LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER

4466 LYNNHAVEN AVENUE NE, LOUISVILLE, OH 44641 (330) 875-5060
For profit - Corporation 99 Beds CCH HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#721 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: February 2023

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

Overview

Louisville Gardens Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility, which places it in the bottom tier of nursing homes. It ranks #721 out of 913 facilities in Ohio and #28 out of 33 in Stark County, meaning it is not among the better options in the area. While the facility has shown improvement over time, reducing issues from 8 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, its staffing situation is troubling with a high turnover rate of 68%, significantly above the state average, and only 2 out of 5 stars for staffing. Additionally, the facility has incurred $115,891 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance problems. There were critical incidents where residents were not properly medicated for pain during care, and the facility had periods without registered nurse coverage, raising risks for residents' health and safety. Despite some strengths, such as excellent quality measures, families should weigh these serious issues when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In Ohio
#721/913
Bottom 22%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$115,891 in fines. Higher than 68% of Ohio facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
45 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Ohio average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 68%

22pts above Ohio avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $115,891

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: CCH HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (68%)

20 points above Ohio average of 48%

The Ugly 45 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents residing in the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the personnel file for Activities Director #208 revealed a hire date of 01/16/24 in the position of receptionist. Her job description changed on 03/08/25 to Activities Director. Review of the Activity Director job description signed by the Administrator and Activities Director #208 on 03/10/25 revealed she must be a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activities professional who is licensed by the state and is eligible for certification as a recreation specialist or as an activities professional; or must have a minimum of two years experience in a social or recreation program within the last five years, one of which was full-time in a patient activities program in a health care setting; or must be a qualified occupational therapist or occupational therapy assistant; or must have completed a training course approved by this state. There was no evidence in Activities Director #208's employee file to prove she had the qualifications. Interview on 04/14/25 at 9:35 A.M. with Human Resources Director (HR) #200 revealed Activities Director #208 was transferred to her position from receptionist on 03/08/25. She stated Activities Director #208 did not have the qualifications required and was not registered for a training course approved by the state. Interview on 04/14/25 at 11:06 A.M. with the Administrator revealed the facility would be enrolling Activities Director #208 into a training course. She stated she believed Activities Director #208 was already enrolled in a course through the corporate office. Interview on 04/16/25 at 8:04 A.M. with Activities Director #208 verified she did not have the qualifications required for the Activity Director role. She stated she had been unsure on how to sign-up for the course and the facility had not provided her information on enrolling her until 04/14/25. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00164095.
Jan 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to accurately document and put a treatment in place in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to accurately document and put a treatment in place in a timely manner for Resident #34 that was admitted with a pressure ulcer. This affected one (Resident #34) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Facility census was 38. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included surgical aftercare and a pressure ulcer to the right buttock. Review of the admission skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 had a pressure ulcer to the left gluteal fold that measured one centimeter (cm) long, one cm wide, and 0.1 cm deep. Review of the treatment administration record revealed no evidence of a treatment being done to Resident #34's right or left gluteal/buttock from 01/13/25 until 01/17/25. A weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 had a Stage II (partial-thickness skin loss involving the epidermis and dermis) pressure ulcer to right gluteal that measured two cm long and 7.5 cm wide. A wound assessment dated [DATE] by the wound nurse practitioner (NP) revealed Resident #34 had a Stage II pressure ulcer to right buttock that measured four cm long, three cm wide, and 0.1 cm deep. An order was received on 01/16/25 to cleanse Resident #34's right buttock with normal saline, pat the area dry, apply Triad (a zinc oxide-based hydrophilic paste), and cover with a dressing every day. An observation on 01/28/25 at 10:26 A.M. revealed Resident #34 had a Stage II pressure ulcer to the right buttock. An interview on 01/28/25 at 1:55 P.M. Regional Clinical Director verified the documentation of pressure ulcer to the left gluteal fold was incorrect and should have been the right gluteal or buttock. Regional Clinical Director also stated the measurements by the floor nurse must of have been incorrect due to the measurements completed by the wound NP. Regional Clinical Director verified a treatment for the Stage II pressure ulcer to Resident #34's right buttock was not put in place for three days. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00161526.
Mar 2024 7 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, including review of the facility payroll records, review of facility billing/financial info...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, including review of the facility payroll records, review of facility billing/financial information, review of email communication, review of the employee handbook, review of the facility Abuse/Neglect policy and procedure and interviews, the facility neglected to meet financial obligations for the delivery of care and maintenance of the facility and to operate in a manner to ensure all bills were being paid timely to prevent potential interruption in services and to meet the total care needs of all residents admitted to and/or retained in the facility. The facility also failed to have an effective system in place to ensure staff were compensated via payroll benefits based on their hire agreement and payroll schedule. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy beginning on 02/16/24 when the lack of financial solvency placed all facility residents at risk for serious harm, injury, hospitalization, displacement due to potential interruption in staffing and/or outside service providers. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents residing in the facility. On 03/06/24 at 4:00 P.M., Administrator #710 was notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 02/16/24 when the onsite investigation determined the facility neglected to meet all financial obligations for the delivery of care and maintenance of the facility by not paying staff in a timely manner and having outstanding balances with vendors and providers. This included, but was not limited to, insufficient funds to meet staff payroll on 02/16/24 and 03/01/24, delinquent balances owed to nutrition services which resulted in dietitian services being cut from 03/01/24 through 03/04/24, delinquent balances for the Medical Director and Psychiatrist, delinquent balances for Therapy services, and sanitation. The Immediate Jeopardy remains ongoing, as the facility failed to implement corrective measures to remove the Immediate Jeopardy situation. Findings Include: Review of the facility survey history revealed on 11/15/23 a complaint survey was completed which resulted in concerns related to financial solvency. A plan of correction was submitted to the state agency to correct the deficient practice of not paying invoices on time in which the facility/company would pay any outstanding balance to vendors through payment plans if the past due invoice could not be paid in full. Following the 11/15/23 survey, the facility provided evidence of payments being made to various supplies/vendors removing the likelihood of situations of neglect. However, at the time of post-survey revisit on 02/08/24, the facility failed to ensure their governing body was effective in establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility and the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program was effective to ensure on-going compliance with the delivery of care including payment to financial obligations for therapy services and arranged payment plans with Premier Staffing and Avalon Foods. Interview on 02/27/24 at 9:25 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #201 revealed on the last payroll period dated 02/16/24 LPN #201's paycheck was returned due to insufficient funds. LPN #201 stated, I deposited my check on Friday 02/16/24 and on Wednesday 02/21/24 my bank contacted me because my paycheck had bounced. I notified the Administrator, and the company wired my paycheck into my account on Friday 02/23/24, but they did not pay for the wire fee my bank charged me. Interview on 02/27/24 at 9:30 A.M. with Housekeeper #164 revealed on the last payroll period dated 02/16/24 Housekeeper #164's paycheck was returned due to insufficient funds. Housekeeper #164 stated, This was my first paycheck here at the facility. I had deposited my check into my bank account on that Friday of payday. Then my bank notified me the next week, like four days later, that my check was not cashed because of insufficient funds. I told my supervisor, and she notified the Administrator and then the company wired my money to the account on Friday 02/23/24, but I had to pay for the wiring fees. My husband wants me to quit working here because of not getting paid on time. Interview on 02/27/24 at 9:35 A.M. with the Housekeeping/Laundry Manager #108 revealed her paycheck was not cashed by the bank due to insufficient funds. Housekeeping/Laundry manager #108 stated, This was the second time my check has bounced. After the first time back in October, I had changed banks because my other one would hold my check up to two weeks until they cashed it. I deposited this check on Friday 02/16/24 and by the following Wednesday, 02/21/24, my bank notified me that this check had been returned due to insufficient funds. I notified the Administrator, and she had the company wire my money into my account on that Friday 02/23/24. I did have to pay for the fees from my bank, so I had to pay for my paycheck. Interview on 02/27/24 at 8:48 A.M. with LPN #202 revealed LPN #202's paycheck had been returned due to insufficient funds on the last pay day on 02/16/24. LPN #202 stated, I had deposited my check on Friday 02/16/24. I had heard that several people had their banks notify them on the following Wednesday that their check had been returned. I hadn't heard anything from my bank, so I thought things were good with my check and so I paid my Jeep payment and some other bills. On that Friday, 02/23/24, my bank contacted me had said that my paycheck had been returned due to insufficient funds. That made my Jeep payment return along with the other bills I had paid. I notified the Administrator, and the company wired my money into my account later that Friday, about 4:45 P.M. I had to pay for the wiring fees and the overdrawn fees, about $20.00, because the company did not cover those fees. Interview on 02/27/24 at 9:43 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #134 revealed STNA #134's paycheck had been returned due to insufficient funds. STNA #134 stated, On this last pay day on 02/16/24 it was a Friday. My bank notified me that my check had bounced on the following Wednesday. I notified the Administrator, and she got the company to wire my money into my account on that Friday 02/23/24. I had to pay the wiring fees and the overdraft fees for the bounced check. Interview on 02/27/24 at 9:56 A.M. with STNA #132 revealed STNA #132's paycheck had been returned due to insufficient funds on the pay day dated 02/16/24. STNA #132 stated, I had deposited my check on that Friday of payday. But I didn't know that it had bounced because I had to get a new bank card. Then my bank notified me that my paycheck had been returned due to insufficient funds. I finally got my new card last week and the company had wired my money on that Friday 02/23/24 like everybody else who had issues with their money. Interview on 02/27/24 at 3:06 P.M. with LPN #112 revealed LPN #112's paycheck had been returned due to insufficient funds. LPN #112 stated, This was the second time that this has happened to me about my checks. I only work as needed for the facility, but I'm not going to pick up anymore because of the issues with the paychecks. I had deposited my check on Monday 02/19/24 and then on Wednesday my bank contacted me had said that my check had bounced. I notified the Administrator and then the company wired my money into my account on that Friday 02/23/24. I had to pay the wiring fees which was about $15.00. Interview on 02/28/24 at 3:02 P.M. with Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #600 revealed there was a system funding error which caused the lack of funds to meet payroll on the pay day dated 02/16/24. CFO #600 stated, There was an error with the positive pay files. We have taken different steps as far as how the files are uploaded into the system now and the process is now started a couple days prior to payday instead of the night before payday. CFO #600 shared starting the process earlier would help ensure the files were uploaded accurately. Interview on 02/28/24 at 3:21 P.M. with the Administrator revealed there were 16 staff members who had their paychecks returned due to insufficient funds on the payday dated 02/16/24. The Administrator verified employees were paid every two weeks. The Administrator stated, I notified the corporate office as soon as the staff notified me of the problems with their paychecks being returned, it was the following Wednesday 02/21/24 that the staff were notified by their banks. The company then wired the money into their (the employee) accounts on that Friday 02/23/24. The CFO never told me what the problem was that caused the paychecks to be returned. Review of the facility provided list of employees with returned/bounced paychecks on 02/16/24 identified Receptionist #200, Business Office Manager #100, Social Services #220, Activity Director #106, Housekeeping Supervisor #108, Housekeeper/Laundry #162 and #164, Dietary Aide #154, State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #132, #134, #136, #142, #144 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #112, #201 and #202 were affected. Observation on 03/01/24 from 9:30 A.M. to 11:45 A.M. revealed Business Office Manager (BOM) #100 passing out the staff paychecks to staff members. The paychecks were issued as paper checks and required the staff to deposit into their bank accounts for processing. On 03/04/24 at 9:57 A.M. an interview with CFO #600 revealed his corporation had more issues with banking since the previous two surveys on 12/04/23 and 01/31/24. He stated on 02/16/24 there was also an error with their Positive Pay system (an automated cash-management service used by financial institutions where checks issued by companies are matched with those presented for payment). CFO #600 stated they placed the check numbers into the system and uploaded it from the Human Resource file to the bank and those are paid by the bank. He stated they covered the wire fees and bounced check fees as soon as the employee updated them on the amounts. An additional interview on 03/04/24 at 10:35 A.M. with CFO# 600 revealed, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) # 601, Director of Finances (DOF) #603 and he (CFO #600) handled all the financial responsibilities for this facility and two sister facilities, Astoria Place of Cambridge, and Astoria Place of Barnesville. He confirmed he was aware the payroll checks from 03/01/24 were returning for insufficient funds for all three facilities. They stated they (Epic Corporation) used the same bank for all the payroll and wired transfers. He stated each facility had its own accounts to pay for payroll and to pay their suppliers. He stated on 02/16/24 there was a Positive Pay file error (they place a restricted range of check numbers in the account for the checks to be cashed to match the HR files and only those check would clear). He stated there was a mix-up with the numbers so all the checks were rejected. He confirmed he had no evidence from the bank it was a banking error. In addition to the staff pay roll issues, he stated the corporation had placed Physician #130 on a payment plan to get him caught up with monies due and had just sent Physician #130 a check for $6000.00 today. He stated he would stay in communication with the other providers the facility used and would never let the bills get to the point of a provider termination of service. He stated he was working with all the staff at the facility to get them paid. He was unable to answer the question as to why payment plans that either himself, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) #601 or Director of Finance #603 initiated, were not followed through with and why payments were missed. On 03/04/24 at 12:00 P.M. an interview with BOM #100 revealed all the staff payroll checks were being returned for insufficient funds from the 03/01/24 pay date. She stated she had received texts and telephone calls from staff yesterday (03/03/24) and today. She stated she was sending the information to the facility's corporate office so they could wire transfer the money to the employees' accounts. She stated Social Service #220 and STNA #146 quit yesterday (03/03/24) due to their pay not clearing and 22 employees (STNA #132, #130, #144, #142, #134 and #146; LPN #120, #112, #124, #210, #202, #126; Dietary #154, #158, #152; Maintenance #104, BOM #100, Receptionist #200, Social Service #220, Housekeeping #164 and 108; and Hospitality Aide #168) have had their checks return from the 03/01/24 pay for insufficient funds as of this time. The BOM shared the prior Administrator resigned effective 03/01/24 due to the facility's financial issues (missed payroll and payments to vendors/outside services). On 03/04/24 at 12:20 P.M. an interview with STNA #134 revealed her bank had called her today to inform her that funds had been wired transferred into her account but not until today for her paycheck. On 03/04/24 at 12:22 P.M. an interview with LPN #116 revealed his check from 03/01/24 had been returned for insufficient funds. He stated the money and fees were wired into his bank account but not until today. On 03/04/24 at 12:24 P.M. an interview with STNA #132 revealed this was the fourth time her paycheck had not cleared the bank and the second pay in a row (02/16/24 and 03/01/24) that had not cleared. She stated she still had not been paid from the 03/01/24 pay as of this date. On 03/04/24 at 12:26 P.M. an interview with Laundry #162 revealed this was the second time her paycheck had not cleared the bank. The first time was 02/16/24 and this pay was the second time. She stated she still had not been paid from the 03/01/24 as of this date. On 03/07/24 at 11:21 A.M. a telephone interview with CFO #600, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) #601 and Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) #602 was held. Chief Financial Officer #600 continued to report payroll was not met and stated this was due to an identified positive payroll issue with the bank. Documentation of the bank's error with the positive payroll file submission was requested. As of 03/11/24 at 11:00 A.M. no documentation has been provided. On 03/07/24 at 2:48 P.M. an interview with BOM #100 revealed the paycheck from 03/01/24 for Dietary #156 had been returned for insufficient funds. She stated the wire transfers (from the corporation) were starting to clear the bank (six days after the expected pay day for the employees). On 03/08/24 at 10:40 A.M. an interview with BOM #100 revealed the paycheck from 03/01/24 for Dietary #155 had been returned for insufficient funds. The BOM stated she was still waiting on several wire transfers to clear from the bank. (The BOM did not share which staff were awaiting wire transfers to clear as of this time). On 03/11/24 at 8:50 A.M. an interview with the BOM #100 revealed the paychecks for LPN #118, STNA #136, Marketing #300, and Maintenance #301 had been returned for insufficient funds. In addition to the facility's failure to ensure payroll obligations were met and continued to be met to ensure the ongoing effective day to day operation of the facility the following vendors/suppliers were reviewed as part of the State agency investigation with concerns identified: a. Review of the Dominion Energy statement dated 02/15/24 revealed the facility had a past due amount of $2690.71 and a current amount of $2276.73 for a total amount due by 03/04/24 of $4967.44. The statement indicated it was a shut off notice and $2690.71 needed to be paid by 03/04/24 to prevent the gas from being shut off. Review of the Dominion Energy receipt dated 03/01/24 revealed the facility paid $2670.71 to prevent the gas from being shut off. b. On 03/04/24 at 10:54 A.M. an interview with Physician #130 revealed he had not been paid for almost a year. He stated he received a paper check in November 2023, but it bounced. He stated he had called the corporate office in Florida and just gets the run-a-around. He stated that although he did not have any current plans to discontinue services at this this time, he hoped the company resolved the issue. The facility did not have evidence Physician #130 had been paid for services. c. On 03/04/24 at 11:57 A.M. an interview with Broad River Therapy Office Manager #128 revealed they had not received payment from the facility since September 2023 however CFO #600 stated they were sending out checks this week. Review of the email from Broad River Therapy dated 03/06/24 at 8:48 A.M. revealed the facility had a past due amount of $82,149.01. The following invoices were provided: invoice dated 11/02/23 and due on 12/02/23 was 94 days past due for the amount of $17,359.07; invoice dated 12/01/23 and due on 12/31/23 was 65 days past due for the amount of $21,299.52; an invoice dated 01/02/24 and due on 02/01/24 was 33 days past due for the amount of $23,103.50; and an invoice dated 02/02/24 and due on 03/03/24 was two days past due for the amount of $20,386.92. d. Review of Republic Services (trash) invoice dated 02/18/24 revealed the facility had a 30-day past due amount of $1,020.05 due now and a current amount of $1,046.61 due 03/09/24 for a total due of $2,066.66. As of 03/10/24, this had not been paid. e. Review of the NutriTech Consulting company's invoice dated 01/31/24 revealed the facility had the amount of $843.75 due for nutrition services/consult rendered. On 03/04/24 at 12:39 P.M. an interview with Dietitian #135 revealed the facility has to pre-pay for services because she has heard from other suppliers there were concerns with receiving payment. She stated today would have been the day they terminated services as they had not received their pre-payment from the facility, but the corporation did reach out this morning and paid the amount they owed. The facility now has until 03/11/24 to pay the March bill or services would be disrupted. An additional interview on 03/04/24 at 1:40 P.M. with Dietitian # 135 revealed the was 60 days past due. She had them prepay ahead for services. She stated she had to call them repeatedly for payment but had never cut services due to non-payment until 03/01/24. She stated they paid this morning, so they were not without a dietitian. Review of the email from Dietitian #135 on 03/07/24 at 10:42 A.M. revealed invoice number 2025 was due on 12/31/23 but wasn't paid until 03/05/24 via electric check and the check was returned for insufficient funds. The facility was currently working on a wire transfer. She stated there would not be a hold on services provided the wire transfer cleared the account. She also shared the facility dietitian was at the facility 03/06/34 to provide services. Further review revealed invoice number 2092 was due on 01/31/24 and was 36 days past due and needed to be paid by 03/11/24 to continue services. Invoice number 2142 due 03/01/24 was still within the 30-day grace period and only six days past due. A follow-up interview on 03/11/24 with Dietitian #135 revealed if payment was not made on this date, services would be terminated. f. On 03/11/24 at 12:54 P.M. interview with the Director of Operations #302 from Premiere Staffing revealed the facility made one payment since services were initiated in October 2023 and that payment was last week. Further interview revealed the facility canceled services with her company last week despite having an agency staff scheduled for a shift and did not have any of her staff scheduled for this week. Director of Operations #302 stated if payment wasn't made this week, services would be stopped with the facility as she does not allow facilities to carry a balance over 90-120 days. Lastly, she stated she issues an invoice weekly, on Thursday, to notify the facility of the amount owed but no payments have been routinely made as previously planned. A follow-up interview at 2:28 P.M. revealed the facility paid the October and November 2023 balance of $4,930.50 last week. The facility still owed $15,225.00 which was for services from December 2023 through 03/07/24. Review of the invoices from Premier Staffing revealed in January 2024, the facility total was $4,800.00 for January and in February 2024 the facility total for February was $6,787.50. Review of the (un-dated) Nursing Facility admission Agreement, provided to all residents upon admission, revealed the facility was responsible for basic services including room and board, routine nursing care and supplies for residents and such other personal services as may be necessary for the resident's health, well-being and grooming. The facility would also provide meals, linens, housekeeping, social services and activities and other regular services required by law. Review of the Employee Handbook, dated 2020, revealed employees would receive their pay reimbursement for hours worked either through Pay Card or Direct Deposition. During orientation, the human resources representative will assist with signing up for either direct deposit or a Pay Card. Review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility's residents were at a clinically complex and special high categories who oftentimes have one or more chronic or comorbid conditions including their acuity. Residents of the facility were at risk for falls, pressure ulcers, infections, incontinence, increased disability, weight loss, depression, and other potential areas of decline. Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy revised 08/15/22 revealed, Neglect is the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151331.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received showers as planned and based on their pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received showers as planned and based on their preference. This affected two residents (#12 and #13) of five residents reviewed for showers. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 01/18/22 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, asthma, respiratory failure and prostate cancer. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment revealed the resident required substantial or maximum assistance for oral hygiene, toileting, showering or bathing and personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for eating. The assessment also noted it was very important to the resident to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or a sponge bath. Review of the shower schedule revealed the resident preferred to receive a shower on Tuesday and Saturdays. Review of the State Tested Nurses Aide (STNA) task documentation dated 01/26/24 through 02/26/24 revealed Resident #12 received a shower on 02/03/24, 02/13/23 and 02/17/24. Staff documented he refused a shower on 02/10/24. Review of shower sheets dated 11/21/23 through 02/26/24 revealed the resident did not receive a shower on 12/02/23, 12/30/23, 01/06/24, 02/06/24 or 02/13/24 as scheduled. Resident #12 was unavailable for interview on this date (02/26/24) as the resident was in the hospital. However, information obtained from the resident's guardian revealed the resident was supposed to get two showers per week and that was not happening. The guardian voiced concerns that every time she met him at an appointment he was unkempt and not clean. Interview on 02/26/24 at 12:40 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 revealed the facility used a shower schedule to determine which resident was supposed to receive a shower on any given day and most residents were to receive a shower two times per week. The STNA staff documented when a shower was given and then gave the form to the nurse to verify. The form was placed in the shower book. She confirmed if a resident refused, it should be documented. Interview with the Administrator on 02/27/24 at 10:40 A.M. verified no additional information was available to determine showers had been provided to Resident #12 as scheduled. Review of the facility policy titled Bath, Shower/Tub dated February 2018 revealed the purpose of a shower or bath was to promote cleanliness and provide comfort to the resident. Documentation for a shower or bath would include the date, and time of a shower/tub bath would be documented, as well as refusals and any interventions taken. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 08/31/22 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), stroke, adult failure to thrive, anxiety and anemia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident required substantial or maximum assistance for toileting, showering or bathing and personal care and supervision for oral hygiene. The assessment also noted it was somewhat important for the resident to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath. Review of the shower schedule revealed the resident preferred to receive a shower on Tuesdays and Fridays. Review of the shower sheets dated 11/22/23 through 02/22/24 revealed Resident #13 did not receive a shower on 11/24/23, 11/28/23, 12/01/23, 12/26/23, 01/02/24, 01/16/24, 01/19/24, 01/26/24, 01/30/24, 02/02/24 or 02/09/24 as scheduled. Interview on 02/26/24 at 12:40 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 revealed the facility used a shower schedule to determine which resident was supposed to receive a shower on any given day and most residents were to receive a shower two times per week. The STNA staff documented when a shower was given and then gave the form to the nurse to verify. The form was placed in the shower book. She confirmed if a resident refused, it should be documented. Interview with the Administrator on 02/27/24 at 10:40 A.M. verified no additional information was available to determine showers had been provided to Resident #13 as scheduled. Review of the facility policy titled Bath, Shower/Tub dated February 2018 revealed the purpose of a shower or bath was to promote cleanliness and provide comfort to the resident. Documentation for a shower or bath would include the date, and time of a shower/tub bath would be documented, as well as refusals and any interventions taken. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151258.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the use of a registered nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week as required. This had the potential ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the use of a registered nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week as required. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: Review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 4 2023 (07/01/23 through 09/30/23) revealed the facility triggered for no RN hours. Continued review of the reporting data, as submitted by the facility revealed the facility had no RN hours on 07/06/23, 07/07/23, 07/11/23, 07/12/23, 07/16/23, 07/20/23, 07/21/23, 07/25/23, 07/26/23, 08/30/23 or 08/31/23. Interview on 02/26/24 at 11:23 A.M. with the Administrator revealed she was responsible for submitting PBJ data to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). The Administrator verified the information as noted on the PBJ report for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 4 2023 as noted above. This deficiency is an example of noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151258.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure posted nursing staff information was updated in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents residing in t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure posted nursing staff information was updated in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation of the posted nursing staff information on 02/26/24 at 7:34 A.M. revealed the posted nursing staff information was dated 02/05/24. Interview on 02/26/24 at 8:02 A.M. with Receptionist #200 confirmed the posted staffing information had not been updated since 02/05/24. This deficiency is an example of noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151258.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, the facility submitted plan of correction to the state agency, facility assessme...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, the facility submitted plan of correction to the state agency, facility assessment review, and interviews, the facility failed to establish an effective governing body, legally responsible to establish and implement policies regarding the management and operation of the facility, including but not limited to compliance with all financial obligations for the delivery of care. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility survey history revealed on 11/15/23 a complaint survey was completed which resulted in concerns related to financial solvency. A plan of correction was submitted to the state agency to correct the deficient practice of not paying invoices on time in which the facility/company would pay any outstanding balance to vendors through payment plans if the past due invoice could not be paid in full. Following the 11/15/23 survey, the facility provided evidence of payments being made to various supplies/vendors removing the likelihood of situations of neglect. However, at the time of post-survey revisit on 02/08/24, the facility failed to ensure their governing body was effective in establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility and the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program was effective to ensure on-going compliance with the delivery of care. During the onsite investigation, completed on 03/11/24 the following concerns were identified: a. Interview on 02/28/24 at 3:02 P.M. with Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #600 revealed there was a system funding error which caused the lack of funds to meet payroll on the pay day dated 02/16/24. CFO #600 stated, There was an error with the positive pay files. We have taken different steps as far as how the files are uploaded into the system now and the process is now started a couple days prior to payday instead of the night before payday. CFO #600 shared starting the process earlier would help ensure the files were uploaded accurately. Interview on 02/28/24 at 3:21 P.M. with the Administrator revealed there were 16 staff members who had their paychecks returned due to insufficient funds on the payday dated 02/16/24. The Administrator verified employees were paid every two weeks. The Administrator stated, I notified the corporate office as soon as the staff notified me of the problems with their paychecks being returned, it was the following Wednesday 02/21/24 that the staff were notified by their banks. The company then wired the money into their (the employee) accounts on that Friday 02/23/24. The CFO never told me what the problem was that caused the paychecks to be returned. On 03/04/24 at 9:57 A.M. an interview with CFO #600 revealed his corporation had more issues with banking since the previous two surveys on 12/04/23 and 01/31/24. He stated on 02/16/24 there was also an error with their Positive Pay system (an automated cash-management service used by financial institutions where checks issued by companies are matched with those presented for payment). CFO #600 stated they placed the check numbers into the system and uploaded it from the Human Resource file to the bank and those are paid by the bank. He stated they covered the wire fees and bounced check fees as soon as the employee updated them on the amounts. An additional interview on 03/04/24 at 10:35 A.M. with CFO# 600 revealed, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) # 601, Director of Finances (DOF) #603 and he (CFO #600) handled all the financial responsibilities for this facility and two sister facilities, Astoria Place of Cambridge, and Astoria Place of Barnesville. He confirmed he was aware the payroll checks from 03/01/24 were returning for insufficient funds for all three facilities. They stated they (Epic Corporation) used the same bank for all the payroll and wired transfers. He stated each facility had its own accounts to pay for payroll and to pay their suppliers. He stated on 02/16/24 there was a Positive Pay file error (they place a restricted range of check numbers in the account for the checks to be cashed to match the HR files and only those check would clear). He stated there was a mix-up with the numbers so all the checks were rejected. He confirmed he had no evidence from the bank it was a banking error. In addition to the staff pay roll issues, he stated the corporation had placed Physician #130 on a payment plan to get him caught up with monies due and had just sent Physician #130 a check for $6000.00 today. He stated he would stay in communication with the other providers the facility used and would never let the bills get to the point of a provider termination of service. He stated he was working with all the staff at the facility to get them paid. He was unable to answer the question as to why payment plans that either himself, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) #601 or Director of Finance #603 initiated, were not followed through with and why payments were missed. On 03/04/24 at 12:00 P.M. an interview with BOM #100 revealed all the staff payroll checks were being returned for insufficient funds from the 03/01/24 pay date. She stated she had received texts and telephone calls from staff yesterday (03/03/24) and today. She stated she was sending the information to the facility's corporate office so they could wire transfer the money to the employees' accounts. She stated Social Service #220 and STNA #146 quit yesterday (03/03/24) due to their pay not clearing and 22 employees (STNA #132, #130, #144, #142, #134 and #146; LPN #120, #112, #124, #210, #202, #126; Dietary #154, #158, #152; Maintenance #104, BOM #100, Receptionist #200, Social Service #220, Housekeeping #164 and 108; and Hospitality Aide #168) have had their checks return from the 03/01/24 pay for insufficient funds as of this time. The BOM shared the prior Administrator resigned effective 03/01/24 due to the facility's financial issues (missed payroll and payments to vendors/outside services). On 03/07/24 at 11:21 A.M. a telephone interview with CFO #600, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) #601 and Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) #602 was held. Chief Financial Officer #600 continued to report payroll was not met and stated this was due to an identified positive payroll issue with the bank. Documentation of the bank's error with the positive payroll file submission was requested. As of 03/11/24 at 11:00 A.M. no documentation has been provided. b. In addition to the facility's failure to ensure payroll obligations were met and continued to be met to ensure the ongoing effective day to day operation of the facility the following vendors/suppliers were reviewed as part of the State agency investigation with concerns identified: Review of the Dominion Energy statement dated 02/15/24 revealed the facility had a past due amount of $2690.71 and a current amount of $2276.73 for a total amount due by 03/04/24 of $4967.44. The statement indicated it was a shut off notice and $2690.71 needed to be paid by 03/04/24 to prevent the gas from being shut off. Review of the Dominion Energy receipt dated 03/01/24 revealed the facility paid $2670.71 to prevent the gas from being shut off. On 03/04/24 at 10:54 A.M. an interview with Physician #130 revealed he had not been paid for almost a year. He stated he received a paper check in November 2023, but it bounced. He stated he had called the corporate office in Florida and just gets the run-a-around. He stated that although he did not have any current plans to discontinue services at this this time, he hoped the company resolved the issue. The facility did not have evidence Physician #130 had been paid for services. On 03/04/24 at 11:57 A.M. an interview with Broad River Therapy Office Manager #128 revealed they had not received payment from the facility since September 2023 however CFO #600 stated they were sending out checks this week. Review of the email from Broad River Therapy dated 03/06/24 at 8:48 A.M. revealed the facility had a past due amount of $82,149.01. The following invoices were provided: invoice dated 11/02/23 and due on 12/02/23 was 94 days past due for the amount of $17,359.07; invoice dated 12/01/23 and due on 12/31/23 was 65 days past due for the amount of $21,299.52; an invoice dated 01/02/24 and due on 02/01/24 was 33 days past due for the amount of $23,103.50; and an invoice dated 02/02/24 and due on 03/03/24 was two days past due for the amount of $20,386.92. Review of Republic Services (trash) invoice dated 02/18/24 revealed the facility had a 30-day past due amount of $1,020.05 due now and a current amount of $1,046.61 due 03/09/24 for a total due of $2,066.66. As of 03/10/24, this had not been paid. Review of the NutriTech Consulting company's invoice dated 01/31/24 revealed the facility had the amount of $843.75 due for nutrition services/consult rendered. On 03/04/24 at 12:39 P.M. an interview with Dietitian #135 revealed the facility has to pre-pay for services because she has heard from other suppliers there were concerns with receiving payment. She stated today would have been the day they terminated services as they had not received their pre-payment from the facility, but the corporation did reach out this morning and paid the amount they owed. The facility now has until 03/11/24 to pay the March bill or services would be disrupted. An additional interview on 03/04/24 at 1:40 P.M. with Dietitian # 135 revealed the was 60 days past due. She had them prepay ahead for services. She stated she had to call them repeatedly for payment but had never cut services due to non-payment until 03/01/24. She stated they paid this morning, so they were not without a dietitian. Review of the email from Dietitian #135 on 03/07/24 at 10:42 A.M. revealed invoice number 2025 was due on 12/31/23 but wasn't paid until 03/05/24 via electric check and the check was returned for insufficient funds. The facility was currently working on a wire transfer. She stated there would not be a hold on services provided the wire transfer cleared the account. She also shared the facility dietitian was at the facility 03/06/34 to provide services. Further review revealed invoice number 2092 was due on 01/31/24 and was 36 days past due and needed to be paid by 03/11/24 to continue services. Invoice number 2142 due 03/01/24 was still within the 30-day grace period and only six days past due. A follow-up interview on 03/11/24 with Dietitian #135 revealed if payment was not made on this date, services would be terminated. On 03/11/24 at 12:54 P.M. interview with the Director of Operations #302 from Premiere Staffing revealed the facility made one payment since services were initiated in October 2023 and that payment was last week. Further interview revealed the facility canceled services with her company last week despite having an agency staff scheduled for a shift and did not have any of her staff scheduled for this week. Director of Operations #302 stated if payment wasn't made this week, services would be stopped with the facility as she does not allow facilities to carry a balance over 90-120 days. Lastly, she stated she issues an invoice weekly, on Thursday, to notify the facility of the amount owed but no payments have been routinely made as previously planned. A follow-up interview at 2:28 P.M. revealed the facility paid the October and November 2023 balance of $4,930.50 last week. The facility still owed $15,225.00 which was for services from December 2023 through 03/07/24. Review of the invoices from Premier Staffing revealed in January 2024, the facility total was $4,800.00 for January and in February 2024 the facility total for February was $6,787.50. Review of the facility's undated Governing Body policy revealed the Governing Body had a fiduciary duty, duty of care, and duty of loyalty to act in the best interests of the Facility. The governing body should be comprised of the operator (s), c-suite level executives, and other individuals who were legally responsible for the establishment and implementation of policies regarding management and operations of the facility. The Governing Body member responsibilities included to be active, engaged, and involved in the affairs of the facility and to have direct access to the administrator and to the compliance and ethics officer by scheduling executive board sessions with the compliance and ethics officer that allows for a free flow of information without potential for conflict. The governing body consisted of Chief Financial Officer #203, Chief Executive, Officer #204, and Chief Nursing Officer/Compliance Officer #205. Review of the facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility provided all care and services as required in the requirements of participation including, but not limited to assistance with activities of daily living, personal care services, medication administration, pain management, infection prevention and control, nutritional services, skin care, fall and injury prevention, pharmacy, and therapy services. Additionally, the facility provided medical director, attending physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentist, podiatrist, ophthalmologist, and psychiatrist services, and pharmacist. Review of the administrator job description revealed they would operate the facility in accordance with the established policies and procedures of the facility. The job description indicated the administrator would supervise the recruitment, employment, and discharge of staff. And work closely with DON to ensure there were adequate numbers of staff to meet the needs of each resident and to comply with the state of Ohio licensure law. The administrator would act as a liaison with the facility owners and the medical, nursing, and other supervisory staff through regular meetings. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151331. This deficiency is also an example of continued non-compliance to the survey dated 02/08/24.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure staffing information submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) was complete and accurate. This had the potential to af...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure staffing information submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) was complete and accurate. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents in the facility. Findings Include: Review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 3 2023 (04/01/23 through 06/30/2023) revealed the facility triggered for a one star staff rating and excessively low weekend staffing. Review of the PBJ report for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 4 2023 (07/01/23 through 09/30/23) revealed the facility continued to trigger for a one star rating. Review of the PBJ report for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 1 2024 (10/01/23 through 12/30/23) revealed the the facility continued to trigger for a one star rating. This report was the most recent report available for review at the time of the investigation. Interview on 02/26/24 at 11:23 A.M. with the Administrator revealed she was responsible for submitting PBJ data to CMS. The Administrator verified the facility had triggered with a one star staff rating and excessively low weekend staffing on the PBJ reports as noted above. The Administrator indicated she believed the information submitted was likely submitted in error, resulting in the triggers. This deficiency is an example of noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151258.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure continuous evaluations were in place to verify financial obligations were met as planned to prevent a potential disruption in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure continuous evaluations were in place to verify financial obligations were met as planned to prevent a potential disruption in resident care and services through the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program committee. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 32. Findings include: Review of the provided QAPI documentation for December 2023 and January 2024, revealed an identified problem of vendors not being paid promptly. The root cause revealed invoices were not being entered electronically when received. Review of invoices and calls with the Administrator and Business Office Manager were to be completed weekly. Review of the facility survey history revealed on 11/15/23 a complaint survey was completed which resulted in concerns related to financial solvency. A plan of correction was submitted to the state agency to correct the deficient practice of not paying invoices on time in which the facility/company would pay any outstanding balance to vendors through payment plans if the past due invoice could not be paid in full. Following the 11/15/23 survey, the facility provided evidence of payments being made to various supplies/vendors removing the likelihood of situations of neglect. However, at the time of post-survey revisit on 02/08/24, the facility failed to ensure their governing body was effective in establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility and the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program was effective to ensure on-going compliance with the delivery of care. During the onsite investigation, completed on 03/11/24 the following concerns were identified: a. Interview on 02/28/24 at 3:02 P.M. with Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #600 revealed there was a system funding error which caused the lack of funds to meet payroll on the pay day dated 02/16/24. CFO #600 stated, There was an error with the positive pay files. We have taken different steps as far as how the files are uploaded into the system now and the process is now started a couple days prior to payday instead of the night before payday. CFO #600 shared starting the process earlier would help ensure the files were uploaded accurately. Interview on 02/28/24 at 3:21 P.M. with the Administrator revealed there were 16 staff members who had their paychecks returned due to insufficient funds on the payday dated 02/16/24. The Administrator verified employees were paid every two weeks. The Administrator stated, I notified the corporate office as soon as the staff notified me of the problems with their paychecks being returned, it was the following Wednesday 02/21/24 that the staff were notified by their banks. The company then wired the money into their (the employee) accounts on that Friday 02/23/24. The CFO never told me what the problem was that caused the paychecks to be returned. On 03/04/24 at 9:57 A.M. an interview with CFO #600 revealed his corporation had more issues with banking since the previous two surveys on 12/04/23 and 01/31/24. He stated on 02/16/24 there was also an error with their Positive Pay system (an automated cash-management service used by financial institutions where checks issued by companies are matched with those presented for payment). CFO #600 stated they placed the check numbers into the system and uploaded it from the Human Resource file to the bank and those are paid by the bank. He stated they covered the wire fees and bounced check fees as soon as the employee updated them on the amounts. An additional interview on 03/04/24 at 10:35 A.M. with CFO# 600 revealed, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) # 601, Director of Finances (DOF) #603 and he (CFO #600) handled all the financial responsibilities for this facility and two sister facilities, Astoria Place of Cambridge, and Astoria Place of Barnesville. He confirmed he was aware the payroll checks from 03/01/24 were returning for insufficient funds for all three facilities. They stated they (Epic Corporation) used the same bank for all the payroll and wired transfers. He stated each facility had its own accounts to pay for payroll and to pay their suppliers. He stated on 02/16/24 there was a Positive Pay file error (they place a restricted range of check numbers in the account for the checks to be cashed to match the HR files and only those check would clear). He stated there was a mix-up with the numbers so all the checks were rejected. He confirmed he had no evidence from the bank it was a banking error. In addition to the staff pay roll issues, he stated the corporation had placed Physician #130 on a payment plan to get him caught up with monies due and had just sent Physician #130 a check for $6000.00 today. He stated he would stay in communication with the other providers the facility used and would never let the bills get to the point of a provider termination of service. He stated he was working with all the staff at the facility to get them paid. He was unable to answer the question as to why payment plans that either himself, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) #601 or Director of Finance #603 initiated, were not followed through with and why payments were missed. On 03/04/24 at 12:00 P.M. an interview with BOM #100 revealed all the staff payroll checks were being returned for insufficient funds from the 03/01/24 pay date. She stated she had received texts and telephone calls from staff yesterday (03/03/24) and today. She stated she was sending the information to the facility's corporate office so they could wire transfer the money to the employees' accounts. She stated Social Service #220 and STNA #146 quit yesterday (03/03/24) due to their pay not clearing and 22 employees (STNA #132, #130, #144, #142, #134 and #146; LPN #120, #112, #124, #210, #202, #126; Dietary #154, #158, #152; Maintenance #104, BOM #100, Receptionist #200, Social Service #220, Housekeeping #164 and 108; and Hospitality Aide #168) have had their checks return from the 03/01/24 pay for insufficient funds as of this time. The BOM shared the prior Administrator resigned effective 03/01/24 due to the facility's financial issues (missed payroll and payments to vendors/outside services). On 03/07/24 at 11:21 A.M. a telephone interview with CFO #600, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) #601 and Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) #602 was held. Chief Financial Officer #600 continued to report payroll was not met and stated this was due to an identified positive payroll issue with the bank. Documentation of the bank's error with the positive payroll file submission was requested. As of 03/11/24 at 11:00 A.M. no documentation has been provided. b. In addition to the facility's failure to ensure payroll obligations were met and continued to be met to ensure the ongoing effective day to day operation of the facility the following vendors/suppliers were reviewed as part of the State agency investigation with concerns identified: Review of the Dominion Energy statement dated 02/15/24 revealed the facility had a past due amount of $2690.71 and a current amount of $2276.73 for a total amount due by 03/04/24 of $4967.44. The statement indicated it was a shut off notice and $2690.71 needed to be paid by 03/04/24 to prevent the gas from being shut off. Review of the Dominion Energy receipt dated 03/01/24 revealed the facility paid $2670.71 to prevent the gas from being shut off. On 03/04/24 at 10:54 A.M. an interview with Physician #130 revealed he had not been paid for almost a year. He stated he received a paper check in November 2023, but it bounced. He stated he had called the corporate office in Florida and just gets the run-a-around. He stated that although he did not have any current plans to discontinue services at this this time, he hoped the company resolved the issue. The facility did not have evidence Physician #130 had been paid for services. On 03/04/24 at 11:57 A.M. an interview with Broad River Therapy Office Manager #128 revealed they had not received payment from the facility since September 2023 however CFO #600 stated they were sending out checks this week. Review of the email from Broad River Therapy dated 03/06/24 at 8:48 A.M. revealed the facility had a past due amount of $82,149.01. The following invoices were provided: invoice dated 11/02/23 and due on 12/02/23 was 94 days past due for the amount of $17,359.07; invoice dated 12/01/23 and due on 12/31/23 was 65 days past due for the amount of $21,299.52; an invoice dated 01/02/24 and due on 02/01/24 was 33 days past due for the amount of $23,103.50; and an invoice dated 02/02/24 and due on 03/03/24 was two days past due for the amount of $20,386.92. Review of Republic Services (trash) invoice dated 02/18/24 revealed the facility had a 30-day past due amount of $1,020.05 due now and a current amount of $1,046.61 due 03/09/24 for a total due of $2,066.66. As of 03/10/24, this had not been paid. Review of the NutriTech Consulting company's invoice dated 01/31/24 revealed the facility had the amount of $843.75 due for nutrition services/consult rendered. On 03/04/24 at 12:39 P.M. an interview with Dietitian #135 revealed the facility has to pre-pay for services because she has heard from other suppliers there were concerns with receiving payment. She stated today would have been the day they terminated services as they had not received their pre-payment from the facility, but the corporation did reach out this morning and paid the amount they owed. The facility now has until 03/11/24 to pay the March bill or services would be disrupted. An additional interview on 03/04/24 at 1:40 P.M. with Dietitian # 135 revealed the was 60 days past due. She had them prepay ahead for services. She stated she had to call them repeatedly for payment but had never cut services due to non-payment until 03/01/24. She stated they paid this morning, so they were not without a dietitian. Review of the email from Dietitian #135 on 03/07/24 at 10:42 A.M. revealed invoice number 2025 was due on 12/31/23 but wasn't paid until 03/05/24 via electric check and the check was returned for insufficient funds. The facility was currently working on a wire transfer. She stated there would not be a hold on services provided the wire transfer cleared the account. She also shared the facility dietitian was at the facility 03/06/34 to provide services. Further review revealed invoice number 2092 was due on 01/31/24 and was 36 days past due and needed to be paid by 03/11/24 to continue services. Invoice number 2142 due 03/01/24 was still within the 30-day grace period and only six days past due. A follow-up interview on 03/11/24 with Dietitian #135 revealed if payment was not made on this date, services would be terminated. On 03/11/24 at 12:54 P.M. interview with the Director of Operations #302 from Premiere Staffing revealed the facility made one payment since services were initiated in October 2023 and that payment was last week. Further interview revealed the facility canceled services with her company last week despite having an agency staff scheduled for a shift and did not have any of her staff scheduled for this week. Director of Operations #302 stated if payment wasn't made this week, services would be stopped with the facility as she does not allow facilities to carry a balance over 90-120 days. Lastly, she stated she issues an invoice weekly, on Thursday, to notify the facility of the amount owed but no payments have been routinely made as previously planned. A follow-up interview at 2:28 P.M. revealed the facility paid the October and November 2023 balance of $4,930.50 last week. The facility still owed $15,225.00 which was for services from December 2023 through 03/07/24. Review of the invoices from Premier Staffing revealed in January 2024, the facility total was $4,800.00 for January and in February 2024 the facility total for February was $6,787.50. Review of the facility policy dated February 2020 titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program revealed the facility shall develop, implement, and maintain an ongoing, facility-wide, data-driven QAPI program that is focused on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life for our residents. The QAPI plan describes the process for identifying and correcting quality deficiencies. Key components of this process include tracking and measuring performance; establishing goals and thresholds for performance measurement; identifying and prioritizing quality deficiencies; systematically analyzing underlying causes of systemic quality deficiencies; developing and implementing corrective action or performance improvement activities; and monitoring or evaluating the effectiveness of corrective action/performance improvement activities and revising as needed. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151331. This deficiency is also an example of continued non-compliance from the survey dated 02/08/24.
