CIRCLE OF CARE

1985 EAST PERSHING STREET, SALEM, OH 44460 (330) 332-1588
For profit - Partnership 55 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#848 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Circle of Care in Salem, Ohio has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state ranking of #848 out of 913, they fall in the bottom half of Ohio facilities, and their county ranking of #11 out of 11 shows they are the lowest option available in Columbiana County. The facility's situation is worsening, with the number of issues increasing dramatically from 1 in 2024 to 19 in 2025. While staffing is relatively strong with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and turnover at an average 56%, the facility has alarming issues, including a critical failure to manage legionella bacteria in their water supply, posing significant health risks to residents. Additionally, they had a serious incident where a resident developed an avoidable pressure ulcer due to inadequate care. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing, the critical health and safety concerns make this facility a risky choice for families.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In Ohio
#848/913
Bottom 8%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 19 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$179,235 in fines. Higher than 56% of Ohio facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 53 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Ohio. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
42 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 19 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Ohio average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 56%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $179,235

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above Ohio average of 48%

The Ugly 42 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jun 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record, interview, review of the facility policy and review of the Nursing Home Residents' [NAME]...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record, interview, review of the facility policy and review of the Nursing Home Residents' [NAME] of Rights, the facility failed to ensure residents representatives were notified of significant changes. This affected two (Resident #7 and #35) of three residents who were reviewed for changes in condition. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed an admission date of 05/16/25 and a re-entry date of 05/30/25. Diagnoses included sepsis (admission diagnosis), streptococcal sepsis, osteomyelitis, paraplegia, end stage renal disease, diabetes insipidus, chronic pain, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, colostomy status, muscle contracture, unspecified site, depression, hyperkalemia, hypo-osmolality, hyponatremia, and other disorders of plasma-protein metabolism. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment completed on 06/06/25 revealed Resident #7 had intact cognition and had medically complex conditions including, but not limited to cardiac/circulatory problems, multiple metabolic issues, end stage renal disease, paraplegia, and depression. Review of the resident census page revealed Resident #7 was transferred out of the facility to the hospital on [DATE], 06/05/25, and from 06/10/25 to 06/11/25. Review of the progress note dated 06/01/25 at 1:25 P.M. revealed Resident #7 exhibited an altered mental status, blood pressure of 90/56, and an oxygen saturation of 90 percent (%). The note further revealed the emergency medical technicians (EMTs) were called to transport Resident #7 to the hospital emergency room (ER) via stretcher and the Nurse Practitioner was notified of the change in condition and resulting hospital transfer. The progress note did not contain documentation that Resident #7's mother was notified of the transfer. Review of the progress note dated 06/10/25 at 11:43 P.M. revealed Resident had an emesis containing fecal matter, elevated blood pressure of 152/77, heart rate of 94, and oxygen saturation of 90%. The note further revealed the Nurse Practitioner was notified of Resident #7's change in condition at 10:39 P.M., a nurse-to-nurse report was provided to the ER nurse at the selected hospital, and the EMTs left the facility with Resident #7 for ER transport at 11:41 P.M. There were no notes reflecting notification of the health status change or hospital transfer was provided to Resident #7's mother. Review of the progress note dated 06/11/25 at 9:01 A.M. Revealed the mother of Resident #7 called the facility and verbalized she was upset to learn Resident #7 had been sent to the hospital and she was not notified of his change in condition of transfer or subsequent return to the facility. Interview on 06/12/25 at 2:26 P.M. with Resident #7 confirmed Resident #7 had been in and out of hospital multiple times. During the interview, Resident #7 confirmed his mother was not always informed by facility staff of the hospital visits and stated she needs to be then reiterated his wishes were for his mother to be updated with his care and anytime he has to go to the hospital. Interview on 06/12/25 at 2:50 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #474 confirmed that for falls, incidents with injury, or hospital transfers, the nurses were responsible for calling family or resident representatives to provide notification. Interview on 06/12/25 at 3:00 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #406 confirmed the nurse was to make notifications to family or resident representatives when there was a change in condition. Interview on 06/12/25 with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/12/25 from 4:26 P.M. to 4:35 P.M. confirmed there was no documentation of notification of hospital transfers from the transfer the afternoon of 06/01/25 or the transfer on 06/10/25. She further confirmed the progress note dated 06/11/25 at 9:01 A.M. revealed Resident #11's mother verbalized to facility staff she was upset she was not notified of Resident #7's hospital transfer on 06/10/25. Review of the undated Nursing Home Residents' [NAME] of Rights revealed residents had the right to have any significant changes in health status reported to their sponsor and the facility should make every reasonable effort to notify as soon as the change in condition occurs or within 12 hours of the change. Review of the policy titled Change in Resident's Condition or status last reviewed May 2025 revealed that unless otherwise instructed, the resident's family or resident representative was to be informed of accidents or incidents that caused injury, a significant change in physical, mental, or psychosocial status, room changes, decision to discharge, and emergency transfers out of the facility. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 06/10/25 with diagnoses including diabetes insipidus, personal history of traumatic brain injury, neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, muscle weakness, major depressive disorder, systolic congestive heart failure, anxiety disorder, basal cell carcinoma of the skin on unspecified parts of the face, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment completed on 04/08/25 revealed Resident #35 had intact cognition and medically complex conditions, including but not limited to cancer and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of the care plan dated 04/10/25 revealed Resident #35 had a living will and an appointed guardian of person and state. Review of the documents revealed guardianship paperwork certified on 03/15/17 that determined Resident #35 was deemed incompetent and appointed a legal guardian of both person and estate. Review of the census page in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed Resident #35 was transferred out of the facility to a hospital on [DATE]. Review of the progress note dated 06/08/25 at 2:14 P.M. revealed Resident #35 had picked all the sutures out from the surgical site on the outer aspect of the nose, causing it to be wide open and bleeding, and was sent to the ER for evaluation and possible surgical site repair. There were no progress notes or transfer forms indicating the guardian was notified of this change in status. Interview on 06/12/25 at 12:51 P.M. with the guardian of Resident #35 revealed a concern that the facility routinely neglected to notify him of hospital transfers, and the facility at no time notified him of Resident #35's hospital transfer on 06/08/25. During the interview, Resident #35's guardian stated he only became aware of the hospital transfer because the hospital contacted him to fill out the paperwork necessary for them to treat Resident #35. Interview on 06/12/25 at 2:50 P.M. with LPN #474 confirmed that for falls, incidents with injury, or hospital transfers, the nurses were responsible for calling family or resident representatives to provide notification. Interview on 06/12/25 at 3:00 P.M. with RN #406 confirmed the nurse was to make notifications to family or resident representatives when there was a change in condition, including hospital transfers. Interview on 06/12/25 with the DON on 06/12/25 from 4:26 P.M. to 4:35 P.M. confirmed there was no documentation Resident #35's guardian had been notified of Resident #35 pulling out the stitches from the surgical site or subsequent hospital transfer. Review of the undated Nursing Home Residents' [NAME] of Rights revealed residents had the right to have any significant changes in health status reported to their sponsor and the facility should make every reasonable effort to notify as soon as the change in condition occurs or within 12 hours of the change. Review of the policy titled Change in Resident's Condition or status last reviewed May 2025 revealed that unless otherwise instructed, the resident's family or resident representative was to be informed of accidents or incidents that caused injury, a significant change in physical, mental, or psychosocial status, room changes, decision to discharge, and emergency transfers out of the facility. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00166072.
Apr 2025 18 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, review of the facility water management plan and maintenance logs, review of legion...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, review of the facility water management plan and maintenance logs, review of legionella water test results, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance related to legionella, review of infection control tracking, and interviews with staff and representative from the Local Health Department (LHD), the facility failed to develop, implement and follow a comprehensive and effective infection control program/water management plan to prevent the continued presence of legionella bacteria in their water supply. Upon identification of elevated legionella levels, the facility failed to re-evaluate or update their water management risk assessment and water management plan or provide effective intervention to mitigate the risk of legionella growth. The facility also failed to ensure residents did not have access to or use water from areas where legionella could be present. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening harm, negative health outcomes, and/or death beginning on 01/30/25 when second water sample testing results from testing conducted on 01/23/25 by the facility showed an increase in legionella bacteria growth in the facility water system and the facility failed to implement water maintenance interventions to mitigate the risk of legionella and/or as recommended by the local health department (LHD). On 02/05/25 additional water sampling testing was completed with results obtained 02/12/25 which revealed the presence of legionella was considerably increased from the testing done on 01/23/25. The facility's failure to implement and/or revise appropriate water management measures to mitigate the growth of legionella placed all 40 current residents in the facility at risk of developing serious life-threatening illness and/or death from Legionnaire's disease. In addition, concerns that did not rise to the level of Immediate Jeopardy were identified when the facility failed to establish and implement an effective infection surveillance system to track infections and monitor infection trends. Lastly, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control techniques were followed when performing wound care for Resident #37 to prevent the spread of infection. This affected 42 of 42 residents, which included one resident, Resident #37 observed for wound care and two residents, Resident #18 and #95 who no longer resided in the facility at the time of the survey. On 03/19/25 at 3:37 P.M., the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Infection Preventionist (IP) #302, and Maintenance Manager #322 were notified that Immediate Jeopardy began on 01/30/25 when the facility received water testing results positive for legionella and failed to take immediate action and implement effective corrective including actions recommended by the LHD to address water testing samples that were positive for legionella growth. Between 01/23/25 and 02/12/25 additional water testing conducted by the facility showed the legionella levels continued to rise with no evidence of effective measures to mitigate the risk for Legionnaire's disease. The lack of comprehensive and effective water management plan and the identification of legionella in the facility water supply placed all residents at risk for developing serious illness and complications, including the potential for death, related to legionella infection/Legionnaire's disease. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/28/25 when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: o On 03/06/25 an all-staff in-service was completed on risks, signs and symptoms and interventions for legionella by the DON and IP Nurse #302. o On 03/19/25 by 6:30 P.M. water to each sink in all facility rooms was shut off to prevent accidental use by residents and staff. Gallon jugs of purified water were put in place to wash hands with dates and names on each. o Beginning 03/20/25 the DON/designee would audit employee call-offs weekly for the next two weeks, monitoring for any symptoms related to legionella illness. Any concerns would be immediately reported to the Administrator and addressed by the Quality Assessment Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee as necessary. o On 03/21/25 the facility contracted with PT enterprises to assist with the water management plan. PT enterprises came to the facility and took twelve water samples (four swabs and eight additional 250 ml potable water samples). o On 03/21/25 point of use filters for all water sources in the facility were ordered. o On 03/23/25 the DON brought in hot and cold-water dispensers for use on the second and third floors. This water was provided for residents' use for any residents who did not want to drink bottled water and staff were responsible for bringing the water to residents. Additional bottled water was supplied to the fourth floor. o On 03/23/25 the DON educated the weekend staff and agency staff working on-site on not using the room sinks or shower on the second floor, as well as signs and symptoms of legionella. o On 03/24/25 a Legionella assessment data collection form was created in point click care (PCC), which included a set of vital signs, a review of potential symptoms of legionella, a place for a narrative, and a yes or no question as to whether or not the resident experienced more than three symptoms beyond their baseline. All nurses would be educated on this form by 04/09/25. Any nurse not educated by this date would not be allowed to work the floor until the education was completed. Nurses would complete this assessment on resident admission and with resident change of respiratory condition. o On 03/24/25 new legionella filters were received and placed on the main floor bathroom sink, therapy room sink, room [ROOM NUMBER] sink faucet, shower heads on the second, third and forth floors, at the nursing station sinks on the second, third and forth floors and on the dialysis center sinks by Maintenance Manager #322. o On 03/24/25 Legionella tests for six residents who were transferred from the facility for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress were completed. o On 03/25/25 a contracted plumbing company ([NAME] Plumbing) came to the facility to evaluate appropriate adapters to fit on the sink filters. They also evaluated sanitation. The water remained off to the room sinks at this time. *On 03/26/25 the DON/designee completed resident assessments (legionella assessment data collection form) for all facility residents. The resident assessments would continue to be conducted weekly by the DON/designee and/or Infection Preventionist for three weeks beginning 03/31/25. Any concerns would be immediately reported to the Administrator and Medical Director for follow-up o On 03/27/25 the facility Water Management Committee, including the Administrator, DON, IP #302, Maintenance Manager #322, Housekeeping/Laundry Supervisor, RT Director and Dietary Manager met to further discuss the facility's Water management -Legionella plan. o On 03/27/25 the facility QAPI committee met to review any updates to the water management plan and complete audits. The facility new water management protocols initiated on 03/27/25 included: a.) Each faucet and shower head aerator would be cleaned with an approved scale and lime build-up cleaner semi-annually to ensure proper water flow quarterly beginning in June 2025. b.) Beginning 03/28/25 the hot water boilers would be set at 140° or greater, differing from previous plans where they were set at 135 degrees. Facility staff would record the temperature of each hot water device weekly and adjust immediately if less than 140°. To ensure compliance to policy, staff would retest the following day to confirm appropriate temperature. c.) Hot water holding tanks would be set at a minimum of 140° versus previous 135°F to inhibit the growth of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens. Facility staff would record the temperature weekly and adjust immediately if less than 140° to ensure compliance. d.) Beginning 03/27/25 regular cleaning and changing of filters would be done per manufacturers' recommendations. The facility would remove scale and clean using approved cleaning agents semi- annually and changing the filters every six months or per manufacturer recommendations. Maintenance Manager #322 would audit monthly to ensure compliance and audits will be reviewed in QAPI meetings. e.) Beginning 03/28/25 weekly flushing of water would be added to housekeepers assignments to be completed Monday or Tuesday each week which would consist of flushing for three minutes each faucet and showers also flush all toilets at least once every week. The supervisor would review documentation weekly to ensure compliance. Audits would be reviewed, and the facility would determine where the failure occurs during QAPI meetings. f.) If the facility experiences one or more positive cases of legionellosis, the facility would conduct semi-annual testing to determine if the water management plan (WMP) was effective in controlling legionella and the Maintenance Manager #322 will follow up with the vendor to determine failure to conduct and correct this. g.) Beginning on 03/27/25 for any positive legionella in the water, the facility would contact PT enterprises, to conduct testing on water samples, provide alternate water sources for bathing and patient care, inspect all faucets for built-up scaling and cleaning with appropriate cleaner and replace all filters on incoming water sources. h.) Legionella filters would be changed per manufacturers' recommendations beginning on 06/01/25. On 03/30/25 the facility received ordered parts which were being installed with a plan to have all installation of parts/filters completed by 04/01/25. Interviews on 04/01/25 between 11:46 A.M. and 12:15 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #353, Respiratory Therapist (RT) #330, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #368, CNA #335, LPN #352, and LPN #301 confirmed they had received instruction not to use any sinks or other running water unless the faucet had a new filter in place (which was visible to the observer) and that water remained turned off to sinks on the fourth floor and some unoccupied rooms on the second floor where filters were not yet applied. During these staff interviews, each confirmed they had received education on risks of legionella in the water and signs and symptoms of legionella related infection. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/28/25, the deficiency remained at Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility is still in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility LEGIONELLA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM revealed the facility water risk assessment was last completed on 05/16/23. The risk assessment revealed the facility had encountered a prolonged period of reduced occupancy on the second floor and toilets were flushed and faucets were run during that unspecified timeframe. Review of the assessment revealed the facility tested for legionella but did not include summaries, acceptable control levels, or legionella response policy or procedures. The risk assessment revealed the facility did not use water filters or thermostatic mixing valves. The risk assessment further revealed the facility used Salem City Municipal Water and did not ever measure disinfectant levels at the point of use. The facility maintenance activities were to include routine running water and flushing toilets in unused areas of the building and checking hot water temperatures on all floors. Review of the facility Water Management Template revealed the water management team (WMT) consisted of the Administrator, the DON, Maintenance Manager #322, IP #320, Dietary Manager #312, Housekeeping Manager #320, and Director of Respiratory #311. The WMT was responsible for overseeing implementation of the water risk management. Review of a facility Microbiology Analysis Report from Cardinal Environmental Laboratories, LLC dated 01/15/25 revealed the water sampled from the facility on 01/08/25 identified legionella test results were 7.97 most probable number (MPN) per milliliter (ml). There was only one testing location, one test sample from the dialysis den. Review of a facility Microbiology Analysis Report from Cardinal Environmental Laboratories, LLC dated 01/30/25 revealed the water sampled from the facility on 01/23/25 identified legionella tests results were 13.4 MPN/ml. There was only one testing location, one test sample from the dialysis den. This result was noted to be higher than the result of the water sampled on 01/08/25. The facility failed to provide evidence of additional investigation as to why the levels were this high or evidence of interventions to mitigate the presence of legionella at this time. Review of a facility Microbiology Analysis Report from Cardinal Environmental Laboratories, LLC dated 02/12/25 revealed the water sampled from the facility on 02/05/25 identified legionella tests results were 121 MPN/ml, a considerable increase from the test results received on 01/30/25. There was only one testing location, one test sample from dialysis den. The facility failed to provide evidence of additional investigation as to why the levels were this high or evidence of interventions to mitigate the presence of legionella at this time. Review of the Circle of Care Water Management Program policy (last updated 01/08/24) revealed the facility was to revise and update their legionella risk assessment annually and as needed. The policy further revealed their water management practices were to include documentation of the following: - Weekly hot water temperatures and as needed - Weekly temperatures of the hot water tanks - Weekly cold-water temperatures - Running water and flushing toilets in resident areas where low water use has occurred (frequency unspecified) - Routine maintenance of the ice machine, unoccupied resident rooms, whirlpool hot tubs, shower head, and shower hoses (frequency unspecified) - Plumbing and fixtures throughout the facility due to the age of the building The policy itself was not updated to reflect changes in the facility's floor plan. Review of the weekly Water Maintenance Monitoring logs revealed documentation of weekly room hot and cold-water temperature monitoring and hot water tank temperature monitoring. There were no logs indicating routine maintenance or cleaning of showers, whirlpools, tubs, shower hoses, or flushing and running water in unoccupied resident rooms. Interview on 03/17/25 from 3:55 P.M. to 4:15 P.M. with Maintenance Manager #322 revealed the facility's routine water maintenance included checking the hot water tank temperatures and the hot and cold-water temperatures weekly on each floor, with the Weekly Resident Room Temperature Monitoring Log only containing four slots per week to document water temperatures. A follow-up interview on 03/18/25 at 8:25 A.M. with Maintenance Manager #322 confirmed the facility water management did not include use of any disinfectant, sanitizer, or regular descaling or cleaning of the whirlpool tubs or shower heads on the second, third, and fourth floors, and the facility did not keep a log noting all unoccupied rooms were maintained according to their water management plan. No evidence was provided that any residents were assessed for symptoms of Legionnaires' Disease between 01/30/25 and 03/18/25. This included assessment and/or testing for two residents, Resident #95 and #18 who had respiratory symptoms/hospitalization during this time period. In addition to all facility residents being at risk for complications associated with legionella, the facility identified 11 residents with tracheostomies and/or ventilators, Resident #3, #7, #26, #27, #34, #36, #37, #42, #94, #95, #96 and five residents who received on-site hemodialysis, Resident #26, #31, #34, #95 and #145. On 03/18/25 at 1:21 P.M. interview with the LHD Environmental Health Director (EHD #356) revealed he was made aware of legionella growth in the facility water supply on 01/22/25 during a visit to the facility for another reason. EHD #356 revealed he provided verbal direction to facility management when on-site on 01/22/25 and 02/06/25 in response to the legionella which included super-heating the water, which he described as turning the water up to a minimum of 175 degrees Fahrenheit (°F ) over night, draining the water system, flushing, and sanitizing the water. EHD #356 further revealed it was his belief the facility had sanitized their water and installed point of use filters before residents began using the water for bathing. During this interview, EHD #356 confirmed there was a risk at the sink if residents were using their room sinks to brush their teeth and the filters were not placed at the point of use. EDH #356 further stated the facility wanted to run their own legionella water tests and attempt to work on the issue on their own for the first few weeks, but the levels kept climbing, reaching 121 MPN/ml. On 03/07/25, EDH #356 contacted Maintenance Manager #322 and arranged to come to the facility to perform their own water sampling for legionella testing (taken from two sites on 03/10/25, one near the holding tanks and one from the fourth-floor dialysis den). Interview on 03/18/25 from 2:30 P.M to 2:36 P.M. with Resident #28 revealed he used the sink in his bedroom for washing his hands and brushing his teeth. During the interview, he pointed out the toothbrush and tube of toothpaste sitting on the sink, next to the hot water knob. Further interview with Resident #28 revealed he was told he could not shower for a week or two about a month ago, then started using the shower room thereafter (he was uncertain of exact dates). The resident was then instructed on 03/17/25 that residents were no longer able to use the second-floor shower but could use the shower on the third floor and then on 03/18/25 he stated he was told he could start using the second-floor shower room again. Resident #28 confirmed he showered in the second-floor shower room on Friday, 03/14/25, before being informed residents were not supposed to shower on the second floor. Interview on 03/18/25 at 2:40 P.M with Resident #17 revealed he had been using the sink in his room to wash his hands, brush his teeth, and shave. Interview on 03/18/25 at 3:10 P.M. with IP #302 and the DON confirmed residents were not to be using the sinks in their rooms to brush their teeth and were not to shower in the second-floor shower room. Both the DON and IP #302 confirmed the second-floor shower door was not locked and there were no signs or other visual cues reminding residents not to use their sinks or the second-floor shower room. During the interview, IP #302 stated she spoke with a nurse at the health department and the local health department nurse did not recommend testing residents for legionella if they were asymptomatic, stating they were told the residents would present as unstable if they did have an infection caused by legionella. On 03/18/25 at 3:35 P.M., interview with Maintenance Manager #322 confirmed the facility flushing process did not involve completely emptying the entire system and filters were not applied to the faucets in any sinks, including those in resident rooms, or the second-floor shower room. Maintenance Manager #322 also confirmed the increase of legionella growth from 7.97 MPN/ml from the water sample taken on 01/08/25 to 13.4 MPN/ml from the water sample taken on 01/23/25 to 121 MPN/ml from the water sample taken on 02/05/25. He was unable to provide any additional steps the facility took to mitigate the risk of legionella after the last test result came back, except for placing a shower head filter on the third and the fourth-floor showers. However, it was identified the facility water supply was on an open loop and water moved throughout the whole building and not just to designated areas. Interview on 03/19/25 3:45 P.M. with the Administrator, the DON, and IP #302 revealed they were unaware the legionella test results from water sampled on 02/05/25 rose to 121 MPN/ml. Interview on 03/19/25 at 4:28 P.M. with Medical Director #369 revealed his understanding of the facility's legionella issue was that their water tested positive for legionella and the facility shut off the water, had the local health department (LHD) come to the facility, and the numbers were trending down to a more appropriate level. Medical Director #369 denied knowledge the LHD ruled out that legionella came from outside the facility or that the legionella growth counts in the facility water had increased to 121 MPN/ml by 02/05/25 with no further available test results since. During the interview, the Medical Director expressed concern that the facility resident population was high risk for legionella related disease and complication due to their acuity level and comorbidities. On 03/19/25 at 4:40 P.M., interview with the DON revealed the facility just discontinued use of the ice machine because the filter in the ice machine did not specify it was approved for legionella. On 03/20/25 at 4:10 P.M., interview with the Maintenance Manager #322 confirmed the water was turned off to all sinks in the building on 03/19/25 by 6:03 P.M. and the ice machine was not in use because it did not have a filter appropriate for water with legionella. On 03/24/25 at 9:00 A.M. a telephone interview with Lab Manager #370 from Cardinal Environmental Laboratories revealed the laboratory runs water screening tests for legionella using 200 test tubes to find the most probable number (MPN) versus colony-forming units (CFU). He further confirmed 121 MPN/ml far exceeds the allowable from the CDC and that corrective action should be taken by any facility with a positive number, especially if results were greater than 10 MPN/ml and if they housed the elderly or residents who may be immunocompromised. He stated the difference in the tests is the CFUs measured the number of colonies and the MPN could mean there was one colony or numerous colonies for each measured number. Interview on 03/24/25 at 10:20 A.M. with the Administrator and Maintenance Manager #322 revealed a shower filter from the third floor was placed on the second-floor showerhead on the evening of 03/18/25. Both stated the facility had ordered two shower heads with filters in them and two additional filters, allowing a filter from one of two shower heads on the third floor to be taken to the second floor. Neither was able to provide proof that more than two shower heads and/or filters were ever ordered. Interview on 03/25/25 at 3:05 P.M. with the DON confirmed the facility had not begun screening residents for signs and symptoms of legionella when the legionella count initially started to increase and did not complete legionella screening on all residents on 03/24/25. Review of the assessments titled Legionella Signs and Symptoms for Potential Exposure - V 2 revealed the legionella screening assessments were completed on all residents who were in the facility on 03/24/25, except Residents #11, #20, #31, and #144. Additionally, no assessment was found for Resident #29 who was in the hospital on [DATE] but returned to the facility on [DATE]. Interview on 03/24/25 at 8:58 A.M. with the LHD DON #371 revealed the facility reached out to her on 02/04/25 to inquire about testing residents who were ventilator dependent for legionella since they had some legionella growth in their water. LHD DON #371 stated she reached out to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) Infectious Disease (ID) nurse, who returned her call on 02/05/25. Further interview with LHD DON #371 confirmed she spoke with the facility on 02/05/25 and let them know that the ODH ID nurse stated that residents with legionella would present with symptoms beyond baseline. During the interview, LHD DON #371 confirmed she instructed the facility to contact her of any residents that had symptoms that were outside of their baseline, and they would discuss testing at that time. During the interview, LHD DON #371 confirmed the facility had not informed her of any residents with any respiratory symptoms or any ventilator residents with assessments outside of their norm. A follow-up phone interview with LHD EHD #367 on 03/26/25 at 9:15 A.M revealed it was his understanding the facility had already contracted Eco Labs to assist with disinfecting the water and that they were placing appropriate filters made specifically for legionella on all the faucets and showers when he met with the DON, IP #302, and Maintenance Manager #322 in early February 2025. During the interview, EHD #367 reiterated he was unaware the facility had not installed point of use filters or proceeded with the water disinfection evaluation process at that time. Interview on 03/26/25 at 4:35 P.M. with the DON confirmed the Legionella Signs and Symptoms for Potential Exposure - V 2 form had a prompt to indicate whether the resident had three symptoms that varied from their baseline. The DON stated she utilized the CMS website guidance to determine that three symptoms listed on the legionella screening questionnaire would indicate a need to test for legionella. Review of the CDC guidance titled What Clinicians Need to Know about Legionnaires' Disease revealed no direction related to the requirement of three symptoms before testing for Legionnaires' Disease but did indicate people at risk for healthcare associated pneumonia and who may have other risk factors should be considered for testing when there is a potential concern related to legionella. Interview on 03/26/25 at 5:41P.M. with the DON verified the legionella assessments for five residents who were currently in the facility (Resident #11, #20, #29, #31, and #144) were not completed. The DON added Resident #29 had just returned from the hospital on [DATE] so she wasn't in the facility when these assessments were completed Monday 03/24/25. Interview on 03/31/25 at 11:27 A.M. with Maintenance Manager #322 confirmed the facility had not yet received all the point of use filters but had installed all the filters on the second and third floor room sinks but were waiting for adapters to install the last eight or nine filters on room sinks on the fourth floor. He further revealed the water to those sinks were turned on, but staff and residents were not yet informed they were allowed to use their sinks because he was waiting for all the filters to be installed before notification was made. Regarding the main water breaks that had occurred, Maintenance Manager #322 revealed there was one on the street where the facility was located about a month ago around 02/12/25, after the facility's water initially tested positive for legionella, but was not positive about the date. Interview on 03/31/25 at 3:04 P.M with a representative from the City of Salem Water Department confirmed there was a waterline break near the facility was on 02/05/25. No other water line breaks were reported near the facility. Note- the water line break on 02/05/25 corresponds to the high level of legionella (121 MPN) noted in the facility's water samples taken on that same date. Review of Maintenance Manager #322's notes from 01/08/25 to 03/11/25 revealed he super-heated the water in the facility on 01/22/25 from 1:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. by turning the water heater up to 160 °F before flushing the water throughout the building. The notes also revealed the water was super-heated to 150 °F on 02/03/25 for three hours before flushing. On 01/23/25, 01/24/25, 01/27/25, 01/28/25, 01/29/25, 01/30/25, and 02/04/24, the water heaters were turned up to 135 °F and all faucets were run for 10 minutes. On 02/06/25, 02/07/25, 02/10/25, 02/11/25, 02/12/25, 02/14/25, 02/17/25, 02/18/25, 02/19/25, 02/21/25, 02/24/25, 02/26/25, 02/28/25, and 03/04/25 the water heaters were turned up to 130 °F and all faucets were run for 10 minutes. Further review of these notes revealed the filters were changed and clean. There was no reference as to what filters were changed or how they were cleaned. Review of the facility New Water Management Plan (WMP) dated March 2025 revealed the facility had 62 certified beds and three shower heads. In addition, on 03/27/25 review of the WMP dated as revised March 2025 revealed the plan failed to contain a component that specifically addressed what immediate action steps the facility would implement with a water test sample that was positive for legionella. An interview on 03/27/25 at 9:15 A.M. with the Administrator revealed the new water management plan had not yet been reviewed or implemented by the facility and the water management team would be meeting at a yet to be determined time to discuss the new plan. She also confirmed the new WMP contained some misinformation, including the facility certified bed capacity was 55, not 62 and that aside from three stationary shower heads, the facility also used two additional hand-held shower wands for bathing purposes. Review of an addendum to the facility's March 2025 WMP revealed additional direction in an addendum dated 04/01/25 that if the facility should test positive for legionella in their water in the future, the facility would contact PT Enterprises, a company the facility contracted with for water management support, to conduct additional water sampling and testing, provide alternate water sources for bathing and resident care, inspect all water outlets for built-up scaling, cleaning with appropriate cleaners, and replacement of all filters on incoming water sources. Review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/elite/Public/EliteHome.aspx ) revealed laboratories can test their Legionella isolation techniques against standardized samples through the Environmental Legionella Isolation Techniques Evaluation Program. Participating labs receive a panel of lyophilized test samples each year from the Wisconsin Sate Laboratory of Hygiene. Some of the test samples are Legionella positive and some are Legionella negative. The test samples may also include other organisms commonly found in water. Participating labs process the test samples and report their results. The labs that correctly identify Legionella in two consecutive panels receive documentation for passing the proficiency test. Review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Environmental Legionella Isolation Techniques Evaluation (ELITE) Program revealed Cardinal Environmental Laboratories, LLC was not a member of CDC's ELITE program. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website direction on legionella control measures at https://www.cdc.gov/investigate-legionella/php/healthcare-resources/control-measures.html revealed healthcare facilities should avoid use of water from sinks or tub faucets in resident rooms, restrict showers, and limit use of non-sterile ice from ice machines for anyone at risk for aspiration or who have swallowing difficulties. 2. Review of the closed medical record for Resident #95 revealed an admission date of 11/29/24 and a discharge date of 03/17/25. Resident #95 had diagnoses including respiratory failure, pleural effusion, osteomyelitis, stage four pressure ulcer[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide spend-down notices to Residents #9 and #10. This affected two residents (#9 and #10) of five reviewed for resident funds. The facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide spend-down notices to Residents #9 and #10. This affected two residents (#9 and #10) of five reviewed for resident funds. The facility census was 40. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 06/24/13 with diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, vascular dementia, and anxiety. Review of Resident #9's payer source information revealed he was covered by Caresource Managed Medicaid. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/15/25, revealed Resident #9 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #9's Resident Fund Management Services (RFMS) authorization form indicated the facility had managed Resident #9's funds since 05/18/17. Review of the quarterly account statements revealed Resident #9 had a quarterly ending balance of $2,349.22 on 03/29/24, $1,991.58 on 09/30/24, and $2,011.85 on 12/31/24. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 02/04/17 with diagnoses including neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, major depressive disorder, altered mental status, cognitive communication deficit, dementia, personal history of traumatic brain injury, and anxiety. Review of Resident #10's payer source information revealed he was covered by United Healthcare Managed Medicaid. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/18/25, revealed Resident #10 had no cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #10's Resident Fund Management Services (RFMS) authorization form indicated the facility had managed Resident #10's funds since 05/18/17. Review of the quarterly account statements revealed Resident #19 had a quarterly ending balance of $5,129.91 on 09/30/24 and $3,820.98 on 12/31/24. On 03/31/25 at 3:27 P.M., an interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #358 confirmed Medicaid had an assets limit of $2,000 for individuals. BOM #358 verified the quarterly statements for Resident #10 indicated he was above the allowable limit for Medicaid and confirmed no spend-down notices were provided to Resident #10. She further stated no spend down notices were provided for any residents. On 03/31/25 at 4:32 P.M., an interview with BOM #358 verified the quarterly statements for Resident #9 indicated he was above the allowable limit for Medicaid. On 03/31/25 at 5:20 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #10 was losing his Medicaid coverage because he was over his allowable assets limit. The DON further stated once Resident #10's money was spent down, he could then go back on Medicaid.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a new Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level two evaluation for Resident #29 after a new diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder. This affected one resident (#29) of one reviewed for PASRR. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 03/15/24 with diagnoses including muscle weakness, hypothyroidism, protein-calorie malnutrition, encephalopathy, cellulitis of the left and right lower limbs, hypokalemia, hypertension, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level one identification screening tool, dated 03/14/24, indicated Resident #29 had other psychotic disorder and had no functional limitations within the previous six months related to maintaining personal hygiene, maintaining adequate diet, maintaining prescribed medication regimen, and securing necessary support services. The screening tool also indicated Resident #29 had not been prescribed any psychotropic medications within the previous six months. The PASRR results notice, dated 03/14/24, indicated Resident #29 had no indications of serious mental illness. Review of the hospital paperwork, with a facsimile (fax) transmission date of 03/15/24, revealed Resident #29 arrived to the emergency room on [DATE] for evaluation of lower extremity pain and generalized weakness after a neighbor called emergency services for a wellness check. The hospital established that Resident #29 was living in deplorable conditions at home with no running water, no heat, had not eaten in days, and had to be placed in decontamination for a shower. The competency evaluation completed while in the hospital indicated Resident #29 had unspecified psychosis, unspecified adjustment disorder, refused medical treatment, refused to take prescribed medications, and was deemed incompetent to make informed healthcare decisions. Diagnoses at the time of discharge from the hospital on [DATE], as listed on the discharge summary, were bilateral lower leg cellulitis, generalized weakness, inability to walk, intractable pain, hypothyroidism, hypokalemia, and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #29 revealed the following: On 04/18/24, a physician's order was added for Risperidone (antipsychotic) solution one milligram per milliliter (mg/ml) to give 0.5 ml by mouth in pudding once daily in the morning for delusions (discontinued on 04/25/24). On 04/25/24, a physician's order was added for Risperidone solution one mg/ml to give 0.5 ml by mouth in pudding three times daily for delusions (discontinued on 04/26/24). On 04/27/24, a physician's order was added for Risperidone solution one mg/ml to give 0.5 ml by mouth in food in the morning, afternoon, and evening for delusions (discontinued on 04/29/24). On 04/30/24, a physician's order was added for Invega (antipsychotic) oral tablet extended release tablet 24 hour six milligrams (mg) to give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for other symbolic dysfunctions and cognitive communication deficit. On 04/30/24, a physician's order was added for Zyprexa (antipsychotic) oral tablet five mg to give five mg by mouth once daily at bedtime for mood disorder related to other symbolic dysfunction and cognitive communication deficit (discontinued on 08/19/24). On 08/19/24, a physician's order was added for Zyprexa oral tablet 2.5 mg to give 2.5 mg by mouth at bedtime for Schizoaffective disorder. Review of the facility's comprehensive diagnoses list for Resident #29 revealed a new diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder was added on 08/19/24. On 03/24/25 at 3:38 P.M., an interview with Admissions Coordinator #329 verified Resident #29 had a new diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder added on 08/19/24 and no new PASRR was completed. Admissions Coordinator #329 further stated a significant change PASRR should have been completed for Resident #29.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide evidence that Resident #145's baseline care plan was developed in a timely manner. This affected one re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide evidence that Resident #145's baseline care plan was developed in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#145) of one reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #145 revealed an admission date of 03/03/25 with diagnoses including hypertension, iron deficiency anemia, bronchiectasis, atrial fibrillation, dementia, adult failure to thrive, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, type two diabetes mellitus, pressure induced deep tissue damage of the left and right heels, stage two pressure ulcer of the back, enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, open wound to right wrist, and end stage renal disease. Review of the handwritten document titled Care Plan on Admission/re-admission (Interim CP/Baseline CP) revealed there was no date of completion and there was no signature or name of the person who completed the form. Review of the comprehensive care plan for Resident #145 revealed care plans for the following focus areas were developed later than 48 hours after admission: nutrition and hydration risk (initiated 03/06/25), end-stage renal disease and hemodialysis up to five times weekly (initiated 03/10/25), hypertension (initiated 03/11/25), fall risk (initiated 03/11/25), activities of daily living self care deficit (initiated 03/11/25), incontinence (initiated 03/11/25), renal failure (initiated 03/11/25), clostridium difficile (initiated 03/11/25), episodes of refusal of care (initiated 03/11/25), acute/chronic pain (initiated 03/11/25), polypharmacy (initiated 03/11/25), discharge planning (initiated 03/11/25), activities (initiated 03/11/25), coronary artery disease (initiated 03/11/25), altered cognition (initiated 03/11/25), infection potential due to skin and wounds (initiated 03/11/25), and psychosocial well-being (initiated 03/11/25). On 03/27/25 at 5:12 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #145's baseline care plan document did not have a date of completion, there was no indication as to who completed it, and there was no indication the resident or representative received a copy of the baseline care plan. The DON further stated baseline care plans were always completed on paper and not in the electronic health record. Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans - Preliminary, dated November 2010, indicated the facility would develop a preliminary plan of care to meet resident needs within 24 hours of admission. The preliminary care plan would be used by staff until a comprehensive assessment was conducted and an interdisciplinary care plan was developed.
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

