ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE

555 ANTHONY WAYNE TRAIL, WATERVILLE, OH 43566 (419) 878-3901
For profit - Corporation 90 Beds CERTUS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#603 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: December 2023

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

Overview

Astoria Place of Waterville has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about resident safety and care. Ranked #603 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, they are in the bottom half, and #19 out of 33 in Lucas County, meaning there are better options nearby. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 41% turnover rate, which is below the state average, but the overall staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars. However, the facility has $26,685 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance issues. There have been serious incidents reported, including a resident choking on incorrectly served food, which led to a life-threatening situation and death. Another alarming case involved a resident being strangled by another resident, categorized as a homicide. Additionally, staff failed to assist a resident safely, resulting in a fall that went unreported and caused further injury. Overall, while there are some positive aspects in staffing, the significant safety concerns may make this facility a risky choice for families seeking care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In Ohio
#603/913
Bottom 34%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near Ohio's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$26,685 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
41 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Ohio average of 48%

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: 41%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $26,685

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: CERTUS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 41 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Sept 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility investigation, review of emergency medical service (EMS)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the facility investigation, review of emergency medical service (EMS) and police reports, review of the county coroner case documentation, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to prevent resident to resident abuse. Actual harm occurred on 09/23/25 when Resident #29 was discovered in a resident room behind a closed door and Resident #53 was discovered in the same room behind a drawn privacy curtain laying supine on a sheet on the floor with towels secured tightly around the neck. Resident #53's head was purple in color, skin was cool to touch, with blood in her mouth, petechia to her skin, and no respirations or pulse were present. Resident #29 later admitted strangling Resident #53. The county coroner case documentation listed the cause of Resident #53's death as a homicide by means of strangulation. This affected one (#53) of three residents reviewed for abuse in a facility census of 71. Findings include:1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #29 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and brief psychotic disorder. Review of the resident census revealed Resident #29 was initially admitted to the secured dementia unit and then moved to the secured second floor behavior unit on 07/17/25. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] the resident was assessed with clear speech, usually understood and understands others, moderate cognitive impairment, no recorded behaviors, no range of motion impairment, and independent with ambulation. Review of the resident's care plan dated 07/25/25 revealed a the nursing plan of care was revised to address Resident #29's cognitive loss/disorientation/impaired judgement related to diagnosis of schizophrenia. Interventions included: Follow doctor's orders for appropriate treatment, review the medication regimen with the physician to assess and rule out possible side effects or contraindications related to medications or food products, verbalize you will help him/her Stay in control, assure the resident he is protected, safe, and secure and in a protected environment. On 08/21/25 Resident #29 was evaluated by psychiatry services. Resident #29 was documented to be pleasant, calm and engaged throughout the entire evaluation. Psychoactive medications were reviewed and no behaviors were documented. Review of Resident #29 medical record lacked documentation indicated he exhibited aggressive behaviors towards staff or residents while residing at the facility. Review of the resident census revealed Resident #29 was returned to the dementia unit on 09/05/25. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included major depression, bipolar disorder, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, insomnia, anxiety disorder, polyneuropathy, and anemia. Resident #53 resided on the secured dementia unit since 01/24/25. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 had clear speech, usually understood and understands, severe cognitive impairment, no recorded behaviors, and was independently ambulatory. On 08/28/25 a quarterly secure unit admission assessment noted Resident #53 to be appropriate for the dementia unit due to a mental health condition. The unit would benefit the resident due to a smaller unit that allowed for staff interventions Review of a facility investigation revealed on 09/23/25 at approximately 9:30 P.M. Registered Nurse (RN) #400 attempted to locate Resident #29 for medication administration. RN #400 was unable to locate Resident #29 in his room or common area and requested Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #301 to assist in finding him. RN #400 and CNA #301 proceeded to walk down the unit corridor and discovered Resident #55's room door closed. CNA #301 opened the door. Resident #29 was observed standing inside the door rocking from side to side with perspiration on his forehead. CNA #301 observed the curtain pulled around the first bed in the room and proceeded to open the curtain. Resident #53 was observed lying on the floor placed on a sheet in the supine position. Her face was deep purple with blood coming from her mouth. A bath towel and pillowcase were wrapped tightly around her neck. RN #400 yelled for help and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 responded to the room. CNA #302 was located at the nursing station and responded to the room. Once CNA #302 observed Resident #53 on the floor she immediately returned to the nurses' station and called Emergency Medical Services (EMS). LPN #500 directed staff to stay with Resident #29 and take him to the unit dining room. LPN #500 assessed Resident #53 and checked her for a radial pulse with no pulse palpable. Resident #53's skin was noted to be cold and clammy, and no respirations were detected. LPN #500 and RN #400 determined the room was a crime scene. LPN #500 stood outside the room until EMS and Police arrived while RN #400 contacted the Director of Nursing (DON) to inform her of the incident. EMS assessed Resident #53, pronounced the resident deceased , and police assumed control of the scene. Resident #29 was placed in police custody. Preliminary autopsy results were obtained and revealed Resident #53's cause of death was a homicide due to strangulation. The incident remains under police investigation and Resident #29 remains in police custody. Review of CNA #302's written stated dated 09/23/25 at 9:00 P.M. noted CNA #302 was at the nurses' station when she heard RN #400 and CNA #301 yelling for help. CNA #302 got up to see what was wrong and saw Resident #53 was lying on the floor. CNA #302 ran back to the nurses' station and RN #400 yelled Call the police. RN #400 took Resident #53's vitals and confirmed she did not hear Resident #53's heart and felt for a pulse. Resident #29 was completely calm standing in the room and was saying he had to do it. Review of EMS report dated 09/23/25 noted at 9:41 P.M. and EMS call was received. Injury was listed as suffocation/asphyxiation. EMS was on scene at 9:51 P.M. Narrative notes document the EMS was dispatched to the facility for an unconscious person. Notes stated someone was possibly strangled. The crew confirmed with dispatch that law-enforcement was on scene. Upon arrival the crew was led to room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #55's room). This room was reported to belong to someone not involved in the incident. There was a police officer at the door to the room where the incident occurred. Crew entered the room to find a [AGE] year-old female on the floor in the prone position with her arms under her body and a towel around her neck. With law-enforcement standing nearby the law enforcement officer was notified that we needed to remove the towel. It took great effort to remove this as it was extremely tight. The knot being in the back at the base of her head. Once it was loosened it was noted there was also part of a sheet tied around her neck with this knot more to the side near her right ear. This also took great effort to loosen as it was pulled very tight. Once loosened a carotid pulse was checked noting it to be absent. Signs of obvious death were present. Interview with CNA #300 on 09/25/25 at 6:35 A.M. revealed he went to the dementia unit on 09/23/25 at approximately 9:15 P.M. to ask RN #400 if she wanted some food for lunch. RN #400 was at the dementia unit nurses' station obtaining medications from behind the nurses' station. RN #400 was then walking in the hall to look for Resident #29. CNA #300 remained at the nurses' station talking with LPN #500, CNA #302, and Floor Technician (FT) #700. RN #400 and CNA #301 yelled for help from Resident #55's room door entry. CNA #300 and LPN #500 ran to the room. CNA #300 observed Resident #29 standing inside the room and next to the entry door. Resident #53 was on the floor near bed one. Resident #53 had towels around her neck, her face was purple, her lips were dark purple, her eyes were closed, and CNA #300 saw veins coming out of her head. CNA #300 stayed by the room while RN #400 instructed a CNA to be 1:1 with Resident #29. LPN #500 entered the room to check Resident #53's pulse. CNA #300 heard RN #400 yell Call 911. CNA #302 was at the nursing station and called 911 from the station. CNA #300 heard LPN #500 state Resident #53 was with no pulse and her skin was cold. CNA #300 went out to open the facility door for police and EMS. Interview with RN #400 on 09/25/25 at 7:10 A.M. revealed on 09/23/25 at approximately 8:45 P.M. she was at the dementia unit nurses station gathering Resident #29's medications for administration. RN #400 stated she had seen Resident #29 ambulating in the hall 30 to 35 minutes prior to gathering medications. Resident #53 was last observed in the hall approximately 20 to 25 minutes prior to gathering medications. RN#400 proceeded to Resident #29's room and Resident #29 was not in the room. RN #400 looked in the dementia unit dining room and Resident #29 was not in the dining room. RN #400 observed CNA #301 in front of the dementia unit nurses' station and requested her to assist in looking for Resident #29. Both RN #400 and CNA #301 walked together down the hall. When RN #400 and CNA #301 reached Resident #55's room they noted the room door was closed. RN #400 stated the room door was usually open. CNA #301 opened the door. Resident #29 was standing inside the door rocking side to side with perspiration dripping from his face and a washcloth in his hand. CNA #301 noticed the privacy curtain to bed one was pulled around the bed and proceeded to pull the curtain back. Resident #53 was observed on the floor lying on a bed sheet. Her head was deep purple and thick towels were wrapped around her neck. RN #400 immediately yelled for help. RN #400 listened to Resident #53's back with a stethoscope and was unable to hear lung sounds or a heartbeat. Resident #53 appeared deceased and RN #400 considered the incident a crime scene. LPN #500 and CNA #300 arrived at the room. RN #400 yelled for CNA #302 to call 911. RN #400 told CNA #303 to take Resident #29 to the dining room and stay with him providing one on one observation. RN #400 then notified the DON via phone. Resident #29 was later observed calmly seated in the dementia unit dining room with a flat affect. RN #400 stated the police arrived at the facility within minutes. One officer stayed with Resident #29 and CNA #303. On 09/29/25 at 12:41 P.M. an additional interview with RN #400 revealed EMS arrived 10-15 minutes after the initial notification. CNA #301 called initially and was informed later the call was disconnected. 911 returned a call to the facility and LPN #500 took the second call. Telephone interview on 09/25/25 at 10:42 A.M. with CNA #301 revealed she last observed Resident #29 walking in the dementia unit corridor with Resident #53, Resident #55 and Resident #70 on 09/23/25 at 8:20 P.M. CNA #301 proceeded to go on break and leave the dementia unit. Between 8:30 and 8:40 P.M. CNA #301 returned to the dementia unit nursing station. RN #400 asked CNA #301 if she had seen Resident #29. CNA #301 walked with RN #400 down the dementia unit hall and discovered Resident #55's room door was closed. CNA #301 opened the door and observed the first bed privacy curtain pulled, which was unusual due to no current resident residing in this bed. From under the curtain the CNA saw a cover (sheet) on the floor. The CNA pulled the curtain and stated Oh my God twice. RN #400 was behind CNA #301 and asked what was wrong and entered the resident room. CNA #301 stated Resident #53 was on the floor. She observed Resident #29 to be sweaty. CNA #301 recalled a CNA #303 from a different unit stayed with Resident #29 in the dining room after the incident. Interview on 09/29/25 at 6:40 A.M. LPN #500 stated on 09/23/25 at approximately 8:50 P.M. the received a staff call off so he went to the dementia unit to report the call off to RN #400. He observed RN #400 gathering Resident #29's medications at the nurses' station and she proceeded to look for the resident. LPN #500 did not see either Resident #29 or Resident #53. At 9:05 P.M. while standing at the nurses' station LPN #500 heard RN #400 yell out for help. LPN #500 responded to the room RN#400 was yelling from. LPN #500 entered the room and observed Resident #29 standing inside the door and rocking side to side. Resident #29 appeared to have sweat on his face. Resident #53 was observed on the floor laying supine on a sheet. LPN #500 told RN #400 to take Resident #29 from the room and have someone sit with him until police arrived. LPN #500 proceeded to assess Resident #53. Resident #53's skin was cold and clammy with petechiae on her skin. She had what appeared to be a towel tightly wrapped around her neck with blood coming from her mouth. Her face and head were deep purple in color. LPN #500 stated he thought it was a different resident at first due to her appearance. The resident was also covered with a blanket from her mid back to her feet. LPN #500 stated he attempted to obtain a radial pulse and could not. He also observed no respirations were present. LPN #500 proceeded to exit the room, close the door, and remain outside the room until EMS and police arrived. Review of Police incident report dated 09/23/25 documented the incident occurrence from 9:10 P.M. to 9:44 P.M. on 09/23/25. Time of arrival to the scene was 9:46 P.M. Offense description was listed as Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter with weapon/force used coded as asphyxiation. Arrestee recorded on 09/23/25 at 11:39 P.M. and listed Resident #29. Victim listed Resident #53. Offense was murder and strangulation. Narrative notes documented when the officer arrived on scene he saw a group of nurses and aids in Resident #55's room. Upon entering the room Resident #53 was unresponsive, lying face down on the floor, with a towel wrapped around her neck. The nurse told officers the room where the incident happened belonged to Resident #55. Resident #55 was not in the room at the time of the incident. She said the door was closed and when the nurses opened it, Resident #29 was standing in the room rocking back and forth. They pulled back the privacy curtains and found Resident #53 unresponsive on the floor. The suspect, Resident #29, was sitting with one of the nurse aides and a resident at a table in the lounge area. The officer asked Resident #29 what happened today and he responded I don't know, she was down and choked me, stabbed me, then took off. The officer repeated Resident #29's statement questioning who choked and stabbed him. Resident #29 stated, No she didn't choke me, he choked me and stuck me. I don't know his name. The officer asked him if he was hurt at all. Resident #29 said No I'm alright, she was breathing when I was in there. I couldn't do anything to her. One of the residents sitting at the table asked Resident #29 if he was going home after this. Resident #29 responded No, I am going to prison, death row. The officer asked him why Resident #53 was on the floor right now. Resident #29 said She's dead, I guess. She wasn't dead. The officer questioned Resident #29 if he touched Resident #53. He responded Oh yeah. The officer asked him where and Resident #29 said Around the neck. The DON walked into the room and introduced herself to the officer. Resident #29 turned around and said to the DON You see, I killed her. The DON mentioned to me that Resident #29 was in jail for a long time, but she didn't know for what kind of crime. Review of the local county coroner case summary of death of Resident #53 dated 09/24/25 revealed anatomic diagnoses included: petechial hemorrhages involving the face and forehead, bilateral upper and lower petechial conjunctival hemorrhages, facial congestion, faint shallow ligature [NAME] on the anterior neck consistent with cloth ligature, deep right-sided strap muscle hemorrhage, anterior cervical soft tissue hemorrhage, cerebral vascular congestion, and faint purple contusion on right anterolateral neck, distally. Cause of death: Strangulation (minutes). Cause of injury noted as strangled with cloth ligature. Manner of death Homicide. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property, last reviewed 05/2025, revealed residents have the right to be free from abuse. The policy defines abuse as the willful infliction of injury resulting in physical harm. The policy defines serious bodily injury as an injury involving extreme physical pain; involving substantial risk of death. The policy defines willful to mean the individual must have acted deliberately. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number 2627173 and Complaint Number 2626970, Complaint Number 2626838, Complaint Number 2626237. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #29 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and brief psychotic disorder. Review of the resident census revealed Resident #29 was initially admitted to the secured dementia unit and then moved to the secured second floor behavior unit on 07/17/25. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was assessed with clear speech, usually understood and understands others, moderate cognitive impairment, no recorded behaviors, no range of motion impairment, and independent with ambulation. Review of the resident's care plan dated 07/25/25 revealed the nursing plan of care was revised to address Resident #29's cognitive loss/disorientation/impaired judgement related to diagnosis of schizophrenia. Interventions included: Follow doctor's orders for appropriate treatment, review the medication regimen with the physician to assess and rule out possible side effects or contraindications related to medications or food products, verbalize you will help him/her Stay in control, assure the resident is protected, safe, and secure and in a protected environment. On 08/21/25 Resident #29 was evaluated by psychiatry services. Resident #29 was documented to be pleasant, calm and engaged throughout the entire evaluation. Psychoactive medications were reviewed, and no behaviors were documented. Review of Resident #29 medical record lacked documentation indicating he exhibited aggressive behaviors towards staff or residents while residing at the facility. Review of the resident census revealed Resident #29 was returned to the dementia unit on 09/05/25. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included major depression, bipolar disorder, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, insomnia, anxiety disorder, polyneuropathy, and anemia. Resident #53 resided on the secured dementia unit since 01/24/25. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 had clear speech, usually understood and understands, severe cognitive impairment, no recorded behaviors, and was independently ambulatory. On 08/28/25 a quarterly secure unit admission assessment noted Resident #53 to be appropriate for the dementia unit due to a mental health condition. The unit would benefit the resident due to a smaller unit that allowed for staff intervention. Review of a facility investigation revealed on 09/23/25 at approximately 9:30 P.M., Registered Nurse (RN) #400 attempted to locate Resident #29 for medication administration. RN #400 was unable to locate Resident #29 in his room or common area and requested Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #301 to assist in finding him. RN #400 and CNA #301 proceeded to walk down the unit corridor and discovered Resident #55's room door closed. CNA #301 opened the door. Resident #29 was observed standing inside the door rocking from side to side with perspiration on his forehead. CNA #301 observed the curtain pulled around the first bed in the room and proceeded to open the curtain. Resident #53 was observed lying on the floor placed on a sheet in the supine position. Her face was deep purple with blood coming from her mouth. A bath towel and pillowcase were wrapped tightly around her neck. RN #400 yelled for help and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 responded to the room. CNA #302 was located at the nursing station and responded to the room. Once CNA #302 observed Resident #53 on the floor she immediately returned to the nurses' station and called EMS. LPN #500 directed staff to stay with Resident #29 and take him to the unit dining room. LPN #500 assessed Resident #53 and checked her for a radial pulse with no pulse palpable. Resident #53's skin was noted to be cold and clammy, and no respirations were detected. LPN #500 and RN #400 determined the room was a crime scene. LPN #500 stood outside the room until EMS and Police arrived while RN #400 contacted the Director of Nursing (DON) to inform her of the incident. EMS assessed Resident #53, pronounced the resident deceased , and police assumed control of the scene. Resident #29 was placed in police custody. Preliminary autopsy results were obtained and revealed Resident #53's cause of death was a homicide due to strangulation. The incident remains under police investigation and Resident #29 remains in police custody. Review of CNA #302's written statement dated 09/23/25 at 9:00 P.M. noted CNA #302 was at the nurses' station when she heard RN #400 and CNA #301 yelling for help. CNA #302 got up to see what was wrong and saw Resident #53 was lying on the floor. CNA #302 ran back to the nurses' station and RN #400 yelled Call the police. RN #400 took Resident #53's vitals and confirmed she did not hear Resident #53's heart and felt for a pulse. Resident #29 was completely calm standing in the room and was saying he had to do it. Review of the EMS report dated 09/23/25 noted at 9:41 P.M. an EMS call was received. Injury was listed as suffocation/asphyxiation. EMS was on scene at 9:51 P.M. Narrative notes document the EMS was dispatched to the facility for an unconscious person. Notes stated someone was possibly strangled. The crew confirmed with dispatch that law-enforcement was on scene. Upon arrival the crew was led to room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #55's room). This room was reported to belong to someone not involved in the incident. There was a police officer at the door to the room where the incident occurred. Crew entered the room to find a [AGE] year-old female on the floor in the prone position with her arms under her body and a towel around her neck. With law-enforcement standing nearby the law enforcement officer was notified that we needed to remove the towel. It took great effort to remove this as it was extremely tight. The knot being in the back at the base of her head. Once it was loosened it was noted there was also part of a sheet tied around her neck with this knot more to the side near her right ear. This also took great effort to loosen as it was pulled very tight. Once loosened a carotid pulse was checked noting it to be absent. Signs of obvious death were present. Interview with CNA #300 on 09/25/25 at 6:35 A.M. revealed he went to the dementia unit on 09/23/25 at approximately 9:15 P.M. to ask RN #400 if she wanted some food for lunch. RN #400 was at the dementia unit nurses' station obtaining medications from behind the nurses' station. RN #400 was then walking in the hall to look for Resident #29. CNA #300 remained at the nurses' station talking with LPN #500, CNA #302, and Floor Technician (FT) #700. RN #400 and CNA #301 yelled for help from Resident #55's room door entry. CNA #300 and LPN #500 ran to the room. CNA #300 observed Resident #29 standing inside the room and next to the entry door. Resident #53 was on the floor near bed one. Resident #53 had towels around her neck, her face was purple, her lips were dark purple, her eyes were closed, and CNA #300 saw veins coming out of her head. CNA #300 stayed by the room while RN #400 instructed a CNA to be one-on-one with Resident #29. LPN #500 entered the room to check Resident #53's pulse. CNA #300 heard RN #400 yell Call 911. CNA #302 was at the nursing station and called 911 from the station. CNA #300 heard LPN #500 state Resident #53 had no pulse and her skin was cold. CNA #300 went out to open the facility door for police and EMS. Interview with RN #400 on 09/25/25 at 7:10 A.M. revealed on 09/23/25 at approximately 8:45 P.M. she was at the dementia unit nurses station gathering Resident #29's medications for administration. RN #400 stated she had seen Resident #29 ambulating in the hall 30 to 35 minutes prior to gathering medications. Resident #53 was last observed in the hall approximately 20 to 25 minutes prior to gathering medications. RN#400 proceeded to Resident #29's room and Resident #29 was not in the room. RN #400 looked in the dementia unit dining room and Resident #29 was not in the dining room. RN #400 observed CNA #301 in front of the dementia unit nurses' station and requested her to assist in looking for Resident #29. Both RN #400 and CNA #301 walked together down the hall. When RN #400 and CNA #301 reached Resident #55's room they noted the room door was closed. RN #400 stated the room door was usually open. CNA #301 opened the door. Resident #29 was standing inside the door rocking side to side with perspiration dripping from his face and a washcloth in his hand. CNA #301 noticed the privacy curtain to bed one was pulled around the bed and proceeded to pull the curtain back. Resident #53 was observed on the floor lying on a bed sheet. Her head was deep purple, and thick towels were wrapped around her neck. RN #400 immediately yelled for help. RN #400 listened to Resident #53's back with a stethoscope and was unable to hear lung sounds or a heartbeat. Resident #53 appeared deceased , and RN #400 considered the incident a crime scene. LPN #500 and CNA #300 arrived at the room. RN #400 yelled for CNA #302 to call 911. RN #400 told CNA #303 to take Resident #29 to the dining room and stay with him providing one on one observation. RN #400 then notified the DON via phone. Resident #29 was later observed calmly seated in the dementia unit dining room with a flat affect. RN #400 stated the police arrived at the facility within minutes. One officer stayed with Resident #29 and CNA #303. On 09/29/25 at 12:41 P.M. an additional interview with RN #400 revealed EMS arrived 10-15 minutes after the initial notification. CNA #301 called initially and was informed later the call was disconnected. Nine-one-one (911) returned a call to the facility and LPN #500 took the second call. Telephone interview on 09/25/25 at 10:42 A.M. with CNA #301 revealed she last observed Resident #29 walking in the dementia unit corridor with Resident #53, Resident #55 and Resident #70 on 09/23/25 at 8:20 P.M. CNA #301 proceeded to go on break and leave the dementia unit. Between 8:30 and 8:40 P.M. CNA #301 returned to the dementia unit nursing station. RN #400 asked CNA #301 if she had seen Resident #29. CNA #301 walked with RN #400 down the dementia unit hall and discovered Resident #55's room door was closed. CNA #301 opened the door and observed the first bed privacy curtain pulled, which was unusual due to no current resident residing in this bed. From under the curtain the CNA saw a cover (sheet) on the floor. The CNA pulled the curtain and stated Oh my God twice. RN #400 was behind CNA #301 and asked what was wrong and entered the resident room. CNA #301 stated Resident #53 was on the floor. She observed Resident #29 to be sweaty. CNA #301 recalled CNA #303 from a different unit stayed with Resident #29 in the dining room after the incident. Interview on 09/29/25 at 6:40 A.M. LPN #500 stated on 09/23/25 at approximately 8:50 P.M. they received a staff call off so he went to the dementia unit to report the call off to RN #400. He observed RN #400 gathering Resident #29's medications at the nurses' station and she proceeded to look for the resident. LPN #500 did not see either Resident #29 or Resident #53. At 9:05 P.M. while standing at the nurses' station LPN #500 heard RN #400 yell out for help. LPN #500 responded to the room RN #400 was yelling from. LPN #500 entered the room and observed Resident #29 standing inside the door and rocking side to side. Resident #29 appeared to have sweat on his face. Resident #53 was observed on the floor laying supine on a sheet. LPN #500 told RN #400 to take Resident #29 from the room and have someone sit with him until police arrived. LPN #500 proceeded to assess Resident #53. Resident #53's skin was cold and clammy with petechiae on her skin. She had what appeared to be a towel tightly wrapped around her neck with blood coming from her mouth. Her face and head were deep purple in color. LPN #500 stated he thought it was a different resident at first due to her appearance. The resident was also covered with a blanket from her mid back to her feet. LPN #500 stated he attempted to obtain a radial pulse and could not. He also observed no respirations were present. LPN #500 proceeded to exit the room, close the door, and remain outside the room until EMS and police arrived. Review of Police incident report dated 09/23/25 documented the incident occurrence from 9:10 P.M. to 9:44 P.M. on 09/23/25. Time of arrival to the scene was 9:46 P.M. Offense description was listed as Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter with weapon/force used coded as asphyxiation. Arrestee recorded on 09/23/25 at 11:39 P.M. and listed Resident #29. Victim listed Resident #53. Offense was murder and strangulation. Narrative notes documented when the officer arrived on scene, he saw a group of nurses and aids in Resident #55's room. Upon entering the room Resident #53 was unresponsive, lying face down on the floor, with a towel wrapped around her neck. The nurse told officers the room where the incident happened belonged to Resident #55. Resident #55 was not in the room at the time of the incident. She said the door was closed and when the nurses opened it, Resident #29 was standing in the room rocking back and forth. They pulled back the privacy curtains and found Resident #53 unresponsive on the floor. The suspect, Resident #29, was sitting with one of the nurse aides and a resident at a table in the lounge area. The officer asked Resident #29 what happened today and he responded, I don't know, she was down and choked me, stabbed me, then took off. The officer repeated Resident #29's statement questioning who choked and stabbed him. Resident #29 stated, No she didn't choke me, he choked me and stuck me. I don't know his name. The officer asked him if he was hurt at all. Resident #29 said No I'm alright, she was breathing when I was in there. I couldn't do anything to her. One of the residents sitting at the table asked Resident #29 if he was going home after this. Resident #29 responded No, I am going to prison, death row. The officer asked him why Resident #53 was on the floor right now. Resident #29 said She's dead, I guess. She wasn't dead. The officer questioned Resident #29 if he touched Resident #53. He responded, Oh yeah. The officer asked him where and Resident #29 said Around the neck. The DON walked into the room and introduced herself to the officer. Resident #29 turned around and said to the DON You see, I killed her. The DON mentioned to me that Resident #29 was in jail for a long time, but she didn't know for what kind of crime. Review of the local county coroner case summary of death of Resident #53 dated 09/24/25 revealed anatomic diagnoses included: petechial hemorrhages involving the face and forehead, bilateral upper and lower petechial conjunctival hemorrhages, facial congestion, faint shallow ligature [NAME] on the anterior neck consistent with cloth ligature, deep right-sided strap muscle hemorrhage, anterior cervical soft tissue hemorrhage, cerebral vascular congestion, and faint purple contusion on right anterolateral neck, distally. Cause of death: Strangulation (minutes). Cause of injury noted as strangled with cloth ligature. Manner of death Homicide. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property, last reviewed 05/2025, revealed residents have the right to be free from abuse. The policy defines abuse as the willful infliction of injury resulting in physical harm. The policy defines serious bodily injury as an injury involving extreme ph
Aug 2025 5 deficiencies 1 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 F0805 (Tag F0805)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, county coroner interview, review of the Emergency Medical Services...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, county coroner interview, review of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, review of the death certificate, and review of the facility self-imposed action plan, including in-service records and audits, the facility failed to provide residents food in the correct texture to meet individual needs, failed to ensure residents were provided feeding assistance/supervision as required, and failed to put monitoring systems in place to prevent the same actions, situations, and/or practices from reoccurring. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy for one (#83) resident who experienced serious life-threatening harm and negative health outcomes resulting in death when served the incorrect food item at snack time, subsequently choked, lost consciousness, and collapsed, requiring staff intervention to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and an emergency medical service response in an effort to remove the food bolus from the trachea where it was preventing air flow to and from the lungs. Additionally, a second resident (#07) was placed at risk for potential serious life-threatening adverse outcomes when Resident #07 who was observed eating alone in his room, coughing with urgency, with a purple/red discoloration to his face, requiring facility staff to be alerted by a surveyor, and staff intervention to dislodge food. This affected one (#83) of three residents reviewed for mechanically altered diets and one (#07) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living who required assistance/supervision with eating. The facility identified 17 residents (#14, #20, #46, #03, #49, #53, #55, #56, #57, #01, #07, #62, #79, #82, #64, #65, and #72) who were ordered mechanically altered diets, and seven residents (#05, #07, #33, #41, #53, #64 and #78) who required feeding assistance/supervision. The facility census 74. On 08/06/25 at 4:02 P.M., Corporate Chief Nursing Officer (CCNO) #401, [NAME] President of Clinical (VPC) #400, Regional Director of Operations (RDO) #402, and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 09/30/24 at 9:26 P.M. when Resident #83 was served a peanut butter sandwich, sometime around 8:00 P.M., as an evening snack by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #320, contrary to the resident's physician order for a regular diet, mechanical soft, thin consistency, no bread, and no straws. Sometime later, CNA #320 responded to Resident #83's roommates call light and found Resident #83 on the floor, and unresponsive. CNA #320 summoned Registered Nurse (RN) #366 for help. RN #366 began CPR as Resident #83 had no pulse or respirations. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and arrived at 8:47 P.M., EMS took over CPR. Resident #83 remained without a pulse or respirations. At 8:53 P.M., EMS attempted to place a breathing tube, and a foreign body was noted in Resident #83's mouth, the foreign body appeared to be chewed food. Resident #83 was suctioned and about five milliliters (ml) of product was removed. Continued efforts to resuscitate Resident #83 were unsuccessful and Resident #83's death was pronounced at 9:26 P.M.The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 08/07/25 at 2:12 P.M. when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: On 08/06/25 at 4:30 P.M., a root cause analysis was conducted by the following team members: the Administrator, DON, RDO #402, and CCNO #401 and VPC #400 to determine why residents were not provided with food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs and why residents were not provided the level of supervision when eating as ordered. On 08/06/25 at 4:45 P.M., a Quality Assurance Assessment (QAA) meeting was held which included the Administrator, Executive Director, DON, RDO #402, and the Medical Director. The team discussed a plan to mitigate resident choking incidents. The plan outlined included the following: - Identifying on the resident's meal ticket, the diet ordered, and the resident's required level of assistance with eating, including supervision. Resident diet orders and level of assistance with eating will be managed by the clinical team, with any changes to the diet order or a resident's level of assistance communicated to the Dietary Manager by the clinical team at the time of the change. - The Dietary Manager, on a daily basis, will ensure resident meal tickets are up to date with the resident's current diet and level assistance or need for supervision with eating. The Dietary Manager will also place a list of resident diet orders, including diet texture, level of assistance or supervision needed on the snack carts, and all snacks will be labeled to identify the diet texture type. On 08/06/25 at 5:00 P.M., the Department Managers initiated education with the staff on-duty; five Registered Nurses (RN), 15 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), three laundry aides, five housekeepers, nine dietary staff, four activities staff, one Executive Director (ED), one DON, one Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), five therapy staff, one receptionist, one social service employee, 23 CNAs, and one transportation person, on the meal ticket containing the resident's diet ordered, and the required level of assistance with eating, including supervision, each snack on the snack cart labeled with appropriate diet texture, the snack cart containing a list of resident's current diet orders, including texture, required level of supervision or feeding assistance needed with snacks. Staff are to refer to the diet order list prior to offering a snack to each resident. The education with on-duty staff was completed on 08/06/25 at 10:04 P.M. Staff who were not present for the education on 08/06/25 were sent education via text message, with a requirement to send confirmation of the education received. Staff were to respond to the text with a Y for yes, indicating the staff had received and understood the education. Employees would not be able to work until education was completed. Education for all facility staff was completed on 08/07/25 at 2:12 P.M. On 08/06/25 at 6:00 P.M., CCNO #401 and VPC #400 completed a review of all resident diet orders and made sure resident care plans reflected diet and functional status (level of assistance/supervision with eating). On 08/06/25 at 6:00 P.M., the Dietary Manager updated all meal tickets to reflect the correct diet and level of assistance or supervision with meals a resident needed. On 08/07/25 at 2:12 P.M., the education for all facility staff was completed. On 08/07/25, the Administrator completed an audit of three meals and a snack with no negative findings. Continued random meal and snack audits will be conducted by the Administrator or designee, three times a day for five days for one week, then one meal and a snack will be audited five days a week for three weeks. Results of audits will be reviewed in Quality Assurance meetings. Any identified non-compliance will be addressed immediately by the Administrator or DON. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 08/07/25, the facility remained out of compliance at Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility is still in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance.Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #83 revealed an admission date of 03/10/20. Diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, obstructive and reflux uropathy, dysphagia, type II diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, histrionic personality disorder, psychophysical visual disturbances, and auditory hallucinations. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #83 was cognitively intact, independent for eating with set-up, had no signs or symptoms of a swallowing disorder and received a mechanically altered diet. Review of care plan dated 09/12/23 for Resident #83 revealed the resident was a full code status (CPR should be initiated with the absence of pulse, respirations, and/or blood pressure). The care plan also revealed a swallowing problem related to a diagnosis of dysphagia with interventions that included for all staff to be informed of the resident's special dietary and safety needs, follow diet as prescribed, instruct the resident to eat in an upright position, to eat slowly and chew food thoroughly, to monitor for shortness of breath and choking, and due to Resident #83 having no natural teeth, staff were to monitor for chewing or swallowing difficulties. Review of the current physician orders revealed a diet order dated 11/10/23 for Resident #83 to receive a regular diet with mechanical soft texture, thin consistency, no bread, and no straws. Review of the modified barium swallow study completed 03/14/24 at 2:00 P.M. revealed Resident #83 had lingual weakness resulting in lateral stasis for liquids. Recommendations and treatment plan included supervised feeding with a mechanical soft diet, thin liquids. Resident #83 was to eat small bites and sit in an upright, 90 degrees, position when eating or drinking. Review of quarterly nutrition assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #83 had a diet order of mechanical soft, no bread, and no straws. The assessment also recommended Resident #83 to have a modified barium swallow study in conjunction with speech therapy in order to rule out aspiration secondary to oropharyngeal dysphagia. Review of the medical record from 08/24/24 to 08/07/25 revealed the medical record lacked evidence of a modified barium swallow study or speech consult as recommended. Review of the nursing progress note dated 09/30/24 at 11:22 P.M. revealed on 09/30/24 RN #366 heard a call light and yelling coming from the other end of hall. CNA #320 was yelling for help as she found Resident #83 on the floor, face down between the nightstand and bed with the wheelchair behind him when she responded to Resident #83's roommate call light. RN #366 went into Resident #83's room to find the resident unresponsive. RN #366 rolled Resident #83 onto his back, felt for a pulse, not finding one, RN #366 initiated CPR and directed CNA #320 to call emergency services. CNA #386 went and got another nurse, LPN #335, to help. RN #366 and LPN #335 continued CPR until EMS arrived at approximately 8:36 P.M. EMS took over CPR and attempted multiple interventions unsuccessfully and called time of death at 9:26 P.M. Review of the EMS run report dated 09/30/24, revealed an arrival time of 8:46 P.M., Resident #83 was on the floor and nursing home staff were performing CPR. EMS reported they found former Resident #83 unresponsive, pulseless, and apneic (without respirations) laying supine on the floor. EMS placed defibrillator pads on Resident #83 and began CPR with a manual mechanical device. At 8:47 P.M., EMS placed a fluid line in Resident #83's left tibia and started to provide fluids, at 8:49 P.M. when attempting to insert an artificial airway, Resident #83 vomited, and at 8:53 P.M. a foreign body, that appeared to be chewed food was noted in Resident #83's mouth. Resident #83's airway was suctioned numerous times with approximately five milliliters of what appeared to be chewed food was returned. Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) protocols were followed, and after five rounds of epinephrine (an emergency adrenaline medication), one milligram (mg) was given through the fluid line, Resident #83 continued to show asystole. At 9:25 P.M., EMS contacted Medical Control at a local hospital for a termination of efforts order. Former Resident #83 was pronounced deceased at 9:26 P.M. Review of the Certificate of Death dated 10/15/24 revealed Resident #83 was pronounced deceased at 9:26 P.M. on 09/30/24, with an accident identified as the manner of death, and a description of the injury as, choked-on food. The certificate of death also indicated Resident #83 had a history of dysphagia as another significant factor contributing to the resident's death. Interview on 08/06/25 at 8:21 A.M. with LPN #335 revealed that CNA #386 indicated there was a code blue upstairs, LPN #335 went to assist and found RN #366 performing CPR on Resident #83. LPN #335 stated he and RN #366 traded off with performing CPR until EMS arrived and took over. LPN #335 did not see any evidence of food around Resident #83 but was informed Resident #83 was given a peanut butter sandwich just before the choking incident. Interview on 08/06/25 at 9:10 A.M. with the County Coroner confirmed Resident #83's cause of death was from choking on food. Furthermore, the County Coroner stated, looking at the pictures from the autopsy, there appears to be food, more specifically food resembling bread, about the size of a baby's fist, seen completely obstructing Resident #83's airway. Interview on 08/11/25 at 10:35 A.M. with RN #366 revealed that on 09/30/24 at approximately 8:30 P.M. Resident #83 was found on the floor with no pulse or respirations. RN #366 stated CPR was initiated with another nurse switching back and forth performing CPR until EMS arrived. RN #366 stated they worked on Resident #83 for about 45 minutes before pronouncing his death. RN #366 was told by CNA #320 that Resident #83 was given a sandwich by CNA #386. RN #366 confirmed Resident #83 was not to receive bread and had a physician order for no bread. Interview on 08/12/25 at 6:26 A.M. with CNA #386 revealed that on 09/30/24 at approximately 8:30 P.M. the call light was going off in Resident #83's room and when she got there, RN #366 was performing CPR. CPR was performed by nursing staff until EMS showed up. About 30 minutes prior to the call light CNA #386 confirmed that Resident #83 was given a peanut butter sandwich by her. CNA #386 indicated she always checks with whatever nurse is on duty before passing any food but does not remember if she checked that night. Review of the facility self-imposed action plan initiated 10/01/24 revealed the following: On 10/01/24 at 9:00 A.M., a Quality Assurance Assessment (QAA) meeting was held which included the Administrator, DON, RDO #402 and the Medical Director. The team discussed a plan to mitigate the choking incident. The plan implemented included a list of diet textures on the snack cart. Staff education was completed communicating the diet texture list would be placed on the snack cart. On 10/01/24, the DON, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and Unit Manager completed audits on all current resident records, including resident observations during snack pass to ensure residents received the appropriate textured snacks. Observations started at 9:30 A.M. and finished at 11:00 A.M. On 10/01/24 at 11:30 A.M., the Dietary Manager printed a list of the residents' diets and verified the list matched the resident's current diet order. The list would be sent with the snack carts so the CNAs could identify what diet each resident was on. Diet orders were to be up to date at all times with the Dietary Manager verifying each day when printing the list. On 10/01/24 at 11:30 A.M., seven RNs, 15 LPNs, 36 CNAs, nine dietary employees, eight housekeeping and laundry employees, three activities employees, two receptionists, one scheduler, one Human Resources person, one Social Service employee, one admission staff, one maintenance employee, and one medical record staff member were educated by the DON, ADON and Unit Manager to ensure the diet list printed was being referenced prior to serving a resident a snack from the snack cart. Education was completed at 12:45 P.M. On 10/02/24, ongoing audits were started and completed by way of staff interview to ensure staff reviewed the resident diet list prior to snacks offered to the resident, and that the current diet list was available on the snack tray. Audits were completed three times a week for four weeks by the ADON. Compliance was determined on 10/28/24. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #07 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, epilepsy, and overactive bladder. Review of Resident #07's physician orders, dated 04/04/25, revealed the physician prescribed a regular diet, pureed texture, and nectar consistency. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 07/11/25, revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required substantial assistance for feeding. Review of the nutritional assessment, dated 07/17/25, indicated Resident #07 was to be supervised while eating. Observation on 08/06/25 at 8:07 A.M. while confirming environmental issues in the residents' rooms with Regional Director of Maintenance #403 revealed coughing coming from Resident #07's bedroom. No staff were present during this time. Resident #07's cough began to sound more urgent, the surveyor went into Resident #07's room and noted Resident #07 with a food tray in front of him. Resident #07 was coughing and had a purple/red discoloration to his face. The surveyor went into the hallway and yelled for help. LPN #381 and CNA #323 went into Resident #07's bedroom and assisted him in clearing the food by sitting him up in the bed manually due to the bed not working. Resident #07 was sitting at approximately a 60-degree angle. Interview on 08/06/25 with LPN #381 revealed herself and CNA #323 had to sit Resident #07 up in bed because the bed position was stuck. LPN #381 further stated with repositioning that the food was able to be dislodged and Resident #07 spit the food into a towel. Interview on 08/06/25 at 10:28 A.M. with ADON #370 revealed Resident #07 coughed up his food and spit it in a towel. ADON #307 confirmed that the most recent nutritional assessment on 07/17/25 stated Resident #07 was to be supervised while eating. Furthermore, the ADON confirmed the MDS indicates Resident #07 requires substantial assistance for feeding. Interview with CNA #323 on 08/06/25 at 10:45 A.M. revealed Resident #07 had choked on his oatmeal on 08/04/25 and was able to clear it himself. Furthermore, CNA #323 stated typically Resident #07 is left unsupervised when eating in his room. Interview on 08/06/25 at 11:18 A.M. with Dietetic Technician #415 stated there are varying levels of set up and supervision that Resident #07 may need; however, if Resident #07 had a choking episode on 08/04/25, then the episode should have been reported, and Resident #07 should have been evaluated by speech therapy. Review of the Facility Assessment, dated 06/17/25, indicated the facility will meet individualized dietary requirements, including specialized diets to ensure the resident's nutritional requirements are met. The staff training and education provided annually and as needed to ensure the level of support and care needed for the resident population included nutritional promotion in older adults, diets in long term care, and feeding and eating assistance. Review of the undated facility policy titled Therapeutic Diets, identified therapeutic diets shall be prescribed by the attending physician. Mechanically altered diets are identified as therapeutic. The Dietician and Dietary Manager are responsible to record in the resident's medical record significant information related to the resident's therapeutic diet. A tray identification system is utilized to ensure each resident receives the correct diet. Review of the undated facility policy titled Reading Meal Tickets/Cards, revealed all staff will read and review the meal ticket/card, including any meal alteration for consistency, to ensure residents are served the correct meal or snack. Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living, revised January 2022, stated ADL services are directed toward the goal of promoting the highest practicable physical, mental and psychological functioning of the resident. ADL care plans are developed by a nurse and may be delivered by the designated staff members as part of routine care with a facility goal that a resident's abilities do not diminish. ADL care areas include bathing, dressing/grooming, toileting, mobility, transfers and eating. Staff are to follow the resident's care plan when carrying out the ADL task and inform the nurse when there is a refusal or significant decline in the resident's abilities. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00166789 (1260025).
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received adequate nail care. This affected two (#40 and #45) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 74.Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #40 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance, major depressive disorder recurrent severe with psychotic symptoms, anxiety disorder, Alzheimer's disease, and cognitive communication dysfunctions.Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/16/25, revealed Resident #40 was unable to complete the assessment interview. Review of the care plan, revised 01/04/24, revealed Resident #40 had a behavior problem including playing in her own feces. Review of the care plan, revised on 11/11/24, revealed Resident #40 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit. Interventions includes to check nail length, trim, and clean on bath day and as necessary. Observation on 08/04/25 at 12:02 P.M. revealed Resident #40 had dirty fingerprints with a dark brown substance under all nails on both hands.Observation on 08/05/25 at 3:03 P.M. revealed Resident #40 had dirty fingerprints with a dark brown substance under all nails on both hands. Interview on 08/06/25 at 8:09 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #368 verified Resident #40 does put her hands in her feces. It was reported the resident had a bowel movement three times yesterday and the staff had provided care to the resident immediately. Observation on 08/06/25 at 8:12 A.M. revealed Resident #40 eating breakfast in the dining room. Resident #40 was eating breakfast with her right hand, scooping the food directly into her mouth. Resident #40's fingernails were observed to remain dirty with the left hand fingernails more heavily soiled than the right. Interview on 08/06/25 at 8:14 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #368 verified Resident #40's fingernails were dirty with a dark brown substance and was using her hands to eat breakfast. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #45 was initially admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included bipolar disorder, type two diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension, acute ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease stage three. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 06/09/25, revealed Resident #45 was moderately cognitively impaired and required set-up/clean-up assistance with personal hygiene. Review of the care plan, revised 06/17/25, verified Resident #45 had an ADL self care performance deficit with interventions including to check nail length, trim, and clean on bath day and as necessary. Interview on 08/04/25 at 11:04 A.M. with Resident #45 revealed he would like his fingernails trimmed. Subsequent observation revealed Resident #45's fingernails were longer than typical but clean and not jagged. Observation on 08/07/25 at 2:43 P.M. revealed Resident #45's nails remained long. Subsequent interview with the resident revealed he did not like his nails as long as they were and stated he would like them to be trimmed.Interview on 08/07/25 at 2:46 P.M. with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #305 acknowledged Resident #45's fingernails were long and verified Resident #45 indicated he wanted them trimmed. CNA #305 stated it was unknown who normally trimmed Resident #45's nails. Review of the policy titled, Activities of Daily Living, revised January 2022, verified staff will carryout the ADL care tasks following the resident's ADL care plan. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2562969.
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 observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to adequately assess a resident following ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to adequately assess a resident following an unwitnessed fall and failed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent a resident from consuming food not in their diet. This affected two (#56 and #38) of two residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 74.Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #56 revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and pseudobulbar affect. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #56 used a walker to ambulate and required supervision for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 07/15/25 revealed Resident #56 was at risk for falls and potential injury related to psychoactive drug use, and staff were to minimize the potential risk factors related to falls. Additional review of the care plan revealed Resident #56 used psychotropic medications related to paranoid schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Resident #56 was to remain free of drug related complications including gait disturbances. Staff were to report any adverse reactions, including unsteady gait or shuffling gate. Observation on 08/12/25 at 10:03 A.M. at the Connections nurses station revealed Resident #56 approximately ten feet from the nurse’s station lying on the ground with her walker next to her yelling for help. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #381 was behind the nurse’s station at this time. At 10:05 A.M., Housekeeper #376 came out of a resident room stated to Resident #56, Come on get up, and helped Resident #56 off the floor. Housekeeper #376 then went back into room [ROOM NUMBER] without reporting the incident. Interview on 08/12/25 at 10:07 A.M. with LPN #381 revealed she was unaware Resident #56 was on the floor. LPN #381 heard Resident #56 yelling out but stated she was preoccupied with charting. LPN #381 stated she was unsure where the nurse aides were during this time. Further interview with LPN #381 revealed if a resident was on the floor and it was not witnessed the nurse should complete a head-to-toe assessment, neurological checks, call the doctor and resident representative, tell management, and complete a fall packet. LPN #381 confirmed Housekeeper #376 did not report that Resident #56 was on the ground and was only aware due to being told by this surveyor. Review of the progress note for Resident #56 on 08/12/25 at 10:16 A.M. revealed Resident #56 put herself on the floor in the hallway and housekeeping helped Resident #56 up. Interview on 08/12/25 at 10:48 with Housekeeper #376 revealed she did not see Resident #56 fall and came out of the resident room on 08/12/25 due to hearing Resident #56 yelling. Housekeeper #376 confirmed she did not report it to the nurse. Interview on 08/12/25 at 10:57 A.M. with Chief Nursing Officer #401 confirmed the nurse should complete a fall assessment when a resident has an unwitnessed fall. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed an admission date of 12/28/23 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, oropharyngeal dysphagia, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 07/07/25, revealed Resident #38 had mildly impaired cognition, used a walker and wheelchair for mobility, was able to eat with supervision or touching assistance, and was able to wheel 50 feet with two turns once seated in her wheelchair. Further review revealed Resident #38 was on a texture modified diet. Review of the physician order dated 01/16/25 revealed Resident #38 was on a regular diet with pureed textures and thin liquids. Review of the care plan, updated 06/05/25, revealed Resident #38 displayed behavioral symptoms, including taking food off other resident trays. Interventions included verbal redirection and intervening when Resident #38 displayed inappropriate behavior. Review of a progress note dated 05/16/25 revealed Resident #38 was at the food cart stealing regular texture food off other residents’ trays. Resident #38 was educated and redirected. Review of a progress note dated 05/27/25 revealed Resident #38 was eating regular food. Resident #38 was educated twice but refused to give the food back to staff. Review of a progress note dated 06/14/25 revealed Resident #38 was caught eating steak out of the trash. Resident #38 was redirected. Review of a progress note dated 07/04/25 revealed Resident #38 took a hamburger off a discharged resident’s food tray. Resident #38 was educated and refused to return the hamburger. Resident #38 consumed the hamburger without issue. Observation on 08/11/25 at approximately 9:05 A.M. revealed [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS) #400 in the nurses station at the medication cart with her back to Resident #38. Further observation revealed Resident #38 opened the tray cart in the hallway and reaching inside, lifting the lid off another resident’s tray, and pulling out two pieces of bacon. Resident #38 then turned in her wheelchair and began to wheel away from the area while eating a piece of the bacon. Interview on 08/11/25 at approximately 9:07 A.M. with VPCS #400 confirmed Resident #38 had bacon. Concurrent observation revealed VPCS #400 removed the bacon from Resident #38’s hands and provided education. Interview on 08/11/25 at 9:08 A.M. with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #404 confirmed Resident #38 regularly took food from other residents’ plates. Staff had to monitor Resident #38 closely because of this behavior. Further interview revealed CNA #404 was in the dining room during the observation at approximately 9:05 A.M. when Resident #38 removed bacon from the tray cart. CNA #404 confirmed Resident #38 was on a pureed diet. Further, CNA #404 confirmed the tray Resident #38 removed the bacon from was an untouched tray for a resident who was hospitalized . Interviews on 08/12/25 at 9:51 A.M. with LPN #405 and CNA #371 revealed they were familiar with Resident #38 and her behavior of taking food from other residents’ trays. LPN #405 and CNA #371 stated the expectation was staff would monitor Resident #38 and redirect her when needed. Interview on 08/12/25 at 9:56 A.M. with VPCS #400 and Chief Nursing Officer #401 revealed they were unable to provide any additional interventions developed by the facility to prevent Resident #38, who was on a pureed diet, from obtaining and consuming regular texture foods from other residents’ trays. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00166789 (1260025).
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

