at 2:53 P.M. during interview,Registered Nurse (RN) #109 confirmed no date was on the oxygen tubing. Resident #316 reported the oxygen tubing was changed on 02/24/20, however, the medical record indicated the oxygen tubing was changed on 02/21/20. RN #109 stated without a date on the tubing, she was unable to determine when the tubing was changed and would replace tubing with new tubing and ensure a date was on the oxygen tubing. Based on record review, observation, and interviews the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory related services to residents. This affected three residents (Residents #2, #14, and #316) of three residents reviewed who were receiving respiratory services in the facility. The facility census was 120. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #2 revealed this resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following medical diagnoses: malignant neoplasm of the larynx, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute bronchitis, hypoxia, mood disorder, tracheostomy, obstructive sleep apnea, anemia, dyspnea, and diabetes mellitus type II. This resident is non-verbal, but is alert and oriented to person, place, and time with a current BIMS score of 10 on the most recent MDS quarterly assessment completed on 02/17/20, indicating minimal/moderate cognitive impairments. This resident has no known drug allergies. Review of physician orders revealed this resident was to receive tracheostomy care each shift and as needed. On 02/25/20 at 10:52 A.M., observation of Resident #2's tracheostomy and trach oxygen mask observed with copious amounts of blood, suction machine at bedside, not plugged in. On 02/25/20 at 10:58 A.M., interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #201 verified the tracheostomy site for Resident #2 was unclean and observed with a moderate/large amount of sanguineous fluid. Tracheostomy mask had pooled red fluid collecting in the bottom of the reservoir and was noted to be bubbling on occasion during respirations by the resident. The nurse verified the resident required suctioning and proceeded to suction the resident while providing trach care. No concerns on trach care as it was completed per sterile technique. Resident noted without any difficulty breathing or other respiratory problems. On 02/26/20 at 5:45 P.M., observation of Resident #2 revealed this resident had a large amount of tan sputum and mucous which has again collected in the tracheostomy mask. The Director of Nursing(DON) notified and verified that this resident needed to be suctioned immediately. The DON suctioned the resident without difficulty and provided trach care per sterile technique. The DON verified during care that trach site is unkept and required care immediately to maintain a patent airway for the resident. Suction machine and ambu-bag in room. 2. Review of Resident #14's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: chronic respiratory failure, fever, chronic obstructive pyelonephritis, major depressive disorder, and anoxic brain. Review of Resident #14's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed no speech, rarely never understands, was rarely understood, and her cognition was severely impaired. Resident #14 had no behavior and did not reject care. Resident #14 was dependent on two staff for bed mobility and did not transfer in the previous seven days. Resident #14 had a tracheotomy and received oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #14's telephone orders dated 02/17/20 revealed the resident's oxygen was humidified at night only. Observation of Resident #14 on 02/24/20 at 10:30 A.M., at 11:30 A.M., at 2:30 P.M., and on 02/25/20 at 10:46 A.M., at 1:55 P.M., and 2:54 P.M. revealed her oxygen was humidified and the resident's breathing sounded congested. Interview of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #30 on 02/27/20 at 8:43 A.M. confirmed Resident #14's oxygen was not supposed to be humidified during the day. LPN #30 revealed the order was changed to only humidify Resident #14's oxygen at night as she was more congested. She stated at times the resident's breathing was so loud you could hear her in the hallway. She confirmed Resident #14's oxygen was humidified on 02/24/20 and 02/25/20.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 timely communication from the dialysis center to ensure cont...

