THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS

930 SOUTH WYNN ROAD, OREGON, OH 43616 (419) 698-4331
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
45/100
#556 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: February 2024

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

Overview

The Gardens of St. Francis has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality and some concerning issues. It ranks #556 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half, and #15 out of 33 in Lucas County, meaning just 14 local options are better. The facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 1 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is rated at 2 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 44%, which is slightly better than the state average but still indicates some instability. However, the facility has had significant fines totaling $45,250, which is higher than 87% of Ohio facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. There are also serious concerns regarding resident safety; one resident fell and fractured an ankle due to inadequate fall interventions, and another experienced a seizure after not receiving prescribed medication for three days, leading to hospitalization. While the quality measures rating is excellent at 5 out of 5 stars, these incidents highlight the need for improvement in care practices.

Trust Score
D
45/100
In Ohio
#556/913
Bottom 40%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Ohio's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$45,250 in fines. Higher than 82% of Ohio facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Ohio. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
39 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2024: 10 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Ohio average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Ohio average (3.2)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $45,250

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 39 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Mar 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of late medication reports, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications administered in a timely manner as ordered. This affected three (Residents #1, #4, and #43) of four residents reviewed for late medications. The facility census was 49. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 02/21/21 with diagnoses including but not limited to frontal lobe and executive function deficit following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, normal pressure hydrocephalus, cognitive communication deficit, cardiac arrhythmia, epilepsy, heart failure, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. Review of The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was rarely understood. Resident #1 required maximum assistance to total dependence on staff for activities of daily living. Review of the late medication report for 03/05/24 revealed the following medications were due between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. losartan potassium (heart) 50 milligrams (mg), multiple vitamin, lactulose 10 grams (gm)/15 milliliter (ml) 10 ml for constipation, escitalopram 10 mg (depression), ferrous sulfate 325 mg, aspirin 81 mg, depakote delayed release (behaviors) 250 mg, vitamin D3 50 micrograms (mcg), and house supplement were administered at 12:58 P.M. Review of the late medication report for 03/06/24 revealed following medications were due between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. losartan potassium (heart) 50 milligrams (mg), multiple vitamin, lactulose 10 grams (gm)/15 milliliter (ml) 10 ml for constipation, escitalopram 10 mg (depression), ferrous sulfate 325 mg, aspirin 81 mg, depakote delayed release (behaviors) 250 mg, vitamin D3 50 micrograms (mcg), and house supplement were administered at 12:25 P.M. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 01/06/21 with diagnoses including but not limited to unspecified foreign body in the bronchus causing other injury, dysphagia, depression, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, umbilical hernia, diverticulitis, and hypertension. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #4 required substantial/maximal assistance for activities of daily living. Review of the late medication report for 03/05/24 revealed the following medications were due between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. potassium chloride extended release 20 milliequivalent (MEQ), senna 8.6 mg (constipation), lasix 40 mg (water pill), ocuvite-lutein capsule, oyster-cal 500 mg, aspirin 325 mg, amlodipine besey-benazeprile capsule 10/20 mg (blood pressure), and celexa 20 mg (depression) were given at 11:13 A.M. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 02/02/21 with diagnoses including but not limited to heart failure, unspecified convulsions, type two diabetes, coronary artery disease, dementia, anxiety, and hypertension. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was cognitively intact. Resident #43 required supervision/touching assistance for activities of daily living. Review of physician orders for Resident #43 revealed an order for Carvedilol 6.25 mg twice daily at 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Review of the late medication report for Resident #43 revealed on 03/04/24 carvedilol 6.25 mg was administered at 10:30 A.M. Review of the late medication report for Resident #43 revealed on 03/05/24 the following medications scheduled between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. ferrous sulfate 325 mg, multivitamin with minerals, claritin 10 mg (allergies), plavix 75 mg (blood thinner), omeprazole 20 mg (stomach), gabapentin 100 mg (neuropathy), rexulti 0.5 mg (mood), klonopin 0.5 mg (anxiety), keppra 500 mg (seizures), sertraline 100 mg (depression) were administered at 1:02 P.M. Review of the late medication report for Resident #43 revealed on 03/06/24 carvedilol 6.25 mg was administered at 9:13 A.M. and the 5:00 P.M. dose was administered at 6:12 P.M. Observation on 03/07/24 at 9:21 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #647 administering carvedilol 6.25 mg (heart) to Resident #43 at 9:21 A.M. and the medication was ordered for 8:00 A.M. Interview on 03/07/24 at 9:24 A.M. LPN #647 verified Resident #43's carvedilol 6.25 mg was to be administered at 8:00 A.M. and was administered late. Interview on 03/07/24 at 2:55 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there were late medication reports showing late medication administration for Residents #1, #4, and #43. The DON stated she believed the medications were given on time but the nurses were not signing them out as they were administered, however the DON verified there was no evidence to support medications were administered on time. Review of policy titled, Medication Administration, revised 05/03/22 revealed medications would be administered within 60 minutes prior to or after scheduled time unless otherwise ordered by physician. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00150807 and is an example of continued noncompliance from the survey dated 02/01/24.
Feb 2024 9 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, hospital document review, staff interview, policy review, and sit-to-stand lift ins...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, hospital document review, staff interview, policy review, and sit-to-stand lift instructions, the facility failed to ensure sufficient fall interventions were put into place to promote resident safety and prevent falls. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #1 fell on [DATE] and sustained a fracture to her right ankle and had a subsequent fall on 01/02/24 and sustained a head laceration which required two staples with no immediate interventions implemented. In addition, the facility failed to ensure transfer equipment was utilized in a safe manner for one (#8) resident. This affected two (#1 and #8) of four residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/03/18. Diagnoses included dementia, emphysema, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, seizures, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, and spinal stenosis. Review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 indicating Resident #1 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #1 required limited assistance of one person for transfers and toilet use. Review of Resident #1's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 10 indicating Resident #1 continued to be moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #1 required set up only with one person assistance for toilet use. Resident #1 required extensive assistance with transfer. Review of Resident #1's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 10 indicating Resident #1 continued to be moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #1 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, eating, and toilet use. Resident #1 displayed no behaviors during the review period. Resident #1 was on hospice at the time of the review and used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of Resident #1's care plan revised 01/24/24 revealed supports and interventions for impaired cognitive function, fall with injury including an ankle fracture on 01/02/24, hospice services for terminal diagnosis of cerebral disease, used antipsychotic medications with risk for adverse reactions, chronic pain, seizure disorder, self-care deficit, and risk for falls. Fall interventions included to anticipate Resident #1's needs, ensure the call light was in reach, provide a safe environment including the bed in low position and personal items in reach, encourage to participate in activities, and ensure the resident wore appropriate footwear. Review of Resident #1's progress notes and fall investigation reports revealed on Saturday, 12/30/23 at 7:27 P.M., it was documented Resident #1 was lowered to the ground by a nurse aide while using the bathroom. Resident #1 had asked for help to the bathroom, and the nurse aide was helping Resident #1 to stand when the resident's legs were shaky, and she could not support herself. The nurse aide lowered Resident #1 to the ground. Resident #1 was assessed with no skin abnormalities were found. Resident #1 reported no pain. Resident #1's physician, family, and management were notified. Further review of the progress notes and fall investigation revealed on Saturday, 12/30/23 at 8:30 P.M., it was noted Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall in her room. The resident was found lying on her back on the floor in front of her recliner. Resident #1 was unable to bear weight and fell during an unsupervised transfer. Resident #1 denied pain at the time. Resident #1 was assessed with no injuries were found. Neurological checks were initiated. Resident #1 was assisted off the floor, assisted to the toilet, and returned to the recliner. Resident #1 was educated on using the call light for assistance. A fall assessment was completed, and Resident #1 was determined to be a high risk for falls with a score of 12. Review of the previous fall risk assessment from 03/05/23 revealed the resident was assessed at low risk for falls. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) reviewed the fall and it was determined Resident #1 was ambulating on her own and did not ask for assistance. No injuries were found at the time. The new intervention was to refer Resident #1 to occupational therapy (OT) for a toileting program. A moderately cognitively impaired resident was educated on using the call light and no additional immediate interventions were added though Resident #1 had been identified as needing to use the bathroom for both instances. Review of Resident #1's entire medical record revealed the intervention of OT for a toileting program was never initiated for the resident. Review of progress notes and fall investigation revealed on Monday, 01/01/24, it was noted Resident #1 was found on the floor in her room at 7:28 A.M. by a nurse aide. The fall was not witnessed. Resident #1 was assessed, and an injury was noted on assessment. Notifications were made to Resident's family and physician. Resident #1 was noted to be confused at the time and had a strong odor to her urine. Resident #1 complained of right hip pain, her right foot was observed to be swollen and she had redness to the ankle. In addition, the middle of the right side of her back also had redness and Resident #1 also had a bump to the right side of her head. It was documented Resident #1 was confused, lethargic, had a bruise, and reported pain. Emergency medical service (EMS) was called at 7:33 A.M. and Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital. The IDT team discussed Resident #1's fall from 01/01/24 and it was determined the root cause of the fall was Resident #1 attempted to ambulate on her own, and she lost her balance and had a fall. Notifications were made and Resident #1 was sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation. Resident #1 returned from the hospital and Resident #1 was diagnosed with a fracture to the right ankle. Resident #1 was provided a soft cast and was to follow up with orthopedic as soon as possible to have a hard cast put on. Resident #1 was to elevate her right lower leg and be non-weight bearing. Resident #1 was also diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) and had a new order for the antibiotic Keflex 500 milligrams (mg) three times a day for ten days. Resident #1 received her first dose at the hospital. The noted intervention was sending her to the ER. A fall risk assessment was completed, and Resident #1 was assessed to be at moderate risk for falls with a score of 9. The noted intervention was to send Resident #1 to the ER for evaluation and treatment. In addition, the intervention was to continue Resident #1 on the prescribed the antibiotic. There were no interventions implemented for increased supervision or additional interventions to reduce Resident #1's risk for falls. Review of Resident #1's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was seen following a fall for hip pain and altered mental status. Resident #1 was diagnosed with a closed fracture of her right ankle and a urinary tract infection. A new order for Keflex 500 mg one capsule three times a day for 10 days was ordered. The resident's last dosage was at 12:54 P.M. at the hospital. Resident #1 was also provided an occlusal splint (plaster splint roll) for her right ankle. Review of progress notes and fall investigation revealed on 01/02/24, Resident #1 had another unwitnessed fall in her room. Resident #1 was found on her right side up against her bed. Resident #1 was assessed with an injury was noted. Resident #1 was on the floor on her right side with bleeding noted from the back of her head on the right side. Pressure was applied to Resident #1's head to stop the bleeding, and EMS was called. Resident #1's physician and family were notified. Resident #1 could not explain what happened. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Resident #1 was noted in her bed prior to the fall and was alert but not completely orientated at the time of the fall. There were no witnesses to the fall. A fall risk assessment was completed, and Resident #1 was found to be at high risk for falls with a score of 16. The IDT met and discussed Resident #1 falls. It was determined the root cause of the fall was due to Resident #1's cognitive decline related to a UTI and weakness. Resident #1 was attempting to get up on her own and lost her balance. The interventions put in place were to send Resident #1 to the emergency room to be evaluate, refer to physical therapy (PT) for strengthening, place the bed in the lowest position when she was in it along with a fall mat next to the bed. On 01/04/24, Resident #1 returned from the hospital and was noted to have had a scalp laceration which required two staples. Review of Resident #1's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #1 was admitted with recurrent falls with mild delirium secondary to a UTI and neurological disorder along with a laceration in the back of the head and scalp which required staples. Resident #1 reported she was trying to transfer from her bed into her wheelchair when she fell and hit her head. At the time of Resident #1's discharge from the hospital on [DATE] to return to the nursing home with recommendations for physical therapy. Resident #1 was determined to be a high fall risk and had the barrier to learning of dementia. Resident #1 was orientated to person only. Review of Resident #1's medical record and nurse aide tasks revealed no documentation of two-hour checks completed for toileting, and documentation of two-hour checks for repositioning was not consistent during the review period. Interview on 01/29/24 with Resident #1 found her alert and able to answer basic questions. Resident #1 was not aware she had any falls. Interview on 01/30/24 at 8:31 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #471 reported Resident #1 was able to make her basic needs known and required extensive assistance with transfer and toilet use. STNA #471 reported Resident #1 knew when she needed to use the bathroom but was not safe in transferring herself. STNA #471 stated the staff made sure Resident #1 had her call light in reach at all times, but she did not always use it. STNA #471 verified Resident #1 had had a couple falls that resulted in injuries. STNA #471 reported Resident #1 had no other falls since she fell and had to have staples in her head from falling and hitting her head on the bed. STNA #471 reported Resident #1 was declining since the end of December 2023 and was now on hospice. STNA #471 was not sure of the exact day Resident #1 began on hospice, but it was earlier in the month shortly after the resident returned from her hospital stay following her fall. Interview on 02/01/24 at 1:49 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she was familiar with Resident #1 and her falls. The DON reported in March 2023, Resident #1 was evaluated and determined to be low risk for falls. On 12/30/23, Resident #1 was found on the floor in front of her recliner when the resident attempted to transfer herself. Resident #1 was assessed, and no injury was found. Neurological checks were initiated, and notifications were made. The DON verified the only intervention implemented at the time was education with Resident #1 to use her call light. The DON reported Resident #1 then had another fall on 01/01/24 at 7:28 A.M. when the resident was found by a nurse aide on the floor of her room. Resident #1 was confused, complained of pain, and her right foot was swollen and red. Resident #1 also had a bump on the back of her head. EMS was called and Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. Notifications were made and Resident #1 returned to the facility with a soft cast to her right ankle for a closed fracture, and an order for follow up for a hard cast and an antibiotic for a UTI. The DON reported the interventions put into place included to send Resident #1 to the ER, and when the resident returned to complete the antibiotic for the UTI and refer Resident #1 to OT for a toileting program. The DON verified they were not able to implement the referral to OT prior to Resident #1's fall on 01/02/24 and verified no other fall interventions were implemented. The DON stated on 01/02/24 Resident #1 had another unwitnessed fall in her room when she was found on her right side up against her bed. Resident #1 had a laceration to her head and was complaining of right-sided hip pain. Notifications were made to Resident #1's son and physician and Resident #1 was sent out to the hospital. The DON stated when the resident returned to the facility, she had staples in place to the laceration and they updated her interventions to include having her bed in the lowest position and a fall mat next to her low bed. The DON reported Resident #1 had no subsequent falls and completed the ordered antibiotic on 01/10/24. A follow up interview on 02/01/24 at 4:10 P.M. with the DON and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reiterated the interventions implemented for Resident #1 following her falls. They verified Resident #1 had been on two-hour checks with toileting assistance provided prior to her falls and there had been no increases or changes to the checks or toileting assistance following the falls. Review of the facility policy titled, Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, revised March 2018, revealed based on previous evaluations and current data the staff would identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try and prevent the resident from falling and to try and minimize complications from falling. Review of the facility policy titled, Fall Prevention Program, revised 10/20/22, revealed each resident would be assessed for fall risk and would receive care and services in accordance with their individualized risk to minimize the likelihood of falls. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including, generalized osteoarthritis, cerebral infarction, sprain ligaments lumbar spine, wedge compression fracture lumbar vertebra, collapsed vertebra thoracic region, low back pain, displaced fracture of left femur, and osteoporosis. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #8 with intact cognition, and revealed the resident utilized a wheelchair for mobility propelled by staff and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) including sit to stand and chair to bed transfer. On 05/04/23, a nursing plan of care was implemented addressing Resident #8's ADLs deficit related to limited mobility and joint pain due to history of cerebral vascular accident and diagnoses of arthritis and osteoporosis. Further review revealed an updated intervention for staff to utilize a mechanical lift (Hoyer) lift with two staff assistance for transfers. Observation on 01/30/24 at 6:13 A.M. revealed STNA #461 with Resident #8 suspended in a stand-up lift. The resident was unable to stand up right and was slumping to the right while resting on the sling. STNA #461 proceeded to propel Resident #8 in the lift approximately 60 feet down the common hall to the shower room. At 6:20 A.M., an interview with STNA #461 revealed Resident #8 required two staff to assist with transfers and uses a mechanical (Hoyer) lift. STNA #461 confirmed Resident #8 was not safely placed in the stand-up lift and the stand-up lift was not to be used for transporting residents outside their rooms. On 01/30/24 at 6:43 A.M., an interview with the DON verified the stand-up lift was not to be utilized for transferring distances. The DON verified Resident #8 was unable to bear weight and required the use of a Hoyer lift with two staff present for transfers. Review of the Using a Mechanical Lifting Machine policy, revised July 2017, noted at least two nursing assistants are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical lift. Review of the Sit and Stand Lift ([NAME] Flex) instructions for use, dated 2022, revealed the resident must be able to bear weight on at least one leg and have some trunk stability, be able to sit on the edge of the bed to meet criteria for use. Alternative equipment or system shall be used if criteria is not meet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected one (#2) of three residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 07/01/11. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, morbid obesity, Alzheimer's disease, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, paranoid personality disorder, major depressive disorder, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating Resident #2 was cognitively intact. Resident #2 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use. Resident #2 was independent with eating. Resident #2 received a therapeutic diet at the time of the review and had no significant weight changes. Review of Resident #2's care plan revised 12/13/23 revealed supports and interventions for risk for changes in mood, edema, diuretic therapy, impaired cognitive function, resistive to care, depression, self-care deficit, and chronic renal failure. Interventions included give medications as ordered, and fluids as ordered. Review of Resident #2's physician orders revealed an order dated 05/02/22 for a 1500 milliliters (ml) fluid restriction. Observation on 01/29/24 at 10:08 A.M. of Resident #2's room found a paper sign taped to the right side of Resident #2's door frame. The posted sign read, Liquid Restrictions. Please ask a nurse or dietary before giving anything to drink. Interview on 01/29/24 at 10:11 A.M. with Resident #2 revealed she was alert and aware. Resident #2 verified she had a fluid restriction sign on the outside of her door. Resident #2 stated she did not know why it was posted there and did not want it out there for everyone to know. Observation on 01/30/24 at 8:30 A.M. of Resident #2's room found the paper fluid restriction sign was still posted on the right side of the door frame and was visible from the common area of the hall. Interview on 01/30/24 at 8:34 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #471 verified Resident #2 had a sign posted on the outside of her door indicating Resident #2 was on a fluid restriction. STNA #471 stated Resident #2 was noncompliant with her fluid restriction so they posted the sign so people entering her room were aware she was on a restriction. Review of the facility policy titled, Dignity, revised February 2021, revealed signs indicating the resident's clinical status or care needs were not to be openly posted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility guidelines, the facility failed to issue notifications of the ending of skilled Medicare Part A services for residents who remained ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility guidelines, the facility failed to issue notifications of the ending of skilled Medicare Part A services for residents who remained in the facility. This affected one (#24) of three residents reviewed for liability notices. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of Resident #24's Beneficiary Notice Form revealed Resident #24 began Medicare Part A skilled services on 07/26/23 and Medicare Part A skilled services ended on 09/21/23. The facility initiated the discharge from services and it was noted Resident #24 remained in the facility. There was no indication Resident #24 or her representative were provided a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) or an Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (ABN). Interview on 01/30/24 at 2:08 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she confirmed with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #410 the forms had not been provided. Review of the facility guidelines titled, Beneficiary Notice Guidelines, dated 2021, revealed if the Part A stay ended because the facility determined the beneficiary no longer required daily skilled services and the resident remained in the facility, the facility was to provide a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage forms.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, wound treatment management policy, and manufacturer indications fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, wound treatment management policy, and manufacturer indications for use, the facility failed to ensure skin breakdown treatments were applied as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#19) of one resident reviewed for non-pressure skin impairments. The census was 52. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #19 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including, type II diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, obstructive and reflux uropathy, anxiety disorder, heart failure, gastroenteritis and colitis, major depression, coronary artery disease, Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and osteoarthritis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was assessed with moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs), required substantial to maximum assistance with side to side positioning, was dependent with transfers, and was assessed at risk for pressure ulcer development with a stage four pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin and tissue loss) present on admission, and moisture associated skin damage (MASD). Review of a pressure sore risk assessment completed on 12/22/23 revealed Resident #19 was assessed at moderate risk of pressure sore development. On 03/28/23 a plan of care addressing Resident #19 risk of developing skin breakdown was revised due to diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, dependence of staff for bed mobility and transfers, and incontinence of bowel. Interventions included to apply protective ointments after incontinent episodes, protect skin on skin between bony prominences, and turn and reposition at regular intervals. In addition, on 06/08/23, a nursing plan was revised due to Resident #19's actual skin breakdown on the coccyx related to MASD with an intervention to perform treatments as ordered. Review of a physician order dated 11/01/24 revealed the physician directed staff to clean Resident #19's sacrum area, make sure the area was dry, and apply Dermaseptine cream (barrier cream to use to prevent irritation due to moisture and promote healing) to the area two times daily for MASD. On 11/22/23 the physician ordered a wound treatment to the left heel including the application of leptospermum honey (MediHoney) three times a week, and cover with a absorbent dressing, and wrap with kerlix. The treatment was to be applied one to three times weekly, and on 12/13/23 the treatment was discontinued. Review of a wound physician evaluation dated 01/23/24 documented Resident #19 with a partial thickness non-pressure wound of the sacrum with an etiology related to moisture associated skin damage, and a duration greater than 207 days. The wound measured 5.0 centimeters (cm) long by (x) 3.5 cm wide x 0.1 cm deep. There were open areas with exposed dermis. Further review revealed treatment included application of Dermaseptine cream twice daily for 30 days. Observation on 01/30/24 at 1:57 P.M. revealed State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #456 entered Resident #19's room to complete an incontinence check and reposition the resident. STNA #456 positioned the resident to the left exposing an area of MASD to the sacrum and obtained a tube of MediHoney. STNA #456 proceeded to apply the MediHoney to the sacrum, positioned the resident, and departed the room. On 01/30/24 at 2:03 P.M. interview with STNA #456 verified no barrier cream (Dermaseptine) was available in Resident #19's room, so MediHoney was used on Resident #19's MASD due to two tubes being available in the room at the bedside. On 01/30/24 at 2:20 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed STNA #456 applied a wound treatment (MediHoney) that was ordered for the treatment of a stage four pressure ulcer to Resident #19's heel and not the physician ordered skin barrier cream (Dermaseptine) that was to be applied to the MASD. The DON additionally verified the MediHoney was a wound treatment to be applied by a licensed nurse. Review of a wound physician assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 had a partial thickness non-pressure wound of the sacrum with an etiology related to moisture associated skin damage, and a duration greater than 215 days. The wound measured 7.0 cm long x 5.0 cm wide x 0.1 cm deep with open areas of exposed dermis. The treatment included application of Dermaseptine cream apply twice daily for 22 days. Review of the manufacturer indication for Dermaseptine cream revealed the cream was designed to treat skin irritations from incontinence episodes, feeding tube leaks, wound exudates, and perspiration. The cream helped prevent moisture based irritation. Review of the manufacturer indications for leptospermum honey (MediHoney) revealed MediHoney use was for application to wound and burn care. MediHoney supports autolytic debridement and a moist wound healing environment in acute and chronic wound and burns. Review of a wound treatment management policy, revised 11/23/2022, revealed wound treatments will be provided in accordance with physician orders. Dressings will be applied in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and a facility catheter care policy, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was maintained in a manner to prevent infection and care plan interventions were maintained to prevent dislodgement. This affected one (#7) of two residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. The census was 52. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including, urinary tract infection, sepsis secondary to urinary tract infection, obstructive and reflux uropathy, ureter stent placement, coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graph, cerebral vascular accident, hypertension, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, and metabolic encephalopathy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment, utilized a wheelchair or walker for mobility, required partial to moderate assistance with activities of daily living, substantial to maximum assistance with transfers, and was assessed with an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of a physician order dated 12/18/23 revealed Resident #7 was ordered the placement of an indwelling urinary catheter due to obstructive uropathy. Review of a nursing plan of care dated 09/27/23 revealed a care plan was initiated to address Resident #7's indwelling catheter related to urinary obstruction and infection. Goals of the care plan were noted as the resident will be/remain free from catheter-related trauma. Interventions included to check tubing for kinks as needed and keep the bag lower then bladder level, position the catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder and away from entrance room door, provide catheter care routinely and as needed, change as ordered and as needed, and secure catheter to the thigh to decrease trauma and bladder spasms. Observation on 01/29/24 at 9:04 A.M., revealed Resident #7's indwelling catheter bag was on floor of the room under the resident's bed. At 4:39 P.M., Resident #7 was up in a wheelchair at the bedside with the catheter tubing resting on the floor. Observation on 01/30/24 at 10:23 A.M., revealed Resident #7 was seated in the wheelchair with the catheter bag on the floor. At 1:38 P.M. and 2:14 P.M., the catheter bag remained on the floor under the resident's bed. On 01/30/24 at 2:14 P.M. interview with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #456 verified Resident #7's urinary catheter bag was on the floor. STNA #456 confirmed the catheter bag and associated tubing are to remain suspended in a privacy bag and not in contact with the floor. Observation on 01/31/24 at 9:08 A.M. with STNA #460 during indwelling catheter care to Resident #7 noted the associated catheter tubing was unsecured from the Resident #7's thigh. There were no securing mechanism in place to prevent accidental dislodgment of the catheter. Interview with STNA #460 at the time of the observation confirmed the catheter was to be secured to the resident's thigh. On 01/31/24 at 10:15 A.M. interview with the Director of Nursing confirmed catheter tubing was to be secured to the resident's thigh and the catheter drainage bag with tubing was to be stored off the floor. Review of the catheter care policy, revised 05/10/23, revealed privacy bags will be available and catheter drainage bags will be covered at all times while in use.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident pain was effectively managed. This affected one (#23) of two residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/18/22. Diagnoses included major depressive disorder, visual hallucinations, dysphagia, dementia, anxiety disorder, osteoarthritis, adjustment disorder, and pseudobulbar affect. Review of Resident #23's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of zero indicating Resident #23 was rarely or never understood. A Staff Assessment for Mental Status was completed and Resident #23 was assessed with memory problems. Resident #23 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, eating, and toilet use. Resident #23 received scheduled and as needed pain medications. Resident #23 displayed facial expressions of pain one to two days during the review period. Resident #23 displayed physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others and verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others one to three days during the review period. Resident #23 was on hospice at the time of the review. Review of Resident #23's care plan revised 01/18/24 revealed supports and interventions for the need for monitoring of multiple medical conditions, self-care deficit, impaired cognitive function, and hospice services for terminal diagnosis of dementia for comfort management. Review of an order dated 10/14/22 revealed staff were to document Resident #23's pain level and medicate as needed two times a day for pain rated on a scale of one to ten. If the resident was unable to give a number, the staff were to assess the resident for physical signs of pain. Review of an order dated 03/28/23 revealed Resident #23 was ordered the narcotic pain medication Dilaudid one (1) milligram per milliliter (mg/ml), to give 0.5 ml by mouth every four hours for pain/shortness of breath with scheduled times of 12:00 A.M, 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M. Review of an order dated 03/28/23 revealed Resident #23 was also ordered Dilaudid liquid 1 mg/ml, to give 0.5 ml by mouth every hour as needed for pain and dyspnea. The order revealed to give 0.5 mg that equals 0.5 ml, and if three doses were given in 24 hours the staff were to call hospice. Observation on 01/29/24 at 9:38 A.M. of Resident #23 found her calling out with the resident saying, Someone help me. An interview was attempted with Resident #23 and she was found to be confused and not able to be interviewed. Interview on 01/30/24 at 9:14 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #471 revealed Resident #23 was cognitively impaired and not able to make her needs known. STNA #471 reported Resident #23 would holler out in pain or if she had a bowel movement and was uncomfortable. STNA #471 reported Resident #23 required total care from staff for all her activities of daily living. Observation on 01/31/24 at 9:43 A.M. of Resident #23 found her yelling and calling out with the resident saying, Help me. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:02 A.M. of Resident #23 found her still yelling and calling out from her bed. On 01/31/24 at 10:03 A.M., revealed STNA #471 entered Resident #23's room and STNA #471 was heard reassuring Resident #23 the nurse was coming with her pain medications soon and it will be okay. No other pain management interventions were noted to be attempted. Interview on 01/31/24 at 10:05 A.M. with STNA #471 verified Resident #23 was calling out in pain. STNA #471 stated the nurse was on the other hallway and was running behind with Resident #23's pain medications. STNA #471 reported she repositioned Resident #23 to try and help with her discomfort, but Resident #23 was uncomfortable and the repositioning was not helpful to her. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:16 A.M. of Resident #23 found she was still calling out in pain and there was no nurse on the hall. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:25 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #444 arrived on the hallway and went right to Resident #23's room. Resident #23 continued to call out in pain. LPN #444 reassured Resident #23 she would get her pain medication and her other medications. Interview on 01/31/24 at 10:27 A.M. with LPN #444 verified Resident #23 was calling out and that was how Resident #23 expressed pain. LPN #444 reported Resident #23 was not able verbally express her pain levels and they determined her level by her behaviors. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:30 A.M. revealed LPN #444 accidentally spilled Resident #23's medications and went to get the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) to sign off on the wasted medications and redraw Resident #23's medications. Interview on 01/31/24 at 10:33 A.M. with LPN #444 revealed she spilled Resident #23's antianxiety medication Ativan and Dilaudid, and verified Resident #23 continued calling out in pain. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:36 A.M. revealed LPN #444 prepared Resident #23 Ativan and Dilaudid again while Resident #23 continued to call out. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:39 A.M. revealed Resident #23's medications were administered. Interview on 01/31/24 at 10:41 A.M. with LPN #444 verified the medications she administered at 10:40 A.M. were Resident #23's scheduled 8:00 A.M. medications. Review of the facility policy titled, Pain- Clinical Protocol, revised March 2018, revealed the physician would order appropriate medication interventions to address the individual's pain. The staff would use a consistent approach and standardized pain assessment appropriate for the resident's cognitive level. The staff were to provide the elements of a comforting environment and appropriate physical and complementary interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered within ordered time frames....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered within ordered time frames. This affected one (#203) of two residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of Resident #203's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/19/24. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of right side ribs, respiratory disorder, protein calorie malnutrition, muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and pleurodynia (pain in upper abdomen or chest when breathing). Review of Resident #203's care plan revised 01/23/24 revealed supports and interventions for risk for pain, risk for decline for activities of daily living, behavior of being verbally aggressive, COPD, and desire to return back home. Review of Resident #203's physician orders revealed Resident #203 had medications ordered for one time a day, two times a day, three times a day, four times a day, at bed time, and as needed (PRN). Further review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 01/20/24 for Resident #203 was receive the aerosol medication ipratropium bromide inhalation solution 0.002 percent (%) to inhale 2.5 milliliters (mL) four times a day related to pleurodynia. Review of Resident #203's corresponding medication administration record (MAR) for January 2024 revealed Resident #203 was to receive her ipratropium bromide 2.5 mLs inhaled four times a day at 7:00 A.M., mid-day, evening, and 7:00 P.M. Interview on 01/29/24 at 10:00 A.M with Resident #203 found her to be alert and aware. Resident #203 reported she was frustrated because she was not getting her morning medications and inhaled medications like she should. Resident #203 reported her morning medications were ordered for 7:00 A.M. which meant the facility had until 8:00 A.M. to administer them. Resident #203 stated it was now 10:00 A.M. and she had not gotten her medications. Resident #203 also stated her inhaled medications were ordered four time a day and she did not get her morning inhaled medication until lunch time, and was not able to get all four treatments the way she should. Resident #203 stated she was not sure all of what she took but she knew she was still waiting on her heart medication and her breathing treatment. Interview on 01/30/24 at 9:11 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #471 revealed Resident #203 was cognitively intact and able to make her needs known. STNA #471 reported Resident #203 had complained about the timeliness of her medications and verified she was aware Resident #203 was not getting her medications during the specified timeframes. Interview on 01/31/24 at 8:55 A.M. with Resident #203 revealed she had not gotten medications yet and she should have gotten them by now. Resident #203 stated she wanted her morning inhaled medication at 7:00 A.M. with 8:00 A.M. being the latest it should be given and the rest of her medications medications by 8:00 A.M. Resident #203 stated it was now close to 9:00 A.M. and she had not gotten her morning medications. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:42 A.M. found Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #444 was on Resident #203's hallway and was passing medications. Resident #203 was observed asking LPN #444 for her morning medications and LPN #444 responded telling Resident #203 she would get to her but she had two other residents to pass medications to first. Interview on 01/31/24 at 10:50 A.M. with Resident #203 found her sitting in her wheelchair leaning forward with her head in her hands. Resident #203 stated she was frustrated because she had not gotten her morning medications yet and she had wanted them by 8:00 A.M. Resident #203 reported she let the nurse know and she also asked a therapy staff member who stopped by about her medications. Resident #203 reported the therapy staff told her it would be another half an hour or so before the nurse would get to her. Resident #203 stated it was almost time for lunch and her medications were not given to her on time. Observation on 01/31/24 at 10:58 A.M. of LPN #444 found she moved her medication cart outside Resident #203's door and began preparing Resident #203's medications. Interview on 01/31/24 at 11:00 A.M. with LPN #444 verified she was preparing Resident #203's morning medications and that the medications were outside the ordered time frames. Observation on 01/31/24 at 11:10 A.M. revealed Resident #203 was still waiting for her morning medications. At 11:11 A.M., LPN #444 had all of Resident #203's oral medications prepared in a cup and at 11:20 A.M. Resident #203 was provided her morning medications. At 11:28 A.M., LPN #444 provided Resident #203 with her aerosol medication. Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer, revised October 2010, revealed the purpose of the procedure was to safely administer aerosolized particles of medication into the resident's airway. The facility staff was to obtain a physician order and administer the medication as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and facility medication administration policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician or...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and facility medication administration policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders and within prescribed time frames producing a medication error rate greater than five (5) percent (%). This resulted in three medication errors out of 27 opportunities for a medication error rate of 11.11%. This affected one (#154) of three residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 52. Findings include: Observation on 01/30/24 at 10:38 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #445 obtained Resident #154's medications from the medication cart and preparing for administration. LPN #445 placed medications including the medication for bone health alendronate sodium oral tablet 70 milligrams (mg) and the diuretic Bumex oral one (1) mg, and proceeded into Resident #154's room administering the medications at 10:48 A.M. Interview with Resident #154 at this time confirmed she had previously consumed breakfast between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Observation at 11:10 A.M. noted LPN #445 was unable to locate Resident #154's aluminum hydroxide 200 mg, magnesium hydroxide 200 mg, and anti-bloating medication Simethicone 20 mg, and proceeded to confirm in interview the medication was not available in the facility. Additional interview at that time with LPN #445, during a review of physician orders, verified Resident #154 was to receive alendronate sodium oral tablet 70 mg at least 30 minutes before the first food or drink of the day, and Bumex 1 mg was scheduled twice daily with the first dose to be administered at approximately 8:00 A.M. Review of Resident #154's physician orders revealed an ordered dated 01/21/24 for aluminum hydroxide 200 mg magnesium hydroxide 200 mg, and Simethicone 20 mg to give 30 milliliters (ml) four times a day for indigestion after meals, and at bedtime with scheduled times 8:00 A.M., between 12:00 P.M. and 1:00 P.M., 5:00 P.M., and between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. On 01/22/24, Resident #154 was ordered Bumex oral tablet 1 mg scheduled two times a day for hypertension at 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. On 01/21/24, Resident #154 was ordered alendronate sodium oral tablet 70 mg, to give one tablet by mouth one time a day every seven (7) days for bone health, and administer with eight (8) ounces of plain water at least 30 minutes before the first food or drink of the day. The resident should be in an upright position and avoid lying down for 30 minutes after administration. The resident was not to eat for at least 30 minutes after administration which was scheduled at 7:30 A.M. On 01/30/24 at 1:10 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing, during a review of the medical record and facility medication policy, confirmed medications were administered to Resident #154 on 01/30/24 outside of prescribed timeframes. Review of the person-centered medication administration policy, implemented 03/2023, revealed the facility will consult with the pharmacist or prescriber to identify time critical scheduled medications and medications that require special administration times and may not apply to their established by the facility. The facility will communicate the administration times to the resident and allow the resident to select personalized times of administration within time frames established by the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility to failed to ensure medications were stored in a safe and secure manner. This...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility to failed to ensure medications were stored in a safe and secure manner. This affected one (#5) of one residents observed for medication storage. The census was 52. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 01/23/21 with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and insomnia. Review of the physician orders for Resident #5 revealed an order for the antianxiety medication Klonopin 0.5 milligrams (mg) to take one tablet by mouth twice daily, the pain medication gabapentin capsule 100 mg to give one capsule by mouth twice daily, and the sleep aid melatonin three (3) mg by mouth at bedtime for insomnia. Review of the medication administration record (MAR) for January 2024 revealed Resident #5 received Klonopin, gabapentin, and melatonin at bedtime on 01/29/24 which were signed as given by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #479. Interview with Resident #5 on 01/30/24 at 8:15 A.M. verified there were medications left on the counter in her room in a cup, and stated she did not know if the facility gave her the bedtime medications. Observation on 01/30/24 at 8:18 A.M, revealed three pills, one capsule and two tablets, in a pill cup with Resident #5's name written on it in the resident's room. Interview with LPN #445 on 01/30/23 at 8:26 A.M. verified she had not been in Resident #5's room because she started her medication pass on the B-hall. LPN #445 was not aware where the medications came from in Resident #5's room. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/30/24 at 10:38 A.M. verified there were three medications left in Resident #5's room on her counter. The DON stated the three medications were the resident's bedtime medications which included Klonopin, gabapentin and melatonin. Review of the facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated 11/20, revealed the facility stores all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner.
Oct 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Bas...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, resident, family, and staff interview, pharmacy interview, review of pharmacy delivery manifest, review of facility policy, and review of hospital neurology notes, the facility failed to ensure Resident #01 was free of significant medication errors when Resident #01 had not received physician ordered anti-anxiety medication (Klonopin) for three days. Actual Harm occurred to Resident #01 when the facility failed to ensure medications were available for administration resulting in the resident experiencing a seizure attributed to medication withdrawal requiring hospitalization with additional testing, monitoring, and restarting of the ordered medication as a result of the medication error. This affected one (Resident #01) of three residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 54. Findings include: Review of Resident #01's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/23/21 and a re-admission date of 02/02/21. Diagnoses included major depressive disorder, dementia, and anxiety disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #01 was cognitively intact and received anti-anxiety medications seven of the seven days of the look-back period. Review of the plan of care, initiated 05/25/23, revealed Resident #01 used anti-anxiety medications. Interventions included to administer anti-anxiety medications as ordered by physician. Review of the physician orders revealed Resident #01 was prescribed Klonopin oral tablet 0.5 milligrams (mg) two times daily for anxiety. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 09/01/23 through 09/30/23 revealed Klonopin 0.5 mg was documented as 9 on 09/08/23 evening dose, 09/09/23 morning dose, 09/10/23 evening dose, and 09/11/23 morning dose. Further review of the MAR revealed 9 indicated to see nurses notes. Review of the nursing progress notes revealed on 09/08/23, Klonopin was on order; on 09/09/23 the facility was waiting on delivery; on 09/10/23 awaiting supply; and 09/11/23, Klonopin was not available and waiting on pharmacy. Further review of the medical record from 09/08/23 through 09/11/23 revealed no evidence of communication with the physician or pharmacy regarding Klonopin being unavailable for administration to Resident #01. Review of the nursing progress note dated 09/11/23 at 4:20 P.M. revealed Resident #01 was with her daughter in her room and the daughter stated she was shaking a little like she does and then all of a sudden her head went back and started shaking harder and foaming at the mouth. Daughter yelled for help and aide found writer. Resident #01 was in a safe position and was watched until it was over. Emergency 9-1-1 service was called and Resident #01 was transported to the hospital. Review of a hospital neurology progress note, dated 09/12/23, revealed Resident #01 presented to the Emergency Department (ED) for complaints of seizure of two minutes, witnessed by family who described resident's eyes rolling back, followed by jerking, non-responsive, foaming at the mouth, while seated. Resident #01 had some facial twitching, jerking hand movements, stuttering, small seizure examined by bedside nurse that lasted five to ten seconds, and a incontinent episode. Resident #01 was brought to the hospital because of an apparent witnessed seizure. The description was of generalized convulsive activity lasting several minutes and she was confused afterwards. She had a normal Computed Tomography Scan (CT) of the brain. Per the history, she had been on Klonopin and was apparently off of this for three days. The impression was Resident #01 had a new onset seizure and given the available history, this was likely benzodiazepine (Klonopin is in this medication class) withdrawal. Anticonvulsant therapy was deferred and recommended the resident follow-up in the physician's office post-discharge. Review of a Pharmacy Delivery Manifest (PDM) revealed on 08/07/23, there were 60 - 0.5 mg clonazepam (Klonopin) tablets delivered to the facility for Resident #01. On 09/12/23, the next order of clonazepam was delivered to the facility for Resident #01. Interview on 10/11/23 at 8:15 A.M. with Resident #01 revealed she had a seizure and was in the hospital. Resident #01 stated Evidently for three days I could not get my pills and I had a seizure. That was kind of scary. Resident #01 stated she had no recollection of the seizure and had no prior history of seizures. Resident #01 confirmed she was currently receiving her medications as ordered and had no further concerns. Interview on 10/11/12 at 8:47 A.M. with Resident #01's family member revealed the facility did not have the resident's Klonopin for three days. The family member was visiting when Resident #01 had a seizure at the facility and was taken to the ED. The family member stated Resident #01 had no prior history of seizures and the hospital said the seizure was due to Klonopin withdrawal. Interview on 10/11/23 at 10:47 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the facility did not have Klonopin available for administration to Resident #01 from the evening dose on 09/08/23 through the morning dose on 09/11/23, for a total of six missed doses. Additionally, Resident #01 had a seizure the afternoon of 09/11/23 and was transferred to the hospital. The DON stated she investigated the incident and learned the resident's Klonopin was not delivered by the pharmacy as a new controlled substance form was needed by the pharmacy. Nursing staff had e-mailed the document to the physician on Friday, 09/08/23, but failed to follow-up with the physician to ensure he received, signed, and returned the document. Over the weekend, including 09/09/23 and 09/10/23, none of the nursing staff who worked with Resident #01 contacted the physician or the pharmacy regarding the medication. The DON confirmed Klonopin was in the facility's contingency medication box (c-box), however, since it was a controlled substance, nursing would have needed to call the pharmacy to be given an authorization code in order to pull the medication. The DON verified nursing staff did not contact the pharmacy to get authorization to pull the medication for administration to the resident. On Monday, 09/11/23, the physician was contacted and the controlled substance form was signed and returned to the pharmacy in order for the medication to be delivered to the facility. The DON verified Resident #01 had seizure-like activity that afternoon, was sent to the ED, and the treating neurologist at the hospital believed the seizure was likely the result of benzodiazepine withdrawal. The DON stated every licensed nurse who worked with Resident #01 from 09/08/23 through 09/11/23 was disciplined and all licensed nursing staff were re-educated on the process for ordering medications, follow-up with the physician and pharmacy, and accurate and complete documentation related to medication administration. Telephone interview on 10/11/23 at 12:39 P.M. with Quality Assurance Pharmacist (QAP) #200 confirmed the pharmacy had filled Resident #01's Klonopin order on 08/07/23 and stated it made sense the facility did not have any medication to administer to the resident from 09/08/23 through 09/11/23. QAP #200 stated the pharmacy did not have a valid controlled substance form for Resident #01 and a new one was needed before any additional medication could be delivered. QAP #200 verified the facility was responsible for obtaining the controlled substance form. QAP #200 verified the facility had Klonopin in their c-box and, had the facility contacted the pharmacy indicating a need for the medication, the pharmacy would have paged the physician to obtain a verbal order and provided an authorization code for the facility to pull the medication for Resident #01. QAP #200 confirmed there was no record anyone from the facility had contacted the pharmacy regarding Resident #01's Klonopin from 09/08/23 through 09/11/23. Interview on 10/11/23 at 1:50 P.M. with the Administrator verified Resident #01 did not have Klonopin available for administration from 09/08/23 through 09/11/23. The Administrator stated when administration learned of the medication error on 09/11/23, a plan of correction was developed and implemented to prevent any further significant medication errors. Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications, revised April 2019, revealed medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders. The deficient practice was corrected on 09/30/23 when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: • On 09/11/23, the DON followed-up with the physician and received the controlled substance form in order to obtain Resident #01's medication. • On 09/11/23, Resident #01 was transferred to the ED for assessment following a seizure. Resident #01 was restarted on her medication. • On 09/12/23, the DON completed an audit of all residents on benzodiazepine medications and found no other concerns related to medications being available or administered per physician orders. • On 09/12/23, the pharmacy delivered Resident #01's medication to the facility. • From 09/13/23 through 09/21/23, the DON met with each of the four licensed nursing staff (Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) #100, #105, #110, and #115) who were responsible for medication administration during the time Resident #01 did not receive her medication and provided re-education and disciplinary action related to the medication not being available, administered, and lack of follow-up with the physician and/or pharmacy. • From 09/13/23 through 09/30/23, the DON re-educated all licensed nursing staff on re-ordering medications, medication administration, follow-up with the physician and/or pharmacy, and complete and accurate documentation. • On 09/13/23, the Administrator provided education to the Medical Director on the process of ordering medications, signing controlled substance forms timely, and being in compliance with timely ordering of medications. • On 09/13/23, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #150 audited all residents to ensure all ordered medications were available for administration, were administered as ordered, and accurately documented in the medical record. Additional audits conducted on 09/19/23, 10/02/23, and 10/10/23 revealed no additional concerns related to medications administration and documentation. Audits will continue for a total of six weeks and any additional concerns will be presented to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) team members. • On 09/28/23, an ad hoc QAPI meeting was held to review the audits that had been completed to ensure medications were administered correctly and free of error. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00146724.
Sept 2021 23 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to treat residents with dignity. This affected one (#30) resident reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/12/17. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance; hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction; atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris; and open-angle glaucoma. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #30 was moderately cognitively impaired and had highly impaired vision. Review of the plan of care, revised on 02/06/19, revealed Resident #30 had an activities of daily living (ADL's) self care performance deficit due to her limited mobility, left sided weakness and impaired vision due to her diagnosis of cardiovascular accident (CVA) and glaucoma. Interventions included introduce self and title with every interaction. Additionally, Resident #30 was at risk for a psychosocial well being problem related to her behavior problems and communication deficits and has a vision deficit and will frequently want to reassure herself that there are people around her and that she is not alone. Interventions included introduce yourself and explain all tasks being initiated. Observation on 08/31/21 at 7:53 A.M. of State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #345 revealed the STNA responded to Resident #30's call light. STNA #345 was observed to enter Resident #30's room, lift headphones from the Resident's head, and asked Resident #30 what she wanted. STNA #345 did not identify herself to Resident #30. Interview on 08/31/21 at 8:12 A.M. of STNA #345 verified she did not introduce herself to Resident #30 when she responded to the call light. STNA #345 stated it had just been hectic morning and she would typically introduce herself so the resident would know who was entering. Review of facility policy titled Quality of Life - Dignity, revised February 2020, revealed each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, feeling of self-worth and self-esteem.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents choices were honored. This affected one (#13) of three reviewed for choices. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15 indicating Resident #13 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #13 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised 07/10/21 revealed supports and interventions for risk for wandering/elopement, risk for decrease in socialization, confusion, communication problem, and self-care deficit. Observation on 08/30/21 at 11:11 A.M. revealed staff were propelling Resident #13 down the hallway. Resident #13 stated he wanted to go to bed. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #302 said no it was almost time for lunch and she was taking him to the dining room. Resident #13 stated he was tired and wanted to lay down. STNA #302 pushed Resident #13 in his wheelchair to a dining table outside the nurses station. Interview on 08/30/21 at 11:15 A.M. with Resident #13 revealed the resident wanted to nap but they told him it was time to eat. He said they put him there until lunch came. Interview on 08/30/21 at 11:17 A.M. with STNA #302 verified Resident #13 requested to go to bed and he was taken to the dining table. She stated Resident #13 would be transferred to bed after lunch because he needed to eat lunch first. STNA #302 stated Resident #13 required assistance with eating. Observation on 08/30/21 at 11:31 A.M. revealed the meal cart arrived to the hallway. Resident #13 waited 20 minutes sitting in his wheelchair at the dining table when he had requested to be in bed. Observation on 08/31/21 at 11:46 A.M. revealed Resident #13 asked STNA #305 for butter and jelly. STNA #332 told Resident #13 the bread was garlic bread and it was not to have butter and jelly on it. STNA #332 then went and assisted another resident. Observation on 08/31/21 at 12:00 P.M. revealed Resident #13 seated at the dining room table with his lunch meal in front of him. Resident #13 was observed taking bites of his garlic bread and drinking his juice. Resident #13's ravioli, salad, and dessert were untouched. Coinciding interview with Resident #13 revealed he wanted butter and jelly for his garlic bread and didn't like ravioli. He said he didn't want this and had told STNA #332. Resident #13 said he was waiting for his jelly and butter. Observation on 08/31/21 at 12:21 P.M. of Resident #13 found Resident #13 saying he was hungry. Resident #13 used his fork and took a bite of the ravioli on the plate. Resident #13 made a face and put the fork down. He said out loud I want butter and jelly. Interview on 08/31/21 at 12:23 P.M. with STNA #332 verified Resident #13 had asked her for jelly and butter like he had on his morning toast. STNA #305 stated he had garlic bread and butter and jelly did not go on that. STNA #305 verified she had not offered him an alternative and did not request the butter and jelly from the kitchen. STNA #305 was then observed asking Resident #13 if he wanted something different. Resident #13 repeated he wanted butter and jelly. Observation on 08/31/21 at 12:32 P.M. revealed Resident #13's jelly and butter arrived along with fresh toast. STNA #332 assisted Resident #13 with buttering new bread. Resident #13 stated he had bread and he didn't want new bread. He said he didn't care it had garlic on it and wanted the jelly and butter on the garlic bread. STNA #332 did not respond to Resident #13 and was observed buttering and putting jelly on the new toast. Resident #13 looked at STNA #332 when she handed him the new toast but then ate the new toast he was provided. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, revised December 2016 revealed employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect and dignity. Residents had the right to self-determination.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician or resident representative regarding of resident change in condition involving skin tears, falls and/or resident noncompliance with medical devices. This affected two (#1 and #25) of three residents reviewed for notification. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview Mental Status score of nine out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #1 required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one person physical assist. Resident #1 has had any falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment, whichever is more recent. The number of falls since admission or prior assessment-no injury, two or more. The number of falls since admission or prior assessment-injury one, number of falls since admission or prior assessment-none. Resident #1 had no pressure ulcers, but was at risk for pressure ulcers, has skin tears. Resident has a pressure reducing device for chair. Review of the care plan dated 02/04/21, revealed Resident #1 was at risk for injury related to falls due to deconditioning, incontinence, psychoactive drug use. Resident #1 has a history of falls in community. Interventions-dry erase board to help remind resident to call for assistance, encourage resident to lie down after meals for a nap, keep my walker in reach, room modifications, signs placed as reminders of when to use walker and wheelchair, physical therapy evaluate and treat as ordered or as needed, be sure call light is within reach when the resident is in his/her room, encourage resident to use it before attempting transfer, ensure the resident is wearing appropriate footwear when out of bed and make sure that my floor/path is clutter free and properly lighted. There was no care plan for skin tears. Review of the medical record review of a fall investigation dated 07/27/21 revealed Resident #1 was found on the floor with her back to the front of the wheelchair. Resident #1 did not hit her head and was sitting when the fall occurred. No behaviors prior to fall. The family and nurse manager was notified, but the physician was not notified. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 08/31/21, apply foam dressing to right wrist and right forearm change every three days and as needed, may use bordered gauze. Review of the progress note dated 08/30/21 at 2:23 P.M. revealed the nurse rounded today during wound care and noticed that there were new wounds noted to the right forearm. The PCP (primary care physician) was notified and a call was placed to the daughter she did not answer. The staff nurse was updated. There was no documentation regarding the date the new wound developed. Observation on 08/30/21 at 10:14 A.M. revealed Resident #1 had a foam bordered dressing to her right wrist and right forearm dated 08/26/21. Interview on 08/30/21 at 10:14 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #309 revealed Resident #1 had bumped her arm and she bleeds easily. RN #309 verified Resident #1 had a bordered foam dressing to her right wrist and right forearm and there were no physician orders or notification to the physician or family of Resident #1 having the skin tears to the right forearm. RN #309 confirmed the skin tear on Resident #1 happened on 08/26/21 but there's no documentation in the chart about the area. Interview on 09/7/21 at 11:34 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the physician was not notified when Resident #1 had a fall on 07/27/21. 2. Review of Resident #25's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/26/18. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia without behavioral disturbance, pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic respiratory failure. Review of Resident #25's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. Further review of the assessment listed the resident as receiving oxygen. Review of Resident #25's care plan revealed the resident had altered respiratory status related to sleep apnea and chronic respiratory failure. Interventions included to provide continuous oxygen and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) settings as ordered. Review of Resident #25's physician order dated 01/06/21 revealed an order to apply BiPAP every evening and when napping. Review of Resident #25's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated August 2021 listed the resident as refusing the BiPAP every night for the month of August. Review of Resident #25's nurse's notes dated August 2021 revealed no documentation of notification to the physician of the resident's refusal to use the BiPAP. Interview on 09/01/21 at 9:10 A.M. with Resident #25 stated she did not use her BiPAP last night and stated, she forgot to use it and would try and remember to put it on tonight. Interview on 09/02/21 at 9:53 A.M. with Resident #25 stated she did not use her BiPAP last night and stated she will try tonight to use it. Interview on 09/02/21 at 10:01 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #362 stated she comes on duty at 6:00 A.M. and Resident #25's BiPAP is always off. LPN #362 stated the resident does not take a nap during the day shift and does not wear the BiPAP during the day. Interview on 09/02/21 at 10:46 A.M. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #354 verified Resident #25's physician had not been notified of the resident's refusal to use the ordered BiPAP. ADON #354 stated the order was not discontinued because the resident wants it in her room. Review of facility policy titled Change in a Resident's Condition or Status dated February 2021, revealed the nurse will notify the resident's attending physician or physician on call when there has been a refusal of treatment or medications two or more consecutive times.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/16 and a discharge date of 04/03/21 with a readmi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/16 and a discharge date of 04/03/21 with a readmission date of 04/05/21 and a discharge date of 06/24/21. Diagnoses included unspecified fracture of sacrum, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypothyroidism, urgency of urination, Alzheimer's Disease, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent, rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor of multiple sites without organ or systems involvement and gastro-esophageal reflux without esophagitis. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 had a BIMS score of three out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #28's progress notes revealed no documentation of a written notice given to the resident or resident representative for the reason the two discharges/transfer to the hospital on [DATE] and 06/24/21. Interview on 09/07/21 at 1:00 P.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #354 verified the facility did not provide a written notice to the resident and resident representative of the reason for the discharge/transfer to the hospital on [DATE] and 06/24/21. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Transfer or Discharge Notice revealed the facility would notify the resident and their representative in writing of the reason for transfer, the date of transfer, and the location the resident was being transferred along with the residents appeal rights. A copy of the notice was to be sent to the ombudsman. Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility's policy, the facility failed to provided written notification of hospital transfer and discharge to the resident, the resident representative, and the ombudsman. This affected two (#204 and #28) of four residents reviewed for transfer and discharge. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #204's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/29/19 and a discharge date of 04/09/20. Diagnoses included cellulitis, heart failure, anxiety disorder, lymphedema, and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #204's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 12 out of 15 indicating Resident #204 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #204 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #204's progress notes revealed on 03/31/20 Resident #204 was transferred and admitted to the hospital with a fever of 103 degrees Fahrenheit, and a cough. Review of Resident #204's documents found on 04/07/20 Resident #204's representative was notified of the bed hold policy in writing. Further review found no documentation of notification to the Resident #204's representative or the ombudsman of Resident #204's transfer to the hospital. Interview on 09/07/21 at 11:01 A.M. with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #333 revealed a bed hold notice was provided but due to the transfer being an emergency a written notification was not provided to the resident or representative and the ombudsman was also not notified of the transfer. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Transfer or Discharge Notice revealed the facility would notify the resident and their representative in writing of the reason for transfer, the date of transfer, and the location the resident was being transferred along with the residents appeal rights. A copy of the notice was to be sent to the ombudsman.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