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility maintained a homelike environment. This affected eight (#35, #82, #22, #36, #12, #81, #7, and #29) of eight residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility maintained a homelike environment. This affected eight (#35, #82, #22, #36, #12, #81, #7, and #29) of eight residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 74.Findings include:1. Observation on 08/05/25 at 1:43 P.M. behind Resident #12's bedroom door revealed a large hole in the drywall at the door handle height. Also noted in the coinciding area behind the door right below the ceiling was a small hole in the drywall. In Resident #12's shared bathroom there was a waste basket under the sink, approximately one-quarter full of water.2. Observation on 08/05/25 at 1:43 P.M. of Resident #81's bedroom revealed a light above his bed with no cord to turn the light on. Resident #81 shared a bathroom with Resident #12 which had a waste basket under the sink, approximately one-quarter full of water.3. Observation on 08/05/25 at 1:49 P.M. of Resident #7 and Resident #35's room revealed large brown-colored areas of a substance throughout the entire ceiling.4. Observation on 08/05/25 at 1:51 P.M. of Resident #29's bedroom revealed a light above the bed with no pull cord.5. Observation on 08/05/25 at 1:52 P.M. of Resident #36 and Resident #22's room revealed large brown-colored areas of a substance throughout the entire ceiling.6. Observation on 08/05/25 at 1:53 P.M. of Resident #82's bedroom revealed a light above the bed with a broken cover that was hanging from the light.Interview and observation on 08/06/25 at 8:07 A.M. with Regional Director of Maintenance (RDM) #403 confirmed Resident #12 had two holes behind the door and a waste basket under the bathroom sink shared by Resident #12 and Resident #81 that was approximately one-quarter full of water. RDM #403 stated he was going to get a part to fix the sink. RDM #403 also confirmed Resident #81 and Resident #29 did not have pull cords for their lights over their bed. RDM #403 confirmed the ceilings in the room shared by Resident #7 and Resident #35 and the room shared by Resident #36 and Resident #22 had water pipes that burst and were fixed; however, the brown-colored spots on the ceiling were not. Additionally, RDM #403 confirmed Resident #82's light was broken.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2562969 and Complaint Number OH00166789 (1260025).
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of a job description, and policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate administration over the facility when a resident died from a choking incident as a result of being provided unapproved food items. The facility subsequently put a corrective action plan into place that was not fully followed to prevent further episodes of resident's choking and prevent residents from receiving restricted food and drinks. This had the potential to affect all 74 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 74.Findings Include:Interview on 08/12/25 at 1:47 P.M. with the Administrator, Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) #401, and [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS) #400 revealed after a choking incident on 09/30/24 that resulted in a resident's (#83) death when the resident was give food items that were restricted, the facility immediately implemented a self-imposed action plan (SIAP) to correct the deficiencies that contributed to the event. Part of the SAIP included an entry dated 10/01/24, that the Dietary Manager (DM) would put a diet list on each snack tray so staff are aware of the current diet order prior to offering a snack. Additionally, the SAIP included on 10/01/24 staff education on the diet list would be completed by the Director of Nursing (DON)/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #370/Clinical Manager (CM) with audits being done to observe staff were utilizing the cards. The SIAP also indicated the results of the audits will be reported to the Quality Assurance (QA) committee.Random observations made throughout the survey revealed staff not utilizing diet order cards on snack trays during snack pass times; and additional observations made throughout the annual survey revealed on 08/06/25 at 10:27 A.M. Resident #7 was choking on food while eating in bed and staff came to assist with the resident ultimately coughing up food into a towel. Resident #7 was eating alone at the time of the choking incident and review of a nutritional assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was to be supervised while eating. Interview on 08/06/25 at 10:28 A.M. with ADON #370 revealed Resident #07 coughed up his food and spit it in a towel. ADON #307 confirmed that the most recent nutritional assessment on 07/17/25 stated Resident #07 was to be supervised while eating. Further observation on 08/11/25 at approximately 9:05 A.M. revealed Resident #38 eating bacon from another resident's meal tray off the unattended hallway cart, and review of Resident #38's physician order dated 01/16/25 revealed the resident a regular diet with pureed texture and thin liquids. Interview on 08/11/25 at approximately 9:07 A.M. with VPCS #400 confirmed Resident #38 had bacon. Interview on 08/11/25 at 9:08 A.M. with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #404 confirmed Resident #38 regularly took food from other residents' plates. Staff had to monitor Resident #38 closely because of this behavior. Further interview revealed CNA #404 was in the dining room during the observation at approximately 9:05 A.M. when Resident #38 removed bacon from the tray cart. CNA #404 confirmed Resident #38 was on a pureed diet. Further, CNA #404 confirmed the tray Resident #38 removed the bacon from was an untouched tray for a resident who was hospitalized .Review of the undated Executive Director (Administrator) job description listed essential job functions and responsibilities included to develop and maintain written policies and procedures that govern the operation of the facility, and assume the administrative authority, responsibility, and accountability of directing the activities and programs of the facility. Additionally, the primary purpose of job description was to direct the day-to-day functions of the facility in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards, guidelines, and regulations that govern long-term care facilities to assure that the highest degree of quality of care can be provided to our residents at all times.Review of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) policy, dated 03/2023, revealed governance and leadership will operate under the direction of the QAPI Governing Chairpersons who are considered subject matter experts; Executive Director, Director of Nursing, Medical Director, and Infection Preventionist. Further, the policy revealed the object of the QAPI Governing was to develop a continuous pro-active approach to self-discovery to decrease the likelihood of issues/concerns and test new approaches to correct underlying potential causes of those issues/concerns.This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number 2562969.
Jun 2025 2 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and review of a Safety Data Sheet (SDS), the facility failed to ensure appropriate cleaning agents were used to clean residents rooms and common areas. This affe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of a Safety Data Sheet (SDS), the facility failed to ensure appropriate cleaning agents were used to clean residents rooms and common areas. This affected 32 (#11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, and #42) residents on the upstairs unit. The facility census was 68. Findings include: Interview on 06/17/25 at 10:28 A.M. with the Administrator confirmed the Housekeeper Supervisor was on vacation for the week. Observation and interview on 06/17/25 at 11:46 A.M. revealed Housekeeper #302 used products she personally purchased to clean the facility. Housekeeper #302 stated the chemical supplies were on the first floor of the facility and because she worked on the second floor she felt it was easier to purchase her own chemical cleaning supplies so she did not have to go downstairs when she needed to refresh her mop and/or rag buckets with new cleaning solution. Housekeeper #302 showed two products with the brand name Pinalen. One was green, which she used for the floors, and one was pink with a floral delight scent which she used for surfaces and toilets. Further interview with Housekeeper #302 revealed her supervisor was aware she was using the products and approved their use. Follow-up interview on 06/18/25 at approximately 1:30 P.M. with Housekeeper #302 revealed she did not measure the amount of cleaning solution she used in either her mop bucket or her rag bucket. Housekeeper #302 stated the cleaners were strong and she used a little of it. Further interview with Housekeeper #302 revealed she was informed by her supervisor earlier in the morning on 06/18/25 that she was no longer allowed to use the Pinalen cleaning products Housekeeper #302 purchased at the store. Review of an email received 06/18/25 at 4:28 P.M. from the Administrator confirmed Housekeeper #302 was assigned to clean only the second floor and did not work throughout the building. Review of the original Pinalen instructions revealed for general floor cleaning, use 1/4 cup of Pinalen in one gallon of water; for dirtier floors use 1/4 cup of Pinalen in 1/2 gallon of water. Review of the Floral Delight Pinalen instructions for kitchen and bathroom cleaning revealed 1/2 cup of Pinalen should be diluted in 1/2 gallon of water. The facility was unable to provide a policy regarding the types of cleaning products required to meet the cleaning needs of the facility. Review of the Safety Data Sheet for Pinalen, provided by the facility, revised 04/21/15, revealed it was a household multipurpose cleaner and was not intended for industrial uses or as a sanitizing agent. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00165936.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff schedule review, timesheet review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) worked for eight hours daily in the facility. This affected all 68 resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff schedule review, timesheet review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) worked for eight hours daily in the facility. This affected all 68 residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the staff schedules and timesheets for May 2015 revealed no RN coverage on 05/11/25. Interview on 06/18/25 at 10:38 A.M. with Regional Clinical Support #500 confirmed there was no evidence an RN worked in the facility on 05/11/25. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00165936.
Mar 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record, review of a self-reported incident, review of an incident report, review of hospital reco...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record, review of a self-reported incident, review of an incident report, review of hospital records, review of staff statements, staff interview, staff job description, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff assisted a resident with safe ambulation, report a resident fall, and ensure a resident was assessed for injuries prior to moving the resident after a fall, and ensure the resident's fall was thoroughly investigated. Additionally, the facility failed to implement fall prevention interventions. This resulted in Actual Harm on 02/12/25 when staff assisted Resident #47 to the bathroom without his walker, staff then picked the resident up off the floor after a fall, toileted the resident, and then walked the resident back to bed further increasing the risk for injury then never reported the fall to the nurse. The oncoming nursing shift later found the resident had bruising to the left lower lip and redness to the left side of the face and a displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur, requiring surgical repair and hospitalization from 02/12/25 through 02/18/25. This affected one (#47) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 74. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #47 revealed an admission date of 01/18/24. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, type two diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, difficulty walking, muscle weakness, osteoarthritis of unspecified hip, hypertension, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder and vascular dementia. A diagnosis of displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur was added on 02/18/25. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 01/21/25 revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The resident required substantial/maximal assistance for toileting, supervision/touching assistance for transfers and ambulation. Review of a fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was at high risk for falls. Review of a physical therapy discharge assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident could ambulate 150 feet with front wheeled walker and supervision/stand by assist requiring ten percent verbal cues for proper use of walker. Discharge recommendations included the use of a front wheeled walker for ambulation. Review of the physician orders for 02/2025 revealed no orders for assistive mobility devices. Review of the care plan initiated 01/18/24 and last revised on 01/22/25 revealed the resident was at risk for falls due to decline in functional mobility, diagnoses of anxiety, depression and vascular dementia, an elevated body mass index, restlessness, osteoarthritis of the hip, incontinent, use of psychotropic medications and weakness. Interventions included to be sure the resident's call light was within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needed prompt response to all requests for assistance. Physical/Occupational evaluation and treatment as indicated. The resident required the assistance one staff for transfers and assistance with toileting as needed. There was no documentation in the care plan for the resident to use a walker. Review of the staff schedule for 02/11/25 revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #110 and CNA #112 were assigned to care for residents on the memory care unit including Resident #47 from 02/11/25 at 7:00 P.M. through 7:00 A.M. on 02/12/25. Review of a nurse progress note dated 02/12/25 at 7:50 A.M. revealed the nurse was notified by a nursing assistant that Resident #47 was not able to sit up or get up for breakfast on his own. The nursing assistant went to help the resident and when she touched his leg he yelled out in pain. The progress note stated that when the nurse was notified, the nurse further assessed Resident #47's skin and leg. Resident #47 had swelling to his left hip/leg, and his left leg was rotated outward. Resident #47 also had a swollen bottom lip on the left side, and red bump on his left cheek. The nurse notified nurse practitioner and received a STAT order for a left hip/pelvis X-ray and the rest of his leg if needed. The nurse progress note continued to say Resident #47 was complaining of pain and discomfort, was given medication (scheduled Tylenol), vital signs were within normal limits and the resident will continue to be monitored. Review of a self-reported incident (SRI) report dated 02/12/25 at 10:00 A.M., a facility incident report and subsequent investigation revealed the resident had bruising to left lower lip, left cheek, and noted increased pain to left hip. Resident #47 was unable to give description. Full assessment head to toe completed. Left leg had increased pain and resident was unable to move left leg. Left leg also noted had shorten appearance to it. The nurse contacted the physician and received orders for a STAT x-ray. Physician and guardian notified. Review of the SRI summary of incident revealed the resident was found with an area of discoloration to the left lower lip and left cheek and leg pain. The nurse assessed the resident, and a stat x-ray was ordered showing a left femur fracture. Upon investigation it was reported that staff had assisted the resident to the bathroom in the early morning hours of 02/12/25 and his legs buckled and he went to the floor. The staff assisted the resident off the floor and onto the toilet and back to bed. The staff noticed the resident had difficulty walking and the resident was unable to tell staff what was wrong. The staff were educated on reporting any fall immediately upon discovery. Disciplinary action was taken as appropriate. Further review of the incident report and investigation revealed no documentation regarding what fall interventions were in place prior to the resident's fall including type of footwear worn and environmental conditions of the room. There were also no statements or interviews from the day shift nursing assistant receiving report from the night shift nursing assistant, there was no statement from the nursing assistant who discovered the injury, and no documentation if the resident was using his walker at the time of the fall. Review of a late entry nurses note dated 2/12/2025 at 10:09 A.M. revealed the resident had bruising to left lower lip, left check, left side of head and noted increased pain to left hip. Resident unable to recall events. Full assessment head to toe completed. Left leg has increased pain and resident was unable to move left leg. Left leg also noted with shortened appearance. Nurse contacted physician and received order for STAT X-ray. Review of a nurses note dated 02/12/25 at 11:06 A.M. revealed the results of the x-ray included an acute-appearing fracture of the intertrochanteric left femur. There was a mild displacement of the distal fragment. There were no gross lytic or blastic lesions in the bones. There was no abnormal radiopaque foreign body. There was no dislocation. The joint spaces were unremarkable. Resident was sent out 911. Will continue to monitor. Responsible party was notified. The nurse practitioner and management notified. Review of a late entry nurses note for 2/13/25 at 9:20 A.M. revealed the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) met to discuss resident related to fall dated 02/12/25. Resident was being assisted to the toilet when his knees buckled causing him to fall to the floor. An x-ray was completed related to leg pain and results showed a left femur fracture. Resident was sent to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. Review of an undated and unsigned statement by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #110 taken over the phone by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed on the morning of the resident's accident, CNA #112 and CNA #110 walked the resident to the bathroom. CNA #110 stated the resident made it to the toilet, he went down saying he could not do it. The resident went to the ground, and we let him catch his breath. Afterward, we proceeded to lift him up and place him on the toilet. After the resident was done, we walked him back to bed. Review of an undated and unsigned statement by CNA #112 revealed on the night of the resident's incident, CNA #110 and CNA #112 walked the resident to the bathroom because he had a bowel movement. As they walked the resident to the toilet, the resident buckled to the floor. CNA #110 and CNA #112 helped the resident off the floor. Once the resident caught his breath they continued to take him to the toilet. CNA #110 and CNA #112 cleaned the resident up after using the toilet and walked the resident back to bed. CNA #112 noticed the resident was walking funny and asked him what happened, and the resident stated he did not know. Review of an undated unsigned statement for Registered Nurse (RN) #260 taken by Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #214 revealed no staff had reported a fall for Resident #47 on the 12-hour night shift from 02/11/24 into 02/12/25. Review of a skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 's left leg and hip were swollen and turned outward. The resident had a bruised and swollen lip and a red bump on the left cheek. Review of a hospital documentation dated 02/12/25 revealed the resident was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] at 11:53 A.M. The resident presented with a fall and hip pain from an unwitnessed fall at the nursing home. The outpatient x-ray showed fracture of the left intertrochanteric femur and mild displacement of distal fragment. The resident was unable to provide any history and believed it was 1978. The resident underwent imaging and found to have a severely comminuted intertrochanteric fracture through the proximal left femur with varus deformity of the proximal left femur. There was mild hemorrhage in the soft tissue surrounding the deformity. The resident denied pain. Review of the hospital imaging/diagnostics report dated 02/12/25 revealed a computed tomography (CT) of the left hip was completed. The resident had an acute severely comminuted intertrochanteric fracture through the proximal left femur with varus deformity of the proximal left femur. There was underlying diffuse osteopenia and mild hemorrhage in the soft tissues surrounding the proximal left femoral fracture deformity. The resident was also noted with mild underlying bilateral hip osteoarthrosis with underlying diffuse osteopenia. Review of the resident's care plan revised on 02/18/25 revealed the resident was at risk for falls and potential injury. Interventions included a low bed, maintain a clear pathway, mat on floor next to bed, non-slip material in chair, turn and reposition, Broda chair per therapy recommendation, call light in reach and encourage use, prompt response for requests for assistance. Review of the care plan for alteration in musculoskeletal status related to the fracture revealed an intervention for an abductor pillow while in bed. Review of corrective action counseling statements dated 02/19/25 for CNA #110 and CNA #112 revealed counseling completed for failure to follow instruction or to perform work according to procedure or policy. Review of a training in-service dated 02/19/25 revealed 74 staff received education on the fall policy. Observation on 03/20/25 at 9:39 A.M. of Resident #47 revealed the resident was in bed with his eyes closed. The bed was in the lowest position but was not a low bed. Resident #47's hip abductor was not in place and there was no floor mat next to the bed. Further observation revealed there was no nonslip material in place in the resident's wheelchair. Interviews on 03/20/25 at 9:39 A.M., CNA #272 verified the resident's hip abductor was not in place and was located in the resident's closet. CNA #272 verified there was no fall mat in place next to the resident's bed. CNA #272 was unaware the resident required a fall mat. CNA #272 verified the resident's bed was in the lowest position. Interview on 03/20/25 at 9:42 A.M., CNA #276 verified there was no nonslip material in place in the resident's wheelchair. CNA #276 revealed another resident must have moved it. Interview on 03/20/25 at 10:09 A.M., CNA #110 revealed on 02/12/25 before 6:00 A.M. CNA #112 assisted him with walking Resident #47 to the bathroom without his walker. CNA #110 revealed they got to the bathroom and the resident began to buckle. CNA #110 revealed CNA #112 and himself were on each side of the resident and lowered the resident to the ground on his buttocks with his legs in front of him in front of the toilet. CNA #110 revealed they got the resident back up and put him on the toilet. CNA #110 revealed the resident had not hit his head. CNA #110 stated four times the resident had not fallen; he was lowered to the ground. CNA #110 verified the incident was not reported to the nurse. During the interview CNA #110 revealed he told CNA #402 on the oncoming shift about lowering Resident #47 to the ground. CNA #110 revealed he was unaware that lowering a resident to the floor was considered a fall. CNA #110 stated he had been educated by the DON. Interview on 03/20/25 at 10:56 A.M., CNA #276 revealed on 02/12/25 her shift started around 7:00 A.M. CNA #276 revealed around 7:30 A.M. Resident #47 requested assistance getting up. CNA #276 revealed as she went to assist the resident, the resident stated, my hip, my hip. CNA #276 revealed seeing a bruise on the resident's lip. CNA #276 revealed she requested the nurse to the room to assess the resident. CNA #276 revealed she wrote a statement. Interview by telephone on 03/20/25 at 11:04 A.M. and 2:49 P.M. was attempted unsuccessfully with CNA #402. Interview on 03/20/25 at 11:11 A.M., the DON revealed on 02/12/25 Resident #47 was found with unexplained injuries and a self-reported incident was reported. The DON revealed she was not in the building on 02/12/25. The DON revealed Resident #47 had a fracture to the left hip/femur. The DON revealed the resident was sent to the hospital where he received surgical repair and returned to the facility on [DATE]. The DON revealed during the investigation it was found that the resident had been assisted to the bathroom by CNA #110 and CNA #112. While in the bathroom the resident's legs buckled and he fell. The staff assisted him up and onto the toilet then walked him back to bed. The DON verified CNA #110 and CNA #112 never reported the fall and received written counseling action. The DON stated CNA #110 and CNA #112 stated the resident fell and never indicated he had been lowered to the floor. CNA #110 and CNA #112 stated if a resident was not injured then why would they report the incident to the nurse. The DON revealed staff were educated to report all falls even if lowered to the floor or change in plane. The DON revealed CNA #110 and CNA #112 stated the resident may have hit his head during the fall. The DON revealed not knowing what kind of footwear the resident was wearing at the time of the fall or if there were any contributing environmental factors. The DON revealed the resident was not care planned for gait belt use but maybe they should have used a gait belt. The DON revealed the incident occurred around 5:00 A.M. The DON verified there was missing information in the investigation, she claims she asked the questions and should have written down all the questions asked and their responses. Further interview with the DON revealed the nursing assistants stated the fall happened around 5:30 A.M. and the oncoming shift noticed around 7:30 A.M. The DON revealed the resident had an x-ray around 11:06 A.M. and was admitted to the hospital at 11:53 A.M. on 02/12/25. The DON verified she could not find a statement by CNA #276 and never interviewed CNA #402 who received report from CNA #110. Further interview on 03/21/25 at 1:18 P.M. the DON verified there was no documentation in the incident report or the investigation whether staff had the resident using his walker at the time of the fall. The DON revealed per therapy the resident should have been using his walker, and it was the safest way to walk Resident #47. The DON revealed the resident would need reminded to use his walker and often would refuse to use the walker. The DON verified there was no documentation in the medical record the resident had refused to use his walker at the time of the fall on 02/12/25. The DON further revealed the