CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation of facility recorded video footage with sound, observation of police officer body camera footage, medical r...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation of facility recorded video footage with sound, observation of police officer body camera footage, medical record review, facility incident review, review of a self-reported incident, interview, dementia training curriculum review, facility assessment review and policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #145, who was cognitively impaired and had a diagnosis of dementia, was provided adequate, necessary kind, appropriate and dignified dementia care to meet his total care needs. This resulted in immediate jeopardy and the potential for serious harm and injury on 07/06/25 at 5:46 A.M. when the resident began to wander throughout the facility secured dementia unit. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #800 and CNA #568 were observed on video to yell at the resident to get out of other resident rooms, to go back to his room, the facility was not his home and to stop hitting staff or they would call the police, and he would go to jail. The lack of planned and appropriate intervention, lack of appropriately trained staff to care for the residents (including Resident #145), on the specialty unit, and lack of staff supervision resulted in police being called to the facility to assist with the resident. The CNAs falsely reported to the police resident behaviors, and the resident was unnecessarily transferred to the hospital emergency room and returned to the facility the same day. The facility consultant psychiatrist then implemented the use of Depakote (an anti-seizure medication that can be used as a psychotropic medication), to the resident's treatment plan to manage the resident's behaviors. This affected one resident (Resident #145) of three residents reviewed. The facility census was 141.On 07/16/25 at 1:45 P.M., the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 07/06/25 at 5:46 A.M. when Resident #145 began to wander on the facility secured dementia unit. CNA #800 and CNA #568 were observed on video to yell at the resident to get out of other resident rooms, to go back to his room, the facility was not his home and to stop hitting staff or they would call the police, and he would go to jail. The police were contacted to assist in the care of Resident #145 and the resident was unnecessarily transferred to the hospital after CNA #585 and CNA #800 falsely reported resident behaviors to the police department and facility nursing staff. Facility Administration failed to complete a thorough investigation of the incident, failed to review the facility recorded security camera video footage with sound from the secured dementia unit common area, failed to ensure staff responded appropriately to a population in their facility requiring specialized training and permitted CNA #585 and #800 to return to work on 07/06/25 to provide care to the residents on the secured dementia unit, including Resident #145.The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 07/18/25 when the facility implemented the following corrections: On 07/16/25 (no time provided) Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #568 and #800 were suspended and a full internal investigation was initiated. CNA #800 was placed on the do not return list and CNA #568 will remain on suspension pending the outcome of the investigation. On 7/16/25 (no time provided) Pharmacist #300 completed a medication regimen review for Resident #145 and no changes were recommended. On 07/16/25 at 4:00 P.M. Social Services #400 contacted Resident #145's wife to discuss the facility's plan to involve the resident's family in future behavioral interventions such as notifying the resident's spouse anytime, day or night, of behaviors and/or incidents. The resident's wife plans to spend some nights with the resident and the staff will ask the resident's spouse to assist and/or be present during any behaviors. On 07/16/25 Social Services #502 implemented the facility Notification Protocol for Resident #145 which required staff to immediately notify Resident #145's wife of significant behaviors or interventions. If immediate notification was unable to be made, the resident's wife/family would be notified within 12 hours. The spouse's input would be incorporated into the resident's care plan to reduce reliance on restrictive interventions. Beginning 07/16/25 and continuing until all 105 nursing staff (18 Registered Nurses, 22 licensed practical nurses and 65 CNA) are educated prior to their next scheduled shift on the secured unit, in-person by the DON or designee related to preventing and responding to catastrophic reactions, trauma-informed dementia care, use of calm, kind, respectful tone: zero tolerance for threats or intimidation, communication and behavioral de-escalation during high stress situations via training materials and using sign in sheets. Information packets will be available for agency staff to review and sign prior to working on the secured unit. Beginning 07/16/25 incident review by the charge nurse and DON is required before calling external authorities. The medical director or on-call physician's input is also required unless there is an immediate life-threatening emergency. De-escalation and resident specific interventions must be exhausted first. This will be included in the all-staff education provided by the DON/designee. On 07/17/25 Psychiatry Services re-evaluated the resident and reviewed appropriateness of medications. At the request of the resident's spouse, Depakote was discontinued. On 07/17/25 (no time provided) the resident's care plan was updated to provide the staff with behavioral triggers, calming interventions and redirection methods. An escalation protocol was also added for potential catastrophic reactions and non-pharmacologic interventions will be exhausted prior to any medication intervention. Beginning 07/17/25 and concluding 07/18/25, Social Worker #400 audited the other 34 residents on the secured unit to ensure they were not affected by the deficient practice. No concerns were identified. Any new or concerning resident behaviors will be discussed in the morning clinical meetings. On 07/17/25 the Assistant Director of Nursing posted the facility Code [NAME] Protocol on the dementia unit. This informed the staff of overhead paging capability from any facility phone to request assistance on the secured unit. A written escalation plan was also placed on the secured unit to clarify when Code [NAME] should be used and how. Administrative staff (the DON and/or Administrator) will be notified of any behavioral code or help request on the secured unit after the Code [NAME] incident is resolved. On 07/18/25 (no time provided) the Administrator and DON conducted a video review of the incident, confirming inappropriate staff behavior and identifying failure points in staff training, communication protocols and response procedures. On 07/18/25 (no time provided) the Administrator, DON and Social Services #400 conducted a root cause analysis that highlighted an inappropriate tone and approach by staff, failure to follow non-threatening dementia care practices, the facility protocol was not followed to notify the Administrator/designee and poor communication between nursing staff, medical providers and family. On 07/18/25 (no time provided) a self-reported incident was submitted to the state survey agency. On 07/21/25 (no time provided) the Administrator contacted the North [NAME] Police Department and made them aware of the new information received regarding 07/06/25. An officer at the police department would follow-up with the CNAs and amend the report to reflect what he found. On 07/21/25 new expectations were established to ensure contracted and primary care physicians received complete and accurate information regarding behavioral changes, medication responses, incidents or staff interventions using the eInteract Change in Condition Evaluation. Communication measures will be monitored through the weekly audits completed by the DON/designee for two months and findings will be shared with Quality Assurance Performance Improvement. Beginning 07/21/25 the Administrator or designee will observe, three times a week for 60 days, the secured/dementia unit to ensure all staff interventions reflecting the new dementia training Weekly review of the video footage in the secured unit common area totaling one hour of footage on random shifts for 60 days completed by the DON or Administrator. Weekly audit of all incident reports to confirm accurate behavior documentation, appropriate communication with family and physicians, interventions align with the resident's care plan for 60 days Social Worker #400 will observe/interview all dementia unit residents weekly to assess psychosocial well-being and monitor for staff misconduct or resident fear for 60 days. All findings will be reviewed in the QAPI Committee with any follow-up actions documented.Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 07/18/25 the facility remains out of compliance at a Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimum harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility is in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, dementia, psoriatic arthropathy, recurrent depressive disorder, wandering, and adult failure to thrive. A care plan dated 06/25/25 revealed Resident #145 had inappropriate behavior and was resistive to care. Interventions to allow flexibility in the activities of daily living routine to accommodate mood, elicit family input for best approaches to Resident #145, and leave and return in five to ten minutes if Resident #145 refuses care. A nurse note dated 06/25/25 at 10:41 P.M. revealed Resident #145 arrived at the facility at 7:56 P.M. Resident #145 appeared to be in a good mood and was happy to be closer to home. Review of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation from 06/26/25 through 07/06/25 revealed on 07/01/25 and 07/04/25 there was documentation of Resident #145 wandering. There were no other behaviors documented. A dietary note dated 06/26/25 at 11:05 A.M. revealed Resident #145 was hospitalized for paranoid behavior from 06/17/25 to 06/25/25. Resident #145 was 73 inches (six feet) tall and weighed 211 pounds on 06/20/25. Resident #145 was ordered Seroquel (antipsychotic) prior to hospitalization. Resident #145 was started on Remeron (antidepressant) at the hospital. Resident #145 had been refusing medication at home, would not eat the food his wife prepared at home, was refusing medications at home, and was wandering and leaving the home. It was noted that Resident #145 had advancing dementia.Review of the physician orders revealed olanzapine 2.5 milligrams (mg) daily as needed for anxiety.Review of the medication administration record (MAR) dated 06/28/25 at 11:30 P.M. revealed Resident #145 received olanzapine (antipsychotic) 2.5 milligrams as needed for anxiety. A nurse's progress note dated 06/29/25 at 2:39 A.M. revealed Resident #145 was walking up and down the halls. Resident #145 had a skin tear to his left elbow that measured one centimeter (cm) long and 3 cm wide. Resident #145 was unable to describe what happened. Resident #145 had been observed leaning on the walls and bumping on the side boards (handrails) along the hallways. The physician and nursing coordinator were notified and Resident #145's family would be notified in the morning. A nurse progress note dated 06/29/25 at 4:42 A.M. revealed Resident #145 had been up most of the night pacing halls and trying to go into other resident rooms. Resident #145 was very difficult to redirect and as needed medication was administered. A medication administration note dated 06/29/25 at 7:43 A.M. revealed olanzapine 2.5 mg was ineffective. There was no documentation following the ineffective medication.A nurse progress note dated 06/29/25 at 2:51 P.M. revealed Resident #145's wife would like to be notified anytime day or night and stated she did not mind being awakened for incidents or information of importance. A nurse progress note dated 07/01/25 at 3:49 P.M. revealed Resident #145 was seen by the physician and a new order was received for Resident #145 to have a psychiatric consult. Review of facility recorded video footage (with sound) of the hall and common area outside Resident #145's room revealed on 07/06/25 at 5:46 A.M. Resident #145 walked out into the hallway wearing only a disposable incontinence brief. Resident #145 had a slow gait and was looking down at the floor. Resident #145 stopped and rubbed his face and looked around. At 5:47 A.M. Resident #145 walked down the hall and entered the next room on the left (Resident #67). CNA #568 can be seen entering the bottom left hand corner of the video and stated, Honey, that is a woman's room, and you cannot go in there. CNA #568 entered the room and told Resident #145 that his room was over there and pointed in the direction of the resident's room. CNA #800 informed the resident he must come out of that room as she stood in the doorway with her arms crossed at her chest. At 5:48 and nine seconds A.M. Resident #145 exited Resident #67's room and walked slowly back towards his room. At 5:48 and 15 seconds CNA #800 stated your room is right there and that is where you need to go. At 5:48 and 20 seconds Resident #145 stated something about court. At 5:48 and 22 seconds CNA #586 stated we will meet you there, but I suggest if we go to court, you put some clothes on which are in your room. At 5:48 and 33 seconds, Resident #145 turned away from his room and started toward Resident #51's room which was located directly across the hall from Resident #145's room. At 5:48 and 34 seconds CNA #586 raised her voice and told Resident #145 do not go into a patient's room. At 5:48 and 35 seconds CNA #586 again stated in an even louder voice Do not go in a patient's room. At 5:48 and 40 seconds CNA #586 and CNA #800 entered Resident #51's room with Resident #145. CNA #800 stated in a firm voice, you cannot go in here that is a woman's room. At 5:48 and 43 seconds CNA #800 yelled stop and CNA #586 yelled don't touch her. At 5:48 and 45 seconds, CNA #586 exited the room and said that's it, I'm calling the cops. At 5:48 and 47 seconds, CNA #800 also exited the room. At 5:48 and 56 seconds, CNA #586 reentered the room and said, I will not let you near my patients. You will get out. At 5:49 AM CNA #586 said in a loud voice, yes, you will and then repeated yes you will in a louder voice. At 5:49 AM and seven seconds, CNA #586 yelled out, He's beating the (expletive) out of me. CNA #800 yelled, I'm coming. At 5:49 and 15 seconds CNA #800 entered the room and CNA #586 stated, he threw me on the floor. At 5:49 and 21 seconds yelling in loud voices from CNA #586 and CNA #800 included: you can get out, OUT, You are on a memory care unit, Get out, You need to go now, out. At 5:49 and 30 seconds can see Resident #145 slowly approach the doorway from Resident #51's room to the hallway. CNA #568 and CNA #800 can be heard telling Resident #145 it was not his house, and he was at a nursing facility. At 5:50 and 24 seconds, CNA #568 called 911. A CNA can be heard stating Resident #145 was a new resident, was combative, and staff had been injured, and Resident #145 was threatening other residents. CNA #568 stated there was not proper staffing and there was not a nurse on the unit. CNA #568 stated a police officer was needed if the facility was not going to staff properly. At 5:51 and 40 seconds AM CNA #800 walked out of the room and was on the phone standing in the hallway. CNA #568 was still in Resident #51's room and on the phone with 911. CNA #568 stated she did not need a medic yet but may if Resident #145 did not stop. CNA #800 spoke up and said Resident #145 had tossed both CNA's and was extremely combative. At 5:51 and 49 seconds, Resident #145 stepped out of view back into Resident #51's room. Both CNA's told Resident #145 to leave the room. CNA #568 stated she needed the police soon. At 5:52 and two seconds CNA #568 yelled ouch and in a firm voice stated you need to move. At 5:52 and 19 seconds CNA #568 stated there was no one at the front door to let the police in. CNA #800 stated (to Resident #145) you need to get out of this room. This is a woman's room, NOW! At 5:53 and 15 seconds CNA #568 was heard saying do not go near my patient in a loud voice and then again in a louder voice. At 5:53 at 23 seconds, CNA #800 stated let's go and CNA #586 stated Protect your license, protect your license. At 5:54 at 19 seconds, Resident #145 can be observed again standing at the doorway to Resident #51's room. At 5:55 and four seconds, Resident #145 stepped slowly back into Resident #51's room. A CNA can be heard saying Do not come any closer in a loud voice and then stating it again in a louder voice. At 5:55 and 14 seconds, a crash sound was heard and CNA #568 stated we wanted you to sit down the whole time.blow the place up too. At 5:57 and eight seconds, CNA #586 said You will go to jail if you touch anyone down here. CNA #586 exited the room. At 5:57 and 13 seconds CNA #800 left the room. At 5:57 and 18 seconds CNA #800 made a phone call and asked for a nurse to come to the unit. At 5:58 A.M. CNA #586 and #800 reentered the room. At 6:00 and ten seconds CNA #586 and CNA #800 left Resident #51's room while Resident #145 was still in Resident #51's room. At 6:00 and 44 seconds police arrive at the unit. CNA #586 told the police she did not know why Resident #145 was here. The CNA's told the police they gave all the grace in the world to Resident #145 and gently asked him to return to his room. Resident #145 tossed CNA #568 like a ragdoll. At 6:04 and 12 seconds CNA #586 told the police that they needed Resident #145 to understand (the CNA was unable to finish her sentence) but the police officer interrupted CNA #586 and stated they could not make Resident #145 understand. At 6:40 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and at 6:50 A.M. Resident #145 was sitting calmly on the transport cot and EMT's wheeled Resident #145 down the hall. The resident was transported to the hospital.A police report/incident #25-008748 dated 07/06/25 revealed an incident occurred around 5:50 A.M. The police responded to a call for a report of a combative patient. Employees reported a male patient became combative towards them when he (Resident #145) wandered into other patients' rooms. CNA #568 and CNA #800 stated Resident #145 was a new patient and wandered into other resident's rooms. The CNA's stated it was a memory care unit, and residents were not allowed in other resident rooms. Resident #145 started to argue with CNA #568 and CNA #800. Resident #145 pushed CNA #800 and knocked her down. When CNA #568 tried to intervene, Resident #145 threw CNA #568 to the ground. Upon arrival of the police, Resident #145 was sitting in a chair in another resident's room. Resident #145 appeared confused and was not aware he was in a care facility. Resident #145 kept saying it was his house. The police attempted to get Resident #145 to return to his room, but Resident #145 refused. The facility director advised Resident #145 needed to be transported to the emergency room for an evaluation. EMS responded and Resident #145 was transported without incident. A nurse progress note authored by RN #578 dated 07/06/25 at 10:34 A.M. revealed at 6:15 A.M. Registered Nurse (RN) #578 received phone call from CNA #800. CNA #800 stated she needed a nurse NOW. Resident #145 had beaten up a couple of staff and was trying to get to another resident. RN #578 immediately rushed to the memory care unit. CNA #568 and CNA #800 had called the police, and the police arrived shortly after this nurse arrived. CNA #568 and CNA #800 reported Resident #145 woke up and was trying to go into multiple resident rooms. CNA #568 and CNA #800 stated they were gently trying to encourage Resident #145 not to go into another resident's room when Resident #145 suddenly struck CNA #800 in the chest and knocked CNA #568 to the floor. When RN #578 arrived, Resident #145 was sitting at the foot of the bed in a chair against the wall in Resident #51's room with no clothes on. The police officers tried to get Resident #145 to leave Resident #51's room and return to his own room. Resident #145 would not move and would not speak to the police. The police stated another plan was needed as they would not be able