Jan 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely notify a physician or nurse practitioner regarding a change in condition for Resident #34. This affected one resident (#34) of three...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely notify a physician or nurse practitioner regarding a change in condition for Resident #34. This affected one resident (#34) of three residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 10/09/23 with diagnoses including hypertension, unspecified dementia, retention of urine, and Wernicke's encephalopathy. Review of the physician orders for Resident #34 revealed an order dated 12/21/23 that stated may insert Foley catheter related to obstructive uropathy for one week. Review of the progress notes for Resident #34 revealed a progress note dated 12/28/23 at 1:10 A.M. that stated when the nurse checked on the resident it was noted the resident had pulled out his Foley catheter with the balloon intact. A moderate amount of cherry red blood was noted on the floor in a trail leading to the bathroom. Resident #34 denied any complaints of pain. Resident #34 was cleaned up by staff and was resting in bed with the call light in reach. The Foley catheter was due to be removed on 12/30/23 and at this point will remain out until the nurse practitioner assessed the resident in the morning. Further review of progress notes revealed on 12/28/23 at 10:10 A.M. Resident #34 was transferred to the hospital for Foley insertion. Interview on 01/09/24 at 2:00 P.M. with the Director of Nursing revealed there was no documented evidence a practitioner were notified when Resident #34 pulled out his Foley catheter on 12/28/23. Interview on 01/09/23 at 2:28 P.M. with Nurse Practitioner (NP) #299 revealed the facility utilized an on-call system to notify practitioners during off hours. The NP stated she did not receive a notification that a practitioner was contacted overnight on 12/28/23 regarding Resident #34. Interview on 01/09/24 at 4:16 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #312 confirmed she did not contact the on-call practitioner on 12/28/23 when Resident #34 pulled out his Foley catheter around 1:00 A.M. that night. LPN #312 stated that she knew the NP was going to be in the facility that morning and would notify her when she arrived. Interview on 01/09/24 at 3:50 P.M. with the Administrator revealed the facility did not have a policy regarding notification of change in condition. This deficiency was an incidental finding identified during the complaint investigation.
Nov 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of facility billing/financial information, review of the Facility Assessment, review of the Employe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of facility billing/financial information, review of the Facility Assessment, review of the Employee Handbook, facility policy review and interview the facility neglected to operate in a manner to ensure all bills were being paid in a timely manner to prevent potential interruption in services and sufficient funds were available to meet payroll demands. This had the potential to affect all 30 residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: 1. On 11/05/23 at 12:20 P.M. an interview related to the facility finances and billing/payment process with the Administrator revealed the facility forwarded all invoices received to the Accounts Payable (AP) department for Epic Healthcare Solutions (the facility corporation). The facility does not pay any of the vendors directly for services rendered at the facility, the payments were being made by an AP department which was based in Florida. On 11/06/23 at 9:20 A.M. interview with Chief Financial Officer #375 (a member of the Florida AP department) revealed Epic Healthcare Solutions was in the process of transferring financial accounts to a different bank (from Regency Bank to the Bank of Oklahoma). Furthermore, all vendor invoices were scanned and emailed to the AP Department for payment. There were corporate wide vendors that were used for all the Epic Healthcare Solutions facilities and then there were local vendors the facility used for services including trash services, electric, and water treatment system maintenance. A follow-up phone interview with CFO #375 on 11/15/23 at 8:40 A.M. revealed the company worked daily with their vendors to ensure the safety and care of the residents and staff are being met. The company's outstanding balances to the various vendors were due in part to the physical location of the facility, the pandemic from COVID-19 and the previous debt that was incurred when the company acquired the facility (previously identified by CFO #375 that Epic had owned the facility for approximately four years). On 11/06/23 at 3:48 P.M. an interview with a staff member who wished to remain anonymous revealed outstanding vendor and service balances were being emailed to the Florida office as the facility did not complete direct payment to the vendors. The staff member did not share additional information regarding the frequency of the emails, the vendors sending the emails or the amount of time this had been occurring. On 11/07/23 at 8:20 A.M. interview with the Administrator revealed vendors would send emails to the facility regarding balances owed and she would forward those emails to the Florida office as the facility did not pay vendors out of the facility but through the company in Florida. The Administrator revealed upon receiving an email or phone call from a vendor inquiring on payment for an invoice, the Administrator would direct the vendor to contact the Chief Financial Officer of the company. A follow-up phone interview with the Administrator on 11/15/23 at 9:28 A.M. revealed the frequency of venders requesting payment via an email or telephone call varied depending on that vendor. The frequency could be daily, weekly or a couple times during the month. The vendors that do not understand the industry would expect payment almost immediately following the services that were provided and those vendors would be the ones that would contact the facility on a regular basis. On 11/07/23 at 10:02 A.M. an interview with an anonymous staff member revealed the facility was not paying their bills and included that the facility could no longer use services through a guardian service and staffing agency because of the facility's failure to pay their bills timely. Review of the facility's vendor listing revealed the facility currently received services from vendors including but not limited to [NAME] Food Service, Medline for medical supplies, and Respiratory Care Partners (RCP) Review of the facility's previous vendor listing revealed the facility no longer received services from Avalon Foods, Guardian Oversite Council - Volunteer Guardianship Services, Premier Healthcare Staffing Solutions, and Arbor Rehabilitation and Healthcare Services. The following vendor/suppliers were reviewed as part of the State agency investigation: a. Review of the Guardian Oversite Council current account statement, dated 10/31/23 revealed the facility had an outstanding balance owed of $6,572.00 for resident guardianship services utilized at the facility from 11/30/20 to 10/18/23. On 11/07/23 at 10:15 A.M. phone interview with Representative from the Guardian Oversite Council verified the facility owed an outstanding balance of $6,572.00 and the facility had not established a payment plan with the provider. Further interview verified the Guardian Oversite Council was no longer accepting new wards from the facility due to the facility not making payments. Representative #700 verified current wards in the facility were continuing to receive services despite the facility's outstanding balance. On 11/15/23 at 9:28 A.M. phone interview with the Administrator verified the outstanding balance of $6,572.00 owed to Volunteer Guardianship Services. b. On 11/07/23 at 1:21 P.M. interview with Avalon Foods account manager revealed Epic Healthcare Solutions was currently on a payment plan of $5,000.00 per month for the outstanding balance on the account. The last payment was received on 11/03/23 for $2,000.00. This was the first payment received in the past 45 days from Epic Healthcare Solutions. Review of Avalon Food's account statement dated 11/08/23 and provided by CFO #375 revealed an outstanding balance owed of $23,471.79 for food services and delivery utilized at the facility from 12/13/22 to 10/31/23. c. On 11/07/23 at 1:33 P.M. interview with the Respiratory Care Partners Director revealed Epic Healthcare Solutions was over three months behind on their payments for oxygen services at the facility. A payment plan had been instituted; however, the amount of the agreed payment was not available/provided to the surveyor during the investigation. The director indicated Respiratory Care Partners continued to service the facility oxygen needs. Review of an email dated 11/13/23 at 3:17 P.M. from the Respiratory Care Partners (RCP) director revealed oxygen service outstanding invoices included the following: April 2023 - $667.69, May 2023 - $669.05, June 2023 - $613.95, July 2023 - $539.25, August 2023 - $647.69, September 2023 - $441.25 and October 2023 - $539.35 with the amount of overdue payments totaling $7,697.11 for oxygen services currently being utilized at the facility. d. On 11/08/23 at 11:49 A.M. interview with the invoice processing manager for ECapital Commercial Finance company representing Premier Healthcare Staffing Solutions revealed Epic Healthcare Solutions had an outstanding balance for staffing services and Premiere no longer provided staffing services to the facility due to the continued outstanding account balance. Review of an email dated 11/13/23 at 1:26 P.M. from the Associate General Counsel for ECapital Commercial Finance company revealed there was a $5,000.00 payment received from Epic Healthcare Solutions on 11/13/23 which had not yet posted, once the payment had posted the payment would be applied to the current outstanding balance of $238,678.05. Review of Premier Healthcare Staffing Solutions account statement dated 11/13/23 revealed an outstanding balance owed of $238,678.05 for staffing services utilized at the facility from 02/20/23 to 07/17/23. e. Review of an email dated 11/13/23 at 5:28 P.M. from Chief Financial Officer #375 revealed Epic Healthcare Solutions had a payment plan instituted with Medline for weekly payments around $2,000.00 on behalf of the facility. Review of the Medline Statement dated 11/14/23 and emailed to the State Survey Agency on 11/14/23 at 2:53 P.M. revealed a current balance of $18,833.86 from invoices dated 05/31/23 through 11/11/23. Each invoice date provided a scheduled due date three months after the invoice date and contained the purchase order number. The Medline Statement did not identify when payments were made, and the facility did not respond to requests for outstanding balance verification. f. Further review of the email dated 11/13/23 at 5:28 P.M. from CFO #375 revealed the service agreement with Arbor Rehabilitation and Healthcare Services was mutually terminated with the facility and the individual company owners. There are currently weekly calls between the two companies with discussion of payments and the finalizing of a payment plan. Review of an Excel Spreadsheet (no creation date) titled Aging Report-EPIC-Oakhill Manor, emailed from CFO #375 on 11/14/23 at 2:53 P.M. revealed varying money amounts ranging from $3,867.02 to $194,145.51. The State Agency was unable to determine the outstanding balance owed to Arbor Rehabilitation. The facility did not respond to requests for outstanding balance verification. On 11/15/23 at 2:34 P.M. interview with the Chief Executive Officer from Arbor Rehabilitation revealed Epic was not paying their bills to his company timely and he found it very difficult to work with Epic. Since Arbor had not received payment, it was becoming a burden to the company and the CEO had to pull his services out of the building. The CEO stated he discusses bill payments with Epic weekly but they are not making payments to his company. During the interview the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Arbor Healthcare and Rehabilitation Services revealed the termination of therapy services at the facility was due to the lack of payment for the services rendered from 01/16/22 to 09/17/23. There was a payment plan in place with Epic Healthcare Solutions to reduce the outstanding balance on the account. However, Epic Healthcare Solutions had been late with the monthly payments, which has led to weekly telephone conferences between the two companies. Review of the Aging Report-EPIC-Oakhill Manor Excel Spreadsheet (not dated), provided by the CEO of Arbor Rehabilitation and Healthcare revealed the facility had an account balance of $194,145.51 and the account was greater than 390 days past due. The last payment made was 08/14/23 for $8.518.86. Review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility's residents were at a clinically complex and special high categories who oftentimes have one or more chronic or comorbid conditions including their acuity. Residents of the facility were at risk for falls, pressure ulcers, infections, incontinence, increased disability, weight loss, depression, and other potential areas of decline. Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy revised 08/15/22 revealed, Neglect was the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that were necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. 2. Interview on 11/05/23 at 10:45 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 revealed the company was issuing paper paychecks instead of using direct deposit. Interview on 11/05/23 at 11:15 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #130 revealed she had heard other staff had their paychecks bounce when they tried to cash them on payday. Interview on 11/05/23 at 12:20 P.M. with the Administrator revealed Epic Healthcare Solutions had recently changed payroll companies from Paycor to ADP payroll services and then back to Paycor. Due to these changes, the staff was receiving paper paychecks instead of utilizing direct deposit of the paychecks. During the pay period at the beginning of October 2023 there were approximately ten staff members who were unable to cash their pay checks due to issues with insufficient funds in Epic Healthcare Solutions account. Furthermore, the local banks would hold the paychecks for up to five days to ensure there were sufficient funds to cash the paycheck for the staff member. Interview on 11/05/23 at 3:23 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 250 revealed in early October 2023 there was notification from the bank stating there was insufficient funds to cash the current paycheck. LPN #250 stated, I notified the Administrator and then the corporate office wired the money into my account within the next couple days. Interview on 11/06/23 at 2:50 P.M. with Activities staff #240 revealed in early October 2023 the bank sent notification of the inability to cash the current paycheck due to insufficient funds in Epic Healthcare Solution's account. Activities staff #240 stated, It took almost four days for the company to wire my paycheck money into my account. Since then, my bank will put my paycheck on hold for several days. I must call the bank to request the hold to be removed so that I can receive my money. Interview on 11/06/23 at 3:15 P.M. with Maintenance Staff #280 revealed the bank sent notification of insufficient funds in the account and the bank was unable to cash the paycheck from early October 2023. Maintenance staff #280 stated, It took four days for the company to wire the money due into my account. Interview on 11/06/23 at 2:12 P.M. with the Administrator revealed during the recent pay cycles, the bank had placed her paychecks on hold until there was proof of sufficient funds in Epic Healthcare Solution accounts. The Administrator stated, During the pay period in early October when some of the staff was unable to cash their paychecks, I helped an employee that was unable to cash out that particular paycheck, with money so that they were able to have cash to live on. The company reimbursed my account. Interview on 11/07/23 at 2:30 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #220 revealed she has submitted a 30-day notice for resignation to the Administrator related to the financial instability that was currently occurring at the facility and with Epic Healthcare Solutions. Review of the facility Employee Handbook effective 2023 revealed, employees would receive their pay reimbursement for hours worked either through pay card, check or direct deposit. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00147877 and Complaint Numbers OH00147658 and OH00147718.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, the facility submitted plan of correction to the state agency, facility assessme...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, the facility submitted plan of correction to the state agency, facility assessment review, and interviews, the facility failed to establish an effective governing body, legally responsible to establish and implement policies regarding the management and operation of the facility, including but not limited to compliance with all financial obligations for the delivery of care. This had the potential to affect all 30 residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility survey history revealed on 11/15/23 a complaint survey was completed which resulted in concerns related to financial solvency. A plan of correction was submitted to the state agency to correct the deficient practice of not paying invoices on time in which the facility/company would pay any outstanding balance to vendors through payment plans if the past due invoice could not be paid in full. Following the 11/15/23 survey, the facility provided evidence of payments being made to various supplies/vendors removing the likelihood of situations of neglect. However, at the time of this post-survey revisit, the facility failed to ensure their governing body was effective in establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility, which included ongoing compliance with all financial obligations for the delivery of care as detailed below: Interview on 02/05/24 at 9:00 A.M. with Administrator revealed that there is a weekly meeting to go over invoices. The Administrator stated that the Business Office Manager/Human Resources (BOM/HR) #211 enters invoices into the system and then there is a weekly meeting about the invoices. The Administrator stated she does follow up and make extra notes on the spreadsheet to tell corporate if there are any discrepancies in what was written or any comments that should be documented. The administrator stated that utilities, Medline, therapy, cable, internet, and any other vendor that are companywide, the invoices are sent directly to corporate through a portal. BOM/HR #211 enters invoices such as psych services, oxygen company, agency billing, and guardian oversight council. The meeting does not discuss the past vendors that have not been utilized recently such as Premier staffing, Avalon Foodservice and Arbors Therapy. A phone interview on 02/05/24 at 9:57 A.M. with Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #203 revealed that the plan of correction was put in place for safeguards regarding essential companies for continued services for residents. A weekly phone call with the facility Administrator, Chief Executive Officer #204, and Chief Nursing Compliance Officer #205 (CCO) related to outstanding invoices. CFO #203 stated that the goal of the meeting was to check the flow of payment and ensure that everything is on track. CFO #203 stated that Medline is a vendor that is used throughout the company and is on a global payment plan weekly. Premier staffing (collection is done by e-Capital Commercial Finance) is no longer a vendor and on a payment plan. Arbors Rehab is no longer a vendor, and the account is with Epic's legal team. Broad River Therapy is the current therapy department, under contract with the corporation, and is on a payment plan. Interview on 02/05/24 at 1:55 P.M. with Manager of Invoice Processing #200 for e-Capital Commercial Finance (Premier Staffing) stated that the facility's parent company (Epic) was to have a payment plan but had broken the payment plan several times. She stated that Epic was to pay $5,000.00 per week but they haven't made a payment since November 2023. A payment was made by Epic today (02/05/24) for $5,000 but was still pending in the system. Phone interview on 02/05/23 at 2:30 P.M. with Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #203 revealed that Manager of Invoice Processing #200 is the new contact person and the email that was in the plan of correction binder does state that the company was on a payment plan with e-Capital Commercial Finance. CFO #203 did state that a payment was made today (02/05/24) of $5,000.00. CFO #203 stated that he did not go through with submitting a payment by 01/12/24, as requested in the email between CFO #203 and Managing Director of Underwriting #207 at e-Capital Commercial Finance. A phone interview on 02/06/24 at 9:01 A.M. with Broad River Chief Financial Officer (BCFO) #208 revealed that the facility is not up to date with payments. He stated that he spoke with the parent company yesterday and did so on a regular basis. They had arranged a payment plan but there had not been a payment made since September. Further interview revealed Epic owes his company a few hundred thousand dollars. BCFO #208 shared that CFO #203 informed him Epic was working on their credit line and will straighten things out. Phone interview on 02/06/24 at 10:27 A.M. with Accounts Receivable Manager (ARM) #202 from Avalon Foodservice revealed that Epic made a payment on 01/29/24 for $5,000.00 and on 02/01/24 a notification was received stating that there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the $5,000.00. Further interview revealed Epic had a balance with Avalon Foodservice of $24,500.00. Phone interview on 02/06/24 at 10:31 A.M. with Chief Nursing and Compliance Officer (CCO) #205 revealed that she is on the weekly phone meetings. The company does not use Premier Staffing, Avalon Foodservice and Arbors Therapy anymore, so payment to them is not a priority and Arbors Therapy was turned over to the legal department. The company had to prioritize payments so resident services would not be disrupted. She follows up on current vendors and makes sure that resident services are not interrupted. She believed that there are written contracts for the current vendors except Medline, who has a verbal contract. Lastly, the CCO shared it was the Administrator's responsibility to make sure that vendors are paid. On 02/06/24 at 12:48 P.M. interview with the Administrator verified she was unaware Broad River had not been paid despite the vendor being discussed in the weekly invoice meetings. Invoices were requested from Broad River Therapy however, those were not provided. Review of the facility's undated Governing Body policy revealed the Governing Body had a fiduciary duty, duty of care, and duty of loyalty to act in the best interests of the Facility. The governing body should be comprised of the operator (s), c-suite level executives, and other individuals who were legally responsible for the establishment and implementation of policies regarding management and operations of the facility. The Governing Body member responsibilities included to be active, engaged, and involved in the affairs of the facility and to have direct access to the administrator and to the compliance and ethics officer by scheduling executive board sessions with the compliance and ethics officer that allows for a free flow of information without potential for conflict. The governing body consisted of Chief Financial Officer #203, Chief Executive, Officer #204, and Chief Nursing Officer/Compliance Officer #205. Review of the facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility provided all care and services as required in the requirements of participation including, but not limited to assistance with activities of daily living, personal care services, medication administration, pain management, infection prevention and control, nutritional services, skin care, fall and injury prevention, pharmacy, and therapy services. Additionally, the facility provided medical director, attending physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentist, podiatrist, ophthalmologist, and psychiatrist services, and pharmacist. Review of the administrator job description revealed they would operate the facility in accordance with the established policies and procedures of the facility. The job description indicated the administrator would supervise the recruitment, employment, and discharge of staff. And work closely with DON to ensure there were adequate numbers of staff to meet the needs of each resident and to comply with the state of Ohio licensure law. The administrator would act as a liaison with the facility owners and the medical, nursing, and other supervisory staff through regular meetings.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure continuous evaluations were in place to verify financial obligations were met as planned to prevent a potential disruption in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure continuous evaluations were in place to verify financial obligations were met as planned to prevent a potential disruption in resident care and services through the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program committee. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. The facility census was 30. Findings include: Review of the provided QAPI documentation for December 2023 and January 2024, revealed an identified problem of vendors not being paid promptly. The root cause revealed invoices were not being entered electronically when received. Review of invoices and calls with the Administrator and Business Office Manager were to be completed weekly. Review of the facility survey history revealed on 11/15/23 a complaint survey was completed which resulted in concerns related to financial solvency. A plan of correction was submitted to the state agency to correct the deficient practice of not paying invoices on time in which the facility/company would pay an outstanding balance to vendors through payment plans if the past due invoice could not be paid in full. The QAPI Committee would monitor for compliance and the facility alleged compliance on 12/18/23. Interview on 02/05/24 at 9:00 A.M. with Administrator revealed that there is a weekly meeting to go over invoices. The Administrator stated that the Business Office Manager/Human Resources (BOM/HR) #211 enters invoices into the system and then there is a weekly meeting about the invoices. The Administrator stated she does follow up and make extra notes on the spreadsheet to tell corporate if there are any discrepancies in what was written or any comments that should be documented. The administrator stated that utilities, Medline, therapy, cable, internet, and any other vendor that are companywide, the invoices are sent directly to corporate through a portal. BOM/HR #211 enters invoices such as psych services, oxygen company, agency billing, and guardian oversight council. The meeting does not discuss the past vendors that have not been utilized recently such as Premier staffing, Avalon Foodservice and Arbors Therapy. A phone interview on 02/05/24 at 9:57 A.M. with Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #203 revealed that the plan of correction was put in place for safeguards regarding essential companies for continued services for residents. A weekly phone call with the facility Administrator, Chief Executive Officer #204, and Chief Nursing Compliance Officer #205 (CCO) related to outstanding invoices. CFO #203 stated that the goal of the meeting was to check the flow of payment and ensure that everything is on track. CFO #203 stated that Medline is a vendor that is used throughout the company and is on a global payment plan weekly. Premier staffing (collection is done by e-Capital Commercial Finance) is no longer a vendor and on a payment plan. Arbors Rehab is no longer a vendor, and the account is with Epic's legal team. Broad River Therapy is the current therapy department, under contract with the corporation, and is on a payment plan. Interview on 02/05/24 at 1:55 P.M. with Manager of Invoice Processing #200 for e-Capital Commercial Finance (Premier Staffing) stated that the facility's parent company (Epic) was to have a payment plan but had broken the payment plan several times. She stated that Epic was to pay $5,000.00 per week but they haven't made a payment since November 2023. A payment was made by Epic today (02/05/24) for $5,000 but was still pending in the system. Phone interview on 02/05/23 at 2:30 P.M. with Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #203 revealed that Manager of Invoice Processing #200 is the new contact person and the email that was in the plan of correction binder does state that the company was on a payment plan with e-Capital Commercial Finance. CFO #203 did state that a payment was made today (02/05/24) of $5,000.00. CFO #203 stated that he did not go through with submitting a payment by 01/12/24, as requested in the email between CFO #203 and Managing Director of Underwriting #207 at e-Capital Commercial Finance. A phone interview on 02/06/24 at 9:01 A.M. with Broad River Chief Financial Officer (BCFO) #208 revealed that the facility is not up to date with payments. He stated that he spoke with the parent company yesterday and did so on a regular basis. They had arranged a payment plan but there had not been a payment made since September. Further interview revealed Epic owes his company a few hundred thousand dollars. BCFO #208 shared that CFO #203 informed him Epic was working on their credit line and will straighten things out. Phone interview on 02/06/24 at 10:27 A.M. with Accounts Receivable Manager (ARM) #202 from Avalon Foodservice revealed that Epic made a payment on 01/29/24 for $5,000.00 and on 02/01/24 a notification was received stating that there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the $5,000.00. Further interview revealed Epic had a balance with Avalon Foodservice of $24,500.00. Phone interview on 02/06/24 at 10:31 A.M. with Chief Nursing and Compliance Officer (CCO) #205 revealed that she is on the weekly phone meetings. The company does not use Premier Staffing, Avalon Foodservice and Arbors Therapy anymore, so payment to them is not a priority and Arbors Therapy was turned over to the legal department. The company had to prioritize payments so resident services would not be disrupted. She follows up on current vendors and makes sure that resident services are not interrupted. She believed that there are written contracts for the current vendors except Medline, who has a verbal contract. Lastly, the CCO shared it was the Administrator's responsibility to make sure that vendors are paid. Review of the facility policy dated February 2020 titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program revealed the facility shall develop, implement, and maintain an ongoing, facility-wide, data-driven QAPI program that is focused on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life for our residents. The QAPI plan describes the process for identifying and correcting quality deficiencies. Key components of this process include tracking and measuring performance; establishing goals and thresholds for performance measurement; identifying and prioritizing quality deficiencies; systematically analyzing underlying causes of systemic quality deficiencies; developing and implementing corrective action or performance improvement activities; and monitoring or evaluating the effectiveness of corrective action/performance improvement activities and revising as needed.
Feb 2023 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident funds were disbursed in a timely manner for Residen...