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 and policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of the bed hold...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of the bed hold policy prior to transfer to the hospital. This affected one (#28) of two sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/16 and a discharge date of 04/03/21 with a readmission date of 04/05/21 and a discharge date of 06/24/21. Diagnoses included unspecified fracture of sacrum, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypothyroidism, urgency of urination, Alzheimer's Disease, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent, rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor of multiple sites without organ or systems involvement and gastro-esophageal reflux without esophagitis. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 had a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #28's progress notes revealed that Resident #28's representative received a notice of bed hold when leaving the facility and notice that was signed on 04/05/21. Additional review revealed there was no documentation of Resident #28 or their representative of receiving a bed hold notice for the discharge on [DATE]. Interview on 09/07/21 at 1:00 P.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #354 verified Resident #28 and their representative did not receive a bed hold notice for the discharge/transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the policy titled Bed of Bed Hold and Return, revised 12/05/16, revealed on the first business day after a resident with Medicaid Benefits is admitted or transferred to a hospital or the resident goes on therapeutic leave, the Business Office will provide written information to the resident or resident representative of their rights regarding their bed-hold option and the number of remaining bed-hold days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately reflect resident hospice status in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This affected one (#18) of two residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately reflect resident hospice status in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This affected one (#18) of two residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney failure and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 06/30/21, revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS did not reflect Resident #18 received hospice services. Review of the plan of care, revised on 06/30/21, revealed Resident #18's family planned for the resident to remain at the facility for long term care services and the resident was utilizing Hospice Agency #1. Interview on 09/01/21 at 10:29 A.M. of the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the MDS did not correctly reflect Resident #18's status for receiving hospice services. The DON stated she was unsure why the MDS was not coded correctly as Resident #18 had been on hospice services since her admission to the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a residents care plan was revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a residents care plan was reviewed and revised when a resident experienced multiple fall. This affected one (#1) out of 22 sampled residents care plans reviewed. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of nine out of 15. Resident required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one person physical assist. Resident #1 has had falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment, whichever is more recent. Number of falls since admission or prior assessment-no injury, two or more. Number of falls since admission or prior assessment-injury one, number of falls since admission or prior assessment, none. Review of the care plan dated 02/09/21 and revised 08/10/21 revealed Resident #1 was at risk for injury related to falls due to deconditioning, incontinence, psychoactive drug use. Resident #1 has a history of falls in community. Interventions-dry erase board to help remind resident to call for assistance. Encourage resident to lie down after meals for a nap. Keep my walker in reach. Room modifications. Signs placed as reminders of when to use walker and wheelchair. Physical Therapy (PT) evaluate and treat as ordered or as needed. Be sure call light is in reach when the resident is in his/her room and encourage me to use it before attempting transfer. Ensure resident is wearing appropriate footwear when out of bed. Make sure that my floor/path is clutter free and properly lighted. Interventions were added on 07/20/21 and 08/27/21. There were no care plan review or revisions after the Resident #1 experienced fall on 06/06/21, 06/08/21, 06/10/21 and 06/16/21. Interview on 09/07/21 at 11:26 A.M. with the DON verified the facility did not review or revise Resident #1's fall risk care plan after the resident experienced multiple falls on 06/06/21, 06/08/21, 06/10/21 and 06/16/21. Review of the policy titled Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plans, dated 12/2016, revealed assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the residents' condition changes.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide assistance to a resident who was dependent on staff for eating. This affected one (#18) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, unspecified; malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast; unspecified atrial fibrillation; acute kidney failure; and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive two person physical assistance with bed mobility and transfers and extensive one person assistance with eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of the plan of care, revised on 02/14/21, revealed Resident #18 had an activities of daily living (ADL's) self care performance deficit related to terminal diagnoses of Alzheimer's and underlying breast cancer. Interventions included extensive to total assistance to eat. Additional review revealed Resident #18 was at risk for malnutrition and decline in nutrition and hydration status related to terminal prognosis related to malignant breast cancer with hospice care, and dementia. Interventions included feed/assist with meals as needed and encourage to eat and drink. Observation on 08/30/21 at 9:00 A.M. of Resident #18 revealed the resident was in bed. Resident #18 responded to the surveyor but was not able to effectively communicate. A breakfast tray was observed on a table at the end of the bed. The breakfast was covered and had not been touched. Observation on 08/30/21 at 11:08 A.M. revealed State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #319 carrying the uneaten breakfast from Resident #18's room. Interview of STNA #319 at the time of the observation verified Resident #18 did not eat breakfast. STNA #319 stated every time she peeked her head into Resident #18's room, the resident was sleeping. STNA #319 stated she did not attempt to wake Resident #18 and ask if she would like breakfast. STNA #18 stated if staff assisted Resident #18 with eating, the resident ate almost everything. Interview on 09/01/21 at 9:53 A.M. of STNA #334 revealed Resident #18 liked breakfast and typically ate all of the meal. STNA #334 stated Resident #18 rarely refused to eat anything at meal times and stated if she did, it was usually because she had a large snack. Review of facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), Supporting, revised March 2018, revealed residents will be provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADL's). Additionally, appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADL's independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #53's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/23/20 and a readmission date of 08/12/21. Diagnoses ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #53's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/23/20 and a readmission date of 08/12/21. Diagnoses included acute kidney failure, cellulitis, persistent atrial fibrillation, stage three pressure ulcer of sacral region, spinal stenosis of the lumbar region without neurogenic claudication, peripheral vascular disease and chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Additional review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #53 was cognitively intact. Further record review for Resident #53 revealed there was no evidence of any signed consent for ancillary services and/or that the resident was offered anxillary services when admitted on [DATE]. Interview on 08/30/21 at 9:58 A.M. of Resident #53 revealed she recently became aware vision services were available at the facility. Resident #53 denied she had been told at admission that an eye doctor came to the facility. Resident #53 stated she wore eye glasses but was in need of an eye exam and an updated prescription. Resident #53 stated she missed an eye doctor appointment due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and was in need of an exam. Interview on 09/01/21 at 8:30 A.M. of Social Worker (SW) #333 revealed she did not have a signed consent for ancillary services for Resident #53 and verified the resident had not received vision services at the facility. SW #333 verified the consent did have a place for declination of services but she only received the document when the resident consented to services so that she could make the necessary arrangements. SW #333 stated admissions kept the documents when a resident declined ancillary services. Interview on 09/01/21 at 8:34 A.M. of the admission Director (AD) #385 revealed Resident #53 recently signed the consent for ancillary services. AD #385 stated Resident #53 was recently readmitted for skilled services following a hospitalization and was made of ancillary services at that time. AD #385 was unaware if Resident #53 was made aware of ancillary services at the time of her initial admission in February 2020 and stated she would look for the consent document. Interview on 09/01/21 at 11:50 A.M. of AD #385 verified she was unable to locate documentation of Resident #53 being offered ancillary services, including vision, upon admission to the facility in February 2020 and SW #333 was looking through her records again. Interview on 09/02/21 at 7:58 A.M. of SW #333 verified there was no documentation Resident #53 was made aware of or offered vision services upon admission to the facility. Review of the facility practice form titled, Health Care Services General Consent Form, dated September 2020 revealed hearing, dental, eye care, and foot care assessments and procedures were to be available in the facility for all residents. The facility form was included in the admission packet. Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of a facility practice document, the facility failed to ensure residents received annual vision and hearing screenings. This affected two (#24 and #53) of three reviewed for vision and hearing services. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, major depressive disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, and sleep apnea. Review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Resident #24 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #24 displayed no behaviors during the review period. Review of Resident #24's care plan revised 08/16/21 revealed Resident #24's hearing was within functional limits but had limited left ear hearing. Review of Resident #24's documents found no consent form for audiology services and no appointments completed for Resident #24's hearing. Interview on 08/30/21 at 10:14 A.M. with Resident #24 revealed she had not been seen for her ears since she had been in the facility. Resident #24 stated her ears need attention as she has been having increased trouble hearing. Resident #24 reported her hearing has been a problem for her since she was admitted to the facility. Interview on 09/02/21 at 3:09 P.M. with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #333 verified Resident #24 did not have a signed consent for audiology services and had no hearing appointments since her admission on [DATE].
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure relieving devices were in working condition. This affected one (#53) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #53's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/23/20. Diagnoses included acute kidney failure, cellulitis, persistent atrial fibrillation, stage three pressure ulcer of sacral region, spinal stenosis of the lumbar region without neurogenic claudication, peripheral vascular disease and chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #53 was cognitively intact, required extensive two person assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) and had one stage four pressure ulcer. Review of the plan of care plan of care, revised on 02/24/20, revealed Resident #53 had a pressure ulcer on the coccyx. Interventions included pressure redistribution mattress to bed. Additionally, Resident #53 was at risk for impaired skin integrity related to history of extremely thin and fragile skin. Interventions included utilize pressure relieving devices on appropriate surfaces. Observation on 09/01/21 at 5:47 A.M. of a dressing change to a coccyx pressure ulcer for Resident #53 revealed no concerns related to the dressing change. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #344 completed the dressing change. Assistant Director or Nursing (ADON) #354 was present to measure the wound. At the completion of the dressing change, as LPN #344 and ADON #354 were leaving Resident #53's room, the surveyor observed the resident's air mattress was not working and made LPN #344 and ADON #354 aware. ADON #354 and LPN #344 stated they had not noticed. The air mattress was unplugged and did not work when it was plugged back in. Resident #53 stated she noticed something silver on the floor the previous day but was unsure when she noticed it and could not recall when her air mattress stopped working. LPN #344 and ADON #354 found the silver piece and believed it was for the air mattress. LPN #344 verified the air mattress was not working and stated maintenance would be notified. This deficiency substantiates Master Complaint Number OH00114426.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place in accordance with a residents care plan. This affected one (#49) of five residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with healing, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's Disease, cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urge incontinence, essential hypertension, heart failure, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed #49 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Mental Interview Status score of 99. Resident #49 had other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others occur one to three days during the assessment period. No wandering behaviors. Resident #49 had a fall in the last month prior to admission/entry or reentry. Resident #49 had a fall in the last two to six months prior to admission/entry or reentry. Resident #49 had a fracture related to a fall in the six months prior to admission/entry or reentry. Repair of fractures of the pelvis, hip leg, knee or ankle (not foot), yes, Review of the care plan dated 03/12/19 revealed Resident #49 was at risk for wandering/elopement due to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Resident #49 has a history of wandering and wanting to go home. Interventions identify resident's room and bathroom. Engage resident in purposeful activity. Provide care in a calm and reassuring manner. Provide clear, simple instructions. Provide reorientation to surroundings, environment, wander guard in place. Monitor function every shift. Resident has an activity of daily living (ADL) self care performance deficit related to her recent fracture of left femur, compromised respiratory and cardiac status, cognitive deficits and weakness. has a diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and dementia. recent hip fracture. Interventions include to use four wheeled walker while ambulating. Use recombit bike daily at level four. Physical and Occupational Therapy (PT/OT), encourage bell to call for assistance. Review of the care plan dated 03/12/19 revealed Resident #49 was unaware of safety needs and gait/balance problems. Does not feel she needs stand by assist when ambulating long distances. Tends to lose her balance when making turns. Interventions- OT to evaluation for object retrieval during meal prep, promote a safe environment with even floors free from spills and/or clutter, glare free light, a working and adequate reachable call light, the bed in low position at night personal items within reach. Anticipate and meet needs. Be sure call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. Declutter room and keep floor free from clutter and obstacles. Fluff pillows while sitting in chair or wheel to provide a more suitable surface and support to resident while fluffing. Pharmacy consult to review medications monthly and make recommendations for dosage adjustments. Reminder signs to use walker and use call light. Review of fall investigations revealed Resident #49 had a fall on 06/04/21, 07/20/21, 07/25/21, 08/01/21, 08/01/21, 08/02/21 and 08/31/21. On 08/01/21 it was noted that Resident #49 was wearing slippery socks when she fell. Resident #49 did not use call light with any of the falls, but this intervention remains in place. The care plan has not been revised to be person-centered. Additional review of the fall investigations revealed there was no Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) discussion occurred for the falls on 07/25/21 and 08/09/21. The fall on 07/17/21 was not discussed by the IDT until 07/19/21. Observation on 08/31/21 at 2:38 P.M. revealed Resident #49 did not have her call light in reach, the call light was on the wheelchair but not within reach, Resident #49 also did not have her wrist call bell on. Staff Interview on 08/31/21 at 2:39 P.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #329 verified with that Resident #49's call light was not within reach and was not wearing her wrist call bell. STNA #329 stated that Resident #49 rarely uses her call light. Review of the policy titled Comprehensive Person-Center Care Plans, revised 12/2016, revealed a comprehensive, person centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the residents physical, psychosocial, and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Review of the policy titled Assessing Falls and Their Causes, revised 03/2018, revealed the purpose of this procedure are to provide guidelines for assessing a resident after a fall and to assist staff in identifying causes of the fall. Identifying causes of a fall or fall risk is to be completed within 24 hours of a fall, begin to try to identify possible or likely causes of the incident. Refer to specific evidence including medical history, known functional impairments, etc.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician orders. This affected one (#38) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/29/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension, and congestive heart failure. Review of Resident #38's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #38's care plan listed the resident as having impaired cognitive function related to dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered. Review of Resident #38's physician order dated 09/29/20 revealed an order for Exelon patch 4.6 milligrams (mg's) per hour, apply one patch transdermally every 24 hours for behaviors. Review of Resident #38's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated August 2021 revealed the resident did not receive the ordered Exelon patch on 08/27/21 and 08/28/21. Interview on 09/02/21 at 11:45 A.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #38 did not receive the ordered Exelon patch on 08/27/21 and 08/28/21. DON stated the medication had run out for two days. Review of facility policy titled Medication Administration- General Guidelines dated 03/22/19 revealed, medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, malig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast, atrial fibrillation; acute kidney failure and pulmonary hypertension. Additional review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of a physician order, dated 04/19/21 and discontinued on 09/01/21, revealed Resident #18 was prescribed Ativan tablet 0.5 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for restlessness and anxiety. Review of the plan of care, revised 07/14/21, revealed Resident #18 used psychoactive medication related to behavior management. Interventions included to discuss with the physician, hospice and family regarding ongoing need for use of medication. Review of a gradual dose reduction pharmacy recommendation, dated 06/17/21, revealed if Ativan was to be continued past 14 day, please provide documentation, which is required as part of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Requirements of Participation Guidelines. A notation on the pharmacy recommendation revealed the physician discontinued Ativan 0.5 mg on 09/01/21. Interview on 09/02/21 at 10:43 A.M. of the DON verified Resident #18's pharmacy recommendation from 06/17/21 was not addressed by the physician until 09/01/21. The DON stated the Ativan was prescribed by hospice and the physician wanted hospice to address it. Review of facility policy titled Medication Regimen Review and Recommendations, reviewed 03/22/19, revealed the purpose was to ensure, utilizing federally mandated standards of care, drug therapy is appropriate to each resident's diagnosis, changes in the resident's condition, and treatment goals and to assure all recommendations are addressed by the physician or nursing staff. Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident pharmacy recommendations were addressed in a timely manner by the physician. This affected two (#18 and #13) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15 indicating Resident #13 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #13 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised 07/10/21 revealed supports and interventions for risk for wandering/elopement, risk for decrease in socialization, behaviors, confusion, communication problem, use of psychoactive medications, and self-care deficit. Review of Resident #13's pharmacy medication reviews revealed on 05/26/21 the pharmacy requested a review of Resident #13's order dated 05/19/21 for Seroquel 25 mg every six hours as needed without a stop date. It was noted, if the as needed (PRN) medication was to continue past 14 days the specific duration of the therapy and the rational for the extended period needed to be provided. The physician didn't reviewed and respond to the recommendation until 07/14/21. The physician reviewed the recommendation 49 days after the pharmacy issued the recommendation. Interview on 08/31/21 at 11:02 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the pharmacist completed their review with recommendations on 05/26/21 and the physician didn't respond until 07/14/21.