to do anything with Resident #145 at the police station. RN #578 called RN #704, who was the acting Director of Nursing (DON) at the time. RN #704 told RN #578 to call 911 and have Resident #145 taken to the emergency department so Resident #145 could be pink slipped (taken to the hospital for a mental evaluation) to a psychiatric facility. Emergency medical services (EMS) were called, and Resident #145 was placed on a stretcher without incident. Resident #145's wife was notified of the incident and Resident #145 being transferred to the hospital on [DATE] at 6:50 A.M. A statement by CNA #568 revealed CNA #568 and CNA #800 had been alone on the memory care unit since approximately 12:15 A.M. when the nurse left and went home. LPN #712 was notified around 12:30 A.M. that there were only two CNAs on the memory care unit and the nurse had left. LPN #712 stated there was no one available so they would be alone. CNA #568 did not have access to locked areas, residents did not get medications passed, and to call LPN #712 if there was an emergency. LPN #712 was called at the first verbal altercation to let LPN #712 know that CNA #568 and CNA #800 did not feel safe and Resident #145 would not cooperate or redirect and was threatening CNA #568 and CNA #800. This was around 5:00 A.M. and LPN #712 advised that one of the CNA's sit on the couch at the end of the hall to make sure Resident #145 (unable to read what was written) room. Before CNA #568 could get off the phone, Resident #145 entered Resident 67 room. The door to Resident #67's room was closed, and Resident #145 knew it was not his room. Despite Resident #145 being verbally abusive and threatening, CNA #568 and CNA #700 agreed Resident #145 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. CNA #568 and CNA #800 went down the hall to Resident #67's room and reminded Resident #145 that his room was next door. Resident #145 stated he was going anywhere the (expletive) he wanted and then entered Resident #51's room. CNA #568 and CNA #800 calmly followed Resident #145 in Resident #51's room and attempted to redirect Resident #145 and asked Resident #145 not to approach Resident #51. Resident #145 purposefully did exactly what staff asked him not to do. CNA #568 offered to watch television in common area, a snack, and anything to redirect Resident #145. Resident #145 laughed maniacally and said he could do anything he wanted. Resident #145 then grabbed CNA #800, and the main assaults began. After CNA #800 was pushed very hard, CNA #568 stepped between Resident #145 and Resident #51 and attempted to calm and redirect Resident #145. Resident #145 seemed like he wanted to physically fight and continued to threatened CNA #568 and CNA #800. Resident #145 took another step towards CNA #568 and Resident #145's feet were almost touching CNA #568's. CNA #568 took a step back and Resident #145 grabbed CNA #568's forearm and flung her to the side. Resident #145 then used his other hand/arm to punch CNA #568 in the face. CNA #568 flew on the floor and her ankle turned under CNA #568's weight and CNA #568 hit something with the left side of her face. CNA #568 wrote that she had multiple places that were badly bruised and neck and shoulder felt jarred. At some point, Resident #145 stomped on CNA #568's left foot after CNA #568 stood up. Because LPN #712 had been called when Resident #145 got out of bed and was verbally abusive in his own room during rounds and bed checks, CNA #568 knew Resident #145 was combative and threatened CNA #568 and CNA #800, and there was no way out of the room, and CNA #568 had been hit in the head and face, so CNA #568 called 911. As soon as Resident #145 heard CNA #568 call 911 he sat in a chair in Resident #51's room. Because of Resident #145's size and sitting down forcefully, Resident #145 shoved an oxygen tank standing between the chair and piece of furniture. The oxygen tank wobbled but the wheels kept the tank from falling over. CNA #568 explained calmly that the oxygen tank could not be touched due to safety concerns. Resident #145 stated he could do whatever he wanted. Resident #145 was purposefully blocking the doorway and CNA #568 and #800 were unable to get out of Resident #51's room until Resident #145 sat down. Resident #145 was observed by CNA #568 and CNA #800 to be seeking satisfaction from conflict. Resident #145 did everything CNA #568 and CNA #800 asked him not to do. An example: you can be in the hall, common areas or your room but please do not startle other residents by entering rooms that are not yours. Resident #145 immediately would enter a room he knew was not his to see what CNA #568 and CNA #800 would do about it. CNA #568 and CNA #800 quietly agreed not to tell Resident #145 not to do anything so to engage or escalate him. CNA #568 did not feel safe around Resident #145. It then occurred to CNA #568 that the police could not enter the building as the door was locked and required a staff member to answer the phone to unlock the door, but because of being so short staffed there was no one answering the phones. CNA #800 called the phone number the police would need to call to enter the building and verified no one answered the phone. An undated statement by CNA #800 revealed the nurse on the memory care unit had left around 12:15 A.M. or 12:30 A.M. LPN #712 was told the nurse on the memory care unit went home and left the keys with CNA #568 and CNA #800. LPN #712 was called again around 5:00 A.M. and told Resident #145 was awake and verbally abusive and threatening CNA #568 and CNA #800. LPN #712 advised that one CNA watch Resident #145, but CNA #568 and CNA #800 were not comfortable with doing that. But Resident #145 had already entered Resident #67's room. CNA #800 and CNA #568 calmly told Resident #145 to please leave Resident #67's room. Resident #145 stated he would do what he wanted. Resident #145 knew it was not his room. Even though Resident #145 was being verbally abusive, CNA #800 and CNA #568 agreed Resident #145 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. CNA #800 and CNA #568 told Resident #145 where his room was, which he already knew. Resident #145 finally left Resident #67's room. CNA #800 and CNA #568 tried to redirect Resident #145 back to his room. Resident #145 started to verbally abuse CNA #568 and CNA #800 and then went towards Resident #51's room. Resident #145 then entered Resident #51's room. CNA #800 and CNA #568 calmly followed Resident #145 into Resident #51's room and tried to redirect Resident #145. Resident #145 was asked not to approach Resident #51, but Resident #145 purposefully continued to approach Resident #51. Resident #145 was offered a snack, to watch television in the common area, and anything to redirect him. Resident #145 laughed maniacally and said he could do what he wanted. CNA #800 was standing between Resident #145 and where Resident #51 was lying in bed. Resident #145 then grabbed CNA #800's right arm and the assault began. Resident #145 swung CNA #800 across the room. After that, CNA #800 calmly told Resident #145 to please not put his hands on her. Resident #145 kept trying to get to Resident #51 and CNA #800 tried to block Resident #145 before he got to Resident #51. Resident #145 got very angry and hit CNA #800 on the chest with both of his hands so hard CNA #800 went flying to the ground and hit her neck and back. CNA #568 got between CNA #800 and Resident #145 and told Resident #145 not to touch CNA #800. Resident #145 grabbed CNA #568's arm and used his other arm to punch CNA #568 in the face. After that, Resident #145 grabbed CNA #568's arm and threw her to the ground. CNA #568's face slammed into the ground and CNA #568's left foot buckled under her and her arm hit the edge of the bed. After CNA #568's got up, both CNA's stood their ground to get Resident #145 to go to his room. Resident #145 would not move. CNA #800 and CNA #568 had no way to escape and were trapped because Resident #145 purposefully blocked the doorway. CNA #800 stated they were going to get help and Resident #145 stood in the doorway so CNA #568 and CNA #800 could not get out of the room. The CNA's tried to get out for a while and then CNA #568 called 911 and CNA #800 tried to call a nurse working on another unit. CNA #800 called the facility three times and finally got a nurse and CNA #800 yelled who she was, where she was, and needed help because a resident had beat up the CNA's and the CNA's could not get out of the room. The nurse hung up after CNA #568 was on the phone with 911. Resident #145 heard CNA #568 talking to the police so he flung himself into a chair which, because of Resident #145 ‘s size, the chair and oxygen tank wobbled. CNA #568 and CNA #800 told Resident #145 please do not touch the oxygen tank. Resident #145 stated he would do what the (expletive) what he wanted. The police could not get into the facility because there was not a staff member available to let them in. Panic and fear set in, but CNA #568 and CNA #800 stayed calm. CNA #800 and CNA #568 both observed Resident #145 to be seeking satisfaction from conflict and did literally everything he was asked not to do. Example: you can be in the hall or common areas but please do not enter other resident's rooms. Resident #145 immediately entered rooms that he knew were not his. He challenged CNA #568 and CNA #800. CNA #568 and CNA #800 agreed not to tell Resident #145 to do anything. CNA #800 wrote she did not feel safe around Resident #145. Review of hospital notes dated 07/06/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old male was brought to emergency department (ED) from a nursing home by ambulance for aggression. Resident #145 was alert to person only with a history of dementia. Resident #145's behavior was appropriate, and speech was appropriate for rate and volume. Resident #145 was mildly anxious and confused. Resident #145 would sometimes wander. A licensed professional counselor assessed Resident #145 face-to-face. Resident #145 was cooperative in the ED. Resident #145 thought he was in a video game, and someone was trying to take his identity. Resident #145 stated there was a fight downtown I think but denied being in the fights. The ED nurse and nursing home staff member stated Resident #145 got in another resident's face. The aides attempted to redirect Resident #145 and Resident #145 slammed the aid on the floor and threw another staff member against the nurse's station. The RN at the nursing home stated Resident #145's wife had requested Seroquel (antipsychotic) and olanzapine (antipsychotic) be discontinued on 06/01/25. Since the discontinuation of the medication Resident #145 had been more difficult to redirect. Resident #145's wife stated Resident #145 did not have a history of aggression with her. The nursing home staff reported Resident #145's wife had endorsed aggression as the reason for needing nursing care and stated she was no longer able to manage Resident #145 at home. Resident #145's wife expressed concern that Resident #145 had been looking for her and that was why he was wandering into rooms. A RN stated Resident #145 would become more confused and harder to redirect when family left. The mental status exam at the hospital revealed Resident #145 was alert to person only, was cooperative, and mildly anxious and confused. Resident #145 allegedly hit a nurse at the nursing facility and was at moderate risk to non-lethal harm to others. Resident #145 did not meet the criteria for inpatient psychiatric admission. It was recommended that Resident #145 follow up with outpatient providers [NAME][TRUNCATE
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive and residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive and resident centered plan to prevent and/or treat the development of pressure ulcers. Actual harm occurred beginning on 06/08/25 when Resident #95, who was at high risk for pressure ulcer development and dependent on staff for activities of daily living, developed an avoidable Stage II pressure ulcer (partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis. The wound bed is viable, pink or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose [fat] is not visible, and deeper tissues are not visible. Granulation tissue, slough and eschar are not present) to the left buttock. The wound was not comprehensively assessed, wound treatments were not consistently provided and appropriate staff were not notified of the development of the pressure ulcer. The pressure ulcer subsequently declined and on 07/17/25 was assessed to be a Stage III (full-thickness loss of skin, in which adipose (fat) is visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue and rolled wound edges are often present. Slough and/or eschar may be visible) pressure ulcer to the left buttock. Resident #95 also developed an additional facility acquired Stage III pressure ulcer to her left buttock as a result of the lack of adequate, comprehensive and individualized interventions and monitoring. This affected one resident (#95) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #95 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, and psychosis.A plan of care revised 01/12/23 revealed Resident #95 had a self-care deficit and impaired mobility due to dementia. Interventions included a super soaker brief due to diuretic use and transfer with a mechanical lift. A plan of care revised 11/22/23 revealed Resident #95 required assistance with toileting and was incontinent. Interventions included to encourage Resident #95 to perform toileting and hygiene every two hours while awake and assist as necessary and check for wetness on rounds during the night. A plan of care revised 11/22/23 revealed Resident #95 had the potential for skin breakdown due to Resident #95 requiring assistance with mobility needs and incontinence. Interventions included weekly skin checks performed by a licensed nurse, barrier cream after each incontinence care and as needed, turn and reposition Resident #95 every two hours and as needed as the resident will allow, a pressure reduction cushion to wheelchair, and the physician, unit manager, nursing staff, and family would be notified of skin problems and a treatment would be initiated as ordered. On 03/01/25 Resident #95 weighed 109 pounds. On 04/02/25 Resident #95 weighed 108 pounds. On 05/02/25 Resident #95 weighed 108 pounds.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS)dated 05/13/25 revealed Resident #95 had a memory problem and was dependent on staff for toileting, rolling left to right, and from sitting to lying. The MDS also revealed Resident #95 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The MDS revealed Resident #95 had no skin concerns. The quarterly Braden Scale for Determination Pressure Sore risk dated 05/23/25 revealed Resident #95 was at high risk. Resident #95 scored a 10 with a score below 12 identified as high risk. Resident #95 had very limited ability to respond meaningful to pressure related discomfort, had constant moisture, was chair fast, was completely immobile, and required moderate to maximum (staff) assistance in moving. A weekly skin check marked on the treatment administration record (TAR) dated 06/02/25 revealed Resident #95 had no evidence of skin impairment.On 06/04/25 Resident #95 weighed 103 pounds.A nursing progress note dated 06/08/25 at 7:23 P.M. by an agency nurse revealed Resident #95 had an open area to the left buttocks that measured 0.5 centimeters (cm) long, 0.5 cm wide, and less than 0.1 cm deep. A new order was received for Resident #95's left buttock to be cleansed with normal saline and a foam dressing applied every day at bedtime and as needed.A weekly skin check marked on the treatment administration record (TAR) dated 06/09/25 revealed Resident #95 had no evidence of skin impairment.A dietary note by Registered Dietician (RD) #732 dated 06/09/25 at 9:34 P.M. revealed Resident #95's current weight was 103 pounds. Resident #95 had a significant weight loss of 16 pounds in the last six months. The weight loss was not planned by the doctor but likely expected per the progress note (the resident had been receiving hospice services since 11/09/23). The current nutrition plan was to be continued, and Resident #95 would be monitored and followed up on. Review of the TAR revealed no evidence the treatment to the left buttock area was completed as ordered on 06/11/25, 06/24/25, or 06/26/25. A weekly skin check marked on the TAR dated 06/16/25 revealed Resident #95 had no documented evidence of skin impairment.A weekly skin check marked on the TAR dated 06/23/25 revealed Resident #95 had no documented evidence of skin impairment.A hospice interdisciplinary team visit note dated 06/24/25 at 12:00 P.M. revealed Resident #95 had a Stage II to the left buttock. The primary care nurse (none named) was notified by hospice RN #901. The hospice note did not provide a description or measurement of the pressure ulcer, and there was no information about wound care or Resident #95's care plan being updated. Review of meal intakes from 06/24/25 to 07/21/25 revealed Resident #95 refused meals twice, ate 0-25 precent (%) ten times, 26-50 % 23 times, 51-75% 16 times, and 76-100% seven times. An order dated 06/29/25 revealed Resident #95's left buttock was to be cleansed with normal saline and patted dry. A foam dressing was to be applied night shift/early morning, prior to getting Resident #95 out of bed and as needed until healed. A weekly skin check marked on the TAR dated 06/30/25 revealed Resident #95 had no documented evidence of skin impairment.The TAR revealed the treatment was not completed as ordered on 07/05/25.A weekly skin check marked on the TAR dated 07/07/25 revealed Resident #95 had no documented evidence of skin impairment.An interview on 07/09/25 at 9:55 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #648 revealed the agency nurse on the memory care unit had left sometime during her shift on 07/06/25. LPN #648 revealed treatments were not completed by the agency nurse who left. LPN #648 also revealed as a result of the staffing on the unit there were multiple residents who were soiled, and incontinence care had to be provided by oncoming staff the morning of 07/06/25. An interview on 07/09/25 at 10:09 A.