WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER

202 WASHINGTON STREET NW, WARREN, OH 44483 (330) 399-8997
For profit - Limited Liability company 83 Beds AOM HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
19/100
#815 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Washington Square Healthcare Center in Warren, Ohio has received an F trust grade, indicating poor performance with significant concerns regarding care. With a state rank of #815 out of 913 and a county rank of #15 out of 17, the facility is in the bottom half of both categories, suggesting limited options for better care nearby. The facility's trend is worsening, with the number of reported issues doubling from 6 in 2023 to 12 in 2025. Staffing is a particular weakness, earning just 1 out of 5 stars, and while turnover is average at 55%, it indicates that retaining experienced staff is a challenge. Notably, there have been critical incidents, including a failure to provide CPR to a resident who was unresponsive, contributing to their death, and a failure to monitor a resident for pressure ulcers, which led to serious harm. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as quality measures rated 5 out of 5, the concerning incidents and poor grades suggest families should proceed with caution.

Trust Score
F
19/100
In Ohio
#815/913
Bottom 11%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$6,500 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
37 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 6 issues
2025: 12 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Ohio average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $6,500

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: AOM HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 37 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jul 2025 8 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide basic life support (BLS), inc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide basic life support (BLS), including Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to Resident #61 per the residents advanced directive for a full code status, when the resident was found unresponsive and absent of vital signs. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and serious life-threatening harm and the subsequent of death of Resident #61 beginning on [DATE] when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #135 alerted Registered Nurse (RN) #142 Resident #61was absent of vital signs. Instead of providing immediate care (i.e. CPR) RN #142 assessed the resident to be absent of vital signs and contacted Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #136 who was working another unit to verify the resident ' s death. RN #142 pronounced the resident ' s time of death of 4:50 P.M. RN #142 notified the physician without indicating CPR was not initiated, and Physician #187 gave orders to release the resident to the funeral home. Resident #61 ' s family was notified of the resident's death but not of the fact CPR was never initiated. This affected one resident (#61) of 11 residents reviewed for death in the facility.On [DATE] at 3:54 P.M. the Administrator, Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS), Regional Director of Operations (DO) and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on [DATE] at approximately 4:50 A.M. when staff failed to provide basic life saving measures/CPR to Resident #61. Upon entering the resident ' s room CNA #135 observed Resident #61 to be absent of vital signs and not breathing. CNA #135 alerted RN #142 who assessed Resident #61 and found the resident was absent of vital signs and asked LPN #136 who was working on another unit to come and verify time of the resident ' s death and absence of vital signs. RN #142 did not notify LPN #136 or CNA #135 Resident #61 was a full code not was CPR attempted/provided. RN #142 notified Physician #187 of time of death but did not notify Physician #187 that CPR was not initiated.The immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: On [DATE] at 8:15 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) notified the Medical Director of the incident involving Resident #61. On [DATE] at 11:00 A.M. the facility implemented a plan for the DON to perform CPR Mock Code Evaluations via hands on demonstration with verbal discussion on day shiftand night shift on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE]. Additional mock code scheduled for [DATE], [DATE] and [DATE]. The DON/ADON then would perform random mockcodes for one week to capture all facility staff nurses to evaluate effectiveness and ensure competency. Once the random mock codes for one week were conducted by or on[DATE] the facility DON will audit the Mock CPR codes comparing an all-facility nurse staff roster to confirm all staff nurses have participated in a Mock CPR drill. If anurse was on vacation or unable to attend the drills, additional Ad Hoc Mock CPR drills will be provided prior to their next shift. On [DATE] at 11:48 A.M., Human Resources Employee audited all 16 facility nurses (4 RNs, 12 LPNs) and 11 agency nurses (3 RNs and 8 LPNs) files to ensure a valid CPRcard was on file. For additional measure the facility had an American Heart Association (AHA) CPR class scheduled to be completed in house on [DATE]. The facility wantedto offer a hands-on CPR class to include return demonstration that adheres to the AHA guidelines for all in-house licensed personnel due to facility policy and procedureguidance promotes/notes the AHA guidelines. On [DATE] the DON audited the facilities two crash carts to ensure proper supplies and equipment were available. Crash cart audits would be monitored for completion five toseven days a week by DON/ADON for four weeks. On [DATE] the DON re-audited 60/60 in-house resident records for code status according to residents ' preference/physicians ' orders. The review included care plans,DNR forms, PCC demographic bar on every resident and compared the advanced directives to the physician order for accuracy. On [DATE] an Ad Hoc QAPI meeting was held with the IDT including medical director, DON, Infection Preventionist, Administrator, Activities, BOM, Maintenance Director,Housekeeping Supervisor, Admissions Director, and the Therapy Director. Topics discussed included the CPR policy titled Emergency Procedure CardiopulmonaryResuscitation and Basic Life Support. The DON and/or ADON would audit new admissions to verify the advanced directives were as preferred/ordered. On [DATE] at 6:10 P.M. the DON re-educated all 16 licensed staff nurses (4 RNs, 12 LPNs) and identified 11 frequent agency nurses (3 RNs and 8 LPNs) to educate.Education provided included the facility ' s CPR policy titled Emergency Procedure Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Basic Life Support and the procedure for initiatingCPR. Licensed nurses were not permitted to work a shift until education was completed. On [DATE] per facility CPR policy all licensed staff nurses in any given shift were identified as part of the CPR team per policy. Reminder postings were placed by the timeclock, in the break room, and at the nurses ' stations by the DON and RDCS after receiving approval from the Administrator. The facility implemented a plan for the DON to audit new admissions to compare the residents ' advanced directives to the physician orders for accuracy. This audit wouldcontinue for all new admissions for three months. Findings would be reviewed at the monthly QAPI Committee meeting. The above would be discussed at the next QuarterlyQuality Assurance meetings.Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] the deficiency remains at a 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:Review of the closed medical record for Resident #61 revealed an initial admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, acute pulmonary edema, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, malignant neoplasm of the pharynx, sepsis, and pleural effusion. Resident #61 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] then readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with readmission diagnoses of aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. The resident expired in the facility on [DATE].Resident #61 was listed as his own responsible party and his sister was listed as the emergency contact. Resident #61 ' s code status in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest was a full code indicating he wanted all life sustaining measures provided to him if his heart stopped and he would stop breathing.Review of Resident #61 ' s care plan initiated on [DATE] revealed the Resident/Responsible Party wished for the resident to be a Full Code for their Advanced Directives. Care plan goals indicated the resident ' s wishes would be honored. Interventions included the facility would adhere to desired code status, they were to inform the resident ' s physician if code status changed, and the facility would review code status quarterly or as needed.Review of Resident #61 ' s physician orders dated [DATE] revealed the resident was a full code and desired basic life saving measures including CPR.Review of Physician and Nurse Practitioner (NP) assessments in the medical record revealed on [DATE] NP #189 assessed Resident #61 and documented Resident #61 was a full code.Review of Resident #61 ' s Medicare five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had some cognitive impairment, was to have nothing by mouth, required substantial (staff) assistance for oral hygiene and upper body dressing, required partial to moderate (staff) assistance with bed mobility, and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene,showers, lower body dressing, personal hygiene and transfers with the use of a mechanical lift when not in therapy.Review of Resident #61 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR) date [DATE] revealed on [DATE] at 4:00 A.M. RN #142 documented the administration of Levothyroxine Sodium tablet 125 micrograms (mcg) via peg tube to Resident #61.Review of Resident #61 ' s progress notes dated [DATE] at 4:50 A.M. authored by RN #142 stated CNA called RN #142 into Resident #61 ' s room, upon entering the room resident appeared to be deceased . Upon assessment it was confirmed that the resident had passed away. Other nurse came to verify time of death, family, Dr. and DON were notified. Waiting on call back from family message was left. There were no other details in RN #142 ' s note on [DATE] regarding Resident #61 coughing up phlegm or giving him a cup to spit into (as noted in the statement obtained as part of the facility investigation).Review of the facility investigation provided by Regional Director of Clinical Operations (RDCO) revealed the following incident reports and witness statements:Review of the facility document titled #152 (other) dated [DATE], timed 8:30 A.M. and authored by the DON revealed an incident description stating at approximately 4:50 A.M. on [DATE] the CNA called the resident ' s nurse into residents ' room. Upon entering the room the nurse documented resident appeared to be deceased . Upon assessment it was confirmed the resident has passed away. Residents ' nurse called for another nurse to verify resident was absent of vital signs. Nurse charted time of death 4:50 A.M. Family and on-call doctor (Physician #187) notified. DON notified via text message. The above incident was noted to be unwitnessed.Review of the facility document titled Employee Memorandum, dated [DATE] and signed by the DON and RN #142 revealed RN #142 violated a code of conduct rule by failure to follow doctor ' s orders and conduct self in a professional and ethical manner. The date of the violation was [DATE]. The corrective action was listed as follow doctor ' s orders. No further details werelisted on the form.Review of a typed witness statement, dated [DATE] with the first and last name of RN #142 typed and without signature, revealed the following typed statement STNA notified this nurse at approximately 0450 to come to resident room. Upon entering the room I observed resident to have passed away. Vitals taken and there were no respirations or pulse. Resident was cold to the touch and pale, fingertips gray and bluish tent to lips and face cold and stiff. Rigor mortis was starting to take place. Resident appeared to have been deceased for some time. Nurse from the other unit came over to assess resident and confirmed time of death. Resident was last seen by this nurse at 0230. Resident was coughing and trying to bring up phylum (that had been present upon admission to the facility). This nurse elevated bed and gave resident a cup and he was able to expectorate in the cup. He stated he felt better and went to sleep.Review of a handwritten witness statement dated [DATE] authored by LPN #136 revealed LPN #136 was asked by RN #142 to confirm death of Resident #61 the morning of [DATE] at 4:45 A.M. with a CNA present in the room for assessment. Upon entering the room, the resident appeared cyanotic (blue) and cold to touch. No signs of life or respiratory effort. No palpable carotid pulse, heart or respiratory sounds for five minutes. Death confirmed at 5:00 A.M. and rigamortis was starting to set in.There was no witness statement from CNA #135 in the investigation.An interview on [DATE] at 10:40 A.M. with RN #142 revealed (on [DATE]) Resident #61 was last seen around 2:00 A.M. when CNA #135 came and got her due to the resident coughing up phlegm. In response, RN #142 went to check Resident #61 and gave him a cup to spit in and had him sitting up. RN #142 stated that it helped the cough, the resident was able to clear the phlegm, and the resident was laid back down. RN #142 stated around 4:40 A.M. to 4:45 A.M. CNA #135 came and got RN #142 due to the resident not breathing. Resident #61 was found to be absent of vital signs. RN #142 stated she had another nurse come in and verify absence of vital signs, and notified the physician, family and DON of the resident ' s death. RN #142 stated she did not discuss with the CNA or other nurse that Resident #61 was a full code, and stated she made the decision on her own not to do CPR because the resident was obviously dead. RN #142 also stated she did not tell the residents ' family nor the physician that CPR was not provided (as per the resident ' s advance directives/code status).An interview on [DATE] at 1:30 P.M. with Physician #187 revealed he was notified Resident #61 was deceased , but he was not informed CPR had not been provided to Resident #61. Physician #187 stated he had concerns as to why CPR was not initiated regardless of what condition the resident was found. Physician #187 stated his nurse practitioner notified him a few days later the resident was a full code, and he then spoke with the DON to find out why CPR was not initiated at time of death as it should have been.An interview on [DATE] at 3:13 P.M. with CNA #135 revealed she was assigned to Resident #61 for her shift which began on [DATE] through [DATE]. CNA #135 stated she had been checking on the resident every two hours and when she went to check him at 4:45 A.M. he appeared to be dead. CNA #135 stated Resident #61 was cold to touch but was not stiff, and she went to get RN #142. CNA #135 stated RN #142 went to get another nurse to confirm absence of vital signs and she was unaware of any conversation between the two nurses about Resident #61 ' s full code status. CNA #135 stated she completed postmortem care on Resident #61 and described his body as cold, not stiff, and rigor mortis (stiffening of the joints and muscles within two to six hours after death) had not set in when providing his postmortem care.A follow-up interview was conducted on [DATE] at 8:21 A.M. with RN #142 who stated and verified she administered Resident #61 Levothyroxine Sodium tablet via PEG tube on [DATE] at 4:00 A.M. The RN stated Resident #61 was alive at that time. When asked why she did not provide CPR on Resident #61, RN #142 stated take it easy. In my opinion he was dead andthere was no need for CPR.An interview on [DATE] at 10:30 A.M. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) revealed she did not have any involvement with the situation regarding Resident #61 other than being notified CPR was not done and Resident #61 expired.An interview on [DATE] at approximately 4:45 P.M. with the RDCO revealed RN #142 was disciplined for not following physician orders related to Resident #61 passing away in the facility, as part of the facility ' s response to Resident #61 expiring in the facility as a full code and not receiving CPR. The RDCO verified RN #142 was still employed as a nurse at the facility as of this time. In addition, the RDCO verified the RN had not provided a written witness statement with her signature to verify her reported account of the incident. The RDCO voiced no awareness RN #142 had documented and administered Levothyroxine Sodium to Resident #61 at 4:00 A.M. on [DATE] which contradicted the typed and unsigned witness statement with RN #142 ' s name on it indicating she last saw the resident alive around 2:30 A.M. The RDCO stated RN #142 made a decision to not provide CPR without speaking to the physician about the full code status of Resident #61 and RN #142 did not provide CPR because the resident ' s conditiondid not indicate CPR should be provided according to the facility CPR policy because he had signs of rigor mortis.An interview on [DATE] at 9:06 A.M. with LPN #136 revealed upon entering Resident #61 ' s room to verify absence of vital signs the resident was visually starting to turn blue, he was cold to touch on his hands and arms but he had no signs of body stiffness at the time she attempted to obtain the resident ' s vital signs. LPN #136 stated there was no discussion with RN #142regarding Resident #61 ' s code status and she was instructed by RN #142 to verify the absence of vital signs.Review of the facilities policy titled Emergency Procedure-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Basic Life Support, last revised on [DATE], revealed if an individual was found unresponsive and not breathing normally, a licensed staff member who was certified in CPR/BLS was to initiate CPR unless it was known that a DNR order that specially prohibited CPR and/or external defibrillation existed for that individual or if there were obvious signs of irreversible death (e.g., rigormortis). If the resident ' s DNR status was unclear, CPR was to be initiated until it was determined that there was a DNR or a physician ' s order not to administer CPR.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00167051.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, facility policy and procedure review and interviews, the facility failed to provide timel...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, facility policy and procedure review and interviews, the facility failed to provide timely, necessary and adequate care and services following an acute change in condition involving Resident #61 that started on [DATE]. The facility failed to ensure changes in the residents ' medical condition were comprehensively assessed, the residents change in condition, including abnormal vital signs and extreme loss of balance, was communicated to the medical provider, and individualized interventions were implemented. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and Actual Harm with subsequent death beginning on [DATE] when Resident #61 experienced hypotension (low blood pressure defined as a systolic pressure or top number below 90 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg) and/or diastolic pressure or bottom number below 60 mm/Hg), dizziness, extreme loss of balance with his body going limp and eyes rolling back in his head while in physical therapy, as identified by the Physical Therapy Director (PTD) #172 who reported the incident to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #132. LPN #132 did not comprehensively assess Resident #61 or notify the physician or Nurse Practitioner (NP). On [DATE] Resident #61 again presented with hypotension during physical therapy with blood pressures taken by PTD #172 noted as 82/55 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg) and 94/59 mm/Hg while sitting and 72/50 mm/Hg and 75/48 mm/Hg while standing which was reported to Physician #187 by PTD #172 face-to-face in the facility hallway. Physician #187 failed to do a comprehensive medical assessment on Resident #61 on [DATE]. Resident #61 expired in the facility on [DATE] due to cardiopulmonary arrest. This affected one resident (#61) of eleven residents reviewed for change of condition.On [DATE] at 3:54 P.M. the Administrator, Regional Director of Operations (RDO), Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on [DATE] when therapy staff identified Resident #61 exhibited a change in condition which included abnormal vital signs, an extreme loss of balance caused by dizziness, body going limp and eyes rolling back in his head as recorded and reported by PTD #172. There was no evidence of timely or adequate interventions/medical treatment being provided. Resident #61 was not seen by Physician #187 nor by the Nurse Practitioner on [DATE]. Additionally, on [DATE] PTD #172 identified and documented Resident #61 again showed low blood pressures requiring therapy to be stopped. PTD #172 stopped Physician #187 in the hallway on [DATE] and notified him of low blood pressure. Physician #187 did not see Resident #61 on [DATE] or on [DATE]. On [DATE] Physician #187 gave verbal orders in the hallway to Registered Nurse (RN) #150 to decrease the residents Metoprolol (cardiac medication) from 25 milligrams (mg) daily to 12.5 mg daily and on [DATE] Physician #187 gave additional verbal orders to LPN #132 to discontinue the resident ' s Valsartan (cardiac medication) and to do orthostatic blood pressures every shift for three days. Resident #61 was subsequently found absent of all vital signs on [DATE] at 4:50 A.M. and pronounced deceased .The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] when the facility implemented the followingactions: On [DATE] the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) notified the Medical Director of the Immediate Jeopardy involving quality of care for Resident #61. On [DATE] an Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held and attended by the Administrator, Medical Director, Regional Director ofClinical Services (RDCS), Director of Nursing (DON), Therapy Director, Infection Preventionist, Activities Director, Business Office Manager (BOM), MaintenanceDirector, Housekeeping Supervisor, and Admissions Director (AD) to discuss the incident involving Resident #61. On [DATE] the DON, RDCS and LPNs interviewed/assessed 60 of 60 in house residents to identify any unreported changes in condition. Skin sweeps were done for 16 residentswho were unable to be interviewed due to cognitive deficits. 44 residents were interviewed related to unreported changes in their health status. On [DATE] the DON educated 16 of 16 licensed facility nurses, 11of 11 frequently used agency nurses, 14 of 14 therapy staff and 32 of 32 nurse aides on the facility ' s change incondition policy titled Change in a Resident ' s Condition or Status which included physician notification and documentation requirements. Staff members were notpermitted to work a shift until education was completed [DATE]. Newly hired (licensed nurses and nurse aides) would be educated on the change of condition policy includingphysician notification regulations during orientation by the DON/ADON. Beginning [DATE] the facility implemented a plan for the DON and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) to review the 24-hour report to identify documented changes inconditions to ensure any change of condition identified is properly reported to the resident, physician and the family/resident representative per policy/procedure. Thiswould occur for five to seven days a week for five weeks then randomly thereafter. The reviews would be discussed at the next QAPI meeting.Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] the deficiency remains at a Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not ImmediateJeopardy) as the facility is still in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance.Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #61 revealed an initial admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, acute pulmonary edema, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, malignant neoplasm of the pharynx, sepsis, and pleural effusion. Resident #61 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] then re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. The resident expired in the facility on [DATE].Record review revealed Resident #61 was listed as his own responsible party and his sister was listed as the emergency contact. Resident #61 ' s code status in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest was a full code indicating he wanted all life sustaining measures provided to him if his heart stopped and he would stop breathing. There was no evidence in the medical record to indicate a change in the full code status at any time during the stay.Review of Resident #61 ' s care plan initiated on [DATE] revealed the resident/responsible party wished for the resident to be a full code for their advanced directives. Care plan goals indicated the resident's wishes would be honored. Interventions included the facility would adhere to desired code status, they were to inform the resident ' s physician if code status changed, and thefacility would review code status quarterly or as needed.Further review of Resident #61's care plan revealed a plan for the resident ' s desire to return home with home health care when able.Review of physician orders revealed on [DATE] there was an order for Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release (ER) 25 milligrams (mg) daily via peg tube and an order dated for Valsartan 40 mg via peg tube daily for hypertension.Record review revealed Resident #61 had a plan of care initiated on [DATE] regarding the diagnosis of hypertension (high blood pressure) with goals and interventions including the resident would remain free from signs and symptoms of hypertension. Interventions included nursing staff to administer hypertensive medications per physician orders and monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure) and increased heart rate, monitor for and document any edema (swelling), and staff were to report any significant changes to the physician.Review of Resident #61 ' s Physician and Nurse Practitioner assessments revealed the last assessment was completed on [DATE] by Nurse Practitioner (NP) #189 indicating Resident #61 had an improvement in conditions since last visit. The resident denied any issues or concerns at the time of the visit. Active issues included hypertension managed with Metoprolol ER (a medication used to decrease blood pressure) 25 milligrams (mg) daily, Lasix (diuretic) 20 mg daily, Valsartan (a medication used to decrease blood pressure) 40 mg daily and Spironolactone (diuretic) 12.5 mg daily. The resident was seen for a stabilization visit after being hospitalized for pneumonia and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm). The resident was noted to be a full code. The note included the resident appeared chronically ill, received continuous oxygen and was alert and oriented to person, place and time with forgetfulness. There was no evidence in the assessment to indicate hypotension/low blood pressure was an expected or normal baseline finding for Resident #61.Vital signs were noted as within normal limits for the resident and were noted as vital signs reviewed from the date of [DATE] at 2:47 P.M. which included a blood pressure of 127/75 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg).Review of Resident #61's Medicare five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had some cognitive impairment, was to have nothing by mouth, required substantial assistance for oral hygiene and upper body dressing, required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility, and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, showers, lower body dressing, personal hygiene and transfers with the use of a mechanical lift when not in therapy.Review of Resident #61's Physical Therapy Daily Treatment Note authored by Physical Therapy Director (PTD) #172 dated [DATE] revealed Resident #61 performed sit to stand and stand pivot transfers from bed to wheelchair with minimal assist to contact guard assist, Resident #61 also performed Pressure Releaving Exercises (PREs) to lower extremities with verbal and visual cues for technique. An additional remark by PTD #172 stated the resident experienced extreme loss of balance (LOB) on first and only ambulation attempt caused by dizziness, the resident's body went limp with eyes rolling back requiring maximal assistance to prevent fall. Resident was immediately taken to the nurses ' station; nursing reported a low blood pressure and then resident was assisted to bed.Further review of Resident #61 ' s medical record revealed the Medication Administration Record, Treatment Administration Record and record of blood pressures for [DATE] showed no bloodpressures had been recorded by nursing on [DATE] and not since [DATE]. Additionally, review of the nursing progress notes and assessments showed no evidence the nurse documented the change of condition which was brought to nursing ' s attention by PTD #172 on [DATE] and there were no notes or assessments from the physician or NP to indicate Resident #61 had been assessed on [DATE]. The last nursing assessment completed on Resident #61 was a skin assessment on [DATE].Review of a Physical Therapy note dated [DATE] authored by PTD #172 and signed at 1:51 P.M. revealed Resident #61 ambulated approximately 50 feet using a front wheeled walker with minimal assistance along with pre-gait standing task. Resident #61 experienced a drop in blood pressure with each attempt. PTD. #172 spoke with Physician #187 regarding this situation. Gait training was paused for the remainder of the day. Noted under the additional remarks sections were Resident #61 ' s blood pressure readings ranging from 82/55 mm/Hg to 94/59 mm/Hg sitting to 72/50 mm/Hg to 75/48 mm/Hg standing which were obtained in therapy. Standing task was put on hold on this date.Review of Resident #61's nursing progress note dated [DATE] at 10:59 A.M. authored by Registered Nurse (RN) #150 revealed RN #150 was given a verbal order from the physician to decrease Resident #61 ' s Metoprolol to 12.5 mg every day. Additionally, on [DATE] at 2:48 P.M. a progress note authored by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #128 revealed the physician gave a verbal order to discontinue Resident #61 ' s Valsartan and to do orthostatic blood pressures (blood pressure conducted lying, sitting, and standing) every shift for three days.Review of physician orders dated [DATE] revealed new orders for Metoprolol 12.5 mg daily, Valsartan was discontinued and the physician ordered orthostatic blood pressures every shift forthree days.Review of documented vital signs dated [DATE] for Resident #61 revealed RN #142 recorded the following blood pressures: 108/64 mm/Hg while lying at 8:31 P.M., 101/60 mm/Hg whilesitting at 8:32 P.M. and 84/57 mm/Hg while standing at 8:33 P.M.Further review of Resident #61 ' s progress notes revealed there were no additional progress notes authored after [DATE] at 2:48 P.M. until the resident ' s death on [DATE] at 4:50 A.M.An interview on [DATE] at 1:30 P.M. with Physician #187 revealed he had not been notified of any concerns with Resident #61 on [DATE], but on [DATE] he was caught in the hallway byPhysical Therapy Director (PTD) #172 who indicated during treatments Resident #61 became hypotensive and dizzy when standing. Physician #187 stated he did not see the resident to physically assess him but did review his medications to address the symptoms reported by PTD #172. Physician #187 stated he decreased Resident #61 ' s Metoprolol to 12.5 mg daily. Physician #187 stated he then made additional changes to discontinue the residents Valsartan that day and ordered orthostatic blood pressures every shift for three days. Physician #187 stated he was not notified by the facility of the orthostatic blood pressures taken on [DATE] between 8:31 P.M. to 8:33 P.M. Physician #187 stated he was notified Resident #61 expired but stated he was not informed that no CPR was initiated. Physician #187 stated he had concerns as to why CPR was not initiated, and regardless of what condition the resident was found in the nurses should have performed CPR on the resident as he was a full code resident. Physician #187 stated his Nurse Practitioner notified him a few days later that the resident was a full code yet no CPR was initiated. Physician #187 stated he brought it to the attention of the Director of Nursing (DON) his concerns with CPR not being initiated at time of death for Resident #61.An interview on [DATE] at 1:48 P.M. with PTD #172 confirmed PTD #172 spoke to Physician #187 in the hallway on [DATE] regarding Resident #61 becoming orthostatic in therapy and would complain of dizziness with standing. PTD #172 stated this also occurred on [DATE] and verified he witnessed Resident #61 have an extreme loss of balance with dizziness and body went limp with eyes rolled back in his head. PTD #172 stated Resident #61 had to be held to prevent a fall at that time. PTD #172 stated it was not abnormal for Resident #61 to feel dizzy when standing, but it was not Resident #61's norm or baseline to go limp as if he was going to pass out. PTD #172 stated he had told LPN #132 about Resident #61 ' s symptoms in therapy on [DATE]. PTD #172 stated he thought that was the nurse assigned to Resident #61 on that day.An interview on [DATE] at 2:26 P.M. with RN #150 revealed on [DATE] the RN was assigned to be the float nurse in the facility and Physician #187 stopped him in the hallway and gave averbal order to decrease Resident #61 ' s Metoprolol from 25 milligrams (mg) daily to Metoprolol 12.5 mg daily.An interview on [DATE] at 10:30 A.M. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) revealed she did not have any involvement with the situation regarding Resident #61 (on [DATE] or [DATE]) othe than being notified CPR was not done on [DATE] and Resident #61 expired. The NP stated she was unaware of the change in condition the resident had on [DATE] during therapy and the day prior to his death.An interview on [DATE] at 11:36 A.M. with LPN #132 revealed the LPN was on orientation and RN #150 was teaching him. LPN #132 stated therapy indicated Resident #61 became dizzy, had an extreme loss of balance, complained of being dizzy, and had moderated changes in blood pressure. Therapy staff indicated the resident went limp and eyes rolled back in head. LPN #132stated they assisted the resident to his room and to bed but did not complete an assessment and did not notify the physician or NP.An interview on [DATE] at 11:51 A.M. with RN #150 revealed on [DATE] the RN was at the nurses ' station on the [NAME] unit when PTD #172 brought Resident #61 to him. RN #150 stated PTD #172 said Resident #61 was done in therapy due to weakness, dizziness and almost falling during therapy. RN #150 stated the resident appeared tired but was alert and oriented per baseline. RN #150 stated his actions included taking the resident to his room, checking vital signs and blood sugar, and assisted the resident to bed. RN #150 stated he did not notify Physician #187 nor a Nurse Practitioner of Resident #61 ' s acute change in condition in therapy because RN #150 felt the symptoms described were not lingering. RN #150 verified he did not document the vitals he took, what was reported by PTD #172 nor complete a change of condition assessment in the medical record.Review of the facility policy titled Change in a Resident ' s Condition or Status, last revised February 2021, revealed it was the policy of the facility to promptly notify the resident, his or her attending physician, and the resident representative of changes in the resident ' s medical/mental condition and /or status. The policy included the facility must inform the resident, consult with the resident ' s medical practitioner and/or notify the resident ' s representative, authorized family member, or legal power of attorney/guardian when there is a change requiring such notification. Circumstances requiring notification included but were not limited to significant change in the resident ' s physical, mental, or psychosocial condition such as deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial status including but not limited to life threatening conditions or clinical complications.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00167051.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affect...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected one Resident (Resident #19) out of three residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 60.