use of a walker was not required to be in the physician's orders or care plan. Interview on 03/20/25 at 12:26 P.M., CNA #112 revealed on 02/12/25 around 5:00 A.M. to 5:30 A.M. Resident #47 was in bed and had a bowel movement. CNA #112 revealed CNA #110 and herself walked with the resident to the bathroom to clean him up. CNA #112 revealed they were not using a gait belt or the resident's walker because the resident could walk on his own. CNA #112 revealed they were walking behind the resident and the resident's legs buckled and CNA #110 and herself grabbed the resident's arms and lowered him to the floor on his bottom with his legs in front of him facing the toilet and his back to the door. CNA #112 revealed she had not noticed the resident hitting his head or face on anything. CNA #112 revealed waiting for the resident to catch his breath and then they got him up on the toilet, cleaned him up and walked him back to bed. CNA #112 revealed the resident was walking funny. CNA #112 revealed asking the resident what was wrong with his leg and the resident replied, I don't know. CNA #112 revealed not noticing any bruising or red marks on the resident's face. CNA #112 revealed the incident was not reported to the nurse because the resident had not voiced having pain. CNA #112 revealed the DON educated her for not reporting the incident. Interview follow-up on 03/20/25 at 12:51 P.M., the DON revealed she had just spoken with CNA #112 and CNA #112 told her the resident fell and had hit his head. The DON was not sure why CNA #112 and CNA #110 were inconsistent with their statements when reporting to the surveyor that the resident was lowered to the floor and had not hit his head as she had spoken with both of them earlier in the same day and they told her the resident fell, hit his head, and was not lowered to the floor. Observation and interview on 03/20/25 at 12:58 P.M., the DON verified Resident #47 was not in a low bed. The DON revealed the resident's bed was in the lowest position. The DON revealed the care plan should have stated the bed should be in the lowest position instead of a low bed. The DON revealed a low bed would not be appropriate for Resident #47. Interview on 03/20/25 at 1:15 P.M., ADON #214 revealed initiating the investigation for Resident #47. ADON #214 revealed RN #260 was contacted and knew nothing about a fall from the previous shift. ADON #214 revealed going with RN #300 to assess Resident #47 for a second time around 8:00 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. on 02/12/25. ADON #214 revealed the resident was moaning in pain. The resident had rotation of the left leg with swelling and winced when touched. ADON #214 revealed the resident had bruising on the lip and a red mark on the left cheek. ADON #214 revealed RN #260 and RN #300 were not aware what happened to the resident. ADON #214 revealed attempts were made to contact CNA #110 and CNA #112, but no response was received. Interview on 03/20/25 at 1:08 P.M., Physician #100 revealed he had been notified Resident #47 had a fracture from a fall. Physician #100 revealed typically there would not be a fracture from being lowered to floor unless the resident had osteoporosis. Physician #100 revealed the resident had no bone density test results indicating osteoporosis. Interview on 03/20/25 at 3:29 P.M., RN #260 revealed working the memory care unit on the 12-hour shift from 02/11/25 through 02/12/25. RN #260 could not recall what time she last saw the resident during the shift. RN #260 revealed earlier in the shift the resident was walking around per his normal. RN #260 revealed the nursing assistants never reported the resident had fallen. Interview on 03/20/25 at 3:34 P.M. RN #300 revealed on 02/12/25 CNA #276 was assisting residents with breakfast when Resident #47 asked for assistance to get out of bed. CNA #276 reported the resident stated ow when she tried to assist him. RN #300 revealed CNA #276 called her to the resident's room. RN #300 revealed Resident #47's left leg and hip were rotated outward, there was redness and bruising on the left side of the lip, and redness on the left side of his face. RN #300 revealed the nurse practitioner was notified with new orders received for an x-ray. RN #300 revealed Resident #47's scheduled medications including Tylenol were administered. RN #300 revealed the x-ray technician reported the resident most likely had a fracture. RN #300 revealed 911 was called while awaiting the final x-ray report. RN #300 revealed emergency medical services (EMS) were already in the building when the final x-ray results were received showing the fracture. Interview on 03/21/25 at 1:12 P.M., Physical Therapist (PT) #700 revealed Resident #47 had discharged from therapy with a recommendation for a front wheeled walker. PT #700 revealed staff had been instructed for the resident to use the walker and may require verbal cues to use the walker. PT #700 revealed the resident had dementia and would forget and often get up without his walker. PT #700 revealed the resident should have used the walker with staff. Review of the Certified Nursing Assistant job description revealed the nursing assistant would report all changes in the resident's condition to the nurse supervisor/charge nurse as soon as practical. Report all accidents and incidents observed on the shift they occur. Further review of the job description revealed to follow physician orders and follow directions of the physical therapist. Also, assist resident to walk with or without self-devices as instructed. Review care plans daily to determine if changes in the resident's daily care routine have been made on the care plan. Review of the facility policy Fall Policy, revised 01/03/25, revealed the facility would assure proper review of resident fall risk and implementation of interventions to attempt to prevent or reduce falls and injuries related to falls. Tracking would be done on an incident where a fall has occurred. A fall is when a resident is observed on the floor or when a resident was lowered to the floor with or without injury. Appropriate medical care would be provided as needed, including calling for emergency transport to the emergency room if indicated. Nursing notes would reflect the fall, assessment, care and monitoring provided and notifications. Care plans would be updated with new and discontinued interventions when reviewed and following a fall as appropriate. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00163072 and OH00162984.
Sept 2024 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the facility policy, review of the Self-Reported Incidents (SRI) database, facility investigat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the facility policy, review of the Self-Reported Incidents (SRI) database, facility investigation, review of hospital records, resident interviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to prevent resident-to-resident physical abuse. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #01, a resident with known history of resident-to-resident abuse incidents, struck Resident #02 in the face causing a hematoma (a pool of clotted blood that forms in the tissue) to her face and a closed fracture of the right orbital floor (one or more bones around the eyeball break, often from a blow to the face). Additionally, the facility failed to ensure Resident #03 was free from resident-to-resident physical abuse when Resident #01, who was supposed to be on one-to-one monitoring, struck Resident #03 in the back several times, while Resident #03 was asleep. This affected three (#01, #02 and #03) of six residents reviewed for abuse. The current census is 79. Findings include: 1. Review of the SRI dated 08/14/24 revealed the incident was reported on 08/09/24 at 6:35 P.M., when Resident #01 was seen grabbing Resident #02's hair and punching her in the face. Per the SRI, the facility separated the residents, sent Resident #02 to the hospital, then upon return placed both residents in 15-minute checks until Resident #02 was transferred to another unit. Per the SRI report, the police were notified but no report was made, and no charges were filed. The SRI was unsubstantiated for abuse due to Resident #01's diagnosis of dementia. Review of the facility's investigation into the alleged resident-to-resident abuse dated 08/09/24 to 08/16/24 revealed per the investigation, two nurses and one aide were interviewed after the incident, and there was no information regarding what led up to the incident noted in the interviews. Per the aide's written statements dated 08/09/24, Resident #01 and Resident #02 were sitting in their wheelchairs in the hallway and the aide witnessed Resident #01 grabbing Resident #02 by the hair and punching her in the face. Per the nurses' interviews the aide reported the incident immediately and Resident #02 was able to report to one nurse she was punched by Resident #01 in the face. No other resident interviews were included in the investigation reports. An assessment of Resident #02 revealed the resident had facial swelling and bruising to the right side of her face. Per the investigation Resident #02 was sent to the hospital and was diagnosed with facial swelling and an orbital fracture to her right eye. a. Review of Resident #01's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/24/24. Diagnoses for Resident #01 included: bipolar disorder, vascular dementia, delirium, and metabolic encephalopathy. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition and portrayed physical behaviors towards others during the review period. Review of Resident #01's care plans dated May 2024 and revised on 08/16/24 revealed a focus for behaviors such as physical aggression towards others. Interventions include psychological evaluation, medications per order, talk to resident when being aggressive, and intervene by talking calmly and taking resident to a quiet area when behaviors are observed. Review of the SRI dated 02/22/24 revealed at 8:40 P.M., staff witnessed Resident #01 striking another resident in the face. Per the SRI there was no marks on either resident, and no injuries were noted in the documentation. Per the SRI, staff witnessed Resident #01 near the other resident's room, and he struck her in the mouth with his hand. Per the SRI, the other resident was interviewed and stated she had not done anything to upset Resident #01. Per the SRI, Resident #01 was sent to the hospital for testing, was positive for a urinary tract infection, and was referred to the Senior Wellness Group. The other resident was moved to another unit. Review of Resident #01's behavior assessment dated , 02/23/24 at 12:05 A.M., revealed the resident was having wandering and hitting behaviors. Interventions included redirection and one-to-one interventions. Per the assessment the interventions were effective. Review of Resident #01's physician orders revealed on 06/18/24, the resident was ordered to be seen by psychiatric services. There was no documentation of Resident #01 being seen by a psychiatrist noted in the record until 08/14/24 when the psychologist saw the resident. The order was discontinued on 08/15/24. Review of Resident #01's behavior assessment dated [DATE] at 6:44 P.M., revealed the resident was having cursing, threatening others, and grabbing behaviors. Interventions included redirection and were effective. No behavior assessment was noted in Resident #01's medical records for 08/09/24 for behaviors towards Resident #02. Review of Resident #01's behavior assessment dated [DATE] at 3:15 P.M., revealed Resident #01 was having pacing, wandering, and disrobing in public behaviors. Interventions include one-to-one interventions, redirection, and toileting. Per the assessment the interventions were effective. b. Review of Resident #02's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/21/23. Diagnoses for Resident #02 included: dementia, dysphagia, anemia, antisocial personality disorder, and bipolar disorder. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident had impaired cognition and had no documented behaviors at the time of the review period. Review of Resident #02's care plans dated 04/24/24 revealed the resident did not have any behaviors of aggression towards others. Per the care plan there were no behaviors relating to abuse. Review of Resident #02's assessments revealed the resident denied pain during the assessments dated from 06/01/24 to 08/09/24. Review of the vital sign monitoring revealed on 08/09/24 at 8:13 A.M., the resident denied any pain. On 08/10/24 at 8:43 A.M., Resident #02 reported a pain level of 4 out of 10 (10 rated as the highest pain). On 08/11/24 at 8:26 A.M., Resident #02 reported a pain level of 5 out of 10. Review of the progress note dated 08/09/24 at 6:40 P.M., revealed Resident #02 was being sent to the hospital for evaluation of facial swelling due to an altercation with another resident. Review of Resident #02's hospital documentation dated 08/09/24 at 9:19 P.M., revealed the resident was treated for a hematoma to her face and a fractured orbital space. The hospital diagnosed Resident #02 with a closed fracture of the right orbital floor. Discharge orders included to start taking cephalexin 250 milligrams orally three times a day for 10 days, and to apply ice packs to affected area. Resident #02 was discharged from the hospital back to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the progress note dated 08/10/24 at 2:20 A.M., Resident #02 returned from the hospital to the facility. Observations on 09/04/24 at 10:02 A.M., revealed Resident #02 was observed on another unit than Resident #01. During an attempt to interview Resident #02 on 09/05/24 at 10:05 A.M., Resident #02 did not answer any questions. During the interview attempt, the resident did not appear to be in distress. Interview on 09/04/24 at 10:10 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #300 revealed she was the aide that had cared for Resident #02 after she returned from the hospital on [DATE]. Per STNA #300 the resident had bruising under her eye and some swelling. STNA #300 stated she did get the resident ice to place on her face after she reported pain. Interview on 09/04/24 at 11:20 A.M. and on 09/17/24 at 11:02 A.M., with Social Worker (SW) #333 revealed after the incident Resident #02 was moved to another unit when she returned from the hospital on [DATE]. Per SW #0333, the resident denied any concerns, stating she could not recall what happened or why it happened, and stated she felt safe in the facility. SW #333 stated she did interview Resident #02 on 08/12/24 and the resident stated she had no pain from the incident. Interview on 09/04/24 at 2:15 P.M., with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the DON was notified on 08/09/24 around 7:00 P.M., after the incident with Resident #01 and Resident #02 occurred. The DON stated due to Resident #01's dementia abuse could not be substantiated. The DON stated he felt Resident #01 had a 'focus' on Resident #02 which caused the resident to strike her. The DON stated Resident #01 had a 'fixation' on Resident #02 and once she was moved off the unit, there was no other behaviors from Resident #01 to any other resident until the incident on 08/13/24. The DON did not explain what he meant by fixation and there was no other history per records or interviews of Resident #01 and Resident #02 having any issues prior. The DON stated he felt by moving Resident #02 off the unit he had fixed the problem; the DON did not reveal the previous issues Resident #01 had with another resident. The DON verified there was no interviews or assessment included in the investigation regarding the behaviors or factors which could have provoked the incident. The DON stated despite previous allegations of resident-to-resident abuse regarding Resident #01, the DON felt placing Resident #01 back into 15-minute checks was sufficient to ensure the safety of the other remaining residents on the unit. Interview on 09/17/24 at 11:45 A.M. with the DON verified Resident #01 was seen by the psychologist in the facility which was a Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP), and a social worker who was employed by the psych services. Interview on 09/17/24 at 9:33 A.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #100 revealed she assessed Resident #02 on 08/10/24, after she transferred from another unit. LPN #100 stated the resident did complain of slight pain in her face and was provided ice for discomfort per hospital paperwork. 2. Review of the SRI dated 08/14/24 revealed Resident #03 reported to the nurse on 08/13/24 at 11:38 P.M., Resident #01 had struck him multiple times in the back. Per the SRI the facility reported the incident on 08/14/24 at 10:15 P.M. Per the SRI the facility unsubstantiated the abuse due to Resident #01's dementia. Review of the facility's investigation dated 08/14/24 revealed on 08/13/24 at 11:38 P.M., Resident #03 came to the nurse's station and reported to the nurse that Resident #01 had hit him 5 times in the back. Per the investigation Resident #03 was assessed for injuries and his back was noted to be bruised and swelling. The facility staff reported they separated the residents and notified all parties of the incident. The staff and residents were interviewed. Per the interviews Resident #01 had returned from the hospital and showed no behaviors prior to the incident. All other residents were assessed for injuries, and none were found. Resident #03 refused to be sent to the hospital for evaluation and Resident #01 was placed on one-to-one monitoring until he was transferred to a behavioral facility on 08/14/24. a. Review of Resident #01's medical record revealed a re-admission date of 01/24/24. Diagnoses for Resident #01 included: bipolar disorder, vascular dementia, delirium, and metabolic encephalopathy. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition and portrayed physical behaviors towards others during the review period. Review of Resident #01's care plans dated May 2024 and revised on 08/16/24 revealed a focus for behaviors such as physical aggression towards others. Interventions include psychological evaluation, medications per order, talk to resident when being aggressive, and intervene by talking calmly and taking resident to a quiet area when behaviors are observed. Review of Resident #01's behavior assessment dated [DATE] at 3:15 P.M., revealed Resident #01 was having pacing, wandering, and disrobing in public behaviors. Interventions include one-to-one interventions, redirection, and toileting. Per the assessment the interventions were effective. Review of Resident #01's progress notes revealed on 08/12/24 at 10:35 A.M., the interdisciplinary team added the intervention of 15-minute checks for the resident. The medical record contained no evidence of 15-minute checks being completed. Review of Resident #01's behavior assessment dated [DATE] at 11:38 P.M., revealed Resident #01 was having behaviors of crawling around on the floor. Interventions of redirection were ineffective. No behavioral assessments dated 08/13/24 were noted in Resident #01's medical records after the incident with Resident #03. Review of Resident #01's progress note dated 08/13/24 at 5:34 P.M., Resident #01 was sent to the hospital due to critical laboratory values. Per the note dated 08/13/24 at 11:04 P.M., Resident #01 had returned from the hospital and was being monitored. No behavioral assessments dated 08/13/24 were noted in Resident #01's medical records after the incident with Resident #03. Review of the psych service note dated 08/14/24 at 9:33 A.M., signed by the social worker for psych services revealed the plan listed on the note was to have Resident #01 be seen by psych services 6 visits in 3 months to reach the goal of increasing interpersonal interactions and activities. Therapeutic interventions attempted were listed as supportive therapy. No mention of the aggressive behaviors was noted in the progress note. Review of Resident #01's behavior assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited behaviors of being combative with care, hitting and grabbing. Interventions attempted were redirection, one-to-one intervention, and change in scenery. Per the assessments the interventions were ineffective. No documentation was noted in the records in regard to what the staff did if the interventions were ineffective. Review of Resident #01's physician orders revealed on 09/03/24, Resident #01 was to be on one-to-one supervision at all times. No orders predating the 09/03/24 order for one-to-one supervision was noted in the medical record for Resident #01. Observations made on 09/04/24 at 9:44 A.M. and 09/17/24 at 11:00 A.M., of Resident #01 revealed the resident to be resting in his room, and the resident did not respond to questions. A staff member was observed throughout the survey to be sitting in Resident #01's room watching the resident as a one-to-one intervention. b. Review of Resident #03's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/28/22. Diagnoses for Resident #03 included: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, cognitive communication deficit, and vascular dementia. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition and had no behaviors during the review period. Review of Resident #03's care plans dated 09/22/23 revealed no focus for behaviors of aggression towards others or himself. Review of Resident #03 medical record revealed no documentation of Resident #03's injuries after the incident on 08/13/24 at 11:52 P.M. No monitoring of the bruising or skin assessment was included in the records. Per Resident #03's vital signs no reports of pain were recorded in the records. Observation and interview on 09/04/24 at 11:03 A.M. with Resident #03 revealed the resident denied any further incidents with Resident #01, after he returned to the facility. Resident #03 could not provide details of the incident on 08/13/24. Interview on 09/04/24 at 3:30 P.M., with Clinical Nurse Manager (CNM) #500 and Regional Registered Nurse (RRN) #555 and the DON revealed after the incidents occurred on 08/09/24 and 08/13/24, all staff were interviewed after the incident regarding the details of each incident. The DON verified there were no assessments or documentation of Resident #01's behaviors prior to the incident. CNM #500 stated Resident #01 was assessed by the facility's psychologist on 08/08/24 and 08/13/24 and was stable with no behaviors. RRN #555 stated the resident was not on one-to-one monitoring despite a history of aggressive behaviors towards other residents due to the psychiatric evaluation of being stable on 08/08/24 and 08/13/24. The DON and CNM #500 verified 15-minute checks were not documented in the records and stated on 08/13/24, Resident #01 returned to the facility around 11:00 P.M., and was not documented as being observed until 11:45 P.M., after Resident #03 had reported he was being hit by Resident #01. Interview on 09/17/24 a 11:45 A.M. with the DON verified Resident #01 was seen by the psychologist in the facility which was a Certified Nurse Practitioner, (CNP), and a social worker who was employed by the psych services. Review of the policy titled, Abuse, Mistreatment, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated October 2022, revealed abuse is defined as instances of abuse, irrespective of mental or physical condition causing harm, pain, and/or mental anguish. The policy stated in order to prevent abuse the facility will complete ongoing assessments of behaviors. To protect other residents increased supervision of the alleged perpetrator and/or immediate transfer out of the facility. Per the policy the facility will complete ongoing assessments and care planning for appropriate interventions for monitoring the residents with behaviors. If a resident is accused or suspected of resident-to-resident abuse the facility will ensure all other residents are protected as determined by the circumstances which can include increased monitoring of accused residents and/or the immediate transfer or discharge of the resident. This deficiency represents non-compliance with control numbers OH00156980 and OH00156909.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) database, review of policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to timely report allegations of resident-to-resident abuse. This affected three...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) database, review of policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to timely report allegations of resident-to-resident abuse. This affected three (#01, #02, and #03) of three residents reviewed for abuse reporting of allegations of abuse. The current census is 76. Findings include: Review of the Self-Reported Incident dated 08/14/24 at 5:33 P.M., revealed the incident was reported on 08/09/24 at 6:35 P.M., when Resident #01 was seen grabbing Resident #02's hair and punching her in the face. Per the SRI, the facility separated the residents, sent Resident #02 to the hospital, then upon return placed both residents in 15-minute checks until Resident #02 was transferred to another unit. Per the SRI report, the police were notified but no report was made, and no charges were filed. The SRI was unsubstantiated for abuse due to Resident #01's diagnosis of dementia. Review of the facility's investigation into the resident-to-resident abuse dated 08/09/24 to 08/16/24 revealed no evidence the incident was reported to the SRI database on 08/09/24. Per the investigation, two nurses and one aide were interviewed after the incident, no information regarding what led up to the incident was noted in the interviews. Per the aide's written statements dated 08/09/24, Resident #01 and Resident #02 were sitting in their wheelchairs in the hallway and the aide witnessed Resident #01 grabbing Resident #02 by the hair and punching her in the face. Per the nurses' interviews the aide reported the incident immediately and Resident #02 was able to report to one nurse she was punched by Resident #01 in the face. No resident interviews were included in the investigation reports. An assessment of Resident #02 revealed the resident had facial swelling and bruising to the right side of her face. Per the investigation Resident #02 was sent to the hospital and was diagnosed with facial swelling and an orbital fracture to her right eye. Further review of the facility's investigation into the incident revealed no other staff were interviewed regarding the observed behaviors of Resident #01 prior to the incident on 08/09/24. No residents written statements were included in the investigation. Interview on 09/04/24 at 2:00 P.M., with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the allegations of resident-to-resident abuse was reported to him as the designee of abuse reporting, on 08/09/24 around 7:00 P.M. Per the DON, the facility began the investigation and he filed the SRI on 08/09/24. The DON verified Resident #02 had suffered a facial orbital fracture and a black eye from the incident. The DON verified there was no evidence he had filed the SRI in the database on 08/09/24. The DON stated he did not check to see if the SRI was filed and did not follow up with the SRI investigation until 08/14/24. The DON stated he did notify the local law enforcement and an officer came to the facility but did not file a report regarding the abuse due to Resident #01's cognitive deficit. 2. Review of the SRI dated 08/14/24 at 10:15 P.M., revealed Resident #03 reported to the nurse on 08/13/24 at 11:38 P.M., Resident #01 had struck him multiple times in the back. Per the SRI the facility unsubstantiated the abuse due to Resident #01's dementia. Interview on 09/04/24 at 2:00 P.M., with the DON verified the 08/13/24 incident was not filed into the SRI database until 08/14/24 at 10:15 P.M. The DON verified Resident #03 had suffered a bruise to his back from the incident. The DON also stated in the interview the local law enforcement were not notified of the allegations of abuse for the 08/13/24 incident between Resident #01 and Resident #03. Review of the policy titled, Abuse, Mistreatment, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated October 2022 revealed all allegation of abuse are to be reported to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) database for SRIs involving bodily injury immediately or within 2 hours of the incident being reported. Per the policy if a crime is suspected the facility will notify the local law enforcement. This deficiency represents non-compliance with control numbers OH00156980 and OH0015690.