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 resident funds were disbursed in a timely manner for Resident #35 after death as required. Additionally, the facility failed to provide spend-down letters for Resident #13 each month she was over the resource limit. This affected two residents (#13 and #35) of five residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 36 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes, dementia, hypertension, anemia, and unspecified abdominal pain. Review of nurses' notes from [DATE] to [DATE] revealed no notes' concerning the need to spend-down resident funds. Review of Resident #13's quarterly funds statement for [DATE] to [DATE] revealed a balance of $2714.63 on [DATE], $2770.20 on [DATE] and $2762.62 on [DATE]. Review of supporting funds documentation revealed spend-down letters were issued on [DATE] and [DATE]. Interview on [DATE] at 12:44 P.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM)/Human Resources (HR) #122 indicated she provided a spend-down letter only quarterly and verified she did not have spend-down letters for Resident #13 for [DATE] or [DATE]. 2. Review of Resident #35's medical record revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes, dementia with behavioral disturbance, unspecified mood (affective) disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and hallucinations. Review of Resident #35's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #35 expired in the facility. Review of a nurses' note dated [DATE] revealed Resident #35's body was picked up. Review of a trial balance report for the facility as of [DATE] revealed Resident #35 expired [DATE] and had a current and pending balance of $52.59. Review of Resident #35's last quarterly statement for [DATE] to [DATE] revealed Resident #35 had an ending balance of $52.41. Review of a withdrawal record dated [DATE] revealed $52.59 was to be credited to Resident #35's care cost payments. Interview on [DATE] at 12:00 P.M. with BOM/HR #122 verified Resident #35 did not have his final resident funds disbursal completed timely after his death on [DATE]. BOM/HR #122 stated Resident #35 had an outstanding balance with the facility, so his funds were applied to that on [DATE].
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, and interview the facility failed to complete a discharge summary as required. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, and interview the facility failed to complete a discharge summary as required. This affected one resident (#34) of one resident reviewed for discharge from the facility. The facility census was 36 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #34's medical record revealed and admission date of 07/29/22 and diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type two diabetes, alcoholic cirrhosis of liver with ascites, opioid abuse, hypertension, and unspecified intracranial injury without loss of consciousness. Review of completed physician's orders for Resident #34 revealed an order dated 12/07/22 for may discharge to [facility name] on 12/08/22. May send all medications with resident. Review of a discharge-return not anticipated minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 discharged to another nursing home on [DATE]. Resident #34 was cognitively intact and required supervision for most activities of daily living. Review of Resident #34's assessments revealed no discharge summary or recapitulation of stay. The last assessment completed was a skin assessment on 12/03/22. Review of progress notes revealed a note dated 12/08/22 that indicated Resident #34 discharged at this time and all belongings and medications were sent with Resident #34. The note did not state the location where Resident #34 discharged to. Review of the facility discharge list dated December 2022 revealed Resident #34 discharged from the facility on 12/09/22 to another facility. Disposition was listed as nursing facility to nursing facility transfer. Interview on 02/15/23 at 10:35 A.M. with Social Service Designee (SSD) #114 revealed Resident #34 wanted to go to another skilled nursing facility and that was where he discharged on 12/08/22. SSD #114 confirmed she did not complete a discharge summary or recapitulation for a resident when they went from this nursing facility to another nursing facility including for Resident #34 on 12/08/22. SSD #114 also verified there should have been a progress note stating where Resident #34 discharged to. SSD #114 provided the facsimile information between her and the receiving nursing facility where Resident #34 discharged to during the interview. Review of an electronic mail dated 11/28/22 revealed information was sent to another nursing facility regarding Resident #34, but this information did not include a recapitulation of stay or discharge summary. Review of the facility policy, Transfer or Discharge, Preparing a Resident For, dated December 2016, revealed nursing services was responsible for preparing the discharge summary and the post-discharge plan, completing discharge note in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #86's record revealed an admission date of 01/24/23 and diagnoses including type two diabetes, hemiplegia ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #86's record revealed an admission date of 01/24/23 and diagnoses including type two diabetes, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, morbid obesity, schizophrenia, depression, migraine, and generalized anxiety. Review of Resident #86's physician's orders as of 02/15/23 revealed no orders for denture care. Review of Resident #86's MDS 3.0 assessments revealed the admission MDS dated [DATE] was still in progress as of 02/15/23. Review of Resident #86's assessments revealed an admission evaluation with baseline care plan dated 01/25/23 that indicated Resident #86's prior level of functioning included needing some help from self-care and ambulation. Resident #86 had her own teeth in good/fair condition and dentures were marked as na. Resident #86's oral cavity was marked as moist and intact. Resident #86's admission performance indicated she required the assistance of one staff for personal hygiene. Review of Resident #86's nurses' notes did not indicate routine denture care was being provided. Review of Resident #86's point of care charting for oral care/fingernails the last 30 days revealed oral care was signed off as being completed once a day on 01/25/23, 01/26/23, 01/27/23, and 01/29/23. No oral care was documented on 01/28/23, 01/30/23, 01/31/23, 02/01/23, 02/02/23, 02/03/23, 02/04/23, 02/05/23, 02/06/23, 02/07/23, 02/08/23, 02/09/23, 02/10/23, 02/11/23, 02/12/23, 02/13/23, 02/14/23, and 02/15/23. Review of Resident #86's care plans revealed no plans of care related to oral care. Interview on 02/13/23 at 7:02 P.M. with Resident #86 revealed her dentures were not being cleaned and she was not provided with denture cleaner to clean them herself. Resident #86 stated she told staff again (not identified) on 02/12/23. Interview on 02/16/23 at 8:25 A.M. with STNA #140 revealed Resident #86 took care of her own teeth and there was no shortage of oral care supplies at the facility. Interview on 02/16/23 at 8:28 A.M. with STNA #120 revealed Resident #86 had her natural teeth and staff would set her up for oral care. STNA #120 showed the surveyor oral supplies available on the 100/200 hall nurses' station supply room which appeared adequate. Interview on 02/16/23 at 9:00 A.M. with MDS/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #111 revealed Resident #86 had her natural teeth. An observation was requested to observe Resident #86's teeth due to variance in interviews and record review. Observation of Resident #86 on 02/16/23 at 9:03 A.M. with MDS/LPN #111 and STNA #140 present revealed Resident #86 was up in bed. When asked about the status of her teeth, Resident #86 took out her bottom and top dentures and reiterated her dentures were not being cleaned. Resident #86's dentures were observed and did not appear clean during the observation. Follow-up interview on 02/16/23 at 9:03 A.M. with MDS/LPN #111 verified Resident #86 required oral care and would be provided with a denture cup. During an interview on 02/16/23 at 11:02 A.M. the DON was made aware of the lack of evidence Resident #86's oral care was being completed routinely as well as the inaccuracy of Resident #86's admission evaluation indicating she had natural teeth when in fact Resident #86 had full dentures. Review of the policy, Dentures, Cleaning and Storing, revised March 2018, revealed staff were to review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. Provide denture care before breakfast and at bedtime. The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: the date and time the denture care was performed (note A.M. and P.M. on the ADL record), who performed the denture care, all assessment data obtained concerning the resident's mouth and if the resident refused the treatment, the reason(s) why and the intervention taken. Based on medical record review, observation, resident interview, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #9 was assisted with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) including hygiene, dressing, and showers. The facility also failed to assist Resident #86 with denture care. This affected two residents (#9 and #86) of two residents reviewed for ADL assistance. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/15/14 with diagnoses including quadriplegia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 annual assessment with a reference date of 01/12/23 revealed the resident had an independent cognition level and required total staff assistance with ADL including dressing, personal hygiene, and toileting. Review of Resident #9's plan of care revealed a care plan for ADL assistance that indicated Resident #9 required total staff assistance with ADL due to weakness and quadriplegia. Further review of the medical record including the State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) ADL Tasks for personal hygiene assistance provided from 01/15/23 to 02/15/23 revealed no evidence of any documentation of personal hygiene assistance provided from 01/15/23 to 01/31/23, 02/01/23 P.M., 02/02/23 P.M., 02/03/23 to 02/04/23, 02/06/23 P.M., 02/07/23 to 02/08/23, 02/09/23 A.M. and 02/10 to 02/13/23. Further review of the STNA ADL Tasks for dressing assistance provided from 01/15/23 to 02/15/23 revealed no evidence of any documentation for dressing assistance provided from 01/15/23 to 01/31/23, 02/01/23 P.M., 02/02/23 P.M., 02/03/23 to 02/04/23, 02/06/23 P.M., 02/07/23 to 02/08/23, 02/09/23 A.M. and 02/10/23 to 02/13/23. Further review of the STNA ADL tasks for toileting assistance provided from 01/15/23 to 02/15/23 revealed no evidence of any documentation for toileting assistance provided from 01/15/23 to 01/30/23, 01/31/23 PM, 02/01/23 P.M., 02/02/23 P.M., 02/03/23 A.M. and P.M., 02/04/23 A.M., 02/06/23 P.M., 02/07/23 to 02/08/23, 02/09/23 A.M. and 02/10/23 to 02/13/23. On 02/14/23 at 2:15 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing verified no documentation of evidence of ADL assistance for Resident #9 including personal hygiene, dressing, and toileting assistance.
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** 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic ob...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, asthma, pulmonary hypertension, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating disease), Stage IV( full-thickness skin loss extending in to the subcutaneous tissue) pressure ulcer to the sacrum, congestive heart failure, lymphedema, peripheral neuropathy, depression, intestinal malabsorption, hypertension, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, spondylosis, osteoarthritis, and COVID-19. Review of the admission skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility with a Stage IV pressure ulcer to the sacrum which measured 6.0 centimeters (cm) in length by 3.0 cm in width by 0.5 cm in depth. Review of the admission Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk assessment revealed Resident #12 was at moderate risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of the physician's orders revealed Resident #12 had an order dated 11/18/22 to cleanse her sacral wound with Dakin's solution (antimicrobial cleanser), lightly pack the wound with Dakin's-soaked gauze, lay an abdominal dressing on the wound with no tape, change the dressing twice daily and as needed, an order dated 09/29/22 for a low air loss mattress, and she was on a vegan diet. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 had intact cognition, required extensive assistance of two staff members for bed mobility and total assistance of two staff member for transfers. Further review revealed she had a Foley catheter, was incontinent of bowel and was admitted with a Stage IV pressure ulcer. Review of the weekly wound observations dated 10/06/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12, and the wound had slough and necrotic tissue present. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the weekly skin observations dated 10/16/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the surgical wound care service notes dated 10/20/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the surgical wound care service notes dated 10/27/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the nurses' notes dated 10/30/22 revealed Resident #12 was sent out to the hospital for being unresponsive. She was readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the Admission/readmission Skin Evaluation dated 11/03/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the surgical wound care service notes dated 11/17/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the weekly skin observations dated 11/26/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the weekly skin observations dated 12/04/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the surgical wound care service notes dated 12/08/22 revealed there were no measurements of the Stage IV sacral pressure injury for Resident #12. There was no documented evidence the resident refused measurements. Review of the nurses' notes dated 12/15/22 revealed Resident #12 had been sent out to the hospital for wheezing and crackles in bilateral lung fields and was sent back to the facility the same day. Review of the plan of care dated 12/29/22 revealed Resident #12 was noncompliant with care and treatment as ordered by physician. She refuses to be turned and repositioned, declined to be out of bed most days, declined care, medications, and treatment changes. She declined protein supplements and dietary interventions to meet protein needs in the diet to aid in wound healing. On 02/16/23 at 11:30 A.M. The Director of Nursing indicated she has only been employed at the facility and doing the wound grids since 12/19/22. At 1:12 P.M. she verified the wound assessment for the sacral pressure injury for Resident #12 had not been completed weekly as required. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to timely turn and reposition Resident #11 and failed to timely complete a Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk assessment. The facility also failed to ensure pressure ulcer wound assessments were timely and thoroughly completed for Resident #12. This affected two residents (#11 and #12) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure, morbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting right side, spinal stenosis, and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility. Review of the care plan dated 03/06/20 revealed Resident #11 had an alteration in skin integrity with the intervention to encourage to turn and reposition every two hours and as needed. Review of the Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 was at a moderate risk for developing a pressure ulcer. The instructions on the assessment revealed to complete on admission, weekly for four weeks, and then quarterly thereafter. Review revealed no subsequent Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk assessments were completed. Review of physician orders dated 01/03/23 revealed the order to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. Review of the Weekly Wound Observation dated 02/09/23 revealed Resident #11 had an unstageable pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green or brown) and/or eschar (tan, brown or black) in the wound bed), located on the sacrum, acquired on 01/03/23, and measured 2.0 centimeters (cm) in length by 1.0 cm in width by 0 cm in depth. The wound had a moderate amount of serosanguineous drainage (thin and watery fluid that is pink in color due to the presence of small amounts of red blood cells). The wound nurse practitioner (NP) progress note dated 02/09/23 revealed the wound bed had slough and pink tissue. The peri-wound (area surrounding the wound) was intact. There was no odor or signs of infection. During observation on 02/15/23 at 9:14 A.M., Resident #11 was observed lying on her back in bed. During observation on 02/15/23 at 10:52 A.M., the resident continued to be lying on her back in bed with her eyes closed and appeared to be sleeping. During observation on 02/15/23 at 11:44 A.M., the resident remained in the same position, lying on her back in bed. During interview on 02/15/23 at 11:46 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #121 confirmed Resident #11 was lying on her back and had not been repositioned every two hours as ordered by the physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for Resident #11. This affected one resident (#11) of one resident reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure, morbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting right side, spinal stenosis, and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility and was totally dependent on the staff for transfers. The resident had a history of falls. Review of the care plan dated 03/06/20 revealed Resident #11 was at risk for falls related to decreased physical condition, incontinence, medication, and impaired cognition. Interventions included for the bed to be in the lowest position while occupied, and for a soft fall mat at the bedside. Review of a nursing progress note dated 11/22/22 revealed Resident #11 was noted on the floor, next to the bed. Assessment revealed no injuries, and the neurological checks were within normal limits. The new intervention was for a perimeter mattress to be used to alert the resident of the bed edges. Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was at a high risk for falls. Review of physician orders dated 11/29/22 revealed the order for a soft fall mat at bedside. During observation on 02/14/23 at 10:18 A.M., Resident #11 was observed lying on her back in bed. The bed was not in the lowest position, nor was there a fall mat located on the floor beside her bed as ordered. During interview on 02/14/23 at 10:19 A.M., State-Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #140 confirmed the bed was not in the lowest position and there was no fall mat on the floor. During interview on 02/14/23 at 10:20 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #11 should have a fall mat on her floor, beside her bed, and the bed should be in the lowest position when occupied by the resident. Review of the facility's policy, Managing Falls and Fall Risk, dated March 2018, revealed the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. In conjunction with the attending physician, staff will identify and implement relevant interventions to try to minimize serious consequences of falling.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #86's record revealed an admission date of 01/24/23 and diagnoses including type two diabetes, hemiplegia ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #86's record revealed an admission date of 01/24/23 and diagnoses including type two diabetes, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, morbid obesity, schizophrenia, depression, migraine and generalized anxiety. Review of Resident #86's physician's orders as of 02/15/23 revealed no orders for catheter care. Review of Resident #86's Medication Administration Records (MARs) and Treatment Administration Records (TARs) for January 2023 and February 2023 revealed no orders for catheter care. Review of Resident #86's minimum data set (MDS) 3.0 assessments revealed the admission MDS dated [DATE] was still in progress as of 02/15/23. Review of Resident #86's assessments revealed an admission evaluation with baseline care plan dated 01/25/23. Resident #86 was incontinent of bladder and used adult briefs. Resident #86 did not use a catheter and was incontinent of stool. Resident #86's admission performance indicated she required the assistance of two staff for toileting. Review of a nurses' note on 01/29/23 revealed Resident #86 had a new urinary catheter placed. Review of a nurse's note on 02/06/23 revealed Resident #86's urinary catheter was leaking and a new catheter was placed. Review of Resident #86's nurses' notes did not indicate routine catheter care was being provided. Review of Resident #86's point of care charting for catheter care for the last 30 days revealed catheter care was signed off as being completed only once a day on 01/31/23, 02/02/23, 02/04/23, 02/05/23, 02/06/23, 02/07/23, 02/08/23, 02/11/23, 02/12/23, 02/13/23 and 02/15/23. No catheter care was documented on 01/29/23, 01/30/23, 02/01/23, 02/03/23, 02/09/23, 02/10/23 and 02/14/23. Review of Resident #86's care plans revealed a plan of care dated 01/29/23 for potential for complications related to use of catheter in place due to neurogenic bladder. Interventions listed included provide catheter care every shift and as needed. Interview on 02/16/23 at 8:28 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #120 revealed Resident #86 had a urinary catheter and catheter care was provided every time Resident #86 got into bed, every time Resident #86 got out of bed and if Resident #86 was incontinent of stool. STNA #120 indicated there were not specific times or frequency for the catheter care to be provided. Interview on 02/16/23 at 8:54 A.M. with Resident #86 indicated catheter care was done daily but not on each shift. Interview on 02/16/23 at 9:00 A.M. with Minimum Data Set (MDS)/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #111 revealed Resident #86 had a urinary catheter and catheter care was to be provided each shift which was three times daily and as needed. MDS/LPN #111 reviewed Resident #86's record with the surveyor and verified no physician's order was available regarding Resident #86's urinary catheter. MDS/LPN #111 indicated catheter care was on the STNA point-of-care charting and this was also reviewed during the interview. MDS/LPN #111 verified the STNA point-of-care charting observed did not reflect Resident #86 had catheter care provided three times a day or on a consistent basis. During an interview on 02/16/23 at 11:02 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) was made aware of the lack of evidence Resident #86's catheter care was being completed routinely and was also notified there was no physician's order for Resident #86's urinary catheter. Review of the policy, Catheter Care, Urinary, revised September 2014 revealed staff were to review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. Empty the drainage collection bag at least every eight hours. The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: the date and time catheter care was given, who provided the catheter care, how the resident tolerated the procedures, if the resident refused the procedure, the reasons why and the intervention taken. Based on observation, record review, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #11 received proper incontinence care to decrease the resident's risk of developing a urinary tract infection. The facility also failed to provide timely catheter care to Resident #86. This affected two (Resident #11 and #86) of two residents reviewed for incontinence/urinary tract infection. The facility identified 22 residents who were occasionally or frequently incontinent of bladder and four residents who had urinary catheters. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure, morbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting right side, spinal stenosis, and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/01/22, revealed Resident #11 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of two staff for toileting and was totally dependent on two staff for bathing and personal hygiene. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the Care Plan, dated 03/06/20, revealed the resident experiences bladder incontinence and her toileting needs will be met by staff to prevent infection with the intervention to provide care after each episode of incontinence. During observation of incontinence care on 02/14/23 at 11:13 A.M. State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) #120 and #140 provided incontinence care to Resident #11 prior to wound care. During the procedure, STNA #140 first proceeded to clean the resident's groin area and inner thighs. Next, using the same washcloth, STNA #140 proceeded to separate the labia and wipe the urethral area. During interview on 02/14/23 at 11:25 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #115 confirmed STNA #140 improperly performed Resident #11's incontinence care by not using a clean washcloth before proceeding to clean the inner labial areas. Review of the facility's policy, Perineal Care, dated February 2018 revealed for a female resident to wash the perineal area, wiping from front to back. Separate the labia and wash area downward from front to back. Continue to wash the perineum moving from inside outward to the thighs. Rinse perineum thoroughly in the same direction, using fresh water and a clean wash