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 timely communication from the dialysis center to ensure continuity of care. This affected one resident (Resident #108) of two residents reviewed for dialysis. Findings Include: Record review revealed Resident # 108 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted after acute care hospitalization on 02/04/20 with diagnoses including atherosclerosis and gangrene bilateral legs, congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus Type II, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set completed on 02/11/20 indicated no cognitive delay. The physician orders for 02/2020 included low concentrated sweet diet, dialysis every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; evaluate shunt site in right upper arm for thrill or bruit each shift and as needed; no blood pressure or needle sticks in right arm; ensure right upper arm shunt site is free from signs/symptoms of infection and document any positive finding in progress notes; and notify physician; and Renvela (a medication used to control phosphorus levels in residents receiving dialysis) 800 milligrams (mg) with meals. Resident #108's care plan identified hemodialysis with interventions including to maintain patency of dialysis access site, coordination of care with dialysis center, diagnostics as ordered. A dietary progress note on 12/27/2019 at 3:00 P.M. indicated Resident #108 was at risk, with current weight 233 pounds, a weight loss of 10 pounds from previous week. Oral intake was 76%. Dietary plan was to add renal diet and 1500 milliliters (ml) fluid restriction. The progress note identified Resident #108 was receiving dialysis three times a week. Review of the medical record for Resident #108 revealed dialysis transfer sheets were pre and post treatment vital signs, weights and an area for communications of any concerns or changes. No information from the dialysis center regarding laboratory test results nor dietician recommendations were present in the medical record. During an interview with Registered Dietician (RD) #145 on 02/26/20 at 2:16 P.M. she reported she had not received any communication from the dialysis center regarding Resident #108's laboratory results or dietician recommendations. RD #145 stated Resident #108 had been on a 1500 ml fluid restriction and renal diet prior to his hospitalization and the diet and fluid restriction must not have been initiated after his return from the hospital. RD #145 was not aware of any reason for the fluid restriction nor diet change. RD #145 confirmed no information from the dialysis center addressing any recommendations regarding Resident #108's diet. On 02/27/20 at 11:10 A.M. during interview, the Director of Nurses (DON) reported the physician did not approve the fluid restriction for Resident #108 and RD #145 was also aware of the physician order for no fluid restrictions. On 02/27/20 11:20 A.M., during interview, RN #109 confirmed Resident #108 was now receiving a renal diet. Review of the dialysis agreement dated 09/18/18 between the facility and the dialysis center indicated there would be documented evidence of collaboration of care and communication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident interview, a test tray, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents food was palatable. This affected one of one sampled resident reviewed for food (Resident #160) an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, a test tray, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents food was palatable. This affected one of one sampled resident reviewed for food (Resident #160) and one randomly observed resident (Resident #108). Findings include: Interview of Resident #160 on 02/24/20 at 3:03 P.M. revealed the food just did not taste good and the meat was tough. Interview of Resident #108 on 02/26/20 at 5:25 P.M. revealed he was unable to cut up his piece of chicken by himself. He stated that the chicken was too tough to cut up with a fork and butter knife. A test tray was requested for the evening meal on 02/26/20. At 5:35 P.M. the test tray revealed the apple juice was 58 degrees Fahrenheit and warm to taste. The fried chicken sandwich was overcooked, dry, and not palatable. This was verified by two surveyors whom agreed with each other's taste and confirmed by Registered Dietitian #117.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review the facility failed to maintain an infection pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention program that was followed by facility staff. This affected one of three residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #14). Findings include: Review of Resident #14's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: chronic respiratory failure, fever, chronic obstructive pyelonephritis, major depressive disorder, and anoxic brain. Review of Resident #14's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed no speech, rarely never understands, was rarely understood, and her cognition was severely impaired. Resident # 14 had no behavior and did not reject care. Resident #14 was dependent on two staff for bed mobility and did not transfer in the previous seven days. Resident #14 had a tracheotomy and received oxygen therapy. Observation on 02/27/20 at 2:10 P.M. of tracheostomy (trach) care completed for Resident #14 by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #18 and assistance provided by LPN #30, revealed sterile control was not maintained throughout the trach change process. LPN #18 washed her hands with soap and water and dried them which then she applied regular gloves. LPN #18 removed the old trach oxygen mask and split sponge. LPN #18 removed her gloves, then she opened the sterile trach supply kit and removed the sterile items in the kit with her bare hands. LPN #18 removed the package of sterile gloves and put them on while touching her arm with the sterile part of the gloves. After donning the sterile gloves LPN #18 grabbed the outer part of the glove package that was touching the bedside table and placed it in the trash. LPN #18 gathered multiple four by four gauze from the bedside table and placed them in the sterile trach kit. LPN #18 picked up the container of sterile normal saline from the bedside table and used her sterile gloves to open the container. LPN #18 removed the inner cannula with her right hand while her left hand with the sterile glove on was placed on the resident's bed and disposed of it. LPN #18 placed the four by four gauze into the normal saline and used one gauze to clean around the trach. LPN #18 then used two cotton tip applicators to wipe around the trach. LPN #18 picked up the sterile inner cannula by the portion that was going to be inserted into the resident's tracheostomy with the same gloves she used to touch the resident's bedside table, bed, and the old inner cannula. Interview on 02/27/20 at 2:16 P.M. with LPN #18 and LPN #30 verified sterile technique was not maintained during Resident #14's trach care. Review of the facility's tracheostomy care policy (dated August 2013) revealed aseptic technique must be maintained during all dressing changes and sterile gloves must be used. Soiled gloves were to be removed and hands washed, and gloves were to be reapplied.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