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #637 revealed multiple residents (including Resident #95) were soiled upon day shift arrival the morning of 07/06/25. CNA #637 stated the nurse on the memory care unit had left during her shift and there were only two Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) staff left on the memory care unit.A hospice interdisciplinary team visit note dated 07/09/25 at 12:45 P.M. revealed no information related to a continued plan of care or updated wound care orders for Resident #95.An interview on 07/09/25 at 2:17 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed weekly skin assessments were to be completed on bathing sheets and marked on the TAR as completed. The DON verified the weekly skin assessments on the TAR for Resident #95 did not show a place to document if the resident's skin was intact, red, or open. The DON stated the TAR should list those options for the nurses to use when completing a weekly skin assessment. An interview on 07/09/25 at 3:19 P.M. with the facility wound nurse, LPN #544, verified Resident #95 developed a Stage II pressure ulcer. LPN #544 verified however, there was not a wound grid completed as of 07/09/25. LPN #544 also verified there was no description or measurements of the wound. LPN #544 verified a hospice nurse made a notation on the hospice notes that Resident #95 had a Stage II pressure ulcer to the left buttock. LPN #544 verified she was not notified of the wound until the surveyor asked to see the wound (on this date). During the interview, LPN #544 also verified treatments were not completed every shift as ordered in June and July 2025 as noted above.An observation on 07/10/25 at 10:07 A.M. revealed a note was hanging in Resident #95's room. The note was dated 07/01/25 and revealed the nurse was to be notified if the bandage to the (resident's) left buttock was not in place. The resident was not observed to have any type of air mattress in place a the time of the observation. Continued observation at 10:09 A.M. with LPN #544 revealed a bandage (dressing) was not in place to Resident #95's left buttock. LPN #544 verified the dressing was not in place and stated staff must have removed it because it was wet. LPN #544 verified there was a sign in the room stating the nurse should be notified if the bandage was removed. LPN #544 measured the wound and stated the wound measured 1.5 cm long and 1.1 cm wide. Slough (a yellowish or white substance in the wound bed that delays healing and increases infection risk) was noted to the wound. LPN #544 stated the wound was now probably a Stage III pressure ulcer. The LPN revealed although she felt the area was probably a Stage III at this time she wanted to verify this with the wound certified nurse practitioner. A Skin and Wound assessment dated [DATE] completed by LPN #544 documented Resident #95 had new in-house acquired Stage II pressure ulcer to the left buttock that measured 1.5 cm long, 1.1 cm wide, and 0.1 cm deep. A new order was put in place for calcium alginate for autolytic debridement and hospice was made aware of the new order. A physician order dated 07/10/25 revealed Resident #95's left buttock was to be cleansed with normal saline and patted dry. Calcium alginate (to absorb excess wound fluid, preventing maceration and promoting a healing environment) was to be applied to the wound bed and covered with a bordered dressing every night prior to getting Resident #95 out of bed. Review of the TAR revealed the treatment was not completed on 07/13/25.A weekly skin check marked on the TAR dated 07/14/25 inaccurately reflected Resident #95 had no documented evidence of skin impairment.A Skin and Wound assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #95 had an in-house Stage III pressure ulcer to left buttock discovered on 07/10/25. The pressure ulcer measured 1.3 cm long, 1.1 cm wide, and 0.1 cm deep. The wound bed had 90% slough and 10% granulation tissue with a moderate amount of serosanguinous drainage noted. The area was cleansed with normal saline and calcium alginate was to be applied to the wound bed to promote autolytic debridement and then covered with bordered dressing. It was noted that the wound had deteriorated. The assessment note included Resident #95 was to be turned every two hours as the resident allowed.A Skin and Wound assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #95 had a new in-house acquired Stage III pressure ulcer to the left buttock that measured 0.6 cm long, and 1.5 cm wide and 0.1 cm deep. The wound bed had granulation and slough with full thickness lost. The wound bed had 90% slough and 10% granulation tissue with a moderate amount of serosanguinous drainage. The area was cleansed with normal saline and calcium alginate was applied to wound bed to promote autolytic debridement, and then covered with a bordered dressing. Resident #95 was on hospice and hospice was notified of the new wound. The wound was likely due to poor intake and overall decline. Resident #95 was to be turned every two hours as the resident allowed. An interview on 07/17/25 at 4:08 P.M. with LPN #544 verified an additional new pressure ulcer was found on 07/17/25 to Resident #95's left buttock. LPN #544 stated the new wound was found under the bandage that was already in place for the existing pressure ulcer Resident #95 had to the left buttock. There was no evidence new pressure relieving interventions had been implemented (including the possible use of an air mattress) despite the development of the resident's pressure ulcer on 06/09/25. In addition, review of the resident's medical record and TAR revealed no documented evidence the resident was being turned and repositioned at least every two hours as care planned. A nursing progress note dated 07/17/25 at 5:06 P.M. authored by LPN #544 revealed a new pressure area was noted to Resident #95's left proximal buttock measuring 0.6 cm long and 1.5 cm wide. The on-call hospice nurse was notified. The note indicated an air mattress with bolsters for offloading was ordered and would be delivered on 07/18/25. A physician order dated 07/18/25 revealed the proximal/distal left buttock was to be cleansed with normal saline and patted dry. Calcium alginate was to be applied to the wound bed and covered with a bordered dressing every day.A dietary note dated 07/18/25 at 4:07 P.M. authored by RD #732 revealed the wound nurse reported Resident #95 had a Stage III pressure wound to left distal buttock and a new Stage III pressure wound to the left proximal buttock. A new recommendation was made for four-ounce 2.0 calorie supplement twice a day. An interview on 07/22/25 at 10:13 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #540 revealed she had been unaware of the presence of a (Stage II) pressure ulcer for Resident #95 on 06/24/25. The RN verified the ulcer should have been assessed, had a treatment order initiated and notification to LPN #544 (the facility wound nurse) of the open area. An interview on 07/23/25 at 8:50 A.M. with Hospice RN #901 revealed the facility wound nurse would be the person to monitor Resident #95's pressure ulcer. Hospice RN #901 stated the hospice aide notified her of the open area to Resident #95' left buttock and the facility floor nurse was notified (in June 2025). Hospice RN #901 stated she also completed a visit note and put it in the hospice binder located at the nurse's station.An interview on 07/23/25 at 9:15 A.M. with RD #732 revealed LPN #544 would notify her of all pressure ulcers. RD #732 stated LPN #544 was not aware of Resident #95's pressure ulcer until 07/10/25. LPN #544 had sent RD #732 an email, but the facility dietician services had been suspended on 07/01/25 due to facility non-payment to the company RD #732 worked for. RD #732 stated services were suspended until 07/18/25. RD #732 verified she was aware Resident #95 had two Stage III pressure ulcers. RD #732 had since ordered a supplement for Resident #95 twice a day (to promote wound healing). An interview on 07/23/25 at 10:43 A.M. with Chief Operating Officer(COO)/RD #730 revealed there had been problems with the facility paying for RD services. The COO/RD revealed services were held for one day in January 2025 and again in June/July 2025. COO/RD #730 verified services were suspended from 06/30/25 until 07/18/25. The facility had to pay the balance owed plus pre-pay until 08/01/25 to resume services. The facility was also required to pre-pay again by 08/01/25 to cover services until 08/20/25 when they reportedly would be hiring a company to provide dietician services. An additional interview on 07/23/25 at 11:25 A.M. with LPN #544 verified an agency nurse documented on 06/08/25 Resident #95 had an open area. The agency nurse did not complete a skin grid which LPN #544 would have made her aware of the skin impairment. LPN #544 verified hospice staff made a note on 06/24/25 that Resident #95 had a Stage II pressure ulcer to the left buttock. LPN #544 stated this information was not communicated to her by the floor staff or hospice nurse. LPN #544 verified she was aware a registered dietician was not available in July 2025. LPN #544 verified Resident #95's Stage II pressure had since deteriorated to a Stage III pressure ulcer and the resident developed an additional Stage III pressure ulcer to the buttocks area. LPN #544 verified an air mattress was not implemented until after 07/17/25. An interview with Physician #727 on 07/28/25 at 11:44 A.M. revealed the physician was aware the RD had to meet with the facility administrator in order to get paid. However, the physician was not aware the facility was without an RD from 07/01/25 through 07/17/25. Physician #727 stated it would be the expectation that all new wounds would be assessed by the facility wound nurse. During the interview, Physician #727 could not state if the timely implementation of nutritional supplements, adequate monitoring, and an air mattress would have prevented Resident #95's wound from declining but stated the interventions could have been beneficial. Review of the assessment/documentation for skin wounds policy dated 06/2020 revealed when it was determined a resident had an alteration in skin integrity the wound was to be assessed and measured and observations were to be recorded. The Wound Grid, Braden Scale, and Comprehensive Pain Assessment were to be initiated. The resident's physician, family, and dietary department were to be notified of the new wound areas. A treatment order for the wound was to be initiated and implemented following the facility's wound care algorithm or following specific orders received from the resident's attending physician. Following the initial documentation, the wound/skin condition was to be reassessed, and the observation was to be documented on the wound grid every seven days to provide information in order that care may be rendered to promote healing.Review of the wound treatment management policy revised 04/01/20 revealed in the absence of treatment orders, the licensed nurse would notify the physician to obtain treatment orders. This may be done by the treatment nurse or the assigned licensed nurse in the absence of the treatment nurse. Review of the pressure injury prevention guidelines policy revised 04/01/20 revealed prevention devices would be utilized in accordance with manufacturer recommendations (such as cushions and mattresses). The effectiveness of interventions would be monitored through ongoing assessment of the resident and/or wound. Considerations for needed modifications include the development of a new pressure injury, lack of progression towards healing or changes in wound characteristics. This deficiency demonstrated non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH001297238 (OH00167453).
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, facility email, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #26 was tr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, facility email, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #26 was treated with dignity and respect. This affected one (Resident #26) out of three residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 141. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #26 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage four, dehydration, hyponatremia, polyarthritis, depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus, moderate calorie malnutrition, and anxiety disorder. Review of the Preferences for Routines and Activities dated 02/12/25 revealed it was very important to Resident #26 to choose her own bedtime. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 was cognitively intact. Resident #26 required partial to moderate assistance for transfer from chair to bed. Review of an email from Director of Nursing (DON) to Ombudsman dated 07/16/25 at 6:00 P.M. revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #714 yelled at Resident #26's son in front of Resident #26. CNA #714 was frustrated due to challenging staff levels and wanted to put Resident #26 to bed. Resident #26 was still eating dinner and Resident #26's son stated it was too early for Resident #26 to go to bed. CNA #714 then informed Resident #26 and Resident #26's son that the resident would not be assisted into bed later. The nursing coordinator, Registered Nurse (RN) #688, asked CNA #714 about the interaction. CNA #714 responded with a poor attitude and stated she would just leave work. CNA #714 later met with the DON and CNA #714's unprofessional behavior was discussed. CNA #714 would be assigned to other locations and would not provide care for Resident #26 in the future. An interview on 07/28/25 at 9:05 A.M. Resident #26's son revealed on 07/13/25 around 5:45 P.M. Resident #26 was still eating dinner when CNA #714 entered the room, took Resident #26's dinner tray, and said Resident #26 had to go to bed now or not at all. Resident #26's son stated it was too early, and Resident #26 was still eating dinner. CNA #714 got mad and cursed at him and then CNA #714 left the room and was running down the hallway loudly cursing. An interview on 07/28/25 at 9:18 A.M. the Ombudsman revealed they were notified CNA #714 yelled and cursed in front of Resident #26. The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator told the Ombudsman that CNA #714 would be fired but then stated CNA #714 was a union worker and would not be terminated. An interview on 07/28/25 at 10:12 A.M. DON verified CNA #714 was inappropriate with Resident #26's son so interviews with staff were completed and an email was sent to the Ombudsman. The DON stated he did not feel Resident #26 was impacted because she was not put to bed at that time and CNA #714's frustration was directed at Resident #26's son, not Resident #26. The DON verified there was no documentation on 07/13/25 of the meal percentages Resident #26 ate. The DON stated he could not verify if Resident #26's dinner tray had been removed before Resident #26 was finished eating. An interview on 07/28/25 at 10:45 A.M. with Resident #26 verified CNA #714 told her she had to go to bed around 5:00 P.M. The Resident #26 stated she preferred to go to bed around 9:00 P.M. Review of the Goals of the Nursing Department (no date) revealed the resident is to be treated with dignity and respect at all times. Review of St [NAME] Lutheran Community Resident's [NAME] of Rights dated 12/01/16 revealed residents have the right to retire and rise in accordance with the resident's reasonable requests. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH002570130, OH001297228 (OH00166964).
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents had access to funds in a reasonable amount of tim...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents had access to funds in a reasonable amount of time. This affected four residents ( Resident #139, #38, #22, and #85) of four residents reviewed for resident funds. The facility managed 40 resident fund accounts. The facility census was 141. Findings include : 1. 1. Resident #139 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included type two diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypothyroidism, hypertension, anxiety, osteoporosis, dementia, major depressive disorder, personality disorder, bipolar disorder.Review of Minimum Data Set ( MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed cognition was intact and did not exhibit hallucinations or delusions. Resident #139 was her own financial responsible party and Primary Payer source was Care Source Medicaid.Interview on 07/14/25 at 10:16 A.M. with Resident #139 revealed she could not receive fifty dollars from petty cash on 07/13/25. Resident #139 stated she needed her money for 07/14/25 because her friend was to buy lip gloss and face moisturizer for her. Resident #139 stated she felt disappointed she could not get her money. 2. 2. Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included vascular dementia, major depressive disorder, agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, insomnia, transient ischemic attack, major depressive disorder, epilepsy, and anxiety. Review of Resident #38's MDS 3.0 quarterly assessment revealed cognition was intact and Resident #38 did not have indications of psychosis. Resident #38's sister was the accounts receivable financial responsible party and Resident #38 primary payor source was Medicaid.Interview on 07/14/24 at 10:08 A.M. with Resident #38 revealed he requested twenty dollars from the receptionist on 07/12/25 and was told his money did not come in and waited a few more days to get his money. Resident #38 stated he felt helpless because he enjoyed buying soda pop with his money. Resident #38 stated he asked for twenty dollars on 07/12/25, 07/13/24 and 07/14/25. 3. 3. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included chronic respiratory failure, chronic pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction ( MI) , depressive disorder, and insomnia. Review of Resident #22's MDS 3.0 annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #22 cognition was moderately intact and did not display indications of psychosis. Resident #22's daughter was the accounts receivable financial responsible party and Resident #22's primary payor source was Medicaid. Interview on 07/17/25 at 9:00 A.M. with Resident #22 revealed she had asked for money from the receptionist for the past week but was told there was no money to give her. Resident #22 stated she asked for twenty dollars, ten dollars then five dollars. Resident #22 stated she felt like she was broke. 4. 4. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included encounter aftercare following surgical amputation, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, hyponatremia, hypertension, acquired absence of left above knee , malignant neoplasm of uterus. Review of MDS 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #85's cognition was intact and did not have indications of psychosis. Resident #85 was her own accounts receivable and financial party and primary payor source was Medicaid. Interview on 07/14/25 at 3:06 P.M. with Resident #85 revealed she asked for fifty dollars on 07/12/25 but was told by the receptionist the facility did not have any money. Resident #85 stated she felt betrayed. A Voice Message on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. from The Ombudsman #728 revealed she was called by residents on 07/10/25 because the facility did not give residents access to their funds. Interview on 07/16/25 at 11:30 A.M. with licensed practical nurse ( LPN) #600 revealed residents had approached her because they were denied access to the petty cash . Some facility staff had used their own money to pay for extra snacks and soda pop for residents. Interview on 07/16/25 at 4:01 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) coordinator #626 revealed concerns because several residents could not have access to their money. RN coordinator #626 stated the facility staff used their own money to buy residents chips and pop because residents did not have access to their money and stated Resident #22 thought she had no money. RN coordinator #626 was tearful during the interview. Interview on 07/17/25 at 1:30 P.M. with Chief Financial Officer ( CFO) of [NAME] #1030 stated he was not aware there was a problem with the residents' petty cash access and would replenish the petty cash drawer immediately by sending a check to the facility. CFO #1030 stated there should always be enough cash to cover the petty cash drawer used to give residents access to their funds. Interview on 07/21/25 at 2:17 P.M. with the Administrator revealed he did not recall notification prior to the July fourth holiday weekend regarding lack of access to the discretionary account to fund the petty cash drawer in the facility. An interview on 07/22/25 at 11:40 A.M. with the Business office manager ( BOM) # 536 revealed on 06/30/25 she went to the bank to withdraw money from a discretionary bank account that funds the petty cash drawer in the facility but was not permitted to cash the full amount of checks to fund the facility petty cash drawer. BOM #536 was able to put one hundred thirty dollars in the facility petty cash drawer for the weekend. BOM #536 stated she texted [NAME] Administrator #1028 on 07/01/25 ( the next day) regarding the discretionary account not having enough money to cash all the checks to replenish the petty cash drawer and verbally told the Administrator on 07/01/25 about the funds. The BOM #536 sent the Administrator an email of high importance on 07/02/25 at 4:36 P.M. and copied to the [NAME] Administrator #1028 and [NAME] Corporate Head #1029 that she did not have access to the discretionary bank account to reimburse the petty cash box. The BOM #536 stated it was a holiday weekend and needed to make sure there was enough money for the residents. On 07/17/25 money was wired from [NAME] to replenish discretionary bank account and then money became available for the petty cash drawer in the facility. [NAME] Administrator #1028 refused to be interviewed.Review of facility Trial Balance document dated 07/21/25 revealed Resident #139 had a balance of one thousand one hundred thirty-three dollars and forty-one cents , Resident #38 had a balance of eight hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-three cents , and forty-four, Resident #22 had a balance of ninety-three dollars, and twenty-one cents and Resident #85 had a balance of fifty dollars and twenty-four cents. The facility held a total of thirteen thousand and seven dollars and forty-seven cents total for the Assisted Living residents and nursing home residents. Review of the facility policy titled Resident Funds Policy, undated, revealed the facility ensured all resident funds deposited with the facility were safeguarded, and used for the benefit of the residents. Resident access to funds during normal business hours or upon reasonable request. The facility would ensure residents had prompt access to petty cash needs.This is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to honor Resident #145's power-of-attorney (POA) request for Depakote ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to honor Resident #145's power-of-attorney (POA) request for Depakote (mood stabilizer) to be held. This affected one (Resident #145) out of three residents reviewed for choices. The facility census was 141.