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and menu spreadsheet review, the facility failed to follow the menu's production spreadsheet as written. This affected one resident (Resident #17) of five residents rec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and menu spreadsheet review, the facility failed to follow the menu's production spreadsheet as written. This affected one resident (Resident #17) of five residents receiving a pureed diet. The facility census was 36 residents. Findings include: Review of a menu for the week of 02/13/23 revealed the lunch meal for Tuesday 02/14/23 was roast pork loin, homestyle baked beans, California blend vegetables, pineapple upside-down cake and 2% milk. Reviewed of a production sheet for the lunch meal on Tuesday 02/14/23 revealed residents on a pureed diet were to receive a #8 scoop of pureed carrots, a #10 scoop of pureed pork loin, a #8 scoop of pureed baked beans and a #12 scoop of pureed pineapple upside-down cake. Observation on 02/14/23 at 11:50 A.M. with [NAME] #126 revealed foods to be served for the lunch meal on the steamtable included pureed baked beans, pureed carrots, mashed potatoes and pureed scrambled eggs which was a substitute for pureed pork loin. Desserts were portioned in bowls off of the steamtable. Trayline began at 12:30 P.M. The 200 unit trays were completed at 12:33 P.M.; the 100 unit trays were done at 12:42 P.M. and the dining room residents were finished being served at 12:55 P.M. The meal cart for residents that required feeding assistance began at 12:55 P.M. During the plating for these meals, [NAME] #126 ran out of pureed carrots leaving Resident #17 with a half #8 scoop of pureed carrots. Interview with [NAME] #126 during the observation revealed she thought it was a full scoop. The meal cart left the kitchen at 1:14 P.M., was on the unit at 1:15 P.M. and staff began to pass trays at 1:16 P.M. On 02/14/23 at 1:16 P.M. Dietary Manager (DM) #106 was requested to observe Resident #17's tray prior to it being passed. DM #106 took off the lid on Resident #17's tray and the plate contained a half #8 scoop of pureed carrots. DM #106 verified Resident #17 was not served the correct amount of pureed carrots at the time of observation and stated the cook normally prepared more than enough of the pureed foods to serve the correct amounts per the production sheets. Review of a diet list as of 02/14/23 revealed five residents (Residents #4, #13, #17, #18 and #85) received a pureed diet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure meal intake amounts and meal assistance service was completely and accurately documented in the medical records for Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure meal intake amounts and meal assistance service was completely and accurately documented in the medical records for Resident #9. This affected one resident (Resident #9) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/15/14 with diagnoses that included quadriplegia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 annual assessment with a reference date of 01/12/23 revealed the resident had an independent cognition level and required total staff assistance with activity of daily living (ADL) for eating. Review of Resident #9's plan of care reveled a care plan for ADL assistance that indicated Resident #9 required total staff assistance with ADLs due to weakness and quadriplegia. Further review of Resident #9's plan of care revealed a nutritional risk care plan which indicated staff were to assist with meals by feeding the resident and are to monitor percentage of meal intakes of each meal. Review of the medical record including the State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) ADL Tasks for meal assistance from 01/15/23 to 02/15/23 revealed documentation of assistance with eating provided only on 01/30/23 lunch, 01/31/23 dinner, 02/04/23 dinner and 02/05/23 dinner. Further review of the STNA ADL Tasks for meal intake monitoring from 01/15/23 to 02/15/23 revealed documentation of meal intake percentages on only 01/30/23 lunch, 01/31/23 dinner, 02/04/23 dinner and 02/05/23 dinner. On 02/14/23 at 2:15 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing verified lack of documentation for evidence of meal assistance provided and monitoring of meal intakes for Resident #9.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a pneumococcal immunization. This affected one(Resident #32) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a pneumococcal immunization. This affected one(Resident #32) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 11/09/22 with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, depression, and hypertension. Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed there was documentation of the resident representative consenting on 11/10/22, for the resident to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. Further review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 had not received a pneumococcal immunization. During interview on 02/16/23 at 1:22 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #32 had given consent to receive the pneumococcal vaccine, however, she had not received the pneumococcal vaccine. Review of the facility's policy, Pneumococcal Vaccine, dated August 2016, revealed prior to or upon admission, residents will be assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, will be offered the vaccine series within thirty days of admission to the facility unless medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, chronic kidney disease, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia affecting the right side, depression, spinal stenosis, anxiety disorder, Alzheimer's disease, vitamin D deficiency, hyperlipemia, glaucoma, nondisplaced spiral fracture of the right femur, and congestive heart failure. Review of the physician's orders revealed Resident #11 had an order for Seroquel (antipsychotic medication) 25 mg at bedtime for yelling out, threatening others, hallucinations related to depression, and anxiety disorder dated 01/23/23; lorazepam (antianxiety) 0.5 mg every four hours as needed for 60 days for anxiety dated 01/24/23; and buspirone (antianxiety) 10 mg three times daily for anxiety. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #11 had severely impaired cognition and had disorganized thinking but no documentation of psychosis, hallucination, or delusions. Review of the plan of care dated 12/25/20 revealed Resident #11 could have an alteration in behaviors especially during times of being really confused, delusional activity and altercations with staff and/or other residents. Further review of the plan of care dated 01/20/20 revealed Resident #11 had mood patterns related to temperament at times. She could call staff names during care and confusing events, refuse care and treatment, decline staff enter her room, could be delusional at times, physically and verbally aggressive with staff, and would decline medication. Review of the progress notes from 12/01/22 to 12/31/22 revealed no documented evidence of behavior monitoring or non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration of her as needed lorazepam 0.5 mg on 12/02/22 at 4:03 P.M., 12/02/22 at 8:03 P.M., 12/04/22 at 12:41 P.M., 12/05/22 at 12:43 P.M., 12/06/22 1:18 P.M., 12/10/22 at 8:10 P.M., 12/11/22 at 8:55 P.M., 12/16/22 at 3:29 P.M., 12/19/22 at 8:19 P.M., 12/20/22 at 7:58 P.M., 12/21/22 at 11:18 P.M., and 12/24/22 at 6:57 P.M. Review of the December 2022 MAR revealed Resident #11 was administered lorazepam 0.5 mg on 12/02/22 at 4:03 P.M., 12/02/22 at 8:03 P.M., 12/04/22 at 12:41 P.M., 12/05/22 at 12:43 P.M., 12/06/22 1:18 P.M., 12/10/22 at 8:10 P.M., 12/11/22 at 8:55 P.M., 12/16/22 at 3:29 P.M., 12/19/22 at 8:19 P.M., 12/20/22 at 7:58 P.M., 12/21/22 at 11:18 P.M. and 12/24/22 at 6:57 P.M. with no non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration. Review of the progress notes from 01/01/23 to 01/31/23 revealed no documented evidence of behavior monitoring or non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration of her as needed lorazepam 0.5 mg on 01/13/23 at 8:05 P.M., 01/16/23 at 7:58 P.M., 01/29/23 9:19 A.M., 01/31/23 at 2:18 P.M. and at 7:20 P.M. Review of the January 2023 MAR revealed Resident #11 was administered lorazepam 0.5 mg on 01/13/23 at 8:05 P.M., 01/16/23 at 7:58 P.M., 01/29/23 9:19 A.M., 01/31/23 at 2:18 P.M. and at 7:20 P.M. with no documented evidence non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to the administration. Review of the progress notes from 02/01/23 to 02/16/23 revealed no documented evidence of behavior monitoring or non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration of her as needed lorazepam 0.5 mg on 02/01/23 8:36 P.M., 02/02/23 at 10:38 A.M., 02/05/23 at 7:22 A.M., 02/06/23 at 11:28 A.M., 02/13/23 at 8:28 A.M., 2:46 P.M. and 7:59 P.M. Review of the February 2023 MAR revealed Resident #11 was administered lorazepam 0.5 mg on 02/01/23 8:36 P.M., 02/02/23 at 10:38 A.M., 02/05/23 at 7:22 A.M., 02/06/23 at 11:28 A.M., 02/13/23 at 8:28 A.M., 2:46 P.M. and 7:59 P.M. with no non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration. On 02/14/23 at 11:48 A.M. an interview with the DON revealed all behavior documentation was completed in the progress notes and nowhere else. She also indicated all non-pharmacological interventions were documented on the MARs. On 02/16/23 at 7:34 A.M. an interview with the DON verified there were no behaviors documented in the progress notes for Resident #11 prior to administering lorazepam 0.5 mg. She also verified there were no non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration. On 02/16/23 at 12:27 P.M. Social Service Director #114 indicated Resident #11 was on Namenda and Aricept; however, when she started on hospice those medications were not on the recommend medication list for hospice. Namenda and Aricept were discontinued; her behaviors increased, so the physician placed her Seroquel for the behaviors. Review of the facility policy titled, Tapering Medication and Gradual Drug Dose Reduction, dated 04/07, revealed residents who used antipsychotic drugs should receive gradual dose reductions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue the use of such drugs. Pertinent behavioral interventions would also be attempted. Behavioral interventions referred to non-pharmacological attempts to influence an individual's behavior, including environmental alterations and staff approaches to care. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #31 revealed an admission date of 10/27/22 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, cirrhosis of the liver, alcohol abuse with alcohol-induced anxiety, agoraphobia, and major depressive disorder. Review of the MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 01/17/23, indicated Resident #31 had intact cognition. The MDS 3.0 assessment indicated the resident did not have any hallucinations, delusions, or rejection of care. Review of the care plan revealed Resident #31 had a potential for adverse side effects of psychoactive drug use. Interventions included to observe and document any abnormal behavior/moods and to document side effects of medication. Review of a physician order, dated 11/17/22, revealed the order for Mirtazapine 15 mg (antidepressant) one tablet every night for major depressive disorder. Review of the MAR, dated January 2023 and February 2023, revealed behaviors were not monitored with the administration of a psychoactive medication. During interview on 02/15/23 at 4:40 P.M., the DON verified Resident #31 was receiving Mirtazapine for depression, and there was no evidence of behavioral monitoring. Based on medical record review, Medscape online medication review, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate diagnosis for use of antipsychotic medications for Residents #11 and #32. The facility also failed to ensure appropriate assessments were completed for use of antipsychotic medications for Resident #32. The facility also failed to ensure behavior monitoring was completed for Residents #9, #11, #31 and #32 who were receiving psychotropic medications. In addition, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were attempted for Resident #11 prior to the administration of anti-anxiety medications. This affected four residents (#9, #11, #31 and #32) of five residents reviewed for medication use. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/22 with diagnoses including dementia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety. Review of the current physician's orders revealed on 01/24/23 Resident #32 was prescribed Fanapt (antipsychotic medication) two milligrams (mg) twice daily for bipolar disorder. Review of Medscape online application revealed the only indication for Fanapt use was for treatment of schizophrenia. Review of assessments for Resident #32 revealed no evidence of any Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) completed prior to the use of antipsychotic medications. Further review of the medical record including the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no evidence of resident specific behavior monitoring or medication side effects monitoring were completed. Review of Resident #32's plan of care revealed care plans in place for the use of psychotropic medications and mood and behaviors which identified staff were to monitor the resident for behaviors and medication side effects and track on the monthly mood and behavior tracker. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/15/23 at 10:15 A.M. revealed behavior monitoring and medication side effect monitoring are recorded in the MARs and TARs. Interview with the DON on 02/15/23 at 1:30 P.M. verified Resident #32 did not have an appropriate diagnosis for use of Fanapt, no AIMS assessment had been completed with the use of an antipsychotic medication, and resident behaviors and medication side effects were not monitored. 2. Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/15/14 with diagnoses including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety. Further review of the medical record including current physician's orders revealed the use of Cymbalta (antidepressant) 60 mg twice daily, Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25 mg twice daily, and Xanax (anti-anxiety) 0.125 mg four times daily. Further review of the medical record including MAR and TAR revealed no evidence of any resident behavior monitoring or medication side effect monitoring was completed. Review of Resident #9's plan of care revealed care plans in place for the use of psychotropic medications and mood and behaviors which identified staff were to monitor the resident for behaviors and medication side effects and track on the monthly mood and behavior tracker. Interview with the DON on 02/15/23 at 10:50 A.M. revealed behavior monitoring and medication side effect monitoring are recorded in the MARs and TARs. Interview with the DON on 02/15/23 at 1:30 P.M. verified no evidence of Resident #9's behaviors and medication side effects being monitored.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and menu review, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable. This affected 35 residents receiving food from the kitchen as Resident #23 was ordered nothing-by-mou...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and menu review, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable. This affected 35 residents receiving food from the kitchen as Resident #23 was ordered nothing-by-mouth. The facility census was 36 residents. Findings include: Review of a menu for the week of 02/13/23 revealed the lunch meal for Tuesday 02/14/23 was roast pork loin, homestyle baked beans, California blend vegetables, pineapple upside-down cake and 2% milk. Observation on 02/14/23 at 11:50 A.M. with [NAME] #126 revealed foods to be served for the lunch meal on the steamtable were temped using the facility's self-calibrating thermometer. Temperatures were as follows: pork roast, 195 degrees Fahrenheit (F); California blend vegetables, 204 degrees F; baked beans, 200 degrees F; mashed potatoes, 197 degrees F and gravy, 191 degrees F. Desserts were portioned in bowls off of the steamtable. Trayline began at 12:30 P.M. The 200 unit trays were completed at 12:33 P.M.; the 100 unit trays were done at 12:42 P.M. and the dining room residents were finished being served at 12:55 P.M. The meal cart for residents that required feeding assistance began at 12:55 P.M. and a test tray was requested to be made and placed on this cart. The test tray was made at 1:14 P.M. and the meal cart left the kitchen at 1:14 P.M The meal cart was on the unit at 1:15 P.M. and staff began to pass trays at 1:16 P.M. The test tray was sampled with Dietary Manager (DM) #106 at 1:30 P.M. using the facility's self-calibrating thermometer and the temperatures of the foods to be tested included milk, 48 degrees F; juice, 46 degrees F; pork, 138.7 degrees F; California blend vegetables, 138 degrees F and baked beans, 141.6 degrees F. The vegetables were overcooked, mushy and broken down. The pork was dry and hard to chew. Interview with DM #106 during the observation verified the vegetables and pork were not palatable as food had been held on the steamtable an extended period of time and the quality had deteriorated.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of the Payroll Based Journal Staffing Data Report and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was submitted as required. This had the potential to affect al...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the Payroll Based Journal Staffing Data Report and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was submitted as required. This had the potential to affect all residents within the facility. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report for Fiscal Year Quarter 1 of 2022 for the months of of 10/01/22 through 12/31/22 revealed no evidence of information submitted by the facility for the months of November and December 2022. On 02/16/23 at 12:35 P.M. interview with the facility Administrator revealed the facility corporate office staff submitted the PBJ data and the Administrator unsure why no data had been submitted. On 02/16/23 at 12:47 P.M. additional interview with the facility Administrator verified there had been no PBJ information submitted for the facility for the months of November and December 2022.
Dec 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of the staffing tool and interview, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) working in the facility for eight consecutive hours daily. This had to potential to affect all 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the staffing tool and interview, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) working in the facility for eight consecutive hours daily. This had to potential to affect all 33 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the staffing tool from 12/02/22 through 12/09/22 revealed the facility did not have a RN working for eight consecutive hours 12/03/22 and 12/04/22. Interview on 12/16/22 at 2:05 P.M. with the Administrator verified there was no RN in the building for eight consecutive hours on 12/03/22 and 12/04/22. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00138282 and Complaint Number OH00138038.
Apr 2021 14 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to medicate Resident #10 for complaints of pain during wo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to medicate Resident #10 for complaints of pain during wound care. This resulted in harm to the resident when the resident reported complaints of pain during her wound care and was not medicated to alleviate the resident's pain during or following the wound care. This finding affected one (Resident #10) of two residents (#34) reviewed for pain. Findings include: Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including multiple pressure ulcers, heart failure and adult failure to thrive. Review of Resident #10's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #10's care planned interventions included an intervention dated 01/22/21 to evaluate the resident for pain and utilize pain medications as well as non-pharmacological measures for pain relief. Evaluate the need to medicate prior to any wound care. Review of Resident #10's physician orders revealed an order dated 04/01/21 for Tylenol 325 mg (milligrams) give two tablets by mouth every four hours as needed for pain and an order dated 01/21/21 for Tramadol 50 mg (narcotic) give one tablet by mouth every eight hours as needed for pain. Review of Resident #10's medication administration records from 04/01/21 to 04/21/21 revealed the resident had not received pain medications including the Tylenol or Tramadol on 04/20/21 at any point during the day. Observation on 04/20/21 from 11:52 A.M. to 12:03 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #801 and State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #804 of Resident #10's pressure ulcer wound care revealed at 12:00 P.M. during completion of the wound care, especially of the right right hip, the resident grimaced and complained of pain multiple times and stated it hurts during removal of the soiled dressings and cleaning of the wounds. Wound care included treatment and dressing changes to multiple wounds to the right and left hips, buttocks and feet. Observation of the wounds on the right and left hips revealed exposed hardware from hip prostheses. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #804 asked LPN #801 if the resident was medicated for pain and the nurse indicated the resident was medicated for pain. Interview on 04/21/21 at 6:21 A.M. with STNA #804 indicated Resident #10 grimaced and stated she was in pain when rolled to complete wound care, especially on the right side. Interview on 04/21/21 at 7:31 A.M. with LPN #801 indicated she should have medicated Resident #10 for pain when the resident complained of pain but she got busy as she was assigned to administer medications. Interview on 04/21/21 at 12:21 P.M. with wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) #805 indicated Resident #10 was probably complaining of pain due to the contractures and moving the resident during wound care rather than from the actual wounds. NP #805 indicated the resident might be a good candidate for pre-medication during wound care. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Residents #28 and #36's dignity was maintained d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Residents #28 and #36's dignity was maintained during meals and Resident #10's dignity was maintained during the resident's pressure ulcer wound care. This finding affected two residents (Residents #28 and #36) of 16 residents observed eating lunch on the 200 unit and one resident (Resident #10) of one resident reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 41. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including severe sepsis with septic shock, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition and heart failure. Review of Resident #10's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident exhibited severe cognitive impairment. Observation on 04/20/21 from 11:52 A.M. to 12:06 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #801 of Resident #10's pressure ulcer wound care on the left buttock, right buttock, right hip, left hip, right foot and left foot revealed the staff left the window shade in the open position and a lawn care worker was observed outside the window during the resident's wound care. Interview on 04/20/21 at 12:11 P.M. with LPN #801 confirmed Resident #10's window shade was in the open position and a lawn care worker was outside the resident's window while she was completing the resident's pressure ulcer wound care. LPN #801 stated she should have pulled the window shade to the closed position in order to maintain the resident's dignity and privacy. Interview on 04/20/21 at 12:35 P.M. with Lawn Care Worker #802 confirmed he was in the courtyard by Resident #10's window but he denied observing the resident in an unclothed state. 2. On 04/19/21 at 12:29 P.M., 12:52 P.M., and 12:57 P.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #812 was observed standing at Resident #28's bedside feeding her. At 1:02 P.M., STNA #812 proceeded to Resident #36's room and stood at her bedside to feed her. On 04/19/21 at 1:15 P.M., STNA #812 verified she stood at Resident #28's and Resident #36's bedside while feeding them. STNA #812 stated there were no chairs in the rooms for her to sit down to promote dignity while feeding.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4's right half bedrail was in good re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4's right half bedrail was in good repair. This affected one (Resident #4) of forty-one residents reviewed for environmental concerns. The facility census was 41. Findings include: Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed the resident was admitted [DATE] with Alzheimer's disease, essential hypertension and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident exhibited a memory problem and required extensive two person assist for bed mobility and transfers. Observation on 04/19/21 at 8:54 A.M. of Resident #4's resident room revealed the right metal bedrail was tilted inward toward the bed, was loose and wiggled when grabbed. The rail was not securely fastened to the bed and was not in good repair. The resident was observed in the bed at the time of the observation. Interview on 04/21/21 at 7:14 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #4's right half bedrail was not securely fastened to the bed and wiggled when grabbed. The DON confirmed the bedrail was not in good repair.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of medical records, shower records, and the facility shower policy and CMS 672 review the facility fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of medical records, shower records, and the facility shower policy and CMS 672 review the facility failed to ensure Resident #34, who was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living, received showers as scheduled. This affected one of two residents (#34 and #38) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 41. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from another long term care facility. Her diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure with hypoxia or hypercapnia, quadriplegia, asthma, diabetes with neuropathy, anxiety, obstructive sleep apnea, schizophrenia, osteoarthritis, arthropathic psoriasis, anemia, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, mixed severe bipolar disorder with psychotic features, severe morbid obesity, chronic pain, post traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. Review of the annual comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS 3.0) dated 03/02/21 indicated Resident #34 was alert, oriented and independent in daily decision making ability. No behavioral symptoms were identified. The assessment indicated it was very important for her to choose clothing, take care of belongings, choose the type of bathing and her bed time. She was totally dependent on two plus staff for activities of daily living. Review of the interdisciplinary note dated 04/06/21 related to psychological services revealed Resident #34 has been offered her shower; would refuse the shower then tell management that she was not getting a shower or being offered a shower. Review of the care plan indicated Resident #34 preferred to have showers on Tuesdays and Saturdays on the night shift. Resident #34 required total assistance for activities of daily living due to weakness and quadriplegia. At times will refuse showers but would accept a bed bath. Review of the progress notes since 01/01/21 revealed she refused a shower on 01/13/21. Review of shower/tub bath/bed bath sheets revealed in February 2021 she received six of eight scheduled showers and refused one time, March 2021 she received four showers, two bed baths and refused four times and in April 2021 she received four of six scheduled showers with no refusals. Interview with Resident #34 on 04/19/21 at 10:54 A.M. revealed she reported being offered bed baths instead of showers but did not want bed baths. Resident #34 reported she often got offered bed baths instead of a shower because there was not enough staff. The resident reported she needed two staff and a mechanical lift to shower and there was only one aide scheduled for her unit. She also reported it had been months since her teeth were brushed. She reportedly complained about not receiving showers as desired in the past but nothing was done about it. Interview with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #701 on 04/19/21 at 11:00 A.M. revealed she was on light duty and did not assist with showers. Interview with STNA #804 on 04/20/21 at 7:02 A.M. revealed she reported Resident #34's shower days were Wednesdays and Saturdays. STNA #804 has requested three STNAs be scheduled on those days because the resident wants her showers. STNA #804 reported the census may have decreased by the acuity did not. STNA #804 was the only STNA on Resident #34's unit. Interview with STNA #702 on 04/21/21 at 6:10 A.M. revealed there was only two aides for three units. She admitted to putting Resident #34 on and off the bed pan by herself because there was usually just two staff for the three units. Resident #34 required two staff for toilet use. Review of the activities of daily living/maintain abilities policy and procedure (undated) indicated the facility would provide care and services for hygiene including bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care. A resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living would receive the necessary services to maintain good grooming, personal and oral care. Review of the CMS 672 completed by the facility revealed 23 of 41 residents required the assistance of one to two staff for bathing and 18 of 41 were totally dependent on staff for bathing.
