LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER

565 BRYN MAWR, RAVENNA, OH 44266 (330) 297-5781
For profit - Corporation 99 Beds EMBASSY HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
30/100
#720 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Longmeadow Care Center in Ravenna, Ohio, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #720 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half, and is the lowest-ranked facility in Portage County at #10 out of 10. The situation appears to be worsening, as the number of issues reported increased from 5 in 2024 to 18 in 2025. Staffing is rated 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 51%, which is average but suggests instability. Notably, the home has incurred $71,955 in fines, which is concerning and indicates compliance issues more severe than 87% of Ohio facilities. Additionally, RN coverage is lower than 95% of state facilities, which raises concerns about the oversight of resident care. Specific incidents include delays in implementing treatment orders that resulted in a resident developing a pressure ulcer and another resident experiencing a serious medical decline without timely intervention, both of which could have been prevented with better care practices. While the facility excels in quality measures, the numerous health and safety concerns highlight critical weaknesses that families should consider.

Trust Score
F
30/100
In Ohio
#720/913
Bottom 22%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 18 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
51% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$71,955 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 18 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Ohio average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 51%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $71,955

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: EMBASSY HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Apr 2025 17 deficiencies 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure treatment orders were implemented in a timely manner and/or completed as ordered. Actual Harm occurred on 02/04/25 when Resident #17, who was a paraplegic and was dependent on staff assistance for most activities of daily living (ADL) including transfers, and rolling left and right in bed, was found to have an in-house acquired Stage II pressure ulcer (partial- thickness skin loss appearing as a shallow area with a red or pink wound bed) to his sacrum (located at the base of the spine) that measured 3.5 centimeters (cm) in length by 1.9 cm in width by 0.2 cm in depth. The facility failed to implement the treatment as ordered on 02/04/25 of Medi Honey (a brand of medical-grade honey-based product used for wound management) and silicone bordered foam dressing daily until 02/07/25. Wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) #900 consulted on 02/11/25 and noted a significant decline to Resident #17's sacrum pressure ulcer as the wound increased in size to 11.0 cm in length by 5.2 cm in width by unable to determine the depth as the wound had 10 percent slough (dead tissue that accumulated on the surface of a wound) and 60 percent purple/ maroon discoloration. Wound NP #900 classified the pressure wound as unstageable (full thickness tissue loss in which the actual depth of the ulcer was obscured by slough/ dead skin). The facility did not ensure ongoing treatments were completed as ordered and on 03/18/25, Resident #17's sacrum pressure ulcer was classified as a Stage 4 pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle) as the wound had bone that was palpable. In addition, Resident #17 had pressure ulcers to his right and left ankles and the treatments were not completed as ordered. This affected one (#17) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 10/31/24 with diagnoses including paraplegia, diabetes, pressure ulcer to sacral region, and congestive heart failure. Resident #17 was on hospice when admitted with senile degeneration of the brain listed as his end stage diagnosis; however, hospice was discontinued on 01/08/25, and he had no other terminal/end stage diagnosis. Review of the care plan dated 11/04/24 revealed Resident #17 had actual skin impairment related to diabetic, arterial, and pressure ulcers. He preferred to be out of bed and lie on his back despite education. Interventions included initiating wound treatment and continuing treatment as ordered, limiting time out of bed, nursing to observe the wound dressing daily to ensure that the dressing remains intact and that there were no signs of infection, pressure reducing cushion to chair and pressure reducing mattress to bed. Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 had intact cognition. He had impairment on both his lower extremities and required substantial to maximum assistance with toileting hygiene and showers. He was completely dependent on staff with rolling left and right and transfers. He was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and had two unhealed Stage 3 (full-thickness skin loss extending to the subcutaneous tissue layer) pressure ulcers that were present on admission and one vascular ulcer. Review of the February 2025 treatment administration record (TAR) revealed Resident #17 had an order to his sacrum area to apply zinc barrier cream topically every shift and as needed dated from 10/31/24 to 02/06/25. The TAR was blank, indicating the treatment was not completed on dayshift 02/01/25, 02/02/25 and 02/06/25. The treatment order to his sacrum pressure ulcer was changed on 02/07/25, three days after Wound NP #900 had ordered to clean the wound with normal saline, pat dry, apply Medi Honey and cover with silicone foam dressing daily and as needed. The treatment order for Resident #17's sacrum pressure ulcer was changed on 02/12/25 to clean the wound with normal saline, pat dry, apply calcium alginate (absorbent sterile wound dressing used to manage moderate to heavy drainage from a wound), cover with silicone foam dressing daily and as needed. The TAR was blank, indicating the treatment was not completed on 02/18/25. The treatment order for Resident #17's sacrum pressure ulcer was changed on 02/19/25 to clean the wound with normal saline, pat dry, apply one fourth strength Dakin's (a solution for wound management for cleaning and debriding wounds) moistened gauze, and cover with silicone foam dressing daily and as needed. The TAR was blank, indicating that the treatment was not completed on 02/26/25 and 02/28/25. Review of the nursing note dated 02/03/25 and completed by Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #323 revealed Resident #17 had a new open area to his sacrum area. Wound NP #900 was notified and stated she would see Resident #17 in the morning (02/04/25). Review of the Skin Grid Pressure assessment dated [DATE] and completed by ADON/LPN #323 revealed Resident #17 had a new Stage 2 pressure ulcer to his sacrum that measured 3.5 cm in length by 1.9 cm in width by 0.2 cm in depth. The wound was described as a shallow open area with pink moist tissue with a thin biofilm (protective slimy layer on the wound surface) partially wiped away. The assessment noted adding Medi Honey for autolytic debridement (a wound care technique that used the patient's enzymes to break down and remove dead tissue). Review of Wound NP #900's progress note dated 02/04/25 revealed Resident #17 had a new in-house acquired Stage 2 partial thickness pressure ulcer to his sacrum that measured 3.5 cm in length by 1.9 cm in width by 0.2 cm in depth. The area was described as a shallow open area with pink moist tissue with thin biofilm that partially wiped away. A new order was received to cleanse the wound with normal saline, apply Medi Honey and silicone bordered foam dressing daily. She revealed the treatment was chosen for autolytic debridement, antimicrobial activity (substances ability to kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms), and epithelization promotion (the process of repairing a wound). The progress note stated that Resident #17 and the nursing staff were educated on the importance of adhering to prescribed treatments and dressing changes to prevent infection. Review of the Skin Grid Pressure assessment dated [DATE] and completed by ADON/LPN #323 revealed Resident #17's pressure ulcer to his sacrum had a rapid decline with larger measurements, and the wound had dark purple tissue extending across the sacrum towards the rectal area. The wound was classified as an unstageable pressure ulcer and measured 11 cm in length by 5.2 cm in width and the depth was unable to be determined. Review of Wound NP #900's progress note dated 02/11/25 revealed nursing reported a decline to Resident #17's sacral pressure ulcer which was previously thought may be related to moisture, but upon assessment Wound NP #900 felt the wound was pressure. Wound NP #900 revealed the wound may be related to end-of-life skin failure such as Kennedy terminal ulcer (Resident #17 did not have a terminal diagnosis, and Wound NP #900 felt the wound had a high likelihood of healing). She described the wound as unstageable and measured 11.0 cm in length by 5.2 cm in width and unable to determine the depth. The wound bed contained 30 percent granulation, 10 percent slough, and 60 percent purple/maroon discoloration with moderate serosanguinous (drainage from the wound with a mixture of clear watery fluid and blood) drainage. She recommended changing the treatment to cleanse the wound with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and cover with silicone bordered foam dressing daily. She revealed the treatment was chosen for autolytic debridement and drainage management. Review of the March 2025 TAR revealed Resident #17 continued to have a treatment to his sacrum to clean with normal saline, pat dry, apply one fourth Dakin's moistened gauze and cover with silicone foam dressing daily and as needed from 03/01/25 to 03/11/25. The TAR was blank 03/07/25, 03/10/25, and 03/11/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The treatment was changed to twice a day from 03/11/25 until 03/18/25, and the TAR was blank on dayshift 03/14/25, 03/15/25, 03/16/25, and 03/18/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The treatment was changed on 03/18/25 to continue the same treatment (clean with normal saline, pat dry, apply one forth strength Dakin's moistened gauze, and cover with silicone foam dressing twice daily) except add zinc oxide cream to peri-rectum twice a day. The TAR was blank 03/20/25, 03/21/25, and 03/24/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. Review of Wound NP #900's progress note dated 03/18/25 revealed Resident #17's pressure ulcer was classified as a Stage 4 pressure ulcer that measured 12.5 cm in length by 8.5 cm in width by 4.0 cm in depth. The wound had undermining between ten o'clock and two o'clock that measured 5.1 cm and had ten percent slough. There was heavy thick green drainage with palpable bone in the center of the wound. Review of Wound NP #900's progress note dated 03/25/25 revealed Resident #17 had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to his sacrum area that measured 12.2 cm in length by 6.4 cm in width by 4.0 cm in depth. The note revealed there was undermining between ten o'clock and two o'clock that measured 5.1 cm. The wound bed had 90 percent granulation and 10 percent slough. Wound NP #900 noted that the wound had improved as there was healing beefy red granulating tissue with minimal slough and that the wound was being evaluated for graft placement. She recommended the same treatment to continue cleansing with normal saline, pat dry, apply one fourth strength Dakin's moistened gauze, and cover with silicone foam dressing twice daily. Nursing to topically apply zinc oxide cream to peri-rectum twice a day. Observation of wound care on 03/26/25 at 8:33 A.M. completed by ADON/LPN #323 and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #344 revealed a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to Resident #17's sacrum. ADON/LPN #323 described the wound as granulating tissue covering the wound bed with bone exposed. Interview on 03/26/25 at 11:58 A.M. with ADON/LPN #323 verified Resident #17's sacrum treatments per the February and March 2025 TARs: 02/01/25, 02/02/25, 02/06/25, 02/18/25, 02/26/25, 02/28/25, 03/07/25, 03/10/25, 03/11/25, dayshift 03/14/25, 03/15/25, 03/16/25, 03/18/25, 03/20/25, 03/21/25, and 03/24/25 were blank, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. ADON/LPN #323 verified Wound NP #900 evaluated Resident #17's new facility acquired pressure ulcer to his sacrum on 02/04/25 and classified the wound as a Stage 2, and that he received a treatment order to cleanse the wound with normal saline, apply Medi Honey and cover with silicone bordered foam dressing daily. He verified the treatment was not transcribed and implemented until 02/07/25 per the physician orders/TAR. He verified from 02/04/25 to 02/11/25 Resident #17's wound significantly declined from a Stage 2 that measured 3.5 cm in length by 1.9 cm in width by 0.2 cm in depth to an unstageable pressure wound that measured 11 cm in length by 5.2 cm in width and unable to determine the depth as it contained ten percent slough, and 60 percent purple/maroon discoloration. He verified the wound then became a Stage 4 with bone exposed. Interview on 03/17/25 at 1:32 P.M. with Wound NP #900 revealed she was not aware that the treatment that she had ordered on 02/04/25 for Resident #17 was not initiated until 02/07/25. She verified the wound had declined rapidly from 02/04/25 to 02/11/25 from a Stage 2 to an unstageable pressure ulcer. She also verified she was not aware that the treatments were not being documented as completed as ordered. She verified the wound as of 03/25/25 was a Stage 4. 2. Review of medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 10/31/24 with diagnoses including paraplegia, diabetes, pressure ulcer to sacral region, and congestive heart failure. Review of Wound NP #900's progress note dated 11/05/24 revealed Resident #17 had a right lateral ankle Stage 3 pressure ulcer present on admission that measured 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in width by 0.3cm in depth. The wound bed contained 90 percent granulation and 10 percent slough. Resident #17 had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer to his left lateral ankle that measured 1.2 cm in length by 0.5 cm in width by 0.3 cm in depth and the wound bed had 100 percent granulated tissue. Review of February 2025 TAR revealed Resident #17 had an order from 12/25/24 to 02/18/25 to cleanse his left lateral ankle with normal saline, pat dry, apply calcium silver alginate, cover with bordered foam dressing daily and as needed. The TAR was blank 02/01/25, 02/02/25 and 02/18/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The treatment to his left lateral ankle was changed on 02/19/25 to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply Skin Prep and leave open to air daily and as needed. The TAR was blank 02/20/25, 02/24/25, and 02/25/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The TAR revealed Resident #17 had an order dated 12/25/24 till 02/11/25 to his right lateral ankle to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply calcium alginate silver, ABD, and wrap with Kerlix gauze daily and as needed. The TAR was blank 02/01/25, 02/02/25, and 02/11/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The treatment was changed on 02/19/25 to cleanse his right lateral ankle with normal saline, pat dry, apply moistened collagen, abdominal (ABD), wrap with Kerlix gauze daily and as needed. The TAR was blank 02/20/25, 02/24/25, and 02/25/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. Review of March 2025 TAR revealed Resident #17 had an order from 02/27/25 till 03/04/25 for his left lateral ankle pressure ulcer to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply Skin Prep and leave open to air and as needed every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The TAR was blank 03/01/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The treatment to his right lateral ankle dated from 02/27/25 to 03/04/25 to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply moistened collagen, ABD, wrap with Kerlix gauze every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and as needed. The TAR was blank on 03/01/25 and 03/04/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The treatment to his right lateral ankle was changed on 03/05/25 to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply calcium silver alginate, ABD, wrap with Kerlix gauze daily and as needed. The TAR was blank on 03/07/25, 03/10/25, 03/11/25, 03/14/25, 03/15/25, 03/16/25, and 03/18/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. The treatment to his right lateral ankle was changed on 03/19/25 to cleanse the wound with normal saline, pat dry, apply Skin Prep daily and as needed. The TAR was blank on 03/21/25 and 03/24/25, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. Review of Wound NP #900's progress note dated 03/04/25 revealed the left lateral ankle was healed. Wound NP #900's progress note dated 03/25/25 revealed Resident #17's right lateral Stage 3 pressure ulcer was healed. Interview on 03/26/25 at 11:58 A.M. with ADON/LPN #323 verified all the above times the treatment on February 2025 and March 2025 TAR the treatment was not documented as completed as the TAR was blank. Review of the facility policy labeled, Pressure Injury Prevention and Management, dated 01/08/25, revealed the facility was committed to the prevention of avoidable pressure injuries and would provide treatment and services to heal pressure ulcers, prevent infection and prevent the development of additional pressure ulcers. The policy revealed treatments would be provided for all residents who have a pressure ulcer present. The policy revealed interventions would be documented in the care plan and communicated to all relevant staff. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00163991, Complaint Numbers OH00162697 and OH00161917.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure there was a signed advance di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure there was a signed advance directive/Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form in Resident #17's medical record. This affected one resident (#17) out of one resident reviewed for advance directives. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including paraplegia, diabetes, pressure ulcer to sacral region, and congestive heart failure. Review of the [DATE] physician's orders revealed Resident #17 had an order dated [DATE] for a code status of DNR Comfort Care-Arrest. Review of the undated DNR Comfort Care form in the medical record revealed it was unsigned by a physician, Physician Assistant (PA) and/or Nurse Practitioner (NP). The form revealed the box next to DNR Comfort Care Arrest was marked. The form indicated that the signature of a physician, PA, and NP was required. Observation on [DATE] at 10:03 A.M. of Resident #17's hard medical record/chart and electronic medical record with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #323 revealed he was not able to find a signed DNR Comfort Care- Arrest form. He verified Resident #17's DNR form in the medical record was undated and not signed by a physician, PA or NP. Interview and observation on [DATE] at 11:30 A.M. revealed ADON/LPN #323 brought in a DNR Comfort Care form dated [DATE] that was signed by Nurse Practitioner (NP) #950 that indicated Resident #17 was a DNR Comfort Care- Arrest. ADON/ LPN #323 revealed he had found the form in Resident #17's admission paperwork that was not part of his hard medical record/or electronic medical record. He verified the nurses had not had access to the DNR form to provide when the resident went to appointments, Emergency Rescue Services (EMS), and/or hospital especially during an emergency situation requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Review of the facility policy labeled, Resident's Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives dated [DATE] revealed the facility would support and facilitate a resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advance directive. The policy revealed upon admission, if the resident had an advance directive, copies of the advance directive would be made and placed on the chart and communicated to the staff. The policy did not include ensuring the DNR form was signed and dated by the physician, PA and/ or NP.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to report two incidents of resident elo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to report two incidents of resident elopement to the state agency. This affected two residents (#16 and #56) of two residents reviewed for neglect. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 07/10/14. Diagnoses included colon cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, depression, muscle weakness and macular degeneration. Review of the care plan dated 09/23/21 revealed Resident #16 was a high risk for elopement and had exited the facility on 07/01/19. Interventions included applying and maintaining a Wander Guard (a wander management system to alert staff when a resident attempts to exit a designated area), checking the device for proper function, developing an activity program to divert Resident #16's attention and meet his individual needs and redirecting the resident to a safer area if he began wandering. The care plan was resolved on 08/18/21, and reimplemented 09/05/22. Review of the elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was not at risk for elopement. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was rarely or never understood. He required set up for eating, partial to moderate assistance for oral hygiene, substantial to maximum assistance for personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for toileting and showering. He used a manual wheelchair to ambulate. Review of the nursing progress note dated 03/04/24 at 7:00 P.M. revealed the nurse was notified by another staff member Resident #16 was down the road in a wheelchair. The nurse walked to the resident who was sitting in his wheelchair on the sidewalk three blocks from the facility. The resident was agitated and initially refused to return to the facility. Emergency services was called to assist with transport back to the facility. Resident #16 could not explain what he was doing. Upon return to the facility, the resident was placed on one-to-one supervision and a Wander Guard was implemented. Review of the undated facility investigation revealed the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Regional Director of Operations (RDO) and the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDSO) were notified of the elopement on 03/04/24 at 6:30 P.M. At approximately 6:29 P.M., the nurse on duty was notified by Human Resources Manager (HRM) #300 that Resident #16 was down the street from the facility in a wheelchair. Two nurses attempted to get Resident #16 to return to the facility and ultimately called emergency services to assist in doing so. The resident could not explain why he had left the facility, and one-to-one staff as well as a Wander Guard were implemented upon return to the facility. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #56 revealed an admission date of 11/13/24 and a discharge date of 11/25/24. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, prostate cancer and lung cancer. Review of the elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was not at risk for elopement. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 was severely cognitively impaired. He required supervision for eating and oral care and partial to moderate assistance for showering and hygiene. He used a manual wheelchair as needed. Review of the nursing progress note dated 11/16/24 at 1:02 P.M. revealed Resident #56 could not be located in the facility. The elopement protocol was initiated, and the DON and Nurse Practitioner (NP) were made aware. Resident #56's responsible party (RP) was notified and reported she had Resident #56 in the car with her after she found him walking down the sidewalk at 12:10 P.M. A Wander Guard was applied to Resident #56 upon his return to the facility. Review of the undated facility investigation revealed on 11/16/24 at approximately 11:40 A.M., Resident #56 could not be located in the facility. A code was called, and Resident #56 was found outside the facility with his Power of Attorney (POA)/RP. The weather was described as 46 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and cloudy. There was no description of what Resident #56 was wearing at the time of the elopement and no evidence of how Resident #56 exited the building without staff noticing. The investigation revealed Resident #56's POA had reported the resident attempted to leave a prior facility and was confused. Review of the physician's orders for November 2024 revealed an order for a Wander Guard. The order began on 11/16/24. Review of the care plan dated 11/16/24 revealed Resident #56 was at a high risk for elopement due to cognitive loss. Interventions included a Wander Guard, activity program to divert attention and meet individual needs, redirection if wandering to a potentially unsafe area and observing and reporting risk actors to the physician. Interview on 03/25/25 at 3:18 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #341 revealed Resident #56 was out of the building for approximately 15 minutes when they called his POA and were told he was in the car with her. He was assessed on return for injuries, and none were found. She could not recall any indicators of Resident #56 seeking to exit the facility. Interview on 03/26/25 at 9:22 A.M. with Resident #56's POA revealed she was on her way to the facility to see Resident #56 when she saw him walking outside, away from the facility, about one half mile from the facility. Resident #56 got into her vehicle and came back to the facility with her; she revealed it was approximately 15-20 minutes before anyone came out of the facility to look for him. Resident #56 was a little confused and may have been telling the facility he wanted out. She could not confirm if she told anyone at the facility he wanted to leave prior to the elopement. He could not tell her where he was going when she picked him up. She revealed it was chilly outside, and the temperature was approximately 40 degrees F. Interview on 03/26/25 at 9:55 A.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ LPN #323 revealed the Wander Guard system was active on all exterior doors except for the front door. There is a receptionist Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. until anywhere between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. Staff were expected to watch the front door when there is no receptionist. Interview on 3/26/25 at 1:34 P.M. with the Administrator verified both elopements (Residents #16 and #56) occurred. She revealed she did not have any evidence a self-reported incident (SRI) had been completed, and stated she was not aware it was required. Review of the facility policy titled Elopement and Wandering Residents dated 01/14/25 revealed in the event of a resident elopement, the appropriate reporting requirements to the state survey agency would be conducted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate two incidents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate two incidents of resident elopement. This affected two residents (#16 and #56) of two residents reviewed for neglect. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 07/10/14. Diagnoses included colon cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, depression, muscle weakness and macular degeneration. Review of the care plan dated 09/23/21 revealed Resident #16 was a high risk for elopement and had exited the facility on 07/01/19. Interventions included applying and maintaining a Wander Guard (a wander management system to alert staff when a resident attempts to exit a designated area), checking the device for proper function, developing an activity program to divert Resident #16's attention and meet his individual needs and redirecting the resident to a safer area if he began wandering. The care plan was resolved on 08/18/21, and reimplemented 09/05/22. Review of the elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was not at risk for elopement. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was rarely or never understood. He required set up for eating, partial to moderate assistance for oral hygiene, substantial to maximum assistance for personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for toileting and showering. He used a manual wheelchair to ambulate. Review of the nursing progress note dated 03/04/24 at 7:00 P.M. revealed the nurse was notified by another staff member Resident #16 was down the road in a wheelchair. The nurse walked to the resident who was sitting in his wheelchair on the sidewalk three blocks from the facility. The resident was agitated and initially refused to return to the facility. Emergency services was called to assist with transport back to the facility. Resident #16 could not explain what he was doing. Upon return to the facility, the resident was placed on one-to-one supervision and a Wander Guard was implemented. Review of the undated facility investigation revealed the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Regional Director of Operations (RDO) and the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDSO) were notified of the elopement on 03/04/24 at 6:30 P.M. At approximately 6:29 P.M., the nurse on duty was notified by Human Resources Manager (HRM) #300 that Resident #16 was down the street from the facility in a wheelchair. Two nurses attempted to get Resident #16 to return to the facility and ultimately called emergency services to assist in doing so. The resident could not explain why he had left the facility, and one-to-one staff as well as a Wander Guard were implemented upon return to the facility. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #56 revealed an admission date of 11/13/24 and a discharge date of 11/25/24. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, prostate cancer and lung cancer. Review of the elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was not at risk for elopement. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 was severely cognitively impaired. He required supervision for eating and oral care and partial to moderate assistance for showering and hygiene. He used a manual wheelchair as needed. Review of the nursing progress note dated 11/16/24 at 1:02 P.M. revealed Resident #56 could not be located in the facility. The elopement protocol was initiated, and the DON and Nurse Practitioner (NP) were made aware. Resident #56's responsible party (RP) was notified and reported she had Resident #56 in the car with her after she found him walking down the sidewalk at 12:10 P.M. A Wander Guard was applied to Resident #56 upon his return to the facility. Review of the undated facility investigation revealed on 11/16/24 at approximately 11:40 A.M., Resident #56 could not be located in the facility. A code was called, and Resident #56 was found outside the facility with his Power of Attorney (POA)/RP. The weather was described as 46 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and cloudy. There was no description of what Resident #56 was wearing at the time of the elopement and no evidence of how Resident #56 exited the building without staff noticing. The investigation revealed Resident #56's POA had reported the resident attempted to leave a prior facility and was confused. Review of the physician's orders for November 2024 revealed an order for a Wander Guard. The order began on 11/16/24. Review of the care plan dated 11/16/24 revealed Resident #56 was at a high risk for elopement due to cognitive loss. Interventions included a Wander Guard, activity program to divert attention and meet individual needs, redirection if wandering to a potentially unsafe area and observing and reporting risk actors to the physician. Interview on 03/25/25 at 3:18 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #341 revealed Resident #56 was out of the building for approximately 15 minutes when they called his POA and were told he was in the car with her. He was assessed on return for injuries, and none were found. She could not recall any indicators of Resident #56 seeking to exit the facility. Interview on 03/26/25 at 9:22 A.M. with Resident #56's POA revealed she was on her way to the facility to see Resident #56 when she saw him walking outside, away from the facility, about one half mile from the facility. Resident #56 got into her vehicle and came back to the facility with her; she revealed it was approximately 15-20 minutes before anyone came out of the facility to look for him. Resident #56 was a little confused and may have been telling the facility he wanted out. She could not confirm if she told anyone at the facility he wanted to leave prior to the elopement. He could not tell her where he was going when she picked him up. She revealed it was chilly outside, and the temperature was approximately 40 degrees F. Interview on 03/26/25 at 9:55 A.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ LPN #323 revealed the Wander Guard system was active on all exterior doors except for the front door. There is a receptionist Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. until anywhere between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. Staff were expected to watch the front door when there is no receptionist. Interview on 3/26/25 at 2:10 P.M. with ADON/LPN #323 further revealed the facility could not determine exactly how Residents #16 and #56 left the facility without staff knowledge, as the facility investigations did not conduct a root cause analysis. He also could not confirm if care planned interventions such as engaging the residents in person centered activities, were in progress at the time of the elopements. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 01/01/24 revealed neglect was defined as failure of the facility to provide goods and services to a resident that aided in avoiding unnecessary harm, mental or physical anguish or emotional distress. An investigation was warranted when neglect was suspected and included providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were comprehensive. This affected two residents (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were comprehensive. This affected two residents (Residents #12 and #229) of 24 residents reviewed for care plans and had the potential to affect all 73 residents in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed and admission date of 05/08/24. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), kidney disease, sleep apnea, glaucoma and depression. Review the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was cognitively intact. She required setup help for eating, oral and personal hygiene, supervision for toileting and partial to moderate assistance for showering. Review of the physicians' orders from March 2025 revealed an order for Acetaminophen 1000 milligrams (mg) (analgesic) three times a day for pain, and 325 mg every four hours as needed for pain. There was also in order for oxycodone 7.5 mg (opioid pain medication) every four hours as needed for pain. Interview on 03/27/25 at 1:53 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #341 revealed Resident #12 had hip surgery years ago and was told she would always be in pain. The facility was aware of her pain and managing it through therapy, nonpharmacological interventions and medications. Interview on 03/31/25 at 7:57 A.M. with LPN #302 confirmed she was aware Resident #12 had issues with pain. She also confirmed there was no evidence the residents care plan addressed her pain needs. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #229 revealed an admission date of 03/05/25. Diagnoses included bladder cancer and kidney failure. Review of the smoking assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #229 was a supervised smoker. Review of the baseline care plan dated 03/05/25 revealed no evidence smoking had been addressed for Resident #229. Interview on 03/31/25 at 7:57 A.M. with LPN #302 confirmed smoking had not been addressed in Resident #229's care plan. Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans dated 06/01/24 revealed the facility would develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan which addressed the medical, mental, and psychosocial needs of the resident.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure splints were applied as ordered and per therapy recommendations. This affected two residents (#1 and #47) out of two residents reviewed for splints. This had the potential to affect seven residents (#1, #34, #37, #47, #49, #54, and #72) that were identified by the facility with an order for a splint. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #47 revealed an admission date of 06/09/24 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction due to embolism of right middle cerebral artery, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following intracranial hemorrhage affecting left non-dominant side, and hypertension. Review of the care plan dated 07/18/24 revealed Resident #47 had the potential for complications related to cerebral vascular accident as evidence by cognitive impairment, decline in activities of daily living (ADL) abilities and left non-dominant side hemiparesis. Interventions included therapy per order, providing adaptive equipment as needed, and reporting to the physician any decline. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 had impaired cognition. She had impairment on one side to both her upper and lower extremities and was dependent on staff for most of all her ADL, including dressing. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for February 2025 and March 2025 revealed no documentation regarding Resident #47's splint application. Review of Occupational Therapy (OT) Discharge summary dated [DATE] and completed by Occupational Therapist (OT) #951 revealed Resident #47 tolerated the application of the splint to her left hand greater than four hours to decrease risk of further contracture. Review of March 2025 Physician Orders revealed Resident #47 had an order dated 01/29/25 for a left-hand splint on in the A.M. and off in the P.M. Review of undated task bar for Resident #47 revealed no documentation regarding Resident #47's application of her splint in the last 30 days. Interview on 3/24/25 at 12:11 P.M. with Resident #47's father revealed he was concerned as Resident #47 had a splint for her left hand and that he always seen it in the same spot on her dresser and did not feel the staff was applying the splint as ordered. Observation on 03/25/25 at 2:19 P.M., 03/26/25 at 8:28 A.M., 03/26/25 at 10:42 A.M. and 03/26/25 at 1:28 P.M. revealed Resident #47 was not wearing a splint to her left hand. The left-hand splint remained on the dresser in the same spot it was observed 03/24/25. Interview on 03/26/25 at 1:31 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #344 revealed she worked on Resident #47's unit frequently and stated Resident #47 did not have an order to apply a splint to her left hand. She revealed the splint that was lying on her dresser was old and stated, she does not need it anymore and that she did not apply a splint to Resident #47's left hand. Interview on 03/26/25 at 2:06 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #328 revealed she worked on Resident #47's unit frequently over the past two years and to her knowledge Resident #47 did not have an order for a left-hand splint and/or had she ever seen her with a splint on while she was working (dayshift). LPN #328 verified after checking the electronic medical record physician orders, Resident #47 did have an order for left hand splint to be on in the A.M. and off in the P.M. She revealed that she and CNA #344 frequently worked on Resident #47's unit, and the splint order was not showing up on the TAR and/or the task bar which would notify them that Resident #47 had an order for the splint. She was unsure why it was not showing up on the TAR and/or task bar. Interview on 03/26/25 at 2:15 P.M. and 2:35 P.M. with Rehabilitation Director #902 revealed per the OT Discharge summary dated [DATE], Resident #47 was to have a left-hand splint on in the A.M. and off in the P.M. greater than four hours. Rehabilitation Director #902 revealed OT #951 put the order into the electronic medical record, but she verified she put it in incorrectly as it did not show up on the TAR and/or tasks preventing the nurses and aides of knowing that there was an order for Resident #47 to wear a left-hand splint daily. Interview on 03/26/25 at 2:30 P.M. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ LPN #323 verified Resident #47 had a physician order to wear a left-hand splint in the A.M. and remove in the P.M. He revealed OT #951 had put the order into the electronic record incorrectly, and the order only showed up in the order section of the record, not on the TAR and/or task bar. He stated the way the order was put in did not trigger the nurses and/or aides to know there was an order for Resident #47 to have a splint. Review of the facility policy labeled, Prevent of Decline in Range of Motion dated 01/01/24 revealed the facility would establish and utilize a systematic approach for prevention of decline in range of motion including assessment, appropriate care planning, and preventative care. The facility would provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice that included appropriate services such as therapy, appropriate equipment such as braces or splints, and assistance as needed including active and passive assistance. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 12/16/22 with diagnoses including history of stroke, diabetes, muscle weakness and heart failure. Review of the care plan dated 02/17/25 revealed Resident #1 required assistance with ADL. Interventions included assisting in oral care, encouraging self-care as able, providing assistive devices as needed, and encouraging use of the spica (a splint used for treating bony and soft-tissue injuries of the lateral hand's thumb, carpal, and metacarpal) to the right thumb. Review of the TAR for February 2025 revealed no evidence Resident #'1's spica was applied in the morning on the following dates: 02/01/25, 02/02/25, 02/17/25, 02/18/25, 02/24/25, 02/26/25 and 02/28/25. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired. He required setup help for eating and was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, toileting, showering and personal hygiene. He was not actively receiving therapy services. Review of the physician's orders for March 2025 revealed an order for a right-hand thumb spica to be on in the morning with care and off in the evening. The order began on 08/08/23. Review of the TAR for March 2025 revealed Resident #1's spica was not applied in the morning on the following dates: 03/02/25, 03/10/25, 03/13/25, 03/21/25 and 03/22/25. Observation on 03/31/24 at 8:09 A.M. revealed Resident #1 was in his room in his wheelchair coloring a picture. No spica was in use. Interview at the time of the observation with CNA #375 confirmed she had assisted Resident #1 in getting up for the day, and he should have had a spica in use. She could not locate the device and confirmed it should have been placed on Resident #1's hand when she assisted him with morning care. Interview on 04/01/25 at 8:35 A.M. with Rehab Director #902 confirmed Resident #1 had used a spica to his left thumb since at least 2023. She confirmed she had seen him with it and felt it was effective in maintaining his current level of functioning, it was not meant to increase his ability to use his right hand. She was unaware the spica was not being used on a consistent basis. Review of the facility policy titled Prevention of Decline in Range of Motion dated 01/01/24 revealed facility staff would be educated on basic, restorative nursing care which included maintaining proper positioning, appropriate exercises and the use of assistive devices. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00162697.