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 08/08/23 with diagnoses including type two diabetes, cellulitis, depression, morbid obesity, malignant neoplasm or endometrium, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness.Review of Resident #19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition, required setup to clean up assistance with eating, partial to moderate assistance with oral and personal hygiene, and substantial to maximal assistance with toileting and showering.Review of Resident #19's care plan, date initiated 08/21/23, revealed Resident #19 had a problem with psychosocial wellbeing related to a diagnosis of depression. Interventions included to increase communications between the resident/family/caregivers about care and living environment.Review of the personnel file for Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #155 revealed on 06/12/25 she was issued a verbal warning due to using inappropriate language towards a resident. Corrective action required the employee must improve language skills toward residents and maintain professional language when addressing residents. Also, on 06/25/25 CNA #155 was given an education due to an incident on 06/24/25 when CNA #155 was playfully calling a resident a heifer and the resident was playfully calling CNA #155 a heifer. The corrective action required for this incident was CNA #155 being educated on professionalism and resident rights by the Administrator. The disciplinary action report dated 06/25/25 was not signed by CNA #155.An interview on 07/08/25 at 1:15 P.M. with Ombudsman #191 revealed while visiting Resident #19 in her room, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #155 entered the room and used an expletive word while talking with the resident, and Resident #19 told the CNA she was uncomfortable with CNA #155 talking like that in front of the Ombudsman and felt it was disrespectful. An interview on 07/09/25 at 9:45 A.M. with Resident #19 revealed CNA #155 came into her room, asked her how her coffee was and used an expletive word during the conversation. Resident #19 verified the Ombudsman was present at this time and Resident #19 stated she felt it was disrespectful for the CNA to talk like that in front of the Ombudsman. Resident #19 did not think it was abusive, but she did not think it was a respectful way for the CNA to talk and especially not in front of the Ombudsman. An interview on 07/14/25 at 4:00 P.M. with CNA #155 confirmed she used an expletive word while talking with Resident #19 with the Ombudsman in the room. CNA #155 stated the resident's cousin was in the room and she was actually talking with the cousin, not the resident. CNA #155 stated she always talked like that around the residents and other staff and did not think it was being disrespectful. CNA #155 denied ever being counseled/written up for unprofessional behavior.Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights Policy and Procedure, last revised in 2025, revealed it was the facilities purpose to ensure the preservation of every resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with access to people and services inside and outside the facility. Section V for Respect and Dignity stated every resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00167171.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan was developed to ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan was developed to address individual needs and preferences related to insulin administration for Resident #19. This affected one resident (Resident #19) of 11 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 60. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 08/08/23 and a pertinent diagnosis of type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was cognitively intact and used insulin seven out of seven days. Review of the care plan, date initiated 08/21/23 and last revised on 05/01/25, revealed there was no care plan for the prescribed insulin, nor measurable goals or interventions pertaining to the use of insulin. There was nothing to indicate in the care plan that Resident #19 had preferences for certain nurses to not administer her insulin. Review of the physician orders for July 2025 for Resident #19 revealed an order for insulin glargine subcutaneous 100 units per milliliter (ml) 38 units at bedtime, and insulin lispro (Humalog) to be used on a sliding scale before meals.An interview on 07/09/25 at 9:45 A.M. with Resident #19 revealed when RN #142 was working another nurse needed to bring in her medications and insulin because Resident #19 did not trust RN #142. Resident #19 stated she kept a notebook where she marked down when she does not get her insulin and showed the notebook to the surveyor. On 06/02/25 and 06/24/25 the resident recorded that no one gave her the 38 units of glargine insulin. Resident #19 stated on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25 she did not receive her insulin and she did not refuse her insulin it was just not offered to her by nursing and no one came back later to try to give her it.An interview on 07/16/25 at 2:45 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #129 revealed Resident #19 would let LPN #129 give her insulin and there were other nurses Resident #19 trusted to give her medications. LPN #129 stated Resident #19 did not trust RN #142. LPN #129 stated on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25 she (LPN #129) did not administer insulin to Resident #19 on 06/04/25 or on 06/24/25 because she was busy taking care of their assigned residents and getting their own work done and could not cover for RN #142 so Resident #19 did not get the 38 units of glargine insulin on those days. LPN #129 verified it was not because Resident #19 refused her insulin on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25.An interview was conducted on 07/17/25 at approximately 3:10 P.M. with the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) and the DON. The RDCS stated Resident #19 was known to refuse her insulin at night because she was selective about which nurse gave it to her. The RDCS and the DON verified Resident #19 kept a notebook and recorded her insulin administration in that notebook. The DON verified no alternative approaches had been tried to ensure Resident #19 was consistently provided insulin as ordered, and confirmed there was no care plan developed to address insulin administration. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00167171.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #19) received her insuli...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #19) received her insulin as ordered. This affected one resident (Resident #19) of three residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 60. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 08/08/23 and a pertinent diagnosis of type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was cognitively intact and used insulin seven out of seven days. Review of the care plan, date initiated 08/21/23 and last revised on 05/01/25, revealed there was no care plan for insulin administration. On 02/29/24 a care plan was initiated for Resident #19 regarding resistance to care including refusing medications and insulin. The interventions included allow resident to make decisions about treatment, educate on possible outcomes of not complying, if possible negotiate a time for treatments so that the resident participates in the decision making process and return at the agreed upon time, if resident resists treatment, leave and return five to 10 minutes later to try again, provide resident with choice during care provisions and give a clear explanation of all care. Review of the physician orders for July 2025 for Resident #19 revealed an order for insulin glargine subcutaneous 100 units per milliliter (ml) 38 units at bedtime, and insulin lispro (Humalog) to be used on a sliding scale before meals. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2025 revealed no evidence insulin glargine 100ML 38 units at bedtime was administered to Resident #19 on 06/04/25 or 06/24/25, as the MAR on these dates for this medication was left blank and void of nurse initials and/or chart code. Resident #19's blood sugars ranged from 235 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) to 299 mg/dL on 06/04/24 (normal blood sugars for a type two diabetic using insulin ranges between 80 to 130 mg/dL before meals and less than 180 mg/dL two hours after meals). Resident #19's blood sugars ranged from 227 mg/dL to 299 mg/dL on 06/24/25. This MAR was obtained from the electronic medical record on 07/14/25 at 3:21 P.M.Review of a modified MAR obtained from the medical record on 07/17/25 at 11:17 A.M. revealed on 06/24/25 an entry was made by Registered Nurse (RN) #142 to indicate the insulin was refused (chart code number two) by Resident #19. There was no change made to the 06/04/25 date. An interview on 07/09/25 at 9:45 A.M. with Resident #19 revealed when RN #142 was working another nurse needed to bring in her medications and insulin because Resident #19 did not trust RN #142. Resident #19 stated she kept a notebook where she marked down when she does not get her insulin and showed the notebook to the surveyor. On 06/02/25 and 06/24/25 the resident recorded that no one gave her the 38 units of glargine insulin. Resident #19 stated on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25 she did not receive her insulin and she did not refuse her insulin it was just not offered to her by nursing and no one came back later to try to give her it. An interview on 07/15/25 at 2:06 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she had no evidence Resident #19 had been administered her insulin as ordered on 06/04/25 or 06/24/25. An interview on 07/16/25 at 2:45 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #129 revealed Resident #19 would let LPN #129 give her insulin and there were other nurses Resident #19 trusted to give her medications. LPN #129 stated Resident #19 did not trust RN #142. LPN #129 stated on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25 she (LPN #129) did not administer insulin to Resident #19 on 06/04/25 or on 06/24/25 because she was busy taking care of their assigned residents and getting their own work done and could not cover for RN #142 so Resident #19 did not get the 38 units of glargine insulin on those days. LPN #129 verified it was not because Resident #19 refused her insulin on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25.An interview was conducted on 07/17/25 at approximately 3:10 P.M. with the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) and the DON. The RDCS stated Resident #19 was known to refuse her insulin at night because she was selective about which nurse gave it to her. The RDCS and the DON verified Resident #19 kept a notebook and recorded her insulin administration in that notebook. The DON verified no alternative approaches had been tried to ensure Resident #19 was consistently provided insulin as ordered, and confirmed the was no care plan developed to address insulin administration. Review of the facility policy titled Diabetes, Clinical Protocol dated 2001 revealed the physician would order appropriate interventions to address diabetic care including insulin as appropriate. Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications dated 2001 revealed medications would be administered per the prescriber's orders, including any required time frame. Medications would be administered within one hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00167171.
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 F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility did not ensure lab results were timely reported to the physician. This affecte...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility did not ensure lab results were timely reported to the physician. This affected one resident (#19) out of three residents reviewed for lab services. The facility census was 60. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 08/08/23. Diagnoses included diabetes, morbid obesity, anemia, depression, kidney disease and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was cognitively intact and used insulin seven out of seven days.Review of the physicians orders for July 2025 revealed an order for Resident #19 to have her A1C (a blood test that provides an estimate of a person's average blood sugar levels over the past two to three months) drawn on admission then every six months.Review of the care plan dated 05/09/25 revealed resident #19 had a nutritional problem of morbid obesity. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, explaining and reinforcing the importance of maintaining her diet, offering healthy alternatives and obtaining lab work as ordered.Review of the lab results dated 02/12/25 revealed Resident #19's A1C was 7.3 percent.An interview on 07/15/25 at 10:43 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she kept a binder with all resident lab work which was reviewed and signed by the physician.An interview on 07/15/25 at 2:06 P.M. with the DON revealed she had no evidence Resident #19's lab work dated 02/12/25 had been reviewed by the physician. Review of the facility policy titled Diabetes, Clinical Protocol dated 2001 revealed the physician would order appropriate interventions to address diabetic care including insulin as appropriate and the physician would order lab tests such as an A1C and adjust treatments based on the results.Review of the facility policy titled Lab and Diagnostic Test Results, Clinical Protocol dated 2001 revealed when test results were reported to the facility, a nurse would review the results and contact the physician based on the immediacy of the results.This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under complaint #OH00167171.
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 record review and interview the facility did not ensure a complete and accurate medical record for Resident #19. This a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility did not ensure a complete and accurate medical record for Resident #19. This affected one resident (Resident #19) out of 11 residents reviewed for complete and accurate medical record. The facility census was 60.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 08/08/23 and a pertinent diagnosis of type two diabetes mellitus. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was cognitively intact and used insulin seven out of seven days. Review of the physician orders for July 2025 for Resident #19 revealed an order for insulin glargine subcutaneous 100 units per milliliter (ml) 38 units at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2025 revealed no evidence insulin glargine 100ML 38 units at bedtime was administered to Resident #19 on 06/04/25 or 06/24/25, as the MAR on these dates for this medication was left blank and void of nurse initials and/or chart code. This MAR was obtained from the electronic medical record on 07/14/25 at 3:21 P.M. Review of a modified MAR for June 2025 obtained from the medical record on 07/17/25 at 11:17 A.M. revealed on 06/24/25 an entry was made by Registered Nurse (RN) #142 to indicate the insulin was refused (chart code number two) by Resident #19. There was no change made to the 06/04/25 date. An interview on 07/09/25 at 9:45 A.M. with Resident #19 revealed when RN #142 was working another nurse needed to bring in her medications and insulin because Resident #19 did not trust RN #142. Resident #19 stated she kept a notebook where she marked down when she does not get her insulin and showed the notebook to the surveyor. On 06/02/25 and 06/24/25 the resident recorded that no one gave her the 38 units of glargine insulin. Resident #19 stated on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25 she did not receive her insulin and she did not refuse her insulin it was just not offered to her by nursing and no one came back later to try to give her it.An interview on 07/15/25 at 2:06 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she had no evidence Resident #19 had been administered her insulin as ordered on 06/04/25 or 06/24/25.An interview on 07/16/25 at 2:45 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #129 revealed LPN #129 stated on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25 she (LPN #129) did not administer insulin to Resident #19 on 06/04/25 or on 06/24/25 because she was busy taking care of their assigned residents and getting their own work done and could not cover for RN #142 so Resident #19 did not get the 38 units of glargine insulin on those days. LPN #129 verified it was not because Resident #19 refused her insulin on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25. LPN #129 confirmed medication refusals should be documented in the MAR at the time the medication was refused. An interview was conducted on 07/17/25 at approximately 3:10 P.M. with the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) and the DON who verified the June 2025 MAR had been altered in July 2025 from it's original form and this occurred after the surveyor brought it to the DON's attention that on 06/04/25 and 06/24/25 the MAR was left blank and void of nurse initials and/or chart code. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00167171.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional and comfortable environment ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. This had the potential to affect 14 residents (Residents #2, #5, #12, #15, #21, #25, #27, #32, #42, #47, #48, #49, #53 and #57) who resided on the [NAME] unit, out of 60 residents observed for physical environment. The facility census was 60.Findings include:An interview on 07/08/25 at 1:15 P.M. with Ombudsman #190 and Ombudsman #191 revealed Ombudsman #191 was present in the facility on 06/18/25 when there was a heavy rain storm and rain water was coming in under the exit door on the [NAME] unit in the hallway by Resident #21 and #27's room. Ombudsman #191 brought it to the attention of the Maintenance Director who verified that during heavy rain water flowed in under the exit door on that unit. Ombudsman #190 and Ombudsman #191 both confirmed they notified the Administrator and had a phone conversation with the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) regarding the water issue and email records of correspondence related to this issue and not getting a clear answer on what the facility would be doing to fix this issue because it was affecting the residents on that unit.An observation on 07/10/25 at 3:00 P.M. on the [NAME] unit revealed there was rainwater puddling in the hallway covering a surface area of three feet and this water steadily kept getting larger in the hall way, as it was a heavy rain outside at the time of the observation. The rain water was flowing in under the exit door at the end of the [NAME] hallway by Resident #21 and #27's room. The amount of water presented as a safety concern, as there was enough water to splash in and soak shoes. During the observation Resident #27 was heard yelling from inside their room saying the water comes in every time it rains and nothing is ever done about it. An interview on 07/10/25 at 3:03 P.M. with the Administrator and Maintenance Director (MD) #119 verified when there was heavy rain, water does come in under the exit door at the end of the [NAME] hallway by Resident #21 and #27's room. Both verified the observed amount of water in the hallway, it was still flowing in under the exit door so they put down a bath blanket to soak up the water. There was no wet floor sign placed in the hallway.An observation made on 07/10/25 at 4:37 P.M. of the [NAME] hallway exit door revealed there was still rainwater coming in under the doorframe with bath blankets on the floor soaking up the water. There were no wet floor signs observed in the hallway.Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights Policy and Procedure, dated 2025, revealed each resident had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment.This deficiency represents non compliance investigated under complaint #OH00167171.