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, dementia, psoriatic arthropathy, recurrent depressive disorder, wandering, and adult failure to thrive. A progress note dated 07/02/25 at 9:20 A.M. revealed Resident #145's POA visited and had multiple questions. Resident #145's POA re-iterated she did not want Resident #145 on any medications containing a black box warning. The POA's conversation and concerns were reported in a binder for the provider to address. A psychiatric evaluation note dated 07/10/25 revealed Resident #145 was a [AGE] year-old male presented for initial psychiatric evaluation. The assessment note revealed Resident #145 was to continue Zoloft (antidepressant) 25 milligram (mg) at bedtime and Vistaril (sedative to treat anxiety) 25 mg as needed for anxiety. A new order was written for Depakote 125 mg twice a day. The medication administration record (MAR) revealed Resident #145 received Depakote 125 mg on 07/10/25 at bedtime, on 07/11/25 upon rising and at bedtime, was refused on 07/12/25 upon rising, administered on 07/12/25 at bedtime and on 07/13/25 upon rising. A progress note dated 07/13/25 at 12:24 P.M. revealed a new order was received to discontinue Depakote and start Lamictal (mood stabilizer) 25 mg at bedtime.An interview on 07/14/25 at 10:36 A.M. Resident #145's POA stated she had informed the staff the evening of 07/10/25 that she did not want Resident #145 administered Depakote 125 mg until she talked with the psychiatric doctor. On the evening of 07/11/25, Resident #145 stated he did not feel right. Resident #145's POA assured him; he was not getting any different medication. On 07/13/25, Resident #145's POA noticed a different looking pill in Resident #145's medication cup. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #589 stated there were not any new medications, but the manufacturers can change the way the medications look. Resident #145's POA requested a copy of the MAR and noted that Resident #145 had received Depakote. LPN #721 told the POA there was a note to hold the Depakote but some of the nurses may not have seen it.An interview on 07/22/25 at 10:13 A.M. LPN #589 verified Resident #145's POA had questioned Depakote being administered to Resident #145. LPN #589 verified she was not aware there had been a hold put on Resident #145's Depakote. LPN #589 verified Depakote was administered to Resident #145 between 07/10/25 and 07/13/25. An interview on 07/22/25 at 11:13 A.M. LPN #721 verified a hold could not be placed on Resident #145's Depakote without a doctor's order. LPN #721 verbally passed on in report that Resident #145's POA did not want Depakote administered. LPN #721 verified some of the nurses felt Resident #145 needed the Depakote and the nurses did not look in the communication book for the doctors to see the note about holding the Depakote. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident #145's family and physician in a timely manner of c...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident #145's family and physician in a timely manner of changes in behavior and medications. This affected one (Resident #145) out of three reviewed for notifications. Facility census was 141.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, dementia, psoriatic arthropathy, recurrent depressive disorder, wandering, and adult failure to thrive.A care plan dated 06/25/25 revealed Resident #145 had inappropriate behavior and was resistive to care. Interventions included allowing flexibility in activities of daily living routine to accommodate mood, elicit family input for best approaches to resident, and if Resident #145 refused care, and leave Resident #145 and return in 5-10 minutes. a. A progress note dated 06/29/25 at 2:39 A.M. revealed Resident #145 had a skin tear to the left elbow that measured one centimeter (cm) long and three cm wide. An additional progress noted dated 06/29/25 at 4:42 A.M. revealed Resident #145 had been up most of the night pacing and trying to go into other resident rooms. Resident #145 was very difficult to redirect. A progress note dated 06/29/25 at 2:50 P.M. revealed Resident #145's spouse was notified of skin tear to Resident #145's left elbow. At 2:51 P.M. Resident #145's spouse stated they would like to be notified anytime day or night, no matter the time, of any incidents or information of importance. The medication administration record (MAR) revealed from 06/29/25 to 07/16/25 the nurses acknowledged the order to notify Resident #145's wife of incidents at any time. b. A progress note dated 07/06/25 at 10:34 A.M. revealed at 6:15 A.M. a certified nursing assistant (CNA) called the nurse and said Resident #145 had beat up a couple staff and was trying to go into other resident rooms. The police had been called and arrived at the facility. Resident #145 was transported to the hospital at 6:50 A.M. for evaluation. c. A progress note dated 07/06/25 at 3:11 P.M. revealed Physician #888 was notified of the incident with Resident #145 that occurred with staff resulting in a transfer to the hospital. A care plan dated 07/07/25 revealed Resident #145 had a problematic manner in which Resident #145 acted characterized by ineffective coping; agitation related to physical aggressive toward staff, striking and knocking down staff members when care attempted, and difficult to redirect. Resident #145 could also be verbally sharp with staff or others. Interventions include to be careful not to invade Resident #145's personal space, elicit family input for best approaches to resident, and give Resident #145 an item or task in an attempt to distract. Review of the treatment administration record (TAR) revealed from 07/10/25 through 07/16/25 the nurses were signing each shift that Resident #145 was to be told his wife would be called immediately upon any acting out and his wife would come see him. d. A progress note dated 07/14/25 at 6:30 A.M. revealed Resident #145 was exit seeking and trying to open doors. Resident #145 also wandered into another resident room. A progress note dated 07/14/25 at 6:41 A.M. revealed Resident #145 was angrily hitting door and exit seeking. A progress note dated 07/14/25 at 6:50 A.M. revealed Resident #145 was hitting the glass exit door and stated he wanted to go home. A progress note dated 07/14/25 at 2:02 P.M. revealed Resident #145 left with family. An interview on 07/14/25 at 10:36 A.M. Resident #145's wife verified she was not notified of the incident the morning of 07/06/25 until Resident #145 was at the hospital. Resident #145's wife also verified she was not notified the morning of 07/14/25 that Resident #145 had behaviors and was exit seeking. An interview on 07/14/25 at 3:07 P.M. Physician #888 verified he was the medical director and Resident #145's physician. Physician #888 stated he was made aware of the incident on 07/06/25 with Resident #145 and staff but was unable to recall when he was notified. Physician #888 verified he was notified sometime after the incident occurred. An interview on 07/14/25 at 1:34 P.M. DON verified there was no documentation of Resident #145's wife being notified of Resident #145's behaviors on 07/06/25 prior to sending Resident #145 to the hospital and Physician #888 being notified in a timely manner on 07/06/25. DON also verified there was not documentation of Resident #145's wife being notified on 07/14/25 when Resident #145 was having behaviors and exit seeking. Review of the notification policy (no date) revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure timely, accurate, and appropriate communication with resident's families or legal representatives regarding significant changes in a resident's condition, incidents, or other matters affecting the resident's health, safety, or well-being. A significant change is defined as a change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status that is significant enough to warrant medical intervention, care plan review, or impacts the resident's well-being. An incident is an event that affects the resident's safety, health, or well-being, including accidents, injuries, or elopements. Staff shall notify the resident's responsible party as soon as practicable when there is a significant change in physical, mental, or psychosocial condition. All notifications shall be documented in the resident's medical record including the date and time of notification, name of the person contacted, method of communication, details of information provided, and the staff member making the notification. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, facility investigation, self-reported incident (SRI), and policy review, the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, facility investigation, self-reported incident (SRI), and policy review, the facility failed to complete a thorough and adequate investigation in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #145) out of two reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 141.Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, dementia, psoriatic arthropathy, recurrent depressive disorder, wandering, and adult failure to thrive.A care plan dated 06/25/25 revealed Resident #145 had inappropriate behavior and was resistive to care. Interventions to allow flexibility in the activities of daily living routine to accommodate mood, elicit family input for best approaches to Resident #145, and leave and return in five to ten minutes if Resident #145 refuses care. Review of video footage of the hall and common area outside Resident #145's room revealed on 07/06/25 at 5:46 A.M. Resident #145 walked out into the hallway wearing only a disposable incontinence brief. Resident #145 had a slow gait and was looking down at the floor. Resident #145 stopped and rubbed his face and looked around. At 5:47 A.M. Resident #145 walked down the hall and entered the next room on the left (Resident #67). CNA #568 stated, Honey, that is a woman's room, and you cannot go in there. CNA #568 entered the room and calmly told Resident #145 that his room was over there. CNA #800 stated you must come out of that room. CNA #800 stood in the doorway with arms crossed. At 5:48 and nine seconds A.M. Resident #145 exited Resident #67's room and walked slowly back towards his room. At 5:48 and 15 seconds CNA #800 stated your room is right there and that is where you need to go. At 5:48 and 20 seconds Resident #145 stated something about court. At 5:48 and 22 seconds CNA #586 stated we will meet you there, but I suggest if we go to court, you put some clothes on which are in your room. At 5:48 and 33 seconds, Resident #145 turned away from his room and started toward Resident #51's room which was located directly across the hall from Resident #145's room. At 5:48 and 34 seconds CNA #586 raised her voice and told Resident #145 do not go into a patient's room. At 5:48 and 35 seconds CNA #586 again stated in an even louder voice Do not go in a patient's room. At 5:48 and 40 seconds CNA #586 and CNA #800 entered Resident #51's room with Resident #145. CNA #800 stated in a firm voice, you cannot go in here that is a woman's room. At 5:48 and 43 seconds CNA #800 yelled stop and CNA #586 yelled don't touch her. At 5:48 and 45 seconds, CNA #586 exits the room and said that's it, I'm calling the cops. At 5:48 and 47 seconds, CNA #800 also exits the room. At 5:48 and 56 seconds, CNA #586 reenters the room and said, I will not let you near my patients. You will get out. At 5:49 AM CNA #586 said in a loud voice, yes, you will and then repeated yes you will in a louder voice. At 5:49 AM and seven seconds, CNA #586 yelled out, He's beating the (expletive) out of me. CNA #800 yelled, I'm coming. At 5:49 and 15 seconds CNA #800 entered the room and CNA #586 stated, he threw me on the floor. At 5:49 and 21 seconds yelling in loud voices from CNA #586 and CNA #800 included: you can get out, OUT, You are on a memory care unit, Get out, You need to go now, out. At 5:49 and 30 seconds can see Resident #145 slowly approached the doorway from Resident #51's room to the hallway. CNA #568 and CNA #800 can be heard telling Resident #145 it was not his house, and he was at a nursing facility. At 5:50 and 24 seconds, CNA #568 called 911. A CNA can be heard stating Resident #145 was a new resident, was combative, and staff had been injured, and Resident #145 was threatening other residents. CNA #568 stated there was not proper staffing and there was not a nurse on the unit. CNA #568 stated a police officer was needed if the facility was not going to staff properly. At 5:51 and 40 seconds AM CNA #800 walked out of the room and was on the phone standing in the hallway. CNA #568 was still in Resident #51's room and on the phone with 911. CNA #568 stated she did not need a medic yet but may if Resident #145 did not stop. CNA #800 spoke up and said Resident #145 had tossed both CNA's and was extremely combative. At 5:51 and 49 seconds, Resident #145 stepped out of view back into Resident #51's room. Both CNA's told Resident #145 to leave the room. CNA #568 stated she needed the police soon. At 5:52 and two seconds CNA #568 yelled ouch and in a firm voice stated you need to move. At 5:52 and 19 seconds CNA #568 stated there was no one at the front door to let the police in. CNA #800 stated you need to get out of this room. This is a woman's room, NOW! At 5:53 and 15 seconds CNA #568 was heard saying do not go near my patient in a loud voice and then again in a louder voice. At 5:53 at 23 seconds, CNA #800 stated let's go and CNA #586 stated Protect your license, protect your licenses. At 5:54 at 19 seconds, Resident #145 can be observed again standing at the doorway to Resident #51's room. At 5:55 and four seconds, Resident #145 stepped slowly back into Resident #51's room. A CNA can be heard saying Do not come any closer in a loud voice and then stating it again in a louder voice. At 5:55 and 14 seconds, a crash sound was heard and CNA #568 stated we wanted you to sit down the whole time.blow the place up too. At 5:57 and eight seconds, CNA #586 said You will go to jail if you touch anyone down here. CNA #586 exits the room. At 5:57 and 13 seconds CNA #800 left the room. At 5:57 and 18 seconds CNA #800 made a phone call and asked for a nurse to come to the unit. At 5:58 A.M. CNA #586 and #800 reentered the room. At 6:00 and ten seconds CNA #586 and CNA #800 left Resident #51's room while Resident #145 was still in Resident #51's room. At 6:00 and 44 seconds police arrive at the unit. CNA #586 told the police she did not know why Resident #145 was here. The CNA's told the police they gave all the grace in the world to Resident #145 and gently asked him to return to his room. Resident #145 tossed CNA #568 like a ragdoll. At 6:04 and 12 seconds CNA #586 told the police that they needed Resident #145 to understand (the CNA was unable to finish her sentence) but the police officer interrupted CNA #586 and stated they could not make Resident #145 understand. At 6:40 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and at 6:50 A.M. Resident #145 was sitting calmly on the transport cot and EMT's wheeled Resident #145 down the hall. The resident was transported to the hospital. An interview on 07/09/25 at 8:01 A.M. Director of Nursing (DON) revealed he was aware of an incident with Resident #145 and the police had been called and Resident #145 had been sent to the hospital for evaluation. An interview on 07/09/25 at 11:03 A.M. DON revealed a report was generated on 07/07/25 and the DON became aware there was an incident with Resident #145 being aggressive with two CNA's. DON stated he was aware Resident #145 was wandering wearing an incontinent brief and staff were redirecting Resident #145. DON stated he would make calls on 07/09/25 to get information about the incident that occurred on 07/06/25. DON provided two written statements by CNA #568 and CNA #800 and stated that it was all the information related to the incident with Resident #145. DON verified he had not reviewed the video recordings or talked with any staff involved in the incident with Resident #145. An interview on 07/09/25 at 12:16 P.M. DON verified a skin check was not completed when Resident #145 returned from the hospital on [DATE]. DON stated Resident #145 returned from a LOA with wife on 07/08/25 and a skin check was completed at that time and no skin concerns were noted. An interview on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) verified he was not aware until sometime on 07/06/25 that there had been an incident with Resident #145. LNHA verified he had not watched the video, started an investigation, or reported the incident to the state agency since the abuse was alleged to be against staff and not a resident. On 07/16/25 at 1:45 P.M. the facility was notified of an immediate jeopardy regarding the incident with Resident #145 and CNA #568 and CNA #800. A self-reported incident (SRI) was created on 07/18/25 at 4:01 P.M. by DON. SRI #262956 revealed there was an allegation of emotional/verbal abuse to Resident #145 by CNA #568 and CNA #800 and the allegation was unsubstantiated. Review of the Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property policy dated 11/28/16 revealed abuse was defined as a willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Mistreatment was defined as inappropriate treatment or exploitation of a resident. Staff will be educated upon hire and annual thereafter regarding the facility's policy concerning abuse. The training sessions will include how to identify abuse of residents, how staff should report their knowledge related to allegations without fear of reprisal, how to recognize signs of burnout, frustration, and stress, appropriate interventions to deal with aggressive and/or catastrophic reactions (extraordinary reactions to ordinary stimuli) of a resident, and dementia management and abuse prevention. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
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
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an assessment was completed before Resident #145 was placed ...
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 an assessment was completed before Resident #145 was placed on the secure/memory care unit. This affected one (Resident #145) out of three reviewed for placement on the secure unit. The facility census was 141. Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, dementia, psoriatic arthropathy, recurrent depressive disorder, wandering, and adult failure to thrive.A care plan dated 06/25/25 revealed Resident #145 wanted to go home and was an elopement risk related to behaviors of pacing the halls and wandering into resident rooms. Interventions included to check function of secure tech bracelet weekly, reinforce reasons for placement, and encourage family involvement/support.Review of the medical record revealed no evidence of an assessment being completed to ensure Resident #145 was appropriate for placement on a secure unit.An interview on 07/14/25 at 8:46 A.M. Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #145 did not have an assessment completed prior to admission on the secure unit.A Functional Assessment for the secure unit admission dated 07/14/25 revealed Resident #145 had severe mentation impairment, was uncooperative, and resistive. Resident #145 had behaviors of wandering, being verbally and physically abusive, being socially inappropriate, resistive to care, wandering, and exit seeking. Resident #145 had a history of attempts to exit home prior to admission, had periods of aggression, and was aggressive with spouse at home. Resident #145 would roam the halls at the facility looking for his wife. Resident #145 could be agitated, hit doors, and wander into other resident rooms. Resident #145 had recently attempted to exit the building. Resident #145 did exit the secure unit causing the alarm to sound. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 #145 had an individualized care plan in place to ad...