Jan 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, community staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide residents with food in the form and texture as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#80) of three residents reviewed for altered texture diets. The census was 84. Findings Include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis, type II diabetes, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, dementia, mild intellectual disabilities, post traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder. Review of Resident #80's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]) revealed the resident was assessed with a mild cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #80's physician orders revealed she was prescribed a mechanical soft diet with no bread due to her diagnosis of dysphagia and being a choking risk. Resident #80 was readmitted to the facility from a hospital stay on 10/24/23, and the mechanical soft diet with no bread dietary order was active since that time. Interview with County Investigator (CI) #102 on 01/26/24 at 8:47 A.M. and 2:55 P.M. confirmed she completed an investigation and determined the facility sent a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to Resident #80's day programming workshop. CI #102 did not know exactly when the incident occurred because she did not have her investigation documents readily available, but CI #102 confirmed she completed her investigation and found the facility did not follow Resident #80's dietary order and diet texture. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #101 on 01/26/24 at 11:30 A.M. revealed she received a call from Resident #80's case manager to confirmed what Resident #80's diet texture or was, and confirmed it was mechanical soft with no bread. RN #101 stated the case manager then reported Resident #80 had taken a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to her day programming workshop when she should not have. RN #101 confirmed the incident did occur; but stated she did not see a sandwich in Resident #80's lunch bag prior to leaving the facility. RN #101 stated she could not remember the exact date she received the call from Resident #80's case manager, but thought it was either 01/11/24 or 01/12/24. Interview with County Day Program Staff (CDPS) #103 on 01/26/24 at 12:03 P.M. confirmed the facility sent a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to work with Resident #80 on 01/11/24. CDPS #103 confirmed Resident #80 was not to have bread and her diet texture order was to be mechanical soft. CDPS #103 stated she did not allow Resident #80 to eat the sandwich once it was discovered. Interview with Dietary Director (DD) #105 on 01/26/24 at 12:46 P.M. confirmed he was aware of the incident in which his dietary staff made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for Resident #80. DD #105 confirmed Resident #80 had a mechanical soft diet and was not to have bread with any meals due to a choking hazard. DD #105 confirmed he educated his staff about ensuring they follow all resident diet orders. Review of the undated facility Therapeutic Diets policy revealed therapeutic diets shall be prescribed by the attending physician. Prescribed therapeutic diets are reviewed regularly along with other orders. Routine therapeutic menus are planned by and approved by the registered dietitian. A tray identification system is established to ensure that each resident receives his or her diet as ordered. Mechanically altered diets will be considered therapeutic diets. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00150183.
Dec 2023 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary environment. This affected one (Resident #72) of 81 residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 81. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #72 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparases following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, vascular dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, gastrostomy status, anxiety disorder, delusional disorders, essential primary hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and hypokalemia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/06/23, revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, incontinent, and was dependent for oral and personal hygiene, toileting, showering/bathing, and putting on/taking off footwear. Resident #72 had one venous/arterial ulcer. Observation on 12/06/23 at 9:19 A.M., revealed numerous streaks of unknown reddish colored substance on Resident #72's wall near the middle to end of the bed which was against the wall. Observation on 12/06/23 at 10:53 A.M., revealed the numerous streaks of unknown reddish colored substance on Resident #72's wall remained and housekeeping was observed to be cleaning the resident's room. Observation on 12/06/23 at approximately 2:00 P.M. and 4:15 P.M., revealed the unknown substance on the wall was still present. Observation on 12/07/23 at 7:50 A.M., revealed the numerous streaks of an unknown reddish colored substance on Resident #72's wall remain present. Interview on 12/07/23 at 7:53 A.M., with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #119 verified the numerous streaks of reddish color substance on the wall. STNA #119 stated it was likely blood from Resident #72's toes. Review of the policy titled, Housekeeping, dated April 2018, verified standards of cleanliness and consistency in the way resident rooms and common areas are cleaned and maintained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely identify and treat new skin impairment. This affected one (Resident #72) of one resident reviewed for potential skin impairment. The facility census was 81. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #72 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, vascular dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, gastrostomy status, anxiety disorder, delusional disorders, essential primary hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and hypokalemia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/06/23, revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, incontinent, and was dependent for oral and personal hygiene, toileting, showering/bathing, and putting on/taking off footwear. Resident #72 had one venous/arterial ulcer. Review of care plan, dated 10/02/23 and revised on 10/25/23, revealed Resident #72 had potential for pressure ulcer development due to decreased mobility, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), vascular dementia, and right-side hemiplegia. Noted areas of skin impairment on resident's body included atrial right foot fourth toe and abrasion right foot toe. Review of wound assessments, dated October and November 2023, revealed Resident #72's right foot second toe was healed in October and the right fourth toe was healed in November. Observation on 12/06/23 at 9:19 A.M., 10:53 A.M., approximately 2:00 P.M. and 4:15 P.M., revealed numerous streaks of unknown reddish colored substance on Resident #72's wall near the middle to end of the bed which was against the wall. Observation on 12/07/23 at 7:50 A.M. revealed the numerous streaks of an unknown reddish colored substance on Resident #72's wall remained present. Interview on 12/07/23 at 7:53 A.M., with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #119 verified the numerous streaks of reddish color substance on the wall. STNA #119 stated it was likely blood from Resident #72's toes and drew attention to two of Resident #72's toes near the knuckle dark red with apparent dried blood. Interview on 12/07/23 at 7:56 A.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #175 verified being the nurse for Resident #72 and stated she had not been in the resident's room yet today. LPN #175 verified she was not informed of Resident #72 having an abrasion/wound on the toes. Interview on 12/07/23 at 8:00 A.M., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #155 verified the wounds to Resident #72's toes had not been identified or treated. ADON #155 verified the dried blood on the resident's toes and wall. ADON #155 stated Resident #72 was admitted with wounds to the toes and the wounds had been healed. Review of policy titled, Wound Management Program, dated November 2021, verified the wound management program identifies staff participation and accountability to include expectations of all caregivers to observe resident skin integrity during the daily provision of the resident's personal care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care and treatment was provided to a resident with closed urinary drainage system to maintain the closed system to prevent potential infections. This affected one (#53) of one residents reviewed for catheter care. The facility identified four current residents with catheters. The facility census was 81. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #53 revealed an admission date of 02/07/23. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, cerebral infarct, vascular dementia, diabetes, urine retention and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident 53 was cognitively impaired and was rarely if ever understood and required partial to moderate assistance for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of the care plan dated 11/16/23 revealed the resident had an indwelling catheter with interventions to ensure it was placed below the residents and not in the way of the door. Observation on 12/04/23 at 9:45 A.M., with Resident #53 wheeling himself down the hallway with catheter tubing dragging behind him outside of the catheter bag. State Tested Nurses Assistant (STNA) #106 was observed to stop the resident and moved the catheter tubing that was near the wheels to a more centered position on the floor. Observation and interview on 12/04/23 at 9:47 A.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #171 revealed Resident #53's catheter continued to drag on the floor with urine coming out of the tubing in snaking pattern behind him as he wheeled down the hall. LPN #171 confirmed the catheter tubing was outside of the catheter bag and was dragging on the floor leaving a trail of urine behind it. Observation on 12/04/23 at 9:50 A.M., of STNA #106 revealed she picked up the catheter tubing off the floor and put it back in the bag. LPN #171 observed this and informed STNA that the tubing should be sanitized prior to being placed bag in the bag. Continued observation revealed upon removing the tube to sanitize, the catheter bag torn, and a full bag or urine was poured on the floor in the middle of the hallway. Review of the policy titled, Insertion, Removal and Care of an Indwelling Foley Catheter dated April 2021, revealed the catheter tubing and bag shall maintain sterile continuously closed drainage system. If the catheter tubing must be disconnected the tubing should be sterilized. Facilities shall take care not to contaminate the drainage port by touching collection materials to the floor.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's nutritional statu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's nutritional status was being routinely being assessed by a registered dietician; accurately assess and obtain weights; and timely notify the physician and dietician of significant weight changes. This affected two (#7 and #51) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 81. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #7 revealed a re-admission date of 05/07/23. Diagnoses included epileptic seizures, intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, anxiety disorder, and adjustment disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was cognitively impaired and required supervision assistance with transfers and mobility. Review of the plan of care dated 10/12/23 revealed Resident #7 revealed resident had potential for a nutritional problem related to severe hand tremors and required an altered mechanical diet with large portions with interventions to provide diet as ordered and monitor, record and report signs and symptoms of malnutrition including weight loss (over 3 lbs. in one week, over 5% in one month, over 7.5% in three months and over 10% in 6 months) and registered dietician to evaluate and make recommendations as needed. Review of weights revealed on 08/08/23, Resident #7 weighed 157.0 pounds (lbs.). On 09/12/23, resident weighed 166.5 lbs. with weight gain of 6.1%. On 10/03/23, the resident weighed 149.5 lbs. with weight loss of 10.2%. On 11/07/23, residents weighed 156.0 lbs. with weight gain of 4.35%. Review of the Quarterly Nutrition assessments from the diet tech revealed Quarterly assessments were completed on 09/02/23 (prior to the significant weight loss) and 12/02/23 (after several significant weight changes). Review of physician orders revealed on 10/18/23, large meal portions were ordered. Review of dietician notification of change in condition revealed the weight obtained on 10/03/23 was reported to the dietician on 11/05/23 and the physician was notified on 11/17/23. Review of progress note dated 11/05/23 revealed the resident had a weight loss of for one month with weight at 149 lbs. Dietician revealed the resident received a diuretic which may have accounted for the weight loss. The progress note dated 11/15/23 revealed the residents had a weight increase of 4.6% in one month. The dietician revealed residents received large portions and mechanical soft diet with oral intake of 75%-100%. Review of dietician notification of change in condition revealed the weight obtained on 11/07/23 was reported to the dietician on 11/15/23 and the physician was notified on 11/17/23. Interview on 12/05/23 at 4:37 P.M., with Dietician #210 revealed she meets each week with facility staff and review weights and discuss interventions. Dietician #210 stated she was not aware of the significant weight losses and gains for Resident #7. Dietician #210 stated she had requested a reweigh at some point but was unable to provide a timeframe or month that the reweigh was requested and confirmed no reweigh was completed for any of the significant weight changes. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 02/07/23. Diagnoses included diagnosis metabolic encephalopathy, cerebral infarct, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, diabetes type two, kidney disease, bipolar disease, other seizures, urine retentions, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of weights revealed on 09/06/23, Resident #51 weighed 179.8 lbs. On 10/01/23, the resident weighed 156.0 lbs. with weight loss of 8.7%. On 10/03/23, resident had re-weighed at 159.5 lbs. with weight loss of 6.6%. On 11/07/23, residents weighed 178.6lbs with weight gain of 14.5%. On 11/29/23, residents weighed 179.2 lbs. with weight gain of 14.9% (from 10/01/23). Review of the Quarterly Nutrition assessments from the diet tech revealed a quarterly assessment was completed on 09/24/23. No assessments have been completed since the significant weight changes were identified. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #51 was cognitively impaired. Review of the plan of care dated 10/06/23 revealed Resident #51 revealed resident had potential for a nutritional problem with risk of significant weight loss interventions to provide diet as ordered and monitor, record and report signs and symptoms of malnutrition including weight loss (over 3 lbs. in one week, over 5% in one month, over 7.5% in three months and over 10% in 6 months) and registered dietician to evaluate and make recommendations as needed. Review of physician orders dated 10/18/23 revealed large meal portions were ordered and included use of a divided plate. The physician order dated 10/29/23, revealed a boost was ordered for low protein. Review of the progress notes dated 10/29/23 revealed the physician reviewed laboratory work and ordered a boost supplement for increased protein. Interview on 12/05/23 at 4:37 P.M., with Dietician #210 revealed she meets each week with facility staff and review weights and discuss interventions. Dietician #210 revealed she was unaware of the weight changes until November 2023 and revealed she requested a reweight after the 11/07/23 weight. Dietician #210 confirmed this was not obtained until 11/29/23. Dietician #210 confirmed she had no evidence of documentation or interventions for weight significant weight changes for Resident #51. Interview on 12/07/23 at 9:32 A.M., with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed his expectation was for staff to complete weights as ordered and if a significant weight loss was identified the dietician and physician should be notified in a timely manner. DON verified facility notification was not completed timely for Resident #7 and #51 and reweights had not occurred timely. Review of the policy titled, Weights, dated May 2021, revealed the facility would obtain weights in a timely manner, document and respond in an appropriate manner. The policy revealed if a weight was 5% or more change from the previous weight a reweigh should occur in a timely manner and be reviewed by the dietician, diet tech and clinical team each month.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications and failed to ensure the medication refrigerator in the medication room was use...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications and failed to ensure the medication refrigerator in the medication room was used only for medication storage. This had the potential to affect nine (#7, #17, #19, #35, #48, #51, #53, #62, and #67) of nine residents the facility identified as cognitively impaired and independently mobile an undetermined number of residents who could receive the tuberculin solution. The facility census was 81. Findings include: Observation on 12/04/23 from 2:05 P.M. to 2:33 P.M., revealed a sealed large brown plastic bag on the top of nurse's station top desk left unattended. On the outside of the plastic bag was an itemized inventory sheet of the contents inside the sealed large brown plastic bag that revealed the large brown plastic bag contained resident prescription medications. Further observation revealed the following staff and residents walked by the unattended large brown bag: four unknown State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA), 10 unknown residents, two Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #104 (Unit Manager) and #155 (Assistant Director of Nursing) (ADON), and Maintenance Supervisor (MS) #158. Interview on 12/04/23 at 2:33 P.M., with LPN #155 verified the contents of the large brown plastic bag was resident prescription medications that was delivered by the pharmacy. LPN #155 further stated the pharmacy and facility does not require a signature when medications are dropped off at the facility. Interview on 12/04/23 at 2:44 P.M., with the Administrator stated medications dropped off by the pharmacy are required to have to be signed for as acknowledgment of receiving the prescription medications. Interview on 12/04/23 at 2:50 P.M., with the Administrator identified the following residents (Resident #7, #17, #19, #35, #48, #51, #53, #62, #67) as being cognitively impaired and independently mobile that reside on the unit. Interview on 12/05/23 at 2:27 P.M., with Registered Nurse (RN) #125 stated prescription medications delivered to facility requires signature on the paperwork and on the delivery driver's phone. RN #125 stated a copy of the inventory sheet is left at the facility to verify medications delivered and the inventory sheets are kept in a binder on the specific units. RN #125 stated the prescription medications are then either locked up in the medication cart or the medication room. Review of the itemized inventory sheet for the large brown bag containing prescription medication for the residents revealed the sheet was signed by LPN #171, indicating acceptance and responsibility of the prescription medication. Observation on 12/06/23 at 7:46 A.M., of the medication storage room on A hall revealed a bucket of chicken from Kentucky Fried Chicken in medication refrigerator and an opened, undated vial of tuberculin solution. At the time of the observation RN #125 verified the refrigerator in the medication room is dedicated for medications. RN #125 also verified a bucket of chicken in the medication refrigerator and an opened, undated vial of tuberculin solution. Review of the undated policy titled Receipt of Routine Deliveries, revealed the facility nurse or other facility representative signs the delivery manifest and/or the electronic signature pad, notes time of arrival, and take responsibility for receipt. Review of the undated policy titled Medication Storage, revealed medications will be stored in a manner that maintains the integrity of the product, ensures the safety of the residents and is in accordance with the Ohio Department of Health Guidelines. Employee or resident food should not be stored in the medication refrigerator.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure drinking cups were adequately cleaned. This affected 28 (#2, #3, #4, #6, #13, #15, #20, #24, #25, #29, #30, #34,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure drinking cups were adequately cleaned. This affected 28 (#2, #3, #4, #6, #13, #15, #20, #24, #25, #29, #30, #34, #38, #39, #40, #42, #43, #46, #47, #49, #56, #66, #68, #73, #75, #79, #80 and #81) of 29 residents in the A hall. The facility identified one resident (#72) to receive no food by mouth. The facility census was 81. Findings include: Observation on 12/06/23 at 12:20 P.M., of the lunch meal service revealed a tray of empty drinking cups to be served to the residents on the A hall for lunch. The empty cups appeared dirty with speckles of pink remnants. Interview on 12/06/23 at 12:18 P.M., with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #119 and STNA #187 verified the drinking cups brought by the dietary staff appeared to be dirty. STNA #119 and STNA #187 stated the glasses are always dirty. Subsequent observation revealed the STNAs made no effort to have the cups returned to the kitchen to be cleaned and waited for the lunch meal to arrive. Interview on 12/06/23 at 12:23 P.M., with Dietary Corporate Staff #400 upon the returning of the tray of empty drinking glasses to the kitchen verified the drinking glasses appeared dirty and would be rewashed. Review of policy titled, General Cleaning of Dishware, dated 10/01/21, verified if using a three-compartment sink; wash, rinse, and sanitize all parts in addition to verifying sanitizer concentration for each meal period. If using a dish machine; rinse, scrape, or soak all items before washing in addition to using correct rack and do not overload the racks.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, staff interview, training record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore proper personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering a COVID positive env...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interview, training record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore proper personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering a COVID positive environment. This had the potential to affect the remaining COVID negative residents on the second floor 21 (#9, #10, #12, #16, #17, #18, #19, #21, #28, #31, #35, #44, #48, #50, #53, #54, #57, #62, #63, #65, #76) of 21 residents the on the second floor. The facility census was 81. Findings included. Observation on 12/04/23 at 5:20 P.M. revealed staff were passing meal trays for dinner. Residents #51 and #67 were roommates and were both COVID positive and had been walking around in the hallway without PPE on. Residents were instructed to go to their rooms for the meal tray to be delivered and residents followed the instructions. After waiting residents became restless and began to argue about who would get their food and why one resident was standing in the doorway waiting for food. Residents were over 5 feet apart and were not gesturing toward each other State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #106 and STNA #141 were observed to enter the room to pass trays and deescalate the residents and requested Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #171 to come to assist as needed. STNA #106 and LPN #171 were wearing surgical masks and placed N95 respirators over the surgical mask and then entered the room of two residents that had tested COVID positive. STNA #141 was also present and had placed a N95 over a KN95 mask prior to entering the room with two COVID positive residents. Interview on 12/04/23 at 5:23 P.M., with STNA #106 and STNA #141 confirmed they were wearing masks under the N95 and confirmed they should have taken off the mask and placed to N95 securely prior to entering a COVID positive room. STNA #106 and #141 confirmed they were just going quick when placing the masks on and STNA reported at time staff will just wear a surgical mask when entering a COVID positive room. LPN #171 declined to confirm improper mask usage in a COVID positive room. Interview on 12/04/23 at 6:00 P.M., with Administrator revealed staff should not be wearing an N95 with a mask beneath it when entering a COVID positive room. She revealed an STNA had been sent home for the remainder of the shift due to exposure risk, Administrator was unaware all three staff had inaccurately adorned PPE. Review of the COVID negative residents listed on the second floor included 21 (#9, #10, #12, #16, #17, #18, #19, #21, #28, #31, #35, #44, #48, #50, #53, #54, #57, #62, #63, #65, #76). Review of Quality Improvement Project training information revealed facility completed training in October 2023 related to proper personal protective equipment use and included guides of how to wear PPE correctly. The training flyer stated the N95 needs to be placed to ensure a proper seal. Review of the policy titled, Infection Control Isolation, dated March 2023, revealed the facility would prevent the spread of infection within the facility through the use of isolation precautions. The transmission-based precautions are used in addition to standard precautions and includes.