Apr 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan was devel...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to include the need for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for Resident #267. This affected one resident (#267) of 25 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 62. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #267 revealed an admission date of 04/10/25 with diagnosis including malignant neoplasm of the mouth, malignant neoplasm of the head, dysphagia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, bacteremia, attention to gastrostomy (a surgical procedure used to insert a tube through the abdomen and into the stomach), and cachexia. Review of Resident #267 Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact and had a feeding (gastrostomy) tube. Review of the physician order dated 04/14/25 revealed the feeding tube site needed cleansed with soap and water and apply dry dressing every night shift. There was no order for EBP. Review of Resident #267's care plan dated 04/10/25 revealed there was no care plan developed regarding the need for EBP due to use of a feeding tube. Interview on 04/24/25 at 12:00 P.M. with the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no order for EBP for Resident #267 and the care plan did not include the need for EBP. Review of the policy titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated for the year 2025, revealed the comprehensive care plan would describe the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview and review of facility policy the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented for Resident #216 and Resident #267. This affected two residents (#216 and #267) of 21 residents (Resident #36, #35, #45, #46, #34, #6, #47, #40, #38 #2, #51, #7,#36, #48, #5, #32, #33, #53, #118, #216 and #267 ) the facility identified as requiring EBP. The facility census was 62. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #216's medical record revealed a readmission date of 10/24/24 with diagnoses including intracranial hemorrhage, malignant neoplasm of prostate, type two diabetes, altered mental status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #216's cognition was intact, and unhealed pressure ulcers were present upon admission/re-entry. Review of Resident #216's physician orders for April 2025 revealed no active orders for EBP. There was an order with a start date of 04/19/24 for buttocks to be cleansed with normal saline, pat dry and apply Triad cover with foam dressing every day shift for wound care. Observation on 04/23/25 at 1:35 P.M. of Resident #216's room revealed an EBP sign was on the door frame and no cart was available outside the door with personal protection equipment (PPE). Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #400 was present during the observation and verified there was an EBP sign on the door frame but no PPE was available for staff to put on before entering the room. LPN #400 stated she thought the room mate of Resident #216 required EBP for care. Observation on 04/23/25 at 2:45 P.M. was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) of a wound dressing change to the buttock for Resident #216. The DON washed her hands, applied gloves and did not put on a gown before completing the dressing change. The DON assisted Resident #216 with rolling in bed and removed the old dressing exposing an open wound. The DON measured the bilateral buttocks wound to be 0.4 centimeters (cm) by 0.2 cm by 0.1 cm. The DON verified the buttock wound had open skin and she did not wear a gown during the dressing change. Interview on 04/23/25 at 3:01 P.M. with the DON and the Corporate Registered Nurse ( RN) #401 revealed if a resident was admitted with an active wound the facility would place the resident on EBP based on the order in the medical record and a sign would be placed outside the door. Corporate RN #401 verified there was no physician order for EBP for Resident #216, and stated LPN #400 was confused regarding which resident in the room required EBP. The DON again verified she did not wear a gown during the dressing change to the buttocks and verified the buttocks wound did have open skin. 2. Review of Resident #267's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/10/25 with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the mouth, malignant neoplasm of the head, dysphagia, bacteremia, and encounter for attention to gastrostomy (a surgical procedure used to insert a tube through the abdomen and into the stomach). Review of Resident #267's MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a feeding tube. Review of a physician order dated 04/14/25 revealed the feeding tube site needed cleansed with soap and water and apply dry dressing every night shift. Observation with the DON on 04/24/25 at 12:00 P.M. revealed no EBP sign was outside the door of Resident #267's room and there was no cart outside the door with PPE for staff to put. The DON verified EBP was needed for Resident #267 because Resident #267 had a gastrostomy tube and stated EBP was needed for any resident who had an opening to the skin. The DON verified no order was written for EBP and no sign was outside Resident #267 door to notify staff. Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revision date March 2024, revealed enhanced barrier precautions were utilized to reduce the transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms to residents. EBP employ targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care. Examples of high-contact resident care requiring the use of gown and gloves include wound care (any skin opening requiring a dressing). EBPs are indicated for residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices including feeding tubes. EBPs remained for the duration of the resident stay or until resolution of the wound or discontinuation of the indwelling medical device that deemed the resident at increased risk.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were disposed of timely when discontinued or a resident was discharged . This had the potential to affect all 29 residents residing on the [NAME] Unit (Residents #2, #3, #4, #6, #8, #16, #19, #20, #26, #31, #35, #36, #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #45, #46, #47, #49, #52, #62, #116, #117, #118, #120 and #267). The facility census was 62. Findings include: Observation on 04/21/25 at 1:48 P.M. of the medication storage room on the [NAME] Unit with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #338 revealed the room had resident medication cards, pill bottles and boxes of aerosol medications piled on shelves, on the floor, in baskets on the floor and in bags. There were four white pills in a plastic cup sitting on the shelf. LPN #338 verified she was unsure what pills were in the cup and who they belonged to. LPN #338 stated staff were to fill out a pharmacy paper and send the medications back to pharmacy when the medication was discontinued, the resident was discharged or the medication expired. Interview on 04/21/25 at 1:50 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she had been in her position since the last week of March 2025. She stated the medication room on the [NAME] Unit had many medications in the room that needed sent back to the pharmacy when she started. She verified the nursing staff was supposed to fill out a log and send the medications back to the pharmacy in a bag so they could be credited back to the resident or facility. She stated this should be done timely, within a few days of the medication being discontinued or the resident being discharged . Review of the Medication Disposition Sheet completed on 04/21/25 by LPN #245 for the [NAME] Unit medication storage room revealed a total of 100 medication cards, bottles and boxes were in the medication storage room. Review of the Medication Disposition Sheet completed on 04/22/25 by LPN #245 for the [NAME] Unit medication storage room revealed a total of 178 medication cards, bottles and boxes were in the medication storage room. A total of 278 medication cards, bottles and boxes were in the medication storage room with dispensing dates ranging from 12/14/21 through 04/16/25. Interview on 04/21/25 at 1:51 P.M. with LPN #245 revealed she was cleaning the medication room on the [NAME] Unit. She verified the DON had instructed her today, 04/21/25, to clean the medication room and return all of the expired and discontinued medications to the pharmacy. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Labeling and Storage, dated 2021, revealed the nursing staff was responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe and sanitary manner. If the facility has discontinued, outdated or deteriorated medications or biologicals, the dispensing pharmacy was to be contacted for instructions regarding returning or destroying these items. Review of the facility policy titled, Pharmacy Services, dated 2025, revealed the pharmacist, in collaboration with the facility and medical director would help develop and evaluate the implementation of pharmaceutical services procedures that address the needs of the residents and reflect current standards of practice. These included disposing of medication and storage of medications.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment. This had the potential to affect all 29 residents (Residents #2, #3, #4, #6, #8, #16, #19, #20, #26, #31, #35, #36, #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #45, #46, #47, #49, #52, #62, #116, #117, #118, #120 and #267) who resided on the [NAME] Unit, one resident ( Resident #1) on the [NAME] Unit, and an additional 13 residents (Residents 9, #11, #27, #23, #48, #22, #29, #17, #37, #28, #59, #53, #62) the facility identified as residents who smoke. The facility census was 62. Findings include: Observation was conducted on 04/22/25 from 3:45 P.M. to 4:01 P.M. with Maintenance Director (MD) #314 of the facility physical environment and the following concerns were identified and verified with MD #314 at the time of the observations: • On theWashington Unit hallway there was a solid, dark brown water stain on the ceiling which MD #314 stated it was caused from a water leak. • In the hall of the [NAME] Unit was a broken handrail with exposed edges. • In the resident room of Resident #42 and Resident #19 the closet dresser drawer was missing, and a brownish-red stain was around the perimeter of the toilet bowl. MD #314 stated the stain was a result of frequent leaks from the toilet and toilet overflow. • In the [NAME] Unit dining room four light bulbs of the 16 light fixtures in the dining room were not working, and a dining room cabinet was covered in thick dust on the surface and the back of the cabinet was missing so the linens inside of it had fallen out the back and were piled on the floor behind the cabinet. • In Resident #1's room there was a broken window blind, missing cabinet drawers, and the cover to the radiator was off exposing the inside of the radiator with dust and debris. MD #314 stated someone must have smashed the radiator. • In the designated resident smoking area outside of the facility there were more than 20 cigarette butts discarded on the ground into dead leaves laying on the ground and also into a trash can with combustible refuse inside such as paper and other trash items despite there being a metal, self-closing lid container designated for safe disposal of cigarette butts. MD #314 verified the cigarette butts should not be on the ground or in the trash can. Review of the facility policy titled Homelike Environment, revised September 2010, revealed residents were provided a safe, homelike, clean, and comfortable environment. This deficiency represents non-compliance identified during investigation of Complaint Number OH00164934 and OH00162776.
Nov 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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on record review, interview, review of Self-Reported Incident (SRI) tracking number (#)240669, review of a personnel file, and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of a narcotic medication for Resident #56. This affected one resident (#56) of one resident reviewed for misappropriation of property. The facility census was 60. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #56 revealed an admission date of 12/07/17. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, aphasia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular dementia, and chronic pain syndrome. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the progress notes from October 2023 to November 2023 revealed due to aphasia Resident #56 had difficulty with communication but was able to make basic needs known. Review of Resident #56's physician orders effective November 2023 revealed pain monitoring every shift and oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams (mg) (narcotic pain medication) one tablet every six hours as needed for pain. Review of SRI tracking #240669 dated 10/30/23 revealed an allegation of misappropriation by an unknown perpetrator of Resident #56's property (narcotic pain medication). The incident report indicated a nurse (unnamed) placed a card of 30 oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets at the nurse's station and upon going to the medication cart to lock the medication in the medication drawer, the controlled medication was missing. A facility search was completed without finding the medication. Resident #56 had another card of the same medication with enough remaining tablets available if needed for administration. The pharmacy was contacted, and a new card was sent at cost to the facility. The physician and medical director were notified, and a police report was filed. Staff were sent for drug screens. Review of the nursing schedule for 10/27/23 for night shift revealed the assigned nurse for Resident #56 was Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #315. Review of the witness statement dated 10/28/23 by LPN #315 indicated the pharmacy delivered the controlled medications while LPN #315 was still passing medications during the shift. LPN #315 counted the controlled medications and signed the sheets to acknowledge receipt then placed the controlled medications and paperwork in a cubbyhole at the nurse's station. When LPN #315 unlocked the cart to put medications away, Resident #56's card of oxycodone-acetaminophen was missing. Residents were in the hallway nearby waiting for medications. All were questioned and denied taking it. Resident rooms were checked with no findings. Review of the pharmacy packing slip for controlled medication dated 10/27/23 revealed a card of 30 oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets was delivered. Review of the controlled medication disposition form for oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets received on 10/27/23 indicated Resident #56 had 30 tablets available in the medication card. LPN #315 signed to acknowledge receipt of the medication on 10/27/23. Review of the witness statement dated 10/28/23 by Director of Nursing (DON) indicated arriving to the facility at 9:30 A.M. on 10/28/23. Searches of resident rooms, nurse's station, and medication rooms were completed with no findings. A controlled medication audit was completed with no additional discrepancies found. Police report #23-23095 was filed, and the pharmacy was notified. Review of the witness statement dated 10/28/23 by the Administrator indicated arriving at the facility approximately 8:30 A.M. Resident room searches were completed with no findings. Review of the pain assessment completed on 10/28/23 revealed Resident #56 had pain present defined as a two on a one to ten pain scale. The as needed pain medication was administered. Review of the controlled medication disposition form for oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets received on 10/11/23 indicated Resident #56 had additional tablets available for administration to address pain. Review of the QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) meeting notes dated 10/28/23 revealed a concern with narcotic storage. The failed system was improper medication storage with a plan of correction to include education on medication storage, narcotic storage, and misappropriation. Review of education provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) dated 10/28/23 for all staff included misappropriation and for all nursing staff included medication and narcotic storage. Review of pharmacy communication by email to the DON dated 10/30/23 at 12:40 P.M. revealed loss or theft of 30 oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets for Resident #56. The medication in question arrived on the 10/27/23 delivery and was discovered missing on 10/28/23. The building and staff searched the medication carts and audits were completed. Police report #23-23095 was filed. The investigation was ongoing. Staff were interviewed and drug screen reports were pending. The pharmacy planned to report to the Board of Pharmacy and Drug Enforcement Agency. Review of the pharmacy visit report dated 11/01/23 revealed a controlled medication audit was completed with no discrepancies. Review of the personnel file for LPN #315 revealed a hire date of 01/26/23. The Written Disciplinary Action Report dated 10/28/23 indicated LPN #315 received a written warning for missing narcotics due to improper medication storage upon receipt from pharmacy. LPN #315 signed the disciplinary action on 10/28/23. Review of the drug screen for LPN #315 dated 11/02/23 revealed no positive findings. Interview on 11/13/23 at 11:22 A.M. with the Administrator and DON reported the pharmacy delivered narcotic medications on 10/27/23 and the night nurse LPN #315 set them behind the nurse's station in a cubbyhole which was not locked or secured. When LPN #315 turned to the nurse's cart to place the medications, Resident #56's medication card was missing. LPN #315 looked for the medication card and could not find anything. Drug testing was conducted with no positive results. LPN #315 signed the narcotic record to acknowledge delivery of the medication. The DON and Administrator confirmed LPN #315 improperly stored the controlled medications which led to the loss of Resident #56's card of oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg. The Board of Nursing was notified. Interview on 11/13/23 at 1:13 P.M. with President of Clinical Operations #384 verified LPN #315 improperly stored the controlled medications which caused the loss of Resident #56's card of oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets. Review of the facility policy, Storage of Medications, revised November 2020, revealed controlled medications were stored in separately locked, permanently affixed compartments separate from access to non-controlled medications. Review of the facility policy, Abuse Prevention Program, revised December 2016, revealed residents have the right to be free from misappropriation of resident property and facility administration protected residents from abuse by anyone. The deficient practice was corrected on 10/30/23 when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: • The DON notified the medical director, pharmacy, and law enforcement of the incident on 10/28/23. • The DON notified the Board of Nursing of the incident on 10/30/23. • The pharmacy notified the Drug Enforcement Agency and Board of Pharmacy on 10/30/23. • An assessment of Resident #56 was completed by the DON on 10/28/23 to ensure pain was managed with no negative findings. • A thorough investigation by administration was initiated on 10/28/23 and completed by 11/01/23. • A QAPI meeting was held on 10/28/23. The investigation analysis completed determined a root cause as improper narcotic storage. • Administration instituted a new procedure on 10/28/23 for two nurse signatures upon receipt of controlled medications from pharmacy and to immediately secure the controlled medications as required. • Education was completed by the Administrator and DON for all staff on 10/28/23 regarding drug diversion and abuse, neglect, and misappropriation. • Education was completed by the DON for all nursing staff on 10/28/23 regarding drug storage. • Audits were completed for all residents to ensure accuracy of controlled medications on 10/28/23 by the DON with no negative findings. • LPN #315 was disciplined on 10/28/23 for improper storage of controlled medications. • The pharmacy completed an additional audit on random controlled medications on 11/01/23 with no negative findings.