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 record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to prevent elopements for Residents #16...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to prevent elopements for Residents #16 and #56. This affected two residents (#16 and #56) of six residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 07/10/14. Diagnoses included colon cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, depression, muscle weakness and macular degeneration. Review of the care plan dated 09/23/21 revealed Resident #16 was a high risk for elopement and had exited the facility on 07/01/19. Interventions included applying and maintaining a Wander Guard (a wander management system to alert staff when a resident attempts to exit a designated area), checking the device for proper function, developing an activity program to divert Resident #16's attention and meet his individual needs and redirecting the resident to a safer area if he began wandering. The care plan was resolved on 08/18/21, and reimplemented 09/05/22. Review of the elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was not at risk for elopement. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was rarely or never understood. He required set up for eating, partial to moderate assistance for oral hygiene, substantial to maximum assistance for personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for toileting and showering. He used a manual wheelchair to ambulate. Review of the nursing progress note dated 03/04/24 at 7:00 P.M. revealed the nurse was notified by another staff member Resident #16 was down the road in a wheelchair. The nurse walked to the resident who was sitting in his wheelchair on the sidewalk three blocks from the facility. The resident was agitated and initially refused to return to the facility. Emergency services was called to assist with transport back to the facility. Resident #16 could not explain what he was doing. Upon return to the facility, the resident was placed on one-to-one supervision and a Wander Guard was implemented. Review of the undated facility investigation revealed the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Regional Director of Operations (RDO) and the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDSO) were notified of the elopement on 03/04/25 at 6:30 P.M. At approximately 6:29 P.M., the nurse on duty was notified by Human Resources Manager (HRM) #300 that Resident #16 was down the street from the facility in a wheelchair. Two nurses attempted to get Resident #16 to return to the facility and ultimately called emergency services to assist in doing so. The resident could not explain why he had left the facility, and one-to-one staff as well as a Wander Guard were implemented upon return to the facility. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #56 revealed an admission date of 11/13/24 and a discharge date of 11/25/24. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, prostate cancer and lung cancer. Review of the elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was not at risk for elopement. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 was severely cognitively impaired. He required supervision for eating and oral care and partial to moderate assistance for showering and hygiene. He used a manual wheelchair as needed. Review of the nursing progress note dated 11/16/24 at 1:02 P.M. revealed Resident #56 could not be located in the facility. The elopement protocol was initiated, and the DON and Nurse Practitioner (NP) were made aware. Resident #56's responsible party (RP) was notified and reported she had Resident #56 in the car with her after she found him walking down the sidewalk at 12:10 P.M. A Wander Guard was applied to Resident #56 upon his return to the facility. Review of the undated facility investigation revealed on 11/16/24 at approximately 11:40 A.M., Resident #56 could not be located in the facility. A code was called, and Resident #56 was found outside the facility with his Power of Attorney (POA)/RP. The weather was described as 46 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and cloudy. There was no description of what Resident #56 was wearing at the time of the elopement and no evidence of how Resident #56 exited the building without staff noticing. The investigation revealed Resident #56's POA had reported the resident attempted to leave a prior facility and was confused. Review of the physician's orders for November 2024 revealed an order for a Wander Guard. The order began on 11/16/24. Review of the care plan dated 11/16/24 revealed Resident #56 was at a high risk for elopement due to cognitive loss. Interventions included a Wander Guard, activity program to divert attention and meet individual needs, redirection if wandering to a potentially unsafe area and observing and reporting risk actors to the physician. Interview on 03/25/25 at 3:18 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #341 revealed Resident #56 was out of the building for approximately 15 minutes when they called his POA and were told he was in the car with her. He was assessed on return for injuries, and none were found. She could not recall any indicators of Resident #56 seeking to exit the facility. Interview on 03/26/25 at 9:22 A.M. with Resident #56's POA revealed she was on her way to the facility to see Resident #56 when she saw him walking outside, away from the facility, about one half mile from the facility. Resident #56 got into her vehicle and came back to the facility with her; she revealed it was approximately 15-20 minutes before anyone came out of the facility to look for him. Resident #56 was a little confused and may have been telling the facility he wanted out. She could not confirm if she told anyone at the facility he wanted to leave prior to the elopement. He could not tell her where he was going when she picked him up. She revealed it was chilly outside, and the temperature was approximately 40 degrees F. Interview on 03/26/25 at 9:55 A.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ LPN #323 revealed the Wander Guard system was active on all exterior doors except for the front door. There is a receptionist Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. until anywhere between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. Staff were expected to watch the front door when there is no receptionist. Interview on 3/26/25 at 1:34 P.M. with the Administrator verified both elopements (Residents #16 and #56) occurred. She revealed she did not have any evidence a self-reported incident (SRI) had been completed, and stated she was not aware it was required. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 01/01/24 revealed neglect was defined as failure of the facility to provide goods and services to a resident that aided in avoiding unnecessary harm, mental or physical anguish or emotional distress. The facility would establish a safe environment which prohibited and prevented all types of abuse, neglect and misappropriation and would identify and correct situation when abuse and neglect was likely to occur.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy the facility failed to obtain weights according to Dietician re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy the facility failed to obtain weights according to Dietician recommendations for Resident #47. This affected one Resident (#47) out of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 73. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #47 revealed an admission date of 06/09/24 and her diagnoses included cerebral infarction due to embolism of right middle cerebral artery, diabetes, hypertension and presence of gastrostomy tube (tube inserted into the stomach to provide means of feeding and medication). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 had impaired cognition, and she had a feeding tube with weight loss that was not prescribed. Review of the care plan last revised 02/13/25 revealed Resident #47 was at risk for malnutrition related to underweight, dysphagia, nothing by mouth, feeding tube, pressure wounds, and significant weight change. Interventions included monitor weight every month and as needed, nothing by mouth, and provide prescribed tube feeding. There was nothing in the care plan regarding following dietician recommendations of weekly weights. Review of the weight records per electronic medical record from 09/01/24 to 03/27/25 revealed on 09/01/24 Resident #47's weight was 139 pounds. Her weight 09/02/24 was 133.1 pounds, 09/09/24 130.4 pounds, 10/02/24 was 122.8 pounds, 10/16/24 was 121.9 pounds, 10/17/24 was 121.5 pounds, 10/24/24 was 122 pounds, 11/26/24 was 125.2 pounds, 12/10/24 was 120 pounds, 01/02/25 was 118 pounds, 01/23/25 was 118.8 pounds, 02/05/25 was 112 pounds, and 03/16/25 was 112 pounds. Review of Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log completed 12/05/24 by Dietician #903 revealed Resident #47 had a significant weight change as well as a wound. Dietician #903 recommended to increase her Diabetasource Advanced Control (AC) (type of tube feeding formula) one carton six times a day and complete weekly weights. Review of Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log completed 12/20/24 by Dietician #903 revealed Resident #47 had weight loss and she was not tolerating her Diabetasource AC tube feeding that had been increased to six times a day. Dietician #903 recommended decreasing down to five cartons per day and continue weekly weights. Dietician #903 noted that if weight loss continued, she would switch to Two Cal formula (type of tube feeding formula). Review of Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log completed 01/09/25 by Dietician #903 revealed Resident #47 had significant weight loss as she had a six percent weight loss in one month. Dietician #903 recommended Two Cal five cartons per day and continue weekly weight. There were no further Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log provided after 01/09/25. Review of the March 2025 physician orders revealed Resident #47 had an order for an enteral feed of Two Cal 250 milliliters (ML) bolus five times a day. There was no order regarding weights. Review of Dietician #903's progress note dated 01/27/25 at 11:22 A.M. revealed Resident #47 had significant weight loss as her weight on return from the hospital was 118. She had a 22 percent weight loss over the last six months. She continued to be nothing by mouth as she failed her modified barium swallow (MBS) (imaging test that uses barium designed to evaluate how foods and liquids move through gastrointestinal tract) on 12/20/24. While in the hospital it was noted she had a mass to her oropharynx (part of the throat) which was removed and may have contributed to her swallowing issues. She recommended changing the enteral feed to Two Cal 250 milliliters (ML) bolus five times a day and monitor weekly weights. Review of Weekly Weight/ admission Tracker dated from 01/30/25 to 03/20/25 revealed Dietician #903 tracked residents' weights on a form and the tracker revealed Resident #47 had the following weights: 01/30/25 her weight was 112 pounds, 02/06/25 her weight was 112 pounds, and 03/13/25 her weight was 112 pounds. The tracker revealed on 02/13/25, 02/20/25, 02/27/25, 03/06/25, and 03/13/25 there was no weight listed. Review of Dietician #903's progress note dated 02/13/25 at 10:27 A.M. revealed Resident #47 had significant weight changes as her most recent weight was 112 pounds and she was classified as underweight. She had five percent weight loss in one month, eight percent weight loss in three months, and 26 percent weight loss in six months (all were undesired). The note revealed Resident #47 remained nothing by mouth and received feeding through her feeding tube. Resident #47 was unable to tolerate total calorie need as she does not tolerate changes to the volume of tube feeding and at this time Dietician #903 did not recommend any changes except to consider possible hospice and continue weekly weights. Review of Dietician #903 progress note dated 03/20/25 at 11:24 A.M. revealed Resident #47 had significant weight changes as her most recent weight was 112 pounds and she was classified as underweight. The note revealed she had a 14 percent wight loss in the last six months but had been stable over the last month. The note revealed Resident #47 remains nothing by mouth and received feeding through her feeding tube. Resident #47 was unable to tolerate total calorie need as she does not tolerate changes to the volume of tube feeding and at this time Dietician #903 did not recommend any changes except to consider possible hospice and continue weekly weights. Interview on 03/27/25 at 8:24 A.M. and 9:50 A.M. with Dietician #903 revealed she had recommended Resident #47 to receive weekly weights due to her weight loss since at least 12/05/24. She revealed she tracked the weights on a Weekly Weight/ admission Tracker form and verified she only had the following weights for Resident #47 from 01/30/25 to 03/20/25: 01/30/25 her weight was 112 pounds, 02/06/25 her weight was 112 pounds, and 03/13/25 her weight was 112 pounds. She verified she was missing the following weekly weights: 02/13/25, 02/20/25, 02/27/25, 03/06/25, and 03/13/25. She revealed she communicated to the Director of Nursing (DON) by use of Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log of any dietary recommendations including frequency of weight. She verified the weights were not completed weekly per her recommendation and was not sure why. Dietician #903 revealed they discussed weekly in a Risk meeting any residents at risk, who had weight loss, and any residents on the Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log. She revealed that it had never been brought up in the risk meeting regarding the concern of weights not being completed per her recommendation stating, and stated I really am not sure why. She left the interview and came back with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #323. Interview on 03/27/25 at 8:30 A.M. with ADON/ LPN #323 verified Resident #47's weekly weight had not been completed per Dietician #903 recommendations and he also stated, not sure as well as to why. He verified the facility had weekly Risk meetings and discussed residents at nutritional risk but also revealed it had not been discussed regarding not getting weekly weights as recommended per Dietician #903's progress notes and what was on Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log. Review of facility policy labeled, Weight Policy dated 03/01/22 revealed weights would be obtained in a timely and accurate manner, documented and responded to appropriately. Residents would be weighed every week on admission for three weeks and then monthly unless ordered otherwise per the physician or dietician. The dietician would track the weights and work with the facility during the routine weight meeting to review resident's weight trends and determine if additional interventions were needed. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00162697.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility did not ensure there was proper signag...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility did not ensure there was proper signage indicating oxygen was in use. This affected three Residents (#2, #18, and #26) out of four residents reviewed for oxygen use. This had the potential to affect 21 Residents (#6, #7, #12, #13, #17, #20 #26, #27, #29, #35, #44, #45, #51, #53, #54, #59, #62, #63, #229, #232, and #237) that were identified by the facility as having oxygen. The facility census was 73. Findings included: 1. Review of the medical records for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 02/23/16 and diagnoses included bipolar disorder, diabetes, and hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 had intact cognition and was not on oxygen. Review of the March 2025 physician orders for Resident #2 revealed he had no orders for oxygen. Observation on 03/24/25 at 11:30 A.M. revealed in Resident #2's room there was a Broda chair (a chair that reclines back) and on the back of the chair it had Resident #44's name on it and a green portable oxygen e-cylinder (a cylinder that contains compressed oxygen that was combustible). There was no signage on the entry to the room indicating there was oxygen in the room. There also was another wheelchair belonging to Resident #14. (Both Resident #14 and Resident #44 do not reside in Resident #2's room) Interview on 03/24/25 at 11:30 A.M. with Resident #2 revealed he did not use oxygen. He revealed the facility frequently used his room for storage as they often placed other residents' wheelchairs in his room and he did not feel it was right. He revealed the oxygen in his room on the back of Resident #44's was not his. Interview and observation on 03/24/25 at 3:18 P.M. with Register Nurse (RN)/ Regional #901 verified the oxygen e-cylinder continued to be in Resident #2's room on the back of Resident #44's Broda chair as well as Resident #14's wheelchair. She verified that both Resident #14 and Resident #44 do not reside in Resident #2's room. She verified all rooms with oxygen should have signage on the outside of the door prior to entering and that other residents oxygen should not be in another resident's room. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 07/29/23 and diagnoses included diabetes, panic disorder and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 had intact cognition and was not on oxygen. Review of March 2025 physician orders revealed Resident #18 did not have an order for oxygen. Review of the care plan dated 03/14/25 revealed Resident #18 was at high risk for aspiration and complications due to dysphagia. Interventions included observe and report to physician of aspiration and complications: choking on liquids, coughing on liquids, coughing during or after meals, and respiratory difficulty. There was nothing in the comprehensive care plan regarding oxygen. Interview and observation on 03/24/25 at 3:18 P.M. with RN/ Regional Nurse #901 verified there was one e-cylinder oxygen tank in a holder sitting in his room by the window. She verified there was no oxygen signage on the outside of Resident #18's room. 3. Review of medical record for Resident #26 revealed an admission date of 06/25/24 and diagnoses included renal disease requiring dialysis, spinal stenosis, hypertension, and diabetes. Review of the undated comprehensive care plan revealed nothing in the care plan regarding oxygen use. Review of the Medicare Five- Day MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 had intact cognition and was not on oxygen. Review of the March 2025 physician orders revealed Resident #26 had an order dated 03/10/25 for oxygen at two liters per nasal cannula as needed for oxygen saturation rates below 88 percent. Interview and observation on 03/24/25 at 3:18 P.M. with RN/ Regional Nurse #901 verified Resident #26 had one e-cylinder oxygen tank in a holder and one oxygen concentrator sitting in her room. She verified there was no oxygen signage on the outside of the doorway. Review of undated facility policy labeled, Oxygen Administration revealed oxygen was administered to residents who need it, and consistent with professional standards of practice. The policy revealed oxygen was administered under the orders of a physician except in case of an emergency. The policy revealed oxygen warning signs must be placed on the door of the resident's room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to administering as needed pain medication and failed to ensure parameters were in place for when to administer of Acetaminophen versus opioid pain medication. This affected two residents (#12 and #21) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 73. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed and admission date of 05/08/24. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), kidney disease, sleep apnea, glaucoma and depression. Review the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was cognitively intact. She required setup help for eating, oral and personal hygiene, supervision for toileting and partial to moderate assistance for showering. Review of the physicians' orders from March 2025 revealed an order for Acetaminophen 1000 milligrams (mg) three times a day routinely for pain which began on 01/26/25 and Acetaminophen 325 mg two tablets every four hours as needed for pain which began on 08/03/24. There was also an order for Oxycodone 7.5 mg (opioid pain medication) every four hours as needed for pain which began on 01/20/25. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February 2025 revealed Resident #12 received Oxycodone once on 02/01/25 for a pain level of eight on a pain scale of zero to ten, ten being the worst, and two times on 02/01/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 02/02/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/02/25 for a pain level of seven and once on 02/02/25 for a pain level of six, once on 02/03/25 for a pain level five, once on 02/03/25 for a pain level of seven and once on the 02/03/25 for a pain level of nine, once on 02/04/25 for a pain level of ten, twice on 02/04/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/05/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 02/05/25 for a pain level of seven and once on 02/05/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/06/25 for a pain level of six and once on 02/06/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 02/07/25 for a pain level five, once on 02/07/25 for a pain level of seven and once on 02/07/25 for a pain level of six, three times on 02/08/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/09/25 for a pain level of nine and twice on 02/09/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/10/25 for a pain level of eight and twice on 02/10/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 02/11/25 for a pain level of five, twice on 02/12/25 for a pain level of five and once on 02/12/25 for a pain level of seven, twice on 02/13/25 for a pain level of eight and once on 02/13/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 02/14/25 for a pain level of 10 and twice on 02/14/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/15/25 for a pain level of five and twice on 02/15/25 for a pain level of seven, three times on 02/16/25 for pain level of five, once on 02/17/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 02/17/25 for a pain level of five and once on 02/17/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 02/18/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 02/18/15 for a pain level of five and once on 02/18/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 02/19/25 for a pain level of seven and twice on 02/19/25 for a pain level of eight, three times on 02/20/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 02/21/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/21/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 02/21/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 02/22/25 for a pain level of seven and twice on 02/22/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/23/25 for a pain level of two and twice on a 02/23/25 for a pain level of seven, once 02/24/25 for a pain level of three, twice on 02/25/25 for a pain level of five, twice on 02/26/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 02/26/25 for a pain level of seven, 02/27/25 for a pain level of five, once on 02/28/25 for a pain level of seven and twice on 02/28/25 for a pain level of eight. Review of the MAR for March 2025 revealed Resident #12 received the as needed Acetaminophen once on 03/10/25 for a pain level of five and Oxycodone twice on 03/01/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/01/25 for pain level of seven, once on 03/02/25 for a pain level of five, twice on 03/02/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 03/03/25 for a pain level of seven, twice on 03/03/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/04/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/04/25 for a pain level of six, once on 03/04/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 03/05/25 for pain a level of five, twice on 03/05/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/06/25 for a pain level of five, twice on 03/06/25 for a pain level of six, once on 03/07/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/07/25 for a pain level of seven, once one 03/07/25 for a pain level of eight, three times on 03/08/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/09/25 for a pain level of seven, two times on 03/09/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/10/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/10/25 for pain level of six, once on 03/10/25 for a pain level of five, two times on 03/11/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/12/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/12/25 for a pain level of two, once on 03/12/25 for a pain level of seven, three times on 03/13/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 03/14/25 for a pain level of eight, two times on 03/14/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 03/15/25 for a pain level of nine, two times on 03/15/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/16/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/16/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/16/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 03/17/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/17/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 03/17/25 for a pain level of eight, two times on 03/18/25 for a pain level of eight, once on 03/19/25 for a pain level of eight, two times on 03/19/25 for a pain level of seven, two times on 03/20/25 for pain level of seven, once on 03/20/25 for a pain level of seven, once on 03/21/25 for a pain level of five, two times on 03/21/25 for a pain level of seven, three times on 03/22/25 for a pain level of five, three times on 03/23/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/24/25 for a pain level of three, once on 03/24/25 for a pain level of two, once on 03/24/25 for a pain level of five, once on 03/25/25 for a pain level of eight and two times on 03/25/25 for a pain level of five. Interview on 03/27/25 at 10:31 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #341 confirmed there was no documented evidence nonpharmacological interventions were attempted prior to the administration of as needed pain medications for Resident #12, and there were no parameters for which as needed pain medication to administer when a resident experienced pain. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #21 revealed and admission date of 02/09/17. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, emphysema, heart disease, depression, anemia, history of stroke and epilepsy. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #21 was moderately cognitively impaired. She required setup help for eating, substantial or maximum assistance for orally and personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for toileting and showering. Review of the physician's orders for March 2025 revealed an order for Acetaminophen 325 mg as needed for pain which began on 10/09/19 and Dilaudid 4 mg (opioid pain medication) every four hours as needed for pain which began on 03/21/25. Review of the MAR for March 2025 Review Resident #21 received one dose of Acetaminophen on 03/08/25 for a pain level of three. She also received one dose of Dilaudid on 03/22/25 for a pain level of seven, two doses on 03/22/25 for a pain level of eight, one dose on 03/23/25 for a pain level of eight, one dose on 03/23/25 for a pain level of seven, one dose on 03/24/25 for a pain level of three, one dose on 03/24/25 for a pain level of four and two doses on 03/25/25 for a pain level of four. Interview on 03/27/25 at 10:31 A.M. with LPN #341 confirmed there was no documented evidence nonpharmacological interventions were attempted prior to the administration of as needed pain medications for Resident #21, and there were no parameters for which as needed pain medication to administer when a resident experienced pain. Review of the facility policy titled Pain Management dated 08/22/22 revealed the facility would attempt nonpharmacological approaches in an attempt to relieve pain which included but was not limited to environmental comfort measures such as adjusting room temperatures, repositioning hand smoothing linens and lower doses of medication would initially be administered, slowly titrating up until comfort was achieved.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of laboratory results for Resident #12. This affected one resident (#12) of three...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of laboratory results for Resident #12. This affected one resident (#12) of three residents reviewed for laboratory results. The facility census was 73. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed and admission date of 05/08/24. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), kidney disease, sleep apnea, glaucoma and depression. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed a urinalysis was obtained on 08/27/24 which showed evidence of nitrites, epithelial cells, bacteria, hyaline casts, mucous and white blood cell clumps. There was no evidence that the physician was notified of the results of the urinalysis. Interview on 03/26/25 at 9:21 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #322 confirmed there was no documented evidence the laboratory results were reported to the physician for Resident #12. Review of the facility policy titled Notification of Changes dated 01/01/25 revealed the facility would consult the resident's physician when there was a change in treatment including new treatment, acute conditions or exacerbation of chronic conditions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) nursing standard of practice for medication adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) nursing standard of practice for medication administration, and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure staff administered medications to Resident #7 and Resident #69 according to professional standards of practice. This affected two out of two residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Resident # 7 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, gastroesophageal reflux disease, glaucoma, benign heart neoplasm, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with pulmonary embolism, high blood pressure, transient ischemic attack (TIA), anemia, kidney disease, osteoarthritis, obesity, vitamin D deficiency, osteoporosis, and neuropathy. Resident #7's physician orders dated [DATE] to [DATE] indicated to administer the following medications upon rising: - Eliquis 2.5 mg tablet - furosemide 40 milligrams (mg) tablet - metoprolol 25 mg tablet - PreserVision multivitamin with minerals 1 tablet - vitamin D 50 microgram (mcg) tablet Resident #69 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including fibromyalgia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, constipation, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, high blood pressure, cardiac pacemaker, anxiety, depression, obesity, spinal stenosis with low back pain, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. Resident #69's physician orders dated [DATE] to [DATE] indicated to administer the following medications upon rising: - Amiodarone hydrochloride 200 milligrams (mg) tablet - Cardizem CD Extended Release 180 mg tablet - Folic acid 1 mg oral tablet - guaifenesin extended release tablet administer one tablet. - Loratadine 10 mg oral tablet - multivitamin one tablet - Namenda 10 mg tablet - pantoprazole sodium delayed release 40 mg tablet - pregabalin 100 mg capsule - thiamine 100 mg tablet - vitamin D3 1.25 mg capsule orally - acetaminophen 500 mg tablet An observation of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #77 on [DATE] at 8:45 A.M. revealed LPN #77 had dispensed medications for Resident #7 and Resident #68 into two medication cups. LPN #77 the proceeded to administer the medications to the residents. Interview with LPN #77, at the time of the observation, confirmed she should have dispensed each of the residents' medications separately and administered the medications one-at-a time to each resident according to professional standards of practice. A review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) nursing standard of practice for medication administration revealed the recommendation to follow Safe Administration Guidelines dated 2014 ([NAME]) according to the Institute of Medicine's guidelines for Safe Medication Administration including: - Plan medication administration in a quiet area. - Prepare medications for one patient/resident at a time. - Follow the seven rights of medication administration. - Check that the medications was not expired. - Perform hand hygiene. - Check patient's/resident's room for additional precautions. - Introduce yourself to the patient/resident. - Confirm patient/resident identity. - Check patient/resident for allergies. - Complete assessments as necessary. - Provide patient/resident education. - If patient/resident questions or expresses concern regarding a medication, stop and do not administer. - Check the medication administration record against the physician order for accuracy. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration revised [DATE] revealed medications were administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in the state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure staff donned appropriate personal protective equ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure staff donned appropriate personal protective equipment when providing direct care for Resident #60. This affected one out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of Resident #60's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, coronary artery disease, cancer, heart failure, high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and high cholesterol. Review of Resident #60's plan of care revised 12/13/24 indicated a potential for complications related to the use of an indwelling urinary catheter. Intervention on the plan of care indicated to implement enhanced barrier precautions. Review of Resident #60's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated the presence of a stage three pressure ulcer (Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous visible but bone, tendon or muscle is not fat may be exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss.). Review of Resident #60's physician orders dated 05/01/25 to 05/31/25 indicated gloves and a gown were to be worn when providing dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs, or assisting with toileting device care, or use of central line, urinary catheter, feeding lube, tracheostomy/ventilator, and during care of chronic wounds such as pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, unhealed surgical wounds, and chronic venous stasis ulcers every day and night shift related to gastric tube. An observation of Resident #60's pressure ulcer located on the sacrum with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #76 on 05/01/25 at 9:50 A.M. revealed the pressure ulcer had no wound treatment covering the area and a thick layer of white moisture barrier cream was applied the the entire perineal and sacral area. CNA #76 entered Resident #60's room and did not don a gown and assisted Resident #60 on the her left side to view the sacral pressure ulcer. An interview with CNA #76 on 05/01/25 at 9:50 A.M. verified she did not don a gown prior to assisting Resident #60 to roll to her side. CNA #76 stated she was unaware Resident #60 was supposed to have enhanced barrier isolation precautions implemented. CNA #76 confirmed she should have known due to the presence of the sign located on the wall beside Resident #60's doorway opening outside of Resident #60's room. A review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 07/13/22 indicated it was the policy of the facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for preventing transmission of novel or targeted multidrug-resistant organisms. Enhanced barrier precautions referred to the use of gown and gloves for certain residents during specific high-contact resident care activities that have been found to increase risk for transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. Initiation of enhanced barrier precautions could be placed by the nursing staff for residents with certain conditions or devices. An order for enhanced barrier precautions would be obtained for residents with any of the following: - Wounds and/or indwelling medical devices (e.g., central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator) regardless of MDRO (multidrug-resistant organisms) colonization status. - Infection or colonization with a novel or targeted MDRO when contact precautions did not apply. - Infection or colonization with other epidemiologically-important MDROs.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure insulin was dated wh...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure insulin was dated when opened and medications were not left unattended at bedside. This affected three Residents (#2, #44, and #52) out of eight residents who resided on the Blue unit with insulin orders, and one resident (Resident #32) of one resident observed for unsecured medications. Findings included: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 09/29/23 and diagnoses included diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure. Review of care plan dated 10/27/23 revealed Resident #52 had a potential risk for hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia due to diabetes. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, obtain blood sugar levels as orders and be alert to signs of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. There was nothing in the care plan regarding properly labeling and dating insulin when opened. Review of Medicare Five-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 had intact cognition and received three days of insulin during the assessment period. Review of March 2025 physician orders for Resident #52 revealed she had an order for Humalog Kwik pen solution pen-injector 100 units per milliliter (ml) per sliding scale subcutaneously (SQ). A blood sugar from 151 to 200 the order was to administer four units of insulin. Observation of medication administration on 03/25/25 at 8:26 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #371 obtained Resident #52's blood sugar and it was 153. She proceeded to administer Resident #52 four units of Humalog per the pen-injector SQ as ordered. Observation revealed the Humalog Kwik injector pen was not dated as to when it had been opened. Interview on 03/25/25 at 8:30 A.M. with LPN #371 verified the Humalog Kwik injector pen had been previously opened and had no date as to when it was opened. She verified she had not checked prior to administration that the insulin was dated. 2. Review of medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 02/23/16 and diagnoses included diabetes and hypertension. Review of care plan dated 12/03/17 revealed Resident #2 was at risk for hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia related to diabetes. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, obtain blood sugar levels as orders and be alert to signs of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. There was nothing in the care plan regarding properly labeling and dating insulin when opened. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was cognitively intact and used insulin seven days during the assessment period. Review of March 2025 physician orders for Resident #2 revealed a physician order dated 04/04/24 for Lantus (insulin) Solostar SQ solution pen-injector 100 units per milliliter to inject 22 units SQ at bedtime due to diabetes. Observation of the medication cart on the Blue Unit on 03/25/25 at 8:30 A.M. revealed Resident #2 had two open Lantus pen-injectors that were not dated as to when they were opened. Interview on 03/25/25 at 8:35 A.M. with LPN #371 verified that Resident #2 had two opened Lantus insulin pen injectors that were not dated as to when they were opened. 3. Review of medical record for Resident #44 revealed an admission date of 07/04/24 and diagnoses included diabetes and hypertension. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 had impaired cognition and used insulin seven days during the assessment period. Review of March 2025 physician orders for Resident #44 revealed a physician order dated 11/14/24 for Insulin Glargine Solostar subcutaneous solution pen injector 100 units per ml to inject 20 units SQ at bedtime due to diabetes. Observation of the medication cart on the Blue Unit on 03/25/25 at 8:30 A.M. revealed Resident #44 had two Insulin Glargine pen injectors that were opened but not dated. Interview on 03/25/25 at 8:35 A.M. with LPN #371 verified Resident #44 had two opened Glargine insulin pen injectors that were not dated as to when they were opened. Review of facility policy labeled, Medication Administration dated 06/21/17 revealed insulin was a high-risk drug and warranted additional precautions for the safe and effective administration. The policy revealed the nurse was to check the expiration date prior to administration to ensure it was within the usage date. Vials and pens without an open date recorded should be discarded. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 11/09/24. Diagnoses included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney disease, insomnia, legal blindness, Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) chronic migraines and diabetes. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was cognitively intact. She was independent in eating, oral hygiene and toileting and required set up help for showering, dressing and personal hygiene. Review of the physician's orders for March 2025 revealed orders for Allopurinol (used to treat gout and kidney stones) 100 milligrams (mg) by mouth (PO) once per day (QD), Aspirin 81 mg PO QD, Famotidine (used to treat ulcers and GERD) 40 mg PO QD, Fenofibrate (used to treat hyperlipidemia) 145 mg PO QD, Furosemide (used to treat kidney disease) 40 mg PO QD, Januvia (used to treat diabetes) 100 mg PO QD, Levothyroxine (used to treat hypothyroidism) 50 micrograms (mcg) PO 30 minutes before breakfast and 50 mcg PO QD, Liothyronine (used to treat hypothyroidism) 5 mcg PO QD, Montelukast (used for allergies) 10 mg PO QD, multivitamin PO QD, Omega three 1200 mg PO QD, Acetazolamide (used to treat glaucoma) 500 mg PO twice per day (BID), Metformin (used to treat diabetes) 1000mg PO BID, Potassium Chloride 20 milliequivalent (meq) PO BID, Tylenol 1000mg BID and Lyrica (used to treat nerve pain) 75 mg PO three times a day (TID). Observation and interview on 03/25/25 at 8:27 A.M. revealed a medicine cup with approximately 16 pills sitting on the bedside table next to Resident #32's bed. Resident #32 verified staff usually watch her take her medicine, but she was asleep this morning, so the medicine was left on her beside table. Interview at the time of the observation with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #904 confirmed medications should not be left at bedside, and confirmed the medications on the bedside table for Resident #32. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage dated 07/23/19 revealed only licensed nurses were allowed to access medications, and medications would be locked or attended by people with authorized access.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to have an effective antibiotic stewardship program that monitored antibiotic use including reducing the risk of ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to have an effective antibiotic stewardship program that monitored antibiotic use including reducing the risk of adverse effects of the development of antibiotic- resistant organisms from unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use. This affected 21 residents (#5, #11, #16, #18, #19, #20, #23, #27, #28, #35, #47, #50, #51, #53, #54, #55, #56, #60, #68, #73, and #233) of 21 residents identified as ordered antibiotics during the months of February 2025 and March 2025 that did not meet McGreer's criteria (infection surveillance definitions for long term facilities for antibiotic use). The facility census was 73. Findings included: Review of Infection Log- ATB (antibiotic) Surveillance dated February 2025 and March 2025 revealed the facility tracked residents that had received antibiotics for these months. The form included room number, resident's name, admission date, in-house onset date, site of infection, diagnostic testing, organism, McGreer's criteria met or not met, anti-microbial agent, route, start date, stop date, and days of therapy. The form revealed for the month of February 2025 there were 30 occurrences of residents requiring ATB use and nine residents did not meet the McGreer criteria for antibiotic use. The form revealed for the month of March 2025 there were 26 occurrences of residents requiring antibiotic use and 12 residents did not meet the McGreer criteria for antibiotic use. The following residents were identified on the log of not meeting the criteria: a. Resident #18 with an admission date of 7/29/23 was ordered on 02/01/25 Doxycycline (ATB) for infection of the scrotum and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. b. Resident #28 with an admission date of 10/24/24 was ordered on 02/11/25 Cipro (ATB) for urinary tract infection (UTI) and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. c. Resident #55 with an admission date of 09/12/23 was ordered on 02/17/25 Keflex (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. d. Resident #73 with an admission date of 02/19/25 was ordered on 02/19/25 Macrobid (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. e. Resident #54 with an admission date 02/20/23 was ordered on 02/19/25 Doxycycline for lungs/ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. f. Resident #27 with an admission date 01/11/25 was ordered on 02/21/25 Cipro for his scrotum and urine and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. g. Resident #68 with an admission date 12/19/24 was ordered on 02/27/25 Bactrim (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. h. Resident #50 with an admission date 02/26/25 was ordered on 02/27/25 Amoxicillin (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. i. Resident #16 with an admission date 07/10/14 was ordered on 02/28/25 Rocephin (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. j. Resident #47 with an admission date 06/09/24 was ordered on 03/02/25 Ertapenem (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. k. Resident #19 with an admission date 06/21/23 was ordered on 03/04/25 Fosfomycin (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. She was also ordered on 03/21/25 Ceftriaxone (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. l. Resident #56 with an admission date 11/13/24 was ordered on 03/11/25 Bactrim for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. m. Resident #51 with an admission date 01/24/25 was ordered on 03/12/25 Doxycycline (ATB) for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. n. Resident #5 with an admission date 07/16/24 was ordered on 03/13/25 Macrobid for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. o. Resident #35 with an admission date 05/16/24 was ordered on 03/13/25 Macrobid for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. p. Resident #53 with an admission date 12/15/22 was ordered on 03/14/25 Linezolid for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. q. Resident #20 with an admission date 11/26/22 was ordered on 03/16/25 Cipro for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. r. Resident #11 with an admission date 03/11/22 was ordered on 03/17/25 Macrobid for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. s. Resident #233 with an admission date 03/17/25 was ordered on 03/17/25 Omnicef for infection of foot and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. t. Resident #23 with an admission date 02/17/22 was ordered on 03/20/25 Cipro for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. u. Resident #60 with an admission date 07/28/20 was ordered on 03/21/25 Ceftriaxone for UTI and on the log the ATB did not meet the criteria for ATB use. Review of Infection Control Log (a second log the facility maintained) for February 2025 and March 2025 revealed the facility tracked residents that had received antibiotics including resident, admission date, onset of infection, site of infection, infection diagnosis, if a culture was completed, if an x-ray was completed, organism, antibiotic, isolation, re-culture date and date infection resolved. There was nothing on the log regarding whether the ATB met McGeer's criteria and/ or any other criteria to ensure the ATB was necessary. Interview on 03/26/24 at 7:22 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/ Infection Control Preventionist #301(who was named as the Infection Control Preventionist upon entrance) revealed she worked night shift three days a week on the floor as well as oversaw the infection control program including completing the infection control logs. She revealed the (above) log Infection Log- ATB (antibiotic) Surveillance presented to this surveyor was completed by the Director of Nursing (DON) and that she completed the Infection Control Log as well. She verified on her log there was no documentation if the ATB met McGeer's criteria or any other criteria to ensure the ATB was appropriate. She revealed she usually wrote true by the antibiotic after she reviewed to ensure the ATB was appropriate, but she had gotten behind the last few months and had not. She verified she was not aware the DON had placed on the other log Infection Log- ATB (antibiotic) Surveillance that 21 ATBs for February 2025 and March 2025 did not meet McGeer's criteria and that she did she did not have any resident specific individual McGeer's forms and/ or criteria that she had completed for the residents on ATBs for the month of February 2025 and March 2025. She verified for the above residents that were marked on the log as not meeting the McGeer's criteria she did not have any documentation the physician or nurse practitioner (NP) was aware that the ATB did not meet the criteria for usage. She revealed she had never attended a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting, provided her logs at the QAPI meeting and/ or reviewed anything in a QAPI meeting regarding ATB's not meeting criteria for usage. Interview on 03/26/25 at 7:44 A.M. with the DON verified she had completed the infection control logs labeled, Infection Log- ATB (antibiotic) Surveillance dated February 2025 and March 2025 and verified she had documented the above ATB's did not meet the McGeer's criteria and she did not have any documentation the physician and/ or NP was aware these antibiotics did not meet the criteria including discussion in QAPI. Review of facility policy labeled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program dated 08/23/22 revealed the facility would implement an antibiotic stewardship program as part of the facilities overall infection prevention and control program in order to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse effects associated with ATB use. The program included antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use (McGreer criteria). The policy revealed documentation related to the program was maintained by the Infection Preventionist including action plans associated with the program, assessment forms, antibiotic protocols, data collection forms for antibiotic use, antibiotic stewardship meeting minutes, feedback reports, records related to education of physicians and data obtained would be discussed in the facilities QAPI meetings.
