GREEN HILLS CENTER

6557 US 68 SOUTH, WEST LIBERTY, OH 43357 (937) 465-5065
For profit - Corporation 74 Beds OTTERBEIN SENIORLIFE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
46/100
#268 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: July 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Green Hills Center has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. It ranks #268 out of 913 nursing homes in Ohio, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 4 in Logan County, meaning only one local facility is rated higher. The facility is improving, having decreased from 7 issues in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness here, receiving a 2 out of 5 stars with an alarming turnover rate of 86%, which is significantly higher than the Ohio average of 49%. However, the nursing home has good RN coverage, exceeding 75% of facilities in the state, which is important for catching potential issues. There are concerning incidents, including a critical failure during a resident transfer that led to serious injuries requiring amputation, as well as ongoing sanitation problems in the kitchen that could affect all residents. Overall, while there are strengths in RN coverage and improvements in issues, significant weaknesses in staffing and safety incidents raise concerns for families considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
D
46/100
In Ohio
#268/913
Top 29%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
86% turnover. Very high, 38 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$16,801 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Ohio. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 86%

39pts above Ohio avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $16,801

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: OTTERBEIN SENIORLIFE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (86%)

38 points above Ohio average of 48%

The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Sept 2025 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure resident dignity when giving ins...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure resident dignity when giving insulin injections. This affected one (#39) resident of one resident reviewed for insulin injections. The facility census was 67.Review of medical record for Resident #39 revealed an admission date of 08/26/22 with diagnoses including type two diabetes, dementia, and major depressive disorder.Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had moderate cognitive impairment.Review of current physician orders revealed an order initiated on 09/08/25 following the observation in the dining room indicating may give medications, check blood sugar and give insulin in public spaces and dining room.Observation on 09/08/25 at 11:22 A.M. of Registered Nurse (RN #360) revealed the nurse came up to Resident #39 sitting at a table in the dining room and informed the resident she had her insulin to administer. RN #360 proceeded to lift the resident's shirt and administer the insulin in the resident's abdomen. One family member and three other residents were observed sitting at the same table. RN #360 did not have gloves on during the administration of the insulin, nor did she perform hand hygiene prior to administering the insulin.Interview on 09/08/25 at 11:23 A.M. with RN #360 revealed the nurse verified she gave insulin in the dining room with other residents at the table. RN #360 stated she should have pulled the resident away from the table before administering the insulin. RN #360 stated she should have donned gloves prior to administering the insulin.Review of policy provided by the facility titled Subcutaneous injection revised 05/19/2025 revealed perform hand hygiene, provide privacy, explain the procedure to the patient, position the patient and expose the injection site, perform hand hygiene, put on gloves if contact with blood or bodily fluids is likely or if your skin or the patient's skin isn't intact. Gloves are not required for routine subcutaneous injections because they do not protect against needlestick injury.This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number 2601174.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure gloves and/or hand hygiene was complet...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure gloves and/or hand hygiene was completed prior to administering an insulin injection. This affected one resident #39 of one resident observed for insulin administration. Further more, the facility failed to provide sanitary environment when passing meal trays in resident's rooms. This affected two residents (#41 and #43) out of seven room trays observed. Census was 67. 1.Review of medical record for Resident #39 revealed an admission date of 08/26/22 with diagnoses including type two diabetes, dementia, and major depressive disorder. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of current physician orders revealed an order initiated on 09/08/25 following the observation in the dining room indicating may give medications, check blood sugar and give insulin in public spaces and dining room. Observation on 09/08/25 at 11:22 A.M. of Registered Nurse (RN #360) revealed the nurse came up to Resident #39 sitting at a table in the dining room and informed the resident she had her insulin to administer. RN #360 proceeded to lift the resident's shirt and administer the insulin in the resident's abdomen. One family member and three other residents were observed sitting at the same table. RN #360 did not have gloves on during the administration of the insulin, nor did she perform hand hygiene prior to administering the insulin. Interview on 09/08/25 at 11:23 A.M. with RN #360 revealed the nurse verified she gave insulin in the dining room with other residents at the table. RN #360 stated she should have pulled the resident away from the table before administering the insulin. RN #360 stated she should have donned gloves prior to administering the insulin. Review of policy provided by the facility titled “Subcutaneous injection” revised 05/19/2025 revealed perform hand hygiene, provide privacy, explain the procedure to the patient, position the patient and expose the injection site, perform hand hygiene, put on gloves if contact with blood or bodily fluids is likely or if your skin or the patient's skin isn't intact. Gloves are not required for routine subcutaneous injections because they do not protect against needlestick injury. 2.Observation on 09/10/25 at 12:42 P.M. revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #366 carried Resident #41's lunch tray into her room. Before placing lunch tray on bedside tray, CNA #366 removed tissue box and a cup. CNA #366 placed lunch tray on bedside table and removed the lid from the top of the food and took the silverware out of a plastic wrap, and adjusted bedside tray. CNA #366 walked out of Resident #41's room up to food cart and grabbed Resident #43's food tray, walked into Resident #43's took the lid off food, and walked out the door. No hand hygiene was performed at the start of meal tray pass and no hand hygiene was performed in between serving Residents #41 and #43 their meals in different rooms. Interview on 09/10/25 at 12:50 P.M. with CNA #366 verified no hand hygiene was completed before passing meal trays and no hand hygiene was completed between serving Resident #41 and Resident #43's their meal meal trays in their individual rooms. Review of facility policy Hand Hygiene Procedure, dated 03/27/25, hand hygiene is to be after contact with inanimate objects in the immediate vicinity of the patient. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number 2601174.
Feb 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the facility policy, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure all care was provided to residents with pressure ulcers per thier physician's orders. This affected one (Resident #2) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. The current census is 67. Findings include: Record review for Resident #2 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #2 include neuromyelitis, neurogenic bladder, chronic pain, and osteomyelitis. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed upon admission the resident had one unhealed stage 3 pressure ulcer and one unhealed stage 4 pressure ulcer. Review of Resident #2's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition and two unhealed pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #2's care plans dated 12/20/24 revealed the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers due to mobility. Interventions included treatment per order, medications per order, monitor for changes and report to physician, and measure and monitor wound healing. Review of Resident #2's wound clinic documentation dated 10/28/24 revealed the resident was being cared for by the community wound physician in the clinic since 03/20/23. Per the wound documentation the resident had multiple chronic pressure ulcers which healed and then were reacquired due to her medical condition. On 10/28/24 the wound physician documented the resident had a stage 4 chronic pressure ulcer to the left buttock measuring 0.4 centimeters (cm) by 0.1 cm by 0.9 cm on 11/24/23. No pain was noted per resident report. Per the documentation the wound physician ordered the dressing change to be cleansing with normal saline, apply Medi honey get into wound bed and cover with gauze, to be changed every other day. Review of Resident #2's wound clinic documentation dated 02/03/25 revealed the resident had acquired a chronic pressure ulcer stage 4 on her right buttock measuring 1.9 cm by 2.5 cm by 1.7 cm depth with a moderate amount of serosanguineous drainage on 12/09/24. Per the documentation the wound physician ordered to have a wound vac placed on 02/05/25 for healing of the wound. Review of Resident #2's skin assessment dated [DATE] completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #100 revealed on the 38 page assessment there was no documentation of any skin breakdown or wounds on the right buttock or gluteal fold. Review of Resident #2's physician orders dated 12/2024 to 02/2025 revealed on 11/07/24 the physician ordered to cleanse an open area to the right inner gluteal fold with normal saline and cover with dry foam dressing every other day at bedtime. On 12/10/24 the physician ordered to cleanse the right gluteal fold with normal saline, pat dry, and apply collogen and cover with gauze every day and as needed. On 12/16/24 the right gluteal fold dressing was changed to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply Medi honey and cover with a foam dressing, change every other day and as needed. On 01/21/25 the right gluteal dressing order was cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply Santyl to wound bed pack with normal saline and cover with foam dressing to be changed every day and as needed. On 12/18/24 the physician ordered the left gluteal dressing order to be cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply border gauze every other day. Per the physician orders dated 02/04/25 the facility was to apply the wound vac to the right buttock wound. A large green foam to the wound bed, bridge away from pressure points, 125 mmHg continuous suction and the dressing was to be changed three times a week, Monday at wound clinic, Wednesdays and Fridays at the facility. The wound vac order was active at the time of the survey. Review of Resident #2's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 12/2025 revealed there was no documentation of the resident receiving the dressing changes to the left gluteal fold on 12/11/24. Per the TAR dated 01/2025 Resident #2 did not receive the treatments to the left gluteal fold wound per physician order on 01/07/25, 01/11/25, 01/15/25, 01/17/25, 01/21/25, and 01/29/25. Resident #2 did not receive treatment to the right gluteal wound per physician order on 01/06/25, 01/07/25, 01/11/25, 01/15/25, 01/16/25, 01/17/25, and 01/19/25. Per the TAR dated 02/2025 Resident #2 did not receive the wound vac care on 02/18/25 and 02/19/25 per physician order. No corresponding documentation for the missing treatments was noted elsewhere in the medical records. Interview on 02/19/25 at 1:30 P.M. and on 02/20/25 at 11:15 A.M. with Resident #2 revealed she knew she had open wounds on her backside prior to the wound vac being applied. Resident #2 stated due to her conditions she would probably always have wounds. Resident #2 stated the nurses did not change the dressings daily. Resident #2 stated she hasn't had any increased pain due to the wounds and stated she feels the wounds will heal eventually as long as she continues to see the wound physician in the clinic. Interview on 02/20/25 at 8:22 A.M. with LPN #100 revealed the nurse was the unit manager for Resident #2's unit. LPN #100 stated she does all the rounding with the in-house wound providers and reviews all the skin assessments and dressing changes for the residents. LPN #100 stated she was not aware of when the dressing changes were to be made for Resident #2's left buttock dressing but stated she knew the wound vac was changed in the wound clinic on Tuesday. The surveyor encouraged LPN #100 to review the orders on the computer to ensure accurate interview. LPN #100 stated Resident #2's wounds were cared for by an outside wound clinic and the dressing changes were to be added to the medical records. LPN #100 denied any reports from Resident #2 regarding her treatments not being completed Interview on 02/20/25 at 12:10 P.M. with Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) and LPN #100 verified there were missing documentation in the treatment records for 12/2024, 01/2025, and 02/2025's dressing changes for both her right and left buttock wounds and the wound vac. Interview on 02/20/25 at 12:30 P.M. with the Physician revealed the primary physician stated due to Resident #2's chronic medical conditions she would always be prone to having pressure ulcers. Per the Physician, all staff are to be careful with transfers and to report any changes in the resident's skin. The Physician stated the resident's wounds are being managed by an outside provider but stated he believed all the treatments were appropriate and to be completed by the nursing staff. Interview on 02/20/25 at 2:50 P.M. with LPN #100 revealed after Resident #2 returned from her wound clinic appointment on 12/09/24 she and the previous DON assessed the resident's right buttock. LPN #100 stated she felt the wound was Moisture-Associated Skin Damage (MASD) and not a pressure ulcer. LPN #100 stated the previous DON contacted the primary physician for orders for the dressing care for the right buttock before the wound clinic had sent their orders to the facility. LPN #100 verified she had documented on the resident's left buttock the day after she returned from the wound clinic but could not recall the right buttock's condition of wound during her assessment. Review of the facility policy titled, Skin Care Managment, dated 11/17/22 revealed the facility staff is to provide care for all skin breakdown to promote healing the pressure ulcers. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00162641 and OH00162467.