Oct 2023 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, facility policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure routine assessment/skin monito...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed record review, facility policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure routine assessment/skin monitoring was completed and failed to prevent the development of an avoidable pressure ulcer injury for Resident #68. Following the development of the pressure ulcer, the facility failed to ensure treatments were completed as ordered. Actual Harm occurred on 07/19/23 when Resident #68, who was assessed to be at risk for pressure ulcer development was found to have an open wound (to the left lateral foot) with no evidence of any type of treatment being initiated. On 07/20/23 the area was assessed to be unstageable (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green or brown) and/or eschar (tan, brown or black) in the wound bed) pressure ulcer. This affected one resident (#68) of three reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 61. Finding include: Review of the medical record for Resident #68 revealed an admission date of 01/24/23 with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, type II diabetes, adult failure to thrive, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Record review revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The resident did not return to the facility. Review of the weekly skin computer assessments from 06/01/23 through 07/20/23 revealed only one weekly skin check was completed on 06/01/23. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for June 2023 revealed weekly skin checks were documented as completed on 06/07/23, 06/14/23, 06/21/23 and 06/27/23. Review of the TAR for July 2023 revealed weekly skin assessments were documented as being completed on 07/05/23, 07/12/23, and 07/19/23. Review of the shower sheets for July 2023 revealed there was no shower documented as completed on scheduled shower days 07/04/23, 07/08/23, 07/11/23, 07/15/23, 07/18/23, 07/25/23, 07/25/23, and 07/29/23. Showers were refused on 07/12/23 and 07/19/23. The resident received a shower on 07/22/23. Review of the quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #68 had intact cognition. The assessment revealed the resident required limited assistance with toilet use and hygiene. The resident was continent of bowel and bladder. The assessment indicated the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers. Review of the care plan dated 07/18/23 revealed Resident #68 was at risk for pressure injury, rash, cellulitis, and skin tears due to limited mobility. Interventions included weekly skin assessments to report irregularities, protect skin from moisture, and to elevate heels off the bed as tolerated. The care plan stated the resident was resistive to care related to failure to thrive. The care plan documented the resident refused showers. Review of the pressure ulcer risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was at moderate risk for the development of pressure ulcers. Review of the skilled charting documentation dated 07/19/23 at 1:59 A.M. revealed a left lateral wound was identified with scant drainage and granulated, healing, tissue. There was no evidence that a treatment was put in place. Review of the wound physician assessment report dated 07/20/23 revealed the resident had a left lateral foot unstageable pressure wound that measured 4.5-centimeter (cm) length by 4.5 cm width and depth unable to be determined. The wound had 50 percent (%) to 74% slough, a mass of dead tissue, and 1% to 24% eschar, dried dead tissue, with a moderate amount of drainage. A new treatment order was put in place at this time. A treatment was ordered to cleanse the wound with normal saline, apply hydrogel (promotes the removal of infected or necrotic tissue), calcium alginate (highly absorbent dressing), abdominal (ABD) pad, and wrap with Kerlix rolled gauze daily and as needed. Review of the July 2023 physician's orders revealed orders dated 07/28/23 for an ultrasound to bilateral lower extremities and change the dressing to the left lateral foot to cleanse with normal saline solution, pat dry, apply adaptic oil emulsion dressing (non-adherent dressing) cut to fit exposed bone/tendon, pack wound with Dakin's (antiseptic) saturated four by four gauze, cover with an ABD pad and secure with Kerlix rolled gauze, change twice daily and as needed. Review of the July 2023 TAR revealed the treatments to the left lateral foot were not documented as completed as ordered on 07/28/23, 07/29/23, and 07/30/23. Review of the medical record revealed ultrasound results dated 08/02/23 revealed no occlusion, and the resident received an order for an antibiotic, Doxycycline. Review of the medical record revealed an order dated 08/25/23 to send the resident to the local hospital on Monday, 08/28/23, for a MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to rule out worsening wound. On 08/28/23, the resident was diagnosed with cellulitis and osteomyelitis (infection of the bone) and was ordered to continue Doxycycline and begin Keflex (antibiotic) for 14 days. Review of the medical record revealed the resident was sent to the local hospital on [DATE] and admitted with a diagnosis of osteomyelitis. Interview on 10/04/23 at 7:00 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #272 revealed on 07/19/23 she was orientating with another nurse who identified the wound. The wound was about the size of a quarter. She could not recall if a dressing was put into place. The nurse would not allow her to document the assessment. Interview on 10/04/23 at 12:45 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #68's weekly skin assessments and showers were not completed. There was no evidence a wound treatment was administered on 07/19/23 when the wound initially identified. The DON also verified treatments to the left lateral foot were not documented as completed per physician's orders on 07/28/23, 07/29/23, and 07/30/23. Interview on 10/04/23 at 3:30 P.M. with State Tested Nursing assistant (STNA) #281 stated the resident refused showers but would wash up in his room. Resident #68 was able to wash the upper portion of his body but needed assistance with his legs and feet. STNA #281 stated he was always wearing socks and she would just wash his legs. STNA #281 stated she never took off his socks to look at his feet. STNA #281 stated when she provided a shower, she does not do a thorough skin check or check the bottom of feet. Interview on 10/04/23 at 3:57 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #215 stated the computer program does not always prompt to complete weekly skin assessments. RN #215 kept a list of residents and days they were scheduled to receive weekly skin checks to ensure they were completed. Review of the facility policy titled Pressure Ulcers and Skin Breakdown, revised April 2018, revealed the nurse shall describe and document a full assessment of a pressure sore including location, stage, length, width and dept, presence of exudate or necrotic tissue. Review of the facility policy titled Bath, Shower or Tub, revised February 2018, revealed the purposes of this procedure are to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00146836.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide adequate super...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement of Resident #10. This affected one resident (#10) of one resident reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 61. Finding include: Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, vertigo, heart failure, psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, muscle weakness, and dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 had impaired cognition, no wandering behaviors, and could wheel 150 feet in a wheelchair. The resident required supervision for activities of daily living and with movement off the unit. Review of the elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 was at a low risk for wandering. Review of Resident #10's care plan dated 02/13/23 revealed the resident was care planned for impaired thought process. Review of the nurses' progress noted dated 09/16/23 revealed at 5:30 P.M. a neighbor reported a male resident from the facility was down the street and appeared to be confused. The nurse picked up the resident and his wheelchair and returned to the facility. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #232 was notified. Interview on 09/27/23 at 10:42 A.M. with Resident #10 stated maybe he left the facility. Interview on 09/27/23 at 5:10 P.M. with ADON #232 stated she could not remember if she was notified of the elopement and would have to check her notes. The ADON stated she had epilepsy and had difficulty remembering. Interview on 09/27/23 at 5:20 P.M. with License Practical Nurse (LPN) #236 stated she received a call from a neighbor stating a resident from the facility was down the street. LPN #236 got into her car and picked up Resident #10 and brought him back to the facility. Resident #10 was assessed and had no injury. LPN #236 stated the last time she saw Resident #10 was between 4:30 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. eating dinner at the table. He was alert, orientated, and smiled at her. LPN #238 stated Resident #10 was gone less than 30 minutes. Interview on 09/27/23 at 6:05 P.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #204 worked the unit on 09/16/23, where Resident #10 resided. STNA #204 last saw Resident #10 at 5:00 P.M. eating dinner. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/27/20 at 4:13 P.M. revealed she was off for several days. ADON #232 did not inform her that Resident #10 had left the facility. Observation on 09/28/23 at 8:45 A.M. of the facility and surrounding area revealed the Resident #10 wheeled out of the parking lot turned left and was picked up about 200 feet from the entrance of the facility. Interview on 09/28/23 at 1:23 P.M. with STNA #281, stated she was assigned to Resident #10 when he went off the unit. Earlier in the day, Resident #10 asked if he could go outside because he was tired of staying in his room. STNA #281 stated it was his choice. STNA #281 last saw Resident #10 at 3:00 P.M. She was unaware Resident #10 left until she returned from her break. Interview on 10/02/23 at 1:06 P.M. with MDS Nurse #260 revealed the ADON #232 notified him to update the Resident #10's care plan for elopement. Interview with the Administrator 10/03/23 at 2:00 P.M. stated she was not informed by ADON #232 that Resident #10 left the facility and was brought back. Interview on 10/03/23 at 2:00 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #287 stated she was an agency nurse assigned to Resident #10 the day he left the unit. RN #287 was unaware Resident #10 was off the unit until he returned to the facility. RN #287 stated it was her first day at the facility she could not recall the last time she saw Resident #10. Review of daily historical temperatures on accuweather.com revealed on 09/16/23 a high temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and low temperature of 42 degrees F. Review of sunset times on timeanddate.com revealed sunset on 09/16/23 was at 6:51 P.M. Follow up interview 11:30 A.M. with the DON on 10/04/23 stated Resident #10 left the facility through the back door. The DON stated Resident #10 often spent time with his wife on the patio next to the back door. Review of the facility policy titled Wandering and Elopement, revised March 2019, revealed the facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintain the least restrictive environment for residents. The following deficiency is based on an incidental finding discovered during the course of the complaint investigation.
Aug 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to take into consideration the preferences of residents and did not ensure residents on a renal diet and carbohydrate consisten...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to take into consideration the preferences of residents and did not ensure residents on a renal diet and carbohydrate consistent diet received a diet that met their special dietary needs. The facility identified two residents (#20 and #39) on a renal diet and 17 residents (#8, #10, #11, #16, #21, #23, #25, #32, #38, #50, #51, #56, #60, #61, #62, #65, and #68) on a carbohydrate consistent diet. This had the potential to affect all 68 residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings include: Interview on 08/23/23 at 9:35 A.M. with Dietary Director #322 revealed she made the menus and there were no spreadsheets for the menus. Interview on 08/23/23 at 10:20 A.M. with Resident #36 revealed she had been asked in the past what she wanted for the meal, but currently she wasn't being asked. Interview on 08/23/23 at 10:34 A.M. with Resident #61 revealed he was a diabetic and he didn't feel the facility was following a diabetic diet, since he was getting two Danishes at a time at breakfast. Interview on 08/23/23 at 10:41 A.M. with Resident #60 revealed he was never asked what he wanted for the meal, and he got what they gave him. Interview on 08/23/23 at 10:58 A.M. with Resident #38 revealed he did not get a choice with his meals, and he either took what was served or he left it. Interview on 08/23/23 at 11:07 A.M. with Resident #12 revealed she had never been asked what she wanted for the meal, she received meals she didn't like, and she ate what she could. Interview on 08/23/23 at 11:18 A.M. with Resident #11 revealed his meal order was never taken and if he didn't like it, he didn't eat. He stated he didn't eat ham and they kept serving it to him. Observation on 08/23/23 of tray line from 12:40 P.M. to 1:27 P.M. revealed there was no spreadsheet, and the residents on a carbohydrate consistent diet received the same diet as the regular diet, which consisted of pork loin with gravy, mashed potatoes, cauliflower, and cheesecake. The residents on a renal diet received the same diet as the regular diet but received a smaller portion of gravy. Interview on 08/23/23 at 1:12 P.M. with Dietary Cook/Aide #314 revealed residents on a carbohydrate consistent diet wouldn't receive sugar. A resident on a renal diet would receive a supplement drink. Interview on 08/23/23 at 2:44 P.M. with Dietary Aide #328 and Dietary Aide/Cook #358 revealed there were no spreadsheets for the menus. The residents on a carbohydrate consistent diet were to receive the same meal as the regular diet, except they would sugar free condiments. The residents on a renal diet were to receive the same diet as the regular diet except they were to receive smaller portions of gravy and red sauce. The residents' likes and dislikes were on the tray cards in the past and had since been cleared from the dietary tray cards. Interview on 08/24/23 at 10:58 A.M. with Dietitian #386 revealed Dietary Director #322 made menus and told her she had spreadsheets for the menus, but Dietitian #386 never looked at the spreadsheets to ensure accuracy. Dietitian #386 had no answer to why she hadn't checked to ensure there were accurate spreadsheets for the menus. Dietitian #386 confirmed the spread sheets for the menu would specify what should be provided for the renal and carbohydrate consistent diet. A renal diet would not receive the same diet as a regular diet except light gravy and light red sauce, and a carbohydrate consistent diet would not receive the same diet as a regular diet, except sugar free condiments. Interview on 08/24/23 at 2:26 P.M. with Resident #62 revealed he was a diabetic and he didn't feel he was getting the correct items for being a diabetic since he was being given glazed donuts for breakfast. Review of residents' tray cards revealed fourteen residents (#3, #6, #14, #19, #21, #25, #27, #33, #36, #46, #53, #64, #65, #68) out of 68 residents who received meals from the kitchen had dislikes identified on their tray cards. Review of dietary card for Residents #61 and #62 revealed a carbohydrate consistent diet order. Review of the undated facility document Review of Consistent Carbohydrate Diet revealed the quantity of carbohydrates would be determined by the registered dietitian, and carbohydrate management was the standard method for meal planning for dietary management of diabetes. Review of the undated facility document General Renal Diet Properties revealed assessment by the registered dietitian would determine the need of restriction of foods in the diet. This deficiency was an incidental finding discovered during the course of the complaint investigation.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure competent dietary support staff to ensure residents on renal diets and carbohydrate consistent diets received meal...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure competent dietary support staff to ensure residents on renal diets and carbohydrate consistent diets received meals per the physician's orders. The facility identified two residents (#20 and #39) on a renal diet and 17 residents (#8, #10, #11, #16, #21, #23, #25, #32, #38, #50, #51, #56, #60, #61, #62, #65, and #68) on a carbohydrate consistent diet. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Interview on 08/23/23 at 9:35 A.M. with Dietary Director #322 revealed she made the menus and there were no spreadsheets for the menus. Interview on 08/23/23 at 10:34 A.M. with Resident #61 revealed he was a diabetic and he didn't feel the facility was following a diabetic diet, since he was getting two Danishes at a time at breakfast. Observation on 08/23/23 of tray line from 12:40 P.M. to 1:27 P.M. revealed there was no spreadsheets, and the residents on a carbohydrate consistent diet received the same diet as the regular diet, which consisted of pork loin with gravy, mashed potatoes, cauliflower, and cheesecake. The residents on a renal diet received the same diet as the regular diet but received a smaller portion of gravy. Interview on 08/23/23 at 1:12 P.M. with Dietary Cook/Aide #314 revealed residents on a carbohydrate consistent diet wouldn't receive sugar. A resident on a renal diet would receive a supplement drink. Interview on 08/23/23 at 2:44 P.M. with Dietary Aide #328 and Dietary Aide/Cook #358 revealed there were no spreadsheets for the menus. The residents on a carbohydrate consistent diet were to receive the same meal as the regular diet, except they would sugar free condiments. The residents on a renal diet were to receive the same diet as the regular diet except they were to receive smaller portions of gravy and red sauce. Interview on 08/24/23 at 10:58 A.M. with Dietitian #386 revealed Dietary Director #322 had made menus and told her she had spreadsheets for the menus, but Dietitian #386 never looked at the spreadsheets to ensure accuracy. Dietitian #386 had no answer to why she hadn't checked to ensure there were accurate spreadsheets for the menus. Dietitian #386 confirmed the spread sheets for the menu would specify what should be provided for the renal and carbohydrate consistent diet, and a renal diet would not receive the same diet as a regular diet except light gravy and light red sauce and a carbohydrate consistent diet would not receive the same diet as a regular diet, except sugar free condiments. Interview on 08/24/23 at 2:26 P.M. with Resident #62 revealed he was a diabetic and he didn't feel he was getting the correct items for being a diabetic since he was being given glazed donuts for breakfast. Review of dietary cards for Residents #61 and #62 revealed a carbohydrate consistent diet order. Review of the undated facility document Review of Consistent Carbohydrate Diet revealed the quantity of carbohydrates would be determined by the registered dietitian, and carbohydrate management was the standard methods for meal planning for dietary management of diabetes. Review of the undated facility document General Renal Diet Properties revealed assessment by the registered dietitian would determine the need of restriction of foods in the diet. This deficiency was an incidental finding discovered during the course of the complaint investigation.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure the facility menus were followed and were reviewed by the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure the facility menus were followed and were reviewed by the facility registered dietitian as required for nutritional adequacy. The facility identified all 68 residents' received meals from the kitchen. Findings include: Interview on 08/23/23 at 10:25 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #357 revealed menus were not being followed. Interview on 08/23/23 at 2:44 P.M. with Dietary Aide #328 and Dietary Cook/Aide #358 revealed menu items had to be frequently substituted, since menu items were not available in the facility. Review of facility menu for 08/23/23 lunch revealed roast pork, roasted potatoes, vegetable blend, and cheesecake were to be served. Review of spreadsheets for facility menus from 08/20/23 to 08/26/23 revealed there were no spreadsheets. Observation of tray line on 08/23/23 from 12:01 P.M. to 1:27 P.M. revealed residents were served pork loin, cauliflower, mashed potatoes, and cheesecake. At the time of observation, Dietary Director #322 stated since the facility did not have roasted potatoes, mashed potatoes were being substituted for the roast potatoes. Dietary Director #322 stated there were no substitution logs or spreadsheets since she did not have a chance to create them. Review of the facility menu for 08/24/23 breakfast revealed vegetable egg bake, toast, and bacon were to be served. Observation on 08/24/23 from 8:40 A.M. to 8:51 A.M. of breakfast being served in the [NAME] dining room revealed residents received fried eggs instead of the vegetable egg bake, toast, and bacon. Interview on 08/24/23 at 9:15 A.M. with Dietary Cook/Aide #358 revealed she did not have a recipe for the vegetable egg bake, so she substituted fried egg for the vegetable egg bake. Interview on 08/24/23 at 10:58 A.M. with Dietitian #386 revealed Dietary Director #322 made the menus and Dietary Director#322 told her she had spread sheets for menus. Dietitian #386 confirmed she had not checked to ensure there were spreadsheets, and if the menus were nutritionally adequate as required. Dietitian #386 stated she was never told the facility had no substitution log, and that the facility was substituting items on the menu. Review of the facility menu for 08/24/23 lunch revealed beef stroganoff, vegetable blend, dinner roll, and chocolate fluff were to be served. Observation on 08/24/23 from 12:22 P.M. to 12:39 P.M. of the lunch being served in the [NAME] dining room revealed residents received beef stroganoff, vegetable blend, a biscuit, and chocolate pudding were served. Interview on 08/24/23 at 12:40 P.M. with Dietary Cook/Aide #358 revealed biscuits were being substituted for dinner rolls since there were no dinner rolls, and chocolate pudding was being substituted for chocolate fluff since she misread the menu. This deficiency was an incidental finding discovered during the course of the complaint investigation.