Based on review of medical records, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to initiate and implement person-centered comprehensive care plans that addressed their identified ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of medical records, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to initiate and implement person-centered comprehensive care plans that addressed their identified needs for two residents (#11 and #20) of 19 residents whose care plans were reviewed during the annual survey. The facility census was 40. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an initial admission date of 11/01/18 and a re-entry date of 05/30/21 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, type two diabetes mellitus, unspecified heart failure, hypertension, anxiety, major depressive disorder, necrotizing fasciitis, overactive bladder, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on 01/19/25 revealed Resident #11 had intact cognition and was dependent for toileting hygiene. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #11 had an indwelling catheter and frequently experienced bowel incontinence. Review of the care plan dated 11/07/18 through 05/15/25 revealed no care planning regarding Resident #11's elimination status, including indwelling catheter care or interventions related to bowel incontinence. Interview on 04/01/25 at 10:35 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #352 confirmed care plan interventions for catheter care should be found in resident care plans and should be also be linked to trigger an aide task for documentation related to catheter care. Interview on 04/01/25 at 4:00 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no care plan related to a Foley catheter on Resident #11's care plan. Review of the undated policy titled Care Plan - Comprehensive revealed the comprehensive care plan was based on thorough assessment data and was to incorporate identified problems, risk factors, areas triggered during the care area assessments and should reflect current standards of practice for each problem area or condition. The comprehensive care plan was to be individualized to help meet the medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs of each resident. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 02/12/19 with diagnoses including encephalopathy, weakness, major depressive disorder, anxiety, abnormal reflex, history of opioid abuse, alcohol dependence with persisting dementia, tobacco use, ataxic gait, and lack of coordination. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment completed on 02/06/25 revealed Resident #20 had intact cognition and required supervision or touching assistance for ambulating 10 feet in a room, corridor, or similar space. Review of the care plan dated 02/11/25 revealed there was no care planning or interventions related to Resident #20 being at risk for falls; however, there was one historical care plan focus listed as RESOLVED for a fall that occurred on 01/18/24, when Resident #20 sustained a displaced fracture of her right ankle. The interventions for the resolved actual fall care plan included completing fall risk assessments quarterly and following the facility's fall protocols. Review of the Fall Risk Evaluations completed on 01/18/24, 01/27/24, and 02/05/24 revealed Resident #20 remained at moderate risk for falls. There were no evaluations indicating that Resident #20 no longer was at risk for falls. Interview on 04/01/25 at 10:35 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #352 confirmed care plan interventions for a resident with a moderate risk for falls should be noted in their care plan. Interview on 04/01/25 at 4:00 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no care plan for fall preventions. The DON further confirmed the care plan should have indicated Resident #20 was at risk for falls and included interventions to prevent falls if there were no subsequent fall risk assessments conducted to determine she was no longer at risk for falls. Review of the undated policy titled Falls - Clinical Protocol revealed facility staff were to identify and document risk factors for falling, including multiple medications, gait and balance disorders, cognitive impairment, and weakness, and interventions were to be implemented to prevent subsequent falls or complications related to falls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, review of fall investigations, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to re-evaluate care planned fall interventions for effectiveness and update the car...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, review of fall investigations, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to re-evaluate care planned fall interventions for effectiveness and update the care plan with new interventions after multiple falls for Resident #10. This affected one resident (#10) of three reviewed for falls. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 02/04/17 with diagnoses including neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, major depressive disorder, altered mental status, cognitive communication deficit, dementia, personal history of traumatic brain injury, and anxiety. Review of the fall risk data collection tool, dated 02/23/24, indicated Resident #10 was at high risk for falls, with a score of 23, and had experienced multiple falls within the previous six months. Review of the facility's incident log indicated Resident #10 had falls on 08/02/24 at 5:00 P.M., 09/08/24 at 2:51 A.M., 09/10/24 at 3:20 A.M., 10/25/24 at 9:35 A.M., 10/27/24 at 10:32 P.M., 02/01/25 at 10:20 P.M., and 03/01/25 at 9:00 P.M. The incident log did not include a fall on 02/27/25 for Resident #10. Review of the progress note dated 08/02/24 at 6:40 P.M. indicated Resident #10 fell while a friend was assisting him into his wheelchair. The nurse attempted to educate Resident #10 on asking for assistance with transfers and the resident became agitated. Review of the fall investigation dated 08/02/24 revealed Resident #10 fell while a friend was assisting him with a transfer. No injuries were identified. The new interventions were Resident #10 was placed in the dining room for monitoring, his room was decluttered, and the resident was educated on using the call light and not transferring without staff. Review of the progress note dated 09/08/24 at 3:56 A.M. indicated Resident #10 was sitting on the floor on his bottom and the resident stated he slid off the edge of the bed while trying to transfer. Resident #10 was assessed and no injuries were identified. Neurological checks were initiated and Resident #10 was educated on the importance of wearing non-skid socks and using the call light. Review of the fall investigation dated 09/08/24 revealed Resident #10 slid off the edge of his bed during a self-transfer. No injuries were identified. The new interventions were initiation of neurological checks and Resident #10 was educated on using the call light and the importance of wearing non-skid socks. Review of the fall risk data collection tool, dated 09/08/24, indicated Resident #10 was at high risk for falls, with a score of 22, and had experienced multiple falls within the previous six months. Review of the progress note dated 09/10/24 at 3:31 A.M. indicated Resident #10 was found laying on the floor on his left side and the bed alarm was sounding. Resident #10 was assessed and no injuries were identified. Resident #10 was educated on using the call light, neurological checks were initiated, the resident was to wear non-skid socks while in bed due to recent increase in falls, 15 minute checks, and a request was made to have a clip alarm placed in addition to the bed alarm. Review of the fall investigation dated 09/10/24 revealed Resident #10 was found on the floor and his bed alarm was sounding. No injuries were identified. The new interventions were initiation of neurological checks, non-slip socks while in bed, 15 minute checks, clip alarm in addition to bed alarm, and Resident #10 was educated on using the call light. Review of the progress note dated 09/21/24 at 12:15 P.M. indicated Resident #10 was observed in a squatting position with one hand on the bed and one hand on the wheelchair, staff lowered him to the ground, and Resident #10 was assisted from the ground to his wheelchair by staff using a gait belt. Review of the progress note dated 09/25/24 at 11:32 P.M. indicated Resident #10 transferred himself from his wheelchair to his bed and the alarm was sounding. Resident #10 was educated on using the call light. Review of the progress note dated 10/25/24 at 9:55 A.M. indicated Resident #10 was found on the floor in front of his bed and the resident stated he slipped off the edge of the bed while eating breakfast. Resident #10 was assessed and no injuries were identified. Neurological checks were initiated. Review of the fall investigation dated 10/25/24 revealed Resident #10 was found on the floor in front of his bed and the resident stated he slipped out of bed. No injuries were identified. The new intervention was initiation of neurological checks. Review of the fall risk data collection tool, dated 10/25/24, indicated Resident #10 was at high risk for falls, with a score of 24, and had experienced multiple falls within the previous six months. Review of the progress note dated 10/27/24 at 11:23 P.M. indicated Resident #10 slid out of bed onto the floor and his feet were straight out in front of him. Resident #10 was assessed and no injuries were identified. Review of the fall investigation dated 10/27/24 revealed Resident #10 was found sitting upright on the floor with his legs straight out in front of him. No injuries were identified. The new interventions were Resident #10 was educated on using the call light and staff demonstrated how to use bed controls. Review of the fall risk data collection tool, dated 10/27/24, indicated Resident #10 was at high risk for falls, with a score of 24, and had experienced multiple falls within the previous six months. Review of the progress note dated 11/03/24 at 8:29 P.M. indicated Resident #10's wheelchair was removed from his room at bedtime for safety. Review of the progress note dated 12/22/25 at 5:43 P.M. indicated Resident #10 was having difficulty with transfers and positioning in wheelchair. The sit to stand lift was utilized for all transfers. Review of the progress note dated 02/01/25 at 10:28 P.M. indicated Resident #10 slid out of his wheelchair onto the floor as staff was approaching the room. Resident #10 was assessed and no injuries were identified. The bed was put in the lowest locked position and the call light was placed within reach. Review of the fall investigation dated 02/01/25 revealed Resident #10 slid out of his wheelchair as staff were approaching the room. No injuries were identified. The new interventions were Resident #10's bed was put in the lowest locked position and call light was placed within reach. Review of the fall risk data collection tool, dated 02/01/25, indicated Resident #10 was at high risk for falls, with a score of 16, and had experienced one to two falls within the previous six months. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/18/25, indicated Resident #10 had no cognitive impairment, was dependent for going from sitting to standing, dependent for transfers, and had one fall without injury since the last assessment. Review of the progress note dated 02/27/25 at 11:30 P.M. indicated Resident #10's bed alarm was sounding and the resident was yelling out for help. Upon arriving to the room, staff observed Resident #10 laying on the floor on his left side and the resident reported he was sitting up when he leaned over too far and fell. Resident #10 was assessed and a scrape measuring two centimeters long by two centimeters wide was noted to his right shin. The bed alarm placement and function was confirmed. Resident #10 was assisted back to bed. Resident #10's tray table with personal belongings was placed alongside his bed within reach, neurological checks were initiated, bed in lowest position, call light was placed within reach, and Resident #10 was educated to not sit on the edge of his bed due to instability. Review of the fall investigation dated 02/28/25 revealed Resident #10 was found laying on the floor while his bed alarm was sounding and the resident was yelling out for help. An injury was identified as a scrape to the right shin measuring two centimeters long by two centimeters wide. The new interventions were Resident #10 was educated to not sit on the edge of the bed, 15 minute checks, and initiation of neurological checks. Review of the progress note dated 03/01/25 at 9:57 P.M. indicated Resident #10 was found on the floor in his room, laying on his side with his head toward the door and feet toward the bed. Resident #10 was assessed and no new injuries were identified. Resident #10 was assisted back to bed, his call light was placed within reach, and the resident was educated on using the call light. Review of the fall investigation dated 03/01/25 revealed Resident #10 was found on the floor with his head toward the door and feet toward the bed. No injuries were identified. The new intervention was Resident #10 was educated on using the call light. Review of the fall risk data collection tool, dated 03/01/25, indicated Resident #10 was at moderate risk for falls, with a score of 14, and had experienced one to two falls within the previous six months. Review of the fall risk care plan, revised 12/26/24, indicated Resident #10 was at risk for falls due to a history of falls, unsteady gait, generalized muscle weakness, and difficulty walking. Interventions included: assist with proper footwear as needed (initiated 04/04/17), ensure call light is within reach (initiated 04/04/17), encourage use of enabler bar with turning and repositioning and for safety (revised 04/29/22), ensure a safe environment with floors free from spills or clutter (revised 04/29/22), ensure adequate and glare free light (revised 04/29/22), ensure a working and reachable call light (revised 04/29/22), ensure bed is in lowest position at night (revised 04/29/22), ensure personal items are within reach (revised 04/29/22), encourage the resident to wear non-skid socks while in bed (initiated 05/04/22), apply pressure alarm to wheelchair and bed at all times (initiated 05/26/22), ensure shoes are within reach and obtain labs as ordered (initiated 07/10/22), bed against the wall for added comfort per the resident's request (initiated 07/11/22), sensor alarm to chair and bed to alert staff for needed assistance (initiated 03/30/23), treatments as ordered to any injury sustained from a fall (initiated 06/06/23), and 15 minute checks as ordered (added to the care plan on 12/12/24 and back-dated to 09/10/24). There were no new interventions added to the fall risk care plan related to the falls on 08/02/24, 09/08/24, 10/25/24, 10/27/24, 02/01/25, 02/27/25, and 03/01/25. On 03/25/25 at 4:28 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #10 had experienced multiple falls due to the resident liking to sit on the edge of his bed and propping his feet up in his wheelchair. On 03/26/25 at 1:15 P.M., an interview with the DON confirmed Resident #10's care plan was not updated to include new interventions after falls and there were duplicate fall interventions on the care plan with different dates. The DON stated they kept re-educating Resident #10 on safety and using his call light, but his Lewy Body Dementia was getting worse and he had trouble remembering. The DON further stated she could not think of any additional measures that could be taken to keep Resident #10 from sliding off his bed because he liked to sit on the edge of the bed. Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans - Comprehensive, dated November 2010, revealed an individualized comprehensive care plan would be developed for each resident within seven days of the completion of the resident's comprehensive assessment. Care plans are revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition change. The interdisciplinary team is responsible for the review and updating of care plans when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition, when the desired outcome is not met, when the resident has been re-admitted to the facility from a hospital stay, and at least quarterly. Review of the facility policy titled Managing Falls and Fall Risk, not dated, revealed facility staff would identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. If falling recurs despite initial interventions, staff will implement additional or different interventions, or indicate why the current approach remains relevant. In conjunction with the attending physician, staff will identify and implement relevant interventions to try to minimize serious consequences of falling. Staff will monitor and document each resident's response to interventions intended to reduce falling or reduce the risks of falling. If the resident continues to fall, staff will re-evaluate the situation and whether it is appropriate to continue or change current interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure smoking materials were stored in a safe and secure location. This affected two residents (#17 and #20) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure smoking materials were stored in a safe and secure location. This affected two residents (#17 and #20) of four residents reviewed for accidents. Residents #17 and #20 were also two of the six residents identified by the facility as smokers. The facility census was 40. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 02/12/19 with diagnoses including encephalopathy, weakness, major depressive disorder, anxiety, abnormal reflex, history of opioid abuse, alcohol dependence with persisting dementia, tobacco use, ataxic gait, and lack of coordination. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment completed on 02/06/25 revealed Resident #20 had intact cognition and required supervision or touching assistance for ambulating 10 feet in a room, corridor, or similar space. The MDS also revealed Resident #20 was a current tobacco user. Review of the care plan dated 02/11/25 revealed Resident #20 was a long-term smoker. Interventions included educating Resident #20 on storing her cigarettes and lighter and only smoking in designated smoking areas. The care plan also revealed Resident #20 was allowed independent leaves of absence (LOAs) and could smoke when she was on an LOA, but that she was to be reminded to return all her smoking materials after a LOA. Review of the Smoking Observation Tool - V 2 assessment completed on 01/09/20 revealed Resident #20 was cognitively intact, smoked all hours of the day, 5-10 times/day, had no visual or dexterity issues, and was able to safely light and extinguish her own cigarettes' safely. There had been no additional or follow-up smoking observation assessments completed in the last five years, even after a fall with major injury Resident #20 sustained on 01/18/25. Observation on 03/17/25 at 11:33 A.M. revealed an odor of smoke (smelling like a non-tobacco product) from just outside the closed bedroom door. Upon cracking the door open, observers immediately encountered a strong odor which caused slight burning of the surveyor's eyes. Resident #20 was observed in bed with her eyes closed and oxygen on via a nasal cannula from the oxygen concentrator next to the head of her bed. When her name was called, she was observed squeezing her eyes more tightly closed with a slight smile on her face with no verbal response. Observation and interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #368 on 03/17/25 at 11:35 A.M. revealed a blue colored vape cartridge on the floor near the head of Resident #20's bed, just to the left of the oxygen concentrator. CNA #368 confirmed the vape on the floor and the strong odor emitting from the room. CNA #368 could not confirm nor deny whether the vaping of the substance occurred in the resident room. During the interview, CNA #368 did confirm residents were not allowed to smoke or vape in the building and that she was not sure whether residents deemed as independent smokers were allowed to keep their smoking materials in their rooms. The vape was left on Resident #20's floor at that time. Interview on 03/17/25 at 11:38 A.M. with CNA #335 confirmed she would need to check the policy regarding possession of smoking materials in resident's room and could not confirm nor deny whether Resident #20 was permitted to keep her vape or other smoking materials in her room. Interview on 03/17/25 with Administrator #373 confirmed all residents' smoking supplies should be locked up. A follow-up interview with Administrator #373 on 03/17/25 at 12:21 P.M. confirmed there was a vape on the floor under the bed of Resident #20, the vape was retrieved by staff, found to be empty at that time, and was placed in secure storage. Interview on 03/19/25 at 11:46 A.M with Resident #20 confirmed she was an independent smoker and went out to the smoking area, out front or out back whenever she wanted and that she kept her smoking materials in her drawer in her room, pointing to her bedside dresser. Interview on 03/25/25 at 4:28 P.M. with CNA #303 confirmed all smoking supplies were to be locked in the second-floor nurses medication cart. Interview on 03/25/25 at 4:45 P.M. with Resident #20, observed by CNA #300, confirmed she went outside in the front or the back to smoke whenever she wanted and all of her smoking materials, including her lighter, were currently in her coat pocket, pointing to her coat across the room. Directly after the resident interview, CNA #300 stated that she did not think residents were allowed to keep their own smoking supplies in their room. No effort to secure the smoking materials was observed during these encounters. Observation on 03/26/25 at 12:57 P.M. revealed Resident #20 outside the front door smoking. At 12:59 P.M., a surveyor rode the elevator with Resident #20 from the first floor to the third floor and observed Resident #20 left the elevator and immediately went into her room and closed the door. At no point did the resident stop and provide smoking materials to a staff member. Observation and interview on 03/26/25 at 1:03 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #301 confirmed smoking materials from the whole building were stored in the second-floor medication cart in bottom right drawer. When asked about Resident #20, LPN #301 stated she was independent, so all her smoking materials, including cigarettes and a lighter, were kept in her room. At the time of the interview, observation of the second-floor medication cart verified none of Resident #20's smoking materials were stored in the cart. Review of the Smoking Policy Compliance Agreement signed by Resident #20 on 06/03/22 revealed smoking was to be done in designated areas only, no smoking was allowed in the building, and cigarettes and other smoking items would be kept locked up for the health and safety of all residents. The signed agreement further revealed that any infraction of this policy would result in smoking privileges being taken away from the offending resident. Review of the undated document titled Circle of Care Smoking Times and Department Responsibilities revealed the designated smoking place was on the side patio and smoking materials were to be locked in a box which was kept by the nurses and supposed to be taken out with the smokers. Review of the Circle of Care Smoking Policy and Procedure dated 10/09/24 revealed that smoking was only to be outside at the far end of the patio and cigarettes and other smoking items were to be kept locked in a locked box, in a locked cabinet. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #17 revealed an admission date of 05/28/24 with diagnoses including alcohol dependence, nicotine dependence, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/10/24, revealed Resident #17 utilized tobacco. Review of the most recent quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/13/25, revealed Resident #17 was cognitively intact. Review of the smoking care plan, revised 05/31/24, revealed Resident #17 was an independent smoker. Interventions included educating Resident #17 on the facility policy for storing cigarettes and lighter, review facility policy on resident smoking and smoking areas, educate resident on side effects and health issues associated with smoking, monitor and notify physician of respiratory changes with smoking, and completing a smoking assessment quarterly and as needed (PRN). Review of the most recent smoking observation tool, dated 09/25/24, indicated Resident #17 was an active smoker, cognitively intact, no visual deficit, no dexterity problem, smoked five to 10 times daily, could safely light a cigarette, did not require any adaptive equipment, and could safely extinguish a cigarette. Review of the assessment titled Smoking Safety Evaluation V 2.0, dated 10/23/24, indicated Resident #17 utilized tobacco, would follow the facility's policy on location and time of smoking, could safely light a cigarette, hold a cigarette, extinguish a cigarette, and use an ashtray. The assessment indicated Resident #17 did not require supervision during designated smoking times. Review of the facility's Smoking Policy Compliance Agreement, signed by Resident #17 on 05/28/24, revealed smoking was to be done in designated areas only and cigarettes and other smoking items would be kept locked up for the health and safety of all residents. The signed agreement further revealed that any infraction of this policy would result in smoking privileges being taken away from the offending resident. Interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #368 on 03/17/25 at 11:35 A.M. revealed Resident #17, along with another resident (Resident #20) were independent smokers and went to smoke at will, but she was not sure whether they were allowed to keep their smoking materials in their rooms. Interview on 03/17/25 at 11:38 A.M. with CNA #335 confirmed she would need to check the policy regarding possession of smoking materials in resident's room and was unable to confirm whether independent smokers were permitted to keep smoking materials in their rooms. Interview on 03/17/25 with Administrator #373 confirmed all residents' smoking supplies should be kept locked up. Interview on 03/25/25 at 4:28 P.M. with CNA #303 confirmed all smoking supplies were to be locked in the second-floor nurses medication cart. Interview on 03/25/25 at 4:50 P.M. with Resident #17 confirmed he did not have to keep his smoking materials locked up at the nurses' station and he kept them in his room. Observation and interview on 03/26/25 at 1:03 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #301 confirmed smoking materials from whole building were stored in the second-floor medication cart in bottom right drawer. When asked about Resident #17, LPN #301 stated he was independent, so all his smoking materials, including cigarettes and a lighter, were kept in his room. At the time of the interview, observation of the second-floor medication cart verified none of Resident #17's smoking materials were stored in the cart. Review of the undated document titled Circle of Care Smoking Times and Department Responsibilities revealed the designated smoking place was on the side patio and smoking materials were to be locked in a box which was kept by the nurses and supposed to be taken out with the smokers. Review of the Circle of Care Smoking Policy and Procedure dated 10/09/24 revealed that smoking was only to be outside at the far end of the patio and cigarettes and other smoking items were to be kept locked in a locked box, in a locked cabinet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