Sept 2024 4 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, review of the facilities Self-Reported Incident (SRI) including investigation, observations, sta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of the facilities Self-Reported Incident (SRI) including investigation, observations, staff interview, and review of the facilities abuse policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical abuse. This affected one (#200) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #200 revealed an admission date of 05/06/24. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease with late onset, dementia with psychotic disturbance, major depression, anxiety, mild neurocognitive disorder, psychosis, and primary insomnia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #200's cognition was impaired. Resident #200 required substantial/maximal assistance from staff with eating and shower/bathe and dependent on staff for toileting, upper and lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. Review of the revised care plan dated 08/06/24 revealed Resident #200 was at risk for social isolation related to dementia, psychotic disorder and new environment. Resident #200 should be encouraged to participate in recreational activities, social situations, and provide positive enforcement with resident participates in activities. Review of the facilities SRI dated 08/24/24 revealed an allegation of physical abuse when State Tested Nursing Aide (STNA) #3 positioned a desk chair to block Resident #200's wheelchair from moving back away from the counter. Resident #202 reported two STNAs sitting at the nurses' station and were pushing Resident #200's head down onto the pillow positioned on the counter periodically trying to get her to sleep. The facility substantiated the allegation of abuse by verified evidence and notified the local police department (LPD) that staff physically abused Resident #200. Review of the facility's investigation and witness statements dated 08/24/24 revealed on 08/24/24, STNA #44 and Hospitality Aide #33 reported to work at 5:49 A.M. to find Resident #200 sitting in her wheelchair at the nurses' station desk with STNA #3 (who worked for agency staffing) sitting next to Resident #200. A desk chair was positioned to block Resident #200's wheelchair from moving back away from the counter blocking her movement. Witness statement from STNA #44 stated she witnessed Resident #200's wheelchair lodged with a chair underneath the wheelchair wheel. Witness statement from STNA #3 acknowledged placing the chair in that position. The witness statement from Resident #202 revealed she was awakened by noise at the nurses' station and got up about 2:00 A.M. and observed two STNAs sitting at the nurses' station and were pushing Resident #200's head down onto the pillow positioned on the counter periodically trying to get her to sleep. Resident #200's wheelchair was pushed up to the counter and the desk chair was blocking her chair. Review of the LPD report dated 08/24/24 at 3:00 P.M. documented a report of allegation of abuse had occurred overnight, to which an STNA held Resident #200's head down onto a pillow to make the resident sleep and placed a desk chair against the resident's wheelchair from moving away from the desk. Further documentation on 08/29/24 at 4:00 P.M. reported the Administrator contacted the LPD stating the allegation was substantiated and wanted the police to investigate as a criminal matter. Observation on 09/04/24 from 8:47 A.M. to 9:22 A.M. revealed Resident #200 sitting at the nurse's station and Resident #200 was asleep. Interview on 09/04/24 at 9:50 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #200 was physically abused by two STNAs on 08/24/24. Interview on 09/04/24 at 11:30 A.M. with the Administrator verified Resident #200 was physically abused by two STNAs on 08/24/24. The Administrator stated the SRI was substantiated after the investigation found that an agency staff restrained Resident #200 in wheelchair using another chair to block her ability to move the chair or stand. The facility was unable to obtain statements from the two Alleged Perpetrators, STNA #3 and STNA #4 as they were uncooperative with the investigation. STNA #3 and STNA #5 were put on the Do Not Return and were barred from picking up shifts at the facility. Attempts to contact STNAs #3 and #4 during the survey were unsuccessful. Review of the policy titled Abuse and Neglect with a revision date of 11/21/16, revealed abuse is the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Control Number OH00157383 and Complaint Number OH00157352.
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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's plan of care was revised when changes were made for the resident's comfort and positioning. This affected one (#200) of four residents reviewed for plan of care. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #200 revealed admission date of 05/06/24. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease with late onset, dementia with psychotic disturbance, major depression, anxiety, mild neurocognitive disorder, psychosis, and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #200 had cognition impairment. Resident #200 was dependent on staff for upper and lower body dressing and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #200's comprehensive plan of care dated 05/06/24 revealed it was silent for the utilization of a custom wheelchair/ tilt and space wheelchair. Review of Resident #200's physician order revealed it was silent for orders for a tilt and space wheelchair. Interview with State Tested Nursing Aide STNA #11 on 09/04/24 from 8:46 A.M. verified Resident #200 was in a tilt and space wheelchair with no footrests. STNA #11 stated Resident #200's wheelchair was supposed to have footrest but STNA #11 had not put them on yet. Observation on 09/04/24 from 8:47 A.M. to 9:22 A.M. revealed Resident #200 was asleep and sitting at the nurse's station in a tilt-space wheelchair, with no footrests and both feet dangling with the inability to touch the floor. Interview on 09/04/24 at 9:50 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #200 was placed in the custom- tilt and space wheelchair after Resident #200 received therapy for positioning and comfort. Interview on 09/04/24 at 11:15 A.M. with Occupational Therapist (OT) #19 stated Resident #200 was seen by therapy for positioning/comfort and they placed her in the custom tilt and space wheelchair. OT #19 verified Resident #200 was to have wheelchair footrest for feet and tilted at a slight angle for comfort. Resident #200 was discharged from OT on 08/22/24. Interview on 09/05/24 at 3:30 P.M. with License Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 verified Resident #200's plan of care, and physician orders were silent for documentation of the utilization of a custom- tilt and space wheelchair with wheelchair foot rests. LPN #10 verified the care plan should have been updated when therapy placed Resident #200 in the chair. Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plans dated 11/01/18 revealed the care plans are modified between care plan conferences with appropriate to meet the resident's current needs, problems and goals. This was an incidental finding discovered during the course of the complaint investigation.
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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to physician orders, resulting in a medication error rate exceeding five percent (%). 32 opportunities were observed with two medication errors, resulting in 6.3% error rate. This affected one (Resident #450) of four residents observed during the medication administration. The facility census was 66. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #450 revealed an admission date of 09/04/02. Diagnoses included constipation. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #450 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of the physician orders dated September 2024 revealed Resident #450 was to receive Senna concentrate 8.6 milligrams (mg) give two tablets orally two times a day for constipation. The physician orders dated September 2024 were silent for physician orders for two bisacodyl (treats constipation) five mg tablets. Observation and interview on 09/05/24 between 8:25 A.M. to 8:40 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #25 was observed administering medication to Resident #450. At the time of the administration, LPN #25 provided medications scheduled for 8 A.M. including observation of two bisacodyl five mg tablets being administered to Resident #450. Review of Resident #450's medication administration record (MAR) with LPN #25 confirmed she documented she administered two Senna concentrate 8.6 mg tablets for 8:00 A.M. on 09/05/24. LPN #25 verified she had given the wrong medication to Resident #450. LPN #25 verified she administered two bisacodyl five mg tablets instead of two senna concentrate 8.6 mg tablets. LPN #25 verified Resident #450 did not have a physician's order for bisacodyl. Review of the undated facility policy titled Medication Administration General Policies and Procedures revealed medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00157352.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered to the residents without any significant medication errors. This affected two (#100 and #125) of six residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 66. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #100 revealed an admission date of 10/11/15. Diagnoses included vascular dementia, protein calorie malnutrition, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Resident #100 did not have a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #100 had cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #100's physician's orders revealed they were silent for physician orders for Lantus insulin, melatonin (sleep aide), Pepcid (treats heartburn), Risperdal (antipsychotic) or trazodone (antidepressant and sedative). Resident #100's medical record did not have any documentation of a medication error on 07/29/24 and the monitoring of the resident status post the medication error. Review of the facilities Resident Medication Incident Report dated 07/29/24 revealed Resident #100 received another resident's insulin during the 8:00 P.M. medication pass. The incident occurred on 07/29/24 at 7:00 P.M., with physician notification at 8:07 P.M. First aid/ treatment was blood sugar every hour and vitals every hour. The possible adverse side effects were complaints of head feeling funny and slurring speech. The follow up to the medication error revealed there were no residual effects, resident to be her normal baseline, and physician notification. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 was the agency nurse who administered the wrong medication to Resident #100 on 07/29/24 and marked as a Do Not Return to the facility. There were no physician orders to complete blood sugar and vital signs every hour and no documentation to support this was completed. Interview with Physician #50 on 09/05/24 at 1:30 P.M. verified the staff should have written physician orders for his the order he gave for Resident #100 on 07/29/24, which was to complete blood sugar and vital signs every hour. The physician stated when a resident has a change of a change of condition including medication error/issues relating to a resident, he would expect the nursing staff to assess the resident, document and communicate those findings. Interview on 09/05/24 at 2:50 P.M. with Nurse Manager (NM) #18 revealed she completed the investigation of the medication error on 07/29/24 with Resident #100 and found that Resident #100 received Resident #300's 8 P.M. medications including, Lantus insulin 20 units, melatonin five milligrams (mg), Pepcid 20 mg, Risperdal 1.5 mg, and trazodone 50 mg. NM #18 verified Resident #100's medical record did not have any documentation of the medication error and the monitoring of the resident after the medication error was identified. NM #18 notified the physician regarding the error and a verbal order was obtained to monitor Resident #100's blood sugar and vital signs and NM #18 verified she did not write the physicians order resulting in only three blood sugars being obtained. NM #18 was unable to recall what the physician order was supposed to be, but verified Resident #100 should have had blood sugar monitoring three more times because of the long-acting effects of the 20 units of Lantus insulin that was administered. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #125 revealed an admission date of 01/17/23. Diagnoses included heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, hypertension, and dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #125 had intact cognition. Review of Resident #125's physician orders revealed they were silent for orders for multivitamin, cetirizine duloxetine (antihistamine), hydrochlorothiazide (diuretic), losartan potassium (treats high blood pressure) and pregabalin (idiopathic neuropathy). Resident #125's medical record did not have any documentation of a medication error on 07/25/24 and the monitoring of the resident status post the medication error. Review of the facilities Resident Medication Incident Report dated 07/25/24 revealed Resident #125 received the roommates 5:00 A.M. medications. The incident occurred on 07/25/24 at 5:00 A.M., with physician notification at 7:55 A.M. on 07/25/24. There was nothing listed under first aid/ treatment. The possible adverse side effect was decreased blood pressure. The follow up included physician notification and monitoring of vital signs. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #500 was an agency nurse and was the nurse who administered the medications to the wrong resident. LPN #500 was sent home and staffing agency was informed of LPN #500's medication error and requested LPN #500 be educated. Interview on 09/05/24 at 9:10 A.M. with Resident #125 stated she was not sure what medications was given to her, but remembers she was given another resident's medications. Resident #125 stated now she pays attention and ask about her medications since the medication error. Interview on 09/05/24 at approximately 2:50 P.M. with Nurse Manager (NM) #18 stated she completed the investigation of the medication error on 07/25/24 with Resident #125. NM #18 verified Resident #125 received Resident #126's morning medications including, multivitamin one tablet, cetirizine five milligrams (mg), duloxetine 60 mg, furosemide 20 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, losartan potassium 50 mg, and pregabalin 25 mg. NM #18 verified nursing should have monitored for adverse reactions of the medication error and should have documented for at least 48 hours after the medication error. NM #18 verified she was unable to provide documentation of such monitoring for Resident #125. Review of the undated facility policy titled Medication Administration General Policies and Procedures revealed medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00157352.