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 #145 had an individualized care plan in place to address behaviors. This affected one (Resident #145) out of three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 141.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, dementia, psoriatic arthropathy, recurrent depressive disorder, wandering, and adult failure to thrive.A care plan dated 06/25/25 revealed Resident #145 had inappropriate behavior and was resistive to care. Interventions included to allow flexibility in activities of daily living routine to accommodate mood, elicit family input for best approaches to resident, and if resident refuses care, leave and return in five to ten minutes. The Kardex report printed 07/14/24 for the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) revealed no indication of Resident #145 having behaviors or interventions for behaviors. The CNA report sheet (no date) revealed Resident #145 was up ad lib and wandered. There was no documentation of any other behaviors or interventions for behaviors or wandering. An interview on 07/09/25 at 8:01 A.M. Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #145 was not a good fit for the facility. The facility had a memory care unit, not a behavior unit. DON stated he did not want to admit Resident #145 to the facility because of the behaviors described in the hospital records. DON also stated if there were multiple males on the memory care unit, it caused problems. An additional interview on 07/10/25 at 9:01 A.M. DON again stated he did not think Resident #145 was a good fit for the facility because of red flags of why Resident #145 was hospitalized . DON stated Resident #145 was younger ([AGE] years old), had beaten his wife, and had to be given two milligrams of Haldol (antipsychotic) at the hospital and then Resident #145 was okay. DON stated he did not want to admit Resident #145, but the admissions person went ahead and admitted Resident #145. DON stated he was on vacation when Resident #145 was admitted . DON verified there were no interventions put in place to address Resident #145's behaviors and the DON concerns. An interview on 07/10/25 at 1:59 P.M. Social Service #645 revealed a referral for Resident #145 to receive psychiatric services had been sent on 07/01/25. Psychiatric services were scheduled to see Resident #145 on 07/10/25. An interview on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) verified there were questions and concerns about admitting Resident #145, but the family toured the facility and stated the hospital had overexaggerated Resident #145's behaviors. An interview on 07/14/25 at 10:12 A.M. DON stated the memory care unit was not for residents with behaviors. The memory care unit was mainly for residents that wandered. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
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, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide residents who were dependent with bathing, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide residents who were dependent with bathing, two showers a week. This affected one (Resident #77) out of three reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 141.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #77 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis, recurrent depressive disorders, and chronic kidney disease.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #77 was cognitively intact. The MDS also revealed Resident #77 was dependent on staff for bathing. Review of the bathing documentation revealed Resident #77 received a shower on 07/03/25, 07/10/25, and 07/17/25. Resident #77 received a bed bath on 07/24/25. An interview on 07/28/25 at 1:55 P.M. Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #77 did not receive a shower twice a week as scheduled. An interview on 07/28/25 at 2:41 P.M. Resident #77 verified she only received one shower a week. Resident #77 stated she had not received a shower for approximately two weeks. Resident #77 stated she preferred a shower over a bed bath and wanted showered twice a week. Resident #77 stated there was one Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) that made sure she received a shower, but that CNA had been off work for at least a week. Resident #77 stated the other CNA's stated there were not enough staff to provide a shower. Review of the ADL policy (no date) revealed CNA's and nursing staff are responsible for providing daily ADL care and documenting services rendered. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH002570130 and Complaint Number OH001297234 (OH00167429)
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secure on the memory care unit. This had the potential to affect all 35 residents on the memory care ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secure on the memory care unit. This had the potential to affect all 35 residents on the memory care unit. The facility census was 141. Findings include:An observation on 07/09/25 at 9:54 A.M. revealed nine residents were in the dining room on the memory care unit. A medication cart was sitting against the wall in the dining room. The medication cart lock was not pushed in to lock the cart. A large bottle of acetaminophen (for fever or pain) 500 milligrams was sitting on the top of the medication cart. The lid was off the acetaminophen and lying on the cart. There were approximately 15 to 20 tablets in the open bottle of acetaminophen. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was assisting residents out of the dining room. On 07/09/25 at 9:55 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #639 came quickly down the hallway and stated she had just stepped away for a moment. LPN #639 verified the medication cart was unlocked and there was an open bottle of acetaminophen sitting on top of the medication cart. On 07/14/25 at 10:12 A.M. Director of Nursing stated all residents on the memory care unit have a diagnosis of dementia. The memory care unit was mainly for residents that were at risk for wandering.Medication storage (no date) revealed with the exception of emergency drug kits, all medications will be stored in a locked cabinet, cart or medication room that is accessible only to authorized personnel, as defined by facility policy. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #37 was provided with a diet texture a...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #37 was provided with a diet texture as ordered. This had the potential to affect eight residents ( Resident #34, #81, #95, #97, #98, #101, #134, and #135) who received puree diets. The facility census was 141. Findings include: Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, osteoarthritis, hypertension, major depressive disorder, type two diabetes, dementia and encephalopathy. Review of physician orders dated 02/23/24 revealed Resident #37 was ordered a puree diet with thin liquid consistency. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #37 had short and long term memory problems. Resident #37 needed moderate assistance to eat and had no loss of liquids from mouth or was holding food in mouth or choking during meals during the review period. Resident #37 was on a mechanically altered and therapeutic diet. Review of Nutritoin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was on a puree diet consistency but could have mechanical soft desserts. The puree diet was appropriate for nutritional management of dysphagia. Observation on 06/30/25 at 12:19 P.M. revealed the facility lunch tray line was in process and puree vegetables, puree chicken and mashed potatoes was set in the food steamer for service. The puree mixed vegetables were observed to have multiple lumps, the puree chicken was not smooth and had multiple lumps. Interview on 06/30/25 at 12:20 P.M. at 12:20 P.M. with Dietary Shift Leader #638 verified the puree chicken and puree vegetables in the steam table was not smooth and stated the chicken and vegetables needed to be smoother. Interview on 06/30/25 at 12:21 P.M. with [NAME] #523 verified the puree chicken and puree vegetables was not smooth and stated it was difficult to puree chicken. On 06/30/25 at 12:47 P.M. Dietary Director #716 observed the puree chicken and puree vegetables in the steam table and verified the puree food was lumpy, and could be smoother. Observation on 07/01/25 at 1:00 P.M. of the Dementia unit dining room revealed Resident #37 was observed spitting out puree chicken. Interview on 07/01/25 at 1:02 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) revealed Resident #37 spit out her food because of the chunks in her puree chicken, CNA #667 verified the puree chicken was not a smooth consistency. Review of facility policy titled Puree Texture Modification, revised 02/01/25, revealed the regular menu items were puree to a smooth pudding/mashed potato like consistency. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH001297228 (OH00166964).
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 record review, including review of facility billing/financial information, review of email communication, review of the...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, including review of facility billing/financial information, review of email communication, 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 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. This had the potential to affect all 141 residents residing in the facility. Findings include:1. Interview on 06/27/25 at 11:04 A.M. with Former Medical Director ( FMD) #727 revealed he had not been paid for the last thirteen months he worked for the facility ( May of 2034 to May of 2025). FMD #727 stated when he started to ask for payment in the fall of 2024 he eventually received a termination note on 04/30/25 that as of 06/01/25 was his last day as the medical director. Review of document titled Medical Director Invoice billed to Saint Luke's for the month of March, April, May 2025 , revealed a total of twenty-five thousand two hundred dollars was due. Interview on 07/07/25 at 4:09 P.M. revealed the Administrator was not aware FMD #727 had not been paid and stated he would reach out to Corporate regarding payment after review of the March, April, May 2025 Medical Director invoice. 2. Interview on 06/30/25 at 10:10 A.M. with Former Activities Director ( FAD) #624 revealed concern Pastor #733 had not been paid for his services since February 2025. Interview on 07/01/25 at 4:00 P.M. with Activities Aid # 629 revealed Pastor #733 was the Chaplin/Religious director for the facility , he provided spiritual support for the facility. Interview on 07/02/25 at 3:16 P.M. with Pastor #733 revealed he was the chaplain in the facility and provided religious services twice a week. Pastor #733 stated he received an email offer for payment of one hundred seventy-five dollars per week. Pastor #733 stated his last payment received from the facility was February 2025. He did not receive payment for services in March, April, May or June 2025 for a total of twelve weeks. Review of a copy of email exchange dated 04/16/25 revealed the former administrator approved Pastor #733 to provide services twice a week for the residents and was to be paid one hundred seventy-five dollars per week. Review of a copy of email exchange dated 06/26/25 from Pastor #733 to the Administrator revealed a payment had not been received for services the past four months and requested the matter be addressed urgently. Interview on 07/07/25 at 4:09 P.M. with the Administrator revealed he was unaware Pastor #733 had not been paid after review of email exchange dated 06/26/25 from Pastor #733 to the Administrator. 3. Interview on 07/01/25 at 1:20 P.M. with Former Activities Director (FAD) #624 revealed lawn care had stopped coming and the landscaping outside the Dementia Unit patio had not been done all year. Interview on 07/07/25 at 2:30 P.M. with the Director of Maintenance #575 revealed [NAME] Lawn care would cut the facility's grass, spray for weeds and trim bushes and trees but the facility did not pay [NAME] Lawn care bill. The Administrator wanted the facility maintenance crew to provide lawn maintenance instead, but the facility did not provide equipment to maintain the landscaping of the facility. Observation on 07/07/25 at 2:43 P.M. with the Director of Maintenance #575 revealed grass and weeds were growing from cracks in the parking lot that measured four to sixteen inches long, the grass in the front of the building and along the facility was tall reaching past ankle length. Bushes outside resident's rooms were overgrown and the Dementia Unit patio had a thick blanket of dried leaves surrounding the outside of the patio. Interview on 07/07/25 at 3:00 P.M. with the owner of [NAME] Landscaping revealed the company had stopped services as of April 2024 because the facility did not pay their bill. Review of document titled [NAME] Landscaping, invoice #0006330, dated 05/17/25 revealed nine thousand seven hundred ninety-two dollars and fifty cents was a balance due for the April and May 2025 invoice. Interview on 07/07/25 at 4:09 P.M. with the Administrator revealed he was unaware [NAME] Lawn care company had not been paid and stopped services after review of invoice #0006330. 4. An Interview on 06/30/25 with Registered Dietitian (RD) # 732 revealed the facility had been warned about overdue invoices and the possibility of suspended services. Interview on 07/01/25 at 2:45 P.M. with RD #730, who received payments and provided overdue notices for Nutri Tech, revealed the facility had an ongoing delay in payments since June 2024 . Nutri tech provided contract RD services, and the Administrator was notified of need for payment. RD #730 stated the facility was in breach of contract and owed Nutri Tech sixteen thousand dollars. Review of document title Nutri Tech invoice number 3218 billed to Saint Luke's dated 05/31/25 revealed a due date of 06/30/25 for the amount of eight thousand sixty-four dollars. Interview on 07/01/25 at 4:33 p.m. with the Administrator revealed he was not aware of the risk of no further RD services and stated the facility was in the process of paying the debt. Review of a copy of email exchanges between the parties of Nutri tech and St. [NAME]'s administration dated 05/27/25 revealed RD #730 copied the Administrator regarding accounts were twenty-seven days past due and Nutri Tech did not permit accounts to exceed thirty days past due without a service hold. A request for current invoice payment was made. Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. [NAME]'s administration dated 06/06/25 at 3:19 P.M. revealed RD#730 sent a reminder payment was due by the end of the day as promised to prevent disruption in dietitian services due to nonpayment. St. Luke's accounts were flagged as high risk and payment links were provided for the facility to pay. Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. [NAME] administration dated 06/11/25 at 3:07 P.M. revealed RD #730 reached out to the Administration regarding St. Luke's had an outstanding balance of eleven thousand one hundred forty-eight dollars that was forty-two days past due in addition a balance of eleven thousand two hundred sixty-eight dollars that was twelve days past due. A request for a minimum payment of the balance over thirty days past due be remitted in order to reinstated dietitian services and request the remaining balance that was twelve days past due be resolved prior to reaching thirty days to avoid further disruption in services. Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. Luke's administration dated 06/20/25 at 9:02 A.M. revealed RD #730 reached out to the Administrator regarding termination of services. The email exchange revealed the Administrator met with RD #730 the Friday prior. The email mail informed the Administrator that due to ongoing payment delays which resulted in missed compensation to the dietitians, Nutri Tech formally issued a thirty-day notice of termination of services as of 07/18/25. The Administrator was notified that Nutri Tech would continue to provide services throughout 07/18/25 contingent on outstanding invoices did not exceed thirty days past due . Nutri Tech offered to remain past the 07/18/25 deadline if the facility was open to a prepayment model. Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. Luke's administration revealed on 06/30/25 at 3:42 P.M. RD CEO #739 reached out the Administration regarding payment was due for dietitian services and [NAME] had not honored the payment terms in the contract. The administrator was notified dietitian services was to cease immediately.Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. Luke's administration dated 07/02/25 at 10:44 A.M. revealed RD CEO #739 reached out to the Administrator regarding a payment reminder and if a minimum payment was received a RD would stay on in limited capacity until the facility found another RD.An interview on 07/23/25 at 10:43 A.M. with Chief Operating Officer(COO)/RD #730 revealed there had been problems with the facility paying for RD services. The COO/RD revealed services were held for one day in January 2025 and again in June/July 2025. COO/RD #730 verified services were suspended from 06/30/25 until 07/18/25. The facility had to pay the balance owed plus pre-pay until 08/01/25 to resume services. The facility was also required to pre-pay again by 08/01/25 to cover services until 08/20/25 when they reportedly would be hiring a company to provide dietician services. 5. Ombudsman #728 revealed on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. National Data Care company, the company that handles resident's funds, had not been paid resulting in resident not having access to petty cash funds. Interview with the BOM #536 on 07/14/25 at 11:28 A.M. revealed she did not have access to the resident funds account as of 07/14/25 . She stated [NAME] was notified that the business office did not have access to resident funds. The BOM #536 stated the issue started 07/03/25 when PNC bank did not cash a two hundred eighteen dollar check because of insufficient funds. The BOM #536 stated the business office tried to keep five hundred dollars on hand for the petty cash box in the facility to ensure residents had access to money at all times. During the month when a resident requests money from the petty cash box a receipt was made with the resident's name, date and amount needed. At the end of the month the business office will tally the receipts and present a check to PNC bank to withdraw the amount of money used for petty cash from an account at PNC. BOM #536 stated [NAME] had access and was able to get into resident accounts located in PNC. Interview on 07/14/25 at 12:05 with National Data Company verified they provided software to the facility to handle resident funds and a fee was involved. Invoices were automatically debited depending on the account attached and could not reveal any more information. Interview on 07/14/25 at 2:14 with receptionist #695 revealed residents usually had access to funds from 7:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. daily and on weekends. The facility usually kept one hundred dollars daily in the petty cash box for residents to draw from. A slip was kept in the drawer to notify the business office of the amount a resident withdrew. The receptionist and the business office manager would balance the petty cash box at the beginning and the end of each receptionist shift. Receptionist #695 stated she was notified on 07/11/25 by the BOM #536 there was no money to put in the petty cash box for resident withdraw. Interview on 07/14/25 at 2:42 P.M. with Receptionist # 551 stated there was no petty cash available for residents on 07/12/25. No residents had asked for money greater than one hundred dollars. Interview on 07/14/25 at 3:06 P.M. with Resident #85 revealed she attempted to get fifty dollars over the weekend of 07/12/25 but was told she did not have any money, Resident #85 stated she felt betrayed. Interview on 07/15/25 at 11:00 A.M. with receptionist #619 revealed no petty cash was in the drawer to provide residents on 07/11/25. Interview on 07/15/25 at 2:26 P.M. with BOM #536 revealed if National Data Company was not paid they would pull money from the account attached. [NAME] was responsible for payment to National Data Company. The BOM #536 stated the role of National Data Company was a bookkeeping company that balanced residents' trust accounts to ensure separate interest was paid and bank statements were provided to residents. Interview on 07/16/25 at 4:01 P.M. with Nurse Supervisor #626 was tearful because residents did not have access to their money. Facility staff bought residents chips and soda pop, and some residents