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 interview the facility failed to provide individualized activity programs for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to provide individualized activity programs for two (Residents #7 and #23) of three residents reviewed for activities. The facility census was 41. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed diagnoses including dementia and depression. A care plan initiated 12/14/18 indicated Resident #7 enjoyed most group activities with her favorites being music, walking, being social and some crafts. Goals included keeping Resident #7 socially involved with staff and peers daily and for her to remain actively engaged in group activities. Interventions included engaging Resident #7 in group activities and inviting and escorting Resident #7 to group activities. A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #7 was sometimes able to make herself understood and was sometimes able to understand others. Resident #7 had short and long term memory problems. The assessment revealed it was very important for Resident #7 to have reading material, listen to music she liked, and do things with groups of people. A quarterly activities assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #7 had spent more time in her room in her recliner or in bed due to progression of dementia. One to one activities were being offered due to activity restrictions related to COVID-19. Resident #7 participated with verbal cuing and reinforcement. Resident #7 enjoyed snack cart, music, some religious activities and video offerings. On 04/19/21 at 9:04 A.M., 10:45 A.M., and 1:00 P.M., Resident #7 was observed lying in bed with no activity involvement. On 04/20/21 at 2:22 P.M., Resident #7 was lying in bed. The television was playing but Resident #7 exhibited no interest. On 04/20/21 at 2:52 P.M., Activity Director #813 stated the facility had recently resumed small groups of group activities due to physical distancing requirements. Activity Director #813 stated she would offer group activities but Resident #7 was usually in bed. Activity Director #813 stated she informed the nursing assistants of group activities that were scheduled throughout the day but she had to rely on them to assist residents out of bed to be ready for the activity. Activity Director #813 stated Resident #7 used to like to walk around the facility a lot. When it was addressed that two group activities were observed occurring the morning of and afternoon of 04/19/21 with the same residents attending both with limited number of residents permitted to attend related to physical distancing, Activity Director #813 stated it was usually the same ten residents who participated in the group activities. When it was addressed that she was observed only reminding/encouraging the same residents who attended the 10:30 A.M. activity to the 1:00 P.M. activity, Activity Director #813 did not deny this. On 04/21/21 at 10:59 A.M., Resident #7 was observed sitting up in a chair in her room. The television was playing but Resident #7 was exhibiting no interest. At 12:35 P.M., Resident #7 was being fed by staff. At 2:47 P.M., Resident #7 was sitting in his chair looking toward the television. On 04/21/21 at 12:50 P.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #814 stated Resident #7 used to walk all over the facility and would dance to music because she loved music. Since starting on hospice, Resident #7 tended to want to stay in bed more. STNA #814 stated sometimes Resident #7's roommate would play music. When it was addressed that Resident #7 did not appear to show interest in the television programs that had been playing, STNA #814 did not deny this. When asked if there were music channels on the television related to musical interests, STNA #814 stated she did not know. On 04/22/21 at 8:14 A.M., Resident #7 was observed lying in bed with her eyes closed though she was making slight position adjustments. The television was playing. 2. Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed a date of birth of [DATE]. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility 09/22/19. Diagnoses included severe intellectual disabilities, generalized anxiety disorder, and impulse disorder. An activity plan of care dated 09/25/19 indicated Resident #23 enjoyed sensory related activities, specifically music. The goal was for Resident #23 to attend three sensory related activities weekly. Interventions included providing Resident #23 with a monthly calendar and for staff to assist Resident #23 to and from sensory groups placing her on the periphery in case it was over stimulating. A quarterly activity assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #23 relied on staff to provide social and sensory interaction on a 1:1 basis related to COVID 19 restrictions. The assessment indicated Resident #23 seemed to enjoy short animated videos and music. A quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #23 was rarely/never able to make herself understood and rarely/never understood others. Resident #23 had short and long term memory problems and severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Resident #23 was dependent on staff for transfers and locomotion on and off the unit. Observations of Resident #23 on 04/19/21 at 8:48 A.M. and 11:15 A.M., on 04/20/21 at 1:56 P.M. and on 04/21/21 at 10:52 A.M., 12:34 P.M. and 2:25 P.M. revealed she was lying or sitting in bed with the privacy curtain pulled looking around the room with no activities noted. During an interview on 04/20/21 at 8:57 A.M., Resident #23's brother revealed family used to take Resident #23 out into the community prior to COVID restrictions. Since inside visits had been restricted with COVID Resident #23's brother was unsure what activities Resident #23 participated in. On 04/20/21 at 3:00 P.M., Activity Director #813 stated Resident #23 was lower functioning with developmental disabilities. Resident #23 loved Sponge [NAME] and she sometimes took an iPad in and showed Resident #23 clips from Sponge [NAME]. Activity Director #813 stated Resident #23 did not like sensory stimulation. Resident #23 did like toddler music and would watch television, especially cartoons on weekends. On 04/21/21 at 12:50 P.M., STNA #814 was asked what type of activities were offered to Resident #23. STNA #814 stated the staff would sometimes get Resident #23 in her chair and take her to the lounge area giving her a toy to play with and let her watch television. STNA #814 stated Resident #23 would sometimes watch television in her room if she was not sleeping. On 04/21/21 at 3:30 P.M., Activity Director #813 was interviewed about the reported interest Resident #23 had in watching cartoons and the availability of a television in her room with no cartoons provided. Activity Director #813 originally responded by asking if the Cartoon Network was available on the facility's cable. After reviewing a list of television channels that had been provided, Activity Director #813 stated she would have to try it. At 3:36 P.M., Activity Director #813 stated she was able to get cartoons to play on Resident #23's television.
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were mai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were maintained during Resident #10's pressure ulcer wound care for multiple wounds. This affected one (Resident #10) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcer wounds. The facility census was 41. Findings include: Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including severe sepsis with septic shock, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition and heart failure. Review of Resident #10's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident exhibited severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #10's physician orders revealed an order dated 04/12/21 to apply an adhesive foam dressing to the resident's left buttocks every night shift, an order dated 04/13/21 to apply a foam dressing to the resident's left lateral proximal foot every night shift on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, an order dated 04/13/21 to apply a foam dressing to the right lateral distal foot every night shift on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, an order dated 04/13/21 to apply an adhesive foam dressing to the right lateral proximal foot every night shift on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, an order dated 04/13/21 to apply an adhesive foam dressing to the left lateral foot every night shift on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, an order dated 03/20/21 to cleanse the left buttock with normal saline, pat dry, apply calcium alginate and cover with a dry dressing daily, an order dated 03/20/21 to cleanse the left hip with normal saline pat dry, apply medi honey, cover with calcium alginate and dry dressing daily, an order dated 03/20/21 to cleanse the right hip with normal saline, pat dry, apply calcium alginate and cover with a dry dressing to the right lower hip wound and an order dated 03/09/21 to apply calcium alginate to the left buttock and apply a dry dressing daily and as needed. Observation on 04/20/21 at 11:47 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #801 of Resident #10's wound care revealed the nurse washed her hands, put on gloves, removed the soiled dressing to the left hip pressure wound, cleansed the left hip with normal saline, patted the wound dry, applied medi honey (helps heal wounds) with a calcium alginate (maintains moist environment or wound healing) dressing and covered the wound with a dry dressing. LPN #801 removed the soiled dressings for two left buttock pressure wounds, cleansed the wounds with normal saline, patted the wounds dry, applied calcium alginate to one of the left buttock wounds and covered both of the wounds with a dry dressing. Observation on 04/20/21 at 11:52 A.M. with LPN #801 revealed she then removed three dressings on the left lateral foot, cleansed the wounds with normal saline and applied a foam dressing to each wound. LPN #801 assisted the resident to roll onto her left side to expose the right buttock and right hip. Observation on 04/20/21 at 12:00 P.M. with LPN #801 revealed she removed the soiled dressing on the right hip, cleansed the right hip wound with normal saline, patted the wound dry, applied calcium alginate with medi honey and placed a dry dressing over the wound. Observation on 04/20/21 at 12:03 P.M. with LPN #801 revealed she removed the dressings on the right foot for three pressure wounds, cleansed the wounds with normal saline and applied foam dressings to all three wounds. LPN #801 then removed a dressing to the right heel, cleansed the pressure wound with normal saline, patted the wound dry and placed a dry dressing on the wound. LPN #801 completed the wound care, cleaned up the work station, removed her gloves and washed her hands. Interview on 04/20/21 at 12:11 P.M. with LPN #801 indicated she was unaware she was required to wash or sanitize her hands and put on new gloves after removing Resident #10's soiled pressure wound care dressings and also between each new pressure wound. LPN #801 confirmed she did not complete the appropriate infection control practices during the resident's wound care. Review of the undated Clean Dressing Change policy indicated to review the physician's order for dressing change and pain medication, identify the resident, assemble the equipment, wash hands and apply gloves, remove the soiled dressing, placed soiled dressing and gloves in a plastic bag, remove gloves and wash hands, apply gloves, cleanse wound with sterile solution, apply dressing, document date and time, remove gloves and wash hands. Discard used supplies in a separate plastic bag.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure safety assessments and interventions we...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure safety assessments and interventions were implemented for two (Residents #9 and #16) of four residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 41. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/05/19. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence, depression, and alcohol-induced persisting dementia. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 was moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental status (BIMS) score of 9 but had not exhibited wandering during the reference time period. A nursing note dated 11/15/20 at 12:21 P.M. indicated Resident #9 was found walking down the road where the facility was located. Resident #9 indicated she was upset about not being able to smoke because of COVID-19 restrictions. Resident #9 was safely returned to the facility. Resident #9 was educated that she could not leave the facility without notifying a staff member and a wanderguard was placed on her lower extremity. A nursing note dated 12/09/20 at 2:21 P.M. indicated Resident #9 was redirected to her room four times then the receptionist noted her going toward the front door and called the unit. Resident #9 returned to the unit then immediately attempted to leave again so the nurse followed her. Resident #9 returned to the unit. A wandering risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 was at high risk for wandering. Risk factors included forgetfulness and short attention span, recent transfer from one unit to another, independently mobile, early dementia, medication use, and a history of wandering. A quarterly social service assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 had short and long term memory impairment and the need for cues and supervision for decision making. The assessment indicated when the BIMS was completed the recall words were changed due to Resident #9 stating she had completed the assessment so many times she had it memorized. An annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 12. Resident #9 required supervision for transfers and while walking in her room and in the corridor. On 01/21/21, the care plan addressing impaired cognitive process for daily decision making was updated indicating Resident #9 was exhibiting more decline in day to day comprehension due to progression of dementia. The care plan indicated Resident #9 was argumentative with staff, had difficulty differentiating time, and exhibited more confusion with reality. An interdisciplinary team note dated 02/01/21 at 1:12 P.M. indicated Resident #9 refused to wear the wanderguard. The note indicated Resident #9 had not been adjudicated as incompetent and Resident #9's brother stated she could do what she wanted but she could not live with family related to past issues. The physician was updated and the wanderguard was discontinued. The note indicated Resident #9 was reminded to speak with the nurse when she planned to exit the facility. On 04/21/21 at 3:23 P.M., Resident #9 had a coat on and ambulated out of her room. The Director of Nursing (DON) reminded Resident #9 to wear a mask. Resident #9 continued to walk and took a mask out of her pocket prior to exiting through courtyard doors. The DON was interviewed and stated the facility did not consider the incident from 11/15/20 an elopement so no investigation was completed. The DON stated Resident #9 was able to make her own decisions. Resident #9 left the facility without signing out or telling anyone she was leaving. Resident #9's brother was in agreement that Resident #9 could make decisions independently. On 04/21/21 at 3:28 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #801 stated she was the one who saw Resident #9 waling down the road off facility grounds on 11/15/20. Resident #9 was between the facility and the greenhouse which could be viewed from the parking lot. LPN #801 stated Resident #9 sometimes got upset and decided to take a walk without telling anybody. On 04/21/21 at 4:10 P.M., the Administrator was interviewed about Resident #9's assessment of moderately impaired cognitive status and supervision/safety when she decided to walk unaccompanied by staff. The Administrator stated she could not restrain Resident #9 or force her to wear a wanderguard and it was very important for Resident #9 to be able to take a walk when she wanted. The Administrator acknowledged it was the facility's responsibility to supervise Resident #9 and keep her safe, regardless of what her brother said. The Administrator stated Resident #9 would walk to the greenhouse down the street and someone sold her cigarettes. On 04/21/21 at 5:03 P.M., Resident #9 stated she did like to walk and was able to walk in the courtyard independently. However, if she wanted to walk anywhere else she had to ask staff to let her out due to the codes on the doors. On 04/22/21 at 7:40 A.M., the Administrator was asked whether any safety assessments had been completed for Resident #9 to walk independently to the greenhouse. The Administrator provided copies of the wandering assessment and social service assessment referred to above. A quarterly BIMS assessment dated [DATE] (assessment locked 04/20/21) which indicated Resident #9 was cognitively intact. The assessment did not reveal if any alterations had been made to the BIMS assessment due to the claims Resident #9 had it memorized. At 11:51 A.M., the Administrator was asked again if there had been any kind of safety assessment for Resident #9's ability to safely go for walks along the road independently. The Administrator stated she had provided everything she had. 2. Review of Resident #16's medical record revealed diagnoses including chronic peripheral venous insufficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency anemia, depression, arthropathy, dementia, polyosteoarthritis, generalized muscle weakness, and Parkinson's disease. A care plan initiated 11/19/12 indicated Resident #16 was at risk for falls and injury related to age, balance difficulties, and Parkinson's disease. Interventions included assessment of fall risks quarterly and as necessary. The care plan had an intervention dated 01/06/21 to post a sign in Resident #16's room reminding him to call for assistance. The most recent fall risk assessment in the electronic health record dated 11/14/20 indicated Resident #16 was at moderate risk of falling. Risk factors identified included multiple falls within the last six months, use of antihypertensives and anti-Parkinson's medication, occasional incontinence, use of an assistive device, decrease in muscle coordination, Parkinson's Disease and arthritis. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 was able to make himself understood and was able to understand others. Resident #16 was assessed as having moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 11). The MDS indicated Resident #16 required extensive assistance for transfers and limited assistance while walking in his room. The assessment indicated Resident #16 was unsteady when moving from a seated to standing position and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. Resident #16 had two or more falls since the prior assessment with injury (except major). On 04/19/21 at 8:55 A.M., Resident #16 was observed sitting in his room in a chair placed in front of his bed. To the left side of the chair on the wall a sign was posted reminding Resident #16 to ring the call light for assistance. The call light was observed draped over the bottom of the side rail on the left side of the bed behind the chair. Resident #16 verified he was unable to reach the call light to ring for assistance. The call light remained out of reach at 10:40 A.M. and 12:12 P.M. On 04/19/21 at 12:12 P.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #814 verified the call light was not accessible while Resident #16 sat in the chair and placed it within reach. On 04/20/21 at 8:29 A.M., Resident #16 was observed sitting in his chair. Resident #16 continued to have a sign posted instructing him to use the call light for staff assistance. The call light was not within reach and was observed on the floor at the foot of the bed. On 04/20/21 at 8:30 A.M., STNA #812 verified Resident #16's call light was not within reach so he could not call for assistance if he needed something. On 04/15/21 at 12:56 P.M., the DON was informed of the last fall risk assessment in the record being dated 11/14/20 and the care plan addressed an intervention to assess for risk of falls quarterly and as necessary. A fall risk assessment dated [DATE] was provided on 04/21/21 with no assessments provided between 11/14/20 and that date.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and review of resident council meeting minutes, the facility failed to keep the resident council informed of actions taken to address ongoing concerns about staffing. This had the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and review of resident council meeting minutes, the facility failed to keep the resident council informed of actions taken to address ongoing concerns about staffing. This had the potential to affect all current residents with the exception of four residents (Residents #13, #143, #194 and Resident #195) who resided on a unit with one nurse and one nursing assistant scheduled. The facility census was 41. Findings include: Review of resident council meeting minutes from November 2020 to April 2021 revealed concerns including: * On 11/02/20 a concern was voiced ice water was not passed and one resident (discharged ) complained her care needs were not met. The residents were interviewed individually due to COVID. * December 2020 minutes revealed 18 residents were interviewed on an individual basis. One resident (discharged ) complained she was not getting showers consistently. Resident #15 reported there needed to be more help and she had to wait a long time for her needs to be met. * March 2021 minutes revealed 15 residents were interviewed individually. Residents #6, #25, and #34 complained call lights were not responded to in a timely manner. During resident council meeting on 04/20/21 at 10:30 A.M., eight of eight residents revealed they did not believe grievances and concerns were acted upon in a satisfactory manner, especially staffing. Residents stated it was not unusual to wait longer than 25 minutes to get assistance. Residents reported they kept being told the facility was going to fix it. When residents questioned staffing concerns, they were informed the staffing problems occurred due to staff reporting off or not calling and not reporting to work. However, residents reported management would leave for the weekend knowing there was only one aide scheduled for several halls. The residents agreed staffing had been an ongoing concern. On 04/20/21 at 10:05 A.M., the Administrator stated resident council meeting minutes were reviewed during morning meetings and she signed them indicating the concerns were reviewed. Concerns addressed during resident council were indicated on a concern form with the facility's actions recorded on the form. Review of the resident concern report from 03/01/21 revealed responses to Residents #6, #25 and #34 were provided for those individuals alone. Resident #25 was informed it was okay for staff from other areas of the facility to assist him, including nurses and assistance did not always need to be provided by a nursing assistant. Resident #34 was informed nurses could provide assistance and she did not need to wait on a nursing assistant. Resident #34 was informed just because there were certain requested aides in the facility at the time of the request they may not be able to assist with the task being requested. Resident #6 was informed she needed to remain in her room after activating her call light instead of going to look for staff. On 04/21/21 at 1:20 P.M., the Administrator stated multiple actions the facility had taken to address staffing. The Administrator verified residents had expressed staffing concerns with her and verified she responded she was working on it but never addressed with resident council what action/attempts were made to resolve staffing issues.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0570 (Tag F0570)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the surety bond was purchased for a sufficient amount to ensure the security of all resident funds deposited in the facility resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the surety bond was purchased for a sufficient amount to ensure the security of all resident funds deposited in the facility resident fund account. This finding had the potential to affect thirty residents (#2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #12, #8, #9, #10, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #30, #32, #34, #36, #37, #39, #192 and #197) with funds deposited into the facility resident fund account. The facility census was 41. Findings include: Review of the surety bond dated 07/09/20 indicated the surety bond was in the amount of $50,000.00 (fifty thousand dollars). Review of the Trial Balance form dated 04/19/21 indicated the total amount of resident funds deposited with the facility in a resident fund account was in the amount of #53,195.35 for thirty residents (Residents #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #12, #8, #9, #10, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #30, #32, #34, #36, #37, #39, #192 and #197). Interview on 04/19/21 at 10:05 A.M. with Administrative Assistant #803 confirmed the resident fund balance exceeded the surety bond.