May 2024 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 representative was notified of a resident elopement timely. This affected one (#46) resident out of the three residents reviewed for notification of changes. The facility census was 73. Findings include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #46 revealed an admission date of 04/14/22 with medical diagnoses of cerebral infarction, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and Depression. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/03/24, which indicated Resident #46 had moderate cognitive impairment and required supervision to partial/moderate staff assistance for wheelchair mobility, was dependent for toilet hygiene and bathing, and required substantial staff assistance for transfers and bed mobility. The MDS indicated Resident #46 had a wander/elopement alarm in place daily. The MDS did not indicate Resident #46 wandered during the assessment time frame. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an elopement risk assessment dated [DATE], which indicated Resident #46 was at risk for elopement due to history of elopement, wandering, and resident expressed desire to return home. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed a plan of care dated 07/24/23 which stated Resident #46 was at risk for elopement/wandering behavior due to dementia. The interventions included wander guard as ordered. Review of medical record for Resident #46 revealed a physician order dated 10/12/23 for wander guard (device to prevent elopement) to be placed and function checked every shift. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an incident note dated 05/26/24 at 11:46 P.M. which stated Resident #46 was outside of the facility during shift unattended. Returned to facility by a visitor. Roam alert in place on wheelchair. Assessment for skin and injury. None noted at this time. Resident known to roam around the facility freely in wheelchair. Staff were not alerted by alarms. Roam alert checked for safety red light on. Physician on call sent message through tiger text. Power of Attorney was notified. Resident was returned to room and slept throughout night without further incident. Fifteen-minute checks initiated. Interview on 05/30/24 at 10:26 A.M. with Administrator confirmed Resident #46 had an elopement from the facility on 05/26/24. Administrator confirmed Resident #46 had a wander guard device attached to her wheelchair. Administrator stated staff responded to the door near Foundation Hall alarming around 7:58 P.M. on 05/26/24. Administrator stated the facility staff looked around the hallways and didn't see any residents and cleared the alarm at 8:04 P.M. Administrator stated on 05/26/24 at 8:52 P.M. a visitor brought Resident #46 back into the facility and the visitor stated Resident #46 was sitting in the parking lot. Administrator stated nursing staff immediately assessed the resident for any injuries and none were noted. Administrator stated she was notified of the elopement on 05/26/24, and an investigation was initiated. Administrator confirmed Resident #46's family was not notified of the elopement until 05/27/24 at 5:15 A.M. Review of the facility policy titled, Notification of Changes, revised 11/18/21, revealed the staff would notify the resident and/or resident representative and his/her physician or delegate of changes in the residents' condition or status in order to obtain orders for appropriate treatment and monitoring and promote resident's rights to make choices about treatment and care preferences. The policy stated the nurse would notify the resident and/or representative and physician of an accident involving the resident which resulted in injury or has the potential for requiring physician interventions. The policy stated the family was to document the notification in the resident's medical record. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00154269.
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 medical record review, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interviews and policy review, the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate interventions and/or supervision to ensure a resident who was assessed as being at risk for elopements did not elope from the facility. This affected one (#46) resident out of three residents reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 73. Finding include: Review of the medical record for the Resident #46 revealed an admission date of 04/14/22 with medical diagnoses of cerebral infarction, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and Depression. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/03/24, which indicated Resident #46 had moderate cognitive impairment and required supervision to partial/moderate staff assistance for wheelchair mobility, was dependent for toilet hygiene and bathing, and required substantial staff assistance for transfers and bed mobility. The MDS indicated Resident #46 had a wander/elopement alarm in place daily. The MDS did not indicate Resident #46 wandered during the assessment time frame. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an elopement risk assessment dated [DATE], which indicated Resident #46 was at risk for elopement due to history of elopement, wandering, and resident expressed desire to return home. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed a plan of care dated 07/24/23 which stated Resident #46 was at risk for elopement/wandering behavior due to dementia. The interventions included wander guard as ordered. Review of medical record for Resident #46 revealed a physician order dated 10/12/23 for wander guard (device to prevent elopement) to be placed and function checked every shift. Review of the medical record for Resident #46 revealed an incident note dated 05/26/24 at 11:46 P.M. which stated Resident #46 was outside of the facility during shift unattended. Returned to facility by a visitor. Roam alert in place on wheelchair. Assessment for skin and injury. None noted at this time. Resident known to roam around the facility freely in wheelchair. Staff not alerted by alarms. Roam alert checked for safety red light on. Physician on call sent message through tiger text. Power of Attorney was notified. Resident was returned to room and slept throughout night without further incident. Fifteen-minute checks initiated. Interview on 05/30/24 at 10:26 A.M. with Administrator confirmed Resident #46 had an elopement from the facility on 05/26/24. Administrator confirmed Resident #46 had a wander guard device attached to her wheelchair. Administrator stated staff responded to the door near Foundation Hall alarming around 7:58 P.M. on 05/26/24. Administrator stated the facility staff looked around the hallways and didn't see any residents and cleared the alarm at 8:04 P.M. Administrator stated on 05/26/24 at 8:52 P.M. a visitor brought Resident #46 back into the facility and the visitor stated Resident #46 was sitting in the parking lot. Administrator stated nursing staff immediately assessed the resident for any injuries and none were noted. Administrator stated she was notified of the elopement on 05/26/24, and an investigation was initiated. Administrator confirmed Resident #46's family was not notified of the elopement until 05/27/24 at 5:15 A.M. Interview on 05/30/24 at 11:00 A.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was notified on 05/26/24 around 10:00 P.M. that Resident #46 had eloped from the facility and was returned to the building by a visitor. DON stated an investigation was completed and determined Resident #46 wheeled herself past the front lobby to the doors that lead to Foundation Hall. DON stated the doors in the front lobby lock when a resident with a wander guard is near, so Resident #46 was not able to exit through those doors. DON stated Resident #46 was able to push open the locked doors (the doors will unlock after being pushed for 15 seconds) to enter Foundation Hall area and the door alarm sounded. DON stated Resident #46 made her way down the hallway to the sliding doors near Foundation Hall entrance/exit. DON stated the sliding doors near Foundation Hall did not have the ability to lock or alarm when a resident with a wander guard was near. DON stated staff responded to the door alarm but did not see any residents in the hallway, so the alarm was cleared, and staff did not complete a resident head count to ensure a resident had not eloped. DON stated Resident #46 was found in the parking lot outside of Foundation Hall doors by a visitor and had been outside approximately 45-50 minutes. DON confirmed Resident #46 did not sustain any injuries from the incident. DON stated a company was at the facility today to provide an estimate for installation of alarms and locks to the sliding doors near Foundation Hall. Review of the SRI dated 05/26/24 revealed staff interviews were conducted to determine how Resident #46 eloped from the facility. Resident #46 was put on fifteen-minute checks on 05/26/24 and 05/27/24, and the staff was educated on elopement and notification of changes on 05/27/24 and 05/28/24. Review of the SRI revealed the facility had not completed the investigation, training, and audits for the elopement. Review of facility policy titled Elopement, revised 12/19/23, revealed the facility was to safely and timely redirect residents to safe environment. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00154269.
Jan 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, medical record review, review of Joerns Hoyer user instruction manual and Invacare pati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, medical record review, review of Joerns Hoyer user instruction manual and Invacare patient slings operator's manual, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation including witness statements, review of the emergency medical services (EMS) report, review of hospital documentation, review of the facility policies on transfer, mechanical lifts, and the mechanical lift checklist, the facility failed to ensure a resident requiring transfers with a mechanical lift was transferred safely. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy when Resident #15 experienced serious life-threatening injuries during an avoidable fall from a mechanical lift when the lift pad was incorrectly placed on the Hoyer lift and only one-person assisted in the transfer, resulting in a head injury, and severe fractures of the left lower leg which subsequently required an above the knee amputation of the left lower leg. This affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for utilization of a mechanical lift for transfers and placed an additional 14 current residents (#101, #102, #103, #104, #105, #106, #107, #108, #109, #110, #111, #112, #113, and #114), identified by the facility as requiring the use of a mechanical lift for transfers, at risk for potential serious injuries and/or negative health outcomes as the facility was utilizing Invacare slings for the two Joerns Hoyer lifts for the 14 current residents. The facility census was 69. On 01/09/24 at 10:02 A.M., the Administrator and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) #200 were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 12/25/23 at 10:40 A.M., when Nursing Assistant (NA) #20 transferred Resident #15 from her bed to the wheelchair using a mechanical lift without another staff member present. NA #20 utilized the wrong color-coded sling loops and positioned them incorrectly on the Hoyer lift, resulting in Resident #15 sliding out of the Hoyer lift while it was suspended five feet in the air and her head hitting the ground first and her left leg getting tangled up in the lift. The facility policy and Resident #15's plan of care required two staff members to be present when completing a mechanical lift transfer. Resident #15 was sent to a trauma level one hospital via EMS where she was diagnosed with comminuted fracture (a bone that is broken into more than two pieces) of the proximal left tibia, open fracture (a broken bone that causes an open wound in the skin) of left fibula, hemorrhagic shock requiring a blood transfusion, head contusion and multiple hematomas throughout the body. Surgical treatment of the left leg resulted in an above the knee amputation due to the severity of the traumatic wound and catastrophic fractures sustained to both the left tibia and fibula. On 01/08/24, interviews and observations revealed the facility was utilizing Invacare slings for the two Joerns Hoyer lifts for 14 current residents. Invacare manufacturer instructions state not to intermix slings and lifts of different manufacturers for the safety of the patient. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 01/12/24 when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: • On 12/25/23 at 11:25 A.M., Resident #15 was transferred to the hospital and did not return to the facility. • On 12/25/23 at 11:35 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) suspended NA #20 pending investigation. • On 12/25/23 at 11:35 A.M., the DON removed the Hoyer lift used in Resident #15's transfer (Hoyer LPL700 serial number 1000021257) and sling from service pending investigation. • On 12/25/23 at 11:50 A.M., the DON, Unit Manager (UM) #431, Registered Nurse (RN) #430, and Therapy Director (TD) #440 completed education to State Tested Nurse Aides (STNAs), licensed nursing, and therapy staff on utilizing two staff to transfer a resident using a Hoyer lift, checking the sling, and checking the Hoyer lift to ensure it was properly functioning prior to use. On 12/28/23 at 1:30 P.M., all active STNAs, licensed nursing and therapy staff had completed the education. • On 12/26/23, a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held with the interdisciplinary team (IDT) which included Quality Assurance (QA) Nurse #202, CEO #200, TD #440, Maintenance Director #512, UM #518, and the DON to discuss the incident involving Resident #15 with the improper Hoyer transfer. Medical Director #500 was updated by telephone. • On 12/27/23, the DON, TD #440, and UM #518 began audits to ensure proper use of Hoyer lifts. The audits included observing nurses, STNAs, and therapy staff on proper use of lifts and slings. • On 12/29/23, NA #20's employment was terminated. • On 12/29/23, Outside Engineer Provider #500 inspected all Hoyer lifts, and they were found to be functioning. The Hoyer lift (Hoyer LPL700 serial number 1000021257) used in Resident #15's transfer on 12/25/23 was returned to service. • On 01/08/24, observations and interviews revealed the facility was utilizing Invacare slings for the two Joerns Hoyer lifts for 14 current residents. Invacare manufacturer instructions state not to intermix slings and lifts of different manufacturers for the safety of the patient. • On 01/09/24, the IDT met to discuss the plan for the day to limit any use of Hoyer lifts with the current slings until the new lifts and slings arrived that day (01/09/24). All residents' needs will be met at bedside including care, meals, activities, etc., as able. • On 01/09/24, CEO #200 ordered and received nine [NAME] Chairs from Medical Equipment Supplier #600. [NAME] Chairs allow transfer of residents from bed to chair safely without a lift. Medical Equipment Supplier #600 will provide five Hoyer lifts with corresponding slings on 01/09/24. • On 01/09/24, another QAPI meeting was held to discuss the further findings of the investigation into Resident #15's unsafe transfer. • On 01/09/24, the DON, QA Nurse #202, and TD #440 reviewed the manuals for the new chairs, mechanical lifts, and slings. They evaluated the 14 residents for the proper sling for each resident. The resident's plan of care and STNA report sheets were updated with the proper sling for each resident. Education began with nursing staff on the proper operation of the equipment. All nursing and therapy staff will be educated by 01/12/24. • On 01/10/24, the DON/designee will conduct random audits to observe staff utilizing the chairs, Hoyer lift, and slings properly. The audits will begin on 01/10/24 and three staff will be observed weekly for three weeks, monthly for three months and randomly thereafter. • On 01/10/24 at 3:15 P.M., observation of a Hoyer lift transfer with the facility's new Hoyer lift revealed the Hoyer lift legs buckled inward during Resident #112's transfer. Resident #112 did not sustain any injury because of the legs buckling inward during the transfer and the resident was safely transferred to bed. The facility immediately removed the Hoyer lift from service. All residents that were mechanical lifts were transferred using the [NAME] chairs without issues. At 4:00 P.M., maintenance staff tightened the nuts and bolts and checked the wires of the Hoyer lift to ensure nothing was loose. • On 01/10/24 and 01/11/24, interviews with STNAs #411, #318, #428, and #436 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #623 verified they received in-service training on mechanical lift transfers and had no concerns. • On 01/11/24, the DON, QA Nurse #202, UM #431, Administrator, and CEO #200 reviewed slings and mechanical lift manuals, watched sling and lift video tutorials and completed multiple transfers using the Hoyer lift among staff members to ensure the Hoyer lift and sling was functioning properly prior to putting back into service. On 01/11/24 at 1:30 P.M., the Hoyer lift was put back into service for residents. • On 01/11/24, two current residents requiring a mechanical lift for transfers were observed during the transfer process. Resident #114 was observed at 2:00 P.M. and Resident #108 was observed at 2:30 P.M. Both residents were transferred with a mechanical lift device with two staff members present, utilizing the proper lift pads that were new, in good condition, labeled with their respective names and unique identification numbers for the lift pad. There were no identified problems observed during the mechanical lift transfers. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed, the facility remained out of compliance at a Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility is still in process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include: Review of Resident #15's closed medical record revealed Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, hemiparesis, left non-dominant side, systolic congestive heart failure, type two diabetes mellitus, contracture of left elbow, and lymphedema. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #15 had cognitive impairment. She required total dependence on staff for chair to bed transfers. Review of the plan of care dated 12/02/22 revealed Resident #15 had the potential for self-care deficits related to weakness, inability to care for self, left upper extremity contracture and limited mobility. Interventions included monitoring and assistance as needed with Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and transfer with use of mechanical lift with two staff personnel. Review of Resident #15's nursing progress notes dated 12/25/23 at 11:50 A.M. revealed LPN #240 was called into Resident #15's room by NA #20. Upon entry into the room, Resident #15 was on the floor with her left leg caught in the lift. There was blood seeping through her jeans. There was also blood from the lump on the back of her head. LPN #240 called for assistance from other staff. LPN #240 stayed with Resident #15 and applied pressure to her head while NA #20 applied pressure to the laceration on her left leg. On 12/25/23 at 12:22 P.M., RN #356 was summoned to Resident #15's room by staff. Resident #15 was lying in a prone position under the Hoyer lift. There was bleeding from the left leg and the back of the head. The left lower leg appeared to be externally rotated and a large wound noted under the left knee and fatty tissue was exposed. Cold pressure dressing applied until EMS arrived. EMS dispatcher arrived, and Resident #15 was going to be life flighted from [NAME] Park in [NAME] Liberty due to the appearance of the wound. Review of the facility's SRI dated 12/25/23 revealed on 12/25/23 at 10:40 A.M., NA #20 attempted to transfer Resident #15 with a Hoyer lift by herself, contrary to the facility policy. During the transfer of Resident #15 with the Hoyer lift, Resident #15 slipped out of the sling onto the floor. LPN #240 entered Resident #15's room and then initiated evaluation and emergency treatment for observed injuries. EMS responded and transported Resident #15 to the hospital. NA #20 was suspended. The Hoyer lift and sling involved in the incident were removed from service until they could be evaluated. Local police were informed of the incident. Review of NA #20's written statement dated 12/25/23 revealed NA #20 went to get Resident #15 changed and ready for lunch. NA #20 decided to get Resident #15 up using the Hoyer lift by herself and didn't think about asking for help. NA #20 stated she was stressed out all morning. NA #20 turned the lift to put Resident #15 into the chair and Resident #15 slid out onto floor. NA #20 stated I do know better; thought I could handle it by myself. Review of the EMS report dated 12/25/23 at 11:09 A.M. revealed EMS was on scene with Resident #15 for a call to address a fall with a laceration to the leg. EMS was advised that Resident #15 dropped from approximately five feet in the air and struck her head during the fall. A full trauma assessment was performed with finding of a small laceration to the back of the head with bleeding stopped, altered mental status, pain in the middle to lower back, and pain and deformity to the lower left leg with the laceration. Care provided to Resident #15 included left leg trauma dressing and vacuum splint, cervical collar, vital signs, and transport to life flight helicopter. Review of Resident #15's hospital records from 12/25/23, revealed Resident #15 required life flight transport to a level one trauma hospital. During the multiple physician assessments, and imaging required while at the trauma center, Resident #15 was found to have multiple traumas including a comminuted fracture of the proximal left tibia, open fracture of left fibula, hemorrhagic shock requiring a blood transfusion, head contusion and multiple hematomas throughout the body. Resident #15 required an intensive care hospital unit with intubation, intravenous pain control, intravenous antibiotics, intravenous hydration, and surgical intervention for the left leg fractures. Surgical treatment of the left leg resulted in an above the knee amputation due to the severity of the traumatic wound and catastrophic fractures sustained to both the left tibia and fibula. Review of NA #20's telephone interview statement dated 12/26/23 at 10:30 A.M. revealed NA #20 reported she thought she used the wrong color-coded sling loops which incorrectly positioned Resident #15 in the sling causing Resident #15 to slide out of the body sling. Resident #15 hit headfirst on the floor and landed on her buttocks and back. LPN #240 entered Resident #15's room to bring in medications to Resident #15. LPN #240 told STNA #318, who had entered the room, to obtain assistance. EMS asked where she had fallen from, and she told EMS she had fallen from five feet. EMS decided to life flight Resident #15. Review of RN #356's telephone interview statement dated 12/26/23 at 11:30 A.M., revealed RN #356 walked into Resident #15's room after requests for assistance, and found Resident #15 on the floor with LPN #240 holding pressure on the back of Resident #15's head. There was a small amount of blood on her head, and when RN #356 looked down toward her legs there was a pool of blood under her leg. RN #356 attempted to cut the pant leg with a small pair of bandage scissors without success but managed to rip the pant leg far enough to see a very large deep wound. RN #356 requested STNA #318 to obtain a wet compress and directed her to apply pressure and then went and called emergency 9-1-1 (EMS). EMS arrived and asked NA #20 where Resident #15 fell from. NA #20 told EMS the Hoyer lift's height had not been moved, and EMS responded that was five feet in the air and indicated the need for life flight for a trauma hospital. Review of LPN #240's telephone interview statement dated 12/27/23, revealed LPN #240 entered Resident #15's room after NA #20 had opened the door stating Resident #15 had fallen. LPN #240 found Resident #15 on the floor on her back, requested STNA #318 to get another nurse's assistance. RN #356 arrived and requested STNA #318 apply pressure to Resident #15's leg, and RN #356 went to make phone calls. EMS arrived and questioned about the height of the Hoyer lift and noted the Hoyer was really high and EMS decided to life flight Resident #15 to a trauma center. Review of STNA #318's telephone interview statement dated 12/28/23 revealed NA #20 opened the door of Resident #15's room and stated Resident #15 was on the floor. LPN #240 requested assistance, STNA #318 obtained RN #356 and returned to Resident #15's room. RN #356 was trying to find where all the blood was coming from and was told to apply pressure. STNA #318 observed Resident #15's chair was at the other side of the room and the Hoyer with the body sling attached. STNA #318 observed the color-coded straps of the body sling with the longer straps at the resident's head and the shortest straps at the feet, which would cause the feet to be higher than the head of the patient when lifted. An observation of the use of a mechanical lift of Resident #105 on 01/08/24 at 10:10 A.M. with the DON, STNAs #318 and #411 revealed a Joerns Hoyer lift was used to lift the body sling with Resident #105 from the bed into a wheelchair. Interview with the DON, during the observation, revealed a medium size Invacare body sling was used for the transfer. Interview on 01/08/24 at 11:20 A.M. with Quality Assurance Coordinator #202 verified the facility had only Invacare slings utilized for Hoyer transfers currently. Interview on 01/08/24 at 2:05 P.M. with CEO #200 verified the facility only used two Joerns Hoyer's for mechanical lifts of residents currently. CEO #200 verified the facility concluded the investigation into Resident #15's fall from the Hoyer was a result of NA #20 transferring Resident #15 without staff assistance and NA #20 applied the body sling loops inappropriately to the Hoyer lift causing Resident #15 to slide during the transfer. CEO #200 verified it was the facility's policy and in Resident #15's plan of care to provide two persons for transfers with the Hoyer lift. Interview on 01/08/24 with RN #365 verified the sequence of events on 12/25/23 involving Resident #15, indicating Resident #15 fell from about five feet because of the extended height of the Hoyer lift when she came into the room to assist Resident #15. Interview on 01/08/24 with LPN #240 stated upon entering Resident #15's room, Resident #15 was lying on the floor on her back with blood coming from Resident #15's head. Resident #15 was under the Hoyer lift, with the body sling still attached to Hoyer. NA #20 explained she was transferring Resident #15 in the Hoyer lift by herself when Resident #15 slid out of the body sling, hitting her head on the floor. LPN #240 stated at that point she requested staff get assistance and began assessing for head injury. An attempt to interview NA #20 during the investigation was unsuccessful. Review of the facility policy titled Transfer Policy, dated 11/20/17, revealed the purpose was to assist residents with transfers and ambulation in a way that provides safety and protection to the resident and employee. The type of transfers included mechanical lifts which required two staff. Review of the facility's policy titled Mechanical Lifts, dated 07/01/18, revealed the policy was to prevent injury to yourself and residents during transfer. Steps included were to prepare the resident for transfer by attaching the sling to lift using the corresponding loops for the upright position, partial reclining position, and the full reclining position. Review of the facility's undated policy titled Mechanical Lift Checklist revealed to never use a mechanical lift by yourself. All lifts require two people for operation. Review of the undated Invacare manufacturer's operator and maintenance manual for patient slings revealed, Invacare slings are made specifically for the use with Invacare lifts. For the safety of the patient, do not intermix slings and lifts of different manufacturers. When connecting body sling color coded straps, the shortest of the straps must be at the back of the patient for support. Review of the undated manufactures user instruction manual for the Joerns Hoyer HPL700 revealed warnings included Do not use a sling unless it is recommended for use with the lift; Hoyer slings and lifts are not designed to be interchangeable with other manufacturer's products. Using other manufactures' products on Hoyer products is potentially unsafe and could result in serious injury to patient and or caregiver; Further stating caution, have someone assist you when attempting to transfer a patient. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00149663 and Control Number OH00149636.