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 medical record, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate and timely services related to an intravenous (IV) midline catheter. This affected one of one resident (#28) reviewed who had an IV. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #28 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus with other skin complications, acute kidney failure, necrotizing fasciitis, osteomyelitis, atrial fibrillation, sepsis, cellulitis, partial traumatic amputation of two or more right lesser toes, and non-pressure chronic ulcer of unspecified foot. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 completed on 03/07/25 revealed Resident #28 had intact cognition and no behaviors or rejection of care. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #28 received IV medications. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 03/05/25 for ertapenem sodium injection solution, one gram intravenously in the afternoons for sepsis/cellulitis for seven days through the IV midline to begin on 03/06/25, as well as 0.9% sodium chloride (NaCl) flushes of 10 milliliters (ml) before and after IV medication administration for seven days. Further review of the orders revealed there were no orders for flushing of the midline for line maintenance/patency once the antibiotic was discontinued and there were no orders for IV/midline dressing changes. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the treatment administration record (TAR) revealed the last dose of Ertapenem Sodium was administered on 03/12/25, the last normal saline flush of the IV was the night of 03/12/25, and there was no documentation of any IV dressing changes. Observation on 03/17/25 at 10:40 A.M. revealed an IV pole with an empty IV antibiotic bag with tubing hanging on the pole dated 03/12/25. Resident #28 had an IV midline in his left upper arm with a dressing that was dated 03/05/25. During the observation, Resident #28 stated he had not received any IV antibiotics or IV flushes in several days and the dressing had never been changed. Interview on 03/17/25 at 12:25 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #301 confirmed midline dressings were typically changed about every three days and as needed. During the interview, LPN #301 was unable to find an order for IV site dressing changes and confirmed Resident #28's current dressing was unfortunately dated 03/05/25. Review of the policy titled Flushing Midline and Central Line IV Catheters last reviewed on 04/29/24 revealed each lumen of a midline catheter was to be flushed at least once every 24 hours to maintain patency and prevent occlusion. Review of the undated policy titled Guidelines for Preventing Intravenous Catheter-Related Infections revealed the initial IV catheter dressing changes should be performed within 24 hours of insertion and then every five to seven days thereafter, and as needed if loose or visibly soiled.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record reviews, review of pharmacy consultation reports, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist recommendations for Resident #11 were reviewed and addressed by th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record reviews, review of pharmacy consultation reports, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist recommendations for Resident #11 were reviewed and addressed by the physician. This affected one resident (#11) of five residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an initial admission date of 11/01/18 and a re-entry date of 05/30/21 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, unspecified heart failure, hypertension, anxiety, major depressive disorder, necrotizing fasciitis, overactive bladder, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on 01/19/25 revealed Resident #11 had intact cognition with medically complex conditions. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #11 received hypoglycemic, antidepressant, diuretic, opioid, and anticonvulsant medications. Review of the medication orders revealed an order dated 11/12/24 for Resident #11 to receive Metformin 500 milligrams by mouth every morning and at bedtime for hyperglycemia. Review of the pharmacist consultation report dated 12/31/24 revealed the pharmacist recommended to increase Metformin to 500mg three times a day. Further review of the consultation report revealed no evidence this recommendation had been reviewed by the physician or other prescribing provider. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR) and the Metformin order history from December 2024 through March 2025 revealed no changes had been made to the Metformin order after the pharmacist sent the recommendation dated 12/31/24. Review of the progress notes from 12/31/24 through 03/20/25 revealed no notes from the physician or Nurse Practitioner regarding this recommendation. Interview on 03/20/25 at 11:15 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the pharmacy recommendations made on 12/31/25 did not contain evidence it was reviewed by the physician and Resident #11's medication orders for Metformin had not been changed since prior to the pharmacist's recommendation. No policy related to monthly medication regimen reviews was provided by the facility upon request.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to limit as needed (PRN) psychotropic and antipsychotic medications to 14 days. This affected one resident (#3) of five reviewed for unnecessa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to limit as needed (PRN) psychotropic and antipsychotic medications to 14 days. This affected one resident (#3) of five reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 02/05/25 with diagnoses including epilepsy, type two diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, adult failure to thrive, depression, and dementia with anxiety. Review of Resident #3's physician's orders for March 2025 identified orders for Alprazolam (antianxiety medication) tablet 0.25 milligram (mg) to give one tablet via feeding tube every eight hours PRN for anxiety or agitation (ordered on 03/11/25 with the end date listed as indefinite), Haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) oral tablet two mg to give one tablet along with the one mg tablet to equal three mg via feeding tube every six hours PRN for agitation or anxiety (ordered 03/16/25 with the end date listed as indefinite), and Haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) oral tablet one mg to give one tablet along with the two mg tablet to equal three mg via feeding tube every six hours PRN for agitation or anxiety (ordered 03/16/25 with the end date listed as indefinite). On 03/26/25 at 1:44 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #3's PRN Haloperidol and PRN Alprazolam orders had no stop dates. Review of the facility's policies titled Psychotropic Drug and Antipsychotic Medication Use, both dated April 2024, revealed there was no specification in either policy related to limiting the use of PRN psychotropic and antipsychotic medications to 14 days.
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