Dec 2022 13 deficiencies
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 Long Term Care Ombudsman received copies of hospital tra...

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 Long Term Care Ombudsman received copies of hospital transfer notices. This affected two residents (#13 and #66) of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 06/24/22. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, stage 4 (severe), acute kidney failure with tubular necrosis, hydronephrosis with ureteral stricture, major depressive disorder, and stroke. Review of the quarterly minimal data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition and required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility, extensive assistance of staff for transfer and toilet use, and supervision with set-up help for eating. Review of the nurses note dated 09/21/22 at 7:58 P.M. revealed Resident #13's labs returned and the physician was notified of the results with critical values. Resident 13's physician gave a new order to send Resident #13 to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation and treatment. Resident #13 transferred to the ER via gurney with emergency medical services (EMS) at 4:00 P.M. Review of the nurses note dated 09/24/22 at 7:21 P.M. revealed Resident #13 was yelling out in pain and grabbing at his groin area. As needed Tylenol was given without effect. Resident #13 continued to yell and grab at his groin region. Resident #13 was asked if he wanted to go to the ER. Resident #13 nodded yes. The nurse then went to gather paperwork and upon return to Resident #13's room he was observed on the floor screaming. Vitals were obtained and an ambulance called. Family and physician notified. Review of the nurses' notes dated 10/01/22 at 10:05 A.M. revealed Resident #13 was found lying on the floor on his right side with blood coming from his forehead. EMS was called to transport resident to the hospital. Resident left for the ER with EMS. The physician, Director of Nursing (DON), and resident's son were notified of the transfer. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #66 revealed an admission date of 09/09/22 and a discharge date of 10/01/22. Diagnoses included mild cognitive impairment and hypertension. Review of the discharge no return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #66 had impaired cognition and was independent for bed mobility, required limited assistance for transfers and toilet use, and supervision for eating. Review of the nurses' notes dated 09/29/22 at 5:46 A.M. revealed Resident #66 had an emesis at approximately 1:45 A.M. Abnormal lung sounds were heard and oxygen saturation was at 91 percent. An oder was received for a chest x-ray. Overnight oxygen saturation decreased to 83 percent and oxygen was applied and a new order was obtained to send to the ER for evaluation. Report was called to the hospital. Review of the ombudsman notification revealed an email sent on 10/05/22 for September 2022 discharges and hospital transfers for Resident #13; however, the email was sent to transferdischargenotices@odh.ohio.gov from Social Services (SS) #438. Review of the email sent on 11/02/22 for the October 2022 discharges and hospital transfers revealed Resident #13 and Resident #66 hospital transfers which was sent to erobinson@dheo.org from SS #438. Interview on 12/06/22 at 11:04 A.M. with SS #438 revealed she started working at the facility in September 2022 and that the local ombudsman had contacted her requesting the discharges and hospital transfers to be sent to them. SS #438 verified she had not sent hospital transfers notices to the State Long Term Care Ombudsman.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2: Review of the medical record for Resident #63 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included end stage renal dise...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2: Review of the medical record for Resident #63 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, hypertension, anemia and hepatitis. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. He required limited assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing and toilet use and supervision and set up help to eat. Review of the physician orders for November 2022 revealed Resident #63 received dialysis Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Review of the care plan dated 09/21/22 revealed no evidence of a care plan to address Resident #63's dialysis needs. Interview with the acting Director of Nursing (ADON) on 12/06/22 at 8:17 A.M. confirmed there was no care plan for dialysis for Resident #63. Review of the facility policy titled Care planning - Interdisciplinary team dated September 2013 revealed the facility would develop a comprehensive care plan for each resident. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed for hospice and dialysis services. This affected Resident #45 who received hospice services and Resident #63 who received dialysis services. This affected one (Resident #45) of one resident reviewed for hospice and one (Resident #63) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #45 revealed an initial admission date of 08/26/22. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder, hypertension, hypothyroidism, unspecified, muscle weakness, and vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of the significant change minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition, required total dependence for one staff for bed mobility and eating, total dependence of two staff for transfers, and was receiving hospice services. Review of the nurses note dated 10/04/22 at 10:37 A.M. revealed Resident #45 had an increase in lethargy, poor appetite and decreased intake in fluids. Family was contacted to discuss recommendation of hospice services for comfort measures. The family was in agreeance and requested a meeting with hospice. Code status was discussed with family, and they wanted Resident #45 to remain a full code until meeting with hospice. The physician was notified of change in condition with order to consult hospice. Social service contacted hospice and requested information to be sent. Social service would notify family when meeting with hospice was set. Review of the December 2022 physician's orders revealed an order dated 10/06/22 to admit Resident #45 to hospice with diagnoses of vascular dementia with prognosis of six months or less if disease ran normal progression. Review of Resident #45's nurses note dated 10/07/22 at 2:30 P.M. revealed hospice nurse was in to visit. Recommendations given to the nurse and physician was notified. Interview on 12/05/22 at 2:42 P.M. with Regional Nurse #462 verified there was no care plan for Resident #45 in regard to hospice service prior to 12/05/22. Regional Nurse #462 created the hospice care plan for Resident #45 today. Review of the care plan created on 12/05/22 revealed Resident #45 had a terminal prognosis/less than six months to live related to vascular dementia. Review of the facility policy titled, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, revised September 2013 revealed a comprehensive care plan for each resident would be developed within seven days of completion of the resident assessment (MDS).
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, interview and review of manufacturer instructions the facility failed to ensure Resident #32 was prompted or assisted to rinse mouth with water and expectorate to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, interview and review of manufacturer instructions the facility failed to ensure Resident #32 was prompted or assisted to rinse mouth with water and expectorate to help reduce the risk of orophayrngeal yeast infection after administration of inhaled medication. This affected one (Resident #32) of five residents observed during medication administration. The census was 65. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 08/25/20. Diagnoses included bipolar disorder, vascular dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and malignant neoplasm of unspecified part of bronchus or lung. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/07/22, Resident #32 had intact cognition and required supervision for locomotion. Review of Resident #32's physician order dated 07/16/22 revealed an order to use a Breo Ellipta inhaler daily for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Observation on 12/04/22 at 9:13 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) #461 administering Breo Ellipta inhaler to Resident #32. Resident #32 took one dose from the inhaler and handed it back to RN #461. RN #461 did not encourage or prompt Resident #32 to rinse mouth after inhalation of the medication. Interview immediately after the observation with RN #32 revealed Resident #32 usually did not rinse her mouth out after inhalation of the medication so RN #32 stopped asking or prompting her to do so. RN #32 confirmed residents were to rinse mouth after taking dose. Review of manufacturer instructions for Breo Ellipta indicated after inhalation, rinse mouth with water and expectorate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed in a timely manner. ...

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 oxygen tubing was changed in a timely manner. This affected one resident (#52) of one resident reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 10/29/22. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, heart failure, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma. Review of the admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition, required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility and toilet use, total dependence of two staff for transfers, and supervision with set-up help for eating, and used oxygen. Review of Resident #52's December 2022 physician orders revealed orders to change oxygen tubing every week on Sunday on 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift dated 10/30/22. Observation on 12/04/22 at 12:00 P.M. revealed Resident #52 in bed receiving oxygen via a facemask. Observation of the oxygen tubing revealed it was dated 11/14/22. Interview at this time with Resident #52 revealed he could not recall when the oxygen tubing was last changed. Observation on 12/04/22 at approximately 12:05 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #463 verified Resident #52's oxygen tubing was dated 11/14/22. Interview at this time with RN #463 revealed the resident's oxygen tubing should be changed weekly on Sunday evenings and dated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 pre and post dialysis assessments were completed for one res...

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 pre and post dialysis assessments were completed for one resident (Resident #63). This affected one of one resident (Resident #63) reviewed for dialysis and one of eight resident reviewed for assessments. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #63 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, hypertension, anemia and hepatitis. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #63 had intact cognition, required limited assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing and toilet use and supervision and set up help to eat. Review of the physician orders for November 2022 revealed Resident #63 received dialysis Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Review of the dialysis communication forms from 09/16/22 through 12/05/22 revealed no pre dialysis assessment was completed on 10/28/22, 11/09/22, 11/11/22, 11/14/22, 11/18/22, 11/25/22, 11/30/22 and 12/02/22 and no post dialysis assessment was completed on 10/17/22, 10/19/22, 10/21/22, 10/24/22, 10/26/22, 10/28/22, 10/31/22, 11/02/22, 11/11/22, 11/21/22, 11/23/22, 11/25/22 and 11/28/22. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/06/22 at 8:17 A.M. confirmed dialysis assessments were not completed before and after each dialysis treatment. Review of the contract between the facility and the dialysis center revealed the facility would complete assessments relevant to the resident's care, prior to and after dialysis. Review of the facility policy titled Hemodialysis Access Care dated September 2010 revealed the nurse would document observations pre and post dialysis.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the attending physician documented the rational when pharmac...