thought they had no money in their accounts. Interview on 07/16/25 at 4:26 P.M. with the Administrator revealed he was not sure when the payment for NDC was taken out of the PNC bank account and why the funds were not replenished. Interview on 07/17/25 at 9:00 A.M. with Resident #22 revealed she asked for money since 07/10/25 in the amounts of twenty dollars, ten dollars and five dollars but was told there was no money to give her. Resident #22 stated she felt broke. Interview on 07/17/25 at 1:30 P.M. with [NAME] Chief Financial Officer (CFO) #740 revealed [NAME] was the back office functions such as payment to invoices, billing. When the facility receives a bill they will send the bill to a dedicated accounts receivable email , [NAME]'s accounts receivable will then process the payment to the necessary party. [NAME] became involved with accounts receivable after CB business solution stepped away 6/01/25. CFO #740 stated PNC bank housed all the resident trust accounts and NDC managed the funds individually regarding quarterly statements and interest. PNC also held a disbursement account that housed petty cash pulled from a resident's account if they asked for petty cash the month prior. NDC depleted the disbursement funds account. The disbursement account was a buffer between the resident funds account and the petty cash box. CFO #740 stated the resident fund account was fully insured and protected, because he did not receive the NDC invoice NDC debited their payment from the facility's discretionary funds. CFO #740 was not aware residents did not have access to petty cash because the discretionary balance was too low. CFO #740 stated he would send cash from [NAME] to replenish the petty cash box in the facility and stated there should always be enough cash to provide for resident needs. CFO #740 stated the administrator should have contacted him immediately when no petty cash was available in the facility box to give to residents and stated there was miscommunication. Interview on 07/17/25 at 4:48 P.M. with the Administrator, revealed [NAME] oversaw operations such as finance. The Administrator stated he was aware a few days ago residents did not have access to petty cash and was not aware facility staff were buying residents chips and pop. The Administrator stated he notified [NAME] CFO #740 and CEO #1010 as soon as he heard it was an issue. The Administrator stated [NAME] told him they took care of the situation, but the Administrator was not aware of what [NAME] did . The Administrator verified the discretionary account was the holding spot for petty cash withdrawal. The Administrator stated CFO #740 and CEO #1010 were the point of contact for facility finances. CEO #1010 was assigned the account payable for the facility. Interview on 07/17/25 at 5:16 P.M. with BOM #536 revealed she notified the Administrator on 07/06/25 after the holiday weekend when the petty cash drawer had no money to provide to resident's requests and an email was sent on 07/03/25 notification PNC could not cash checks to fund the petty cash box in the facility. Interview on 07/17/25 at 6:10 P.M. with CFO #740 revealed National Data Company was set up with a master account as the billing account to cover unpaid invoices until facility funds the account. This was required by National Data Company. Money was removed from the disbursement account to pay National Data Company because payments were not received. National Data Company would credit the resident account fund and recover the funds from disbursement account. The disbursement account has funds owed to the facility for funds already pre-paid out to residents and fronted by the facility through the facility petty cash box . CEO #1010 refused interview with the State Survey Agency on 07/21/25. Interview on 07/21/25 at 2:17 P.M. with the Administrator revealed he was unable to answer how much money was owed to National Data Company and how long it had been owed and why National Data Company had access to remove funds. The Administrator stated he was not sure who approved the funds removal by National Data Company and was not aware if this was the general practice of National Data Company to remove funds from resident accounts and was not aware if National Data Company knew if the funds account belonged to the resident's funds and not the facility's funds. The Administrator stated all invoices go to the back office and National data Company did not make the facility aware of their invoices. The Administrator stated the facility bills did not go through him, the BOM #536 sent all bills to the back office. The Administrator stated he was made aware that bills were not paid if a company called him directly. The Administrator stated it was not appropriate to have resident funds used to pay a bill. The Administrator stated he was not made aware of the petty cash check not clearing prior to the fourth of July holiday weekend, he did not recall an issue prior to the long holiday weekend and stated when he alerted [NAME] he was told it was taken care of. The Administrator verified National Data Company was a bookkeeping company for resident accounts. Interview on 07/22/25 at 11:40 A.M. with BOM #536 revealed bills for the facility can come by mail or email. The BOM #536 would send the bills to CEO #1010 who runs the accounts payable for [NAME], and she paid the bills. CEO #1010 would approve when printing a check to vendors. The BOM #536 restated on 06/30/25. She went to PNC bank with three checks one check for two hundred eighteen dollars and seventy-five cents, one check for seventy-five dollars and one check for fifty-five dollars. PNC would not cash all three checks on 06/30/25 because of insufficient funds in the disbursement account. PNC bank did cash the seventy-dollar check, and the fifty-five dollars check for the weekend petty cash box. The next day on 07/01/25 the BOM notified the Administrator by verbal communication there was not enough money in PNC to cash the two hundred eighteen-dollar check, and the Administrator was warned about the upcoming long holiday weekend. The Administrator verbally told her he would contact CEO #1010. On 07/02/25 an email was sent by the BOM to the Administrator and CEO #1010 was copied regarding the BOM did not have access resident funds and she needed to cash the two hundred eighteen dollars check to reimburse the petty cash box. They were notified it was a long holiday weekend, and she needed to make sure there was enough money for residents. The BOM stated over the fourth of July holiday weekend residents started to not have access to petty fund cash. The BOM stated CEO #1010 would not reach out to the BOM that week with a plan to fund the petty cash. On 07/17/25 [NAME] wired four hundred sixteen dollars and seventy cents into the discretionary account. The BOM was able to take out money for the weekend of 07/19/25. Review of facility documents titled National Data Care ( NDC) Audit Report for North [NAME] dated 07/11/25 revealed part of the service National Data care provided was keeping Resident Funds Management Trust ( RFMT) account in balance. The document revealed that due to the following items, an audit could not presently balance. Because the account must balance to comply with state regulations, these items must be fixed as soon as possible or National Data care would take the appropriate action to fix it by transferring the items from/to an alternate account, which had the potential of incurring overdraft charges for which the facility would be responsible. Invoice the facility account was debited for the invoice. The facility was notified to fix the problem as soon as possible, such as one send a check payable to the facility which this notice to National Data source for reimbursement. Or make a deposit into the facility trust account for this amount at local NDC affiliated bank. The Resident Trust Account reconciliation placed unpaid RFMS Services Charges after 60 days as outstanding account. Date Amount Description Invoice notice 12/21/25 $218.20 FMS invoice H70237 Notice #5. 0n 01/22/25 $218.20RMS invoice H79315 Notice #4, on 02/22/25 $225.25 RFMS invoice Notice #1. Review document titled of National Data Care ( NDC) Advice of Debit revealed resident fund processing charges . The facility was notified the amount shown would be debited from your Resident Funds Account and Please submit payment to cover this debit. Review of document titled NDC Advice of Debit #H79315 , dated charges for the month of December 2024, revealed the invoice was sent 12/31/25 for a total of two hundred eighteen dollars and twenty cents for payment to facility account K963- North [NAME]. A phone number was provided for questions. Review of facility document Checking Account Statement from Trust Account-0005528728393, revealed on 01/22/25 a service charge debit #H79315 Resident Funds Management Service invoice of two hundred eighteen dollars and twenty cents was debited from the facility Trust account. Review of document titled NDC Advice of Debit #H88448 , dated charges for the month of January 2025, revealed the invoice was sent 01/31/25 for a total of two hundred twenty-five dollars and twenty-five cents for payment to facility account K963- North [NAME]. A phone number was provided for questions. Review of facility document Checking Account Statement from Trust Account-0005528728393, revealed on 02/24/25 a service charge debit #H88448 Resident Funds Management Service invoice of two hundred twenty-five dollars and twenty-five cents was debited from the facility Trust account. Review of document titled NDC Advice of Debit #H97638 , dated charges for the month of February 2025, revealed the invoice was sent 02/28/25 for a total of two hundred forty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents for payment to facility account K963- North [NAME]. A phone number was provided for questions. Review of facility document Checking Account Statement from Trust Account-0005528728393, revealed on 03/24/25 a service charge debit #H976338 Resident Funds Management Service invoice of two hundred forty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents was debited from the facility Trust account. Review of document titled NDC Advice of Debit #I06856 , dated charges for the month of March 2025, revealed the invoice was sent 03/31/25 for a total of two hundred forty-seven dollars and fifty-five cents for payment to facility account K963- North [NAME]. A phone number was provided for questions. Review of facility document Checking Account Statement from Trust Account-0005528728393, revealed on 04/22/25 a service charge debit #I06856 Resident Funds Management Service invoice of two hundred forty-seven dollars and fifty-five cents was debited from the facility Trust account. Review of document titled NDC Advice of Debit #I16135 , dated charges for the month of April 2025, revealed the invoice was sent 04/30/25 for a total of two hundred twenty-nine dollars and sixty-six cents for payment to facility account K963- North [NAME]. A phone number was provided for questions. Review of facility Checking Account Statement from Trust , revealed on 05/22/25 a service charge debit #I16135 Resident Funds Management Service invoice of two hundred twenty-nine dollars and sixty-six cents was debited from the facility Trust account. Review of document titled NDC Advice of Debit #I25493 , dated charges for the month of May 2025, revealed the invoice was sent 05/30/25 of a total of two hundred thirty-one dollars and sixty-five cents for payment to facility account K963- North [NAME]. A phone number was provided for questions. Review of facility Checking Account Statement from Trust Account-0005528728393, revealed on 06/23/25 a service charge debit #I25493 Resident Funds Management Service invoice of two hundred thirty-one dollars and sixty-five cents was debited from the facility Trust account. Review of facility Trial Balance document dated 07/21/25 revealed Resident #5 had a balance of two hundred thirty dollars and seventy-four cents, Resident #26 had a balance of one hundred three dollars, and forty-four cents and Resident #27 had a balance of fifty dollars and fourteen cents. The facility held a total of three thousand one hundred ninety-one dollars and eighty-four cents total for the Assisted Living residents. Review of facility document dated 05/21/25 a message correspondence was sent to the facility from National Data Care for account #K963 revealed NDC provided services to keep RFMS Resident Trust Account in balance. The facilities audit did not balance because the account must be balanced to comply with state regulations. The facility was notified to fix this as soon as possible or NDC would take action to fix it by transferring them from an alternate account which could incur overdraft fees. The facility was notified on the debit invoices #H70237, #H79315 and #H88448. NDC requested a check payable to the facility with the notice to National Data Care for reimbursement or make a deposit into the facility trust account at the local NDC bank. The facility was notified that it left unpaid NDC would transfer funds from either the Care Cost or Petty Cash Account. Interview on 07/07/25 at 11:43 A.M. with the Business Office Manager (BOM) # 536 revealed CB services was previously used as the back office who made arrangements through their procurement team. As of 06/01/25 [NAME] did the billing and accounts payable. [NAME] was the third-party billing company, and all invoices and bills were sent to [NAME] to be paid. Interview on 07/15/25 at 1:05 P.M. with the Administrator revealed bills that were not on auto pay were sent to the facility then sent to the back office' . The Administrator was not able to state what bills were sent to the back office and stated [NAME] was the new back-office management as of 06/01/25 that provided staff for accounts receivable and was the Corporate Management company. The old company was CB services.Review of the facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility was to determine and secure the resources necessary for residents to attain or maintain their optimal level of physical, mental and psychosocial wellbeing on a day-to-day basis as well as in the event of emergency. The Facility Assessment further revealed Food and Nutrition services had a Registered Dietitian, the facility had a Medical Director and a Chaplain/Religious service. Review of facility admission agreement revealed to facility was to provide room, board, laundry, housekeeping, social activities, nursing services, and other services and supplies required , in accordance with orders from a licensed prescribing provider. Review of undated, Residents [NAME] of Rights policy revealed residents had the right to a clean-living environment, the right to receive care and services need to meet medical treatment , nursing , comfort and sanitation needs and the right to be free from neglect. Review of policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriate for Resident Property, dated 11/28/16 defined as the failure of the facility, facility employees or facility service providers to provide the goods and services necessary to remain free from harm, including pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Preventative measures were to include accurate assessment of residents' needs, analysis of the physical environment and deployment of sufficient numbers of competent staff and resources to meet resident care needs. This deficiency is an example of continued non-compliance from the survey dated 05/12/25. and represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH001297236 (OH00166952) and OH001297223 (OH00166843)
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, policy review, and staffing schedules, the facility failed to ensure they were adequately s...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, policy review, and staffing schedules, the facility failed to ensure they were adequately staffed to ensure Residents ( #7, #9, #14, #17, #20, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #28, #29, #32, #33, #37, #38, #41, #44, #50, #51, #52, #59, #62, #66, #73, #74, #75, #77, #89, #92, #95, #96, #100, #110, #115, #122, #125, #126, #127, #135, #139, and #145) were adequately supervised, provided incontinence care, had medications administered as ordered, had treatments completed as ordered, and received meal trays. This affected 42 Residents( #7, #9, #14, #17, #20, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #28, #29, #32, #33, #37, #38, #41, #44, #50, #51, #52, #59, #62, #66, #73, #74, #75, #77, #89, #92, #95, #96, #100, #110, #115, #122, #125, #126, #127, #135, #139, and #145) out of 141 residents. However, this had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 141. Findings include:1. Review of the call light times for 07/05/25 revealed at 7:24 A.M. Resident #110's call light was on for two hours and 46 minutes. At 9:07 A.M. Resident #100's call light was on for one hour and five minutes. At 9:37 A.M. Resident #89's call light was on for 37 minutes. At 10:29 A.M. Resident #92's call light was on for 35 minutes. At 1:51 P.M. Resident #139's call light was on for 31 minutes. At 2:17 P.M. Resident #115's call light was on for one hour and 26 minutes. At 2:27 P.M. Resident #100's call light was on for one hour and 17 minutes. An interview on 07/15/25 at 11:01 A.M. Resident #22 stated call lights take a long time to be answered and then she forgets what she needed. An interview on 07/22/25 at 9:24 A.M. DON verified the facility did not have adequate staff the weekend of 07/04/25. The DON stated he was on vacation and did not run the per patient day (PPD) to calculate the amount of nursing care hours allotted to each resident. DON verified the PPD for 07/05/25 and 07/06/25 did not meet the state requirement of 2.5 PPD. An interview on 07/28/25 at 10:49 A.M. Resident #31 revealed there were not enough staff to provide appropriate care. Call lights could take one and a half hours to be answered, and showers were not being done. Resident #31 stated she has to call the facility nurse coordinator at times to get someone to assist her. 2. Review of the medication administration records (MAR) and treatment administration records (TAR) revealed the following residents did not receive scheduled medications and had treatments completed as ordered: a. Resident #145's bilateral heels did not have skin prep applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. b. Resident #37's bilateral buttocks were not cleansed, and stoma powder and A&D ointment were not applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. c. Resident #50's bilateral heels did not have skin prep applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. d. Resident #74's bilateral heels did not have skin prep applied on 07/05/25 and 11:00 P.M. e. Resident #95's Norco (for moderate to severe pain) 5-325 mg and Lorazepam (for anxiety) 0.5 mg was not administered on 07/05/25 at 10:00 P.M. The left buttock was not cleansed and foam dressing was not applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. f. Resident #122's bilateral heels did not have skin prep applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. g. Resident #126's left buttock was not cleansed, and stoma powder and A&D ointment were not applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. h. Resident #52's bilateral heels did not have skin prep applied, and sacrum/bilateral buttocks were not cleansed, and stoma powder and A&D ointment were not applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. Levothyroxine (to treat hypothyroidism) 137 micrograms (mcg) was not administered 07/06/25 at 5:00 A.M. i. Resident #14's right heel did not have skin prep applied on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. and Levothyroxine 25 mg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 6:00 A.M. j. Resident #20's Levothyroxine 100 mcg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 5:00 A.M. k. Resident #32's Synthroid (to treat hypothyroidism) 100 mcg was not administered on 07/60/25 at 5:00 A.M. l. Resident #44's Metoprolol (to treat high blood pressure) 25 mg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 6:00 A.M. m. Resident #51's Levothyroxine 88 mcg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 5:00 A.M. n. Resident #96's Levothyroxine 150 mcg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 5:00 A.M. o. Resident #122's Oxycodone (opioid for moderate to severe pain) 5 mg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 6:00 A.M. p. Resident #125's Klonopin (to treat anxiety) 0.5 mg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 6:00 A.M. q. Resident #127's Pantoprazole (to treat acid reflux) 40 mg and Tylenol Arthritis (pain reliever) 1300 mg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 6:00 A.M. r. Resident #73's Biofreeze (topical analgesic) was not applied on 07/05/25 at 10:00 P.M. Skin prep was not applied to bilateral heels on 07/05/25 at 11:00 P.M. Midodrine (to treat low blood pressure) 5 mg was not administered on 07/05/25 at 10:00 P.M. and 07/06/25 at 6:00 A.M. Levothyroxine 25 mcg was not administered on 07/06/25 at 6:00 A.M. Review of the time sheets revealed the agency Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #925 working the memory care unit clocked out on 07/06/25 at 1:28 A.M. and did not work the entire shift as scheduled. The state minimum direct care daily average of 2.50 daily direct care staffing was not met on 07/05/25 when the facility had 1.81 hours per resident. On 07/06/25 the daily direct care staffing was not met when the facility had 2.17 hours per resident. 