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 residents were provided with a secured lock box...

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 residents were provided with a secured lock box. This affected one resident (Resident #105) of two residents reviewed for personal property. Findings Include: Record review revealed Resident #105 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus Type II, atherosclerotic heart disease, neuropathy, weakness, difficulty walking, depression, hypertension, right foot drop and repeated falls. Review of the quarterly minimum data set completed on 02/11/20 indicated Resident #105 had no cognitive delay. During an interview with Resident #105 on 02/24/20 at 11:18 A.M. he stated he had a locked drawer on his night stand, however, the door did not lock. He stated he had two sets of keys, however, anyone could just open the drawer. Resident #105 stated this had been reported to nursing staff, however, nothing had been done to correct the problem. On 02/26/20 at 11:08 A.M. observation of the locked drawer with the Administrator revealed the lock was not catching on inner clasp of the drawer and the drawer was unable to lock. The Administrator confirmed the lock would bend forward and no longer be able to secure the top drawer.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure pureed food was properly prepared and did not have large pieces of meat in it. This had the potential to affect n...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure pureed food was properly prepared and did not have large pieces of meat in it. This had the potential to affect nine residents who received a pureed diet (Resident #2, #3, #18, #31, #79, #93, #106, #309, and #400). The faciity census was 120. Findings include: Observation of pureed diet preparation on 02/25/20 at 10:00 A.M. revealed 18 servings of creamed chipped beef was placed into a blender. The cream chipped beef was processed, however there were large pieces of the meat around the top of the blender. When [NAME] #42 put the cream chipped beef into the pan pieces that were not pureed mixed into the pureed food. This was confirmed by Registered Dietitian #117. The facility identified Resident #2, #3, #18, #31, #79, #93, #106, #309, and #400 as receiving pureed foods. Review of the Resident nutrition services policy (not dated) revealed each resident would be provided with a diet that met the resident's special dietary needs.
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, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all but two residents' (Resident #14 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all but two residents' (Resident #14 and #66 did not receive nutrition from the kitchen). Findings include: An initial tour of the kitchen on 02/24/20 from 8:50 A.M. to 9:05 A.M. revealed at least 15 pans were stored wet/dirty and two dented cans were stored with the stock. This was confirmed with Dietary Manager (DM) #83. Observation on 02/25/20 at 10:00 AM revealed three fans in the kitchen had grease encrusted dust on them and they were blowing over work areas and food preparation areas. This observation was confirmed by DM #83. Further observation in the kitchen on 02/27/20 at 2:12 P.M. revealed two food scoops had no end caps. This observation was confirmed by Registered Dietitian #117. The facility identified Resident #14 and #66 as receiving no food from the kitchen. Review of the facility's sanitization policy (not dated) revealed the food service area would be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $75,265 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 36 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $75,265 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 33/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton Staffed?

CMS rates HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 64%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton?

State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON during 2020 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 34 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton?

HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON 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 ECC TRUST, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 125 certified beds and approximately 103 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in IRONTON, Ohio.

How Does Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton?

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?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-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 Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton Stick Around?

HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Ohio nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton Ever Fined?

HARBOR HEALTHCARE OF IRONTON has been fined $75,265 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Ohio average of $33,832. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Harbor Healthcare Of Ironton on Any Federal Watch List?

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