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 attending physician documented the rational when pharmacy recommendations were not accepted and no medication changes were made. This affected two out of seven residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #5 and Resident #8). The facility census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 05/13/22. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, hypothyroidism, anxiety and diabetes. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. Review of Resident #5's physician's orders for December 2022 revealed an order for Ondanestron (Zofran) 4 milligrams (mg), a medication used to prevent nausea, to be given every eight hours as needed, and an order for Miralax 17 grams (gm), a medication to provide relief from constipation, was ordered every 24 hours as needed. Both orders had a start date on 05/13/22. Review of pharmacist recommendations to the physician dated 10/14/22 and 11/11/22 revealed a recommendation to consider discontinuing as needed medications. The response to the recommendation revealed a verbal order by the physician to continue current orders. The verbal order was not signed and provided no rationale. Interview on 12/05/22 at 2:12 P.M. with the Director of Nursing confirmed the pharmacist recommendations were not appropriately addressed by the physician. Review of the policy for Medication Regimen Review dated 11/01/21 revealed pharmacy recommendations would be reviewed within 30 days. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #8 revealed an admission date of 09/06/22. Diagnoses included adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and dementia with other behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, limited assistance of one staff for eating, and no behaviors in the seven day look back period. Review of Resident #8's December 2022 physician orders revealed orders for divalproex capsule 125 milligrams (mg), give 125 mg orally two times a day related to adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood dated 05/11/22. An order for Aripiprazole tablet 2 mg, give one tablet by mouth two times a day related to adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood dated 05/24/22. Review of the pharmacy recommendation to physician dated 09/18/22 revealed Resident #8 had been taking divalproex 125 mg twice daily since 05/11/22 without a gradual dose reduction (GDR). The pharmacist asked if a dose reduction could be attempted at this time to verify the resident was on the lowest possible dose. The recommendation indicated, if not, please indicate response below. Below under physician/prescriber response was a handwritten note, No change per VA MH, and verbal was handwritten on the signature line. Under that was the Director of Nursing's signature which was dated 10/01/22. Review of the pharmacy recommendation to physician dated 10/14/22 revealed Resident #8 had been taking divalproex 125 mg twice daily since 05/11/22 without a GDR. The pharmacist asked if a dose reduction could be attempted at this time to verify the resident was on the lowest possible dose. The recommendation indicated, if not, please indicate response below. Below under physician/prescriber response, there was a check in the box next to other, please see doctor's orders/progress notes and written in the lines below was per the physician continue current dose. The signature line was blank but under it, verbal order obtained was handwritten and the date 10/24/22. Review of the pharmacy recommendation to physician/prescriber dated 11/11/22 revealed Resident #8 had been taking divalproex 125 mg twice daily since 05/11/22 without a GDR. The pharmacist asked if a dose reduction could be attempted at this time to verify the resident was on the lowest possible dose. The recommendation indicated, if not, please indicate response below. Below under physician/prescriber response, nothing was checked but there was a handwritten note Has VA mental health apt. 12/22/22. The form had no signature or date. Review of the pharmacy recommendation to physician/prescriber dated 11/11/22 revealed Resident #8 had been taking aripiorazole 2 mg twice daily since 05/24/22 without a GDR. The pharmacist asked if a dose reduction could be attempted at this time to verify the resident was on the lowest possible dose. The recommendation indicated, if not, please indicate response below. Below under physician/prescriber response, nothing was checked but there was a handwritten note Has VA mental health apt. 12/22/22. The form had no signature or date. Further review of Resident #8's medical record revealed no written orders, nurses' notes, or physician notes addressing the pharmacy recommendations to physician/prescriber dated 09/18/22, 10/14/22, and 11/11/22. Review of the psychiatry psychotherapy notes from Veterans Administration (VA) mental health for Resident #8 dated 10/14/22 and 11/21/22 revealed no documentation addressing the pharmacy recommendation to physician/prescriber dated 09/18/22, 10/14/22, and 11/11/22. Interviews on 12/05/22 at 1:58 P.M. and 2:13 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified the findings above. The DON stated she called the VA mental health on 10/01/22 for the pharmacy recommendation dated 09/18/22 and received verbal information of no changes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled with name of medication, expiration da...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled with name of medication, expiration date, and cautionary instructions as applicable. This had the potential to affect 34 (Resident #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #10, #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #22, #25, #26, #27, #29, #30, #34, #35, #37, #41, #45, #46, #49, #51, #54, #55, #57, #58, #61, #63, and Resident #219) of 34 residents residing on the [NAME] unit. The census was 65. Findings include: Observations of medication administration on 11/04/22 at 8:59 A.M. revealed a medication cup filled with 12 medications inside the medication cart for the [NAME] unit. Interview at time of observation with Registered Nurse (RN) #458 revealed she could not identify the medications in the cup or who the medications were for. RN #458 stated the cup was in the top drawer from the night before. Interview on 12/05/22 at 3:22 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she looked up the medication based on the numbers printed on the medications and identified the medications as over the counter. The DON stated the medications were not stored correctly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based observation and interview the facility failed to maintain comfortable temperature levels. This affected five (Residents #13, #17, #28, #31 and #44) of 15 residents whose rooms were observed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based observation and interview the facility failed to maintain comfortable temperature levels. This affected five (Residents #13, #17, #28, #31 and #44) of 15 residents whose rooms were observed for comfortable temperatures. Findings include: Interviews and observations on 12/04/22 from 10:49 A.M. to 11:25 A.M. with Residents #13, #17, #28, #31 and #44 revealed their rooms were cold. Resident #13 was observed lying in bed under the blankets wearing a hoodie and long sleeve shirt. Resident #17 was observed wearing a winter hat, coat and gloves seated in a wheelchair. Resident #28 was observed sitting in wheelchair wearing a long sleeve shirt. Resident #31 was observed lying in bed under the blankets wearing gloves and a winter hat. Resident #44 was observed lying in bed with two blankets covered from his face to toes. All residents stated the rooms were always cold, that staff knew about it but did not do anything about it. Observations and temperature checks on 12/04/22 from 11:28 A.M. to 11:50 A.M. with the Maintenance Director revealed temperatures measured 68 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the residents' rooms. Interview on 12/04/22 at 11:50 A.M. with the Maintenance Director revealed facility temperatures should be between 71 and 81 degrees F. The Maintenance Director stated the thermostats were set at 65 degrees F.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the pureed sloppy joe was properly prepared an...

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 the pureed sloppy joe was properly prepared and of the correct consistency. This had the potential to affect 13 residents (#4, #6, #10, #20, #22, #26, #29, #39, #41, #46, #52, #74, and #119) of 13 residents who received a pureed diet. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Observation on 12/06/22 at 11:31 A.M. revealed Dietary Staff (DS) #410 wash her hands and obtain the temperature of the cooked, Sloppy [NAME]. Observation of the robot coupe (food processor) revealed it was clean and dry. DS #410 poured the Sloppy [NAME] into the robot coupe, added hot water and six slices of bread then blended the mixture. At 11:35 A.M., DS #410 stopped the robot coupe and stated the it was done. DS #410 poured the finished Sloppy [NAME] into a small steam table pan. The Sloppy [NAME] appeared chunky, and a taste test revealed the Sloppy [NAME] was chunky with bites of meat. At this time Dietary Manager (DM) #451 tasted the sloppy joe and informed DS #410 to put it back in the robot coupe and blend it longer. DS #410 poured the Sloppy [NAME] back into the robot coupe, added hot water, and blended it again. DS #410 stopped to check the Sloppy [NAME] consistency and asked if it was done. DM #451 looked at it and stated to add thickener. DM #451 added thickener to the Sloppy [NAME] mixture and blended it further. DS #410 stopped the robot coupe and at this time the Sloppy [NAME] pureed mixture appeared smoother and a taste test revealed very minimal grit. DS #410 poured the mixture back into the same small steam table pan. Observation along the inside of the small steam table pan revealed some of the chunky Sloppy [NAME]. Interview at this time with DS #410 verified the observation and stated she was going to switch out the pans. Review of the recipe for pureed Sloppy [NAME] on bun revealed: 1. Refer to regular recipe instructions; 2. measure desired number of servings of sandwich filling into food processor. Blend until smooth. Add broth or gravy if product needs thinning. Add commercial thickener if product needs thickening; 3. Measure desired numbers of servings of bread/bun into food processor. Blend until smooth. Add milk if product needs thinning. Add commercial thickener if product needs thickening; 4. Portion a #8 scoop of sandwich filling and two #20 scoops of bread. Note: Liquid measure is approximate and slightly more or less may be required to achieve desired pureed consistency. Interview on 12/06/22 at 12:27 P.M. with DM #451 verified that DS #410 did not follow the recipe for the pureed Sloppy [NAME].
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 08/02/10. Diagnoses included Multiple sclerosis, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 08/02/10. Diagnoses included Multiple sclerosis, anxiety, arthritis and gout. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact, was independent requiring only set up help to eat. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 11/04/18. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, depression and hypertension. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition and required supervision and set up help to eat. Review of the medical record for Resident #58 revealed an admission date of 04/26/22. Diagnoses included diabetes, anemia, fibromyalgia and constipation. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact and was independent in eating. Review of the medical record for Resident #61 revealed an admission date of 06/07/22. Diagnoses included dementia, depression, insomnia and dry skin. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition and was independent in eating. Review of the medical record for Resident #63 revealed an admission date of 09/14/22. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease, hypertension and hepatitis. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required supervision and set up help to eat. Interview on 12/04/22 at 10:43 A.M. with Resident #58 revealed she never had a choice of what she wanted to eat, she ate whatever was given to her. Observation of lunch on 12/05/22 at 12:12 P.M. revealed all residents in the [NAME] dining room were served a turkey sandwich, a bag of potato chips or cheese curls, peaches, sliced tomatoes and coleslaw. Interview with Residents #11, #18 and #61, at the time of the observation, revealed they were not given a choice of what they wanted for lunch. Interview on 12/05/22 at 12:45 P.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #404 revealed residents were seldom given a choice of what they would like to eat, they ate whatever was served. Interview on 12/06/22 at 9:54 A.M. with Resident #63 revealed he was given a choice of what he would like to eat an average of once per week. Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident meal choices were obtained consistently. This affected 13 residents (#11, #14, #17, #18, #23, #32, #36, #42, #58, #59, #61, #63, and #76) and had the potential to affect all residents except Resident #35 who received nothing by mouth. Findings include: Observation of the lunch meal on 12/04/22 between 12:35 P.M. and 12:38 P.M. revealed Residents #14, #17, #23, #32, #36, #42, #59, and #76 were served chips, deli sandwich, and fruit cup. Interviews during this time with the residents revealed sometimes they received a menu and could choose between the main meal and an alternate. All stated they did not get that option on this date. They also complained there was a lack of food variety. Resident #17 stated he was not happy with what he received to eat for lunch. Interview on 12/04/22 at 3:32 P.M. with Dietary Staff (DS) #450 revealed residents usually received a menu for lunch and dinner with their breakfast trays so they could choose between the main meal or the alternate. DS #450 stated the residents did not receive the menus today and to follow-up with Dietary Manager (DM) #451. Interview on 12/04/22 at 3:36 P.M. with DM #451 revealed she created and sent out menus for residents to choose between the main meal and the alternate. DM #451 stated she did not create or send out menus for the weekends and on days they had sandwiches as the main entree. DM #451 stated she had heard complaints from the residents regarding the menus with one of the complaints being repetitive menu choices.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served in a sanitary manner. This had the potential...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents except Residents #4, #6, #10, #20, #22, #26, #29, #39, #41, #46, #52, #74, and #119 who received a pureed diet and Resident #35 who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Observation of tray line on 12/06/22 at 12:12 P.M. revealed Dietary Staff (DS) #410 with gloved hands use a red and black plunger to pick up a metal hot pellet, place the pellet on an insulated bottom, then place a plate on top. DS #410 then opened the steamer with the same gloved hands, picked up a scoop to scoop a serving of pureed carrots that was in the steamer, and then finished making the pureed plate. Continued observation revealed DS #410 with the same gloved hands take a bun from a bag of buns and make a Sloppy [NAME] sandwich for a regular diet plate. DS #410 continued to prepare plates in the same manner without changing gloves or washing hands. Interview at 12:23 P.M. with DS #410 verified the observation and stated she had no other way to prepare the plates.
CONCERN (F)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure menus included a variety of food and failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure menus included a variety of food and failed to ensure menus and recipes were followed. This affected all residents except Resident #35 who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 65. Finding include: 1. Review of the menu for week two revealed chicken for dinner on Sunday and Monday and for lunch on Tuesday. Review of the renal menu for week two revealed turkey sandwiches for lunch on Sunday and Thursday and for dinner on Tuesday and Wednesday. Interview on 12/06/22 at 12:00 P.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #451 verified the main menu had chicken for three consecutive days. DM #451 stated that was why she switched today's lunch to Sloppy joes. DM #451 verified the renal menu had turkey sandwiches repeatedly on the menu. DM #451 stated she had heard residents complain of the lack of variety on the menu. 2. Observation of tray line on 12/06/22 at 12:08 P.M. revealed the regular Sloppy [NAME] was served using a green handled scoop; the pureed Sloppy [NAME] was served using a blue handled scoop; the mashed potatoes using a green handled scoop; and the pureed using a green handled scoop. Interview on 12/06/22 at 12:27 P.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #451 revealed she did not provide Dietary Staff (DS) #410 with a menu with the serving sizes for each meal item but told DS #410 what the serving sizes were. DM #451 stated she did not have a menu for today's meal, but the recipe indicated what the serving sizes were. Review of the recipe revealed for the pureed Sloppy [NAME] on bun a #8 scoop portioned onto two #20 scoops of pureed bun. DM #451 indicated the bread was pureed with the Sloppy [NAME]. Review of the recipe for the regular Sloppy job revealed a #8 scoop portioned onto the hamburger bun. DM #451 stated the vegetables and mashed potatoes were generally four ounce servings. Review of the disher capacity sheet revealed the serving sizes and color of the disher which indicated the #8 scoop was grey handled and provided 3.64 ounces; the #12 scoop was green handled and provided 3.19 ounces. DM #451 verified DS #410 used the incorrect serving utensils which provided less then what the recipes indicated.
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, interview, policy and procedure review, and review of the Centers for Disease Control guidelines, the facility failed to ensure all employees were administered a baseline Tuber...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview, policy and procedure review, and review of the Centers for Disease Control guidelines, the facility failed to ensure all employees were administered a baseline Tuberculosis (TB) test on hire. This had the potential to affect all 65 residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's TB risk assessment revealed the facility was a low risk classification. Review of the personnel file for the Administrator revealed a hire date of 08/10/22. There was no evidence a tuberculosis test was administered prior to starting work. Review of the personnel file for Dietary Manager #451 revealed a hire date of 06/21/22. There was no evidence a tuberculosis test was administered prior to starting work. Review of the personnel file for Admissions Director #445 revealed a hire date of 04/25/22. There was no evidence a tuberculosis test was administered prior to starting work. Review of the personnel file for Social Service Designee #438 revealed a hire date of 09/23/22. There was no evidence a tuberculosis test was administered prior to starting work. Review of the personnel file for speech and language therapist #430 revealed a hire date of 05/04/22. There was no evidence a tuberculosis test was administered prior to starting work. Review of the personnel file for Dietary aide #415 revealed a hire date of 08/22/22. There was no evidence a tuberculosis test was administered prior to starting work. Review of the personnel file for State Tested Nurses Aide (STNA) #407 revealed a hire date of 01/20/22. There was no evidence a tuberculosis test was administered prior to starting work. Interview with the Administrator on 12/07/22 at 1:28 P.M. confirmed TB tests were not administered on hire. Review of the facility policy titled Tuberculosis Infection Control Program dated August 2019, revealed screening of employees for TB infection would occur. Review of the Centers for Disease Control TB guidelines revealed the following. TB Screening Procedures for Settings (or HCWs) Classified as Low Risk o All HCWs should receive baseline TB screening upon hire, using two-step TST or a single BAMT to test for infection with M. tuberculosis. o After baseline testing for infection with M. tuberculosis, additional TB screening is not necessary unless an exposure to M. tuberculosis occurs. o HCWs with a baseline positive or newly positive test result for M. tuberculosis infection (i.e., TST or BAMT) or documentation of treatment for LTBI or TB disease should receive one chest radiograph result to exclude TB disease (or an interpretable copy within a reasonable time frame, such as 6 months). Repeat radiographs are not needed unless symptoms or signs of TB disease develop or unless recommended by a clinician (39,116). TB Screening Procedures for Settings (or HCWs) Classified as Medium Risk o All HCWs should receive baseline TB screening upon hire, using two-step TST or a single BAMT to test for infection with M. tuberculosis. o After baseline testing for infection with M. tuberculosis, HCWs should receive TB screening annually (i.e., symptom screen for all HCWs and testing for infection with M. tuberculosis for HCWs with baseline negative test results). o HCWs with a baseline positive or newly positive test result for M. tuberculosis infection or documentation of previous treatment for LTBI or TB disease should receive one chest radiograph result to exclude TB disease. Instead of participating in serial testing, HCWs should receive a symptom screen annually. This screen should be accomplished by educating the HCW about symptoms of TB disease and instructing the HCW to report any such Vol. 54 / RR-17 Recommendations and Reports 11 symptoms immediately to the occupational health unit. Treatment for LTBI should be considered in accordance with CDC guidelines (39). TB Screening Procedures for Settings (or HCWs) Classified as Potential Ongoing Transmission o Testing for infection with M. tuberculosis might need to be performed every 8-10 weeks until lapses in infection control have been corrected, and no additional evidence of ongoing transmission is apparent. o The classification of potential ongoing transmission should be used as a temporary classification only. It warrants immediate investigation and corrective steps. After a determination that ongoing transmission has ceased, the setting should be reclassified as medium risk. Maintaining the classification of medium risk for at least 1 year is recommended.