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain its garbage disposal area in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all 73 residents. Findings incl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain its garbage disposal area in a clean and sanitary condition. This had the potential to affect all 73 residents. Findings include: On 03/31/25 at 3:05 PM observation of the facility's garbage disposal area with Dietary Manager (DM) #305 revealed the top lids and side doors to both dumpsters were open and garbage was overflowing. This was confirmed by DM #305 at the time of the observation.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, job description review, and interview, the facility failed to be administered in a manner t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, job description review, and interview, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This had the potential to affect all 73 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of undated facility Job Description for the Administrator revealed the primary purpose was to direct the day-to-day functions of the facility in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards, guidelines, and regulations that govern long-term care facilities to ensure that the highest degree of quality care was always provided to the residents. They were to develop and maintain written job descriptions for each staff position. The description revealed they would ensure that all residents receive care in a manner and in an environment that maintained or enhanced their quality of life and ensure that each resident received the necessary nursing, medical and psychosocial services to attain and maintain the highest possible mental and physical functional status, as defined by the comprehensive assessment and care plan. Review of the undated Job Description for the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the primary purpose of the position was to plan, organize, develop, control and direct the overall operation of our Nursing Service Department in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards, guidelines, and regulations that govern the facility, and as may be directed by the Administrator and the Medical Director, to ensure that the highest level of quality care is maintained at all times. They were to assure that nursing care was provided to all residents in accordance with the Plan of Care and that physician orders and resident rights were maintained During the annual and complaint surveys, observations, record reviews and interviews resulted in concerns related to the overall operation of the facility including but not limited failure to report and thouroughly investigate two incidents of elopement, failure to ensure comprehensive care planning, failure to prevent in-house aquired pressure ulcers, failure to ensure splints were in place as ordered, failure to obtain weights according to Dietician recommendations, and failure to have an effective antibiotic stewardship program. The facility failed to provide evidence that the administrative staff, including the Administrator and/or DON, had effective systems in place to timely identify and correct quality and care concerns. 1. The facility failed to report or thoroughly investigate two incidents of resident elopement. This affected Residents #16 and #56. Interview on 3/26/25 at 1:34 P.M. with the Administrator verified both elopements (Residents #16 and #56) occurred. She revealed she did not have any evidence a self-reported incident (SRI) had been completed, and stated she was not aware it was required. Interview on 3/26/25 at 2:10 P.M. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #323 further revealed the facility could not determine exactly how Residents #16 and #56 left the facility without staff knowledge, as the facility investigations did not conduct a root cause analysis. He also could not confirm if care planned interventions such as engaging the residents in person centered activities, were in progress at the time of the elopements. 2. The facility failed to ensure care plans were comprehensive. This affected Residents #12 and #229 Interview on 04/01/25 at 7:44 A.M. with LPN #302 confirmed she was aware not all care plans had been updated regularly. She had recently been off work for personal issues, and no one else was responsible for the oversight of care plans and ensuring accuracy. 3. The facility failed to ensure treatment orders were implemented in a timely manner and/or completed as ordered. Resident #17, who was a paraplegic and was dependent on staff assistance for most activities of daily living (ADL) including transfers, and rolling left and right in bed, was found to have an in-house acquired Stage II pressure ulcer (partial-thickness skin loss appearing as a shallow area with a red or pink wound bed) to his sacrum (located at the base of the spine) that measured 3.5 centimeters (cm) in length by 1.9 cm in width by 0.2 cm in depth. The facility failed to implement the treatment as ordered on 02/04/25 of Medi Honey (a brand of medical-grade honey-based product used for wound management) and silicone bordered foam dressing daily until 02/07/25. Wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) #900 consulted on 02/11/25 and noted a significant decline to Resident #17's sacrum pressure ulcer as the wound increased in size to 11.0 cm in length by 5.2 cm in width by unable to determine the depth as the wound had 10 percent slough (dead tissue that accumulated on the surface of a wound) and 60 percent purple/ maroon discoloration. Wound NP #900 classified the pressure wound as unstageable (full thickness tissue loss in which the actual depth of the ulcer was obscured by slough/ dead skin). The facility did not ensure ongoing treatments were completed as ordered and on 03/18/25, Resident #17's sacrum pressure ulcer was classified as a Stage 4 pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle) as the wound had bone that was palpable. In addition, Resident #17 had pressure ulcers to his right and left ankles and the treatments were not completed as ordered. Interview on 03/26/25 at 11:58 A.M. with ADON/LPN #323 verified Resident #17's sacrum treatments per the February and March 2025 TARs: 02/01/25, 02/02/25, 02/06/25, 02/18/25, 02/26/25, 02/28/25, 03/07/25, 03/10/25, 03/11/25, dayshift 03/14/25, 03/15/25, 03/16/25, 03/18/25, 03/20/25, 03/21/25, and 03/24/25 were blank, indicating the treatment was not completed as ordered. 4. The facility did not ensure splints were applied as ordered and per therapy recommendations. This affected Residents #1 and #47. Interview on 03/26/25 at 1:31 P.M. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #344 revealed she worked on Resident #47's unit frequently and stated Resident #47 did not have an order to apply a splint to her left hand. She revealed the splint that was lying on her dresser was old and stated, she does not need it anymore and that she did not apply a splint to Resident #47's left hand. Interview on 03/26/25 at 2:06 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #328 revealed she worked on Resident #47's unit frequently over the past two years and to her knowledge Resident #47 did not have an order for a left-hand splint and/or had she ever seen her with a splint on while she was working (dayshift). LPN #328 verified after checking the electronic medical record physician orders, Resident #47 did have an order for left hand splint to be on in the A.M. and off in the P.M. She revealed that she and CNA #344 frequently worked on Resident #47's unit, and the splint order was not showing up on the TAR and/or the task bar which would notify them that Resident #47 had an order for the splint. She was unsure why it was not showing up on the TAR and/or task bar. Interview on 03/26/25 at 2:15 P.M. and 2:35 P.M. with Rehabilitation Director #902 revealed per the OT Discharge summary dated [DATE], Resident #47 was to have a left-hand splint on in the A.M. and off in the P.M. greater than four hours. Rehabilitation Director #902 revealed OT #951 put the order into the electronic medical record, but she verified she put it in incorrectly as it did not show up on the TAR and/or tasks preventing the nurses and aides of knowing that there was an order for Resident #47 to wear a left-hand splint daily. Observation on 03/31/24 at 8:09 A.M. revealed Resident #1 was in his room in his wheelchair coloring a picture. No spica was in use. Interview at the time of the observation with CNA #375 confirmed she had assisted Resident #1 in getting up for the day, and he should have had a spica in use. She could not locate the device and confirmed it should have been placed on Resident #1's hand when she assisted him with morning care. Interview on 04/01/25 at 8:35 A.M. with Rehab Director #902 confirmed Resident #1 had used a spica to his left thumb since at least 2023. She confirmed she had seen him with it and felt it was effective in maintaining his current level of functioning, it was not meant to increase his ability to use his right hand. She was unaware the spica was not being used on a consistent basis. 5. the facility failed to obtain weights according to Dietician recommendations for Resident #47. Interview on 03/27/25 at 8:24 A.M. and 9:50 A.M. with Dietician #903 revealed she had recommended Resident #47 to receive weekly weights due to her weight loss since at least 12/05/24. She revealed she tracked the weights on a Weekly Weight/ admission Tracker form and verified she only had the following weights for Resident #47 from 01/30/25 to 03/20/25: 01/30/25 her weight was 112 pounds, 02/06/25 her weight was 112 pounds, and 03/13/25 her weight was 112 pounds. She verified she was missing the following weekly weights: 02/13/25, 02/20/25, 02/27/25, 03/06/25, and 03/13/25. She revealed she communicated to the Director of Nursing (DON) by use of Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log of any dietary recommendations including frequency of weight. She verified the weights were not completed weekly per her recommendation and was not sure why. Dietician #903 revealed they discussed weekly in a Risk meeting any residents at risk, who had weight loss, and any residents on the Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log. She revealed that it had never been brought up in the risk meeting regarding the concern of weights not being completed per her recommendation stating, and stated I really am not sure why. She left the interview and came back with ADON/LPN #323. Interview on 03/27/25 at 8:30 A.M. with ADON/ LPN #323 verified Resident #47's weekly weight had not been completed per Dietician #903 recommendations and he also stated, not sure as well as to why. He verified the facility had weekly Risk meetings and discussed residents at nutritional risk but also revealed it had not been discussed regarding not getting weekly weights as recommended per Dietician #903's progress notes and what was on Medical Nutrition Therapy Recommendation Log. 6 The facility did not ensure they had an effective antibiotic stewardship program that monitored antibiotic use including reducing the risk of adverse effects of the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms from unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use. Review of Infection Control Log (a second log the facility maintained) for February 2025 and March 2025 revealed the facility tracked residents that had received antibiotics including resident, admission date, onset of infection, site of infection, infection diagnosis, if a culture was completed, if an x-ray was completed, organism, antibiotic, isolation, re-culture date and date infection resolved. There was nothing on the log regarding whether the ATB met McGeer's criteria and/ or any other criteria to ensure the ATB was necessary. Interview on 03/26/24 at 7:22 A.M. with LPN/ Infection Control Preventionist #301(who was named as the Infection Control Preventionist upon entrance) revealed she worked night shift three days a week on the floor as well as oversaw the infection control program including completing the infection control logs. She revealed the (above) log Infection Log- ATB (antibiotic) Surveillance presented to this surveyor was completed by the DON and that she completed the Infection Control Log as well. She verified on her log there was no documentation if the ATB met McGeer's criteria or any other criteria to ensure the ATB was appropriate. She revealed she usually wrote true by the antibiotic after she reviewed to ensure the ATB was appropriate, but she had gotten behind the last few months and had not. She verified she was not aware the DON had placed on the other log Infection Log- ATB (antibiotic) Surveillance that 21 ATBs for February 2025 and March 2025 did not meet McGeer's criteria and that she did she did not have any resident specific individual McGeer's forms and/ or criteria that she had completed for the residents on ATBs for the month of February 2025 and March 2025. She verified for the above residents that were marked on the log as not meeting the McGeer's criteria she did not have any documentation the physician or nurse practitioner (NP) was aware that the ATB did not meet the criteria for usage. She revealed she had never attended a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting, provided her logs at the QAPI meeting and/ or reviewed anything in a QAPI meeting regarding ATB's not meeting criteria for usage. Interview on 03/26/25 at 7:44 A.M. with the DON verified she had completed the infection control logs labeled, Infection Log- ATB (antibiotic) Surveillance dated February 2025 and March 2025 and verified she had documented the above ATB's did not meet the McGeer's criteria and she did not have any documentation the physician and/ or NP was aware these antibiotics did not meet the criteria including discussion in QAPI.
Jan 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to maintain safe and comfortable water temperatures for residents. This had the potential to affect nine residents (Resident #1, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to maintain safe and comfortable water temperatures for residents. This had the potential to affect nine residents (Resident #1, Resident #3, Resident #9, Resident #24, Resident #36, Resident #48, Resident #49, Resident #56 and Resident #61) residing on [NAME] Hall. The census was 71. Findings include: Observation on 01/07/25 at 11:16 A.M. of the water temperature in the shower room on [NAME] Hall revealed a shower temperature of 90.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) after the water was running for seven minutes. The water temperature of the sink started at 101 degrees F but went down to 99 degrees F after running for 3 minutes. Interview on 01/07/25 at 11:16 A.M. with Maintenance Director #225 revealed the temperature should be between 110 to 120 degrees F. He stated he had to adjust it weekly based on colder or hotter weather temperatures. Review of a list of residents residing on [NAME] Hall revealed Resident #1, Resident #3, Resident #9, Resident #24, Resident #36, Resident #48, Resident #49, Resident #56 and Resident #61 resided on the hall. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00160559.
Aug 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to deliver all resident mail and perso...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to deliver all resident mail and personal packages to them unopened. This affected two residents reviewed (Resident #1 and #24) and had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 78. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 07/20/23 and a transfer to hospital date of 08/08/24. Diagnosis included respiratory failure with hypoxia, morbid severe obesity due to excessive calories, atrial fibrillation, and dependence on respirator (ventilator) status. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #1 revealed Resident # #1 was cognitively intact. Resident #1 used a wheelchair for mobility. Phone interview on 08/19/24 at 2:22 P.M. with Resident #1 revealed while she was at the facility, she received mail and packages delivered by the staff that were opened without her permission prior to her receiving them. Interview on 08/19/24 at 2:34 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #295 revealed Activity Director #305 delivered residents mail. If a parcel arrived for a resident, the nurses opened it prior to delivering it because residents had paraphernalia/liquor delivered in the past. Interview on 08/19/24 at 3:26 P.M. with Activity Director #305 revealed she delivered all residents mail daily. Activity Director #305 revealed the mail was delivered to the receptionist at the front entrance daily Monday through Saturday. The receptionist would sort the mail then place the residents personal mail in her mailbox to be delivered to the residents. Observation of Activity Director #305's mailbox with Activity Director #305 revealed the department head mailboxes were in a room behind a closed door next to the nurses station. Observation revealed all department heads mailbox was on the wall and residents hard charts were on racks located in the room. Activity Director #305 revealed she never opened residents personal mail herself, but she found opened mail in her box that belonged to Resident #1. Activity Director #305 revealed Resident #1 ordered packages and she also found several packages of Resident #1's opened prior to delivery to her room. Activity Director #305 revealed she asked staff, but no one knew who was doing it. She also talked to the previous Administrator about the concern with no resolution. 2. Record review for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 03/13/23. Diagnosis included acute respiratory failure, heart failure and morbid obesity. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Resident #24 had no impairment of the upper or lower extremities. Resident used a walker and wheelchair for mobility. Interview on 08/20/24 at 4:00 P.M. with Resident #24 revealed they obviously go through his packages he ordered prior to giving them to him because he had a delivery from Wal Mart the previous evening at 8:00 P.M. and they removed the hot dogs he ordered and returned them to him the next day. Observation revealed Resident #24 had a small refrigerator in his room. Resident #24 revealed he ordered food items in and would keep them in his refrigerator. Resident #24 revealed he preferred the staff didn't go through his stuff. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights undated revealed the resident had the right to be free of involuntary searches of both body and personal possessions. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00155925.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to assure one resident, Resident #5 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to assure one resident, Resident #5 received routine showers/baths per the resident preference and the facility schedule. This affected one resident (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed for bathing. The facility census was 78. Findings include: Record review for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 01/02/24. Diagnosis included autistic disorder, morbid obesity, and malignant neuroleptic syndrome. Record review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #5 had no impairment of the upper or lower extremities, used a wheelchair for mobility, required set up or clean up assist for meals and was dependent for showers. Review of the care plan dated 01/22/24 for Resident #5 revealed assistance needed for activities of daily living (ADL) related to cognitive impairment, impaired mobility, Autism, and intellectual disability. The resident required weight-bearing assistance (including holding, lifting, or supporting trunk or limbs) for: showering, upper body dressing. Staff would assist as needed with daily hygiene and will assist with showering residents as per facility policy weekly. Review of the shower schedule revealed Resident #5 was scheduled to receive showers on day shift Monday's and Thursday's. Interview on 08/19/24 at 3:20 P.M. with Resident #5 revealed he did not always receive his showers as scheduled, and he wanted his routine showers. Resident #5 denied refusing showers. Interview on 08/20/24 at 10:54 A.M. and review of the daily shower sheets with Director of Nursing (DON) for June, July and August 2024 completed by State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA's) for Resident #5 revealed from 06/04/24 through 06/09/24 revealed there was no shower sheet completed or evidence Resident #5 received a shower or bath during that period. From 06/12/24 through 06/26/24 there was no shower sheet completed or evidence Resident #5 received a shower or bath during that period. From 06/28/24 through 07/03/24 there was no shower sheet completed or evidence Resident #5 received a shower or bath during that period. From 07/05/24 through 07/14/24 there was no shower sheet completed or evidence Resident #5 received a shower or bath during that period. From 07/16/24 through 07/22/24 there was no shower sheet completed or evidence Resident #5 received a shower or bath during that period and from 08/02/24 through 08/14/24 revealed no shower sheet or evidence Resident #5 received a shower or bath during that period. DON revealed residents were to be offered a minimum of two showers or baths a week. The resident could determine if they preferred a shower or bath. DON confirmed when a shower or bath was given or offered, a shower sheet would be completed by the STNA. If the resident refused, Refused would be documented on the shower sheet and signed by the STNA. DON confirmed there was no further evidence Resident #5 received or was offered a shower or bath during those times. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Care revised 06/18 revealed Residents will be bathed or assisted to shower or bathe routinely and as needed per their preference with foot care given per order/need. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00155925.
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