Jul 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, review of a facility investigation, and review of a self-reported incident, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed and implemented for residents with wandering and eloping behaviors. This affected two (#53 and #20) of five residents reviewed for behaviors. The current census was 68. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #53's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #53 include dementia, aphasia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident has impaired cognition and was not coded as having wandering behaviors. Review of Resident #53's care plans dated April 2023 revealed there was no focus for behaviors including elopement and wandering. Review of a self-reported incident (SRI) dated 05/15/23 revealed on 05/15/23 Resident #53 walked out of the locked dementia unit, but did not leave the building. Per the report, the resident was observed on the hallway outside of the locked unit knocking on the door to get back into the dementia unit. Further review of the report revealed the resident's wife had visited and the resident may have followed her out of the unit and then attempted to return to the locked unit. Review of a facility investigation on 05/15/23 revealed the resident's wife had been to visit the resident and was leaving the locked unit, and the resident followed her out of the unit. Resident #53 then knocked on the door to return to the unit. Resident #53's Wandergaurd (alerting device worn by individuals at risk for elopement) was checked, and the Wanderguard locked all doors leading outside of the facility. A code alert bracelet was added as an intervention to lock the dementia unit doors. Review of the Resident #53's progress notes dated 05/24/23 at 8:51 A.M. revealed the resident continued to have wandering behaviors of attempting to enter other resident's rooms and trying to exit the unit causing alarms to sound. Interview on 07/12/23 at 3:30 P.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #108 and Hospitality Aide (HA) #216 stated Resident #53 had wandering behaviors and needed to be checked on frequently. STNA #108 was unsure if the resident had a Wanderguard and code alert bracelet or just a Wanderguard. HA #216 stated Resident #53 had wandering behaviors to the point of trying to exit the doors of the unit. Neither STNA #108 nor HA #216 were able to see the behaviors and interventions for such behaviors in the resident's care plans. Interview on 07/13/23 at 11:20 A.M., with the Administrator verified there was no behavior or elopement care plan for Resident #53 to address his wandering and elopement behaviors. 2. Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility 05/23/23. Diagnoses for Resident #20 include dementia, heart disease, diabetes type two, and encephalopathy. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition and was coded with the behavior of wandering. Review of Resident #20's care plans dated May 2023 revealed there was no focus for behaviors or elopement. Review of Resident #20's progress notes dated 07/02/23 at 8:51 A.M. revealed the resident was observed outside of the unit on the secured courtyard when the door alarm sounded. Staff returned the resident inside the dementia unit and the staff continued to monitor the resident. Interview on 07/13/23 at 11:20 A.M. with the Administrator verified there was no focus for behaviors including elopement in Resident #20's care plans prior to 07/12/23.
Mar 2023 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interviews, review of facility policies, and review National Pressure Injury Advisory Pane...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interviews, review of facility policies, and review National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) information, the facility failed to complete pressure ulcer treatments as ordered, assess pressure ulcers weekly, and accurately stage wounds. This affected three (#14, #26, and #48) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 64. Findings include: 1. Review of medical record for Resident #14 revealed admission date 01/19/23, with diagnoses of pressure ulcer of sacral region, chronic pain syndrome, neuromyelitis optica, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, need for assistance with personal care, depression, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, pressure ulcer of left heel stage two (partial thickness skin loss into but not deeper than the dermis), and bed confinement status. Review of physician order 02/21/23, from the wound clinic for Resident #14 revealed left buttock ischial tuberosity apply santyl to wound bed and cover with bordered foam daily; and apply bordered foam dressing to left heel every other day for protection, with weekly skin grid. Review of Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #14 dated March 2023, revealed the treatment to left buttock ishchial tuberosity wound was not documented as completed on day shift 03/02/23, 03/04/23, and 03/07/23. The weekly skin grid was not documented as completed on 03/02/23. Review of the physician order dated 02/27/23, for Resident #14 revealed to the right great toe, cleanse with normal saline and cover with dry dressing. Monitor for signs and symptoms of infection until healed daily. Further review of physician orders dated 03/05/23, for Resident #14 revealed treatment to right great toe to cleanse with normal saline and cover with Band-Aid daily for three days then discontinue. Further review of TAR for Resident #14 dated March 2023 revealed the treatment to right great toe: cleanse with normal saline and cover with dry dressing daily was not documented as completed on 03/02/23, 03/03/23, and 03/04/23. Order changed to right great toe on 03/05/23 to cleanse with normal saline and cover with Band-Aid for three days then discontinue. Treatment not documented as completed on 03/07/23. Further review of TAR for Resident #14 dated March 2023 revealed treatment to left heel was not documented as completed on 03/02/23, and 03/04/23 and the weekly skin grid was not documented as completed on 03/02/23. Review of skin evaluation form dated 03/09/23 for Resident #14 revealed sacrum wound measured 3.8 centimeters (cm) in length by 4.5 cm in width by 1.6 cm in depth with granulation, serosanguineous drainage and a stage four (full thickness skin loss extending through the fascia with considerable tissue loss with involvement of muscle, bone, tendon or joint), wound vac treatment, wound improving in overall size. Ischium tuberosity wound measured 1.0 cm in length by 1.0 cm in width by 0.1 cm in depth with granulation, bloody/sanguineous moderate drainage. Wound classified as healing stage two pressure ulcer. Interview on 03/14/23 at 3:10 P.M., with Director of Nursing (DON) verified for Resident #14 weekly skin grid was not documented on 03/02/23, treatment to left heel was not documented as completed on 03/02/23 and 03/04/23, treatment to right great toe was not documented as completed on 03/02/23, 03/03/23, 03/04/23, and 03/07/23, and treatment to left buttock ishchial tuberosity was not documented as completed on 03/02/23, 03/04/23, and 03/07/23. 2. Review of medical record for Resident #26 revealed admission date 09/04/02, with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, anemia, heart failure, hypertension, morbid obesity, depression, fibromyalgia, migraine, constipation, and anxiety. Review of MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #26 revealed BIMS score of eight which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Resident #26 required extensive assist for activities of daily living. Review of care plan for Resident #26 revealed the resident was at risk for altered skin integrity due to decreased mobility. Resident had history of picking at skin until achieved an open area. Interventions included provide preventative measures as ordered, provide diet as ordered, treatments as ordered, encourage resident to turn and reposition every two hours while in bed as she allows, encourage resident to reposition self or allow staff to reposition while in chair, and pressure reducing mattress with bed bolsters. Review of physician orders for Resident #26 dated 10/16/22 revealed an order for right inner ankle, cover with foam dressing every three days and as needed, and weekly skin grid. Review of TAR for Resident #26 dated March 2023 revealed the treatment to right inner ankle was not documented as completed on 03/01/23, 03/02/23, 03/05/23, and 03/10/23. Review of skin evaluation dated 01/22/23 revealed redness to right inner ankle bone unchanged measured 2.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in width with no depth. Review of skin evaluation dated 02/14/23 for Resident #26 revealed dark pink to right inner ankle measured 1.0 cm in length by 0.6 cm in width with no depth. Review of skin evaluation dated 02/28/23 for Resident #26 revealed pink fragile skin to right inner ankle bone/area with no open areas measured 2.0 cm in length by 1.5 cm in width with no depth. Review of skin evaluation dated 03/05/23 for Resident #26 revealed pink fragile skin to right inner ankle bone/are with no open areas measured 2.0 cm in length by 1.5 cm in width with no depth. Interview on 03/14/23 at 3:10 P.M., with DON verified for Resident #26's treatment to right inner ankle was not documented as completed on 03/01/23, 03/02/23, 03/05/23, and 03/10/23 and there was no weekly skin grid from 01/22/23 to 02/14/23. 3. Review of medical record for Resident #48 revealed admission date 12/05/22, with diagnoses of pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia, osteoarthritis, sepsis, multiple fractures of ribs, need for assistance with personal care, pain in right arm, chronic kidney disease stage four (severe), hypertension, and unspecified fall. Review of MDS for Resident #48 dated 12/12/22 revealed a BIMS score of 11 which indicated moderate impairment. Resident #48 required extensive assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room, toileting, and personal hygiene. Resident #48 required set up assist for meals. Resident #48 required limited assist with dressing. Review of care plan for Resident #48 revealed resident had the potential for impaired skin integrity due to decreased mobility, age, incontinence, and disease processes. Resident #48 had a stage two pressure injury to coccyx. Interventions included provide preventative measures as indicated, provide diet as ordered, treatments as ordered to coccyx, and monitor for signs and symptoms of infection, worsening, or improvement, air mattress to bed, skin grid weekly, Braden scale as ordered, apply barrier cream to buttocks, coccyx, and peri area every shift as needed for prevention, and incontinent care as needed. Review of physician orders dated 02/15/23 for Resident #48 revealed wash area to coccyx with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and Allevyn dressing daily and as needed, and weekly skin grid. Review of TAR for Resident #48 dated December 2023 revealed weekly skin grid not documented as completed on 12/12/22 and 12/19/22. Clean coccyx with soap and water, apply hydrogel and Allevyn daily was not documented as completed on 12/22/22, 12/23/22, 12/24/22, 12/25/22, 12/28/22, and 12/29/22. Review of TAR for Resident #48 dated January 2023 revealed to clean coccyx with soap and water, apply hydrogel and Allevyn daily was not documented as completed on 01/07/23. Wash area to coccyx with normal saline, apply optifoam dressing daily was not documented as completed on 01/10/23 and 01/24/23. Weekly skin grid was not documented as completed on 01/09/23, 01/16/23, 01/23/23, and 01/30/23. Cleanse right lower extremity with soap and water, pat dry, apply Band-Aid change daily ordered 01/12/23 discontinued on 01/26/23 was not documented as completed on 01/14/23, 01/16/23, 01/23/23, 01/24/23, and 01/25/23. Review of TAR for Resident #48 dated February 2023 revealed wash area to coccyx with normal saline, apply medihoney and Allevyn daily was not documented as completed on 02/02/23, 02/06/23 and 02/09/23. Wash area to coccyx with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and Allevyn dressing daily was not documented as completed on 02/16/23 and 02/28/23. Weekly skin grid not documented as completed on 02/06/23 and 02/27/23. Review of TAR for Resident #48 dated March 2023 revealed wash area to coccyx with normal saline, apply calcium alginate and Allevyn daily was not documented as completed on 03/03/23. Review of skin evaluation record dated 01/10/23 for Resident #48 revealed coccyx wound measured 3.5 centimeters (cm) in length by 3.5 cm in width with no depth, wound edges intact, surrounding skin red, slough in wound bed and classified as a stage two. Review of skin evaluation record dated 03/07/23 for Resident #48 revealed coccyx wound measured 1.2 cm in length by 1.0 cm in width with no depth, wound edge intact, surrounding skin pink, slough noted in wound bed and classified as stage two. Observation on 03/14/23 at 11:50 AM for Resident #48 of wound care revealed wound measurements of coccyx 0.8 cm in length by 0.6 cm in width no depth noted. Skin surrounding wound pink. Wound bed had small amount of slough. No drainage noted. Interview on 03/13/23 at 2:48 P.M. with DON verified Resident #48 weekly skin grids were not documented as completed on 12/12/22, 12/19/22, 01/09/23, 01/16/23, 01/23/23, 01/30/23, 02/06/23, and 02/27/23. The DON verified treatment to coccyx was not documented as completed on 12/22/22, 12/23/22, 12/24/22, 12/23/22, 12/28/22, 12/29/22, 01/07/23, 01/10/23, 01/24/23, 02/02/23, 02/06/23, 02/09/23, 02/16/23, 02/27/23, 02/28/23, and 03/03/23. The DON verified treatment to right lower extremity was not documented as completed on 01/14/23, 01/16/23, 01/23/23, 01/24/23, and 01/25/23. The DON verified if a wound has slough this not a stage two description. Review of policy titled Wound Care dated 04/06/11 revealed residents at risk for pressure ulcer development and those with wounds should be monitored daily for changes in their skin condition this may occur during the course of the resident's daily care and/or bathing. The nursing assistant should perform a head to toe check of the resident's skin, paying particular attention to: the surfaces of the skin that come in contact with the bed and chair, bony prominence's, surfaces of the skin that come in contact with each other and any other orthotic device, tube, brace, or positioning device, and backs of the ears that come in contact with oxygen tubing and neck secondary to trach collar/ties. Any abnormal finding/changes should be reported to the licensed nurse assigned to the resident for assessment and follow up. Review of policy titled Wound Evaluation dated 04/06/11 revealed evaluation of wounds will be performed on admission, discovery, and as needed. Evaluation should result in treatment approaches including elimination or compensation for causative factors and a prognosis for healing. Objective evaluation components may include location, measurement, appearance, drainage, odor, presence of undermining/tunneling, healing, stage if a pressure ulcer, pain, and edema. Treatments should also be re-evaluated every two to three weeks. If no wound progression is noted, treatment change should be considered. If there is no change in treatment, documentation should occur as to why current treatment is being maintained. Review of information from the NPIAP website (https://npiap.com/page/PressureInjuryStages?&hhsearchterms=%22stages%22) revealed a stage two pressure injury is defined as partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis. The wound bed is viable, pink or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose (fat) is not visible and deeper tissues are not visible. Granulation tissue, slough and eschar are not present. These injuries commonly result from adverse microclimate and shear in the skin over the pelvis and shear in the heel. This stage should not be used to describe moisture associated skin damage (MASD) including incontinence associated dermatitis (IAD), intertriginous dermatitis (ITD), medical adhesive related skin injury (MARSI), or traumatic wounds (skin tears, burns, abrasions). This deficiency represents an incidental finding while investigating Complaint Number OH00140332.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered and according to policy. This affected two (#48 and #14) of three residents reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered and according to policy. This affected two (#48 and #14) of three residents reviewed for medications. Facility census was 64. Findings include: 1. Review of Medical Record for Resident #48 revealed admission date 12/05/22 with diagnoses of pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia, osteoarthritis, sepsis, multiple fractures of ribs, need for assistance with personal care, pain in right arm, chronic kidney disease stage four (severe), hypertension, and unspecified fall. Review of monthly physician orders for March 2023 for Resident #48 revealed orders for Hydralazine 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth three times daily at 6:30 A.M., 11:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M., Zyrtec 10 mg by mouth at 8:00 P.M. Bausch and Lomb lubricating eye ointment to lower lid of affected eye apply one quarter inch of ointment to the inside of eyelid at 8:00 P.M., Mucinex 600 mg by mouth every twelve hours at 8:00 A.M., norco 5/325 mg take half tablet twice a day, zinc 50 mg by mouth daily at 8:00 A.M., vitamin c tablet by mouth daily at 8:00 A.M., multivitamin by mouth daily at 8:00 A.M., miralax 17 grams by mouth daily 8:00 A.M., Remeron 15 mg take half a tablet by mouth at 8:00 P.M., Eliquis 2.5 mg by mouth twice daily at 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P. M., tizanidine 4 mg by mouth twice daily, norco 5/325 mg by mouth at 8:00 P.M., hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg by mouth at 8:00 A.M., isosorbide mononitrate extended release 30 mg by mouth at 8:00 A.M., losartan 100 mg by mouth at 8:00 A.M., prednisone 5 mg by mouth at 8:00 A.M., and amlodipine 10 mg by mouth 8:00 A.M. Review of Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #48 for March 2023 revealed Hydralazine 50 milligrams (mg) scheduled at 6:30 A.M., 11:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. was administered as follows: on 03/01/23 at 9:21 A.M., 1:25 P.M., 9:11 P.M.; on 03/02/23 at 8:45 A.M., 12:44 P.M., 9:04 P.M.; on 03/03/23 at 9:09 A.M., 12:44 P.M., 9:55 P.M.; on 03/04/23 at 9:08 A.M., 1:33 P.M., 10:17 P.M.; on 03/05/23 at 9:12 A.M., 1:05 P.M., 9:46 P.M.; on 03/06/23 at 9:06 A.M., 1:16 P.M., 10:34 P.M.; on 03/07/23 at 9:03 A.M., 1:32 P.M.; 8:00 P.M.; on 03/08/23 at 8:42 A.M., 1:33 P.M., 10:21 P.M.; on 03/09/23 at 9:58 A.M., 1:20 P.M., 9:39 P.M.; on 03/10/23 at 8:43 A.M., 12:20 P.M., 8:00 P.M.; on 03/11/23 at 8:18 A.M., 11:00 A.M., 9:38 P.M.; on 03/12/23 at 8:10 A.M., 12:07 P.M., 9:17 P.M.; and on 03/13/23 at 8:55 A.M. Eliquis 2.5 mg and Mucinex 600 mg was scheduled twice a day at 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. and administered as follows: on 03/01/23 at 9:21 A.M. and 9:11 P.M.; 03/02/23 at 9:04 P.M., 03/03/23 at 9:16 A.M. and 9:55 P.M.; 03/04/23 at 9:08 A.M. and 10:17 P.M.; 03/05/23 at 9:13 A.M. and 9:46 P.M.; 03/06/23 at 9:07 A.M. and 10:34 P.M., 03/07/23 at 9:03 A.M., 03/08/23 at 10:21 P.M.; and 03/09/23 at 9:59 A.M. and 9:39 P.M.; 03/11/23 at 9:38 P.M. and 03/12/23 at 9:17 P.M. Prednisone 5 mg, Fluticasone furoate 100 microgram (mcg)/dose inhalation powder, Hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, isosorbide mononitrate extended release 30 mg, and losartan 100 mg, scheduled for 8:00 A.M. was administered as follows: on 03/01/23 at 9:21 A.M., 03/03/23 at 9:16 A.M., 03/04/23 at 9:08 A.M., 03/05/23 at 9:13 A.M., 03/06/23 at 9:07 A.M., 03/07/23 at 9:03 A.M., and 03/09/23 at 9:59 A.M Eliquis 2.5 mg scheduled at 8:00 P.M. was administered as follows: 03/01/23 at 9:11 P.M., 03/02/23 at 9:04 P.M., 03/03/23 at 9:55 P.M., 03/04/23 at 10:17 P.M., 03/05/23 at 9:46 P.M., 03/06/23 at 10:34 P.M., 03/08/23 at 10:21 P.M., 03/09/23 at 9:39 P.M., 03/11/23 at 9:38 P.M. and 03/12/23 at 9:17 P.M. Interview on 03/13/23 at 1:56 P.M., with Registered Nurse (RN) #526 stated medication times are upon rising, around lunch, dinnertime, at 8:00 P.M. as well as some scheduled timed medications. RN #526 stated for scheduled timed medications they have one hour before and one hour after to administer medications. Interview on 03/13/23 at 2:48 P.M., with Director of Nursing (DON) verified Hydralazine was ordered at 6:30 A.M., 11:00 A.M., and 8:00 P.M. and was given past the one hour after timeframe at 6:30 A.M. 03/01/23 through 03/13/23, 11:00 A.M. on 03/01/23 through 03/12/23 with the exception of 03/11/23, and 8:00 P.M. 03/01/23 through 03/12/23 with the exception of 03/07/23 and 03/10/23. Verified 8:00 A.M. medications were given past the one hour medication time 03/01/23 through 03/09/23 with the exception of 03/02/23 and 03/08/23. The DON verified 8:00 P.M. medications were given past the one hour medication time 03/01/23 through 03/12/23 with the exception of 03/07/23 and 03/10/23. DON stated the facility had an open medication policy and verified some medications are scheduled for specific times. 2. Review of medical record for Resident #14 revealed admission date 01/19/23, with diagnoses of pressure ulcer of sacral region, chronic pain syndrome, neuromyelitis optica, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, need for assistance with personal care, depression, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, pressure ulcer of left heel stage two (partial thickness skin loss into but not deeper than the dermis), and bed confinement status. Review of physician orders dated 02/21/23, for Resident #14 revealed ertapenem (antibiotic) 1 gram solution for injection to run over 30 minutes intravenous every day for osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral, and sacrococcygeal region scheduled at 12:00 P.M. Review of MAR for Resident #14 dated February and March 2023 revealed ertapenem 1 gram was not given on 02/25/23 and 03/02/23. Interview on 03/14/23 at 3:10 P.M., with DON verified intravenous antibiotic ertapenem 1 gram was not documented as administered for Resident #14 on 02/25/23 and 03/02/23 per physician order. Review of policy titled Open Medication Pass Policy revised 06/08/11, revealed medication orders that are time specific can be written as directed by the physician. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00140332.