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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain Resident #34's record in a complete and accu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain Resident #34's record in a complete and accurate manner. This affected one resident (#34) of nineteen records reviewed. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pleural effusion, and type one diabetes mellitus. Resident #34 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the discharge (return anticipated) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 discharged on 02/20/25 to a short-term general hospital. Review of the assessment titled Legionella Signs and Symptoms for Potential Exposure - V 2, dated 03/24/25 at 11:39 A.M., indicated Resident #34 had no symptoms of Legionella and the following vital signs were documented on 03/24/25 between 11:39 A.M. and 11:41 A.M.: blood pressure 128 systolic over 78 diastolic while lying, temperature of 97 degrees Fahrenheit obtained via forehead, pulse of 74 beats per minute, and oxygen saturation of 99% via vent. The assessment was completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #365. Review of the resident census information, progress notes, and MDS assessments revealed there was no evidence Resident #34 returned to the facility from the hospital. On 03/26/25 at 5:25 P.M., an observation of Resident #34's room revealed the room was empty and there was no resident in the room. Interview at the time of observation with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #303 verified Resident #34 had not returned from the hospital. On 03/26/25 at 5:35 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #34 was still in the hospital. The DON also confirmed the assessment for Legionella signs and symptoms was dated 03/24/25 and included vitals dated 03/24/25 for Resident #34. On 03/27/25 at 9:35 A.M., Interview with LPN #365 confirmed she completed the Legionella signs and symptoms assessments for all residents. LPN #365 did not recall completing Resident #34's assessment specifically because she did so many of them and she was unable to state where the information on the assessment came from since Resident #34 was still in the hospital at the time the assessment was completed. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00162299.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that the physician conducted in-person examinations of all residents. This affected four residents (#3, #94, #145, and #14...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that the physician conducted in-person examinations of all residents. This affected four residents (#3, #94, #145, and #146) of four reviewed for new admissions. The facility census was 40. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 02/05/25 with diagnoses including epilepsy, type two diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, adult failure to thrive, depression, and dementia with anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/17/25, indicated Resident #3 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 (who was also the facility's Medical Director) for Resident #3. The progress note dated 02/06/25 at 8:25 P.M., written by Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP) #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #3 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telehealth. The progress note dated 02/16/25 at 1:22 P.M., written by CNP #380, indicated Resident #3 was assessed in-person by CNP #380 with Physician #369 assisting via telehealth. The progress note dated 03/04/25 at 8:23 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the examination of Resident #3 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telehealth. The progress note dated 03/12/25 at 8:49 P.M., written by CNP #380, indicated Physician #369 ordered an extra dose of Xanax for restlessness and agitation and stated the evaluation was completed via telemedicine. The progress note dated 03/12/25 at 8:52 P.M., written by CNP #380, provided an addendum to new orders placed and made no mention of Physician #369 evaluating Resident #3. The progress note dated 03/14/25 at 9:33 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the examination of Resident #3 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #94 revealed an admission date of 03/03/25 with diagnoses including sepsis, dependence on respirator ventilator, stage four pressure ulcer of sacral region, iron deficiency anemia, dysphagia, osteomyelitis, quadriplegia, depression, anxiety, hypertension, and urinary tract infection. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 03/10/25, indicated Resident #94 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 for Resident #94. The progress note dated 03/04/25 at 8:35 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #94 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. The progress note dated 03/10/25 at 8:30 P.M., written by CNP #380, indicated Physician #369 ordered Trazadone for sleep problems and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. The progress note dated 03/14/25 at 9:20 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the examination of Resident #94 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. The progress note dated 03/16/25 at 8:06 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the examination of Resident #94 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #145 revealed an admission date of 03/03/25 with diagnoses including hypertension, bronchiectasis, gastritis, atrial fibrillation, dementia, dysphagia, adult failure to thrive, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, type two diabetes mellitus, pressure induced deep tissue damage to the left and right heels, cognitive communication deficit, hyperlipidemia, iron deficiency anemia, enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, acquired absence of part of lung, ischemic heart disease, hyperparathyroidism, and end stage renal disease. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 03/10/25, revealed Resident #145 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 for Resident #145. The progress note dated 03/05/25 at 8:48 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #145 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #146 revealed an admission date of 02/28/25 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, adult failure to thrive, dementia with behavioral disturbance, dysphagia, generalized idiopathic epilepsy, hypertension, hypothyroidism, major depressive disorder, pneumonitis, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions, normal pressure hydrocephalus, schizoaffective disorder, sepsis, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 03/12/25, revealed Resident #146 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 for Resident #146. The progress note dated 02/28/25 at 6:59 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #146 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. The progress note dated 03/03/25 at 7:16 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the examination of Resident #146 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telehealth. The progress note dated 03/07/25 at 5:08 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the examination of Resident #146 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telehealth. The progress note dated 03/10/25 at 1:35 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the examination of Resident #146 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. On 04/01/25 at 12:11 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Physician #369 attended meetings via telephone because he could not leave his wife due to her condition. On 04/01/25 at 12:34 P.M., an interview with the DON stated CNP #380 usually conducted resident visits with Physician #369 participating via telemedicine. On 04/01/25 at 2:29 P.M., an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #352 stated Physician #369 did a lot of resident visits via telemedicine due to his wife's health status. LPN #352 said the facility nurses would initiate a video call with Physician #369 and take the telecommunication device from room to room. LPN #352 further stated most communication with Physician #369 was conducted via phone. On 04/01/25 at 2:55 P.M., an interview with CNP #380 verified visits with residents were conducted virtually via telemedicine if the progress note indicated as such. CNP #380 claimed that Physician #369 also virtually contributed to visits via telemedicine despite the lack of documentation for Physician #369's participation. CNP #380 said the progress note would specify if the physician or CNP conducted any portion of the visit in-person.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0714 (Tag F0714)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that the physician did not delegate tasks to non-physician providers that were specified to be completed by the physician ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that the physician did not delegate tasks to non-physician providers that were specified to be completed by the physician personally. This affected four residents (#3, #94, #145, and #146) of four reviewed for new admissions. The facility census was 40. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed an admission date of 02/05/25 with diagnoses including epilepsy, type two diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, adult failure to thrive, depression, and dementia with anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/17/25, indicated Resident #3 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 (who was also the facility's Medical Director) for Resident #3. The progress note dated 02/06/25 at 8:25 P.M., written by Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP) #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #3 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telehealth. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #94 revealed an admission date of 03/03/25 with diagnoses including sepsis, dependence on respirator ventilator, stage four pressure ulcer of sacral region, iron deficiency anemia, dysphagia, osteomyelitis, quadriplegia, depression, anxiety, hypertension, and urinary tract infection. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 03/10/25, indicated Resident #94 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 for Resident #94. The progress note dated 03/04/25 at 8:35 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #94 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #145 revealed an admission date of 03/03/25 with diagnoses including hypertension, bronchiectasis, gastritis, atrial fibrillation, dementia, dysphagia, adult failure to thrive, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, type two diabetes mellitus, pressure induced deep tissue damage to the left and right heels, cognitive communication deficit, hyperlipidemia, iron deficiency anemia, enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, acquired absence of part of lung, ischemic heart disease, hyperparathyroidism, and end stage renal disease. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 03/10/25, revealed Resident #145 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 for Resident #145. The progress note dated 03/05/25 at 8:48 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #145 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #146 revealed an admission date of 02/28/25 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, adult failure to thrive, dementia with behavioral disturbance, dysphagia, generalized idiopathic epilepsy, hypertension, hypothyroidism, major depressive disorder, pneumonitis, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions, normal pressure hydrocephalus, schizoaffective disorder, sepsis, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 03/12/25, revealed Resident #146 admitted to the facility from a short-term general hospital. Review of the progress notes since admission revealed there were no notes in the electronic health record written by Physician #369 for Resident #146. The progress note dated 02/28/25 at 6:59 P.M., written by CNP #380, had no mention of Physician #369 participating in the admission examination of Resident #146 and stated the evaluation had been completed via telemedicine. On 04/01/25 at 12:11 P.M., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Physician #369 attended meetings via telephone because he could not leave his wife due to her condition. On 04/01/25 at 12:34 P.M., an interview with the DON stated CNP #380 usually conducted resident visits with Physician #369 participating via telemedicine. On 04/01/25 at 2:29 P.M., an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #352 stated Physician #369 did a lot of resident visits via telemedicine due to his wife's health status. LPN #352 said the facility nurses would initiate a video call with Physician #369 and take the telecommunication device from room to room. LPN #352 further stated most communication with Physician #369 was conducted via phone. On 04/01/25 at 2:55 P.M., an interview with CNP #380 verified visits with residents were conducted virtually via telemedicine if the progress note indicated as such. CNP #380 claimed that Physician #369 also virtually contributed to visits via telemedicine despite the lack of documentation for Physician #369's participation. CNP #380 also stated she was unaware of any law specifying that she could not complete initial visits via telemedicine.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to renew their food service operation license in a timely manner. This affected all 35 residents who received food from the kitc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to renew their food service operation license in a timely manner. This affected all 35 residents who received food from the kitchen (except Residents #14, #37, #41, #94, and #96 who had orders for nothing by mouth). The facility census was 40. Findings include: On 03/17/25 at 7:00 A.M., an initial tour of the kitchen revealed the food service operation license posted on the bulletin board expired on 03/01/25. On 03/17/25 at 7:49 A.M., an interview with Dietary Manager #304 verified the facility's posted food service operation license expired on 03/01/25. On 03/17/25 at 5:14 P.M., an interview with Administrator #373 confirmed the food service operation license renewal application was submitted late and the facility's corporate office did not cut a check for the renewal until 03/17/25. Review of the facility's application for a license to conduct a food service operation indicated it was to be completed and submitted by 03/01/25. Further review of the application revealed it was signed by Administrator #373 on 03/03/25. The check issued by the facility for the cost of the license was dated 03/17/25. Review of the updated food service operation license revealed it was issued on 03/24/25 with an expiration date of 03/01/26. There was no valid food service operation license from 03/01/25 to 03/24/25.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI) and Quality Assurance (QA) sign-in sheets and meeting minutes, policy review and interview, the facility fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI) and Quality Assurance (QA) sign-in sheets and meeting minutes, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the QA committee consisted of the minimum required members. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the QAPI meeting sign-in sheets from July 2024 through February 2025 revealed no evidence of attendance by Medical Director #369. Further review of the sign-in sheets revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #302, the current (since 01/04/25) Infection Preventionist (IP) signed the QAPI attendance sheet as the IP on 10/31/24 and 12/19/24 and was not in attendance for the meeting held on 01/30/25. There were no staff members with the required qualifications listed in attendance for any meetings held between 08/01/24 and 02/28/25. Review of the meeting minutes from April 2024 through February 2025 alongside the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed a combination of hand-written notes and various reports submitted by department heads, but no written evidence of participation from the Medical Director. Interview on 04/01/25 at 12:11 P.M. with the DON revealed Medical Director #369 attends QAPI meetings by phone because he can't leave home due to his wife's condition, though there was no notation on the sign-in sheets to support this. During this interview, the DON confirmed the previous IP nurse's last day worked was 08/19/24 and acknowledged IP #302's required certification was not obtained until 01/04/25. Telephone interview with Medical Director #369 on 04/01/25 at 1:00 P.M. confirmed he knew he was supposed to attend QAPI meetings quarterly but could not recall when he last attended one. He further stated his attendance was typically virtual and his participation consisted of the facility providing him with important updates when he does virtually attend. Review of the QAPI Policies and Procedures titled Quality Assurance Performance Improvement last revised October 2017 revealed no information regarding QAPI committee member requirements. No other QAPI policies were provided by the facility during the survey.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of training certificates, personnel files, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff responsible for overseeing the infection prevention and control program (IPCP) completed s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of training certificates, personnel files, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff responsible for overseeing the infection prevention and control program (IPCP) completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Interview on 03/20/25 at 10:32 A.M. with Infection Preventionist (IP) #302 revealed she began training to become the facility's IP toward the end of August 2024, but the previous IP who was responsible for training her quit approximately eight hours into her training, so she had to try to figure out the role on her own. During the interview, IP #302 stated she began taking some classes to learn more about infection control in the months that followed and completed the required training and earned her certificate in January 2025. Review of the training certificates awarded to the IP revealed she had not completed the required training requirements until 01/04/25. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/20/25 at 12:14 P.M. confirmed she did not possess the required training to oversee the facility's IPCP. During the interview, the DON called Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse and Consultant #372 and verified there was no other staff employed by the facility who had the appropriate requirements to oversee the infection control program between the last IP leaving and IP #302 completing her training. At that time, the DON was unable to confirm the dates the facility was without a properly trained IP. Review of the personnel file for IP #302 revealed no date of transition from the role of LPN floor nurse to the role of IP. Further review of the personnel record revealed no evidence of completion of specialized training qualifications for the IP role prior to 01/04/25. A follow-up interview with the DON on 04/01/25 confirmed there was no qualified staff in the IP staff between 08/19/24 and 01/04/25. Review of the job description provided by the facility for the Infection Preventionist Director position, created in August 2020, revealed no listed requirement for the staff assigned that job role to have completed the required specialized training in infection prevention and control prior to assuming the role, or any time thereafter.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on medical record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all residents transferred out of the facility received information on the facility's bed hold po...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all residents transferred out of the facility received information on the facility's bed hold policy. This affected one resident (#43) of two residents who were reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 40. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 11/23/24 and a discharge date of 12/21/24. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, pulmonary hypertension, chronic systolic and diastolic congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), atrial fibrillation, dependence on machines and other devices, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 completed on 11/29/24 revealed Resident #43 had intact cognition and medically complex conditions. Review of the orders revealed a physician order dated 12/20/24 to send Resident #43 to the emergency room (ER) for further evaluation and treatment. Review of the progress note dated 12/20/2 at 11:32 A.M revealed Resident #43 was transferred out of the facility by ambulance on 12/20/24 at 11:20 A.M. Review of the electronic medical record and the paper chart revealed no evidence Resident #43 or her representative were provided a copy of the facility's bed hold policy. Interview on 03/20/25 at 11:22 A.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM) #358 confirmed she had not issued a bed hold notice to Resident #43. BOM #358 further confirmed she only ever issued notices of the facility's bed hold policy to Medicaid recipients and never to other residents who had non-Medicaid payor sources or who were private pay. Review of the policy last reviewed on 04/29/24 titled Transfer or Discharge, Preparing a Resident for revealed the facility business office was responsible for providing the resident and/or resident representative information regarding the bed-hold policy.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 11/23/24 and a discharge date of 12/21/24. Diagno...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 11/23/24 and a discharge date of 12/21/24. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, pulmonary hypertension, chronic systolic and diastolic congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), atrial fibrillation, dependence on machines and other devices, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 completed on 11/29/24 revealed Resident #43 had intact cognition and medically complex conditions. Review of the orders revealed a physician order dated 12/20/24 to send Resident #43 to the emergency room (ER) for further evaluation and treatment. Review of the progress note dated 12/20/24 at 11:32 A.M revealed Resident #43 was transferred out of the facility by ambulance on 12/20/24 at 11:20 A.M. Review of the electronic medical record and the paper chart revealed no evidence Resident #43 or her representative were provided a written transfer notice. Interview on 03/20/25 at 11:56 A.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM) #358 confirmed she did not provide residents or their representatives or guardians with transfer notices when they were transferred out of the facility. Review of the facility policy titled Preparing a Resident for Transfer or Discharge, dated 04/29/24, indicated when a resident was scheduled for a transfer or discharge, the facility would provide the resident or representative with the required documents. Review of the policy last reviewed on 04/29/24 titled Transfer or Discharge Notice revealed the facility was to provide written notice of resident transfer to the resident and/or representative which included the reason for transfer, effective date, location of transfer, an contact information for the Ombudsman, state health department, and other advocacy agencies as applicable. Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to provide transfer notices to Residents #42 and #43 at the time of transfer to the hospital. This affected two residents (#42 and #43) of three reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 40. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 12/04/24 with diagnoses including pleural effusion, anemia, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, depression, dissociative identity disorder, dependence on respirator ventilator, type two diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, iron deficiency anemia, and anxiety. Resident #42 discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the physician's order dated 03/14/25 at 12:00 P.M. revealed Resident #42 was ordered to be sent to the hospital for evaluation. Review of the progress note dated 03/14/25 at 2:44 P.M. revealed Resident #42 was agitated, hitting himself in the head, attempting to decannulate himself, and stating he did not want to live. Staff attempted to redirect and were unsuccessful. Psychiatric services were notified and Haldol was administered as ordered, which was ineffective. Resident #42 was ordered to go to the hospital for evaluation due to threats to kill himself, attempting to decannulate himself, and violence toward staff. On 03/20/25 at 11:22 A.M., an interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #358 verified no transfer notices were provided to residents or representatives. On 03/20/25 at 11:55 A.M., an interview with Business Office Manager BOM #358 stated no transfer notice was provided to any resident at the time of transfer and the only transfer information provided was the face sheet for the receiving facility. Review of the facility policy titled Emergency Transfer or Discharge, dated 04/29/24, indicated should it become necessary to make an emergency transfer or discharge to a hospital, the facility would prepare the resident for transfer and notify the representative or family of the transfer. Review of the facility policy titled Preparing a Resident for Transfer or Discharge, dated 04/29/24, indicated when a resident was scheduled for a transfer or discharge, the facility would provide the resident or representative with the required documents. Review of the facility policy titled Transfer or Discharge Notice, dated 04/29/24, indicated the resident and/or representative would be provided the reason for the transfer or discharge, the effective date of the transfer or discharge, the location to which the resident was being transferred, and contact information for resident advocates and the state long-term care Ombudsman.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure inventions were attempted prior...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record and interview with the staff the facility failed to ensure inventions were attempted prior to the use of an as-needed antianxiety medication, and failed to ensure an as- needed lorazepam was not administered more than 14 days without a stop date. This affected one resident (Resident #22) of three residents revealed for behaviors. The facility census was 35. Findings included: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, end stage renal disease, altered mental status, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, dependent on a ventilator, tracheostomy, methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, intermittent explosive disorder, anxiety disorders, gastrostomy, anoxic brain damage, foot drop, intracranial hemorrhage, and chronic metabolic acidosis. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident # 22 had intact cognition and received an antipsychotic and antianxiety medications. Review of the April 2024 physician's orders revealed Resident #22 had an order for lorazepam one milligram (mg) intramuscularly (IM) every four hours as needed for anxiety and agitation dated 03/15/24. Review of the March 2024 medication administration record revealed Resident #22 had lorazepam one milligram without any non-pharmacological intervention attempted on 03/14/24 at 6:20 P.M., on 03/15/24 at 11:14 A.M., on 03/16/24 at 9:48 A.M., on 03/17/24 at 9:26 A.M., on 03/18/24 at 8:32 A.M., on 03/19/24 at 3:57 P.M., on 03/21/24 at 7:22 A.M. and 1:18 P.M., on 03/24/24 at 6:07 P.M., and on 03/25/24 at 4:35 A.M. Review of the April 2024 medication administration record revealed Resident #22 had lorazepam one milligram without any non-pharmacological intervention attempted on 04/01/24 at 11:38 P.M. on 4/02/24 at 4:04 A.M., on 04/08/24 at 9:39 A.M., on 04/09/24 at 12:38 A.M. and 12:27 P.M., on 04/15/23 at 7:22 P.M. and on 04/16/24 at 6:10 A.M. On 04/18/24 at 12:05 P.M. an interview with the Director of Nursing verified not all of his as-needed doses of lorazepam administered to him had non-pharmacological intervention attempted prior to administration. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Psychotropic Drug, revealed the policy was to promote the utilization of psychotropic drug in accordance with accepted principles of geriatric medicine and long-term care practice. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, end stage renal disease, altered mental status, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, dependent on a ventilator, tracheostomy, methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus, intermittent explosive disorder, anxiety disorders, gastrostomy, anoxic brain damage, foot drop, intracranial hemorrhage, and chronic metabolic acidosis. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident # 22 had intact cognition and received an antipsychotic and antianxiety medications. Review of the April 2024 physician's orders revealed Resident #22 had an order for lorazepam one milligram IM every four hours as needed for anxiety and agitation dated 03/15/24. There was no stop date for the as-needed psychotropic medications. On 04/18/24 at 12:05 P.M. an interview with the Director of Nursing verified they did not have a stop date for the lorazepam one milligram IM for Resident #22. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Psychotropic Drug, revealed the policy was to promote the utilization of psychotropic drug in accordance with accepted principles of geriatric medicine and long-term care practice. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00151543.