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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely report and address a Resident #21's change in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely report and address a Resident #21's change in skin condition. This affected one resident (Resident #21) of three residents reviewed for change in condition. Findings include: Record review for Resident #21 revealed an admission date of 10/31/19. Diagnosis included schizoaffective disorder, HIV, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the physician orders for Resident #21 revealed an order dated 10/17/22 to apply zinc oxide cream to bilateral buttocks every shift and as needed for skin integrity. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #21 was rarely or never understood. Resident #21 had no impairment in functional limitations in range of motion to the upper or lower extremities, Resident #21 was dependent for personal hygiene. Resident #21 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident # received applications of ointments. Resident #21 required supervision or touch assist with walking 10 feet. Review of the care plan for Resident #21 dated 06/24/24 revealed assistance needed for activities of daily living (ADL) related to cognitive impairment, decreased mobility, and potential for pain. Apply house moisture barrier cream after each incontinence episode. Inspect skin condition daily during personal care and report any impaired areas to charge nurse. Observation on 08/19/24 at 9:11 A.M. of incontinence care for Resident #21 completed by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #275 and STNA #600 revealed Resident #21's entire peri area including the penis, scrotum, under the scrotal area, upper thighs, and the fold between the buttocks was deep red. The area under the scrotum had multiple small white crusty particles. STNA #275 and #600 confirmed the deep red areas and revealed they apply zinc oxide skin protectant. Resident #21 did not verbally respond to surveyors questions. Observation revealed Resident #5 was compliant to instructions of STNA #275 and #600. Observation revealed when STNA #275 began washing the reddened peri area, Resident #21 began jerking his body slightly with each wipe. When STNA #275 used a cloth and wiped under the scrotum, Resident #21 yelled an incoherent word loudly and swung his arm to stop STNA #275. STNA #275 and #600 again explained to Resident #21 the need for completion of the peri care, Resident #21 calmed down and permitted completion of care. Observation revealed a 16-ounce jar of zinc oxide ointment on Resident #21's bedside stand. Observation revealed STNA #275 applied the zinc oxide ointment on and over the entire penis, peri area and buttocks. Record review of Resident #21's medical record revealed no documentation of Resident #21's peri/rectal area or any area being red. Interview on 08/19/24 at 4:37 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #601 confirmed he was Resident #21's primary care nurse and had been since 7:00 A.M. at the beginning of his shift. RN #601 revealed STNA #275 and #600 left the facility for the day due to it was the end of their shift. RN #601 revealed no one reported anything to him regarding Resident #21's peri/rectal area being red. RN #601 revealed STNA's routinely apply zinc to residents peri areas as a moisture barrier only and revealed it would be ineffective to treat a skin infection. RN #601 and revealed the STNA's should have reported to him if there was a change and Resident #21 was red. Review of the progress note for Resident #21 dated 08/19/24 at 5:10 P.M. completed by RN #601 revealed assessed resident's perineal area and discovered reddened and excoriated areas throughout perineal area bilaterally and under the scrotum. Review of the progress note for Resident #21 dated 08/19/24 at 6:17 P.M. completed by RN #601 revealed they received instruction from physician to start Diflucan 200 mg (used for yeast infection) one time a day for three days. Interview on 08/19/24 at 4:51 P. M. with STNA #690 revealed she worked with Resident #21 all the time and revealed, he was red like that for about a month, they use the zinc barrier cream and they put it on heavy because he was so red and they have told the nurses, and they just said put the cream on.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #21, w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #21, who had a history of Alzheimer's disease, had proper interventions in place to prevent consumption of poisonous substances. This affected one resident (Resident #21) of one resident reviewed for dementia care. The facility census was 78. Findings include: Record review for Resident #21 revealed an admission date of 10/31/19. Diagnosis included schizoaffective disorder and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #21 was rarely or never understood. Resident #21 had no impairment in functional limitations in range of motion to the upper or lower extremities, Resident #21 required set up or clean up assist with eating and was dependent for personal hygiene. Resident #21 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #21 received applications of ointments. Resident #21 required supervision or touch assist with walking 10 feet. Review of the care plan for Resident #21 dated 06/24/24 revealed assistance needed for activities of daily living (ADL) related to cognitive impairment, decreased mobility, and potential for pain. Amount of assistance required/how much (Resident #21) can complete fluctuates with moods. Apply house moisture barrier cream after each incontinence episode. Observation on 08/19/24 at 9:11 A.M. of incontinence care for Resident #21 completed by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #275 and STNA #600. Observation revealed a 16-ounce jar of zinc oxide ointment on top of Resident #21's bedside stand. The zinc oxide was within reach for Resident #21. Observation revealed STNA #275 applied the zinc oxide ointment after incontinence care was completed and replaced the zinc oxide ointment to the bedside stand. Interview on 08/19/24 at 4:51 P.M. with STNA #690 revealed she was scheduled a different hall this day, but she worked with Resident #21 all the time. STNA #690 stated, You got to be careful with that cream, zinc, he will eat it, I caught him before eating it several times, that's why I put it in the bathroom. STNA #690 revealed Resident #21 transferred himself at times, and could walk about 10 feet or so, he does take himself to the bathroom sometimes. STNA #690 revealed she did tell the nurse about Resident #21 eating the zinc cream but did not recall who because it was a while ago. Interview on 08/19/24 at 4:58 P.M. with STNA #691 revealed she was assigned to Resident #21. Observed with STNA #691 the 16-ounce zinc oxide container on Resident #21's nightstand next to his bed. Resident #21 was in bed resting quietly. STNA #691 revealed she hardly ever worked with Resident #21, she just kept the zinc oxide cream on the stand next to him because that's where she found it. STNA #691 revealed she was unaware Resident #21 would eat the cream. Interview on 08/19/24 at 5:00 P.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the facility used zinc oxide on residents routinely as a barrier cream. DON revealed it was ok to keep the zinc oxide cream in residents rooms but it would not be ok if they were eating it. Review of the zinc oxide pamphlet information provided by DON revealed warnings to include - For external use only, avoid contact with eyes, if swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison control center immediately. Keep out of reach of children. Review of the facility policy titled; Dementia Care revised 07/01/24 revealed if needed the environment will be modified to accommodate individual resident care needs.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from si...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from significant medication error. This affected one resident (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 78. Findings include: Record review for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 07/20/23 and a transfer to hospital date of 08/08/24. Diagnosis included respiratory failure with hypoxia and atrial fibrillation. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #1 revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact. Review of the physician orders for Resident #1 dated 07/08/24 revealed an order for Midodrine (used to increase blood pressure) hcl 10 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth three times a day for blood pressure, hold if systolic blood pressure (SBP) above 120. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #1 for 07/08/24 through 08/07/24 revealed Resident #1's blood pressure was monitored prior to Midodrine hcl medication administration three times a day. Review of the MAR revealed on 07/08/24 Resident #1 blood pressure at 7:00 P.M. was assessed and results were 128/76. Review of the MAR revealed Midodrine was signed as given. Additionally, on 07/09/24 during A.M. medication administration, Resident #1 blood pressure was 128/74, on 07/10/24 at A.M. the blood pressure was 122/74, on 07/11/24 during lunch administration, the blood pressure was 152/93, on 07/13/24 at A.M. the blood pressure was 122/64, on 07/14/24 at A.M. Resident #1 blood pressure was 122/68, 07/16/24 at lunch Resident #1's blood pressure was 165/149, on 07/22/24 at lunch administration Resident #1's blood pressure was 128/68. On 08/01/24 during the A.M. Resident #1 blood pressure was 121/76 and on 08/07/24 at 7:00 P.M. administration, Resident's blood pressure was documented as 130/71. The medication Midodrine hcl 10 mg was documented as given after the blood pressure assessment for each of the identified systolic blood pressures above 120. Interview on 08/19/24 at 2:34 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #295 revealed if a medication was held for a resident, then the appropriate code would be documented on the MAR indicating the medication was held or not given. If the medication was given, the MAR would have a check mark indicating the medication was given. Interview and record review on 08/20/24 at 8:37 A.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) of the MAR for July and August 2024 for Resident #1 confirmed the MAR indicated Resident #1 received the medication Midodrine hcl 10 mg when the medication should have been held per the physicians orders after the blood pressure assessment for each of the documented blood pressures that were higher than 120 systolic. DON confirmed when the medication was held, a separate code would be documented indicating the medication was held. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration revised 08/22/22 revealed obtain and record vital signs, when applicable, or per physician orders. When applicable, hold medications for those vital signs outside the physicians prescribed parameters.
Sept 2023 3 deficiencies 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on closed record review, review of facility policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #70's change of condition was identified and addressed timely. Actual Harm occurred on 0...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on closed record review, review of facility policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #70's change of condition was identified and addressed timely. Actual Harm occurred on 02/10/23 when nursing staff failed to timely evaluate and provide intervention for an acute change in Resident #70's condition. On 02/10/23 in the A.M., therapy staff found Resident #70 to be very lethargic, hard to arouse, and profusely sweating. However, the physician and/or nurse practitioner was not notified until 02/10/23 at 8:13 P.M. of the resident's change in condition. On 02/10/23 at 8:13 P.M. Resident #70's blood pressure was 86/54 (hypotensive) and he was transported to the local Emergency Department via EMS (Emergency Medical Services). The resident was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of sepsis and acute kidney injury. This affected one resident (Resident #70) of three resident's reviewed for change of condition. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/08/23 and a discharge date of 02/10/23. Resident #70's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage affecting the right dominant side, obstructive sleep apnea and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #70's Gold Form Provider Orders dated 02/08/23 included admitting diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage (stroke) and additional diagnoses calf deep venous thrombosis (DVT), gastric bypass status for obesity and presence of inferior vena cava filter. Resident #70 was a full code. Resident #70 spent time in the intensive care unit, and was on a ventilator during the hospitalization. Care recommendation was for inpatient care at a skilled nursing facility and hospital therapy services recommended therapy in a skilled nursing facility to work on rebuilding Resident #70's strength. Resident #70's prognosis was good and rehab potential, function was to improve. Review of Resident #70's admission Assessment with Baseline Care Plan dated 02/08/23 included Resident #70 was admitted from the hospital and had the cognitive ability to be oriented to his room and surroundings. Resident #70 was oriented to the room, call bell, bed controls and side rails. Resident #70 was alert to person and situation and had clear verbal communication. Resident #70 was non ambulatory. Review of Resident #70's care plan dated 02/09/23 included Resident #70 had the potential for complications related to cerebrovascular accident (CVA), as evidenced by cognitive impairment, communication impairment, and decline in activity of daily living (ADL) abilities. Interventions included physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT) and speech therapy (ST) evaluation and treatment per orders; report to physician, nurse practitioner an ADL decline, increased confusion, memory loss, or delirium and increased communication problems. Review of Resident #70's PT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment note dated 02/09/23 included Resident #70 demonstrated excellent rehab potential as evidenced by high prior level of function (PLOF), ability to follow multi-stop directions, strong family support and able to make needs known. Review of Resident #70's nursing progress note on 02/10/23 at 12:23 A.M. included Resident #70 was alert. Review of Resident #70's Blood Pressure Summary on 02/10/23 at 12:24 A.M. revealed Resident #70's blood pressure was 137/76. Another blood pressure was not documented until 02/10/23 at 8:05 P.M. at which time the resident's blood pressure was 86/74 (hypotensive). Review of Resident #70's Speech Therapy Treatment Encounter Note dated 02/10/23 included lemon glycerin swabs were used to stimulate swallow function by placing pressure on the lingual groove with swallow 4/12 swabs. Resident #70 produced weak voicing with decreased volume, was oriented to 0, auditory comprehension was severely reduced and Resident #70 was unable to complete the entire evaluation. The notes were signed on 02/10/23 at 1:35 P.M. Review of Resident #70's Occupational Therapy Treatment Encounter Note dated 02/10/23 included Resident #70 had decreased alertness, needed repeated verbal cues and sternal rubs to try and arouse. Resident #70 was sweating profusely on this date. The note indicated: Nursing aware and blood sugars recorded. Family stated Resident #70 often sweated profusely and blood sugars generally were not low. The OT notes were signed on 02/10/23 at 3:01 P.M. Review of Resident #70's Physical Therapy Treatment Encounter Notes dated 02/10/23 included attempted to stand Resident #70 in the sit to stand lift with 100 percent cues and tactile cues to stand up. Resident #70 was very lethargic and hard to arouse this date. Resident #70 could not stand in the sit to stand lift. Sitting balance at the edge of the bed was poor to fair, balance was noted. Resident #70 required cues to maintain upright position in sitting. The PT note was not signed until 02/11/23 at 7:15 P.M. Review of Resident #70's progress notes written by Nurse Practitioner (NP) #306 dated 02/10/23 at 8:00 A.M. revealed Resident #70 was sitting in a chair in no acute distress, Family Member #308 was visiting and assisted with Resident #70's medical history. Resident #70 was able to talk but currently was tired and only able to answer yes or no to questions. Resident #70 was able to follow simple commands. NP #306 was not in the facility on 02/10/23 at 4:54 P.M. but documented at 4:54 P.M. Resident #70's blood pressure was 137/76, pulse 78, respirations 18, temperature 97.9 Fahrenheit, and oxygen saturation was 97 percent on room air. The vital signs matched the vital signs recorded in Resident #70's medical record on 02/10/23 at 12:24 A.M. The progress notes did not include therapy concerns as documented on 02/10/23 regarding Resident #70 being very lethargic, hard to arouse, and sweating profusely. Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed no additional progress notes form the last nursing progress note on 02/10/23 at 12:23 A.M. to indicate the resident was assessed after the change in condition noted by therapy staff. There was no evidence the physician or NP were notified of the change in resident condition. Review of blood sugars recorded in the medical record on 02/10/23 revealed there were no blood sugars recorded for Resident #70 until 02/10/23 at 8:07 P.M. when Resident #70 was transported via EMS services to the local hospital Emergency Department. Review of Resident #70's nursing progress notes dated 02/10/23 at 8:13 P.M. documented by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #284 revealed Resident #70's family called him into the room because they were concerned about Resident #70's condition. Resident #70 was diaphoretic and cold to the touch, his blood pressure was 84/68, pulse 64, respirations 16, and temperature was 97.4 Fahrenheit. Nurse Practitioner (NP) #306 was contacted, and the family was adamant about having Resident #70 sent to the hospital Emergency Department for evaluation. NP #306 agreed to have resident #70 sent to the Emergency Department and 911 was called. Review of Resident #70's Prehospital Care Report Summary dated 02/10/23 included a call was received at 8:13 P.M. and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were on the scene and had patient contact at 8:19 P.M. The dispatch reason was Resident #70 was unconscious, fainting and the chief complaint was a change in mental status, the duration was not documented. The altered mental status was not normal for Resident #70 and he had aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech) which was not normal for him. Resident #70's blood pressure was 87/30. Resident #70 was found in bed conscious, but not responding to verbal prompts. Family stated Resident #70 had a cerebral hemorrhage one month ago and was at the facility for rehab. Resident #70 had a deterioration of cerebral function, and suddenly was unable to speak. Resident #70 was very lethargic, and only able to answer yes or no questions with head shakes and nods. Review of Resident #70's Emergency Department and hospital admission notes dated 02/10/23 included Resident #70 was admitted to the Emergency Department with a diagnosis of sepsis and acute kidney injury. The notes further stated due to high probability of imminent or life-threatening deterioration the patient required the highest level of preparedness and emergent intervention. Critical intervention was fluid resuscitation, and IV (intravenous) antibiotics (antibiotics). Resident #70 was hemodynamically unstable. Emergency Department notes stated Resident #70 presented for gradual confusion after recent discharge from the main hospital campus for ICH (intracerebral hemorrhage). Resident #70 appeared clinically dehydrated and was not receiving water via PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube) which he was getting at the hospital. Resident #70 recently complained of increased thirst. Resident #70 was treated for aspiration pneumonia and urinary tract infection while in the hospital. Work up in the Emergency Department showed leukocytosis with left shift, acute kidney injury (AKI), lactate elevated at 3.2 (used to help diagnose sepsis). Resident #70 was administered antibiotics, but the source of infection was not identified. Resident #70's mental status improved with intravenous fluids (IVF). Resident #70 was temporarily hypotensive, but this responded to IVF and was felt to be secondary to dehydration. Interview on 09/06/23 at 4:54 P.M. of Family Member (FM) #308 revealed Resident #70 passed away on 08/10/23. FM #308 indicated Resident #70 had resided in the facility two and a half days, from 02/08/23 through 02/10/23. FM #308 stated Resident #70 was discharged on 02/10/23 when 911 was called. FM #308 stated the resident was alert and oriented on 02/08/23 when he was admitted to the facility, was learning to speak, and did not have an infection. FM #308 indicated Resident #70 was diagnosed with sepsis and acute kidney failure when he was taken to the Emergency Department on 02/10/23. FM #308 stated the physician at the hospital asked what the facility did to him and stated they had undone everything the hospital did for him before he was transferred to the facility. FM #308 revealed Resident #70 had a stroke about a month ago, was hospitalized and was admitted to the facility afterwards for rehabilitation and strengthening. FM #308 indicated she was at the facility from 6:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M. on 02/09/23 and on 02/10/23 from 6:00 A.M. until he went to the hospital around 8:30 P.M. FM #308 stated she never left his room, and felt he was not taken care of and was not checked every two hours. FM #308 stated the nurses did not come in Resident #70's room unless she insisted. FM #308 stated on 02/10/23 Resident #70 was not looking well and was sweating. FM #308 indicated on 02/10/23 around 8:00 A.M. Physical Therapist/Therapy Manager (PT/TM) #213 and Occupational Therapist (OT) #309 came in the room and were unable to assist Resident #70 to sit up. FM #308 stated Resident #70 was sweating, not responding to her or her son and PT/TM #213 and OT #309 asked her if he sweated like that all the time. FM #308 stated OT #309 said he did not like the way Resident #70 looked and acted, and wanted to check his blood sugar. Resident #70 was sweating like crazy and a mechanical lift was used to transfer him to the wheelchair and he was taken to the Physical Therapy room. When Resident #70 came back to the room a short time later, FM #308 indicated OT #309 told her Resident #70's blood sugar was checked, it was fine, and he did not know what was wrong. FM #308 stated Speech Therapist (ST) #307 came in the room around 9:45 A.M., asked what was wrong with Resident #70, tried to work with him, was unable to get a response, and stated she could not work with him when he was like this. FM #308 stated by this time Resident #70 was shaking, his eyes were bulging, she tried to get staff to help her, and it took at least four hours for the staff to assist Resident #70 from the wheelchair into his bed. FM #308 stated she kept asking and yelling for staff and they did not come. FM #308 stated she later looked at Resident #70's medical record and the documentation did not reflect the issues Resident #70 was having. FM #308 stated his blood pressure, pulse and oxygen saturation were not checked when he was feeling badly. FM #308 stated she insisted Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #284 come in to check Resident #70 on 02/10/23 in the evening and insisted and yelled for him to call 911 to have an ambulance transport Resident #70 to the hospital. FM #308 stated Resident #70 never sweated profusely and she did not tell facility staff Resident #70 often sweated profusely. Interview on 09/07/23 at 10:38 A.M. of Speech Therapist (ST) #307 revealed Resident #70 was only in the facility a couple days, he was friendly and his family was very involved in his care. ST #307 stated on 02/10/23 while she worked with Resident #70 she noticed he was sweating, and she told the nurse he was sweating profusely. ST #307 stated she did not remember which nurse she told or if the nurse went in the room to evaluate Resident #70. ST #307 stated she wrote her notes at the end of the day, and her visit with Resident #70 was probably in the morning. ST #307 stated she could not remember if Resident #70 was hard to arouse, but recalled he was dripping with sweat. ST #307 stated she was sure she told the nurse because she was very concerned about Resident #70's condition. ST #307 stated on 02/09/23 Resident #70 was very interactive, but on 02/10/23 she just remembered him sweating. Interview on 09/07/23 at 12:00 P.M. of Physical Therapist/Therapy Manager (PT/TM) #213 revealed Resident #70 was a complex case, was a stroke victim and could not do much on the right side. PT/TM #213 stated on 02/09/23 Resident #70 was alert and a mechanical lift was used to transfer Resident #70 to a wheelchair. PT/TM #213 stated on 02/10/23 an unsuccessful attempt was tried to have Resident #70 stand. PT/TM #213 stated Resident #70 was very lethargic and hard to arouse, and unable to stand. PT/TM #213 stated the time of the therapy session was not documented but stated she probably saw him late morning or early afternoon. PT/TM #213 stated if a resident was not feeling well during therapy it was reported to nursing. PT/TM #213 indicated she did not remember if she talked to a nurse on 02/10/23. Interview on 09/07/23 at 6:19 P.M. of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #284 revealed he worked night shift and took care of Resident #70 on 02/09/23 and 02/10/23. LPN #284 stated on 02/09/23 Resident #70 was more talkative. LPN #284 stated on 02/10/23 Resident #70's wife yelled at him, told him to come in the room to see Resident #70 and insisted an ambulance was called. LPN #284 stated Resident #70 did not look good, his blood pressure was low, he called NP #306 and Resident #70 was sent via a 911 call and EMS services to the Emergency Department. Interview on 09/11/23 at 8:17 A.M. of Nurse Practitioner (NP) #306 revealed Resident #70 was only in the facility a couple days and she did not remember many details about his stay. NP #306 stated she received a call late in the day around 8:00 P.M. on 02/10/23 when Resident #70 had altered mental status, low blood pressure and his family wanted him sent to the hospital. NP #306 stated the only time she was called by the facility nurses' was right before Resident #70 was transported via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the hospital. NP #306 stated she saw residents in the facility in the morning and was gone from the facility around 12:00 P.M. Interview on 09/11/23 at 10:23 A.M. of the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #219 revealed if a nurse checked a blood sugar it should be documented under weights and vital signs in the resident's electronic medical record. The DON and ADON #219 confirmed on 02/10/23 Resident #70 did not have a blood sugar documented in the morning and no blood sugars were documented until 8:07 P.M. Review of the facility policy titled Notification of Changes revised 04/15/21 included the purpose of the policy was to ensure the facility promptly informed the resident, consulted the resident's physician, and notified consistent with his or her authority the resident's representative when there was a change requiring notification. Circumstances requiring notification included a significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial condition such as deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial status. This might include life-threatening conditions or clinical complications. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145033.