3. Review of video footage on the memory care unit revealed on 07/06/25 at 5:46 A.M. Resident #145 walked out into the hallway wearing only a disposable incontinence brief. At 5:48 A.M. Resident #145 turned away from his room and started toward Resident #51's room which was located directly across the hall from Resident #145's room. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #586 raised her voice and told Resident #145 do not go into a patient's room. CNA #586 again stated in an even louder voice Do not go in a patient's room. CNA #586 and CNA #800 entered Resident #51's room with Resident #145. CNA #800 stated in a firm voice, you cannot go in here that is a woman's room. CNA #800 yelled stop and CNA #586 yelled don't touch her. CNA #586 exited the room and said that's it, I'm calling the cops. CNA #800 also exited the room. CNA #586 reentered the room and said, I will not let you near my patients. You will get out. At 5:49 A.M. CNA #586 said in a loud voice, yes, you will and then repeated yes you will in a louder voice. CNA #800 reentered the room. CNA #586 and CNA #800 yelled at Resident #145, you can get out, OUT, You are on a memory care unit, Get out, You need to go now, out. At 5:50 A.M. CNA #568 called 911. A CNA can be heard stating Resident #145 was a new resident, was combative, and was threatening other residents. CNA #568 stated there was not proper staffing and there was not a nurse on the unit. CNA #568 stated a police officer was needed if the facility was not going to staff properly. A statement (not dated) by CNA #568 revealed CNA #568 and CNA #800 had been alone on the memory care unit since approximately 12:15 A.M. on 07/06/25 when the nurse left and went home. LPN #712 was notified around 12:30 A.M. that there were only two CNA's on the memory care unit and the nurse had left. LPN #712 stated there was no one available so they would be alone. CNA #568 called the police for assistance and then it then occurred to CNA #568 that the police could not enter the building as the door was locked and required a staff member to answer the phone to unlock the door, but because of being so short staffed there was no one answering the phones. CNA #800 called the phone number the police would need to call to enter the building and verified no one answered the phone. An interview on 07/09/25 at 8:01 A.M. Director of Nursing (DON) verified there had been issues with staffing the weekend of 07/04/25 and eight nursing staff had called off on 07/05/25. DON stated he heard an agency nurse working the memory care unit the night shift starting on 07/05/25 was either sent home or left. At 8:58 A.M. DON verified the nurse on the memory care unit had left due to a family emergency and the memory care unit did not have a nurse until 07/06/25 around 7:00 A.M. DON verified there had been an incident with CNA #568 and CNA #800 and Resident #145 but did not feel this was due to not having a nurse. An interview on 07/09/25 at 9:55 A.M. LPN #648 verified the nurse on the memory care unit had left around midnight or 1:00 A.M. on 07/06/25. The narcotic count was not done with another nurse, treatments and medications were not completed, and there was an incident with CNA #568, CNA #800, and Resident #145. The CNA's reported they could not reach another nurse during the incident with Resident #145 because of being short staffed. LPN #648 stated there had been eight nursing staff that called off on 07/05/25 and several nurses had called off on 07/06/25. Management was aware of the call-offs, but the call-offs were now handled by a staffing company in another state. LPN #648 stated breakfast had not been passed to residents on Southern Hills in the morning on 07/06/25 due to insufficient staffing. Registered Nurse (RN) #704 was the acting DON that weekend and worked as a CNA and floor nurse that weekend. LPN #648 verified a lot of residents on the memory care unit were soiled and had to have incontinence care provided the morning of 07/06/25. An interview on 07/09/25 at 10:09 A.M. CNA #637 verified there were multiple residents on the memory care unit that were soiled the morning of 07/06/25. On 07/09/25 at 11:03 A.M. an additional interview with the DON revealed he was on vacation and returned to work on 07/07/25. The DON verified the agency nurse on the memory care unit left on 07/06/25 around 1:40 A.M. The nurse did not count the narcotics and did not give an outgoing report or notify another nurse they were leaving. CNA #568 and CNA #800 contacted LPN #712 in the facility about the nurse leaving the memory care unit and the keys to the medication carts being left. The DON verified LPN #712 did not go to the memory care unit to count the narcotics, get the keys to the medication carts, or provide any care to the residents on the memory care unit. An interview on 07/09/25 at 11:36 A.M. with LPN #712 verified she was notified on 07/06/25 around 1:40 A.M. the nurse on the memory care unit had left. LPN #712 verified she did not go to the memory care unit until she saw police officers looking for a room located on the memory care unit. LPN #712 stated when she escorted the police to the memory care unit, RN #578 was already on the memory care unit. LPN #712 verified she was working on the second floor and the assisted living unit on the first floor and did not provide any care to residents on the memory care unit. LPN #712 verified she did not have a phone with her for anyone to contact her when she was not at the nurse's station. LPN #712 also verified there was not a nurse coordinator working the night of 07/05/25 into the morning of 07/06/25. An interview on 07/09/25 at 3:25 P.M. with CNA #568 stated the afternoon shift (on 07/05/25) did not put six residents in bed before 11:00 P.M. so CNA #568 and CNA #800 had to do those residents first. CNA #568 stated herself and CNA #800 did not have a way to communicate on the memory care unit, so they stayed together to provide care. CNA #568 stated Resident #145 had come out of his room and was wandering and being aggressive when CNA #568 and CNA #800 were starting their second rounds. CNA #568 verified she had never worked with Resident #145 and did not know anything about Resident #145. CNA #568 stated she did not have a nurse to access Resident #145's medical record to know what type of care to provide to Resident #145. CNA #568 verified the nurse on the memory care unit left possibly around 12:30 A.M. on 07/06/25. The nurse left the keys to the medication cart and did not notify anyone else she was leaving. CNA #568 stated the facility was short-staffed and there was not a nurse coordinator working at that time. CNA #568 stated she went to the unit where RN #578 was working and notified her that the memory care unit did not have a nurse. RN #578 told CNA #568 to contact LPN #712 to see if LPN #712 had any suggestions on what to do. CNA #568 stated LPN #712 told her to contact LPN #712 if they needed anything. CNA #568 stated attempts were made to contact LPN #712 when Resident #145 became aggressive and was wandering but LPN #712 did not answer the phone. CNA #568 stated she had no other option but to call 911 for assistance since the facility was short-staffed. 4. An interview on 07/10/25 at 7:44 A.M. with Dietary Director #716 verified residents on Southern Hills did not get breakfast trays on 07/05/25. Dietary Director #716 took the breakfast trays to the Southern Hills unit between 8:30 A.M. to 8:45 A.M. Dietary Director #716 did not see any nursing staff but thought they were probably in resident rooms. Dietary Director #716 went back around 10:00 A.M. to get the dirty dishes and could not find the food cart. Dietary Director #716 could not find the food cart and asked the nurse where it was. The nurse was an agency nurse and stated she did not know where the food cart was. The agency nurse verified none of the residents on the Southern Hills unit got breakfast trays. The nurse stated she was the only one working on Southern Hills and did not have any CNA's. Dietary Director #716 stated she notified the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator that residents on Southern Hills did not get breakfast because there was not enough staff. Dietary Director #716 verified there were 24 residents on Southern Hills that did not get breakfast on 07/05/25. An interview on 07/10/25 at 10:17 A.M. Resident #41 verified she did not get a breakfast tray on 07/05/25. At 10:21 A.M. Resident #16 verified he did not get a breakfast tray on 07/05/25. At 10:50 A.M. Resident #28 verified they did not get a breakfast tray on 07/05/25. An interview on 07/14/25 at 9:08 A.M. with RN #704 verified she was the acting DON the weekend of 07/04/25. She was notified that a nurse had left the memory care unit the early morning hours of 07/06/25. RN #704 stated she had worked as a CNA the day on 07/05/25 at 11:00 A.M. after residents on Southern Hills did not get breakfast trays. RN #704 then worked as a nurse from 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. RN #704 stated she had turned in her notice and would not work this way and see residents not receiving the appropriate care. An interview on 07/16/25 at 11:44 A.M. Resident #110 verified she did not get a breakfast tray on 07/05/25 and was hungry. Resident #110 stated sometimes the call lights were not answered for a long time and Resident #110 had been incontinent of urine while waiting for staff. An interview on 07/22/25 at 9:30 A.M. LPN #920 revealed she worked on Southern Hills on 07/05/25 and did not have a CNA or any help. LPN #920 went to another nurse working on the first floor, but that nurse said it was her first day at the facility and only had one CNA. All the nursing staff she talked to were from agency staff. LPN #920 stated she did get in contact with a nurse coordinator who arrived around 11:30 A.M. to help. LPN #920 stated there was a phone number posted for staffing concerns. LPN #920 stated she called the number, but no one answered. LPN #920 stated she did the best she could without any help. LPN #920 saw the food cart had been moved so she assumed someone had come to the unit and passed the trays. A couple hours later, the dietary director came and asked where the food cart was. LPN #920 stated she told the dietary director she did not pass the breakfast trays and was not sure where the food cart was. An interview on 07/28/25 at 11:14 A.M. Resident #24 revealed there was not enough staff. Resident #24 verified he did not get breakfast one morning. CNA's have left him alone in the shower room and told him to do his own shower even though Resident #24 has fallen multiple times. There have been times he had asked for a shower, but the CNA's stated there were not enough staff. 5. An interview on 07/10/25 at 11:02 A.M. with RN #578 revealed the night of 07/05/25 she was working on the rehabilitation unit and one of the assisted living units. RN #578 had one CNA on the rehabilitation unit. The CNA was newer and visibly upset about how many residents she had to provide care off. RN #578 stated she assisted the CNA because she was afraid the CNA would leave. RN #578 stated there were shifts, there were no CNA's or only one CNA for the two rehabilitation units. RN #578 stated on 07/05/25 she arrived at work around 11:00 P.M. residents were found saturated with urine and two residents had dried feces. RN #578 stated she had to call an aid from the assisted living unit to come to help because so many residents needed incontinence care provided. RN #578 stated water was not always passed, call lights were not always placed within reach, treatments, assessments, and orders were not done. RN #578 stated she did not want to be the nurse coordinator but there were times an agency LPN would be assigned as the nurse coordinator. Review of an email from DON to Ombudsman dated 07/16/25 at 6:00 P.M. revealed CNA #714 yelled at Resident #26's son in front of Resident #26. CNA #714 was frustrated due to challenging staff levels and wanted to put Resident #26 to bed. Resident #26 was still eating dinner and Resident #26's son stated it was too early for Resident #26 to go to bed. CNA #714 then informed Resident #26 and Resident #26's son that the resident would not be assisted into bed later. The nursing coordinator, RN #688, asked CNA #714 about the interaction. CNA #714 responded with a poor attitude and stated she would just leave work. CNA #714 later met with the DON and CNA #714's unprofessional behavior was discussed. CNA #714 would be assigned to other locations and would not provide care for Resident #26 in the future. An interview on 07/28/25 at 10:12 A.M. DON verified CNA #714 was inappropriate to Resident #26's son on 07/13/25. CNA #714 was only [AGE] years old and there was short staffing due to call-offs. 6. An interview on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. Licensed Nursing Home Administrator verified because of religious beliefs he could not be contacted from sundown on Friday to after sundown on Saturday. The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator said he felt the staff were able to manage any concerns. An interview on 07/14/25 at 9:47 A.M. Ombudsman revealed there had been concerns there had not been enough staff on 07/13/25. There had only been one to two CNA's for 36 residents and the DON may have had to work from 7:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. because there was not a nurse available. An interview on 07/14/25 at 10:12 A.M. the DON verified there were staff call-offs over the weekend, and he had to work on 07/13/25. An additional interview with the DON on 07/14/25 at 4:00 P.M. revealed the call off procedure was to call a number for a staffing company in New Jersey. The staffing company would then send a message out to all facility staff that there was a staffing need. If the facility staff did not cover the staffing needs, the staffing company would reach out to the local agency staffing companies. DON stated other states did not have a staffing requirement and the staffing company felt the facility was adequately staffed with lower staff than what Ohio required. The staffing company stated there were no federal regulations about the number of staff that had to be present to provide care. An interview on 07/28/25 at 11:45 A.M. RN #688 revealed the facility now uses a staffing company. The staffing company had to been notified and the nurses at the facility could no longer call staff and ask them to pick up a shift when there was a need. 7. On 07/28/25 at 1:55 P.M. DON provided bathing documentation for Resident #77. The bathing documentation revealed Resident #77 was showered on 07/03/25, 07/10/25, and 07/17/25. Resident #77 received a bed bath on 07/24/25. DON verified Resident #77 was scheduled for showers twice a week and was not getting the showers as scheduled. An interview on 07/28/25 at 2:41 P.M. Resident #77 verified she preferred two showers a week but only got one a week. Resident #77 stated it had been longer than a week since her last shower. Resident #77 stated there were not enough staff to give showers twice a week. Review of the staffing policy (no date) revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure sufficient, qualified, and competent staff are available at all times to meet the needs of residents. Staffing levels shall meet or exceed federal and state regulatory requirements at all times. Licensed nurses shall be present on all shifts to provide nursing services. Adequate CNA staffing shall be maintained to provide direct care services and assistance with activities of daily living. Agency staff usage shall be minimized and used when necessary. Staffing records, including daily staffing sheets, should be maintained and readily available for review. The DON or designee shall regularly evaluate staffing effectiveness, analyze trends such as call-offs, overtime, and turnover, and adjust staffing plans as needed to ensure quality care. This deficiency substantiates Master Complaint Number OH002570130 and Complaint Numbers OH001297238 (OH00167453), OH001297236 (OH00166952), OH001297232 (OH00167426), OH001297231 (OH00167400), OH001297228 (OH00166964) and OH001297225 (OH00166807)
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 F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident interview, and test tray results, the facility failed to maintain palatable and appetiz...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident interview, and test tray results, the facility failed to maintain palatable and appetizing food temperatures. This had the potential to affect all but two residents ( Resident #68 and Resident #66) who did not receive a meal tray from the kitchen. The census was 144. Findings include: 1.Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/27/23. Medical diagnosis included nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, pneumonia, depression, anxiety, bipolar and dementia. Review of Minimum Data Set ( MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed cognition was moderately impaired. No rejection of care was noted. Resident #39 needed supervision to eat. Review of Nutrition assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 was on a regular diet consistency, regular liquid consistency with a no added salt restriction. Interview on 07/02/25 at 1:02 P.M. with Resident #39 who stated the chicken was too hard to chew and cut, ,therefore, she did not eat the chicken and she stated the food was cold. 2. Record review of Resident #65 revealed an admission date of 06/19/25. Medical diagnosis included carcinoma of rectum, cirrhosis of liver, abdominal pain, retention of urine and severe protein calorie malnutrition. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #65's cognition was intact and needed set up assistance to eat. Review of physician order dated 06/20/25 revealed Resident #65 was ordered a low fiber diet, with thin liquid consistency. Interview with Resident #65 on 06/26/25 at 11:40 A.M. revealed Resident #65 stated the food in the facility tasted bad. 3. Record review of Resident #33 revealed an admission date of 11/18/19. Medical diagnosis included compression fracture of lumbar, osteoporosis, malignant neoplasm of breast and pancreas. Review of the MDS 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed cognition was intact and Resident #33 needed set up assistance to eat. Review of physician orders dated 11/19/19 revealed Resident #33 had a regular diet order with thin liquid consistency. Interview with Resident #33 on 06/30/25 at 12:32 P.M. revealed Resident #33 stated the food was terrible. On 06/30/25 at 12:50 P.M. a test tray was sent to the Dementia Unit. At 1:10 P.M. all trays were passed. Temperatures were tested by Dietary Shift leader #638 that revealed the cottage cheese temperature was 66.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the whole milk temperature was 62.9 degrees Fahrenheit. The mixed vegetables temperature was 133.7 degrees Fahrenheit, mashed potatoes were 131.1 degrees Fahrenheit, plain noodles was 113 degrees Fahrenheit and the chicken was at 127 degrees Fahrenheit. The food was cold to taste and the mixed vegetables had no seasoning. The noodles presented as a clump on the plate and tasted cold. Dietary Shift Leader #638 verified the chicken was hard and chewy and verified the test tray food temperatures was not appropriate at the time of observation. Review of facility document Food for Thought Meeting Minutes, dated 05/19/25, revealed residents had concerns because the warming plates were not warm enough. The Food Service Director #716 was not able to provide additional Food for Thought Meeting Minutes for the months of April and June 2025. Review of the facility policy titled Food Palatability, dated May 2021, revealed the meals must be well seasoned and palatable.This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during the complaint investigation.