Dec 2022 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, self-reported incident review, investigation review, and review of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, self-reported incident review, investigation review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse. This affected one resident (#01) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The census was 77. Findings include: Review of Resident #01's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/19/22. Diagnoses included restlessness and agitation, anxiety disorder, spinal stenosis, diabetes mellitus type II, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder with severe psychosis. Review of the most recently completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #01 was assessed with intact cognition. Review of a nursing progress note dated 11/12/22 revealed an occurrence was reported to the nurse and witnessed by a nurse. The facility obtained a written statement and a nurse aide was sent home for investigation. Review of a self-reported incident (SRI) dated 11/12/22 revealed Resident #01 claimed that a state tested nurse aide (STNA) called her an expletive after the resident became annoyed with the STNA. The STNA was working in the facility through the agency and was STNA #750. The facility completed the investigation and unsubstantiated the allegation of abuse. Review of an incident report dated 11/12/22 revealed a nurse was charting at the nurses station when Resident #01 approached the desk and reported words were exchanged with her and STNA #750 in her room. As Resident #01 was walking back to her room the nurse heard an inappropriate word exchange in the hallway. Review of an undated written statement completed by STNA #750 revealed she documented Resident #01 was watching her change her roommate and Resident #01 claimed STNA #750 called her a name after being disrespectful. Review of an interdisciplinary team note dated 11/14/22 revealed STNA #750 was immediately sent home following the incident on 11/12/22 and was placed on the do not return to the facility list. All appropriate agencies were notified as well as Resident #01's responsible party. Interview on 12/05/22 at 9:30 A.M. with Resident #01 stated she was in her room when STNA #750 was being rude to her while she was providing care for Resident #01's roommate. Resident #1 stated she left her room to go report STNA #750 to the nurse for her behavior, and as she was walking back to her room, STNA #750 called her an expletive in the hallway. Resident #01 stated she told STNA #750 she was a piece of work and returned to her room. Resident #1 stated she had not seen STNA #750 since the day of the incident. A telephone interview was completed on 12/05/22 at 2:09 P.M. with LPN #450 who verified she was the nurse who Resident #01 reported to her STNA #750 was rude to her in her bedroom. LPN #450 stated she was sitting at the nurses station so she could not see down the hallway, but she heard STNA #750 call Resident #01 an expletive from her location. LPN #450 stated she called the unit manager and the Administrator immediately and removed STNA #750 from the facility. LPN #450 stated she had not seen STNA #750 since the incident and Resident #01 had been acting like her normal self. Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated October 2022, revealed residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. This deficiency represents non-compliance discovered in Master Control Number OH00137709.
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, self-reported incident review, investigation review, and review of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, self-reported incident review, investigation review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed follow their abuse policy when a resident was verbally abused by a staff member. This affected one resident (#01) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The census was 77. Findings include: Review of Resident #01's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/19/22. Diagnoses included restlessness and agitation, anxiety disorder, spinal stenosis, diabetes mellitus type II, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder with severe psychosis. Review of the most recently completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #01 was assessed with intact cognition. Review of a nursing progress note dated 11/12/22 revealed an occurrence was reported to the nurse and witnessed by a nurse. The facility obtained written statement and a nurse aide was sent home for investigation. Review of a self-reported incident (SRI) dated 11/12/22 revealed Resident #01 claimed that a state tested nurse aide (STNA) called her a expletive after the resident became annoyed with the STNA. The STNA was working in the facility through agency and was STNA #750. The facility completed the investigation and unsubstantiated the allegation of abuse. Review of an incident report dated 11/12/22 revealed a nurse was charting at the nurses station when Resident #01 approached the desk and reported words were exchanged with her and STNA #750 in her room. As Resident #01 was walking back to her room the nurse heard an inappropriate word exchange in the hallway. Review of an undated written statement completed by STNA #750 revealed she documented Resident #01 was watching her change her roommate and Resident #01 claimed STNA #750 called her a name after being disrespectful. Review of an interdisciplinary team note dated 11/14/22 revealed STNA #750 was immediately sent home following the incident on 11/12/22 and was placed on the do not return to the facility list. All appropriate agencies were notified as well as Resident #01's responsible party. Interview on 12/05/22 at 9:30 A.M. with Resident #01 stated she was in her room when STNA #750 was being rude to her while she was providing care for Resident #01's roommate. Resident #01 stated she left her room to go report STNA #750 to the nurse for her behavior, and as she was walking back to her room, STNA #750 called her an expletive in the hallway. Resident #01 stated she told STNA #750 she was a piece of work and returned to her room. Resident #1 stated she had not seen STNA #750 since the day of the incident. A telephone interview was completed on 12/05/22 at 2:09 P.M. with LPN #450 who verified she was the nurse who Resident #01 reported to her STNA #750 was rude to her in her bedroom. LPN #450 stated she was sitting at the nurses station so she could not see down the hallway, but she heard STNA #750 call Resident #01 an expletive from her location. LPN #450 stated she called the unit manager and the Administrator immediately and removed STNA #750 from the facility. LPN #450 stated she had not seen STNA #750 since the incident and Resident #01 had been acting like her normal self. Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated October 2022, revealed residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. This deficiency represents non-compliance found in Control Number OH00137709.
Aug 2021 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident mail was delivered unopened to residents. This affected o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident mail was delivered unopened to residents. This affected one resident (#43) and had the potential to affect all 72 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #43 revealed an admission date of 10/20/17. Diagnosis included bipolar disorder current episode depressed severe with psychotic features, hyperlipidemia, unspecified atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart failure, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris, chronic kidney disease, unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition, essential (primary) hypertension, unspecified asthma, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, dysphagia, anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder current episode depressed moderate, bipolar disorder current episode manic severe with psychotic features, and osteoarthritis left shoulder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/10/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Confidential interview with a group of residents (#43, #59, #69) on 08/24/21 at 1:32 P.M., discovered the Resident #43 reported several occurrences of packages delivered to the facility specifically addressed to the resident. The Resident #43 stated when the packages were delivered to him they were opened and it appeared items were missing. The resident indicated at no time was he offered the opportunity to be present when the package was initially opened. Interview on 08/25/21 at 8:50 A.M., the Administrator verified residents residing on the secured units that have packages delivered to the facility are opened and gone through prior to being given to the residents to ensure no potentially dangerous items are contained inside. This process is conducted by the administrator without resident or guardian knowledge at the time of opening the package. The administrator confirmed items were occasionally removed. According to the facility policy titled Secured Unit Safety Package dated 04/2018 the facility reserves the right to open and check packages that arrive at the facility for any resident, in particular those packages received by residents on the secured unit. The purpose of this policy is to determine if there are any potentially dangerous objects or illegal paraphernalia and confiscate it to prevent harm to any resident or staff. If any such item is found it will be confiscated and discussed with the resident and when known, the facility will discuss the findings with the sender. The object may be returned to the sender of after discussion kept by the center until the sender can retrieve. When appropriate the police will be contacted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide the resident and resident's representative in writing the reason for a transfer to the hospital. This affected one res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide the resident and resident's representative in writing the reason for a transfer to the hospital. This affected one resident (#19) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization. The facility identified 19 residents who were hospitalized in the last three months. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/06/19. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II, cellulitis of the lower limb, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, atrial flutter, and heart failure. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/13/21 revealed Resident #19 was noted with redness and increased swelling to her left leg which required an evaluation in the hospital. Review of the Discharge - return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed Resident #19 was discharged on 08/13/21 to an acute hospital. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/19/21 revealed Resident #19 returned to the facility at 5:45 P.M. Review of Resident #19's electronic medical record and paper medical record contained no documentation the Resident #19 or her representative received any written notification of the reason for transfer, the effective date, and the location of the Resident #19's transfer, as well as no information related to the appeal rights and the process or the contact information for the Office of the State Long-Term Care ombudsman. Interview on 08/25/21 at 2:09 P.M., the Marketing Manager #410 stated she recently took over some functions of the social services department and stated at the time of a resident transfer the nurses were responsible for completing and providing transfer paperwork to the resident and the representative. Interview on 08/25/21 at 3:00 P.M., the Administrator verified the facility had no documentation Resident #19 or her representative received any written transfer notice at the time of Resident #19's transfer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide the resident and resident's representative with the facility's bed hold policy for a transfer to the h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide the resident and resident's representative with the facility's bed hold policy for a transfer to the hospital. This affected one resident (#19) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization. The facility identified 19 residents who were hospitalized in the last three months. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/06/19. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II, cellulitis of the lower limb, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, atrial flutter, and heart failure. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/13/21 revealed Resident #19 was noted with redness and increased swelling to her left leg which required an evaluation in the hospital. Review of a Discharge - return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed Resident #19 was discharged on 08/13/21 to an acute hospital. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/19/21 revealed Resident #19 returned to the facility at 5:45 P.M. Review of Resident #19's electronic medical record and paper medical record contained no documentation that Resident #19 or her representative received the facility's bed hold policy at the time of her transfer, or within 24 hours, to the hospital. There was no documentation of Resident #19 or her representative being verbally notified of the notice of bedhold policy. Interview on 08/25/21 at 2:09 P.M., the Marketing Manager #410 stated she recently took over some functions of the social services department and stated at the time of a resident transfer the nurses were responsible for completing and providing the transfer paperwork to the resident and the representative. Interview on 08/25/21 at 3:00 P.M., the Administrator verified the facility had no documentation the Resident #19 or her representative received the facility's bed hold policy at the time of the Resident #19's transfer. Review of a facility policy titled, Notice of Bedhold Policy, dated February 2018, revealed the document must be signed by the patient upon discharge to the hospital or therapeutic leave. If unable to sign, a verbal notification from resident and/or resident representative must be documented. A decision to hold or not to hold a resident's bed should be completed if the resident leaves the facility for a hospitalization or therapeutic leave to reflect the Residents decision.
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 medical record review, staff interview, and review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RA...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual, the facility inaccurately coded residents for anticoagulant medications. This affected two residents (#13 and #38) of three residents reviewed for anticoagulant use coded on the MDS assessment. The facility census was 72. Findings include: 1). Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/16/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, anemia, dementia with behavioral disturbances, hyperlipidemia, and delirium. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was coded as receiving an anticoagulant medication seven days of the seven day look-back period. Review of Resident #13's medication administration record (MAR) for May 2021 revealed Resident #13 received no anticoagulant medications during the month. Further review of the May 2021 MAR revealed Resident #13 received the antiplatelet medication aspirin during the seven day look-back period of the MDS assessment dated [DATE]. 2). Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/15/19. Diagnoses included major depression, unspecified glaucoma, muscle weakness, anemia, hypokalemia, unspecified psychosis, Alzheimer's disease, and heart failure. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was coded as receiving an anticoagulant medication seven days of the seven day look-back period. Review of Resident #38's MAR for June and July 2021 revealed Resident #38 received no anticoagulant medications during either month. Further review of the June and July 2021 MAR revealed Resident #38 received the antiplatelet medication clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix) during the seven day look-back period of the MDS assessment dated [DATE]. Interview on 08/26/21 at 9:37 A.M., the MDS Nurse #430 verified Resident #13's MDS assessment dated [DATE] and Resident #38's MDS assessment dated [DATE] both were coded as receiving anticoagulant medications during the seven day look-back period; and verified neither Resident #13 nor Resident #38 actually received anticoagulant medications during the time frame. The MDS Nurse #430 stated Resident #38's Plavix was coded as an anticoagulant because during her research she found the medication class was an anticoagulant and did not have an explanation for Resident #13's coding for an anticoagulant medication. Review of the MDS 3.0 RAI User Manual version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, revealed under section N for coding anticoagulant medications on page D-7 revealed, staff should record the number of days an anticoagulant medication was received by the resident at any time during the seven-day look-back period (or since admission/entry or reentry if less than seven days). Do not code antiplatelet medications such as aspirin/extended release, dipyridamole, or clopidogrel here.
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 medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to change oxygen supplies as...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to change oxygen supplies as ordered. This affected one resident (#69) of one resident reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #69 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnosis included essential (primary) hypertension, schizophrenia unspecified, major depressive disorder recurrent severe with psychotic symptoms, constipation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, other cerebrovascular disease, and unspecified osteoarthritis. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident had not received oxygen treatment. Review of the discontinued physician orders, dated 01/31/21 to 07/05/21, revealed an order for Resident #69's oxygen tubing and bag should be changed every night shift on Sunday. The order specified to ensure to date and label the tubing. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated July 2021 revealed the oxygen tubing and bag was documented dated and labeled on 07/04/21. Review of the MAR dated August 2021 had no documentation for oxygen tubing and bag labeled and dated. Observation on 08/23/21 at 11:58 A.M. revealed the Resident #69 was in bed with oxygen supplied via a nasal cannula in place receiving 4.5 liters per minute. Observation of the oxygen tubing revealed no date. Observation on 08/25/21 at 7:51 A.M. revealed Resident #69 in bed with oxygen nasal cannula in place receiving 4.5 liters per minute. The oxygen tubing was undated. Interview on 08/25/21 at 7:55 A.M., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 verified the oxygen tubing had no date. Review of facility policy titled Oxygen Handling, revised January 2021 verified oxygen tubing and other equipment will be changed routinely.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to obtain a physician order for oxygen. This affected one resident (#69) of one resident reviewed for respiratory care. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of the medical record review for Resident #69 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnosis included essential (primary) hypertension, schizophrenia unspecified, major depressive disorder recurrent severe with psychotic symptoms, constipation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, other cerebrovascular disease, and unspecified osteoarthritis. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident does not receive oxygen treatment. Review of the discontinued physician orders dated 03/11/20 to 07/05/21, revealed the Resident #69 received oxygen one to three liters per minute via nasal cannula as needed for shortness of breath. There was no current order for oxygen to be applied. Observation on 08/23/21 at 11:58 A.M. revealed the Resident #69 was in bed with oxygen via a nasal cannula in place receiving 4.5 liters per minute. Observation on 08/25/21 at 7:51 A.M. revealed the Resident #69 was in bed with oxygen via a nasal cannula in place receiving 4.5 liters per minute. Interview on 08/25/21 at 7:55 A.M., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 verified Resident #69's oxygen was set at 4.5 liters per minute and the resident often times will apply and increase the oxygen independently. LPN #202 verified there was not an order for Resident #69 to have oxygen applied but there had previously been an order to apply as needed at no more then two or three liters per minute. Review of facility policy titled Oxygen Handling revised January 2021 verified a physician's order is required for routine and as needed use of oxygen.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation on 08/23/21 at 12:07 P.M. revealed lunch meal trays were delivered to the Parkside Unit common dining room. Staff...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation on 08/23/21 at 12:07 P.M. revealed lunch meal trays were delivered to the Parkside Unit common dining room. Staff members were observed assisting with passing out meal trays and drinks as well as taking residents to the dining room to sit at tables. Further observation revealed staff members using white towels used for bathing activities as clothing protectors for Resident #23, Resident #58, Resident #65, and Resident #171. The staff members tucked the towels down the neck hole of the residents' shirts to hold the towel in place and draped the towel over each residents' shirt down to their waist. Resident #23, Resident#58, Resident #65, and Resident #171 ate their entire meal wearing a bathing towel for a clothing protector. Interview on 08/23/21 at 12:24 P.M., the Stated Tested Nurses Aide (STNA) #305 stated the staff could not find any clothing protectors on the unit and used the bathing towels as a substitute. Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with dignified assistance eating during meals. This affected one resident (#14) of four identified as dependent on staff for eating. In addition, the facility to ensure clothing protectors were used in a dignified manner. This affected four additional residents (#23, #58, #65, #171) who were provided clothing protection during meals. The facility census was 72. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #14 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia, low back pain, symbolic dysfunction, major depression, dysphagia, osteoarthritis, insomnia, anxiety disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, vitamin D deficiency, psychosis, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, and cerebral infarction. According to the most current minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Resident #14 was identified with severe cognitive impairment, and dependent on staff for the completion of activities of daily living including positioning and eating. Observation on 08/23/21 at 12:39 P.M. noted Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 standing over Resident #14 providing bites of food. At 12:40 P.M. LPN #200 went to the nurses station and handled the telephone before returning to Resident #14 to continue with feeding the resident. At 12:42 P.M. LPN #200 left Resident #14 and handled various resident food items and furniture before returning to feed Resident #14. At 12:47 P.M. LPN #200 left the resident and went to the multi-purpose cabinets located inside the dining room and handled multiple cabinets and handling Resident #48's food tray, before returning to feeding Resident #14. At 12:56 P.M. LPN #200 left feeding Resident #14 and assisted Resident #53 to the standing position and positioned the residents walker handling the hand grips and the resident. LPN #200 with hand over hand assistance ambulated the resident to a chair located in the lounge and returned to feeding Resident #14. At 1:00 P.M. LPN #200 concluded feeding Resident #14 and cleared the tray to the tray cart. Interview on 08/23/21 at 1:02 P.M., the LPN #200 verified she had not seated herself next to the Resident #14 at anytime during the meal and frequently left the resident without bites of food while assisting other residents and conducting unrelated tasks which had not provided the Resident #14 with a dignified dining experience.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident meals were provided in a homelike fashion. This ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure resident meals were provided in a homelike fashion. This deficient practice affected 12 residents (#53, #62, #30, #48, #44, #29, #42, #14, #56, #15, #01, and #08) of 24 residents who resided on the unit who were observed during the lunch meal service. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Observation on 08/23/21 at 12:30 P.M. noted the state tested nurse aide (STNA) #300 and #306 delivered lunch meal trays to the residents in the [NAME] Edge units. The STNA #300 and #306 placed the food trays in front of the residents (#53, #62, #30, #48, #44, #29, #42, #14, #56, #15, #01, and #08) and had not removed the utensils or dinnerware (plates or cups) from the tray. Leaving the residents with an institutional style of meal service. Interview on 08/23/21 at 1:02 P.M., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 revealed the resident meal service included leaving the trays under resident dinnerware. This has been the practice of the unit for an undetermined amount of time.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner. This had potential to affect 69 out of 72 residents who receiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner. This had potential to affect 69 out of 72 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified three residents (#06, #09, and #11) who did not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Observation on 08/23/21 at 8:10 A.M. of the dry storage area revealed significantly dented cans including 106 ounce canned tropical salad, 117 ounce canned jellied cranberry sauce, and 106 ounce canned diced peaches. Observation on 08/23/21 at 8:16 A.M. of the refrigerator revealed a box of shelled eggs with best by date of 06/20/21, 43 fat free half pint milk with a sell by date of 08/20/21, gallon of milk sell by date of 08/21/21, a box of Idaho potatoes with fuzzy light and dark mold like substance, and a box of cucumbers with fuzzy dark mold like substance. Interview on 08/20/21 at 8:23 A.M., the Dietary Staff #302 verified the dented cans and expired food in the refrigerator. Review of facility policy, Storage of Food in Refrigeration, dated September 2019, verified food items that remain sealed from the supplier may be held until the expiration date if unopened. Review of facility policy, Kitchen Opening and Closing Checks, revised January 2021, verified the Dietary Manager checks dated perishables and discards or assigns discard of any out of date. The Dietary Manager removed dented cans.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