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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #70 had physician's orders and parameters for continuous oxygen administration via nasal cannula....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #70 had physician's orders and parameters for continuous oxygen administration via nasal cannula. This affected one resident (Resident #70) out of three residents reviewed for oxygen administration. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/08/23 and a discharge date of 02/10/23. Resident #70's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage affecting the right dominant side, obstructive sleep apnea and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #70's admission Assessment with Baseline Care Plan dated 02/08/23 included Resident #70 was admitted from the hospital, had the cognitive ability to be oriented to his room, surroundings and was oriented to room, call bell, bed controls and side rails. Resident #70 was alert to person and situation and had clear verbal communication. Resident #70 was non ambulatory. Review of Resident #70's physician orders dated 02/08/23 at 3:44 PM. revealed CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) with one to three liters bleed in to maintain SpO2 (percentage of blood saturated with oxygen) greater that 92 percent at bedtime. Further review of Resident #70's physician orders did not reveal orders for continuous oxygen at three liters per minute via nasal cannula. Review of Resident #70's care plan dated 02/09/23 revealed it did not include a care plan for oxygen administration. Review of Resident #70's respiratory progress notes dated 02/09/23 at 5:30 A.M. and under the category of oxygen mask or nasal cannula, if ordered and on revealed Resident #70 was placed on three liters oxygen per minute via nasal cannula due to SpO2 was 88 percent on room air and order for CPAP was to keep SpO2 greater than 92 percent. Resident #70 was placed on CPAP three liters for bedtime at midnight. Review of Resident #70's oxygen saturation level dated 02/09/24 at 5:24 A.M. revealed 98 percent on room air. Resident #70's oxygen saturation level dated 02/10/23 at 12:24 A.M. revealed 97 percent on room air. Review of Resident #70's respiratory progress notes dated 02/10/23 at 4:46 A.M. and under the category of oxygen mask or nasal cannula, if ordered and on revealed Resident #70 was on oxygen three liters per minute via nasal cannula to keep SpO2 above 92 percent. SpO2 is 97 percent. Resident #70 was placed on CPAP at 11:00 P.M. Interview on 09/07/23 at 12:34 P.M. of Respiratory Therapist (RT) #251 revealed she did not remember Resident #70 but she probably put Resident #70 on oxygen at three liters per minute via nasal cannula because she was trying to keep his oxygen saturation above 92 percent as ordered for Resident #70's CPAP. RT #251 stated if he needed it at night generally it was needed during the day as well, and Resident #70 was probably using oxygen all day and night. Interview on 09/07/23 at 2:30 P.M. of Family Member (FM) #308 revealed Resident #70 was using oxygen via nasal cannula during the day on 02/09/23 and 02/10/23. Interview on 09/11/23 at 10:23 A.M. of the DON confirmed Resident #70 did not have an order for continuous oxygen via nasal cannula. The DON stated if Resident #70 needed oxygen per nasal cannula in addition to the CPAP then the nurses should have obtained an order from the physician or nurse practitioner for continuous oxygen. The DON confirmed Resident #70's oxygen saturation levels on 02/09/23 and 02/10/23 were documented at room air and should have been documented using oxygen via nasal cannula or CPAP depending on the time. Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration undated included oxygen was administered under orders of a physician, except in the case of an emergency. In such case, oxygen was administered and orders for oxygen were obtained as soon as practicable when the situation was under control. Staff should document the initial and ongoing assessment of the resident's condition warranting oxygen and the response to oxygen therapy. The resident's care plan should identify the interventions for oxygen therapy, based upon the resident's assessment and orders, such as, but not limited to the type of oxygen delivery system, when to administer, such as continuous or intermittent and, or when to discontinue, equipment setting for the prescribed flow rates, monitoring of SpO2 (oxygen saturation) levels and or vital signs as ordered, monitoring for complications associated with the use of oxygen.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and review of the facility policy ,the facility failed to ensure Resident #70 was free from significant medication errors. This affected one resident (Resident #70) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of the facility policy ,the facility failed to ensure Resident #70 was free from significant medication errors. This affected one resident (Resident #70) out of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of Resident #70's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/08/23 and a discharge date of 02/10/23. Resident #70's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage affecting the right dominant side, obstructive sleep apnea and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #70's Gold Form Provider Orders dated 02/08/23 included an admitting diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage (stroke) and additional diagnoses included calf DVT (deep venous thrombosis), and presence of inferior vena cava filter. Review of Resident #70's hospital information Patient Care Summary for Transfer dated 02/08/23 at 10:51 A.M. included Heparin Sodium 5000 units subcutaneous every 8 hours was given at on 02/08/23 at 6:17 A.M. and the next dose was due on 02/08/23 at 2:00 P.M. Review of Resident #70's admission Assessment with Baseline Care Plan dated 02/08/23 included Resident #70 was admitted from the hospital, had the cognitive ability to be oriented to his room, surroundings and was oriented to room, call bell, bed controls and side rails. Resident #70 was alert to person and situation and had clear verbal communication. Resident #70 was non ambulatory. Review of Resident #70's physician orders dated 02/08/23 at 2:45 P.M. revealed orders for Heparin Sodium (porcine) injection solution 5000 units per milliliter, inject 5000 units subcutaneously every 8 hours for anticoagulant. Review of Resident #70's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed on 02/08/23 Heparin Sodium (porcine) injection solution 5000 units per milliliter (ml) was scheduled to be administered at 10:00 P.M. and there was no documentation the medication was administered. On 02/09/23 Heparin Sodium 5000 units per ml was scheduled to be administered at 6:00 A.M. and there was no documentation the medication was administered. Review of Resident #70's Medication Administration Audit Report revealed Heparin Sodium injection solution 5000 units per ml was scheduled to be administered on 02/09/23 at 2:00 P.M. and was not administered until 4:23 P.M. Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report did not reveal Heparin Sodium injection solution 5000 units per ml was administered on 02/08/23 at 2:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. or on 02/09/23 at 6:00 A.M. as ordered. Resident #70 did not have Heparin Sodium injection solution 5000 units per ml administered from 02/08/23 at 6:00 A.M. through 02/09/23 at 4:23 P.M., for a total of 34 hours between injections. Review of Resident #70's care plan dated 02/10/23 included Resident #70 had the potential for bleeding or hemorrhage related to the use of anticoagulant medication. Resident #70 would be free from abnormal reactions to anticoagulant use. Interventions included to give medication as prescribed. Review of the facility Swing Kit Contents revealed Heparin Sodium Injection 5000 units per ml was included in the stock medications available at the facility. Interview on 09/07/23 at 9:09 A.M. with Nurse Practitioner (NP) #306 revealed if a resident was not getting their anticoagulant as ordered, and were non-ambulatory it could cause a DVT (deep vein thrombosis) or a PE (pulmonary embolus). NP #306 stated if a resident had a DVT and was not getting their anticoagulant as ordered it could cause a PE and could potentially be fatal. NP #306 stated she was not aware Resident #70 did not receive his scheduled Heparin Sodium 5000 units from 02/08/23 at 6:00 A.M. through 02/09/23 at 4:23 P.M. for a total of 34 hours. NP #306 stated she did not know why the Heparin was not given, and they did not hold the Heparin. Interview on 09/11/23 at 10:23 A.M. of the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #219 confirmed Resident #70's Heparin Sodium 5000 units was not documented it was given on 02/08/23 at 10:00 P.M. and on 02/09/23 at 6:00 A.M. The DON confirmed Heparin 5000 units subcutaneously should also have been administered on 02/08/23 at 2:00 P.M. The DON and ADON #219 confirmed Heparin Sodium Injection 5000 units per ml was available in the stock medications and they did not know why it was not given. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration revised 08/22/22 included medications were administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145033.
Nov 2022 4 deficiencies
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 interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to ensure Resident #60 did not leave th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to ensure Resident #60 did not leave the facility unattended. This affected one resident (#60) of three reviewed for supervision. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of Resident #60's medical records revealed an admission date of 08/16/21. Diagnoses included dementia and cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #60's care plan dated 08/17/22 revealed the resident had an episode of anxiety related to being on the secured unit and was noted to have been beating on the door and was exit seeking. Exit seeking behaviors were also noted to have occurred when the resident believed it was time to smoke. Interventions included place a clock in resident's room to remind him of the smoking times. The care plan also indicated Resident #60 had a diagnosis of dementia that required resident to be placed on the secured unit. Interventions included review on a quarterly basis for continued placement on the secured unit. Review of an elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was at risk for elopement and would push on the memory care unit door. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 had impaired cognition. Review of an elopement assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was appropriate to be on the secured unit. Review of progress note dated 10/29/22 revealed Resident #60 was observed outside of the facility by Activities Aide #860. The progress note stated the resident was brought back into the facility by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #813 and was assessed for injuries with none noted. Interview on 10/31/22 at 8:33 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #833 revealed Resident #60 had been reported as being outside of the facility on 10/27/22. STNA #833 stated Activities Aide #860 had seen the resident next door to the facility as she was driving home. STNA #833 stated she was not present during the incident, however she stated the resident had tried to open the doors to get out of the memory care on occasions because he always thought it was time to smoke. Observation of resident at time of interview revealed Resident #60 appeared to be calm and pleasant, however he was unable to answer questions appropriately. Interview on 10/31/22 at 10:15 A.M. with Activities Aide #860 revealed on 10/27/22 she had left the facility between 3:15 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. and as she was leaving she observed Resident #60 outside in his wheelchair near a driveway next door to the facility. She stated she did not approach Resident #60 due to she did not want to scare him, and that she parked across the street and called the facility. She stated no one answered so she drove her car back to the facility and had gotten the nurse. The nurse and Activities Aide #860 came out and they both went to get the resident. The nurse assessed the resident and he did not appear to have any injuries. The nurse had pushed him back into the facility in his wheelchair. She stated she had last seen the resident around 2:00 P.M. and he was in a common area, he did not appear to be exit seeking and was sitting in his wheelchair watching TV. Interview on 11/01/22 at 1:49 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #60 had been moved off of the memory care unit on 10/05/22 due to he had an altercation with another resident who had wandered into his room. The DON stated Resident #60 had not been exhibiting exit seeking behaviors during that time and the facility had discussed placing the resident in a room on the non secured units. The DON stated Resident #60 had not exhibited any exit seeking behaviors while off of the secure unit. The DON stated there had not been an elopement reassessment prior to moving the resident, however she stated an assessment had been done after he was observed to have been outside of the facility on 10/29/22 and he was placed back on the secured memory care unit.
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care had been provided. This affected three...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure timely incontinence care had been provided. This affected three residents (#37, #49 and #52) of four observed for incontinence care. The facility identified 44 incontinent residents. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Review of Resident #37's medical records revealed an admission date of 07/20/21. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, falls, and difficulty walking. Review of Resident #37's care plan dated 09/12/22 revealed the resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Interventions included provide incontinence care every two hours and as needed. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance with toileting, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #49's medical records revealed an admission date of 11/18/21. Diagnoses included cognitive deficits, dementia and aphasia (difficulty speaking). Review of MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance with toileting, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #49's care plan dated 10/13/22 revealed the resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Interventions included provide incontinence care every two hours and as needed. Review of Resident #52's medical records revealed an admission date of 05/14/21. Diagnoses included dementia, muscle weakness and aphasia. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance with toileting, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Observation of incontinence care on 10/31/22 at 9:26 A.M. for Resident #37 with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #833 revealed Resident #37 was not wearing an incontinence brief. STNA #833 stated she was unsure how long Resident #37 had been without an incontinence brief due to she had not provided care for him yet. Further observation revealed Resident #37 had been incontinent of stool that was dried on to his pants. Resident #37 was not interviewable. Observation of incontinence care on 10/31/22 at 9:34 A.M. for Resident #49 with STNA #833 revealed Resident #49 was incontinent of a large amount of urine that had saturated through his incontinence brief and on to his bed sheet. STNA #833 confirmed she had not provided care for Resident #49 since she started her shift and was unable to state when he had last received incontinence care. Resident #49 was not interviewable. Observation of incontinence care on 11/01/22 at 7:51 A.M. for Resident #52 with STNA #874 revealed Resident #52 was incontinent of urine that had saturated through his incontinence brief and also had saturated his tee-shirt. STNA #874 stated she had not provided care for the resident since she started her shift and was unable to state when he had last received care. Resident #52 was not interviewable.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure supplements were administered as ordered. This affected two ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure supplements were administered as ordered. This affected two (Residents #5 and #62) of four residents reviewed for nutrition and weight loss. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis, difficulty in walking and dysphagia. Review of Resident #5's physician orders revealed an order dated 09/23/22 for Boost plus eight ounces three times a day for nutrition support and wound healing. Review of Resident #5's medication administration records (MARS) from 10/28/22 to 11/02/22 revealed the Boost plus was not administered on 10/28/22 for lunch, 10/28/22 for dinner, 10/29/22 for breakfast, 10/29/22 for lunch, 10/30/22 for breakfast, 10/30/22 for lunch, 10/31/22 for lunch and 10/31/22 for dinner. Interview on 11/02/22 at 7:35 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #818 revealed the facility ran out of Boost plus on 08/28/22 and it was on backorder. Resident #5 did not receive the Boost plus for eight administrations. Interview on 11/02/22 at 3:13 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed LPN #807 called her at home on [DATE] to report the facility was out of Boost plus and she was unable to provide the supplement to her residents. 2. Review of Resident #62's medical record revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including hospice services, Parkinson's disease and encounter for other orthopedic aftercare. Review of Resident #62's physician orders revealed an order dated 04/15/22 for Boost plus eight ounces two times a day for nutrition support related to weight loss. Review of Resident #62's MARS from 10/28/22 to 11/02/22 revealed the Boost plus was not administered on 10/28/22 for dinner, 10/29/22 for breakfast, 10/29/22 for dinner, 10/30/22 for breakfast, 10/30/22 for dinner and 10/31/22 for dinner. Interview on 11/02/22 at 7:35 A.M. with LPN/ADON #818 confirmed the facility ran out of Boost plus on 08/28/22, it was on backorder. Resident #62 did not receive the Boost plus for six administrations. Interview on 11/02/22 at 3:13 P.M. with the DON revealed LPN #807 called her at home on [DATE] to report the facility was out of Boost plus and she was unable to provide the supplement to her residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing on the memory care unit. This ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing on the memory care unit. This affected three residents (#37, #49 and #52) residing on the memory care unit. The memory care census was 10. Findings include: Review of Resident #37's medical records revealed an admission date of 07/20/21. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, falls, and difficulty walking. Review of Resident #37's care plan dated 09/12/22 revealed the resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Interventions included provide incontinence care every two hours and as needed. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance with toileting, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #49's medical records revealed an admission date of 11/18/21. Diagnoses included cognitive deficits, dementia and aphasia (difficulty speaking). Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance with toileting, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the care plan dated 10/13/22 revealed Resident #49 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Interventions included provide incontinent care every two hours and as needed. Review of Resident #52's medical records revealed an admission date of 05/14/21. Diagnoses included dementia, muscle weakness and aphasia. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance with toileting, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Interview on 10/31/22 at 8:33 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #833 revealed the memory care unit usually only had one staff member present at all times. STNA #833 stated she had been aware of residents who had not received their scheduled showers due to the lack of staff. Observation of incontinence care on 10/31/22 at 9:26 A.M. for Resident #37 with STNA #833 revealed Resident #37 had been incontinent of stool that was dried on to his pants. Interview with STNA #833 confirmed the stool had dried on to the resident's pants, STNA #833 was unsure when he had last been checked for incontinence, she had not provided care for him yet. STNA #833 started her shift at 7:00 A.M. Resident #37 was not interviewable. Observation of incontinence care on 10/31/22 at 9:34 A.M. for Resident #49 with STNA # 833 revealed Resident #49 was incontinent of a large amount of urine that had saturated through his brief and on to his sheet. STNA #833 revealed she had not cared for Resident #49 yet and was unable to state when he had last received incontinence care. Resident #49 was not interviewable. Observation of incontinence care on 11/01/22 at 7:51 A.M. for Resident #52 with STNA #874 revealed Resident #52 was incontinent of urine that had saturated through his incontinence brief and also had saturated his tee-shirt. STNA #874 stated she had not provided care for the resident yet and was unable to state when he had last received care. Resident #52 was not interviewable. Review of staffing schedules revealed the facility provided less than 2.5 hours of direct care per resident per day on 10/25/22, 10/28/22, 10/29/22 and 10/30/22.
Aug 2019 6 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

Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure all staff, including medical providers, treated two residents (Resitens #5, and #9) with dignity when entering...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure all staff, including medical providers, treated two residents (Resitens #5, and #9) with dignity when entering their rooms and during care. This affected two of 14 residents reviewed for dignity. Findings include: 1. On 08/05/19 at 9:50 A.M. a physician (who was later identified as the Medical Director) was observed entering the room of Resident #5, which had the door closed, without knocking or announcing himself. Two state tested nursing assistants (STNA) were observed in the room providing personal care to the resident. The physician did not ask permission to enter upon opening the door. During an interview on 08/05/19 at 10:00 A.M., Resident #5 stated the physician never knocks on our door, he just walks in and further stated other staff in the building do knock before they come in. On 08/05/19 at 11:30 A.M. the Medical Director approached the surveyor and stated, I have never been instructed by the former director [administrator] at the facility about knocking on doors and that he had not been told by the present director. He also stated, I don't think the facility should be held accountable for what I didn't know. 2. Observation on 08/05/19 at 10:12 A.M. a male, later identified by the Administrator as the Medical Director, walked in Resident #9's room while the resident was speaking with the surveyor. The gentleman walked in without knocking or asking permission to enter, interrupting the surveyor interview with Resident #9. The surveyor exited the room at that time. A brief interview with the Administrator, at 10:30 A.M. on 08/05/19, revealed the gentleman was the Medical Director and one of three attending physicians who saw residents in the facility. On 08/06/19 at 9:35 A.M. an interview was conducted with Resident #9, about the previous day, when the Medical Director entered her room without knocking or asking permission, while she was meeting with the surveyor. She stated, He's the only one who doesn't knock; the housekeepers, aides, nurses and all knock before entering. He should knock or ask first. This is my home. During an interview with the Administrator, on 08/07/19 at 12:45 P.M., she revealed she would expect the Medical Director to knock on doors and ask permission prior to entering a room. She stated she educated him on 08/05/19 when she was asked, by the surveyor, who he was and was told he was walking into rooms without knocking. Review of the facility policy titled, Quality of Life-Dignity, last revised in August 2009 indicated Residents' private space and property shall be respected at all times. Staff will knock and request permission before entering residents' rooms.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure physical examinations and discussion of private health information for two residents (Residents #7 and #9) were...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure physical examinations and discussion of private health information for two residents (Residents #7 and #9) were conducted privately. This affected two of 14 residents reviewed for privacy. Findings include: 1. Observation revealed, on 08/05/19 at 10:12 A.M. a male, who was later identified as the Medical Director, walked in Resident #9's room while the resident was speaking with the surveyor. The gentleman walked in without knocking or asking permission to enter, interrupting the surveyor interview with Resident #9. The gentleman then began to discuss Resident #9's care in front of the surveyor and leaned down and placed a stethoscope on the resident's chest, to listen to her heart and lungs. The surveyor exited the room at that time. Brief interview with the Administrator at 10:30 A.M. on 08/05/19 revealed the gentleman was the Medical Director and one of three attending physicians seeing residents in the facility. On 08/06/19 at 9:35 A.M. an interview with Resident #9, about the previous day when the Medical Director entered her room without knocking or asking permission while she was meeting with the surveyor, she stated, He should have asked to examine me when he walked in. He might have asked private things I wouldn't want to share with you. 2. On 08/05/19 at 10:45 A.M. the physician was observed in the main dining room during an activity where Resident #7 was involved. The physician was observed to approach her, and without speaking to her or explaining what he was going to do, proceeded to complete an assessment, by placing his stethoscope on the front and back of her chest and physically touched her ankles with his hands. When he was finished, he walked away from her, again without speaking to her. During an interview on 08/06/19 at 1:20 P.M. with Resident #7, regarding the assessment by the physician on 08/05/19, she stated, he knows he isn't supposed to do that in public. She also confirmed that the physician did not speak to her during the brief assessment or explain what he was going to do. During an interview with the Administrator, on 08/07/19 at 12:45 P.M., she revealed she would expect the Medical Director to respect residents' privacy. Review of the facility policy titled, Quality of Life-Dignity, last revised in August 2009 indicated each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality. Staff shall promote, maintain and protect resident privacy, including bodily privacy during assistance with personal care and during treatment procedures.
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, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure urinary outpu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure urinary output was tracked as ordered for one resident (Resident #37) with an indwelling urinary catheter. This affected one of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of Resident #37's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, (an assessment tool completed by the facility staff used to identify resident care problems and assist with care planning) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD), the end-point of the evaluation period, of 01/10/19, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/03/19 with diagnoses of spina bifida, generalized muscle weakness, neuro muscular dysfunction of the bladder, essential (primary) hypertension, and three pressure ulcers. In addition, the MDS Assessment indicated under Section V Care Area Assessment section, the resident was admitted with urinary incontinence and an indwelling catheter/urinary ostomy. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, with an ARD date of 07/03/19, revealed the resident was again coded as having urinary incontinence with a urinary catheter/ostomy. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan, revealed a focus area, originally initiated on 01/03/19, for bladder elimination complications related to the resident's cystostomy and for ensuring no signs or symptoms of infection until the next review. One intervention listed was, Observe output and record. Notify the MD [Medical Doctor]/NP [Nurse Practitioner] of any abnormalities. Observation, on 08/06/19 at 9:36 AM, revealed Resident t#37 was in bed, covered, with his eyes closed. A catheter drainage tube was visible and connected to a bedside drainage bag. Review of a hospital report, that was untitled with only the local hospital name in the heading, in Resident #37's clinical record, revealed the resident was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with fever and abdominal pain, and was diagnosed with an infection of a wound/ulcer. The resident was discharged back to the facility on [DATE] with an oral antibiotic, Amoxicillin, prescribed until 06/08/19. Prior to the hospitalization, the resident had been taking Nitrofurantoin for the prevention of urinary tract infections (UTIs). Review of an order dated 05/22/19, under the Clinical Physician's Orders tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), for Resident #37, read, OUTPUT three (3) times a day. The order did not include a stop date for measuring the urinary output. Review of the Daily Skilled Nurses Notes and Progress Notes from 05/22/19 to 08/07/19, revealed nurses had not recorded any information about Resident #37's urinary output for the days where documentation was missing on the May, June, July, and August 2019 TARs. Interview, on 08/06/19 at 9:48 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #1, revealed if there was an order for measuring Resident #37's urinary output, there would be an area in the electronic charting system the STNAs could access. However, when STNA #1 opened the electronic charting program, via a wall mounted system in the hallway, she did not find a tabbed area/icon for recording anything about Resident #37's urinary output. Observation, on 08/06/19 at 3:10 P.M., of perineal (peri) care for Resident #37, revealed STNA #1 emptied urine from the cystostomy collection bag into a triangular graduate container. The STNA took the urine to the resident's bathroom and poured it into the toilet. When the STNA left Resident #37's room, she said her shift was over and left for the day. STNA #1 was not observed recording or reporting any information to the nurse about the resident's output. Review on 08/07/19 of the August Treatment Administration Record (TAR), revealed Resident #37's urinary output was not recorded in the 08/06/19, 2:00 P.M. space provided on the TAR. Interview, on 08/07/19 at 11:30 A.M. with STNA #3, revealed on occasion, Resident #37 might empty the urine from his cystostomy bag, but at the change of shifts, around 10:30 P.M., and at 6:30 A.M., for example, the STNA on duty should empty the urine collection bag, and report the output to the nurse on duty. STNA #3 said she thought the nurses documented the information about Resident #37's output. Interview, on 08/07/19 3:00 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, revealed the STNAs were to measure Resident #37's urine output three times daily, and report the information to the nurse on duty. The RN said the nurse should record the information on the TAR where the order was listed. RN #1 said the staff should monitor and record the resident's urinary output because the resident had a diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, a cystostomy, and a history of chronic UTIs. RN #1 said monitoring the resident's urinary output for its color, consistency, and amount would help the nurses know if the resident was having trouble voiding or if he was having symptoms of a UTI. RN #1 said the physician should be notified of any abnormalities. Review of the TAR for Resident #37 revealed an order, dated 05/22/19, was transcribed onto the TAR and indicated the resident's urinary output should be recorded at 6:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., and 10:00 P.M., daily. Review of the May 2019 TAR revealed beginning on May 22nd, the nursing staff recorded their initials and/or a urine amount only 14 times out of 29 required entries. The dates with missing documentation were 05/24/19, 05/25/19, 05/26/19, 05/27/19, 05/28/19, 05/30/19, and 05/31/19. Review of the June 2019 TAR revealed nurses did not record their initials and/or a urinary output amount a total of seven times out of 90 required entries. The dates with missing documentation were 06/09/19, 06/19/19, 06/26/19, 06/27/19, 06/29/19, and 06/30/19. Review of the July 2019 TAR revealed nurses did not record their initials or a urinary output amount a total of four out of 93 required entries. The dates with missing documentation were 07/21/19, 07/22/19, 07/23/19, and 07/31/19. Review of the August 2019 TAR up to 08/07/19, revealed nurses did not record their initials and/or the output a total of two out of a required 21 entries. Continued interview with RN #1 on 08/07/19 at 3:00 P.M. revealed upon his review of the documentation on the May-August TARs for Resident #37, he said there was missing documentation about the resident's urinary output. The RN verified if the staff was not recording the resident's output three times daily, then the care was not being provided per the physician's order, as related to Resident #37's cystostomy status. Interview, on 08/07/19 at 3:24 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed according to the order, Resident #37's output should have been monitored three times daily, and that the order was still active. The STNA should empty the cystostomy bag and report the amount of urine and any other unusual characteristics of the resident's urine to the nurse. The nurse should document on the TAR or in the Daily Skilled Nurses' Notes. The DON verified if Resident #37's urinary output was not recorded on the TAR or in the nurses' notes, then the physician's order was not followed. The DON said the resident had not been out of the facility for any extended periods of time since his hospitalization of 05/18/19-05/20/19. Review of the facility policy, titled Medication Orders, Revision Date, November 2014, revealed treatment orders should specify the treatment, the frequency, and duration of the treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from medications use...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from medications used without adequate indication, for one resident (Resident #6). This affected one of of 17 sampled residents. The facility census was 66. Findings include: According to the facility Face Sheet (undated), Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The face sheet revealed diagnoses of unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, overactive bladder, and generalized muscle weakness. No diagnosis of a history of urinary tract infections (UTI) was found in the clinical record. No documentation was found that Resident #6 had a urology consult or was seen by a urologist. According to the quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD), the end-point of the evaluation period, of 05/10/19, revealed Resident #6, in Section C, which assessed the resident's cognitive status, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5. A score of 5 indicated that Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired. Section G, which scored functional status, revealed Resident #6 required extensive assistance for personal hygiene. Section H, which scored bladder and bowel function, indicated Resident #6 was always incontinent of urine. According to Resident #6's Progress Notes, she was diagnosed and treated for a UTI seven times from 07/11/18 to 05/17/19. No clear documentation could be found in Resident #6's Progress Notes that indicated the rationale for obtaining the urine specimens for urinalysis (UA) the rationale for treatment with no clinical signs and symptoms of a UTI, nor what Resident #6's normal baseline for confusion was. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 08/05/19 at 9:15 A.M., she stated the resident rarely got out of bed, was dependent on staff for all care, and at times her husband, who she shared a room with, would not allow care to be completed for Resident #6. During an interview with Resident #6, on 08/05/19 at 10:00 A.M., she was pleasantly confused and did not recognize her spouse, who was in the room. During the interview Resident #6 voiced confusion at hearing from her husband that they were married. Resident #6 was not distressed during the interview. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/06/19 at 12:00 P.M., the DON stated that Resident #6 did not present with the usual signs and symptoms for a UTI, but only showed increased confusion. The DON was unable to specify what the increased confusion was, apart from her normal baseline confusion, and was unable to state what Resident #6's normal baseline confusion was. During an interview on 08/08/19 at 10:30 A.M., with the DON, she stated she was aware that the resident had been treated for multiple UTI's over the past year. She was not aware of the lack of documentation by the nursing staff to indicate the rationale for obtaining a UA or initiating an antibiotic. She also stated they follow McGeer's criteria (specific criteria developed by infection preventionist professionals to determine the presence of a true infection) for antibiotic use and that the resident was known to only exhibit increased confusion as an indicator of a potential UTI. (The use of criteria to identify true infections was to prevent the overuse of antibiotics and potential subsequent adverse effects.) During the same interview on 08/08/19 at 10:30 A.M. the DON was informed of the interview with Resident #6 on 08/05/19 at 10:00 A.M. and how she didn't recognize her husband until her husband mentioned his name. The DON was asked, based on previous history with Resident #6, would this confusion require a UA to be completed? The DON stated, No. On 07/06/18 at 3:16 P.M. the Progress Notes revealed increased confusion at this time. Is not recognizing her husband, who is her roommate, stating that is not him, that's just some criminal that wants my money. Physician faxed to obtain order for UA with C&S [urinalysis with culture and sensitivity]. On 07/06/18 at 6:16 P.M. the Progress Notes revealed the resident was currently able to identify husband. Resident #6 was noted to have a diagnosis of dementia with history of altered mental status. On 07/11/18 at 11:48 P.M. the Progress Notes revealed the UA and C&S results were reported to the physician and new orders for an antibiotic, Nitrofurantoin (Macrobid) 100 mg twice a day for 5 days was ordered. No documentation could be found from 07/06/18 to 07/11/18 which indicated that Resident #6 was still showing signs of increased confusion, or other signs and symptoms of a UTI when the antibiotic was started on 07/12/18. Resident #6 completed the full course of antibiotic therapy. According to the Progress Notes dated 08/28/18, an order was received to collect a urine specimen for UA and C&S. No documentation was found which explained the rationale for the UA, or any documented clinical signs and symptoms for a UTI. On 09/02/18 at 4:02 P.M. the Progress Notes indicated results of a urine C&S were reported to the physician, new orders for Augmentin (antibiotic) three times a day for five days were received. There was documentation found of signs and symptoms of a UTI. According to the Progress Notes dated 10/13/18, an order was received to collect a urine specimen for UA and C&S. Resident #6's Progress Notes did not include the rationale for the UA, such as, clinical signs and symptoms for a UTI. On 10/17/18 at 2:04 P.M. the Progress Notes indicated the physician made aware of UA and C&S results, new orders for Macrobid 100 mg two times a day for UTI for seven days were obtained. The progress note did not include clinical signs and symptoms of a UTI. Resident #6 completed the full course of antibiotic therapy. According to the Progress Notes dated 12/06/18, an order was received to collect a urine specimen for UA and C&S. No documentation was found which explained the rationale for the UA, or any clinical signs and symptoms for UTI. On 12/07/18 at 7:18 P.M. the Progress Notes indicated preliminary UA results in, start Macrobid 100 mg by mouth twice a day until C&S comes in The final UA and C&S was completed on 12/10/18. The physician ordered to continue the Macrobid to equal a 10-day course, which would finish on 12/17/18. Resident #6 completed the full course of antibiotic therapy. On 03/18/19 at 9:31 P.M. the Progress Notes indicated State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) made this nurse aware of lack of voiding this shift and the resident's odd behaviors including but not limited to yelling out, delusions, and refusal of care. This nurse obtained an order to straight cath the resident to relieve retention and obtain urine for UA. No documentation could be found that described the extent of the odd behaviors or delusions nor was there any documentation on the amount of urine obtained to relieve retention. The physician ordered Macrobid 100 mg by mouth twice a day for 10 days on 03/21/19, for Resident #6's UTI. The record lacked mention of clinical signs and symptoms in 03/18/19 progress note. She completed the full course of antibiotic therapy. According to the Progress Notes dated 04/15/19, an order was received to collect a urine specimen for UA and C&S. No documentation was found which explained the rationale for the UA or any documented clinical signs and symptoms for a UTI. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) ordered an antibiotic, Bactrim DS one tablet by mouth twice a day for 10 days on 04/15/19. She completed the full course of antibiotic therapy. On 05/16/19 at 12:02 P.M. the Progress Notes indicated the NP was made aware of preliminary UA results. Increased behaviors were noted; however the resident had diagnosis of dementia. No documentation could be found in the clinical record that described the increased behaviors or on what date the urine specimen was obtained. Despite the lack of clinical signs and symptoms of a UTI, on 05/18/19 at 12:55 A.M., the Progress Notes indicated UA results were reported to the NP who gave new orders for another antibiotic, Cipro 500 mg by mouth daily for seven days On 05/20/19 at 9:43 A.M. the Progress Notes revealed final UA results were reported to the NP that the infection was resistant to Cipro. New orders were obtained to discontinue Cipro and start another antibiotic, one gram of Ertapenem intramuscular (IM) daily for 10 days. On 06/27/19 at 12:35 P.M. the Progress Notes indicated the resident presented with increased confusion, speaking of the dog in her room that someone needs to be taking care of. The NP was notified and a new order to start Macrobid 100 mg daily by mouth for lifetime prophylactically secondary to recurrent UTIs. Also, Hiprex [an anti-infective] one gram by mouth twice daily. No documentation could be found in Resident #6's clinical record that indicated the rational for ordering the antibiotic with no stop date, nor the clinical signs and symptoms of a UTI, as recommended by the facility's Antibiotic Stewardship policy and the McGeer's criteria followed by the facility. During an interview on 08/08/19 at 10:30 A.M., with the DON, she stated the NP had seen, and documented on, the resident on 7/10/19 and stated the reasoning for placing Resident #6 on the Macrobid prophylactically for lifetime, along with the Hiprex. However, no documentation could be found in the resident chart from the NP and the DON was unable to locate the documentation before exit on 08/08/19. According to the facility Antibiotic Stewardship policy, dated October 2017, it stated under section 4, bullet v - Microbiologic specimen submission guidelines - The following guidelines should be considered before submission of a clinical specimen for microbiologic testing: utilize McGeer's criteria. Section 4 of the policy further defined McGeer's criteria for UTI without a catheter as Acute dysuria, fever or leukocytosis [an inflammatory response] and at least one of the following: acute flank pain, gross hematuria, new or marked increase in incontinence, new or marked increase in urgency and new or marked increase in frequency. In the absence of fever or leukocytosis, then two or more of the following subcriteria: gross hematuria, new or marked increase in incontinence, new or marked increase in urgency and new or marked increase in frequency and At least one of the following: At least 105 colony forming unit (cfu)/millimeters (ml) of no more than two species of microorganisms in a voided urine sample or at least 102 cfu/ml of any number of organisms is a specimen collected by straight catheterization
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 observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to maintain accurate an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete medical records for one (Resident #9) regarding diagnoses that were actually associated with another resident in the facility. This affected one of 19 sampled resident whose records were reviewed. Findings include: Review of Resident #9's Face Sheet, from the Demographics Tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted on [DATE]. Her Diagnosis Report, from the Diagnoses tab of the EMR revealed admitting diagnoses included diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), major depressive disorder (recurrent), and sleep apnea. Diagnoses of schizophrenia and cerebral palsy were added to the diagnosis list on 03/30/18. On 01/22/18 her attending physician, who was also the Medical Director, wrote two Physician Progress Notes, in the Progress Note tab of the EMR. The notes timed at 2305 (11:05 P.M.) documented Resident #9 had a Past Medical History including 1) Type 2 diabetes, 2) heart failure, 3) COPD, 4) obesity, 5) obstructive sleep apnea, 6) anxiety disorder, 7) major depression, 8) hyperlipidemia and 9) chronic pain. In the second note, with the same date, timed at 2316 (11:16 P.M.) the Medical Director documented, I've seen [another resident's name] is [sic] Past Medical History 1) schizoaffective disorder, 2) cerebral palsy, . 5) schizophrenia. The Medical Director subsequently documented in the Progress Note tab on 02/23/18, 03/12/18, 04/09/18, 05/14/18, 06/08/18, 07/10/18, and 08/13/18 the resident had a Past Medical History of schizoaffective disorder, cerebral palsy, and schizophrenia. None of which were mentioned in Resident #9's Diagnosis Report. Additional notes on 09/10/18, 10/05/18, 11/05/18, 12/04/18, 01/27/19, 03/05/19, 04/01/19, 05/13/19, 06/03/19 and 08/05/19 revealed the Medical Director continued to document a past history of schizoaffective disorder and cerebral palsy. On 08/07/19 at 11:00 A.M., during an interview, Resident #9 stated the diagnoses of schizo-affective disorder, cerebral palsy, and schizophrenia were not hers. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Regional Registered Nurse (RN) Quality Assurance (QA) Consultant, at 11:24 A.M. on 08/07/19 revealed the DON was not aware there were two notes written 11 minutes apart; one included diagnoses that belong to Resident #9 and the other included the name and diagnoses of another resident. The DON confirmed the resident's name, that appeared in Resident #9's 01/22/18 Progress Note, timed at 11:16 P.M., was a current resident whose diagnoses included schizoaffective, schizophrenia and cerebral palsy. She stated she thought the Medical Director probably documented on the wrong resident in Resident #9's chart. The DON stated she would expect his notes to be accurate in each resident's record. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 08/07/19 at 2:14 P.M. about the addition of the diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizoaffective and cerebral palsy for Resident #9. He verified his notes from 01/22/18, where he documented on the other resident in Resident #9's chart, and stated, Shouldn't the facility have caught it? When asked if he looked at the psychiatry notes he said, No because they don't come. The Medical Director further shared, I copy and paste the diagnoses each visit because it's easier than reviewing their medical diagnoses each visit. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Review of the facility's policy, titled Charting and Documentation, revised July 2017, revealed, All services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care. Documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete and accurate.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to store food in the dry storage room and in the walk-in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to store food in the dry storage room and in the walk-in freezer in a sanitary manner. The facility also failed to store pans and pitchers in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 66 residents who currently resided in the facility and ate food prepared in the kitchen. Finding include: On 08/05/19 the following observations were made in the facility kitchen: At 9:10 A.M., the [NAME] Beach stainless steel blender was observed on a food preparation counter across from the steam table. Upon removal of the lid, the blender pitcher had water in the pitcher. The dietary manager (DM) stated the blender had been used the evening before to puree desserts. When asked if the blender pitcher was supposed to be stored wet, the DM stated, No. At 9:13 A.M., in the dry storage room, a bag of bleached flour was observed to be open and exposed. The DM stated, It should be sealed. Also, a bag of crispy onions was open and exposed. When shown the bag of crispy onions, the DM stated the bag should be thrown away. At 9:17 A.M., on the pan rack, a total of six stainless steel pans of various sizes were observed to have water dripping from them when lifted from the stacks. When asked if the pans were to be stored/stacked wet, the DM stated, No. They are supposed to be dry. At 9:22 A.M., in the walk-in freezer, a bag of pizza crusts, a bag of [NAME] filets, and a bag of beef patties were observed to be opened and exposed. When asked if the bags of food in the freezer were supposed to be opened and exposed, the DM stated, No. At 9:28 A.M., five plastic pitchers with lids securely in place were observed to have water in them. When asked if the pitchers were supposed to be stored wet, the DM stated, No. The facility's undated Dry Storage and Supplies policy and procedure, documented: Opened food shall be stored in resealed containers/food bags that are labeled/dated. The facility's undated Dish Machine Use policy and procedure, documented: Dishes shall be air-dried and never stored wet.
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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $71,955 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 36 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $71,955 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 30/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Longmeadow's CMS Rating?

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

How is Longmeadow Staffed?

CMS rates LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 51%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Longmeadow?

State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 34 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Longmeadow?

LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by EMBASSY HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 70 residents (about 71% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in RAVENNA, Ohio.

How Does Longmeadow Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (51%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Longmeadow?

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 Longmeadow Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER 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 2-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 Longmeadow Stick Around?

LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 51%, 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 Longmeadow Ever Fined?

LONGMEADOW CARE CENTER has been fined $71,955 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Ohio average of $33,798. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Longmeadow on Any Federal Watch List?

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