Aug 2023 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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31 received nutritional supplements as recommended. This affected one resident (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31 received nutritional supplements as recommended. This affected one resident (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 30. Findings included: Review of Resident #31's record revealed an admission date of 06/23/23 and a discharge date of 07/03/23. Diagnosis included multiple sclerosis (MS), pressure ulcer of left buttock, stage 4, diabetes mellitus (DM), depression, dehydration, acute myocardial infarction, and anxiety. Review of Resident #31's admission weight on 06/23/23 revealed she weighed 116.5 pounds. Review of the meal intake dated from 06/23/23 to 07/03/23 revealed Resident #31 had eaten most days 0 to 25 percent (%) or 26% to 50%. On one occasion she ate 51% to 75%. Review of Resident #31's care plan dated 06/25/23 revealed she was at risk for nutritional/hydration related to diagnosis of MS, DM, depression, hypothyroidism, anemia, abnormal labs, and sacral pressure wound. Resident #31's nutritional goals were to consume adequate food and fluids at meals and maintain stable weight with no significant weight changes, not experience any signs and symptoms of dehydration, and experience wound healing through next review. Interventions included monitor labs as ordered, monitor for signs and symptom of dehydration, weigh weekly for four weeks, and supplements as ordered: Prostat 30 milliliter (ML) twice a day (BID) and Magic cup BID as ordered for wound healing. Review of the physician orders dated June 2023 revealed Resident #31's nutritional supplements identified in the care plan were not ordered. Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed no evidence the resident was offered Prostat and Magic Cup nutritional supplements. Interview on 08/03/23 at 8:29 A.M. with Registered Dietician (RD) #156 revealed after speaking with Resident #31's daughter, who agreed, she ordered supplements to include Prostat and Magic Cup. RD #156 reported she notified Wound Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #113 of the new orders on 06/28/23. Interview on 08/03/23 at 10:23 A.M. with Wound LPN #113 verified she forgot to put the order in for the supplements to include Magic Cup and Prostat twice a day. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH0044811.
May 2022 11 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to prevent the devel...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to prevent the development of an avoidable pressure ulcer and failed to promptly identify, monitor/assess and implement effective treatment for Resident #4 following the development of an in-house pressure ulcer to the resident's left buttock to prevent the deterioration of the ulcer and promote optimal healing. This affected one resident (#4) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Actual harm occurred on 03/07/22 when Resident #4, who was at risk for skin breakdown (but admitted with intact skin), cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for all activities of daily living including turning and repositioning, was identified to have an unstageable pressure ulcer (a full-thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle with slough/eschar present which prevents accurate staging of the ulcer and often include undermining and tunneling) to the left buttocks. On 01/31/22 the resident developed an in-house Stage II (partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis, presenting as a shallow open ulcer) pressure ulcer to the left buttock area. There was no evidence of the implementation of interventions (including turning and repositioning) at that time. The ulcer was not assessed from 02/07/22 to 02/28/22. A wound nurse practitioner assessment, dated 03/14/22 was incomplete (lacking measurements) and identified the pressure ulcer had deteriorated. No plan of care was initiated related to the pressure ulcer until 03/23/22. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with dependence on a ventilator, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, adult failure to thrive, pneumonia and traumatic hemorrhage of the cerebrum. Review of the admission assessment, dated 01/21/22 revealed Resident #4 had no open areas/pressure ulcers. The skin assessment revealed the resident had very dry heels. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order, dated 01/21/22 for Resident #4 to have a pressure relieving mattress to his bed. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 01/28/22 revealed Resident #4 had severely impaired cognition and required total assistance from staff for all activities of daily living (ADL) care. The assessment revealed the resident was incontinent of bowel, had an indwelling urinary catheter, was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and did not have any open areas/pressure areas. Review of the Braden (skin risk) assessment, dated 01/28/22 revealed Resident #4 scored a 10.0 which indicted he was at high risk for developing pressure ulcers. Record review revealed there was no pressure ulcer prevention plan of care initiated. Review of a skin assessment, dated 01/28/22 revealed the skin of Resident #4 was clean, dry, and intact with no new areas observed. Review of the nurse's note, dated 01/31/22 at 10:00 A.M. revealed the nurse was called to the resident's room by the nursing assistant became Resident #4 had an open area to the left buttock which measured 6.0 centimeters (cm) in length by 3.0 cm in width by 0.1 cm in depth. There was no drainage. The wound nurse practitioner was in the facility and ordered to cleanse the wound with normal saline (NSS), apply alginate and a dry dressing daily. The note indicated the physician and daughter were updated. Review of the physician's order, dated 01/31/22 revealed Resident #4 received an order for the nutritional supplement, ProStat twice daily (protein supplement) and an order to cleanse right buttock with NSS, apply alginate and dry dressing daily and as needed. This order was for the wrong buttock and was not discontinued until 03/16/22. Review of the Weekly Skin/Wound Grid dated 01/31/22 revealed Resident #4 had an in facility, Stage II pressure ulcer to the left buttock that measured 6.0 cm in length by 3.0 cm in width by 0.1 cm in depth. The wound bed had 100 percent (%) pink granulation with a scant amount of serosanguinous drainage. There was no odor, and the surrounding skin was dry and intact. Review of the wound care services (WCS) note, dated 01/31/22 revealed Resident #4 had a Stage II pressure ulcer to the left buttock. The wound was pink, superficial with a small amount of serosanguinous drainage. the note recommend repositioning every two hours, low air loss mattress, gently clean the wound bed, pat dry, apply alginate cut to the wound size, and cover with an adhesive foam dressing daily and as needed. Review of the Braden Scale assessment, dated 02/04/22 revealed Resident #4 scored a 9.0 which indicted he was at very high risk for developing pressure ulcers. There was no pressure ulcer prevention plan of care initiated at that time. Review of the medical record revealed there were no wound assessments/measurements completed on 02/07/22, 02/14/22, 02/21/22 or 02/28/22 for the left buttock wound for Resident #4. Review of the physician's order, dated 02/22/22 revealed an order for a low air loss mattress to the resident's bed at all times for skin breakdown. Review of the resident's medical record, including treatment administration records (from admission through 03/07/22) revealed no evidence staff were repositioning (turning and repositioning) the resident as a pressure ulcer prevention measure prior to the development of the left buttocks pressure ulcer or every two hours as recommended in the wound care service note on 01/31/22. Review of the Weekly Skin/Wound Grid, dated 03/07/22 revealed Resident #4 had an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left buttock which measured 5.0 cm in length by 9.0 cm in width by an undetermined depth. The wound bed had 100% tan adherent slough pink granulation with a scant amount of serosanguinous drainage. There was no odor, and the surrounding skin was dry and intact. Review of the Weekly Skin/Wound Grid, dated 03/14/22 revealed Resident #4 had an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left buttock which measured 11.0 cm in length by 6.0 cm in width by undetermined depth. The wound bed had 75 % tan adherent slough and 25% necrotic tissues which was debrided at bedside by the nurse practitioner (NP). There was a moderate amount of serosanguinous drainage with no odor. Review of the WCS note, dated 03/14/22 revealed Resident #4 had an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left buttock which had deteriorated. The wound was debrided. The note indicated recommend repositioning every two hours, low air loss mattress, gently clean the wound bed, pat dry, apply Dakin's solution dampened sterile gauze and lightly pack the wound bed, and cover with an adhesive foam dressing daily and as needed. There were no measurements of the wound contained in the WCS note. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order, dated 03/17/22 to cleanse the left buttock with NSS, apply Sodium hypochlorite, lightly pack the wound bed daily and as needed. The order was written three days after the NP recommended it (on 03/14/22). Review of the plan of care, initiated on 03/23/22 revealed Resident #4 had pressure ulcer development due to immobility. Interventions included to administer medication as ordered, monitor nutritional status, obtain, and monitor laboratory work as ordered, follow facility policy/protocol for skin breakdown, monitor dressing to ensure it was intact and adhering, and administer treatments as ordered. Review of the nurse's note, dated 03/24/22 at 6:17 A.M. revealed Resident #4 was being sent out to the hospital due to no urine output and blood in his urinary drainage bag. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #4 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 had a Stage IV (full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage or bone in the ulcer) pressure ulcer to the left buttock which measured 2.2 cm in width by 5.0 cm in length by 0.2 in depth, the wound bed was 100% pink granulated tissue with scant amount of serosanguinous drainage. Review of the April 2022 Treatment and Medication Administration record from 04/01/22 to 04/27/22 there was no evidence of a pressure ulcer treatment being completed for the left buttock of Resident #4. Review of the WCS note, dated 04/06/22 revealed Resident #4 had a Stage III (full-thickness loss of skin, in which subcutaneous fat may be visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue and epibole (rolled wound edges) are often present) pressure ulcer to the left buttock. There were no measurements of the ulcer at that time. The note recommended treatments were to reposition the resident every two hours, a low air loss mattress, incontinence care every two hours, apply barrier cream and to gently clean wound bed, pat dry, apply collagen cut to size to cover wound bed, alginate cut to size to cover wound bed daily and as needed. Review of the Weekly Skin/Wound Grid, dated 04/25/22 revealed Resident #4 had a Stage III pressure ulcer to the left buttock which measured 10.0 com in length by 4.0 com width by 1.0 cm in depth. The wound bed was 100% granulated with moderate amount of serosanguinous drainage. Review of the resident's medical record, including treatment administration records (from 03/07/22 through 04/27/22) revealed no evidence staff were repositioning (turning and repositioning) the resident every two hours as recommended in the wound care service note beginning on 01/31/22 with continued recommendations as noted above. On 04/27/22 at 10:45 A.M. interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #12 verified there was no evidence on the April 2022 TAR of the left buttock treatment for Resident #4 being completed. On 04/27/22 at 10:50 A.M. LPN #8 was observed completing the resident's dressing change to the left buttock. The resident was observed with a large open area to his left buttock (baseball size) with a moderate amount of bloody drainage and yellow slough tissue to the bottom right edges the size of a dime. The wound bed was reddened. On 04/27/22 at 11:15 A.M. interview with LPN #8 revealed all wound/pressure ulcer assessments were done electronically and in point click care (PCC). The LPN indicated the facility did have a wound nurse who also came in to do assessment of resident wounds. The LPN verified the lack of completed assessments for Resident #4. On 04/27/22 at 3:08 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing verified the facility had not developed a plan of care related to pressure ulcer prevention or development until 03/23/22. On 04/27/22 at 4:00 P.M. interview with LPN #8 verified there were no assessments/measurements of the left buttock wound for Resident #4 on 02/07/22, 02/14/22, 02/21/22 or 02/28/22. The LPN revealed she was on vacation the week of 02/14/22. The LPN also verified there was no documentation of Resident #4's treatments being completed from 04/01/22 to 04/27/22 because the treatment order was never transcribed to the TAR. The LPN verified the wound NP recommended a Dakin's solution treatment on 03/14/22, however the order was never written until 03/17/22. On 04/28/22 at 11:08 A.M. interview with LPN #8 verified the nurse from Wound Care Services (WCS) recommended an air mattress for the resident on 01/31/22. However there was never an order written until 02/22/22. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Pressure Ulcer Treatment revealed the purpose of the procedure was to provide guidelines for the care of existing pressure ulcers and the prevention of additional pressure ulcers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of advance beneficiary notices, facility policy and procedure review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their responsible parties received the appropria...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of advance beneficiary notices, facility policy and procedure review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their responsible parties received the appropriate advance beneficiary notices when discharged /cut from Medicare (MCR) Part A services. This affected two residents (#11 and #183) of three residents reviewed for liability/beneficiary protection notification. Findings include: 1. A review of the facility list of residents, who received a liability notice in the past six months, revealed Resident #11 was cut from MCR Part A services on 12/24/21. The resident was identified as having remained in the facility after her skilled service had ended. The facility was not able to provide documented evidence of Resident #11 and/or the resident's representative receiving the CMS Form 10055 (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice) that should have been provided to the resident and/or the resident's representative when she was cut from MCR Part A services. On 04/27/22 10:51 A.M. interview with Business Office Manager #42 confirmed the facility did not provide a CMS Form 10055 (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice) to Resident #11 when the resident was cut from MCR Part A services. 2. A review of the facility list of residents, who received a liability notice in the past six months, revealed Resident #183 was cut from MCR Part A services on 10/12/21 . Resident #183 was identified as not having remained in the facility after her skilled service had ended. The facility was not able to provide documented evidence of Resident #183 and/or the resident's representative receiving the CMS Form 10055 (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice) that should have been provided to the resident and/or the resident's representative when she was cut from MCR Part A services. On 04/27/22 10:51 A.M. interview with Business Office Manager #42 confirmed the facility did not provide a CMS Form 10055 (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice) to Resident #183 when the resident was cut from MCR Part A services. Review of the undated facility policy titled Form Instructions Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of NON coverage (SNFABN) revealed SNFABN provides information to the beneficiary so that he or she can decide whether or not to get the care that may not be paid for by Medicare and assume financial responsibility. SNFs must use the SNFABN when applicable for SNF prospective payment system (Medicare part A).
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #10, Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #10, Resident #13, Resident #27 and Resident #32 were free from potential incidents of misappropriation when receipts for monies removed from their personal funds account were not completed/maintained. This affected four residents (#10, #13 #27 and #32) of five residents whose personal funds were reviewed. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, convulsions, major depressive disorder, Alzheimer's dementia, hypertension, anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Resident Fund Management Service authorization and agreement form, dated 05/15/17 revealed Resident #13 had a resident funds account with the facility and his social security check was deposited into the account by an automatic transfer every month. The resident had a $50.00 monthly allowance. The form was signed by the brother for Resident #13 who was the resident's legal representative. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape for Resident #13 revealed on 12/09/21 $1000.00 was withdrawn from the resident's account for personal need items. Review of a copy of check number 1485 revealed a check was written out to the legal representative of Resident #13 on 12/09/21 in the amount of $1000.00 for Christmas gifts. However, there was no receipt/sign out for the money when it was withdrawn from the account and there were no receipts for the items purchased with the money. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 02/18/22 revealed Resident #13 had severely impaired cognition. On 04/28/22 at 3:26 P.M. interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #42 revealed she had called all the families and asked them what they wanted to do with the residents' stimulus money. She indicated she had not told the families how to use the money but allowed them to make the decision with what to do with the money. She verified she did not have any receipt(s) for what the $1000.00 for Resident #13 was spent on. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and hemiplegia affecting left side. Review of the Resident Fund Management Service authorization and agreement form, dated 05/06/19 revealed Resident #10 had a resident funds account with the facility and his social security check was deposited into an account by automatic transfer every month. The resident had a $50.00 monthly allowance. The form was signed by the resident's son, who was his legal representative. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape for Resident #10 revealed a withdrawal for $2700.00 on 05/06/21 for personal care items, $700.00 on 11/18/21 for personal care items and on 12/15/21 a withdrawal of $700.00 for personal care items. Review of the receipt number 826737, dated 05/21/21 revealed the son of Resident #10 withdrew $2700.00 for personal needs and a gift to the son. Review of the check number 1449, dated 05/21/21 revealed a check for $2700.00 was written to the son of Resident #10 and written in the memo line was a gift from dad. There was no documentation for the withdrawal on 11/18/21 for $700.00. Review of receipt number 085570, dated 12/14/21 revealed the son and daughter in law for Resident #10 withdrew $700.00 for Christmas and personal needs. Review of the check number 1488, dated 12/14/21 revealed a check for the amount for $700.00 was written to the son of Resident #10 and written in the memo line was written from dad, Merry Christmas. On 04/28/22 at 3:40 P.M. interview with Resident #10 revealed he did not know about the withdrawals but stated his son had purchased a new wheelchair for him. On 04/28/22 at 3:46 P.M. interview with Family Member #51 revealed his father gave him the $2700.00 because he was having financial problems and needed the money. On 04/28/22 at 3:26 P.M. interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #42 revealed she had called all the families and asked them what they wanted to do with the residents' stimulus money. She indicated she had not told the families how to use the money but allowed them to make the decision with what to do with the money. She verified she did not have any receipts for what the $2700.00 or the two $700.00 withdraw's for Resident #10 were spent on and, she verified she could not find the receipt for the disbursement of the $700.00 on 11/18/21. 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hypertension, dementia, malignant neoplasm of the cervix, diabetes, and osteoarthritis. Review of an undated Resident Fund Management Service authorization and agreement form revealed Resident #32 had a resident funds account with the facility and the resident's social security check was deposited into an account by automatic transfer every month. The resident had a $50.00 monthly allowance. The form was signed by the resident. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape for Resident #32 revealed a withdrawal for $1000.00 on 12/10/21 for personal care items, $700.00 on 11/18/21 for personal care items and on 12/15/21 for personal care items. Review of the receipt number W001052 dated 12/09/21 revealed the daughter of Resident #32, who was not the resident's power of attorney (POA), withdrew $1000.00 for personal care needs. Review of the check number 1487, dated 12/03/21 revealed a check for $1000.00 was written to the daughter of Resident #32 and written in the memo line was Christmas from mom. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 04/11/22 revealed Resident #32 had moderately impaired cognition. On 04/28/22 at 3:26 P.M. interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #42 revealed she had called all the families and asked them what they wanted to do with the residents' stimulus money. She indicated she had not told the families how to use the money but allowed them to make the decision with what to do with the money. She verified she did not have any receipts for what the $1000.00 withdrawal for Resident #32 was spent on. She verified the daughter of Resident #32 was not the resident's POA. On 04/28/22 at 3:45 P.M. interview with Resident #32 revealed she did not remember giving her daughter $1000.00 at Christmas. She stated her family and facility makes those decisions. 4. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, developmental disorders of motor function and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the Resident Fund Management Service authorization and agreement form, dated 07/17/20 revealed Resident #27 had a resident funds account with the facility. The resident had a $50.00 monthly allowance. The form was signed by the resident's brother who was the resident's legal representative. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape for Resident #27 revealed a withdrawal for $1500.00 on 12/29/21 for personal care items. Review of the receipt number W001057, dated 12/22/21 revealed the brother of Resident #27 withdrew $1500.00 for personal care needs. The note line indicted it was for Christmas gifts for the family. Review of the check number 1490, dated 12/22/21 revealed a check for $1500.00 was written to the brother of Resident #27 and written in the memo line was Christmas gifts. On 04/28/22 at 3:26 P.M. interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #42 revealed she had called all the families and asked them what they wanted to do with the residents' stimulus money. She indicated she had not told the families how to use the money but allowed them to make the decision with what to do with the money. She verified she did not have any receipts for what the $1500.00 withdrawal for Resident #27 was spent on. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Mistreatment Policy and Procedure, dated 03/19 revealed the goal of the facility was that its residents would be protected from verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion and misappropriation of property through the development of operationalized policies and procedures. The resident would not be subjected to abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of property (ANM) by anyone, including but not limited to facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, staff of other agencies, family members or legal guardians. AM reports or investigations involving ANM would be reviewed by and conducted through the facilities CQI committee.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the Ombudsman was notified of transfer/discharges for Residen...