Dec 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents lift recliner, which is missing...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents lift recliner, which is missing, was either found or a resolution to the missing personal item. This affected one resident (#37) of two reviewed for missing items. The census was 67. Finding included: Review of the medical record for Resident #37 revealed resident was admitted to facility 12/27/16 with diagnoses including hypertension, hypothyroidism, restless leg syndrome, and presence of artificial right eye. Review of the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. She did not have any behaviors, required extensive assistance of two for hygiene and bathing. She was dependent for transfers, uses an electric scooter and mechanical lift for transfers. Observation on 11/29/22 at 11:00 A. M. of the room of Resident #37 revealed there was not a recliner in the room. Interview on 11/29/22 at 11:15 A.M. with Director of Nursing she verified that there was no recliner in Resident #37's room. She verified she was unaware that she was still missing items. Interview with Life Enrichment Director #300 on 11/29/22 at 12:41 P.M. stated that she was aware resident's recliner was missing from room on 06/17/22, she had correspondence with resident's family through July 2022 and she is currently unaware that the residents recliner was not in her room. She verified that she has had no other correspondence with the family regarding the recliner. This deficiency shows non compliance for Complaint Number OH00137425 and Complaint Number OH00138139.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical records, observation, staff interview, review of documents regarding elopement and review of facilities policie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical records, observation, staff interview, review of documents regarding elopement and review of facilities policies for elopement, abuse and neglect , the facility failed to report an elopement for one (# 51) of three residents reviewed in the dementia unit. The census was 67. Finding included: Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 07/22/22. Diagnoses included dementia, difficulty in walking and need for assistance with personal care. Review of the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and uses a walker which he can stabilize without staff assistance. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #51 revealed orders dated 12/08/22 to check Wander Guard function and code alert every day at bedtime (HS). There was not order for this prior to this date. Review of care plan relative to impaired behavior interventions necessary to ensure resident safety revealed individualized interventions with measurable goals. Review of the documents of Elopement of Resident #51 revealed a document from Nurse Manager #200 which she was notified he was missing on 11/06/22 at 8:15 P.M. by an aide. She and the aide searched dementia unit and he was not found. The aide stayed on the unit while the nurse manager began searching the center. She notified staff the resident was not on the unit and needed to check rooms for the resident. After checking all areas of the building, she exited the facility checking the courtyard, parking lot, and track. She then notified the Administrator. She returned to building to be notified the resident was found at 8:42 P.M. in the women's bathroom. She performed a head-to-toe assessment with no concerns found. The doctor and family were notified. It was determined resident had a Wander Guard but not a code alert. Review of a document from the Administrator dated 11/06/22 at 8:30 P.M. revealed she received a call from Nurse Manger #200 who was notifying her of Resident #51 was not on the dementia unit and a search was in progress. She was notified he was found in a women's bathroom at 8:42 P.M. it was determined he had a Wander Guard but not a code alert. He went through the dining room doors to exit the unit. A code alert was added immediately. Staff was educated on elopement policy and procedures for dining room doors in the dementia unit. Review of Resident #51's elopement, Wander Guard, code alert assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident is cognitively impaired with the diagnose of dementia. He uses a walker, does not have a safety alarm device, resides on the secured unit, requires frequent monitoring, and is not an elopement risk. The next review was completed on 12/08/22 after the surveyor brought to the attention of the administrator attention revealed the resident resides on the secured unit, requires frequent monitoring, has a Wander Guard bracelet and his photo on wander list. Interview on 12/08/22 at 1:20 P.M. with Administrator revealed the residents on the dementia unit with Wander Guard should be assessed quarterly per physician's order. There should be an order for each resident for the nurses to check the Wander Guards. She verified Resident#51 did not have orders to check his Wander Guard, but it was checked the day he eloped from the dementia unit, and it was working. The problem was he only had Wander Guard not the pendent which is what allowed him to leave through the kitchen door to the floor. The aide who was working the floor had left the dining room doors unlocked and the door to the kitchen open which allowed the resident to go missing. There are testers for both Wander Guards and pendants. There was not a self-reported investigation completed and sent to state agency. Observation on 12/08/22 at 1:25 P.M. of the kitchen area where Resident #51 went through to get to the other floor revealed there was a refrigerator and freezer with food in it, there was an unlocked cabinet with poisonous chemicals and there was utensil which included knives. This was verified by the Administrator; this was unsafe for the resident to be in this area. A Wander Guard was tested which did not set off an alarm and the code pedant tested; did set off an alarm when entering the kitchen door. Interview on 12/08/22 at 3:00 P.M. with Nurse Manager #200 revealed there is a code system for residents to be safe in the dementia unit which is the emerald pendant. The Wander Guard system keeps the resident from exiting the building but not the unit. There were no alarms sounding when Resident #51 left the unit. He should have had a pendant along with the Wander Guard. Interview on 12/08/22 at 3:00 P.M. with agency Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #220 who was working the dementia unit revealed she completes Wander Guard checks on residents who have an order. She showed surveyor the Wander Guard tester. She verified Resident (#51) did not have an order to check his Wander Guard. She did not have knowledge of a tester for pendants. Interview with Administrator on 12/22/22 at 10:31 A.M. revealed she did not have a written statement from the aide on duty, she did not have documentation of staff ensuring all other residents were on the dementia unit at the time when Resident #51 was missing, and she educated staff for ensuring the dining room doors were closed and locked after meals Review of the Wander Guard Policy undated revealed it is the policy of the facility to provide the safest environment possible for wandering residents. A Wander Guard device is an added feature of our wander management program and is one of the many potential interventions. The nurse is to obtain physicians order for the device and is responsible to monitoring of resident bracelet. Review of the elopement policy undated revealed safely and timely redirect residents to a safe environment. A prompt investigation will be conducted if a resident is considered missing. Once the resident is located, the administrator is to notify the appropriate agencies. Review of the Abuse and Neglect policy date 11/21/16 revealed the facility does not condone abuse or neglect by anyone including facility staff. At any time resident abuse or neglect is suspected an immediate investigation will be initiated and appropriate actions will be taken, including notification of appropriate authorities. Neglect is defined means reckless failing to provide resident with any services necessary to maintain health and safety of the resident. This deficiency shows noncompliance for Complaint Number OH00138139 and Complaint Number OH00138406.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical records, observation, staff interview, review of documents regarding elopement and review of facilities policy ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical records, observation, staff interview, review of documents regarding elopement and review of facilities policy for elopement, abuse and neglect , the facility failed to throughly investigate an elopement for one (# 51) of three residents reviewed in the dementia unit. The census was 67. Finding included: Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 07/22/22. Diagnoses included dementia, difficulty in walking and need for assistance with personal care. Review of the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and uses a walker which he can stabilize without staff assistance. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #51 revealed orders dated 12/08/22 to check Wander Guard function and code alert every day at bedtime (HS). There was not order for this prior to this date. Review of care plan relative to impaired behavior interventions necessary to ensure resident safety revealed individualized interventions with measurable goals. Review of the documents of Elopement of Resident #51 revealed a document from Nurse Manager #200 which she was notified he was missing on 11/06/22 at 8:15 P.M. by an aide. She and the aide searched dementia unit and he was not found. The aide stayed on the unit while the nurse manager began searching the center. She notified staff the resident was not on the unit and needed to check rooms for the resident. After checking all areas of the building, she exited the facility checking the courtyard, parking lot, and track. She then notified the Administrator. She returned to building to be notified the resident was found at 8:42 P.M. in the women's bathroom. She performed a head-to-toe assessment with no concerns found. The doctor and family were notified. It was determined resident had a Wander Guard but not a code alert. Review of a document from the Administrator dated 11/06/22 at 8:30 P.M. revealed she received a call from Nurse Manger #200 who was notifying her of Resident #51 was not on the dementia unit and a search was in progress. She was notified he was found in a women's bathroom at 8:42 P.M. it was determined he had a Wander Guard but not a code alert. He went through the dining room doors to exit the unit. A code alert was added immediately. Staff was educated on elopement policy and procedures for dining room doors in the dementia unit. Review of Resident #51's elopement, Wander Guard, code alert assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident is cognitively impaired with the diagnose of dementia. He uses a walker, does not have a safety alarm device, resides on the secured unit, requires frequent monitoring, and is not an elopement risk. The next review was completed on 12/08/22 after the surveyor brought to the attention of the administrator attention revealed the resident resides on the secured unit, requires frequent monitoring, has a Wander Guard bracelet and his photo on wander list. Interview on 12/08/22 at 1:20 P.M. with Administrator revealed the residents on the dementia unit with Wander Guard should be assessed quarterly per physician's order. There should be an order for each resident for the nurses to check the Wander Guards. She verified Resident#51 did not have orders to check his Wander Guard, but it was checked the day he eloped from the dementia unit, and it was working. The problem was he only had Wander Guard not the pendent which is what allowed him to leave through the kitchen door to the floor. The aide who was working the floor had left the dining room doors unlocked and the door to the kitchen open which allowed the resident to go missing. There are testers for both Wander Guards and pendants. There was not a self-reported investigation completed and sent to state agency. Observation on 12/08/22 at 1:25 P.M. of the kitchen area where Resident #51 went through to get to the other floor revealed there was a refrigerator and freezer with food in it, there was an unlocked cabinet with poisonous chemicals and there was utensil which included knives. This was verified by the Administrator; this was unsafe for the resident to be in this area. A Wander Guard was tested which did not set off an alarm and the code pedant tested; did set off an alarm when entering the kitchen door. Interview on 12/08/22 at 3:00 P.M. with Nurse Manager #200 revealed there is a code system for residents to be safe in the dementia unit which is the emerald pendant. The Wander Guard system keeps the resident from exiting the building but not the unit. There were no alarms sounding when Resident #51 left the unit. He should have had a pendant along with the Wander Guard. Interview on 12/08/22 at 3:00 P.M. with agency Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #220 who was working the dementia unit revealed she completes Wander Guard checks on residents who have an order. She showed surveyor the Wander Guard tester. She verified Resident (#51) did not have an order to check his Wander Guard. She did not have knowledge of a tester for pendants. Interview with Administrator on 12/22/22 at 10:31 A.M. revealed she did not have a written statement from the aide on duty, she did not have documentation of staff ensuring all other residents were on the dementia unit at the time when Resident #51 was missing, and she educated staff for ensuring the dining room doors were closed and locked after meals Review of the Wander Guard Policy undated revealed it is the policy of the facility to provide the safest environment possible for wandering residents. A Wander Guard device is an added feature of our wander management program and is one of the many potential interventions. The nurse is to obtain physicians order for the device and is responsible to monitoring of resident bracelet. Review of the elopement policy undated revealed safely and timely redirect residents to a safe environment. A prompt investigation will be conducted if a resident is considered missing. Once the resident is located, the administrator is to notify the appropriate agencies. Review of the Abuse and Neglect policy date 11/21/16 revealed the facility does not condone abuse or neglect by anyone including facility staff. At any time resident abuse or neglect is suspected an immediate investigation will be initiated and appropriate actions will be taken, including notification of appropriate authorities. Neglect is defined means reckless failing to provide resident with any services necessary to maintain health and safety of the resident. This deficiency shows noncompliance for Complaint Number OH00138139 and Complaint Number OH00138406.