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 #221 revealed an admission date of 08/19/21. Diagnosis included unspecified sequela...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #221 revealed an admission date of 08/19/21. Diagnosis included unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction, hypothyroidism, postprocedural hypopituitarism, disorder of prostate, other adrenocortical insufficiency, thrombocytopenia unspecified, thalassemia minor, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, post-traumatic stress disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, hyperlipidemia, and acquired absence of stomach. Review of the care plan dated 08/23/21 revealed the resident had potential COVID-19 exposure and the need for placement on an observation unit for isolation precautions for fourteen days. Observation on 08/25/21 at 3:16 P.M. revealed Resident #221 was ambulating in his wheelchair in the hallway without a mask on. The State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #301 walked by the resident without redirecting the resident back to his room. Observation on 08/25/21 at 3:20 P.M. revealed Resident #221 was in the common area of the hallway using the shared resident telephone. The STNA #301 walked by the resident without redirecting the resident. Interview on 08/25/21 at 3:21 P.M., the STNA #301 verified Resident #221 was quarantined and outside of his room without a mask on. Interview on 08/25/21 at 3:22 P.M., the STNA #300 stated the Resident #221 would not stay in his room. Interview on 08/26/21 at 8:29 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #420 verified Resident #221 was not vaccinated. Review of the facility policy, COVID-19 Recommended Infection Control Practices, revised April 2021, verified new admissions and readmissions that cannot be confirmed as fully vaccinated and those residents that test positive for COVID-19 or have a significant exposure to COVID-19 will be placed in transmission based precautions for fourteen days. Review of the CDC website at, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html, titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in nursing Homes, last updated 03/29/21, under the heading, New Admissions and Residents who Leave he Facility, Create a Plan for Managing New Admissions and Readmissions, revealed new admissions should be placed in a 14-day quarantine, even if they have a negative test upon admission. Exceptions include residents within three months of a COVID-19 infection and fully vaccinated residents. Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, review of facility policies, review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) COVID-19 Positivity Rates, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website the facility staff failed to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while providing direct care for a resident who was on a COVID-19 quarantine, failed to maintain COVID-19 quarantine for a newly admitted resident with unknown COVID-19 status and not fully vaccinated. This directly affected two residents (#171 and #221) of two residents observed on COVID-19 transmission-based precautions This had the potential to affect 27 residents (#04, #05, #07, #12 #17, #18, #19, #20, #25, #27, #33, #34, #39, #41, #43, #45, #47, #49, #51, #55 #59, #60, #61, #63, #67, #69, and #70) who resided on the Cedar Pines Unit. In addition, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was completed while staff assisted a dependent resident with feeding. This affected one resident (#14) of three who were identified as dependent on staff for eating. The facility census was 72. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #171's medical record revealed an original admission date of 12/03/20, and a re-admission date of 08/23/21. Diagnoses included end stage renal disease, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, major depression, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes mellitus type II. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/18/21 revealed Resident #171 was admitted to the hospital from the facility and the resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a physician order dated 08/23/21 revealed Resident #171 was on transmission based isolation due to COVID-19. Review of Resident #171's entire medical record revealed no documentation of Resident #171 receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or a COVID-19 infection in the last three months. Review of the August 2021 medication administration record (MAR) revealed Resident #171 was assessed twice daily for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 with no negative findings. Observation on 08/24/21 at 7:59 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 prepared medications for Resident #171 which consisted of oral, topical, and injectable medications. Further observation of Resident #171's bedroom revealed signs posted on the door indicating Resident #171 was on contact, airborne, and droplet infection control precautions with instructions for use of PPE for any person entering the room. Located just outside the bedroom was a plastic cart that contained drawers with PPE including gowns, gloves, face shields, and surgical masks. Located on the top of the PPE cart was a full unopened 20 count box of N95 facemasks. Resident #171 was observed laying in his bed at this time with no signs or symptoms of respiratory distress and no other outward symptoms of COVID-19. Observation on 08/24/21 at 8:22 A.M. revealed LPN #200 put on gloves and a gown, removed her surgical mask, and retrieved a plastic face shield with a surgical mask affixed to it, placed it over her face, mouth, and nose, and entered Resident #171's bedroom. LPN #200 proceeded to administer all oral medications, placed a topical pain patch to Resident #171's body, and injected medication into Resident #171's abdomen. As LPN #200 was preparing to exit the room another staff member handed LPN #200 a fly swatter to give to Resident #171 per his request and walked back over to Resident #171 to hand him the fly swatter. LPN #200 then removed all PPE and exited the room. Observation on 08/25/21 at 7:38 A.M. the LPN #201 entered Resident #171's room. The room was identified with an isolation sign, isolation cart and PPE donning instructions posted to the door. The instructions directed staff entering the room to don a N-95 mask, face shield, gown, and gloves. Additional observation identified LPN #201 to have a disposable surgical mask and gloves donned while working inside the room with the resident at the bedside and administering an injection. Interview on 08/24/21 at 8:26 A.M., the LPN #200 verified Resident #171 recently returned to the facility from the hospital and was on COVID-19 infection control precautions because he was not vaccinated. The LPN #200 verified she wore a face shield with a surgical mask affixed when administering medications to Resident #171 and stated she was told it was appropriate to wear the face shield and surgical mask when entering a resident's room on COVID-19 infection control precautions. Interview on 08/25/21 at 7:40 A.M., the LPN #201 verified the appropriate PPE was not worn inside the resident room. The LPN #201 verified the resident was currently a new admission, not vaccinated for Covid-19 and in quarantine for days. Review of the CMS website, at https://data.cms.gov/covid-19/covid-19-nursing-home-data, revealed a national COVID-19 county positivity list dated 08/17/21 that was last updated with the COVID-19 testing between 08/04/21 and 08/17/21. The county in which the facility resided was noted to have an 8.4 percent positivity rate placing it in the yellow level indicating a moderate incidence (test percent positivity greater than or equal to 5.0 percent to less than or equal to 10.0 percent or with less than 500 tests and less than 2000 tests per 100,000 population) of COVID-19 in the community. Review of the CDC website at, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html, under the title of, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Nursing Homes, last updated 03/29/21, under the subcategory, New Admissions and Residents who Leave the Facility. Create a Plan for Managing New Admissions and Readmissions, revealed in general, all other new admissions and readmissions should be placed in a 14-day quarantine, even if they have a negative test upon admission. Exceptions include residents within three months of a SARS-CoV-2 infection and fully vaccinated residents as described in CDC ' s Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. Facilities located in areas with minimal to no community transmission might elect to use a risk-based approach for determining which residents require quarantine upon admission. Decisions should be based on whether the resident had close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection while outside the facility and if there was consistent adherence to IPC practices in healthcare settings, during transportation, or in the community prior to admission. Review of an facility policy titled, COVID-19: Recommended Infection Control Practices, last revised April 2021, revealed new admissions and readmissions that cannot be confirmed as fully vaccinated, and those residents that test positive for COVID-19 or have significant exposure to COVID-19 will be placed in transmission-based precautions for 14 days. Use of an N95 respirator (or facemask if a respirator is not available), eye protection, gloves, and gown should be worn during care of residents under transmission-based precautions. 3. Observation on 08/23/21 at 12:39 P.M. the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 stood over Resident #14 providing bites of food. At 12:40 P.M. the LPN #200 went to the nurses station and handled the telephone before returning to the Resident #14 to continue feeding the resident. No hand washing was observed. At 12:42 P.M. LPN #200 handled various resident food items and furniture before returning to feed the Resident #14. No hand washing was attempted. At 12:47 P.M. LPN #200 went to the multi-purpose cabinets located inside the dining room and handled multiple cabinets and handled the Resident #48's food tray, before the LPN #200 returned to feed the Resident #14 without washing her hands. At 12:56 P.M. the LPN #200 assisted the Resident #53 to the standing position and positioned the residents walker, handled the hand grips, and the resident. LPN #200 with hand over hand assistance ambulated the resident to a chair located in the lounge and returned to feed the Resident #14 without washing her hands. At 1:00 P.M. LPN #200 concluded feeding the Resident #14 and cleared the tray and placed it on the tray cart. Interview on 08/23/21 at 1:02 P.M., the LPN #200 verified she had not washed her hands after touching various residents and multi-use surfaces. Review of the facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene undated hands should be washed for at least 20 seconds using soap and water under the following conditions; before and after direct contact with a resident, after contact with secretions, mucous membranes, before and after eating.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation of the Parkside Unit on 08/25/21 at 11:46 A.M. revealed the common shower with two shower stalls however only one...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Observation of the Parkside Unit on 08/25/21 at 11:46 A.M. revealed the common shower with two shower stalls however only one shower stall had a shower head with running water. Observation inside this stall two gnats resting on the shower chair in the first stall revealed five gnats which flew around the shower stall when the water was turned on. Observation on 08/26/21 at 9:50 A.M. revealed a gnat in the common shower of the Parkside Unit flying through the air. Interview on 08/26/21 at 9:55 A.M. with State Tested Nurses Aide (STNA) #305 stated she saw gnats in the common shower room and stated all 20 residents (#02, #09, #10, #13, #21, #22, #23, #31, #32, #35, #38, #46, #50, #52, #58, #64 #65, #66, #68, and #171) on the unit used the common shower room. Observation during the interview with the STNA #305 revealed when the water was turned on in the common shower room a gnat began flying around in the shower stall. STNA #305 confirmed the gnat at this time. Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, review of the resident council concerns, and the facility extermination contractor documentation, the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was in place to address flying insects. This affected all 72 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observations on 08/23/21 at 9:20 A.M. noted several gnats flying in the corridor and clinging to the corridor wall outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. Observation inside room [ROOM NUMBER] noted a tray of food items with gnats swarming the food and the resident seated in bed. Located at the nurses station near room [ROOM NUMBER] identified several gnats flying and clinging to the wall above the medication cart. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 at the time verified gnats were present in the facility, disruptive to the environment, and residents. Further observation located inside room [ROOM NUMBER] noted the resident in bed two with tube feeding infusing. The resident had an oral suction catheter in hand with gnats and house flies observed landing on the bed and in the area of the suction machine next to the bed. Observation inside room [ROOM NUMBER] noted two residents in bed. The residents both stated concerns with gnats in their room. Observation of bed two noted gnats flying around the bed and overbed table. At 12:23 P.M. observation in the [NAME] Edge dining room discovered gnats flying around the room and landing randomly on residents and furniture. Additional observations on 08/23/21 between 12:30 P.M. and 12:45 P.M. noted gnats during the meal service in the dining room and in resident rooms on the [NAME] Edge unit. Gnats were randomly swarming resident food trays. Interview on 08/24/21 at 8:45 A.M., the Maintenance Director #01 verified the presence of gnats in the facility. Maintenance Director #1 stated he had paid special attention to the drains in the facility to minimize the occurrence of gnats. However, no further interventions had been implemented to address additional sources of infestation. Review of the resident council minute concern documentation dated 07/09/21 the resident council reported gnats and bugs in all resident rooms. On 08/24/21 between 1:30 P.M. and 2:05 P.M. a group interview with the resident council confirmed reporting gnats and indicated the insects (gnats) were still a nuisance. Resident #43, #59, #69 stated the insects are bothersome and appear more around meal times in the dining rooms. The insects will swarm around meal trays and the residents. Observation on 08/25/21 at 10:55 A.M. the state tested nurse aide (STNA) #300 verified gnats clinging to the walls above the nurses station and medication cart of the [NAME] Edge unit. Additional observation noted a large number of gnats near the sinks and cupboards of the dining room and in the common shower of the [NAME] Edge unit. Observation on 08/25/21 at 11:05 A.M. noted Resident #40 in bed eating. A bowl containing two unshelled hard boiled eggs was noted with gnats swarming. The Resident #40 and #36 stated the gnats are bothersome even when no food was sitting out. Observation and interview on 08/25/21 at 11:10 A.M. the Maintenance Director #01 verified the presence of gnats in the common shower, nurses station and dining room. The Maintenance Director #01 stated increased treatments would be initiated. Previous treatments to eradicate the gnats was occurring once weekly and not effective. Review of extermination contractor documentation dated 07/30/21, 06/23/21, 05/26/21 noted treatments applied for pavement ants, and spiders. However, no mention of treatments being applied for gnats, or flies was documented.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on personnel file review, staff interview, and review of the Employee Handbook the facility failed to ensure State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) received a 90 day or annual evaluation for thr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, staff interview, and review of the Employee Handbook the facility failed to ensure State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA) received a 90 day or annual evaluation for three (#155, #160, #165) of three STNA personnel files reviewed. This had the potential to affect all 72 residing in the facility. The facility census was 72. Findings include: Review of STNA #304's personnel file revealed a hire date of 04/28/21. Further review of the employee file had no documentation a 90-day evaluation was completed. Review of STNA #306's personnel file revealed a hire date of 06/17/20. Further review of the employee file had no documentation an annual evaluation was completed. Review of STNA #310's personnel file revealed a hire date of 04/02/18. Further review of the employee file revealed the most recent performance evaluation was completed on 03/25/19. Interview on 08/26/21 at 11:35 A.M., the Administrator verified STNA #304 had not had a 90-day evaluation and STNA #306, and #310 had not had an annual performance review evaluation. Review of the Employee Handbook, revised 04/01/19, revealed all employees may be subject to a written annual rating and evaluations by the department supervisor based on their anniversary date.
Apr 2019 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were provided to residents in a dignified manner for three residents (#49, #35, and #32) of 32 residents who received their meals on the second floor. The facility census was 79. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/15/19. Diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, and type II diabetes. Review of Resident #49's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/22/19, revealed Resident #49 had cognitive impairment. The resident displayed physical behavioral symptoms and verbal symptoms directed toward others four to six days out of the review period. Resident #49 had behavioral symptoms not directed toward others one to three days during the review period. Resident #49 stated it was very important to him to have snacks between meals. Resident #49 required supervision and set up help only for eating. Observation on 04/15/19 at 5:48 P.M. of the kitchen tray line revealed Resident #49's dinner meal was placed in a Styrofoam container and placed on his meal tray. Interview on 04/15/19 at 5:50 P.M., [NAME] #200 revealed Resident #49 was the only resident who received a Styrofoam container instead of a covered plate. [NAME] #200 stated Resident #49 would throw his plates and trays so they were told to provide foam containers instead of the regular plates for safety. Additional review of Resident #49's record revealed the care plan revised 02/20/19 contained supports and interventions for PTSD, diabetes, impaired cognitive function, self-care deficit, risk for fall, and risk for pain. The care plan was silent to Resident #49's use of Styrofoam containers instead of plates for meals. Review of Resident #49's nutrition assessment, dated 02/20/19, revealed no recommendations for the use of Styrofoam containers instead of regular plates. Observation on 04/15/19 at 6:11 P.M. found Resident #49 in his room eating dinner out of a Styrofoam container. Interview on 04/15/19 at 6:12 P.M., State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #110 verified Resident #49 was eating his meal out of a Styrofoam container. STNA #110 stated Resident #49 was very angry about being in a nursing facility and would throw his tray and plate of across the room. STNA #110 reported Resident #49 would break the plates so they changed him over to foam plates. STNA #110 stated Resident #49 had been doing better over the last couple weeks and STNA #110 was not aware of why Resident #49 was still being provided Styrofoam containers. Interview on 04/15/19 at 6:15 P.M., Resident #49 revealed he didn't like it when he was asked about the foam container he was eating his dinner out of. Resident #49 stated he didn't like anything about it and refused to answer any additional questions. 2. Review of the medical record of Resident #35 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #35 include schizoaffective disorder, muscle weakness, dysphagia, hypertension, and seizures. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 02/07/19, revealed the resident had impaired cognition, dysphagia with no swallowing issues, and a mechanically altered diet. Review of Resident #35's care plans dated 02/2017 revealed the resident was at risk for nutrition deficits due to dysphagia. Interventions included diet per order, specialized utensils, and assistance with meals as needed. Review of the medical record for Resident #32 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #32 include Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, insomnia, muscle weakness, and psychotic disorder. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 02/03/19, revealed Resident #32 had impaired cognition, no swallowing issues, and no altered diet. Observation on 04/15/19 at 11:03 A.M. revealed Resident #32 was sitting at a four-person table alone. Resident #71 was observed sitting down at the table with Resident #32 at 11:10 A.M. Resident #71 was observed being served his meal at 11:34 A.M., Resident #32 was still at the table with no meal. At 11:55 A.M. Resident #71 finished his meal and walked out of the dining room. Resident #32 was seated at the table with no meal. Observation on 04/15/19 at 11:40 A.M. of the second-floor locked unit meal service revealed Resident #9, Resident #66, and Resident #35 sitting at a six-person table in the dining room. Resident #9 was served a meal at 11:50 A.M. Resident #9 told the aide she did not like the meat on her tray and asked for a peanut butter sandwich. Resident #66 was served a meal at 11:58 A.M. Resident #35 was observed sitting at the table with no meal at 12:00 P.M. At 12:05 P.M. Resident #35 was observed trying to propel her wheelchair out of the dining room. State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #300 pushed Resident #35's wheelchair back to her space at the table and STNA #300 calmly told the resident she would not want to miss her lunch tray as it was coming soon. At 12:07 P.M. Resident #9 was given a peanut butter sandwich from a dietary aide and the resident finished her meal and left the dining room at 12:20 P.M. At 12:20 P.M. Resident #66 finished his meal and left the dining room. Resident #79 was observed entering the dining room at 12:12 P.M. and sat at the table with Resident #35. STNA #300 was observed bringing a meal to Resident #79 and assisting the resident with his meal. Resident #35 still had not been served her meal. Interview on 04/15/19 at 12:22 P.M., Resident #35 she was hungry and waiting for her lunch. Observation on 04/15/19 at 12:25 P.M. revealed all residents in the dining room during the first meal service had finished their meals and left the dining room. Resident #32 and Resident #35 were still seated in the dining room with no meals. Interview on 04/15/19 at 12:30 P.M., STNA #300 and STNA #310 verified Resident #9 #66, and #79 were all served prior to Resident #35 who had been sitting at the table. Per STNA #300, Resident #35's lunch meal did not come on the first cart but the second cart. STNA #300 stated her tray was towards the back of the second cart so Resident #35 must wait until the other trays are pulled from the cart before she can be served. Observation on 04/15/19 at 12:30 P.M. revealed Resident #32 and Resident #35 were still in the dining room when the second cart of trays came to the unit. All residents observed in the second lunch were served their lunch meals during the second lunch service prior to Resident #32 and Resident #35 being served. Resident #32 was served at 12:50 P.M. and Resident #35 was served at 12:52 P.M., and were observed to be the last two residents served their lunch meals. Interview on 04/16/19 at 3:20 P.M., the Dietary Manager verified the facility procedure was to serve every resident at each table before starting to serve residents at other tables. Per the Dietary Manager if a resident who was scheduled for the later lunch was wanting to be served during the early lunch, the unit staff was to contact the kitchen staff and request their trays be added to the early lunch cart. The Dietary Manager stated no resident should have to sit through a lunch service waiting for their meals while others at the table are being served. The Dietary Manager stated if a resident does sit through the first meal service with no tray the resident should be served when the second cart reaches the unit first per practice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow physician orders to notify the physician when blood glucose readings were outside of order...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow physician orders to notify the physician when blood glucose readings were outside of ordered parameters for one (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified 22 residents with orders for blood glucose monitoring. The census was 79. Findings include: Review of Resident #14's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/01/12. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II, post traumatic stress disorder, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/12/19, revealed Resident #14 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of a physician order dated 02/14/18 revealed Resident #14 was ordered Lantus insulin 46 units subcutaneous at bedtime for diabetes mellitus, and to call the physician if Resident #14's blood glucose level was below 60 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) or above 400 mg/dL and document it. Review of Resident #14's January 2019 medication administration record (MAR) revealed on 01/31/19 Resident #14's blood glucose level was 470 mg/dL. There was no documentation of physician notification of the elevated blood glucose in the record. Review of Resident #14's February 2019 MAR revealed on 02/22/19 Resident #14's blood glucose level was 442 mg/dL. There was no documentation of physician notification of the elevated blood glucose in the record. Interview on 04/17/19 at 11:02 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 stated if a physician was notified the documentation was be in the nursing progress notes or skilled nursing notes. LPN #500 verified the physician was not notified on 01/31/19 and 02/22/19 when Resident #14's blood glucose levels were above 400 mg/dL. Review of a facility policy titled Notification of Responsible Party and Physician, revised April 2017, revealed the charge nurse should notify the primary care physician when the resident's clinical status changes, and notification and attempts to notify the physician should be documented in the nursing notes.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate fingernail care for a resident was was dependent on staff for per...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to provide adequate fingernail care for a resident was was dependent on staff for personal care needs. This affected one (#76) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility identified 65 residents who are dependent on staff for fingernail care. The census was 79. Findings include: Review of Resident #76's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/12/13. Diagnoses included other schizoaffective disorders, insomnia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and undifferentiated schizophrenia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/22/19, revealed Resident #76 had short and long term memory problems, was assessed with no rejection of care in the look-back period, and required total dependence of staff for personal hygiene. Review of an activities of daily living care (ADL) plan dated 01/23/18 revealed Resident #76 had an ADL self care deficit with an intervention that personal hygiene and oral care required total dependence/extensive assistance and one staff participation to complete the task. Review of Resident #76's care plan for a potential impairment to skin dated 10/23/18 revealed an intervention to keep Resident #76's fingernails short. Review of nursing progress notes dated between 01/08/19 and 04/15/19 revealed no documentation of Resident #76 refusing any care and no documentation of any finger nail care provided by staff. Review of nurse aide documentation of nail care revealed the only documentation for Resident #76's nail care was on 03/19/19 and 04/08/19 and was documented as not applicable. Observation on 04/16/19 at 9:34 A.M., at 11:40 A.M., at 2:30 P.M., at 4:42 P.M., and on 04/17/19 at 9:31 A.M. and at 2:00 P.M., revealed Resident #76's fingernails on all ten fingers were nearly a half-inch long. Interview on 04/17/19 at 2:03 P.M., State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #350 stated Resident #76 was dependent for almost all of his personal care, was provided care from staff daily, and stated Resident #76 had never refused care. Interview on 04/17/19 at 2:07 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 verified Resident #76 had never refused care from staff and stated it was the STNAs' job to cut Resident #76's nail. LPN #76 stated she had not seen how long Resident #76's fingernails were. Observation on 04/17/19 at 2:12 P.M. of Resident #76's fingernails, with LPN #76 and STNA #350, verified Resident #76's fingernails were too long and verified they needed trimmed. Review of a facility policy titled Personal Care, revised March 2013, revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide/assist resident care and hygiene to each resident based on their individual status and needs.
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to monitor a resident's blood glucose levels as ordered by a physician. This affected one (#14) of five residents reviewed for u...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to monitor a resident's blood glucose levels as ordered by a physician. This affected one (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified 22 residents with physician orders for blood glucose monitoring. The census was 79. Findings include: Review of Resident #14's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/01/12. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II, post traumatic stress disorder, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the most recently completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/12/19, revealed Resident #14 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of a physician order dated 08/19/15 revealed Resident #14 was ordered blood glucose checks twice daily and to notify the physician for blood glucose levels below 60 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) or above 400 mg/dL. The physician order was part of the monthly physician orders reviewed and signed by the physician on 03/19/19. Review of Resident #14's blood glucose monitoring, located in the vital signs portion of the electronic medical record and located on Resident #14's January 2019 through April 2019 Medication Administration Records (MAR), revealed the facility was obtaining Resident #14's blood glucose level only once daily from 01/01/19 through 04/17/19. Interview on 04/17/19 at 11:02 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 verified Resident #14 had an active physician order for blood glucose monitoring twice daily, and verified there was no documentation of blood glucose levels obtained more than once daily for Resident #14 from 01/01/19. LPN #500 stated she does not recall Resident #14 ever having her blood glucose level checked twice a day, and had probably been only having it checked once a day for years.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to maintain a resident's wheelchair in a safe condition. This affected one (#76) of four residents reviewed for ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to maintain a resident's wheelchair in a safe condition. This affected one (#76) of four residents reviewed for accidents. The facility identified 33 residents with wheelchairs. The census was 79. Findings include: Review of Resident #76's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/12/13. Diagnoses included other schizoaffective disorders, insomnia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and undifferentiated schizophrenia. Review of the most recently completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/22/19, revealed Resident #76 had short and long term memory problems and required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility and transfers. Observation on 04/15/19 at 2:45 P.M. and 2:57 P.M. revealed Resident #76 was sitting in his wheelchair in his room and was kicking his right leg forward and backward, hitting the back of his right leg on the front edge of his wheelchair frame. Observation of Resident #76's wheelchair frame revealed the padding of the front edge of the wheelchair frame was worn through approximately seven inches long, and a blunt metal edge was exposed with no padding over it. The back of Resident #76's right leg was observed to be hitting the blunt metal edge of the wheelchair frame as he continuously kicked his right leg back and forth. No injuries were observed to the back of Resident #76's right leg. Interview on 04/15/19 at 3:00 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #600 verified the front edge of Resident #76's wheelchair exposed a portion of blunt metal that Resident #76 was kicking the back of his right leg into. LPN #76 verified Resident #76's wheelchair was not safe in its' current condition. Observation on 04/17/19 at 2:12 P.M. of the back of Resident #76's right leg, with LPN #76 and State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #350, revealed no skin impairment.
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 record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure urology consults were obtained to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure urology consults were obtained to assess the continued need for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for one (#51) out of one resident reviewed for catheters. The facility identified three residents with urinary catheters. The current census was 79. Findings include: Record review for Resident #51 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included for bipolar disorder, hallucinations, depression, schizophrenia, and urinary tract infections. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/26/19, revealed Resident #79 had impaired cognition and an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #51's hospital documentation dated 11/30/18 revealed the resident was being transferred to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter to remain for two weeks. The facility was to try to remove the catheter and to have Resident #51 be seen by a urologist for urinary issues. Review of Resident #51's hospital documentation dated 12/14/18 revealed the resident had been admitted to the hospital. Per the discharge instructions the resident was to be seen by a urologist and his primary care physician after discharge from the hospital. Further review of Resident #51's medical record revealed no evidence the resident was evaluated by a urologist. Interview on 04/16/19 at 10:22 A.M. with Resident #51 revealed he knew when he had to urinate and could feel it when he urinates into the catheter. Resident #51 stated he wanted the indwelling catheter to be removed. He has told the nurse and the physician this, but the catheter has remained. Resident #51 denied seeing his regular urologist since his admission to the facility. Interview on 04/17/19 at 11:09 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #51 had two orders from two hospital physicians to be assessed by a urologist once the resident returned to the facility. The DON verified the resident had not been seen by a urologist during his stay at the facility for removal of the indwelling urinary catheter.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate indication for the use of an anti-psychotic medication for one (#50) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications medications. The facility identified 53 residents who received anti-psychotic medications. The current census was 79. Findings include: Record review of Resident #50 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, depression, hypertension, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, and dementia with behaviors. Review of Resident #50's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/23/19, revealed the resident had impaired cognition, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. No psychiatric diagnosis was listed in the MDS. Review of Resident #50's physician orders revealed on 01/04/19 the resident was ordered to receive the anti-psychotic medications quetiapine 50 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for agitation and haloperidol 1 mg two times a day for aggression. Review of Resident #50's medical record revealed no documentation of the appropriate psychiatric diagnoses or indication for use of the two anti-psychotic medications. Interview on 04/18/19 at 2:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there was no appropriate psychiatric diagnoses or indication for use of the two anti-psychotic medications. Review of the facility policy titled Psychoactive Medication Guideline, dated 04/2018, revealed if appropriate diagnoses to support psychotropic drug use are not on the cumulative diagnosis list, the nurse will contact physician for appropriate diagnosis or clarification.
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to obtain laboratory values as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#14) of five residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to obtain laboratory values as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified 47 residents with orders for laboratory values. The census was 79. Findings include: Review of Resident #14's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/01/12. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type II, post traumatic stress disorder, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 01/12/19, revealed Resident #14 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of a physician order dated 10/28/15 revealed Resident #14 was ordered laboratory values of a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and liver/lipid panels every year. A Depakote level, a basic metabolic profile (BMP), and a complete blood count (CBC) were ordered for every six months. A glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and electrolytes were ordered every three months. The physician order was part of the monthly physician orders reviewed and signed by the physician on 03/19/19. Review of laboratory values completed for Resident #14 revealed a BMP and a CBC were completed on 08/14/18 and 12/07/18, and Depakote levels were obtained on 07/09/18 and 08/14/18. There was no evidence of any TSH, liver/lipid panels, HbA1c, or electrolyte panels completed for Resident #14 since February 2018. Interview on 04/17/19 at 10:57 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 verified Resident #14 had an active physician order for TSH, liver/lipid panel yearly, Depakote levels, BMP, and CBC every six months, and HbA1c and electrolytes every three months. LPN #500 verified the laboratory values were not being obtained as ordered. Review of a facility policy titled Laboratory Order Processing: Licensed Nurses, dated June 2018, revealed it is the responsibility of the center nurse to process all laboratory orders for each resident in their care. When laboratory orders are received from a physician, the nurse fills out a laboratory requisition with the appropriate information, sends the information to the laboratory, and a lab technician will come and draw the laboratory values per the requisition.
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 41% turnover. Below Ohio's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $26,685 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 41 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $26,685 in fines. Higher than 94% of Ohio facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Astoria Place Of Waterville's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville Staffed?

CMS rates ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Astoria Place Of Waterville?

State health inspectors documented 41 deficiencies at ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 36 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville?

ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE 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 CERTUS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WATERVILLE, Ohio.

How Does Astoria Place Of Waterville Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (41%) 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Astoria Place Of Waterville Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 Astoria Place Of Waterville Stick Around?

ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for Ohio nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Astoria Place Of Waterville Ever Fined?

ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE has been fined $26,685 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Ohio average of $33,346. 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 Astoria Place Of Waterville on Any Federal Watch List?

ASTORIA PLACE OF WATERVILLE 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.