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 the Ombudsman was notified of transfer/discharges for Resident #24, Resident #30 and Resident #33 as required. This affected three residents (#24, #30 and #33) of 16 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 09/30/21 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, peripheral vascular disease, and hypertension. Review of Resident #24's nursing note, dated 02/07/22 revealed Resident #24 was admitted to the hospital on this date. Record review revealed no evidence the Ombudsman was notified of the resident's hospital transfer. Review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #24 had intact cognition. On 04/27/22 at 9:45 A.M. interview with the Administrator verified there was no evidence Resident #24's transfer/discharge notice was sent to the Office of the State Long - Term Ombudsman. 2. Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed diagnoses including ileus, cerebral palsy, and quadriplegia. A nursing note, dated 03/21/2022 at 12:12 A.M. indicated Resident #30's abdomen had been distended. Results of portable abdomen were received and the Nurse Practitioner gave orders to send Resident #30 to the hospital for a computed tomography (CT) scan due to a probably ileus. An ileus is the temporary slowing of digestive tract mobility which can lead to a buildup and blockage in the digestive tract. A nursing note dated 03/21/22 at 7:01 A.M. indicated the hospital reported Resident #30 would be admitted for possible ileus/impaction. Review of a Transfer/Discharge Report, dated 03/21/22 indicated Resident #30 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] related to abdominal x-rays indicating a probable ileus. The report revealed the physician requested a CT scan immediately. The Transfer/Discharge Report did not contain information regarding appeal rights or contact information for the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. There was no evidence of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman being notified of the transfer or receiving a copy of the Transfer/Discharge Report. On 04/27/22 at 9:28 A.M. interview with the Administrator verified the transfer/discharge notice did not include contact information for the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman or appeal information. The Administrator indicated there had been staffing changes at the facility and she was unable to locate any evidence the State Long Term Care Ombudsman office was notified of Resident #30's transfer to the hospital. 3. Review of Resident #33's medical record revealed diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea. A nursing note, dated 02/24/22 at 11:23 P.M. indicated Resident #33 had difficulty breathing and was in distress. The physician was notified and gave an order to send Resident #33 to the emergency department for evaluation and treatment. A nursing note dated 02/25/22 at 1:27 A.M. indicated Resident #33 was being admitted to the hospital for respiratory failure and pneumonia. Review of a Transfer/Discharge Report, dated 02/24/22 indicated Resident #33 was sent to the emergency room on [DATE] related to difficulty breathing and oxygen saturations in the 60's to 70's prior to oxygen being increased. The Transfer/Discharge Report did not contain information regarding appeal rights or contact information for the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. There was no evidence of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman being notified of the transfer or receiving a copy of the Transfer/Discharge Report. On 04/27/22 at 9:28 A.M. interview with the Administrator verified the transfer/discharge notice did not include contact information for the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman or appeal information. The Administrator indicated there had been staffing changes at the facility and she was unable to locate any evidence the State Long Term Care Ombudsman office was notified of Resident #33's transfer to the hospital.
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