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including multiple pressure ulcers, heart failure and adult failure to thrive. Review of Resident #10's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #10's physician orders revealed an order dated 04/01/21 for Tylenol 325 mg (milligrams) give two tablets by mouth every four hours as needed for pain and an order dated 01/21/21 for tramadol 50 mg (narcotic) give one tablet by mouth every eight hours as needed for pain. Review of Resident #10's medication administration records from 04/01/21 to 04/21/21 revealed the resident had not received pain medications including the Tylenol or tramadol on 04/20/21 at any point during the day. Observation on 04/20/21 from 11:52 A.M. to 12:03 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #801 and STNA #804 of Resident #10's pressure ulcer wound care revealed at 12:00 P.M. during completion of the wound care to the right hip, the resident complained of pain and stated it hurts. STNA #804 asked LPN #801 if the resident was medicated for pain and the nurse indicated the resident was medicated for pain. Interview on 04/21/21 at 7:31 A.M. with LPN #801 indicated she should have medicated Resident #10 for pain when the resident complained of pain but she got busy as she assigned to administer medications because of a lack of staffing.3. Review of resident council meeting minutes from November 2020 to April 2021 revealed concerns including: * On 11/02/20 a concern was voiced ice water was not passed and one resident (discharged ) complained her care needs were not met. The residents were interviewed individually due to COVID. * December 2020 minutes revealed 18 residents were interviewed on an individual basis. One resident (discharged ) complained she was not getting showers consistently. Resident #15 reported there needed to be more help and she had to wait a long time for her needs to be met. * March 2021 minutes revealed 15 residents were interviewed individually. Residents #6, #25, and #34 complained call lights were not responded to in a timely manner. During resident council meeting on 04/20/21 at 10:30 A.M., eight of eight residents revealed they did not believe grievances and concerns were acted upon in a satisfactory manner, especially staffing. Residents stated it was not unusual to wait longer than 25 minutes to get assistance. Residents reported they kept being told the facility was going to fix it. When residents questioned staffing concerns, they were informed the staffing problems occurred due to staff reporting off or not calling and not reporting to work. However, residents reported management would leave for the weekend knowing there was only one aide scheduled for several halls. The residents agreed staffing had been an ongoing concern. On 04/21/21 at 1:20 P.M., the Administrator verified staffing was an issue she and the Quality Assurance committee had been trying to resolve. 4. On 04/19/21 at 12:44 P.M., LPN #815 stated there had been a nursing assistant had reported off for day shift. There was one aide and one light duty aide available to provide care for residents on the 100/200 halls (24 residents). LPN #815 was uncertain whether residents had received showers. 5. On 04/19/21 at 12:10 P.M., STNA #814 began serving trays off the cart on 200 hall as soon as it arrived. STNA #812 arrived and STNA #814 went to 100 hall to pass trays. STNA #812 fed Resident #28 between 12:29 P.M. and 12:57 P.M. STNA #812 then went to the meal cart sitting in the hall and stated she needed mighty shakes then proceeded to the refrigerator on the unit then toward the kitchen. STNA #812 returned to the unit at 1:02 P.M. and started feeding Resident #36. STNA #814 returned to the 200 hall at 1:07 P.M. and started feeding Resident #7. This was almost one hour after the cart arrived on the unit. On 04/19/21 at 1:15 P.M., STNA #812 stated she was not able to lift over ten pounds. She was permitted to feed residents but could not perform personal care which required any lifting over ten pounds. STNA #812 stated she was unable to assist with providing incontinence care. STNA #812 stated about an average of once a week there was not enough staff. STNA #812 stated if there were less than two nursing assistants on the 100/200 hall the nursing assistants just had to try to keep residents clean and fed. 6. On 04/19/21 at 1:25 P.M., STNA #814 stated she was working the 100/200 hall. The light duty aide was working the 100/200/300 halls doing hospitality aide duties like passing ice. STNA #814 stated when there was one one aide for the 100/200 hall it was difficult to provide showers if that was the residents' preference and she usually had to explain to the residents that she did not have time to give them a shower but she offered a bed bath instead. Some residents did get upset about this. 7. On 04/20/21 at 2:09 P.M., STNA #816 stated she had worked as the only nursing assistant on the 100/200 hall in the past and it was not possible to provide care as needed. Corners had to be cut and incontinence care was unable to be provided timely. Sometimes mouth care, showers, and repositioning could not be done. STNA #816 stated the office personnel who were trained to assist with feeding usually didn't help. As STNA #816 spoke, tears started rolling from her eyes and she was apologizing and wiping them away, stating she had shared the concerns with management about staffing and not being able to provide care the residents needed. 8. On 04/21/21 at 6:07 P.M., STNA #817 indicated when there was only one aide working on the 100/200 halls and one aide working on the 300 hall, residents sometimes had to wait for assistance because the staff had to wait on one another to be available. Based on medical record review, observation, interview and document review the facility failed to provide sufficient nurse staffing levels to meet residents needs. This had the potential to affect all 41 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from another long term care facility. Her diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure with hypoxia or hypercapnia, quadriplegia, asthma, diabetes with neuropathy, anxiety, obstructive sleep apnea, schizophrenia, osteoarthritis, arthropathic psoriasis, anemia, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, mixed severe bipolar disorder with psychotic features, severe morbid obesity, chronic pain, post traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. Review of the annual comprehensive assessment (MDS 3.0) dated 03/02/21 indicated Resident #34 was alert, oriented and independent in daily decision making ability. No behavioral symptoms were identified. The assessment indicated it was very important for her to choose clothing, take care of belongings, choose the type of bathing and her bed time. She was totally dependent on two plus staff for activities of daily living. Review of the interdisciplinary note dated 04/06/21 related to psychological services revealed Resident #34 has been offered her shower; would refuse the shower then tell management that she was not getting a shower or being offered shower. Review of the care plan indicated Resident #34 preferred to have showers on Tuesdays and Saturdays on the night shift. Resident #34 required total assistance for activities of daily living due to weakness and quadriplegia. At times will refuse showers but would accept a bed bath. Review of the progress notes since 01/01/21 revealed she refused a shower on 01/13/21. Review of shower/tub bath/bed bath sheets revealed in February 2021 she received six of eight scheduled showers and refused one time, March 2021 she received four showers, two bed baths and refused four times and in April 2021 she received four of six scheduled showers with no refusals. Interview with Resident #34 on 04/19/21 at 10:54 A.M. reported being offered bed baths instead of showers but did not want bed baths. Resident #34 reported she often got offered bed baths instead of a shower because there was not enough staff. The resident reported she needed two staff and a mechanical lift to shower and there was only one aide scheduled for her unit. She also reported it had been months since her teeth were brushed. She reportedly complained about not receiving showers as desired in the past but nothing was done about it. Interview with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #701 on 04/19/21 at 11:00 A.M. reported she was on light duty and did not assist with showers. Interview with STNA #804 on 04/20/21 at 7:02 A.M. reported Resident #34's shower days were Wednesdays and Saturdays. STNA #804 has requested three STNAs be scheduled on those days because the resident wants her showers. STNA #804 reported the census may have decreased by the acuity did not. STNA #804 was the only STNA on Resident #34's unit. Interview with STNA #702 on 04/21/21 at 6:10 A.M. reported there was only two aides for three units. She admitted to putting Resident #34 on and off the bed pan by herself because there was usually just two staff for the three units. Resident #34 required two staff for toilet use. Review of the activities of daily living/maintain abilities policy and procedure (undated) indicated the facility would provide care and services for hygiene including bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care. A resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living would received the necessary services to maintain good grooming, personal and oral care. Review of the CMS 672 completed by the facility revealed 23 of 41 residents required the assistance of one to two staff for bathing and 18 of 41 were totally dependent on staff for bathing.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of the Centers for Disease Control hand hygiene guidelines and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff practiced appropriate hand hygiene. This affected one (Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of the Centers for Disease Control hand hygiene guidelines and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff practiced appropriate hand hygiene. This affected one (Resident #28) of one resident observed for incontinence care and had the potential to affect 15 additional residents (Residents #3, #6, #7, #15, #16, #17, #20, #21, #23, #24, #26, #29, #30, #36 and #39) residing on the same unit. Findings include: On 04/22/21 from 9:21 A.M. to 9:30 A.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #814 was observed providing incontinence care to Resident #28. After incontinence care was provided, with gloves still on, STNA #814 pulled the sheet up then used the crank at the foot of the bed. STNA #814 then removed gloves and was observed running her hands through her hair and touching her face shield. Resident #28 asked for a drink of water which was provided then supplies were gathered, and STNA #814 left the room without washing her hands. On 04/22/21 at 9:33 A.M., STNA #814 verified the above observations. Review of Center for Disease Control hand hygiene guidelines revealed healthcare personnel should perform hand hygiene after touching a resident or their immediate environment, after removing gloves, and after contact with body fluids or contaminated surfaces. Residents #3, #6, #7, #15, #16, #17, #20, #21, #23, #24, #26, #29, #30, #36 and #39 resided on the same unit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of COVID testing records, review of COVID-19 testing guidance, review of COVID 19 screening, review of employment information and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff testing...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of COVID testing records, review of COVID-19 testing guidance, review of COVID 19 screening, review of employment information and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff testing for COVID 19 was conducted with the required frequency. This had the potential to affect all but six (Residents #10, #93, #143, #193, #194 and #195) of the facility's 41 residents. The six residents either currently had COVID-19 or had it within the prior 90 days (Residents #10, #93, #143, #193, #194 and #195). Findings include: On 04/20/21 at 9:28 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #801 was interviewed regarding the facility's infection control program. LPN #801 reported COVID testing was done in accordance with the most recent guidance. If staff had two doses of the vaccine they were tested weekly. If not, testing continued to be completed twice a week. Review of staff COVID testing records revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #818 was tested for COVID 19 on 03/31/21 and 04/19/21. Both tests were negative. Review of COVID 19 screening records revealed STNA #818 exhibited no symptoms of COVID 19. STNA #818 was on a list of staff who were not not vaccinated. On 04/21/21 at 6:30 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified STNA #818 had not been vaccinated and that she should be tested twice a week. However, the DON was unable to locate any evidence of further testing but would continue to search. On 04/22/21 at 10:22 A.M., the Administrator stated no additional COVID testing was found for STNA #818. Review of employment records revealed STNA #818 applied to the facility 03/31/21. Orientation began 04/04/21. Review of the Amended Director's Order from the Ohio Department of Health revealed all unvaccinated staff required COVID 19 tests to be completed twice a week. Six residents either currently had COVID-19 or had it within the prior 90 days (Residents #10, #93, #143, #193, #194 and #195).
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the medical director or his designee was present at the quarterly quality assessment and assurance meetings. This had the potentia...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the medical director or his designee was present at the quarterly quality assessment and assurance meetings. This had the potential to affect all 41 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the quality assessment and assurance meeting attendance records since October 2020 revealed a physician was present at the 10/08/20 and 04/15/21 meetings only. Meetings were held on 10/08/20, 11/20/20, 01/15/21, 02/11/21, 03/11/21 and 04/15/21. Interview with the medical director on 04/22/21 at 9:00 A.M. reported he was present in the facility weekly to see his residents and had attended quality assessment and assurance meetings in the past. Interview with the administrator on 04/22/21 at 12:38 P.M. verified the medical director/designee did not attend quarterly quality assessment and assurance meetings but completed monthly medical director reports that were reviewed at each meeting. The facility had weekly opportunities to conduct a quality assessment and assurance meetings with the medical director.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and review of Notice to Medicare Provider Non-coverage (NOMNC) letters, the facility failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and review of Notice to Medicare Provider Non-coverage (NOMNC) letters, the facility failed to provide the residents with claim appeal rights information. This affected three of three residents (#96, #97 and #98) reviewed for liability notices. The facility census was 41. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #96 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On [DATE] the physician ordered Hospice services. The resident expired on [DATE]. Review of the NOMNC indicated her last covered day was [DATE] due to the initiation of Hospice. The NOMNC listed a Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) and contact information but not the current QIO for Ohio. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to home on [DATE]. Review of the NOMNC indicated his last covered day was [DATE]. The NOMNC listed a QIO and contact information but not the current QIO for Ohio. 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #98 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She began Hospice services on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. Review of the NOMNC indicated her last covered day was [DATE] due to the initiation of Hospice services. Review of the NOMNC indicated his last covered day was [DATE]. The NOMNC listed a QIO and contact information but not the current QIO for Ohio. Interview with the Administrator on [DATE] at 8:17 A.M. indicated she was aware the QIO had changed a couple of years ago but was not aware the facility was giving out the previous QIO number and website for an immediate appeal.
Jan 2019 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to document the correct Advanced Directives for Resident #11. The affected one (Resident #11) of 24 reviewed for Advanced Directives. The facility census was 60. Findings include: A medical record review revealed Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including quadriplegia, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, generalized anxiety disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, bipolar disorder, muscle weakness, respiratory failure, asthma, osteoarthritis, morbid obesity, chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anemia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment revealed Resident #11 had intact cognition. A review of the red code status in the front of the medical record revealed Resident #11 had a Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care (DNRCC) code status, and the face sheet also indicated she was a DNRCC. Review of the facility's Advance Care Planning Tracking Form, dated [DATE], revealed the DNR Identification form was to be faxed to the physician's to have Resident #11's code status changed from a DNRCC to Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care-Arrest (DNRCC-A). Review of the DNR Identification Form signed by the physician on [DATE] revealed Resident #11 was to be a DNRCC-A. Review of the 01/19 physician's orders revealed no documentation of Resident #11 code status. Review of the Plan of Care, dated [DATE], revealed Resident # 11 had chosen a DNR status and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation measures would not be attempted during cardiac arrest. An interview on [DATE] at 2:31 P.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated there was not a lot of difference between a DNRCC and a DNRCC-Arrest. However, with a DNRCC the facility would not do any life saving measures and would only provide palliative care, and with a DNRCC-Arrest the facility would do all life saving measures up to the point of cardiac arrest. An interview on [DATE] at 9:34 A.M. the Administrator verified Resident #11 code status was not documented correctly in her medical record. Review of the facility policy Code Status Interpretation Full Code/Do not Resuscitate/DNRCC/DNRCC-Arrest, dated 05/16, revealed in accordance with the state Ohio DNR Comfort Care Protocol; the facility would ensure a resident's wishes are carried out as they desire. Every effort to maintain a resident's wishes and dignity would be carried out as requested by the resident and/or the responsible party or family. The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) has enveloped a standard form that was recognized throughout the health care community in Ohio. Every attempt would be made with any transferring entity to obtain the ODH form upon admission to ensure the resident's wishes would be carried out. The policy further revealed: -Do Not Resuscitate(DNR) was a written directive signed by the physician's of a resident that takes into consideration the decisions of the resident/responsible party that declines emergency administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) to the resident. -DNR Comfort Care (DNRCC) permitted comfort care only both before and during a cardiac or respiratory arrest. Resuscitative therapies will not be administered prior to an arrest. This order is generally regarded as appropriate for patients who have a terminal illness, short life expectancy, little chance of surviving CPR, and a desire to let nature take its course in the face of an impending arrest. -DNR Comfort Care-Arrest (DNRCC-A) would activate the DNR Protocol at the time of a cardiac or respiratory arrest. Resuscitative therapies would be administered before an arrest. The term DNR (without additional wording) when record in the medical chart shall be considered a DNR Comfort Care- Arrest order. -Cardiac Arrest was the absence of a palpable pulse. DNRCC initiation revealed the person received any care that eases pain and suffering but no resuscitative measures to save or sustain life. DNRCC-Arrest initiation revealed: a person would receive standard medical care until the time he or she experiences a cardiac or respiratory arrest and he standard medical care may include cardiac monitoring, powerful heart or blood pressure medication and/or intubation.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to administer Resident #57's respiratory treatment as ordered. This af...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer Resident #57's respiratory treatment as ordered. This affected one (Resident #57) of one resident reviewed for tracheostomy care. The facility census was 60. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, unspecified intellectual disability, acute lymphoblastic leukemia in remission, basil cell carcinoma, aphasia, gastrostomy status, tracheostomy status, and acute and chronic respiratory failure. Review of Resident #57's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 12/02/18, revealed his cognition was severely impaired, and he received oxygen therapy and tracheostomy care. Resident #57's physician orders revealed on 01/16/18 he was ordered Ipratropium/Albuterol inhalation solution (a bronchodilator medication), one vial, via nebulizer four times a day. Review of Resident #57's December 2018 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed he did not receive the 8:00 P.M. dose of Ipratropium/Albuterol inhalation solution as ordered from 12/01/18 through 12/05/18, 12/07/18 through 12/12/18, 12/14/18 though 12/19/18, 12/21/18 through 12/23/18, and 12/26/18 through 12/31/18. Review of Resident #57's January 2019 MAR revealed he did not receive the 8:00 P.M. dose of Ipratropium/Albuterol inhalation solution as ordered on any day from 01/01/18 through 01/07/18. Interview on 01/08/19 at 2:32 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no evidence Resident #57 received Ipratropium/Albuterol inhalation solution as ordered on the above dates.
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 medical record review and interview, the facility failed to timely address ill-fitting dentures for Resident #47 and ti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to timely address ill-fitting dentures for Resident #47 and timely address Resident #38's dental needs. This affected two residents (Resident #38 and Resident #47) of 24 reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 60. Findings Include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension and undifferentiated schizophrenia. Resident #38's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/08/18, revealed his cognition was intact. Review of Resident #38's admission Assessment with Baseline Care Plan, dated 11/01/18, revealed his oral cavity had a foul odor and had pain when chewing or general oral pain. Resident #38's goal was identified that the resident would not experience chewing or swallowing problems. The interventions to reach this goal was identified as: refer to dental services. Review of Resident #38's Social Services note, dated 11/19/18, revealed Social Services Designee (SSD) #34 left a voicemail for the guardian on this date in relation to the resident requesting ancillary services and relation to private pay. Interview on 01/09/19 at 10:24 A.M. with SSD #34 revealed she should be notified if residents are referred for dental services. SSD #34 revealed she was not notified that Resident #38 had dental issues upon admission. SSD #34 revealed she was unaware the resident had dental concerns until 11/19/18 when the resident approached her. 2. A medical record review revealed Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including psychosis, paranoid schizophrenia, depression, hypertension, arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, chronic viral hepatitis, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/19/18, revealed Resident #47 had intact cognition, had no difficulty swallowing, no weight loss, and had no loose-fitting dentures. Review of a physician's telephone order, dated 11/29/18, revealed Resident #47 had an order for a referral to a dentist for a complaint of loose dentures and pain while eating. Review of the Plan of Care, dated 08/27/15, revealed Resident #47 was at risk for dental problems. Review of the progress notes from 09/09/18 to 01/09/19 revealed no documentation the dentist had been notified of Resident #47 loose/uncomfortable dentures or an appointment had been set up. An interview on 01/07/19 at 3:13 P.M. Resident #47 indicated she had trouble with her dentures being loose and falling out of her mouth. She stated she had told the staff a couple times but hey have not done anything about it. An interview on 01/08/19 the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #34 indicated the dentist would be here on 02/08/19 and she would put Resident #47 on the list to be seen but she had not been aware Resident #47 had loose fitting dentures. An interview on 01/09/19 at 8:50 A.M. Resident # 47 indicated she had pain when she was eating because her dentures click together when she eats. She stated her dentures would fall out of her mouth because they were so loose. An interview on 01/09/19 at 9:30 A.M. the Director of Nursing verified the referral was not set up due to the LSW was not aware Resident #47 had a problem with her teeth. She indicated she was attempting to find out who took the telephone order because the order was written by one nurse and signed by another nurse.
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 record review and interview, the facility did not ensure urinary output amounts were documented for Resident #13, one o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure urinary output amounts were documented for Resident #13, one of one resident reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 60. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included neurogenic bladder, Alzheimer's dementia, chronic pain disorder, atrial fibrillation, anemia, congestive heart failure, hypertension and an updated diagnosis of pelvic abscess on 09/04/18. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/05/18, revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with no mood or behavior issues, required two staff and a mechanical lift for transfers and toileting, and had a catheter tube into her bladder to drain her urine. Resident #13 had not been eating well and had significant weight loss documented in January 2019. Review of physician orders revealed active orders dated 09/04/18 for intake and output every shift(measuring and documenting all fluid intake and output to monitor fluid balance which could indicate fluid overload or dehydration). Review of facility electronic documentation revealed State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) documented the amount of fluid Resident #13 consumed each shift (intake). There was no electronic documentation of how much urine was emptied from the resident's catheter bag each shift (output). Review of nursing progress notes from 12/01/18 through 01/09/19 revealed no output documented on any shift for 24 of the 40 days reviewed. This concern was shared with the facility Interim Director of Nursing(DON) on 01/10/19 at 11:00 A.M. During the interview, the Interim DON confirmed when a physician ordered intake and output staff were to accurately measure and record all intake and output on each shift. During a follow up interview at 1:10 P.M. The Interim DON confirmed there had been no urinary output recorded in the electronic chart because an output documentation section was never added to the electronic charting tool used by the STNAs. The Interim DON confirmed staff nurses had not consistently documented urinary output for Resident #13 in progress notes. The Interim DON stated there had been no symptoms or problems related to fluid imbalance for Resident #13 and the documentation tool had been updated to require output documentation on Resident #13.
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, medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain isolation procedures during the...