Nov 2019 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #39 and #48's comprehensive assessments were accur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #39 and #48's comprehensive assessments were accurate. This finding affected two (Residents #39 and #48) of twenty-one resident records reviewed. The facility census was 54. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including supranuclear palsy, Parkinson's disease and chronic low back pain. Review of Resident #39's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited moderate cognitive impairment was on hospice services and was not coded for a life expectancy of less than six months. Review of Resident #39's physician order dated 10/15/19 indicated to admit the resident to hospice services with a diagnosis of supranuclear palsy, and the resident's prognosis was six months or less provided the disease followed its expected progression. Interview on 11/13/19 at 8:22 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #801 confirmed Resident #39's comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] did not accurately reflect the resident's hospice diagnosis with a life expectancy of six months or less. 2 Review of Resident #48's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and schizophrenia. Review of Resident #48's MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited intact cognition, received seven doses of an antipsychotic, seven doses of an anticoagulant and seven doses of a diuretic during the seven-day assessment reference period. Review of Resident #48's physician orders revealed an order dated 10/17/19 for Risperdal (antipsychotic) 0.5 mg (milligrams) at bedtime, an order dated 10/17/19 for xarelto (anticoagulant) 20 mg daily with breakfast and an order dated 10/18/19 for Lasix (diuretic) 40 mg daily. Review of Resident #48's medication administration records from 10/18/19 to 10/24/19 revealed the resident received six days of the antipsychotic, six days of the anticoagulant and six days of the diuretic. Interview on 11/13/19 at 10:21 A.M. with RN #801 confirmed Resident #48's comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] did not accurately reflect the resident's medication administration for the resident's use of an anticoagulant, antipsychotic or diuretic.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor Resident #30's bowel movements and follow the facility bowe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor Resident #30's bowel movements and follow the facility bowel protocol ordered per her physician. This affected one resident (Resident #30) of one resident reviewed for constipation. The facility census was 54. Findings include: Review of medical record revealed Resident #30 had an admission date 08/18/16 with diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, constipation, quadriplegia, adult failure to thrive, reduced mobility, and supraventricular tachycardia. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #30 revealed she had impaired cognition and was totally dependent of two people with bed mobility and toileting. Transfers and locomotion did not occur. Review of care plan dated 08/18/16 for Resident #30 revealed she was at risk for impaired bowel elimination related to history of constipation. Interventions included; monitor bowel movements daily, monitor for bloating, lower abdominal pain, fecal impaction and report signs and symptoms of fecal impaction, and give medications as ordered to enhance bowel elimination. Review of form labeled, Bowel Protocol dated 01/08/14 per Medical Director/ Primary Care Physician #806 revealed if a resident had no bowel movement in three days per the bowel monitoring records, the following standing orders were to be followed by the nurse: • Step 1- give prune juice, if no results in 24 hours; • Step 2- give 30 milliliters of milk of magnesia (laxative) by mouth, if no results in 24 hours; • Step 3- give Dulcolax suppository (laxative), if no results in 24 hours; • Step 4- give fleets enema, obtain order from physician, if no results then notify the physician again. The nurse was to chart the interventions and monitor results. The orders may change pending on the physician. The Medical Director/ Primary Care Physician #806 signed the standing orders for Resident #30 on 01/08/14, and this form was in Resident #30's medical chart. Review of form labeled, Monthly Bowel Movement Record for August 2019 revealed Resident #30 did not have a bowel movement on 08/01/19, 08/02/19, 08/03/19, 08/04/19 and 08/05/19. She did not have a bowel movement on 08/14/19, 08/15/19, 08/16/19 and 08/17/19. She did not have a bowel movement on 08/30/19 and 08/31/19. Review of August 2019 and September 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #30 revealed she did not receive any standing orders per the bowel protocol. Review of nursing notes for August 2019 and September 2019 revealed no documentation regarding Resident #30 not having bowel movements, did not have bowel assessments completed by the nurse checking for constipation and no documentation of interventions that were initiated because of no bowel movements. Review of form labeled, Monthly Bowel Movement Record for September 2019 revealed Resident #30 did not have a bowel movement on 09/01/19, 09/02/19, 09/03/19, 09/04/19, 09/05/19 and 09/06/19. She did not have a bowel movement on 09/24/19, 09/25/19, 09/26/19 and 09/27/19. Review of current physician orders for November 2019 revealed Resident #30 was to have nothing by mouth and received her medications per her peg tube. Interview on 11/13/19 at 2:29 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor #807 revealed the night shift nurse was to check the bowel movement record every night and initiate the bowel protocol per the facility standing orders. She revealed the Medical Director/ Primary Care Physician (PCP) #807 had ordered Resident #30 to follow the bowel protocol in her chart. Interview on 11/13/19 at 2:49 P.M. with the Director of Nursing verified Resident #30 did not have a bowel movement from 08/01/19 through 08/05/19 (five days), from 08/14/19 through 08/17/19 (four days), from 08/30/19 through 09/06/19 (eight days), and from 09/24/19 through 09/27/19 (four days). She verified the nurse did not initiate the bowel protocol as ordered per her Medical Director/ PCP #807. She verified the nurses did not document Resident #30's lack of bowel movement, abdominal assessments, and interventions they had implemented because of no bowel movement. She verified the bowel protocol was ordered for all the residents at the facility and was not individualized for Resident #30 as she was not to have nothing by mouth and her medications were to be administered per her peg tube.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #21's oxygen was administered per the physician orders. This affected one (Resident #21) of four residents rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #21's oxygen was administered per the physician orders. This affected one (Resident #21) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care and had the potential to affect four additional residents (Residents #16, #37, #45, and #50) who required oxygen therapy. The facility census is 54. Findings include: Review of Resident #21's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/16/19 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute cholecystitis, protein calorie malnutrition, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and a pacemaker. Review of Resident #21's physician orders revealed an order dated 07/17/19 for oxygen to be administered at four liters per minute via nasal cannula. Review of Resident #21's respiratory care plan revealed an intervention dated 07/29/19 for staff to administer oxygen as ordered by the physician. Observation on 11/12/19 at 10:04 A.M. revealed Resident #21 sitting in a recliner in his room wearing a nasal cannula, and the dial on the oxygen concentrator was infusing at 2.5 liters per minute. Interview on 11/12/19 at 10:08 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #802 confirmed Resident #21's oxygen was not infusing as indicated in the physician orders, and the nurse corrected the rate flow to four liters as ordered. Observation on 11/13/19 at 2:14 P.M. revealed Resident #21 was sitting in a specialized chair in his room wearing an oxygen nasal cannula with a liquid oxygen tank secured to the back of the specialized chair infusing at three liters per minute. Interview on 11/13/19 at 2:15 P.M. with LPN #803 confirmed the physician order was to administer oxygen at four liters per minute via nasal cannula for Resident #21, and the oxygen was infusing at three liters per minute per nasal cannula. LPN #803 confirmed the State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) filled up the liquid oxygen tank at 12:00 P.M. and put Resident #21 in the specialized chair, placed the nasal cannula on the resident, placed the liquid oxygen tank on the back of the specialized chair, dialed up the rate flow of three liters, disconnected the oxygen tubing from the room oxygen concentrator and connected the tubing to the resident prior to taking the resident to the dining room. LPN #803 also confirmed the resident's rate flow rate which was placed on the resident by the STNA was inaccurate. Interview on 11/14/19 at 12:30 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #801 confirmed the facility had four additional residents (Residents #16, #37, #45, and #50) who required oxygen therapy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0839 (Tag F0839)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) provided care within their scope of practice. This finding affected one (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) provided care within their scope of practice. This finding affected one (Resident #21) of four residents reviewed for oxygen therapy and had the potential to affect four additional residents (Residents #16, #37, #45, and #50) who required oxygen therapy. The facility census was 54. Findings include: Review of Resident #21's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/16/19 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute cholecystitis, protein calorie malnutrition, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and a pacemaker. Review of Resident #21's physician orders revealed an order dated 07/17/19 for oxygen to be administered at four liters via minute by nasal cannula. Review of Resident #21's respiratory care plan revealed an intervention dated 07/29/19 for staff to administer oxygen as ordered by the physician. Observation on 11/13/19 at 2:14 P.M. revealed Resident #21 was sitting in a specialized chair in his room wearing an oxygen nasal cannula with a liquid oxygen tank secured to the back of the specialized chair infusing at three liters per minute. Interview on 11/13/19 at 2:15 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #803 confirmed the physician order was to administer oxygen at four liters per minute via nasal cannula for Resident #21, and the oxygen was infusing at three liters per minute per nasal cannula. LPN #803 confirmed the STNA filled up the liquid oxygen tank at 12:00 P.M. and put Resident #21 in a specialized chair, placed the nasal cannula on the resident, placed the liquid oxygen tank on the back of the specialized chair, dialed up the rate flow of three liters, disconnected the oxygen tubing from the room oxygen concentrator and connected the tubing to the resident prior to taking the resident to the dining room. LPN #803 also confirmed the resident's oxygen rate flow rate which was placed on the resident by the STNA was inaccurate. Interview on 11/14/19 at 10:37 A.M. with Ohio Nurse Aide Training Program Coordinator (ONATPC) #804 revealed STNAs were taught oxygen was considered a medication, and they were not to regulate flow rates for the residents. Regulation of oxygen therapy was not within the STNA's scope of practice. Interview on 11/14/19 at 10:45 A.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that STNAs were allowed to regulate oxygen for the residents, and she was unaware the STNAs were not allowed to regulate or adjust the flow rate for residents including Resident #21's oxygen administration. Interview on 11/14/19 at 11:45 A.M. with STNA #805 verified that she was allowed to regulate the oxygen flow rate for residents in the facility, and she regulated the oxygen flow rate for Resident #21. STNA #805 indicated the procedure she followed was to take the oxygen tubing off the concentrator in the room and to re-attach the tubing to the temporary tank that was used to transport the resident. STNA #805 would adjust the flow rate according to the rate the nurse informed the STNA that it should be. Interview on 11/14/19 at 12:30 P.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #801 confirmed the facility had four additional residents (Residents #16, #37, #45, and #50) who required oxygen therapy.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, morbid obesity and heart failure. Resident #51 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and expired while out of the facility. The face sheet listed her son as the responsible party. There was no evidence in the chart that the responsible party was notified in writing of the reason for transfer to the hospital. Interview was conducted on [DATE] at 8:26 A.M. with the Administrator who verified the facility had not been notifying responsible parties in writing of resident transfers to the hospital but did implement the written notification system on [DATE] after reviewing it with a surveyor. The Administrator said they will notify the responsible party using certified mail to keep a record of it on each resident. 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, dysphagia and asthma. Resident #45 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] due to shortness of breath and returned to the facility on [DATE] with additional diagnoses of congestive heart failure with pleural effusions, oropharyngeal dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia. The face sheet listed his daughter as the responsible party. There was no evidence in the chart that the responsible party was notified in writing of the reason for transfer to the hospital. Interview was conducted on [DATE] at 8:26 A.M. with the Administrator who verified the facility had not been notifying responsible parties in writing of resident transfers to the hospital but did implement the written notification system on [DATE] after reviewing it with a surveyor. The Administrator said they will notify the responsible party using certified mail to keep a record of it on each resident. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #39, #45 and #51 and/or the resident's representative were notified in writing the reason for the discharge to the hospital in an easily understood language. This finding affected three (Residents #39, #45 and #51) of three resident records reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 54. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, hypertension and low back pain. Review of Resident #39's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] confirmed the resident exhibited moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #39's progress notes from [DATE] to [DATE] revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital and admitted on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of urinary tract infection. The resident was transferred to the hospital and admitted on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Interview on [DATE] at 9:46 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the social worker was out on leave, and Resident #39 and/or the resident's representative did not receive notification in writing the reason for the discharge to the hospital in an easily understood language on both [DATE] and [DATE] as required.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, morbid obesity and heart failure. Resident #51 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and expired while out of the facility. The face sheet listed her son as the responsible party. There was no evidence in the chart that the responsible party was notified in writing of the bed-hold policy upon transfer to the hospital. Interview was conducted on [DATE] at 8:26 A.M. with the Administrator who verified the facility had not been notifying responsible parties in writing of bed-hold information until [DATE] after reviewing it with a surveyor. The Administrator said they will notify the responsible party using certified mail to keep a record of it on each resident. 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, dysphagia and asthma. Resident #45 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] due to shortness of breath and returned to the facility on [DATE] with additional diagnoses of congestive heart failure with pleural effusions, oropharyngeal dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia. The face sheet listed his daughter as the responsible party. There was no evidence in the chart that the responsible party was notified in writing of the bed-hold policy. Interview was conducted on [DATE] at 8:26 A.M. with the Administrator who verified the facility had not been providing written bed-hold notice to the resident or responsible party upon discharge to the hospital. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Residents #39, #45 and #51 and/or the resident's representative were provided written notice of the bed-hold policy and reserve bed payment at the time of transfer or within twenty-four hours of transfer to the hospital. This finding affected three (Residents #39, #45 and #51) of three resident records reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 54. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #39's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, hypertension and low back pain. Review of Resident #39's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] confirmed the resident exhibited moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #39's progress notes from [DATE] to [DATE] revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital and admitted on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of urinary tract infection. The resident was transferred to the hospital and admitted on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Interview on [DATE] at 9:46 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the social worker was out on leave, and Resident #39 and/or the resident's representative did not receive notification of the bed-hold policy and reserve bed payment at the time of transfer to the hospital on both [DATE] and [DATE] or within twenty-four hours of transfer to the hospital as required.
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 37 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (19/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 19/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Washington Square Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Washington Square Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 70%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Washington Square Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 37 deficiencies at WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 32 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 Washington Square Healthcare Center?

WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by AOM HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 83 certified beds and approximately 62 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WARREN, Ohio.

How Does Washington Square Healthcare Center Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (55%) 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 Washington Square Healthcare Center?

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?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Washington Square Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Washington Square Healthcare Center Stick Around?

WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Washington Square Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

WASHINGTON SQUARE HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $6,500 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Ohio average of $33,144. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Washington Square Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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