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan of care was developed and implemented for Resident #24 related to falls/fall risk. This affected one resident (#...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan of care was developed and implemented for Resident #24 related to falls/fall risk. This affected one resident (#24) of sixteen residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 09/30/21 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, peripheral vascular disease and hypertension. Review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 comprehensive assessment, dated 04/15/22 revealed Resident #24 had intact cognition. The assessment revealed the resident's balance was not steady during transitions and walking and the resident used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of Resident #24's Fall Risk Data Collection Tools, dated 09/30/21 and 03/19/22 revealed Resident #24 was at a moderate risk for falling. Review of Resident #24's nursing notes dated 03/19/22 revealed Resident #24 had an unwitnessed fall from a chair and was transported to the hospital for evaluation. Review of Resident #24's nurse practitioner note, dated 03/20/22 revealed Resident #24 stated he fell out of a chair when trying to get up, he called for help and was assisted by nursing staff. Record review revealed no evidence the facility had developed or implemented a fall risk plan of care for Resident #24. On 04/28/22 at 12:53 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing revealed Resident #24 was re-educated on using the call light for assistance and verified Resident #24's comprehensive care plan did not include a plan regarding falls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #4's gastrostomy tube was checked for p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #4's gastrostomy tube was checked for proper placement prior to the administration of medications to prevent complications and to ensure medications were administered as ordered. This affected one resident (#4) of five residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with dependence on a ventilator, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, adult failure to thrive, pneumonia and traumatic hemorrhage of the cerebrum. Review of the physician's orders revealed Resident #4 had an order (dated 01/21/22) for the enteral feeding, Isosource 1.5 at 70 milliliters per hour continuously. On 04/27/22 at 12:00 P.M. LPN #12 was observed to administer medications via enteral tube to Resident #4. The LPN obtained and crushed Acetaminophen 325 milligrams (mg) and Mucinex 600 mg and placed the medications into a cup with 30 mls of water. The LPN flushed the resident's enteral tube with 10 milliliters (mls) of water and then began to administer the medications without first checking for proper gastrostomy tube placement. The enteral tube became clogged and the LPN had to dump the remaining medications into a cup and proceeded to attempt to unclog the tube. On 04/27/22 at 12:10 P.M. interview with LPN #12 verified she failed to check for proper gastrostomy tube placement prior to administering Resident #4's water flush or medications. On 04/28/22 at 3:09 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing revealed nurses were to check placement per policy by aspirating residual. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Administering Medication through an Enteral Tube revealed the purpose was to provide guidelines for the safe administration of medication through an enteral tube. Check tube placement, observe for a change in the external tube length at the time of the initial insertion x-ray, if feeding had been interrupted for a few hours aspirate a small amount of stomach content. If the resident was on continuous feeding the stomach should contain no more than the total intake from the last hour. If there was more than hold the medication and notify the physician.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0570 (Tag F0570)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain a surety bond, or otherwise provide assurance satisfa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain a surety bond, or otherwise provide assurance satisfactory to the Secretary, to assure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility. This affected 17 residents (#6, #7, #8, #10, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #19, #21, #23, #25, #27, #31 and #32) of 21 residents identified to have personal fund accounts managed by the facility. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Review of the resident personal fund account balances revealed the following: Resident #6 had $3285.01 Resident #7 had $1479.39 Resident #8 had $10.00 Resident #10 had $1538.75 Resident #12 had 1685.65 Resident #13 had $3084.48 Resident #14 had $60.00 Resident #15 had $1450.54 Resident #16 had $1717.72 Resident #17 had 762.76 Resident #19 had $42.95 Resident #21 had $22.28 Resident #23 had $25.30 Resident #25 had $1951.84 Resident #27 had $2045.64 Resident #31 had $1121.27 Resident #32 had $3113.31 This equaled a total for all residents of $23,396.89. Review of the facility surety bond from [NAME] Insurance Company, effective 01/22/22 revealed the facility had coverage for resident accounts in the amount of $20,000.00. On 04/29/22 at 9:00 A.M. interview with Business Office Manager #42 verified the amount of coverage on the surety bond did not cover the total amount of the resident accounts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of COVID-19 tracking information documents, facility policy and procedure review, review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Interim Final Rule Updating Requirements for Noti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of COVID-19 tracking information documents, facility policy and procedure review, review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Interim Final Rule Updating Requirements for Notification of Confirmed and Suspected COVID-19 Cases Among Residents and Staff in Nursing Homes (QSO-20-29-NH) and interview the facility failed to notify residents and their representatives of positive staff and resident COVID-19 cases in the facility as required. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility beginning on 01/14/22. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Review of a facility provided COVID-19 tracking information document revealed on 01/14/22 Resident #11, who resided on Level Four of the facility tested positive for COVID-19. Continued review revealed the facility only notified residents and representatives (of the positive COVID-19 test) who resided on Level Four and one of the residents/their representative who resided on Level Three. Review of a facility provided COVID-19 tracking information document revealed on 01/30/22 Medical Director #33 tested positive for COVID-19. The facility only notified the family of Resident #191 of the positive COVID-19 test. Review of a facility provided COVID-19 tracking information document revealed on 02/11/22 Dialysis Manager #3 (who provides in house dialysis services) tested positive for COVID-19. The facility only provided notification of the positive COVID-19 test to Resident 19 and her family. Review of a facility provided COVID-19 tracking information document revealed Transportation Worker #18 tested positive for COVID-19 on 02/26/22. The facility only notified Resident #23, Resident #29 and Resident #185 of the positive COVID-19 test. On 04/28/22 at 10:38 A.M. interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #22, who identified herself as the infection control nurse confirmed on 01/14/22 only residents and/or resident representatives who resided on Level Four of the facility were notified the facility had a positive COVID-19 case in the facility, and on 01/30/22, 02/11/22, and 02/26/22 only residents who came in contact with the positive staff member(s) were notified the facility had staff members who tested positive for COVID-19. Review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Interim Final Rule Updating Requirements for Notification of Confirmed and Suspected COVID-19 Cases Among Residents and Staff in Nursing Homes (QS0-20-29-NH), dated 05/06/2020 revealed The facility must inform residents, their representatives, and families of those residing in facilities by 5:00 P.M. the next calendar day following the occurrence of either a single confirmed infection of COVID-19, or three or more residents or staff with new-onset of respiratory symptoms occurring within 72 hours of each other. Review of the facility policy titled Circle of Care Family Notification, dated 01/10/22 revealed the facility would continue to notify the residents, families, or representatives of any suspected or positive COVID activity in the facility by making individual phone calls to the representative or family member.
CONCERN (F)