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, policy review, review of facility billing/financial information, review of the facility ass...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, policy review, review of facility billing/financial information, review of the facility assessment, review of the Administrator's job description, and interviews the facility failed to ensure effective and efficient administration to meet the total care needs of all residents in the facility. The facility census was 141. Findings include: Review of survey history revealed the facility was cited neglect for financial solvency and this had not been resolved or corrected as of the 08/04/25 survey resulting in a recite for neglect and substandard quality of care.On 07/08/25 at 10:10 A.M. an interview with Human Resources #509 revealed the Administrator started his position August 26, 2024. 2. On 06/27/25 at 11:04 A.M. an interview with FMD #727 revealed the facility terminated his position on 04/30/25 as the medical director and had not paid for his services for the past thirteen months.Review of document titled Medical Director Invoice Number 03022025, billed to the facility, revealed services rendered as Medical Director: January, February, June, July, August, September, October, November and December 2024 totaled $16,200.00 and January, February, March, April and May 2025 totaled $900.00. The payment was due in full for all past invoices that totaled $25,200.00. Interview on 07/07/25 at 4:09 P.M. revealed the Administrator was not aware FMD #727 had not been paid and stated he would reach out to Corporate regarding payment after review of the March, April, May 2025 Medical Director invoice. 3. On 07/02/25 1:20 P.M. an interview with the Activities Director #624 revealed concerns the pastor, who provided chaplain care.On 07/02/25 at 3:16 P.M. interview with Pastor #733 revealed his duties included Thursday and Sunday services, spiritual care in rooms for residents, and family support. Pastor #733 stated he had contacted the facility for lack of payment for the past twelve weeks. Review of email correspondence dated 04/16/24 at 2:26 P.M. written by former administrator #738 revealed Pastor #744 would provide services to residents two times per week for $175 per week. Review of email correspondence dated 06/26/25 at 3:37 P.M. written by Pastor #733 revealed Pastor #733 brought to the Administrator's attention the lack of payment for the past four months. Interview on 07/01/25 at 4:33 P.M. revealed the Administrator was not aware of nonpayment to Pastor #733. 4. Interview on 07/01/25 at 1:20 P.M. with Former Activities Director (FAD) #624 revealed lawn care had stopped coming and the landscaping outside the Dementia Unit patio had not been done all year and residents had complained to her. On 07/02/25 at 3:15 P.M. an interview with the Maintenance director revealed they did not have the staff to landscape the lawn or equipment after the landscaper stopped service at the beginning of June. On 07/02/25 at 3:20 P.M. an observation of the facility property revealed , a thick blanket of old dried leaves scattered across the Dementia Unit patio that settled into the corners along the edge of the patio. The bushes bordering the patio were uneven and overgrown, the trees were not pruned. The grass was overgrown and unkept throughout the facility with grass and weeds growing from cracks in the parking lot measuring 4 to 6 inches tall. On 07/02/25 at 2:35 P.M and interview with [NAME] Landscaping owner #735 revealed his company did provide landscaping, and lawn service to the facility but stopped service 06/01/25 because the facility did not pay the bill. Review of [NAME] Landscaping invoice Number 0006330 , due date 05/17/25 revealed a balance due of $9,364.01 for services such as spring cleanup, mulch, April mowing, weed control, May mowing and May weed control. It was noted the last week of mowing service for may was added to the invoice due to delay in payment. Interview on 07/07/25 at 4:09 P.M. with the Administrator revealed he was unaware [NAME] Lawn care company had not been paid and stopped services after review of invoice #0006330.5. An Interview on 06/30/25 with Registered Dietitian (RD) # 732 revealed the facility had been warned about overdue invoices and the possibility of suspended services.Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. Luke's administration dated 06/20/25 at 9:02 A.M. revealed RD #730 reached out to the Administrator regarding termination of services. The email exchange revealed the Administrator met with RD #730 the Friday prior. The email mail informed the Administrator that due to ongoing payment delays which resulted in missed compensation to the dietitians, Nutri Tech formally issued a thirty-day notice of termination of services as of 07/18/25. The Administrator was notified that Nutri Tech would continue to provide services throughout 07/18/25 contingent on outstanding invoices did not exceed thirty days past due . Nutri Tech offered to remain past the 07/18/25 deadline if the facility was open to a prepayment model. Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. Luke's administration revealed on 06/30/25 at 3:42 P.M. RD CEO #739 reached out the Administration regarding payment was due for dietitian services and [NAME] had not honored the payment terms in the contract. The administrator was notified dietitian services was to cease immediately.On 07/01/25 at 2:45 an interview with Nutri tech Corporate RD #730 revealed because the facility had a breech of contract regarding a payment that was due amounting to $16,000. The last day of service was 06/30/25 unless the bill could be paid. Interview on 07/01/25 at 4:33 p.m. with the Administrator revealed he was not aware of the risk of no further RD services and stated the facility was in the process of paying the debt. Review of a copy of email exchange between the parties of Nutri Tech and St. Luke's administration dated 07/02/25 at 10:44 A.M. revealed RD CEO #739 reached out to the Administrator regarding a payment reminder and if a minimum payment was received a RD would stay on in limited capacity until the facility found another RD.Ombudsman #728 revealed on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. National Data Care company, the company that handles resident's funds, had not been paid resulting in resident not having access to petty cash funds.Interview on 07/17/25 at 4:48 P.M. with the Administrator, revealed [NAME] oversaw operations such as finance. The Administrator stated he was aware a few days ago residents did not have access to petty cash and was not aware facility staff were buying residents chips and pop. The Administrator stated he notified [NAME] CFO #740 and CEO #1010 as soon as he heard it was an issue. The Administrator stated [NAME] told him they took care of the situation, but the Administrator was not aware of what [NAME] did . The Administrator verified the discretionary account was the holding spot for petty cash withdrawal. The Administrator stated CFO #740 and CEO #1010 were the point of contact for facility finances. CEO #1010 was assigned the account payable for the facility. Interview on 07/17/25 at 5:16 P.M. with BOM #536 revealed she notified the Administrator on 07/06/25 after the holiday weekend when the petty cash drawer had no money to provide to resident's requests and an email was sent on 07/03/25 notification PNC could not cash checks to fund the petty cash box in the facility. Interview on 07/17/25 at 6:10 P.M. with CFO #740 revealed National Data Company was set up with a master account as the billing account to cover unpaid invoices until facility funds the account. This was required by National Data Company. Money was removed from the disbursement account to pay National Data Company because payments were not received. National Data Company would credit the resident account fund and recover the funds from disbursement account. The disbursement account has funds owed to the facility for funds already pre-paid out to residents and fronted by the facility through the facility petty cash box . Interview on 07/21/25 at 2:17 P.M. with the Administrator revealed he was unable to answer how much money was owed to National Data Company and how long it had been owed and why National Data Company had access to remove funds. The Administrator stated he was not sure who approved the funds removal by National Data Company and was not aware if this was the general practice of National Data Company to remove funds from resident accounts and was not aware if National Data Company knew if the funds account belonged to the resident's funds and not the facility's funds. The Administrator stated all invoices go to the back office and National data Company did not make the facility aware of their invoices. The Administrator stated the facility bills did not go through him, the BOM #536 sent all bills to the back office. The Administrator stated he was made aware that bills were not paid if a company called him directly. The Administrator stated it was not appropriate to have resident funds used to pay a bill. The Administrator stated he was not made aware of the petty cash check not clearing prior to the fourth of July holiday weekend, he did not recall an issue prior to the long holiday weekend and stated when he alerted [NAME] he was told it was taken care of. The Administrator verified National Data Company was a bookkeeping company for resident accounts.An interview on 07/23/25 at 10:43 A.M. with Chief Operating Officer(COO)/RD #730 revealed there had been problems with the facility paying for RD services. The COO/RD revealed services were held for one day in January 2025 and again in June/July 2025. COO/RD #730 verified services were suspended from 06/30/25 until 07/18/25. The facility had to pay the balance owed plus pre-pay until 08/01/25 to resume services. The facility was also required to pre-pay again by 08/01/25 to cover services until 08/20/25 when they reportedly would be hiring a company to provide dietician services. 6. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, dementia, psoriatic arthropathy, recurrent depressive disorder, wandering, and adult failure to thrive.A care plan dated 06/25/25 revealed Resident #145 had inappropriate behavior and was resistive to care. Interventions to allow flexibility in the activities of daily living routine to accommodate mood, elicit family input for best approaches to Resident #145, and leave and return in five to ten minutes if Resident #145 refuses care. Review of video footage of the hall and common area outside Resident #145's room revealed on 07/06/25 at 5:46 A.M. Resident #145 walked out into the hallway wearing only a disposable incontinence brief. Resident #145 had a slow gait and was looking down at the floor. Resident #145 stopped and rubbed his face and looked around. At 5:47 A.M. Resident #145 walked down the hall and entered the next room on the left (Resident #67). CNA #568 stated, Honey, that is a woman's room, and you cannot go in there. CNA #568 entered the room and calmly told Resident #145 that his room was over there. CNA #800 stated you must come out of that room. CNA #800 stood in the doorway with arms crossed. At 5:48 and nine seconds A.M. Resident #145 exited Resident #67's room and walked slowly back towards his room. At 5:48 and 15 seconds CNA #800 stated your room is right there and that is where you need to go. At 5:48 and 20 seconds Resident #145 stated something about court. At 5:48 and 22 seconds CNA #586 stated we will meet you there, but I suggest if we go to court, you put some clothes on which are in your room. At 5:48 and 33 seconds, Resident #145 turned away from his room and started toward Resident #51's room which was located directly across the hall from Resident #145's room. At 5:48 and 34 seconds CNA #586 raised her voice and told Resident #145 do not go into a patient's room. At 5:48 and 35 seconds CNA #586 again stated in an even louder voice Do not go in a patient's room. At 5:48 and 40 seconds CNA #586 and CNA #800 entered Resident #51's room with Resident #145. CNA #800 stated in a firm voice, you cannot go in here that is a woman's room. At 5:48 and 43 seconds CNA #800 yelled stop and CNA #586 yelled don't touch her. At 5:48 and 45 seconds, CNA #586 exits the room and said that's it, I'm calling the cops. At 5:48 and 47 seconds, CNA #800 also exits the room. At 5:48 and 56 seconds, CNA #586 reenters the room and said, I will not let you near my patients. You will get out. At 5:49 AM CNA #586 said in a loud voice, yes, you will and then repeated yes you will in a louder voice. At 5:49 AM and seven seconds, CNA #586 yelled out, He's beating the (expletive) out of me. CNA #800 yelled, I'm coming. At 5:49 and 15 seconds CNA #800 entered the room and CNA #586 stated, he threw me on the floor. At 5:49 and 21 seconds yelling in loud voices from CNA #586 and CNA #800 included: you can get out, OUT, You are on a memory care unit, Get out, You need to go now, out. At 5:49 and 30 seconds can see Resident #145 slowly approached the doorway from Resident #51's room to the hallway. CNA #568 and CNA #800 can be heard telling Resident #145 it was not his house, and he was at a nursing facility. At 5:50 and 24 seconds, CNA #568 called 911. A CNA can be heard stating Resident #145 was a new resident, was combative, and staff had been injured, and Resident #145 was threatening other residents. CNA #568 stated there was not proper staffing and there was not a nurse on the unit. CNA #568 stated a police officer was needed if the facility was not going to staff properly. At 5:51 and 40 seconds AM CNA #800 walked out of the room and was on the phone standing in the hallway. CNA #568 was still in Resident #51's room and on the phone with 911. CNA #568 stated she did not need a medic yet but may if Resident #145 did not stop. CNA #800 spoke up and said Resident #145 had tossed both CNA's and was extremely combative. At 5:51 and 49 seconds, Resident #145 stepped out of view back into Resident #51's room. Both CNA's told Resident #145 to leave the room. CNA #568 stated she needed the police soon. At 5:52 and two seconds CNA #568 yelled ouch and in a firm voice stated you need to move. At 5:52 and 19 seconds CNA #568 stated there was no one at the front door to let the police in. CNA #800 stated you need to get out of this room. This is a woman's room, NOW! At 5:53 and 15 seconds CNA #568 was heard saying do not go near my patient in a loud voice and then again in a louder voice. At 5:53 at 23 seconds, CNA #800 stated let's go and CNA #586 stated Protect your license, protect your licenses. At 5:54 at 19 seconds, Resident #145 can be observed again standing at the doorway to Resident #51's room. At 5:55 and four seconds, Resident #145 stepped slowly back into Resident #51's room. A CNA can be heard saying Do not come any closer in a loud voice and then stating it again in a louder voice. At 5:55 and 14 seconds, a crash sound was heard and CNA #568 stated we wanted you to sit down the whole time.blow the place up too. At 5:57 and eight seconds, CNA #586 said You will go to jail if you touch anyone down here. CNA #586 exits the room. At 5:57 and 13 seconds CNA #800 left the room. At 5:57 and 18 seconds CNA #800 made a phone call and asked for a nurse to come to the unit. At 5:58 A.M. CNA #586 and #800 reentered the room. At 6:00 and ten seconds CNA #586 and CNA #800 left Resident #51's room while Resident #145 was still in Resident #51's room. At 6:00 and 44 seconds police arrive at the unit. CNA #586 told the police she did not know why Resident #145 was here. The CNA's told the police they gave all the grace in the world to Resident #145 and gently asked him to return to his room. Resident #145 tossed CNA #568 like a ragdoll. At 6:04 and 12 seconds CNA #586 told the police that they needed Resident #145 to understand (the CNA was unable to finish her sentence) but the police officer interrupted CNA #586 and stated they could not make Resident #145 understand. At 6:40 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and at 6:50 A.M. Resident #145 was sitting calmly on the transport cot and EMT's wheeled Resident #145 down the hall. The resident was transported to the hospital. An interview on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) verified he was not aware until sometime on 07/06/25 that there had been an incident with Resident #145. LNHA verified he had not watched the video, started an investigation, or reported the incident to the state agency since the abuse was alleged to be against staff and not a resident. On 07/16/25 at 1:45 P.M. the facility was notified of an immediate jeopardy regarding the incident with Resident #145 and CNA #568 and CNA #800. A self-reported incident (SRI) was created on 07/18/25 at 4:01 P.M. by DON. SRI #262956 revealed there was an allegation of emotional/verbal abuse to Resident #145 by CNA #568 and CNA #800 and the allegation was unsubstantiated. Review of the Job Description of the Administrator, revision date July 2015, revealed the job summary included to maintain awareness of economic conditions and make necessary adjustments and reported to Management Company designee. Review of facility assessment updated 01/15/25, revealed the facility provided management of medical conditions, nutrition such as individualized dietary requirements, specialized diets, intra venous nutrition, tube feeding, cultural and ethnic dietary needs, fluid monitoring or restrictions and finger foods. The facility assessment also revealed spiritual support was provided. The Organization Staffing overview revealed Food and Nutrition Services had a registered dietitian, the facility had a Medical Director and Chaplain/Religious services. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH001297236 (OH00166952) and OH001297223 (OH00166843).
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, facility assessment, and interviews , the facility failed to ensure an effective...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on Record review, facility policy review, facility assessment, and interviews , the facility failed to ensure an effective governing body, legally responsible for establishing and implementing 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 141 residents in the facility. Findings include:Review of the facility survey history revealed on 05/12/25 a complaint survey was completed which resulted in concerns related to financial solvency under neglect at substandard quality of care However, at the time of the complaint survey completed 08/04/25, the facility failed to ensure their governing body was effective in establishing and implementing policies in regard to the management and operation of the facility, which included ongoing compliance with all financial obligations for the delivery of care as detailed below.1. On 06/27/25 at 11:04 A.M. an interview with former medical director #727 revealed the facility terminated his position on 04/30/25 as the medical director and had not paid for his services for the past thirteen months.A2. An Interview on 06/30/25 with Registered Dietitian (RD) # 732 revealed the facility had been warned about overdue invoices and the possibility of suspended services.3. 3. On 07/02/25 at 2:35 P.M and interview with [NAME] Landscaping owner #735 revealed his company did provide landscaping, and lawn service to the facility but stopped service 06/01/25 because the facility did not pay the bill. 4. On 07/02/25 at 3:16 P.M. interview with Pastor #733 revealed his duties included Thursday and Sunday services, spiritual care in rooms for residents, and family support. Pastor #733 stated he had contacted the facility for lack of payment for the past twelve weeks.4. A Voice Message on 07/14/25 at 9:22 A.M. from The Ombudsman #728 revealed she was called by residents 07/10/25 because the facility refused to give residents access to their funds. Interview with the administrator on 07/01/25,revealed he was not aware of nonpayment to the pastor or registered dietitian and on 07/07/25 the Administrator verified he was unaware of the outstanding balances owed to the former medical director, and landscaping . On 07/21/25 The Administrator stated the facility had a community board that was the governing body that he reported to and was unsure when the Board met. Interview on 07/22/25 at 8:35 A.M. with the Director of Nursing revealed the facility was owned by the governing body of Saint [NAME] but managed by [NAME]. Interview on 07/22/25 at 9:51 A.M. with the Administrator revealed the facility had a governing body but he did not meet the board members or know if the governing body had meetings. Interview on 07/22/25 at 1:44 P.M. with community board member #1014 revealed he was not the active chairman since February 20205 and was unsure if the community board members had a meeting since then. Community board member #1014 stated [NAME] was the managing organization that was to report to the board members. Interview on 07/25/25 at 12:04 P.M. with community board member # 1013 revealed he was the acting chairman of the community board for the facility since February 2025. Community board member #1013 was not aware of the financial solvency issues during the 05/12/25 survey and current survey findings. Community board member #1013 was not able to produce attendance or dates of Community Board meetings with the facility Administrator and stated the role of the Board of Directors was to support and encourage the staff. Review of facility document titled St. [NAME] Lutheran Community revealed the Executive Leadership consisted of the Board of Directors ( community board member #1012, community board member #1013, community board member #1014, community board member #1015, community board member #1016 and community board member #1017) [NAME] CEO #1018, [NAME] CFO #1019, the Administrator and the DON. Review of facility policy titled Governing Body, undated, revealed the governing body shall be legally and ethically responsible for the oversight of the organization. They approve the annual budget and review monthly financial reports. Ensure responsible stewardship, safeguard the facility tax exempt status. This deficiency represents noncompliance identified under Complaint Number OH001297223 (OH00166843)
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary a...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary and homelike environment. This affected three residents (Resident #11, #53 and #65) but had the potential to affect all 141 residents. Findings include:1.Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included fracture of femur, cerebral infarction, major depression , hypertension and hemiplegia.Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 annual assessment revealed Resident #11's cognition was not intact and did not reject care. Observation on 06/26/25 at 7:57 A.M. of Resident #11's room revealed old spoons, cracker wrappers, old mild and cereal from 06/25/25. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 verified the findings and stated she was unsure if housekeeping cleaned Resident 11's room. 2.Observation on 06/30/25 from 9:30 A.M. to 11:19 A.M. with Maintenance worker #607 revealed the shower room on the Twin Hills unit had a black ring inside the toilet bowel above the water line, and mildew on the shower floor. The second shower room on Twin Hills had feces on the tiled floor and a black ring inside the toilet bowel above the water line. These findings were verified by Maintenance worker #607. 3.An observation with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #736 revealed the shower room on the Cypress Point unit had light brown ring in the toilet bowel above the water line and under the brim of the toilet. Yellow stains that smelled of urine was in the corner of the bathroom by the toilet and a reddish brown streak on the shower ledge was observed. CNA # 736 stated no housekeeper was scheduled to work the Cypress Unit that morning. 4.Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included polyarthritis, depression, hypokalemia, weakness and hypertension. Review of the MDS 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53's cognition was intact. Resident #53 did not display hallucinations or delusions or reject care. An interview on 06/30/25 at 12:05 P.M. with Resident #53 revealed there was not a housekeeper assigned to her unit, so her daughter had to clean her room. Resident #53 stated ants were in her room and her trash was too full. Observation of Resident #53's room revealed the trash can was filled to the top, the anti-slip strips were peeling from the ground, and the perimeter of her room had black grime like dust and ants crawling by the window. Interview on 06/30/25 at 12:08 P.M. with Housekeeper #549 revealed Twin Hills unit and Cypress Point unit did not have a housekeeper assigned to the units because of staffing. If a unit did not have a housekeeper assigned the CNAs were to clean, but not all the cleaning could get done. Interview on 06/30/25 with Resident #53's daughter revealed she had to clean her mother's room because housekeeping did not come to her mother's room. Interview on 06/30/25 with Ombudsman #728 revealed residents had issues regarding the cleanliness of the facility. 5. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Medical diagnosis included carcinoma of rectum, cirrhosis of the liver, retention of urine, and severe obesity. Observation on 07/02/25 at 11:55 A.M. of Resident #53's room revealed the floor tiles had thick dark grime accumulation along the edge of the room, the floor tiles had a dull film of grime and the dresser had a coating of dust on the surface. Interview on 07/02/25 at 12:00 P.M. with Resident #53 verified his room was not cleaned and stated a housekeeper had not been in his room for weeks. 6.Observation on 07/07/25 at 10:00 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the patio for the Dementia unit had a rusted iron fence that had signs of corrosion, a thick blanket of dried leaves scattered across the patio that settled in the corners along the edge of the patio. The bushes bordering the patio were uneven and overgrown, the trees were observed to not be pruned. The grass was overgrown in the court yard. The observation of the patio was verified by the DON. Review of housekeeping job duties, undated, revealed housekeeping was to disinfect residents rooms such as toilets, sinks. Empty trash cans and place a new trash liner, wipe surfaces such as dressers, windowsills. The restroom was to be mopped. Review of facility policy titled Safe Homelike Environment, dated 04/01/20, revealed the facility would provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Environment referred to any environment in the facility that was frequented by residents such as residents rooms, bathrooms and outdoor patios. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH001297236 (OH00166952), OH001297234 (OH00167429) and OH001297228 (OH00166964).