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, malig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney failure and pulmonary hypertension. Additional review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of a physician order, dated 11/09/20 revealed Resident #18 was prescribed chlorpromazine (an anti-psychotic medication) 50 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth two times a day for agitation. Additional review of a physician order, dated 11/10/20, revealed an order for chlorpromazine table 25 mg one table by mouth two times a day for agitation. Review of a physician order dated 04/19/21 revealed Resident #18 was prescribed Ativan (an anti-anxiety medication) 0.5 mg one tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for agitation. Review of the plan of care, revised 07/14/21, revealed Resident #18 used psychoactive medication related to behavior management. Interventions included discuss with physician, hospice and family regarding ongoing need for use of medication. Review of a gradual dose reduction pharmacy recommendation, dated 06/17/21, revealed Resident #18 was prescribed chlorpromazine 75 milligrams (mg) twice daily with the only diagnosis being Alzheimer's disease, unspecified and unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance. The recommendation was to update the medical diagnosis with a supporting diagnosis for the anti-psychotic medication. A handwritten note on the document asked Hospice to deal with this? with no identification of who wrote the note or the date. No further documentation was noted on the document to indicate the pharmacy recommendation had been addressed by the physician. Review of a gradual dose reduction pharmacy recommendation, dated 06/17/21, revealed if Ativan was to be continued past 14 day, please provide documentation, which is required as part of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Requirements of Participation Guidelines. A notation on the pharmacy recommendation document revealed the physician discontinued Ativan 0.5 mg on 09/01/21. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 04/19/21 through 08/31/21 revealed Ativan 0.5 mg was available for administration to Resident #18 for 134 days. Additional review for the same timeframe revealed chlorpromazine 50 mg two times and day and chlorpromazine 25 mg two times a day were administered as ordered. Interview on 09/02/21 at 10:43 A.M. of the DON revealed the physician wanted hospice to address the pharmacy recommendations because they had prescribed the medication. The DON stated hospice had been prescribing chlorpromazine and Ativan frequently to residents on hospice and the physician felt it was their responsibility to address the recommendations. The DON verified the recommendation related to chlorpromazine had not been addressed by the physician and Resident #18 did not have a diagnosis to support the use of the medication. In addition, the DON verified the pharmacy recommendation for Ativan had not been addressed by the physician until 09/01/21, resulting in Ativan being available for administration for longer than 14 days. Review of facility policy titled Medication Regimen Review and Recommendations, reviewed 03/22/19, revealed the purpose was to ensure, utilizing federally mandated standards of care, drug therapy is appropriate to each resident's diagnosis, changes in the resident's condition, and treatment goals and to assure all recommendations are addressed by the physician or nursing staff. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with healing, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's disease, cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urge incontinence, essential hypertension, heart failure, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Mental Interview Status score of 99. Resident #49 had other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others occur one to three days during the assessment period. No wandering behaviors. Resident received injections three days during the assessment period. Resident #49 received antipsychotic, diuretic and opioids four days and anticoagulant three days during the assessment period. Resident #49 received antipsychotics on a routine basis only. Review of the care plan dated 03/12/19 revealed Resident #49 was at risk for wandering/elopement due to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Resident #49 has a history of wandering and wanting to go home. Interventions identify resident's room and bathroom. Engage resident in purposeful activity. Provide care in a calm and reassuring manner. Provide clear, simple instructions. Provide reorientation to surroundings, environment, wander guard in place. Monitor function every shift. Dementia with psychotic features-has has a history of hallucinations per family and sundowners syndrome. Is currently not on any medication to treat. Primary care physician (PCP) treats resident for her mental disorder. Resident will misplace something and then state the item was stolen. Interventions, ensure access to clock/calendar, establish daily routine with resident, explain each activity/care procedure prior to beginning it. Monitor/record/ mood and behavior every shift. Notify physician if a decline is noted. Pharmacy drug review monthly and repeat communication using more than one method. Resident #49 has impaired cognitive function related to her diagnosis of dementia. Needs cues and reminders. cognition declined after her prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA). Administer medications as ordered. Use the residents preferred name. Identify yourself at each interaction. Face when speaking and make eye contact. Reduce any distractions, provide with any necessary cues-stop and return if agitated. Engage in simple, structured activities that avoid overly demanding tasks. Keep routine consistent. Provide a homelike environment. Review of the physician order for Resident #49 revealed an order for Seroquel 25 milligram (mg) one tablet every six hour as needed for hallucinations dated 05/19/21 with no stop date. An order dated 06/03/21 for Seroquel 25 mg one tablet every six hours as needed for hallucinations continue for 30 days will re-evaluate. Additional review of the medical record contained no documentation regarding a physician evaluation. The Seroquel was not discontinued until 08/13/21. Interview on 09/01/21 at 9:45 A.M. with the DON verified that Resident #49 had an order for as PRN Seroquel that hospice orders and further stated that they don't follow the rules/guidelines by ensuring the medication was not extended beyond the required timeframe. Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications when the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days and renewal evaluation forms were completed for the continuation of use. In addition, the facility failed to ensure supporting diagnosis were included for the use of psychotropic medications. This affected three (#18, #49 and #13) of five residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility census was 53. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight indicating Resident #13 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #13 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised 07/10/21 revealed supports and interventions for risk for wandering/elopement, risk for decrease in socialization, behaviors, confusion, communication problem, use of psychoactive medications, and self-care deficit. Review of Resident #13's physician orders revealed an order dated 04/13/21 with a discontinuation date of 05/19/21 for Seroquel 25 mg (milligrams) every six hours as needed (PRN) for behaviors for 14 days. Review of the corresponding Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #13 had Seroquel 25 mg available to be administered as needed every six hours from 04/13/21 to 05/19/21. This was a 37 day time period where Resident #13's PRN Seroquel was available for use. The PRN antipsychotic medication was not limited to 14 days. Further review found an order dated 05/19/21 with a discontinuation date of 06/09/21 for Seroquel 25 mg every six hours PRN for behaviors. Review of the corresponding MAR revealed Resident #13 had Seroquel 25 mg available to be administered as needed every six hours from 05/19/21 to 06/09/21. This was a 21 day time period where Resident #13's PRN Seroquel was available for use. No renewal evaluation was found for the continuation of the as needed antipsychotic and the antipsychotic was not limited to 14 days. Interview on 09/02/21 at 10:49 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #13's PRN Seroquel exceeded the 14 day PRN limit and there was no renewal evaluation form completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-disp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #48 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with healing, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's Disease, cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urge incontinence, essential hypertension, heart failure, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Mental Interview Status score of 99. Resident had other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others occur one to three days during the assessment period. No wandering behaviors. Resident received a mechanically altered diet. Weight loss no or unknown. Review of the care plan dated 03/12/19 revealed Resident #48 had impaired cognitive function related to her diagnosis of dementia. needs cues and reminders. Cognition declined after her CVA (cerebrovascular accident). Administer medications as ordered. Use the residents preferred nickname. Identify yourself at each interaction. Face when speaking and make eye contact. Reduce any distractions, provide with any necessary cues-stop and return if agitated. Engage in simple, structured activities that avoid overly demanding tasks. Keep routine consistent. provide a homelike environment. Review of the progress note dated 08/30/21 at 8:34 A.M. by the Dietician revealed Weight review: CBW (current body weight) 120 pounds (#) weight decrease noted possibly due to inadequate oral intakes 25-75%. New order to start mighty shake 120 milliliter three times a day. Plan of care updated. Review of the nutrition assessment note dated 08/16/21 at 8:33 P.M. Late Entry: Note Text: Resident #48's current diet order is mechanical soft. There are no fluid restrictions. There are no food allergies. See Nutritional Assessment for specific food allergies or concerns. Resident is on a diuretic. Significant change in status: Resident continues to receives a mechanical soft diet, CBW 124# no significant weight changes noted. oral intakes vary. Receives diuretic treatment and has potential for weight changes to occur. No skin impairments. Plan Of Care updated. Observation and resident interview on 09/01/21 01:42 PM revealed Resident #48 was sitting up in her wheelchair. Resident #48 stated lunch wasn't very good, but the ice cream was. Resident #48 did not eat any of her lunch tray and stated she was not offered an alternate for lunch. Staff interview on 09/01/21 at 2:27 P.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #329 revealed Resident #48 is not much of an eater. Resident #48 ate breakfast 75-100% daily and today for lunch had a bowl of ice cream, cookie and drinks. STNA #329 verified she didn't offer her an alternative for lunch since she didn't like it. Based on medical record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident meal preferences were honored and alternates were offered. This affected two (#24 and #48) of eight residents reviewed for food concerns. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, major depressive disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, and sleep apnea. Review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Resident #24 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #24 displayed no behaviors during the review period. Review of Resident #24's care plan revised 08/16/21 revealed Resident #24 was at risk for malnutrition and dehydration. Interventions included providing Resident #24 with her diet as ordered and honor her food preferences. Review of Resident #24's meal ticket revealed writing indicating Resident #24 received a regular diet and had a food dislike of rice. The word rice was written in red. Interview on 08/30/21 at 10:10 A.M. with Resident #24 revealed Resident #24 had a traumatic experience when she was younger and she did not eat rice. Resident #24 stated it was on her meal ticket preferences that she does not get rice with her meals. Resident #24 stated they provide her with alternates such as potatoes. Observation on 08/30/21 at 11:54 A.M. of Resident #24's lunch tray revealed a one cup scoop of rice was on her plate. Coinciding interview with Resident #24 verified she had received rice, and this was the second time it had happened where she was provided rice even when it was written in red on her meal ticket notifying the kitchen she was not to get rice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records documentation regarding residents falls and/or transfer to the hospital. This affected two (#1 and #49) of five sampled residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 01/30/21. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of nine out of 15. Resident #1 required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one person physical assist. Resident #1 has had any falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment, whichever is more recent. Number of falls since admission or prior assessment-no injury, two or more. Number of falls since admission or prior assessment-injury one, number of falls since admission or prior assessment-none. Review of the care plan dated 02/04/21 revealed Resident #1 had an activity of daily living (ADL) self care performance deficit related to fatigue and debility. Resident #1 is alert and can make my needs known. Resident #1 has some occasional incontinence. Resident #1's vision is adequate and is slightly hard of hearing. Resident #1 ambulates with a walker. Resident #1 has his/her own teeth per admit screener. Physical Therapy (PT)/Occupational (OT) evaluation and treatment as per physician orders, encourage resident to use bell to call for assistance. Resident #1 needs supervision to limited assist of one staff member for transfers, bed mobility, toilet use, dressing. Resident #1 needs supervision to limited assist of one staff member. Resident #1 is at risk for injury related to falls due to deconditioning, incontinence, psychoactive drug use. Resident #1 has a history of falls in community. Interventions-dry erase board to help remind resident to call for assistance. Encourage resident to lie down after meals for a nap. Keep my walker in reach. room modifications. Signs placed as reminders of when to use walker and wheelchair. PT evaluate and treat as ordered or as needed. Be sure call light is in reach is within reach when the resident is in his/her their room and encourage resident to use it before attempting transfer. Ensure that resident is wearing appropriate footwear when out of bed, make sure that my floor/path is clutter free and properly lighted. Review of the progress notes revealed there was no documentation of a fall occurring, or what interventions were completed after the fall on 06/10/21, 07/27/21, and 08/25/21. Interview on 09/07/21 at 11:39 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there was no documentation in the progress notes for the falls that occurred on 06/10/21, 07/27/21 and 08/25/21. The DON stated that they fill out a fall investigation report for their risk management, and thought that the note crossed over into the progress note. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with healing, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's disease, cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urge incontinence, essential hypertension, heart failure, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Mental Interview Status score of 99. Resident had other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others occur one to three days during the assessment period. No wandering behaviors. Resident had a fall in the last month prior to admission/entry or reentry Resident had a fall any time in the last two to six months prior to admission/entry or reentry. Resident had a fracture related to a fall in the six months prior to admission/entry or reentry. Repair fractures of the pelvis, hip leg, knee or ankle (not foot), yes, Review of the care plan dated 03/12/19 for Resident #49 revealed Resident is unaware of safety needs and gait/balance problems. Resident #49 does not feel she needs stand by assist when ambulating long distances. Resident tends to lose her balance when making turns. Interventions- OT to evaluate for object retrieval during meal prep, promote a safe environment with even floors free from spills and/or clutter, glare free light, a working and adequate reachable call light, the bed in low position at night personal items within reach. Anticipate and meet needs. Be sure call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. Declutter room and keep floor free from clutter and obstacles. Fluff pillows while sitting in chair or wheel to provide a more suitable surface and support to resident while fluffing, pharmacy consult to review meds monthly and make recommendations for dosage adjustments. Reminder signs to use walker and use call light. Review of the progress notes dated 08/09/21 at 4:58 P.M. revealed spiritual care found resident on the floor and waited with resident until resident was transported. Further review of the medical record revealed there was no documentation of a fall occurring and what interventions were completed. Interview on 09/07/21 at 11:12 A.M. with the DON verified there was no record that Resident #49 went to hospital due to a fall. Review of the policy titled Managing Falls and Falls Risk, revised 03/2018, revealed when a resident falls, the following information should be documented in the residents' medical record: The condition in which the resident was found. Assessment data, including vital signs and any obvious injuries. Interventions, first aid, or treatment administered. Notification of the physician and family, as indicated. Completion of a falls risk assessment. Appropriate interventions taken to prevent future falls. The signature ad title of the person recording the data.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 and review of facility policy, the facility failed to offer influenza vaccinatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to offer influenza vaccination to residents. This affected one (#53) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, unspecified; malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast; unspecified atrial fibrillation; acute kidney failure; and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #18 was not offered the influenza vaccine. Review of Resident #18's immunizations in her electronic medical record (EMR) was silent for influenza vaccination. Interview on 09/01/21 at 10:29 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON), verified the facility did not have documentation Resident #18 was offered the influenza vaccination upon admission. The DON stated she did not know why the vaccine was not offered. Review of facility policy titled, Immunizations, revised 04/25/17, revealed immunizations will be included as part of the facilities infection control program for preventing the development of microorganisms that were considered cotangents and place residents at risk for epidemic/outbreaks. Types of annual vaccines to be offered to build up the body's resistance to certain organisms/infectious diseases included the influenza vaccine. Additionally, the facility will educate the resident/Power of Attorney (POA) on the importance of receiving both annual and one time/booster immunization. The resident or POA should received the information and sign a consent to accept or decline the immunization.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, resident and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a comfortable temperature in the main dining room. This affected seven (#3, #6, #14, #16, #21, #3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, resident and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a comfortable temperature in the main dining room. This affected seven (#3, #6, #14, #16, #21, #36, and #43) of seven residents observed eating in the main dining room. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Observation on 08/30/21 at 12:00 P.M. of the main dining room for the lunch meal revealed the room to be very cold. Observation on 08/31/21 at 12:09 P.M. revealed Resident #3, Resident #6, Resident #14, Resident #16, Resident #21, Resident #36 and Resident #43 were sitting in the main dining room while waiting on their lunch meal. All the residents' were observed to be wearing a jacket or sweater and Resident #43 had a blanket lying across her lap. The room temperature seemed very cold. Resident interviews on 08/31/21 at 12:20 P.M. with Resident #3, Resident #6, Resident #14, Resident #16, Resident #21, Resident #36 and Resident #43 revealed it is always very cold in the dining room. Resident #43 stated that is why she has to have a blanket across her legs and we all wear a jacket or sweater. Observation and staff Interview on 09/01/21 at 11:20 A.M. revealed the temperatures were measured by Maintenance Supervisor #375 in the main dining room in different areas, and measured at 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit (F), 68 degrees F and 66 degrees F. Maintenance Supervisor #375 stated he would have the temperatures adjusted by the time lunch was served. Interview and observation on 09/01/21 at 11:15 A.M. interview with Resident #14, revealed the dining room is always so cold. Resident #14 was sitting outside dining room with a long sleeve blouse and sweater on. Review of the facility policy titled Quality of Life-Homelike Environment, revised 05/2017, revealed the facility staff and management shall maximize to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting. These characteristics include maintaining a comfortable and safe temperatures between 71 degrees F and 81 degrees F.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement care plan interventions. This affected four (#1, #5, #28 and #49) of 22 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of nine out of 15. Resident #1 required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one person physical assist. No pressure ulcers; however, the resident is at risk for pressure ulcers, has skin tears. Resident #1 has a pressure reducing device for chair. Review of the care plan for Resident #1 revealed there was no care plan for skin conditions. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 07/31/21 cleanse skin tear to left mid lower leg with soap and water pat dry gently, apply optifoam dressing every third day until healed. Further review revealed an order dated 08/31/21 to apply foam dressing to right wrist and right forearm change every three days and as needed, ok to use bordered gauze. Interview on 09/02/21 at 11:29 A.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #354 verified that Resident #1 did not have a care plan in place for skin tears or skin conditions. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 02/19/16. Diagnoses included unspecified fracture of sacrum, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypothyroidism, urgency of urination, Alzheimer's Disease, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent, rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor of multiple sites without organ or systems involvement and gastro-esophageal reflux without esophagitis. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS of three out of 15. Resident had no or unknown weight loss. Resident had a fall any time in the last month or prior to admission/entry or reentry-yes, resident have a fall any time in the last two to six months prior to admission/entry/reentry-yes, resident had a fracture related to a fall in the six months prior to admission/entry/reentry, resident had a fall since admission,entry, reentry or the prior assessment, whichever is recent-yes, number of falls since admission or prior assessment-injury-one, recent surgery requiring active SNF care-yes, other major orthopedic surgery-yes. Resident was frequently incontinent of bladder and occasionally incontinent of bowel. Review of the care plan dated 08/29/18 revealed Resident #28 was at risk for falls related to her medication use and cognitive deficits. She has poor safety awareness. Has had two recent falls with injury. Interventions included to administer medication as ordered and monitor for side effects, be sure resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. Bed in low position and bed unplugged so she does not move it into a higher position for safety. Encourage resident to participate in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening and improve mobility. Ensure that resident is wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in wheelchair. Keep needed items, water, etc, within reach, provide visual prompts to ask for help. Pharmacist to review medications monthly. Provide a safe environment with even floor free from spills and/or clutter, adequate glare-free light, a working and reachable call light, the bed in lowest position at night. handrails on walls. personal items in reach. Resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit related to her cognitive deficits and joint pain. Interventions included encourage resident to use call bell for assistance. Resident requires extensive assistance of staff for toilet use and transfers. Observation on 09/01/21 at 6:24 A.M., 9:14 A.M. and 1:39 P.M. revealed Resident #28 dressed lying on top of her bed. Call light was lying on top of tray table, out of the residents reach. Staff interview on 09/01/21 at 1:41 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #309 verified that the call light was not in reach for Resident #28. RN #309 stated Resident #28 doesn't typically use her call light, but it should still be within their reach. RN #309 did not place the call light in Resident #28's reach before she left the room. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with healing, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's Disease, cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urge incontinence, essential hypertension, heart failure, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Mental Interview Status score of 99. Resident had other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others occur one to three days during the assessment period. No wandering behaviors. Resident received injections three days during the assessment period. Resident #49 received antipsychotic, diuretic and opioids four days and anticoagulant three days during the assessment period. Resident #49 received antipsychotics on a routine basis only. Review of the care plan dated 03/12/19 revealed Resident #49 was at risk for wandering/elopement due to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. The resident has a history of wandering and wanting to go home. Interventions identify resident's room and bathroom. Engage resident in purposeful activity. Provide care in a calm and reassuring manner. Provide clear, simple instructions. Provide reorientation to surroundings, environment, wander guard in place. Monitor function every shift. Review of the treatment administration records (TAR) revealed wander guard monitoring and functioning was checked/completed on : 06/13/21 A.M. or morning shift, 06/15/21 A.M. shift, 06/19/21 A.M. shift, 06/20/21 A.M. shift, 07/03/21 A.M. shift , 07/07/21 A.M. shift, 07/26/21 A.M. shift, 07/28/21 A.M. shift, 08/22/21 A.M. shift, 08/25/21 A.M. shift. Interview on 09/02/21 at 1:36 P.M. with the ADON #354 verified there was no documentation that the function and placement of the wander guard was checked/monitored for Resident #49 on 06/13/21 A.M. shift, 06/15/21 A.M. shift, 06/19/21 A.M. shift, 06/20/21 A.M. shift, 07/03/21 A.M. shift, 07/07/21 A.M. shift, 07/26/21 A.M. shift, 07/28/21 A.M. shift, 08/22/21 A.M. shift, 08/25/21 A.M. shift. 4. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/11/21. Diagnoses included panlobular emphysema, dementia without behavioral disturbance, difficulty in walking, repeated falls, Alzheimer's disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Resident #5's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the resident utilized oxygen and had shortness of breath when lying flat. Review of Resident #5's monthly physician orders dated August 2021 revealed the following orders: check oxygen saturation every shift, oxygen via nasal cannula at two liters per minute as needed for oxygen saturation reading below 90%, and albuterol sulfate nebulization solution three milliliters (ml's) via nebulizer every eight hours as needed. Review of Resident #5's care plan revealed the care plan did not address the resident's respiratory status or respiratory interventions. Interview on 09/02/21 at 11:45 A.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #5's care plan did not address the resident's oxygen usage, nebulizer treatment or monitoring the resident's oxygen saturations. Review of facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered dated December 2016, revealed the care plan will identify problem areas and their causes and will develop interventions that are targeted and meaningful to the resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to implement interventions for positioning,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to implement interventions for positioning, skin conditions, and post fall monitoring. This affected four (#30, #1, #49, and #44) of 22 residents reviewed for care and treatment. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/12/17. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance; hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction; atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris; and open-angle glaucoma. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #30 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive one person physical assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). Review of a physician order, dated 12/04/18, revealed half lap tray to wheelchair for positioning. Review of the plan of care, revised 02/06/19, revealed Resident #30 had an activities of daily living self care performance deficit related to her limited mobility, left sided weakness and impaired vision due to her diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and glaucoma. Interventions included half lap tray on left side of wheelchair to help with left arm positioning. Observations on 08/30/21 from 9:14 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. and on 08/31/21 at 7:45 A.M. of Resident #30 revealed the half lap tray was not in position. Interview on 08/31/21 at 7:52 A.M. of Register Nurse (RN) #323 verified Resident #30's left arm was not positioned on the half lap tray. RN #323 stated Resident #30 generally preferred her recliner and was only in her wheelchair for a couple of hours in the mornings. RN #323 verified the half lap tray was not in position for Resident #30's left arm to be placed on it. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date on 01/30/21. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of nine out of 15. Resident required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one person physical assist. Resident #1 received scheduled pain medication regimen and as needed (PRN) pain medication or was offered and declined. Should pain assessment interview be conducted-yes. Resident #1 has had any falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment, whichever is more recent. Number of falls since admission or prior assessment-no injury, two or more. Number of falls since admission or prior assessment-injury one, number of falls since admission or prior assessment-none. No pressure ulcers, resident is at risk for pressure ulcers, has skin tears. Resident #1 has a pressure reducing device for chair. Review of the care plan dated 02/04/21 revealed Resident #1 had an activity of daily living (ADL) self care performance deficit related to fatigue and debility. Resident #1 is alert and can make needs known. Resident #1 has some occasional incontinence. My vision is adequate and the resident is slightly hard of hearing. Resident #1 can ambulate with a walker. Resident #1 has his/her my own teeth per admit screener. Physical and Occupational Therapy (PT/OT) evaluation and treatment as per physician orders. Encourage resident to use bell to call for assistance. Resident #1 needs supervision to limited assist of one staff member for transfers, bed mobility, toilet use, dressing. Resident #1 needs supervision to limited assist of one staff member The medical record contained no documentation regarding a care plan for skin conditions. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 02/08/21 to complete weekly skin observations every Monday. The review revealed an order dated 07/31/21 cleanse skin tear to left mid lower leg with soap and water pat dry gently. Apply optifoam dressing every third day until healed. Further review revealed an order dated on 08/31/21 to apply foam dressing to right wrist and right forearm change every three days/PRN ok to use bordered gauze. Review of the skin assessments revealed skin assessments were not completed in 05/2021, 06/16/21 through 07/27/21 and 07/27/21 through 08/11/21. Review of the fall investigations revealed Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall on 06/06/21 and 06/10/21 and there were no neurological checks completed on 06/06/21 and only a partial set of neurological checks completed on 06/10/21. Interview on 09/07/21 at 11:46 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there were no skin assessments completed for Resident #1 in 05/2021, 06/16/21 through 07/27/21 and 07/27/21 through 08/11/21. The DON confirmed Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall on 06/06/21 and 06/10/21 and no neurological checks were completed following the fall on 06/06/21 and not a full neurological check or assessment was completed following the fall on 06/10/21. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with healing, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's Disease, cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urge incontinence, essential hypertension, heart failure, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Mental Interview Status score of 99. Resident #49 had other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others occur one to three days during the assessment period. No wandering behaviors. Resident had a fall in the last month prior to admission/entry or reentry. Resident #49 had a fall any time in the last two to six months prior to admission/entry or reentry. Resident #49 had a fracture related to a fall in the six months prior to admission/entry or reentry. Repair fractures of the pelvis, hip leg, knee or ankle (not foot), yes, Review of the care plan dated 03/12/19 revealed Resident #49 was unaware of safety needs and gait/balance problems. Does not feel she needs stand by assist when ambulating long distances. Tends to lose her balance when making turns. Interventions- OT to evaluation for object retrieval during meal prep, promote a safe environment with even floors free from spills and/or clutter, glare free light, a working and adequate reachable call light, the bed in low position at night personal items within reach. anticipate and meet needs. Be sure call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. Declutter room and keep floor free from clutter and obstacles. Fluff pillows while sitting in chair or wheel to provide a more suitable surface and support to resident while fluffing. Pharmacy consult to review meds monthly and make recommendations for dosage adjustments. reminder signs to use walker and use call light. Review of the unwitnessed fall investigations dated 07/17/21 and 08/01/21 revealed no neurological checks were completed on 07/17/21 and only three neurological checks were completed post fall on 08/01/21. Interview with the DON on 09/07/21 at 10:46 A.M. revealed that neurological checks are to be completed with any unwitnessed falls, that is the facilities standard of practice. The DON further stated neurological checks are completed every 15 minutes for two hours and then every 30 minutes for two hours then every two hours for four hours. The DON verified there were no neuro checks done for the unwitnessed fall on 07/17/21 and only three neurological checks were completed on 08/01/21. The facility denied having a policy for post fall neurological checks, but stated it was their standard of practice. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 01/29/15. Diagnoses included toxic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder, recurrent, heart failure, insomnia, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, urge incontinence. Review of the significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of 09. Resident has a pressure ulcer/injury-no, resident was at risk for pressure ulcers, has a pressure reducing device for chair and bed. Review of the care plan dated 01/10/19 revealed Resident #44 presents with unavoidable risk for pressure ulcer and decline due to terminal diagnosis and on hospice services. Continues with the following risk factors. Weakness, incontinence of bowel/bladder and limited mobility needs help for repositioning. Assist reposition at least every two hours, more often as needed or requested. Assist with incontinent care after each occasional, assure pressure redistribution devices are present on bed and chair daily. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 02/06/21 through 07/24/21 for weekly skin observation to be done every Saturday. Review of the skin assessments for Resident #44 revealed skin assessments were completed on 02/28/21, 04/08/21, 06/16/21 and 08/25/21. There were no other evidence of skin assessments being completed for Resident #44. Interview on 09/07/21 at 11:47 A.M. with the DON verified Resident #44 had four skin assessments completed between 02/28/21 through 08/25/21. The DON confirmed there was no other evidence of skin assessments being completed for Resident #44.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to cover food during hall tray delivery to residents rooms and ensure food was dated properly to prevent food ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to cover food during hall tray delivery to residents rooms and ensure food was dated properly to prevent food borne illnesses. This had the potential to affect all 53 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/30/21 at 11:44 A.M. of hall tray service on the C Hall revealed the meal cart was placed in the common area of the hall. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #319 was observed removing lunch trays from the meal cart, walking down the hall and delivering to the resident rooms. Observation of the lunch trays revealed cupcakes on the meal trays had a plastic cover over the top, but the bottom portion, approximately half of the cupcake, was exposed. Interview on 08/30/21 at 11:50 A.M. of STNA #319 verified the bottom portion of the cupcakes were not properly covered during delivery to resident rooms. STNA #319 stated the cupcakes should have been placed in a cup and the plastic cover then placed over them to ensure they were properly covered. STNA #319 verified Residents #8, #14, #34, #39, #46 and #53 received cupcakes on their lunch tray during meal service. Review of facility policy titled Preventing Foodborne Illness - Food Handling, revised July 2014, revealed food will stored, prepared, handled and served so that the risk of foodborne illness is minimized. 2. Observation of the facility kitchen on 08/30/21 at 9:10 A.M. revealed a flour bin that had a scoop left in the flour. Interview on 08/30/21 at 9:10 A.M. with [NAME] #358 verified there was a scoop left in the flour bin. Observation of the facility kitchen on 08/30/21 at 9:15 A.M. revealed one bag of hot dog buns that had green mold. Observation of the facility kitchen on 08/30/21 at 9:18 A.M. revealed a refrigerator that had a container of celery and a container of sliced tomatoes with a throw out date of 08/29/21 and a container of mushrooms undated. There were two trays of salads undated. Interview on 08/30/21 at 9:25 A.M. with [NAME] #387 verified there was a bag of hot dog buns with mold, two trays of salad undated in the refrigerator, there was a container of sliced tomatoes and a container of celery that was outdated and a container of mushrooms undated. The facility confirmed all residents receive meals from the kitchen. Review of the policy titled Refrigerated Storage, undated, revealed refrigerated food shall be stored in a manner that optimizes food safety and quality. Refrigerator items shall bear a label indicating product name and date that product was received, used, or first opened. Discard date may be included on labels per facility preference.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interview, review of the facility policy and review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to properly wear facemasks while providing resident care, failed to monitor residents for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and failed to wear an N95 respirator while performing staff testing for COVID-19 to potentially limit the transmission of COVID-19. This had the potential to affect 53 of 53 residents who reside in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to store oxygen tubing in a sanitary manner, affecting one (#25) resident reviewed for oxygen tube storage. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/30/21 at 8:05 A.M. of the reception area revealed all staff were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 upon entrance into the facility. Outside the door of the reception desk was a cart with facemasks. A sign hanging on the cart stated to wear a facemask over both the nose and mouth. Observation on 08/30/21 at 12:28 P.M. of the second floor dining room, revealed Stated Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #319 providing feeding assistance to Resident #18 and was within arms reach of the resident while she provided assistance. STNA #319's facemask was placed below her nose. Additional observation revealed STNA #348 assisting Residents #38 and #41 with eating. STNA #348 was seated between the residents and was within arms reach of each resident. STNA #348's facemask was placed below her nose. Interviews on 08/30/21 at 12:36 P.M. of STNA's #319 and #348, verified their facemasks were placed below their noses while providing feeding assistance to Residents #18, #38 and #41. Both STNA's stated they were unvaccinated for COVID-19. Review of CDC guidance titled, Guidance for Wearing Masks, updated 04/19/21 and located at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html , revealed masks should completely cover the nose and mouth and fit snugly against the sides of face without gaps. 2. Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/10/19. Diagnoses included heart failure, unspecified; unspecified atrial fibrillation; atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris; hypertension; major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified; osteoarthritis, unspecified site and other intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar region. Additional review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #39 was cognitively intact. Review of the CHI Active Respirator Screens from 08/15/21 to 09/03/21, revealed the assessment was not completed for Resident #39 on 08/15/21, 08/20/21, 08/25/21, 08/28/21, and 09/03/21. Review of the Resident's vital signs in the EMR for the same time period revealed Resident #39's temperature was not monitored on 08/15/21, 08/20/21, 08/25/21, 08/28/21 and 09/03/21. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, unspecified; malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast; unspecified atrial fibrillation; acute kidney failure; and pulmonary hypertension. Additional review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of the CHI Respiratory Screens from 08/15/21 to 09/03/21, revealed the assessment was not completed for Resident #18 on 08/15/21, 08/20/21, 08/25/21 and 09/03/21. Review of the resident's vital signs in the EMR for the same time period revealed Resident #18's temperature and oxygen saturation were not monitored on 08/15/21, 08/20/21, 08/25/21 and 09/03/21. Interview on 09/02/21 with the Administrator verified COVID-19 screenings were not completed at least daily for Residents #39 and #18. Review of facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Policy Covid-19, Basic Policy, revised 07/16/21, revealed the facility will actively screen each of the residents utilizing the CHI Active Respiratory Screen a minimum of daily for all residents. 3. Observation on 09/02/21 at 8:32 A.M. of routine testing for staff who were unvaccinated for COVID-19 revealed Mission Integration (MI) #383 obtained her specimen collection kit from human resources. MI #383 traveled to the third floor of the facility to have nursing collect the specimen for COVID-19 testing. Continued observation revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #373, wearing goggles and a surgical facemask, perform hand hygiene, don a gown and gloves, and proceeded to collect the nasal test specimen from MI #383. LPN #373 completed the specimen collection and doffed the gown and gloves and performed hand hygiene and exited the room where she collected the specimen and entered a resident care area. Interview at the time of the observation of LPN #373, verified she did not don an N95 while collecting the COVID-19 test specimen from MI #383 and stated she only needed to wear the surgical facemask. Review of facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Policy Covid-19, revised 05/04/21, revealed facilities must conduct testing according to nationally recognized guidelines, outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Review of CDC guidance titled Interim Guidelines for Collecting and Handling Clinical Specimens for COVID-19 Testing, updated 02/26/21 and located at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guidelines-clinical-specimens.html, revealed healthcare providers collecting specimens should maintain proper infection control and use recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an N95 or higher-level respirator, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. #4. Review of Resident #25's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/26/18. Diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia without behavioral disturbance, pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic respiratory failure. Review of Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident had intact cognition. Further review of the assessment listed the resident as receiving oxygen. Review of Resident #25's care plan revealed the resident had altered respiratory status related to sleep apnea and chronic respiratory failure. Interventions included to provide continuous oxygen as ordered. Review of Resident #25's monthly physician orders dated August 2021, revealed an order for continuous oxygen at three liters per minute via nasal cannula. Observation on 08/31/21 at 2:30 P.M. of Resident #25's bathroom, revealed the resident's oxygen tubing with nasal cannula hanging over the back of the toilet attached to a portable oxygen concentrator. The resident stated she does use the oxygen in the bathroom when she uses the restroom. Observation on 08/31/21 at 2:47 P.M., revealed Resident #25's oxygen tubing with nasal cannula attached draped over the back of the resident's toilet and was not covered or placed in a bag. Interview on 08/31/21 at 2:27 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #323, verified Resident #25's oxygen tubing had been draped over the back of the resident's toilet. RN #323 stated the oxygen tubing should be stored in a bag when not in use. This deficiency substantiates Complaint Numbers OH00111538 and OH00111572.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