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

Employment Screening (Tag F0606)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of personnel files, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure all staff were checked against the Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to employment to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of personnel files, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure all staff were checked against the Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to employment to ensure the employee did not have a finding entered into the State Nurse Aide Registry concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. This had the potential to affect all 33 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of staff personnel files for staff hired since the last annual recertification survey revealed the following: a. Review of Housekeeping/Laundry Supervisor #15's personnel file revealed a hire date of 06/16/21. There was no evidence Housekeeping/Laundry Supervisor #15's name had been checked against the NAR for potential findings of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. b. Review of [NAME] #48's personnel file revealed a hire date of 07/21/20. There was no evidence [NAME] #48's name had been checked against the NAR for potential findings of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. c. Review of Housekeeper #11's personnel file revealed a hire date of 07/20/21. There was no evidence Housekeeper #11's name had been checked against the NAR for potential findings of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. d. Review of Activity Assistant #49's personnel file revealed a hire date of 06/01/21. There was no evidence Activity Assistant #49's name had been checked against the NAR for potential findings of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. Review of the undated facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program revealed employee background checks were conducted as part of the screening program and the facility would not knowingly employ any individual convicted of abuse, neglecting or mistreating a resident. The policy did not address monitoring or checking information on the NAR for all staff to determine if the staff member had any findings of possible findings of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. On 04/08/22 at 1:46 P.M. interview with Human Resources Director (HR) #45 revealed only nursing assistant staff had their names checked against the NAR to determine if the staff member had any findings of possible findings of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. HR #45 revealed nurses and other licensed personnel were checked only through their licensing boards to ensure the person was in good standing and to see if there was any board action against their license. HR #45 verified the above employees, whose personnel files were reviewed, interacted or could interact with residents and were not checked on the NAR to ensure there were no findings of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of property. On 04/28/22 at 2:46 P.M. interview with the facility Medical Director revealed he provided input into facility policies. The medical director revealed staff had never addressed issues with checking potential hires for findings on the NAR and he just assumed the facility staff were doing it.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure food items were stored appropriately in refrigerators on the nursing units to prevent contaminati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure food items were stored appropriately in refrigerators on the nursing units to prevent contamination and/or spoilage. This affected one resident (#24) and had the potential to affect 28 of 28 residents who received oral intake. The facility identified five residents (#2, #4, #18, #20 and #30) who had orders for nothing by mouth. Findings include: 1. On 04/25/22 at 8:32 P.M., observations of the third floor nutrition refrigerator revealed a brown bag with Resident #24's name on it with notation of beef stew. It was dated 04/10/22. In addition, there was a plastic zip lock baggie with some type of meat and a container of spaghetti that had no name or date. On 04/25/22 at 8:32 P.M. interview with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #32 revealed the meat looked like ham or corned beef to her and she thought it also belonged to Resident #24 although there was no date or name on the plastic baggie. STNA #32 did not give a definitive response when asked how long food was kept in refrigerators but stated Resident #24 had eaten some of the food dated 04/10/22 on 04/25/22. STNA #32 also verified there was a container of spaghetti with no name or date marked on it. On 04/25/22 at 8:33 P.M. interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #22 revealed food was generally kept in the refrigerator 3-5 days and food not marked should not be kept. The bag marked beef stew, the unlabeled baggie of meat, and container of spaghetti were disposed of. 2. On 04/25/22 at 8:43 P.M. observations of the fourth floor nutrition refrigerator revealed one carton of milk with a sell by date of 04/05/22 and a plate of salad with no name or date on it. On 04/25/22 at 8:43 P.M. interview with STNA #13 verified there was a carton of milk with a sell by date of 04/05/22 and a plate of salad with no name or date on it in the fourth floor refrigerator. STNA #13 stated the milk should have been used within two days of the sell by date. Both items were disposed of. On 04/25/22 at 8:47 P.M. interview with Dietary Manager #43 revealed the milk product should have been discarded on the sell by date. Food brought in from the outside should have names and dates marked on them and be disposed of within three days. Nurse aides and dietary staff were responsible for monitoring foods on units. Review of the facility policy titled, Food Brought in from Outside Sources and Personal Food Storage (implementation date not designated), indicated foods and beverages brought in from outside sources that required refrigeration or freezing would be labeled with the resident's name and date and stored in the refrigerator/freezer apart from facility food. Designated facility staff would be assigned to monitor individual room storage and refrigeration units for food or beverage disposal. Staff would provide information on safe food storage and handling as deemed appropriate and referred to Resource: Food Safety for Your Loved One. Review of the procedure, Resource: Food Safety for Your Loved One (no implementation date), revealed food or beverage items without a manufacturer's expiration date should be dated upon arrival in the facility and thrown away three days after the date marked. Foods in unmarked or unlabeled containers should be marked with the current date the food item was stored.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete a Legionella risk assessment and ensure control measures were in place to decrease the risk of Legionella in the facility. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete a Legionella risk assessment and ensure control measures were in place to decrease the risk of Legionella in the facility. This had the potential to affect all 33 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility Legionella Prevention Program revealed no evidence facility conducted a facility risk assessment to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in the facility water system. There was no evidence of specifying testing protocols, acceptable ranges for control measures, and documenting of the results of testing and corrective actions taken when control limits were not maintained. On 04/27/22 at 4:00 P.M. interview with Maintenance #7 verified the facility did not have a Legionella Risk assessment to determine where pathogens could grow and spread. Maintenance #7 also revealed the facility did not have specified testing protocols and acceptable ranges. Maintenance #7 revealed the facility had been running water weekly in the empty rooms and that was all he had been doing. Maintenance #7 revealed he had never heard of the Legionella Risk assessment. Review of the facility policy revealed the facility promoted proactive steps to establish healthy, infection-free environments for their residents, staff and visitors. The policy was intended to improve services to resident by focusing on proactive strategies and intervention to reduce the likelihood of a Legionella outbreak. Risk management, hazard analysis and critical control points were the most widely used risk management process in the Untied States. It was used to prevent environmental-source disease from harming people.
Jul 2019 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment related to activity...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment related to activity preferences for Resident #8. This affected one resident (Resident #8) of two residents reviewed for activities. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, seizures, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 admission assessment for Resident #8 dated 03/27/19 indicated the section for Assessment for Daily and Activity Preferences was not competed with the resident or family member. The section for Staff Assessment for Daily and Activity Preferences was also not completed. This was verified with the MDS nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #153 on 07/02/19 at 10:15 A.M. LPN #153 indicated the activity director was responsible for completion of those sections of the MDS assessment. Resident #8 was observed on 07/01/19 at 10:34 A.M. in bed with his eyes open. The resident did verbally respond. He was observed on 07/02/19 at 8:29 A.M. in bed with his eyes open and moving his arms around. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #123 on 07/02/19 at 8:41 A.M. revealed Resident #8 grabbed at things, swung his arms around and put his fingers in his throat when restless. She said the resident liked stuffed animals and holding them calmed him down. She said he did not attend activities. On 07/02/19 at 10:00 A.M. Resident #8 was observed in bed with a stuffed animal in his hand. On 07/02/19 at 10:35 A.M. interview with Activity Director #102 revealed she based the activity care plan for Resident #8 on the fact that the he was non-verbal and unable to communicate activity preferences. She said she attempted to contact the resident's guardian to complete the admission MDS activity assessment, but she did not return the call. Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an activity note by Activity Director #102 dated 03/26/19. The note revealed she attempted to reach the guardian to complete the admission information and a left a message. The note indicated if there was no return call by Thursday, she would make another attempt. There was no evidence in the medical record of any additional attempts to reach the guardian. The next activity note dated 06/17/19 indicated Activity Director #102 completed a quarterly activity assessment, reviewed the activity section of the care plan and made no changes at that time. The findings were verified with Activity Director #102 on 03/28/19 at 10:38 A.M.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to revise the care plan for range of motion for Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to revise the care plan for range of motion for Resident #8. This affected one resident (Resident #8) of two residents reviewed for range of motion. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, seizures, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 admission assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #8 indicated the resident was totally dependent on two or more for bed mobility. He had functional limitation impairment in range of motion of both upper extremities and no impairment of lower extremities. Resident #8 was observed in bed on 07/01/19 at 10:34 A.M. with both legs flexed at the knees. Interview with the Respiratory Therapist (RT) #163 revealed the resident was not able to move his legs very much. On 07/02/19 at 8:29 A.M. Resident #8 was observed in bed with both knees flexed. He was moving his arms and hands, but his legs were still. On 07/02/19 at 8:41 A.M. interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #123 revealed the resident kept his legs drawn up. She said she tries to straighten them out when she passes medications. She said the resident's legs do not extend all the way out because he will intentionally pull them back. On 07/02/19 at 11:35 A.M. interview with the MDS nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #153 revealed Resident #8 was able to straighten his legs out. On 07/02/19 at 12:05 PM interview with certified occupational therapy assistant (COTA) #164 revealed Resident #8 was screened upon admission on [DATE] and did not have any limited range of motion in his legs. She said his legs could be extended and flexed up to his functional needs. The resident was screened again on 06/17/19 and found to have some limited range of motion and range of motion (ROM) was to be provided by the floor staff. Review of the Rehabilitation Screening dated 06/17 19 indicated Floor staff ROM. Review of the current care plan for Resident #8 (initiated 05/09/19) did not indicate a revision to the care plan to reflect ROM by the floor staff. There was no documentation of the ROM completed by the floor staff in the medical record. This was verified with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/02/19 at 12:20 P.M. On 07/02/19 at 12:25 P.M. interview with the DON revealed when a recommendation from a therapy screen is made for the floor staff to complete ROM, it is communicated to the restorative nurse or nursing supervisor. The nurse puts the information into the point of care system for the State Tested Nurse Aides (STNAs) to complete and document when provided. The DON verified the ROM was not added to the point of care system and was not documented since recommended by therapy on 06/17/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide a restorative ambulation program in accordance with Resident #12's restorative plan. This affected one resident (Resident #12) of te...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide a restorative ambulation program in accordance with Resident #12's restorative plan. This affected one resident (Resident #12) of ten residents interviewed regarding activities of daily living. Findings include: Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, repeated falls, osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc degeneration in the lumbar region, and presence of a right artificial hip joint. A Restorative Ambulation Program assessment indicated Resident #12 required assistance to stand and walk with a walker. The assessment indicated Resident #12 was cooperative with the ambulation program but was unsteady and had a shaky gait. The assessment indicated Resident #12 was on a restorative ambulation program with maximum assistance of two persons and a front wheeled walker to ambulate 6-12 feet for 15 minutes for a minimum of 5-7 days per week with a goal to maintain his ability to ambulate 6-12 feet. Resident #12 needed cueing and encouragement and lots of time to complete the program with Parkinson's disease delaying his ability to take steps. Review of restorative ambulation program logs revealed between 04/18/19 and 06/04/19 the program was provided eight times and refused 12 times. Multiple entries revealed the activity did not occur or it was not applicable. A physician's progress note dated 05/01/19 indicated Resident #12 was assessed with vascular Parkinsonism. The physician indicated a plan for Resident #12 to exercise at least 30 minutes five days a week. On 07/03/19 at 11:49 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) #121 stated she was never made aware the physician wanted Resident #12 to exercise 30 minutes per day five days a week and verified documentation did not support the restorative ambulation program was offered/delivered as planned.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide range of motion services in a timely manner for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide range of motion services in a timely manner for Resident #29. This affected one resident (Resident #29) of two residents reviewed for range of motion. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, quadriplegia, end stage renal disease and ventilator dependence. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #29 dated 05/02/19 indicated the resident required total dependence on two or more staff for bed mobility, transfers, bathing and dressing. He had functional limitation in range of motion (ROM) of the upper and lower extremities on both sides. Review of the Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation dated 04/26/19 indicated OT treatment five times per week for 30 days for activities of daily living, wheelchair management, therapeutic exercise and activity and neuromuscular re-education. The treatment included passive ROM of upper extremities to assist with contracture management. OT was discontinued on 05/24/19 with a recommendation for a restorative nursing program for passive range of motion (PROM) to bilateral upper extremities to all joints and all planes and bilateral upper extremity positioning to maintain decreased edema (swelling). The care plan dated 06/26/19 indicated Resident #29 had limitation in ROM of the joints, debility and quadriplegia. Interventions included to assess ROM initially, quarterly, and as needed. To summarize participation, activity tolerance, maintenance, increase/decrease of ROM and evaluate the appropriateness of continuation of the Restorative Program quarterly and as needed Review of the restorative evaluation for Resident #29 dated 06/26/19 indicated impaired strength of all four extremities with passive range of motion (PROM) recommended. A PROM program was initiated for 30 repetitions, three times to all four extremities for 15 minutes minimum for five to seven days per week to maintain mobility. The restorative ROM program was documented in the point of care system by the State Tests Nurse Aides (STNAs) on 06/26/19, 06/28/19 and 07/02/19. On 07/01/19 at 12:02 P.M. Resident #29 was observed in bed. He was unable to move his arms and legs. He had slight movement in his hands. Interview with the resident revealed he was provided range of motion (ROM) by staff to his arms and legs, but not daily. On 07/03/19 at 12:16 PM interview with the restorative nurse, Registered Nurse (RN), #121 revealed she was unaware of the OT recommendation on 05/24/19 for PROM for Resident #29. She said she was talking with Resident #29 and when he realized she was the restorative nurse, he asked her if he could get some neck exercises. At that time she assessed him for restorative services and began the PROM program to all extremities on 06/26/19. She said therapy usually sends a slip with the recommendation to her and she then develops a restorative program. On 07/03/19 at 1:45 PM interview with Certified Occupational Therapist Assistant (COTA) #164 and RN #121 was conducted. COTA #164 indicated Resident #29 was ill during the time of the recommendation. It was verified the recommendation on 05/24/19 was not addressed at the time to indicate the resident was ill and the recommendation was not revisited by the restorative nurse until a month later when Resident #29 requested neck exercises.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to check placement of a gastrostomy tube prior to the administration of medication for Resident #22. This affected one resident (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to check placement of a gastrostomy tube prior to the administration of medication for Resident #22. This affected one resident (Resident #22) of one resident observed for the administration of medications per gastrostomy tube of six residents observed during the medication administration. Findings include: On 07/02/19 at 7:50 A.M. medication administration was observed with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #128. LPN #128 prepared medications for administration per gastrostomy tube (tube placed directly into the stomach for administration of nutrition and medications) for Resident #22. LPN #128 crushed a tablet of Oxycodone-acetaminophen (a narcotic pain medication)10-325 milligrams (mg) and mixed it with a small amount of water in a medication cup. She administered approximately 30 milliliters (ml) of water per the resident's gastrostomy tube via gravity per syringe. She then administered the narcotic pain medication mixture via gravity per syringe, followed by a water flush. LPN #128 did not check the gastrostomy tube for proper placement prior to the administration of the medication. This was verified with LPN #128 on 07/02/19 at 8:02 A.M. LPN #128 indicated she should have checked the placement of the tube prior to administration of the medication. Review of the facility's undated policy and procedure for the administration of medications through an enteral tube revealed to check placement of the gastrostomy tube by aspirating prior to the administration of medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to administer oxygen in accordance with physician orders for Resident #10. This affected one resident (Resident #10...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to administer oxygen in accordance with physician orders for Resident #10. This affected one resident (Resident #10) of 15 residents screened for oxygen use. The facility identified 15 residents with oxygen orders. Findings include: Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/26/19. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and atherosclerotic heart disease. Resident #10 had a physician order dated 03/27/19 for oxygen to be delivered at three liters per nasal cannula as necessary for COPD. A care plan indicated Resident #10 required continuous oxygen therapy related to respiratory illness. On 07/01/19 at 11:00 A.M., Resident #10 was observed lying in bed with the head of his bed elevated. An oxygen concentrator placed between the foot of the bed and the chair was operating with a setting at two liters per minute (LPM). The tubing from the concentrator was observed going under the covers but there was no oxygen on Resident #10. When Resident #10 was asked if he wore oxygen, he touched his face near his nares and stated he was supposed to have a tube. On 07/01/19 at 11:04 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #143 stated Resident #10's oxygen was ordered on an as necessary basis and he sometimes removed it. On 07/02/19 at 8:19 A.M., 9:54 A.M., and 11:29 A.M. , Resident #10 was observed lying in bed with his nasal cannula in place and oxygen set at two liters per minute (lpm). On 07/02/19 at 11:46 A.M., upon request, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #154 assessed Resident #10's oxygen saturation with a pulse oximeter. Resident #10's oxygen saturation level was 88% with oxygen at two lpm. LPN #154 verified Resident #10's oxygen concentrator was set at two lpm and increased it to three lpm. LPN #154 also instructed Resident #10 to cough a couple times. The oxygen saturation level rose to 92%. After the oxygen was set on three lpm for less than one minute, Resident #10's oxygen saturation increased to 98%. Review of the facility's undated Oxygen Administration policy indicated under step 10 that the proper flow of oxygen was to be administered On 07/02/19 at 3:50 P.M., LPN #153 verified Resident #10 had an order for oxygen to be administered on an as needed basis but the care plan indicated it was continuous. LPN #153 stated the care plan was written that way because Resident #10 wore the oxygen all the time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to monitor laboratory tests in accordance with physician orders to ensure the adequate use of medications at the prescribed dose for Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to monitor laboratory tests in accordance with physician orders to ensure the adequate use of medications at the prescribed dose for Resident #4. This affected one resident (Resident #4) of five residents reviewed for medication use. Findings include: Review of Resident #4's medical record included diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, congestive heart failure, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and anemia. Resident #4's medication regimen included Metformin 1000 milligrams (mg) twice a day, 80 units of Basaglar insulin twice a day, 40 mg of Lasix every day and 40 milliequivalents (mEq) Potassium chloride every day. Resident #4 had a basal metabolic panel (BMP- blood test that gives doctors information about the blood glucose level, levels of electrolytes like sodium and potassium, and how well the kidneys are working) and a complete blood count (CBC-a blood test used to evaluate your overall health and detect a wide range of disorders, including anemia, infection and leukemia) drawn 04/25/19. The physician wrote a notation on the bottom of the laboratory results to re-check the laboratory tests on 06/10/19. On 05/07/19, a CBC was obtained. On 05/09/19, an order was written to obtain a BMP and CBC on 05/23/19. There were no laboratory results for 05/23/19. On 06/01/19, and order was written for a CBC and comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP - monitors electrolytes and blood glucose levels) to be drawn 06/10/19. The CBC was obtained on 06/10/19 but there were no results for a CMP. During an interview on 07/02/19 between 1:25 P.M. and 1:45 P.M., the Director of Nursing stated Resident #4 had a CBC and BMP drawn 04/25/19 and the physician ordered the tests be re-checked 06/10/19. The DON stated the CBC was probably re-checked 05/07/19 due to an order for a weekly CBC that had not been discontinued. The DON verified the BMP and CBC ordered to be drawn on 05/23/19 was not obtained. On 06/01/19, an order was written for a CBC and CMP to be drawn 06/10/19. The CMP was not obtained.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately reflect residents' status on required Minimum Data Set (M...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately reflect residents' status on required Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments. This affected four residents (Resident #4, #10, #22, and #30) of 20 residents whose MDS 3.0 assessments were reviewed. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/26/19. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atherosclerotic heart disease without angina pectoris. A 30-day MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #10 received an anti-coagulant (blood thinner) seven days during the assessment reference period (04/17/19-04/23/19). Review of the April 2019 MAR did not reveal the use of an anti-coagulant. On 07/02/19 at 8:30 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #153 verified the MDS dated [DATE] was coded erroneously for anti-coagulant use. LPN #153 stated she coded Plavix, anti-platelet medication as an anti-coagulant. 2. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed diagnoses including acute and chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and obstructive sleep apnea. Review of the March 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #4 received Ambien (sedative/hypnotic) 5 milligrams (mg) every night between 03/09/19 and 03/15/19) for insomnia and Buspar 10 mg twice a day for anxiety from 03/09/19 to 03/15/19. An annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 had not received any anti-anxiety or hypnotic medications. On 07/02/19 at 10:50 A.M., LPN #153 verified the MDS dated [DATE] was coded incorrectly because Resident #4 had received Buspar which was an anti-anxiety medication. LPN #153 stated she did not code the Ambien because it was a sedative. Ambien information was reviewed revealing it fell into classifications of sedatives and hypnotics. LPN #153 indicated she was unaware Ambien was also classified as a hypnotic. 3. Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/03/19. admission diagnoses included a Stage IV (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle) pressure ulcer to the sacrum. An admission nursing assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #30 had skin impairment of the sacrum measuring 10.5 x 11 x 2.6 and had an indwelling catheter. An admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #30 had an indwelling catheter and was occasionally incontinent of urine and had one Stage IV pressure ulcer which was present on admission. A Medicare 60 day MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #30 had an indwelling catheter and was continent of urine. The 60 day MDS indicated Resident #30 had one Stage IV pressure ulcer which was not coded as present on admission. On 07/03/19 at 2:20 P.M., LPN #153 verified because Resident #30 had an indwelling urinary catheter during the above MDS assessments, continence status should not have been rated. LPN #153 verified the Stage IV pressure ulcer on the 06/30/19 was present on admission and was not coded correctly. 4. Record review revealed Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident did not receive injections of any type or insulin injections during the past seven days. Review of the the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 04/19 indicated Resident #22 received Humulin N insulin (long-acting insulin)10 units subcutaneously twice day during the seven day assessment period. On 07/03/19 at 12:02 P.M. the MDS nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #153, verified the MDS was inaccurate.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a physician attended Quality Assurance committee meetings. This had the potential to affect all 42 residents. Findings include: Revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a physician attended Quality Assurance committee meetings. This had the potential to affect all 42 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated Quality Assurance (QA) Management Policy and Procedure indicated QA meetings were scheduled for the last Thursday of the month following each calendar quarter. Per the policy, members of the committee included the medical director. The chairperson was responsible for verifying attendance of the outside committee members. Monthly medical director reports were to be reviewed at the quarterly meeting. Review of attendance sign in sheets for the QA committee meetings held 07/26/18, 10/25/18, 01/31/19, and 04/25/19 revealed no physician signature at any of the meetings. On 07/03/19 at 1:07 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the medical director was the physician on the QA committee. The DON indicated the medical director did not attend QA meetings but did complete medical director reports. The DON indicated meetings were held on Thursdays and the Medical Director did not visit the facility on Thursdays.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement a comprehensive and effective Legionella prevention program including water testing per the facility's plan. This had the potentia...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement a comprehensive and effective Legionella prevention program including water testing per the facility's plan. This had the potential to affect all 42 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's Legionella Environmental Assessment Form, dated 05/18/18 revealed it included a water management plan. The plan indicated the facility monitored incoming water parameters by testing the water temperatures on the 4th floor for hot water to reach 105-115 degrees within five minutes. Record review revealed there was no evidence the water testing was completed as per the plan on the 4th floor. On 07/03/19 at 4:10 P.M. interview with Maintenance Director #119 verified water testing was not being completed per the facility Legionella plan.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $179,235 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 42 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $179,235 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 3/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Circle Of Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CIRCLE OF CARE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Circle Of Care Staffed?

CMS rates CIRCLE OF CARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Circle Of Care?

State health inspectors documented 42 deficiencies at CIRCLE OF CARE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 38 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Circle Of Care?

CIRCLE OF CARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 55 certified beds and approximately 36 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SALEM, Ohio.

How Does Circle Of Care Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, CIRCLE OF CARE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (56%) 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 Circle Of Care?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Circle Of Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CIRCLE OF CARE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Circle Of Care Stick Around?

Staff turnover at CIRCLE OF CARE is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Circle Of Care Ever Fined?

CIRCLE OF CARE has been fined $179,235 across 1 penalty action. This is 5.1x the Ohio average of $34,871. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Circle Of Care on Any Federal Watch List?

CIRCLE OF CARE 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.