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 maintain isolation procedures during the passing of hall meal trays. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 60. Findings Include: An observation on 01/07/19 at 12:17 P.M. revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] had a sign on the outside of the door stating please see the nurse before entering the room and had a cart with isolation Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) outside the door. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #65 was observed passing the room meal trays on the 200 hallway. STNA #65 put on a gown, mask, and no gloves. She took a meal tray into the isolation room, she moved the bedside table with her ungloved hands and placed the meal tray on the bedside table. STNA #65 came out into the hallway with her PPE still on to retrieve the meal tray from the cart for the other resident in the room. STNA #65 was touching all of the meal trays as she was pulling them out to look for the other meal tray for the isolation room. Her isolation gown was untied and hanging loose. Another staff member came up behind her a tied the gown for STNA #65 in the hallway at the food cart. At this time Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #30 came up to the meal cart and started to pass meal trays also. An interview on 01/07/19 at 12:22 P.M. LPN #30 verified STNA #65 had come out of the isolation room with her PPE still on and was touching the trays on the meal cart. She verified she should not have been in the hallway with her PPE equipment on. An interview on 01/07/19 at 3:59 P.M. the Director of Nursing indicated the facility did not have a policy or procedure on passing meal trays to an isolation room, and the facility just had a general infection control policy. Review of the medical record revealed Resident # 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of diabetes, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, anxiety disorder, hypertension, acute bronchitis, anemia, and restless leg syndrome. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/14/18, revealed the resident was in intact cognition. Review of the progress note dated 12/28/18 revealed the physician was notified of a request to swab Resident #44 for influenza, to be started on droplet precautions, and to be moved to room [ROOM NUMBER]. Review of a physician's order dated 12/28/18 revealed Resident #44 received an order for droplet precautions and to be moved to room [ROOM NUMBER]. Review of the facility policy, Infection Prevention and Control Program, revealed the facility had developed and maintained an Infection Control Program that would provide a system for preventing, identifying, reporting, investigation and controlling infections and communicable disease for all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals providing services under contractual arrangement based upon the facility assessment.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $115,891 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 45 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $115,891 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 13/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Louisville Gardens's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Louisville Gardens Staffed?

CMS rates LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 22 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Louisville Gardens?

State health inspectors documented 45 deficiencies at LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 40 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Louisville Gardens?

LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER 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 CCH HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 41% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LOUISVILLE, Ohio.

How Does Louisville Gardens Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (68%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Louisville Gardens?

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

Is Louisville Gardens Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Louisville Gardens Stick Around?

Staff turnover at LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER is high. At 68%, the facility is 22 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 71%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Louisville Gardens Ever Fined?

LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER has been fined $115,891 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.4x the Ohio average of $34,238. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Louisville Gardens on Any Federal Watch List?

LOUISVILLE GARDENS CARE CENTER 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.