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, review of the facility census record for resident COVID-19 testing, staff interview, review of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of the facility census record for resident COVID-19 testing, staff interview, review of the facility policy, review of staff COVID-19 testing logs, staff laboratory results, and review of guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the facility failed to document resident COVID-19 test results in the electronic medical record (EMR), failed to timely follow up with the laboratory staff COVID-19 test results and failed to monitor a resident who refused COVID-19 testing during a facility outbreak. This had the potential to affect 53 of 53 residents who reside in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility census for resident testing for COVID-19, dated 08/24/21 and 08/25/21, revealed Residents #16, #49, #37, #22, #1, #50, #305, #27, #14, #40, #28, #44, #10, #205, #13, #43, #12, #52, #47, #45, #4, #35, #24, #206, #36, #7 and #15 were tested for COVID-19 following a positive staff COVID-19 test result, resulting in facility outbreak testing. Next to each resident name was the result of the test. The residents resided on the A and B halls of the facility. Review of the medical records for Residents #16, #49, #37, #22, #1, #50, #305, #27, #14, #40, #28, #44, #10, #205, #13, #43, #12, #52, #47, #45, #4, #35, #24, #206, #36, #7 and #15, revealed no documentation in the EMR of the resident testing or results. Interview on 08/31/21 at 3:43 P.M. of the Director of Nursing (DON), verified resident COVID-19 test results were to be documented in a progress note. The DON stated the facility was conducting outbreak testing after a staff member had tested positive for COVID-19 on 08/16/21. The DON verified she completed resident COVID-19 testing on 08/24/21 and 08/25/21, on the A and B Halls of the facility, with results documented on a facility census, and the test results were not documented in the resident's EMR. The DON stated this was an oversight. Review of facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Policy Covid-19, revised 05/04/21, revealed the facility must document testing results in the medical record. 2. Review of the staff COVID-19 testing log, dated 08/12/21, revealed Maintenance Technician (MT) #347 was tested for COVID-19, as part of routine staff testing for unvaccinated staff. The testing log indicated a positive test result was received on 08/15/21 for MT #347. Review of laboratory results dated [DATE], revealed MT #347's COVID-19 test specimen was collected on 08/12/21, received by the laboratory on 08/15/21, and final report was made on 08/17/21. The test result was positive. Interview on 09/02/21 at 8:40 A.M. of MT #347, revealed he felt kind of funny beginning on 08/12/21, stating he felt like he had a cold and a sore arm. MT #347 stated he received his first COVID-19 vaccination on 08/11/21, and attributed his symptoms to receiving the vaccination. MT #347 stated he came to work on 08/16/21 but was feeling bad and was having trouble breathing. MT #347 stated he had another medical condition and attributed his difficulty breathing to that. The facility did send MT #347 home after approximately three hours of work on 08/16/21. MT #347 stated he did go to the hospital, where he tested positive for COVID-19 and informed the facility of his positive test result. Interview on 09/02/21 at 8:49 A.M. of Director of Human Resources (HR) #322, revealed COVID-19 test results for specimens that were collected on the facility's Thursday testing day were never received before Monday or Tuesday of the next week. HR #322 stated test specimens collected on Thursdays were taken for delivery to the laboratory on the day of the specimen collection by one of the facility staff. HR #322 verified she did not follow up with the laboratory over the weekend regarding test results from the 08/12/21 staff testing. HR #322 verified the facility initially became aware MT #347 was positive for COVID-19 after he was sent home from work due to symptoms and later tested positive for COVID-19 at the hospital. HR #322 stated she did not know why it took so long for MT #347's test results to return from the laboratory or why the laboratory report indicated MT #347's specimen was not received until 08/15/21. HR #347 verified she had no documentation she had followed up with the laboratory regarding the results. Interview on 09/08/21 at 1:23 P.M. with the Administrator, revealed all staff test specimens for COVID-19 were delivered to the shipping company on the date the specimen was collected for overnight shipment to the laboratory. The Administrator verified there had been no delays in getting COVID-19 test specimens to the shipping company. Review of facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Policy Covid-19 Testing, revised 05/04/21, revealed if the 48-hour turn-around time cannot be met due to community testing supply shortages, limited access, or inability of laboratories to process tests within 48 hours, the facility should have documentation of its efforts to obtain quick turnaround test results with the identified laboratory or laboratories and contact with the local and state health departments. 3. Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/18/17. Diagnoses included unspecified sequelae of unspecified cerebrovascular disease disease; unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance; hemiplegia and hemiparesis; gastric ulcer, unspecified as acute or chronic without hemorrhage or perforation. Additional review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #20 was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of the facility census for resident COVID-19 testing, dated 08/24/21 and 08/25/21, revealed Resident #20 refused COVID-19 testing as part of the facility outbreak testing. Review of the CHI Active Respiratory Screens from 08/15/21 to 09/03/21, revealed the assessment was not completed for Resident #20 on 08/18/21, 08/21/21, 08/24/21, 08/28/21, 08/29/21 and 09/01/21. Additional review of Resident #20's vitals for the same time period in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed Resident #20's temperature and oxygen saturation were not monitored on 08/18/21, 08/21/21, 08/28/21, 08/29/21 and 09/01/21 and, on 08/24/21, her temperature was checked but oxygen saturation was not monitored. Interview on 09/02/21 at 4:43 P.M. with the Administrator verified the facility was conducting outbreak testing following a positive staff test. The outbreak testing period was from 08/12/21 to 08/26/21. The Administrator verified symptom monitoring was not completed for Resident #20 on 08/25/21 and 08/26/21 and no additional precautions were in place. Review of facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Policy Covid-19 Testing, revised 05/04/21, revealed if there was a facility outbreak and the resident declined testing, he or she should be placed on or remain on transmission-based precautions until he or she meets the symptom-based criteria for discontinuation, or the outbreak was resolved, whichever was longer.
Feb 2020 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a plan of care was developed to address the ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a plan of care was developed to address the care and treatment of a stage IV pressure ulcer for one (#39) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified four residents identified with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 44. Findings including: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #39 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included stage IV coccygeal pressure ulcer, arthritis, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, congestive heart failure, cerebral vascular accident, glaucoma, and osteopenia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/24/20, revealed Resident #39 had the ability to make needs known, had moderate cognitive impairment, was dependent on two staff for the completion of activities of daily living including bed mobility and transfer, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and receiving treatment for a stage IV pressure ulcer. Review of the 12/18/19 skin assessment revealed the resident was at risk for skin breakdown. Review of a skin assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was admitted with a stage IV pressure ulcer to the coccyx measuring 3 centimeters (cm) by 4 cm by 2.5 cm deep with tunneling. Review of the wound center evaluation dated 02/17/20 revealed the wound was post debridement measuring 5 cm by 5.5 cm by 2.5 cm. Large serosanguinous drainage with mild odor was noted and a culture was taken. The medical record contained no plan of care addressing the care and treatment of Resident #39's stage IV pressure ulcer. Interview on 02/20/20 at 2:15 P.M. the Director of Nursing verified no nursing plan of care was developed to address the stage IV pressure ulcer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow physician orders and facility policy to change the peripherally inserted central catheter(PICC) dressings every seven days for one (#46) of one resident reviewed for PICC lines. The facility identified two residents with PICC lines. The facility census was 44. Findings include; Review of the medical record revealed Resident #46 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, malignant neoplasm of pancreas, type 2 diabetes mellitus, severe protein calorie malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, anemia, cardiomegaly, and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 02/06/20, the resident was identified as alert, oriented, able to make needs known, dependent on staff for the completion of activities of daily living, and receiving intravenous (IV) medications. Review of hospital discharge orders dated 01/25/20 the resident was to have a PICC line left in place. Review of the plan of care dated 01/30/20 revealed a care plan for the PICC line and the use of IV antibiotic medications being administered related to infections. Interventions included: Will not have any complications related to IV therapy, Check dressing at site daily, if IV is infiltrated: stop infusion and thoroughly examine the site, Monitor/document/report to physician signs and symptoms of infection at the site: drainage, inflammation, swelling, redness, and warmth. Review of physician order revealed on 02/05/20 the physician ordered the PICC line dressing to be changed with injection ports once a week,every seven days. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence of any PICC line dressing changes since 02/05/20. Observation on 02/18/20 at 10:21 A.M. revealed Resident #46 was noted with a double lumen PICC line to the right upper arm. The transparent semi-permeable membrane dressing was dated 02/05/20 and peeling off. Interview on 02/18/20 at 6:20 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #311, during observation of Resident #46, verified the PICC line dressing was dated 02/05/20 and peeling from the site. LPN #311 verified the dressing was to be changed every seven days in accordance with facility policy and/or physician orders. Interview on 02/19/20 06:10 A.M. the Director of Nursing confirmed the dressing change should have been conducted every seven days. The order was not entered correctly and the dressing had not been completed since 02/05/20. Review of the facility policy titled Central Venous Catheter Dressing Change, revised April 2016, indicated transparent semi-permeable membrane dressings are to be changed at least every five to seven days and as needed (when wet, soiled, or not intact).
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a pressure relieving mattress wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a pressure relieving mattress was placed on the proper settings and failed to acquire equipment to follow physician orders for treatment of a stage IV pressure ulcer for one (#39) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified four residents with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 44. Findings including: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #39 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included stage IV coccygeal pressure ulcer, arthritis, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, congestive heart failure, cerebral vascular accident, glaucoma, and osteopenia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/24/20, revealed Resident #39 had the ability to make needs known, had moderate cognitive impairment, was dependent on two staff for the completion of activities of daily living including bed mobility and transfer, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and receiving treatment for a stage IV pressure ulcer. Review of the 12/18/19 skin assessment revealed the resident was at risk for skin breakdown. Review of a skin assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was admitted with a stage IV pressure ulcer to the coccyx measuring 3 centimeters (cm) by 4 cm by 2.5 cm deep with tunneling. Review of physician orders revealed on 12/26/19 the physician ordered an alternating air mattress to be applied to the bed. No documentation was provided indicating when the air mattress was placed in use. Review of wound center documentation on 01/13/20 the resident was evaluated for a stage IV pressure ulcer to the coccyx. The wound was described as measuring 4.7 long by 5.2 cm wide by 4.3 cm deep with a large amount of serosanguinous drainage. The physician ordered to cleanse the coccyx with liquid antibiotic soap and water and rinse well. The dressing orders included a debriding agent of 0.125% Dakins solution applied to a moist to moist dressing and change twice daily. Review of wound center documentation on 02/03/20 the residents stage IV coccygeal pressure ulcer was evaluated. The wound was described as measuring 4.4 cm long by 6.2 cm wide by 4.5 cm deep with a large amount of serosanguinous drainage post debridement. The physician documented to check with facility regarding wound vacuum placement. bid. Review of wound center documentation on 02/17/20 noted the coccyx wound to the cleansed with liquid antibiotic soap and water rinse well. The wound dressing was to change to a KCI wound vacuum (facility to apply today), drape wound with KCI film, place white foam over exposed bone then fill with black foam. Apply positive bolster around wound, bridge hip (make sure there is KCI film under black foam of bridge) and set at 150 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) continuous pressure. Change the dressing Monday, Wednesday, and Friday Dietician to follow low pre-albumin and large draining wound. The area measured 5 cm by 5.5 cm by 2.5 cm with large amount of serosanguinous drainage with mild odor. Review of the resident's weights revealed the resident weighed 125 pounds. Observation on 02/18/20 at 5:10 P.M. revealed the resident was in bed with an air mattress on and settings display at 16. On 02/19/20 at 6:30 A.M. resident in bed with air mattress setting at 16. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing #1 on 02/19/20 at 7:15 A.M. revealed the facility did not have a copy of the alternating air mattress manufacturer directions for use and the durable medical equipment company would be contacted. Review on 02/19/20 at 8:40 A.M. of the air mattress pressure redistribution operating instructions revealed patient set-up requires the bed setting to be coordinated with the resident's weight. Observation on 02/19/20 at 2:45 P.M. noted Registered Nurse (RN) #312 and RN #313 to complete a dressing change. They applied the debriding agent 0.125% Dakins solution to a moist to moist dressing and placed to the pressure ulcer. Interview at the time of the observation on 02/19/20 at 2:45 P.M. with RN #312 confirmed the wound vacuum had not been delivered to the facility and she was informed to continue the previous dressing change. Further interview revealed RN #312 and RN #313 were not able to operate or verify the settings on the air mattress were appropriate for Resident #39. Observation on 02/20/20 at 7:00 A.M. revealed Resident #39 to be in bed with the air mattress set at 13. Interview on 02/20/20 8:30 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she was unaware of the operation of the air mattress and the setting requirements according to the resident's weight. The DON indicated her follow-up noted the bed was set at 16, which was for a person weighing 150 pounds. Resident #39's current weight was 125 pounds and the bed should be set at 13. The bed was set-up by the durable medical equipment company and nursing staff were unaware how to operate or verify the correct settings were in place for Resident #39's specific needs. Additionally, the resident's wound vacuum was still unavailable at the time of the interview and the durable medical equipment company had not returned previous telephone calls. Interview on 02/20/20 at 10:51 A.M. with DON revealed the facility was still waiting for the wound vacuum to be delivered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to reassess a resident who...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to reassess a resident who demonstrated a significant weight loss. This affected one (#28) of two reviewed for nutrition. The facility identified three residents with unplanned significant weight loss. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/22/16. Diagnoses included Down's syndrome, abnormal posture, dementia, peripheral vascular disease, dysphagia, hallucinations, seizures, and osteoarthritis. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/14/20, revealed Resident #28 was rarely or never understood. Resident #28 required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, dressing, eating, toilet us and personal hygiene. Resident #28 displayed no behaviors during the review period. Resident #28 held food in her mouth/cheeks or had residual food in mouth after meals. Resident #28 had no significant weight changes during the review period. Resident #28 had a mechanically altered diet. Review of Resident #28's care plan revised 01/16/20 revealed supports and interventions of self-care deficit and risk for altered nutrition. Review of Resident #28's weights revealed on 01/21/20 Resident #28 weighed 132 pounds (lbs). On 02/04/20 Resident #28 weighed 123 lbs. This was a 6.8% weight loss in fourteen days. On 02/19/20 Resident #28's weight was documented as 125 lbs. Review of Resident #28's nutritional assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 received a regular diet with ground meat and small portions. Resident #28's average intake was 50% to 100%. Resident #28 was to have a divided plate and a lidded double handled cup. Resident #28's weight and meal intakes were stable at the time of the assessment. There were no further assessments addressing Resident #28's nutritional assessment. Review of Resident #28's progress notes found no documented notifications were made to the physician or the dietician regarding Resident #28's significant weight loss. Interview on 02/19/20 at 10:07 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #200 revealed Resident #28 was not able to make her needs known and required physical assistance with eating. STNA #200 reported Resident #28 was weighed monthly and Resident #28's February 2020 weight showed a weight loss from her January 2020 weight. STNA #200 reported the loss was reported to the nurse who requested Resident #28 to be reweighed on 02/19/20. STNA #200 was not aware of any supplements or dietary changes made related to the weight loss. STNA #200 reported no weights were taken between the 02/04/20 and 02/19/20. Interview on 02/19/20 at 10:24 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #310 verified she was aware Resident #28 had significant weight loss of nine pounds on 02/04/20. LPN #310 reported Resident #28 was reweighed today, 02/19/20, and was 125 lbs. which was a two pound increase but still a significant weight loss from Resident #28's 01/21/20 weight. LPN #310 verified no notifications were made and stated getting a dietary consult would be helpful. Interview on 02/19/20 at 2:55 P.M. with Dietician #420 revealed Resident #28 was last seen by her on 11/07/19 for her quarterly assessment. Dietician #420 reported Resident #28 was on a mechanical soft diet with no ordered supplements. Resident #28's weights were stable at her last evaluation. Dietician #420 reported she was aware Resident #28's weight today 02/19/20 was 125 lbs. Dietician #420 stated she would be addressing the weight change tomorrow. Interview on 02/19/20 at 4:49 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Dietician #420 was scheduled to review Resident #28 on 02/20/20. Review of the undated facility policy titled Weight Protocol, revealed residents who have experienced unplanned, significant weight loss or gradual weight loss shall be weighed weekly until stable. All monthly weights shall be completed by the fifth of the month and reweights shall be completed by the eight of the month or per facility policy. The legal representative, resident, and physician shall be notified of any significant weight variances per the facility protocol. Review of the undated facility policy titled Guidelines for Completing the Nutrition Assessment Form, revealed a nutrition professional shall complete the Nutrition Assessment form for all residents upon admission, readmission, significant changes in condition, annually and additionally per clinical judgement as part of the Nutrition Care Process. Review of the undated facility policy titled Quarterly Assessments, revealed an assessment reviewing the resident's current nutrition and hydration status shall be completed by the nutrition professional on a quarterly basis or more frequently, directed by the MDS schedule as the resident's condition and/or nutrition and hydration status changes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0570 (Tag F0570)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of resident account information, review of the surety bond, and staff interview, the facility failed to have a surety bond sufficient to cover resident account balances. This affected ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of resident account information, review of the surety bond, and staff interview, the facility failed to have a surety bond sufficient to cover resident account balances. This affected 35 resident (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #9, #10, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #39, #40 #41, #42, #43, #101, #102, and #103) identified resident with resident accounts. The census was 44. Findings include: Review of resident account balances revealed the facility managed funds for 35 residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #9, #10, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #39, #40 #41, #42, #43, #101, #102, and #103) with a total of account balance equal to $76,960.93. In addition, the facility managed resident funds for two residents in assisted living residents with account balances totaling $6,326.89. The total of all resident accounts managed by the facility equaled $83,287.82. Review of the facility's surety bond, effective 02/01/19 revealed a coverage amount of $45,000. Interview on 02/19/20 at 10:35 A.M. with the Administrator revealed the surety bond provided coverage for all resident accounts managed by the facility. The Administrator verified the total of resident account balances equaled $83,287.82 and the surety bond was for $45,000. Interview on 02/19/20 at 10:45 A.M. with the Business Office Manager (BOM) #150 verified the surety bond of $45,000 was not sufficient to secure resident funds.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 44% turnover. Below Ohio's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $45,250 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 39 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $45,250 in fines. Higher than 94% of Ohio facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 45/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is The Gardens Of St. Francis's CMS Rating?

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

How is The Gardens Of St. Francis Staffed?

CMS rates THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Gardens Of St. Francis?

State health inspectors documented 39 deficiencies at THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS during 2020 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 37 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates The Gardens Of St. Francis?

THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 53 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in OREGON, Ohio.

How Does The Gardens Of St. Francis Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Gardens Of St. Francis?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is The Gardens Of St. Francis Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at The Gardens Of St. Francis Stick Around?

THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Ohio nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was The Gardens Of St. Francis Ever Fined?

THE GARDENS OF ST. FRANCIS has been fined $45,250 across 1 penalty action. The Ohio average is $33,531. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is The Gardens Of St. Francis on Any Federal Watch List?

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