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 medical records, observation, staff interview, review of documents regarding elopement and review of facilities policy ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical records, observation, staff interview, review of documents regarding elopement and review of facilities policy for elopement, the facility failed to ensure proper supervision and safety measures were in place for two (# 51, #57) of three residents reviewed in the dementia unit. The census was 67. Finding included: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 07/22/22. Diagnoses included dementia, difficulty in walking and need for assistance with personal care. Review of the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and uses a walker which he can stabilize without staff assistance. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #51 revealed orders dated 12/08/22 to check Wander Guard function and code alert every day at bedtime (HS). There was not order for this prior to this date. Review of care plan relative to impaired behavior interventions necessary to ensure resident safety revealed individualized interventions with measurable goals. Review of the documents of Elopement of Resident #51 revealed a document from Nurse Manager #200 which she was notified he was missing on 11/06/22 at 8:15 P.M. by an aide. She and the aide searched dementia unit and he was not found. The aide stayed on the unit while the nurse manager began searching the center. She notified staff the resident was not on the unit and needed to check rooms for the resident. After checking all areas of the building, she exited the facility checking the courtyard, parking lot, and track. She then notified the Administrator. She returned to building to be notified the resident was found at 8:42 P.M. in the women's bathroom. She performed a head-to-toe assessment with no concerns found. The doctor and family were notified. It was determined resident had a Wander Guard but not a code alert. Review of Resident #51's elopement, Wander Guard, code alert assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident is cognitively impaired with the diagnose of dementia. He uses a walker, does not have a safety alarm device, resides on the secured unit, requires frequently monitoring, and is not an elopement risk. The next review was completed on 12/08/22 after the surveyor brought to the attention of the administrator attention revealed the resident resides on the secured unit, requires frequently monitoring, has a Wander Guard bracelet and his photo on wander list. Review of a document from the Administrator dated 11/06/22 at 8:30 P.M. revealed she received a call from Nurse Manger #200 who was notifying her of Resident #51 was not on the dementia unit and a search was in progress. She was notified he was found in a women's bathroom at 8:42 P.M. it was determined he had a Wander Guard but not a code alert. He went through the dining room doors to exit the unit. A code alert was added immediately. Staff was educated on elopement policy and procedures for dining room doors in the dementia unit. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident # 57 revealed an admission date of 08/18/20. Diagnoses included dementia, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and difficulty in walking. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and uses a walker with one staff for supervision. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #57 revealed the order were absent for Wander Guard checks. The medical chart for Resident # 57 was absent for the assessment for elopement Wander Guard code alert. Review of care plan for Resident #57 relative to impaired behavior with wandering the unit revealed individualized interventions with measurable goals. Interview on 12/08/22 at 1:20 P.M. with Administrator revealed the residents on the dementia unit with Wander Guard should be assessed quarterly per physician's order. There should be an order for each resident for the nurses to check the Wander Guards. She verified Resident#51 did not have orders to check his Wander Guard, but it was checked the day he eloped from the dementia unit, and it was working. The problem was he only had Wander Guard not the pendent which is what allowed him to leave through the kitchen door to the floor. The aide who was working the floor had left the dining room doors unlocked and the door to the kitchen open which allowed the resident to go missing. There are testers for both Wander Guards and pendants. There was not a self-reported investigation completed and sent to state agency. Observation on 12/08/22 at 1:25 P.M. of the kitchen area where Resident #51 went through to get to the other floor revealed there was a refrigerator and freezer with food in it, there was an unlocked cabinet with poisonous chemicals and there was utensils which included knives. This was verified by the Administrator; this was unsafe for the resident to be in this area with a potential for harm. A Wander Guard was tested which did not set off an alarm and the code pedant tested; did set off an alarm when entering the kitchen door. Interview on 12/08/22 at 3:00 P.M. with Nurse Manager #200 revealed there is a code system for residents to be safe in the dementia unit which is the emerald pendant. The Wander Guard system keeps the resident from exiting the building but not the unit. There were no alarms sounding when resident left the unit. He should have had a pendant along with the Wander Guard. Interview on 12/08/22 at 3:00 P.M with agency Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #220 who was working dementia unit revealed she completes Wander Guard checks on residents who have an order. She verified Resident (#51, #57) did not have an order to check his Wander Guard. She did not have knowledge of a tester for pendants. Observations of Resident (# 51, #57) on various times on 12/08/22 revealed they both had Wander Guards in place. Resident #51 had a Wander Guard and code alarm to his left ankle and Resident #57 had these on the left front of walker. Review of the Wander Guard Policy undated revealed it is the policy of the facility to provide the safest environment possible for wandering residents. A Wander Guard device is an added feature of our wander management program and is one of the many potential interventions. The nurse is to obtain physicians order for the device and is responsible to monitoring of resident bracelet. Review of the elopement policy undated revealed safely and timely redirect residents to a safe environment. A prompt investigation will be conducted if a resident is considered missing. Once the resident is located, the administrator is to notify the appropriate agencies. This deficiency shows noncompliance for Complaint Number OH00138139 and Complaint Number OH00138406.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were given per physician order. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were given per physician order. This affected three of three residents (# 37, #61, #66). Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure physician's order was followed by placing and removing a prosthetic eye including rinsing of eye socket for one resident (#37). The census was 67. Findings included: 1. Review of the medical record Resident #37 revealed resident was admitted to facility 12/27/16 with diagnoses including hypertension, hypothyroidism, restless leg syndrome, and presence of artificial right eye. Review of plan of care for Resident #37 revealed a plan to remove right prosthetic right eye nightly, irrigate eye socket store and replace every morning. Review of the physician order for Resident #37 dated 02/22/21 revealed and order to remove prosthetic right eye nightly, irrigate eye socket every night and store eye properly and place in eye every morning. Review of the 11/22 medication administration record (MAR) revealed for Resident #37 on 11/04/22,11/05/22, and 11/06/22, the order for the right eye was marked as not removed or socket was not irrigated. MAR revealed the prosthetic right eye was not put in place in the morning as ordered for 11/01/22, 11/04/22, or 11/15/22. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #61 revealed resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, hypertension, and atherosclerotic heart disease. Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #61 was unable to complete the cognition interview due to short- and long-term memory loss, inattentiveness, and disorganized thinking. She displayed verbal and physical behaviors on one to three days of the assessment period. She rejected care on 1-3 days of the assessment. She requires setup and supervision for all activities of daily living (ADL)s. Review of plan of care stated Resident #61 had potential for drug related complications associated with the use of psychotropic medication related use of antipsychotic. Review of physician orders for Resident #61 dated 10/20/22 revealed Seroquel 100 milligram(mg) at bedtime for sleep and generalized anxiety disorder, 50 mg for generalized anxiety disorder and Trazadone 25 mg twice a day for generalized anxiety disorder dated 10/24/22. Review of nursing progress notes for Resident #61 dated 10/18/22 paranoid behavior stating everyone was talking about her,yelling then laughing claiming people were talking about her. Review of the MAR for Resident #61 dated 11/22 revealed for Seroquel 100 mg at bedtime was given on on 11/01/22 at 5:41 P.M., on 11/03/22 at 4:53 P.M., on 11/04/22 at 3:55 P.M. , on 11/05/22 and 11/06/22 the resident refused, on 11/07/22 at 5:44 P.M., on 11/09/22 at 4:00 P.M., on 11/11/22 at 5:46 P.M., on 11/14/22 at 4:27 P.M., on 11/17/22 at 5:53 P.M., on 11/19/22 at 6:10 P.M., on 11/20/22 the medication was not given, on 11/22/22 the resident refused the medication, on 11/24/22 at 4:04 P.M., on 11/25/22 at 4:21 P.M., on 11/27/22 at 4:54 P.M., and 11/28/22 at 6:10 P.M. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's, dementia, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #66 revealed an order dated 07/14/22 for Seroquel 100 mg to be given twice a day and for Trazadone 50 mg to be given twice a day for schizophrenia. Review of MAR for Resident #66 for the date of 11/22 revealed for Trazadone 100 mg at bedtime it was given before 6:00 P. M. on the dates as followed; on 11/03/22 at 5:04 P.M., on 11/04/22 at 4:08 P.M., on 11/05/22 at 5:23 PM, on 11/06/22 at 5:06 P.M., 11/07/22 at 5:36 PM, on 11/09/22 at 4:41 P.M. , on 11/11/22 at 5:45 PM, on 11/14/22 at 4:49 PM, on 11/17/14 at 5:44 PM, on 11/20/22 at 5:24 PM, on 11/21/22 at 5:37 PM, on 11/22/22 at 2:36 PM, on 11/24/22 at 4:39 PM, 11/25/22 at 4:29 PM, on 11/27/22 at 5:16 PM, on 11/28/22 6:16 PM and for 12/01/22 to 12/04/22 the resident did not receive the medication. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 240 on 11/28/22 at 4:30 P.M. verified she works the dementia unit until 6:00 P. M. she verified there is no nurse on the dementia unit from 6:00 P. M. to 6:00 A.M. and the nurse on the other hallway is to come to the unit to pass the medications. She verified bedtime medications are not to be given until after 6:00 P. M. Interview with Director of Nursing on 11/29/22 at 1:00 P.M. she verified the Resident #37 did not get treatment to her prosthetic eye on 11/04/22, 11/05/22 and 11/06/33. She said the staff was unable to located the suction piece for the removal of the eye. She is unaware of the resident's eye not taken out on the other dates stated above on the MAR. Review of the policy for Notification of Change dated 11/18/21 revealed shall notify the resident or representative of changes in the resident's condition to obtain orders for appropriate treatment. The nurse will notify the resident or representative of the following which included when a resident does not receive medication or treatment as ordered. This deficiency shows noncompliance for Complaint Number OH00135616 and OH00137425.
Sept 2019 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure yogurt was not expired. This had the pot...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure yogurt was not expired. This had the potential to affect all 70 residents who reside on Mac-o-[NAME] Hall, Buckeye Hall, Myeerah Hall, and Madriver Hall. The facility census was 84. Findings include: Observation of the refrigerator at the nurses station closest to the main dining room on 09/11/19 at 5:39 P.M. revealed eight peach yogurts with a best by date of 08/29/19, one strawberry yogurt with a best by date of 08/25/19, and one peach yogurt with a best by date of 07/09/19. Interview with Dietary Manager #101 on 09/11/19 at 5:39 P.M. verified the yogurts were expired. Review of the facility policy titled Safe Food Storage and Handling of Food Brought in by Outside Sources, dated 11/21/16, revealed food or beverage that is past the manufacturer's expiration date shall be discarded.
Aug 2018 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring and follow-up for a resident's continued pain. This affected one (#59) resident reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of Resident #59's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/03/14. Medical diagnoses included history of falling, osteoporosis (weak bones), major depressive disorder, and dementia with behavior disturbances. Review of the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe impairment in cognition. Review of Resident #59's a care plan originally dated 11/27/17, and updated on 06/16/18 for potential for spontaneous fracture from osteoporosis. Interventions included reporting to physician any signs of fracture (pain, redness, swelling, and bruising, warmth to the area). The resident also had a care plan updated on 06/16/18 for potential for pain related to osteoporosis, decline in condition and generalized overall aging process. The goal was for the resident to demonstrate pain control by verbalizing satisfaction with level of comfort, ability to participate in activities of daily living without discomfort, and early detection of pain for timely intervention to prevent escalation through next review. Interventions included reporting uncontrolled pain to the physician. Review of Resident #59's, Physician #120's progress note dated 06/28/18, revealed the resident had some concerns with hip pain, which used to be on the right, and now was on the left. She was still able to ambulate and admitted to no pain when the physician asked her about it. However, on examination, she clearly had some hip/joint pain on both sides. The physician documented the resident's range of motion with the hip joints was very limited, and quite painful, and about the same on both sides. Treatment recommendations included, if there was a concern by staff, or family that the resident was having more trouble with her hips, an x-ray of her hips and pelvis could be obtained. Review of Resident #59's nursing note dated 07/04/18 at 8:10 A.M., revealed the resident received as needed (PRN) Ativan and Tramadol for anxiety and pain, with movement. At 1:04 P.M., the resident complained of pain and was very agitated with transfers, however when sitting was pleasant, and had no complaint of pain. She was given PRN Acetaminophen. At 11:08 P.M., the resident complained of left leg/hip pain, was grimacing and guarding the area when staff attempted to put her recliner foot rest in the down position. She became agitated and refused to let staff get her changed, or to the bathroom. There was no evidence documented the resident's physician was notified of the resident's complaints of pain. Nursing note date 07/05/18 at 4:59 A.M., revealed Resident #59 was noted to have increased agitation with periods of yelling out in pain. Non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) were not effective, and PRN Tramadol and Ativan were administered. At 12:04 P.M., the resident was given PRN Tramadol for complaint of left leg pain with transfers. At 7:01 P.M., the resident complained of increased generalized pain, unrelieved with rest or repositioning and PRN Tramadol was administered. At 10:08 P.M., it was documented the resident was pleasant until she attempted to move. The resident agreed to attempt to stand with assistance, however quickly refused, attempting to bite staff. The resident required assistance of two to three staff for transfers, and care that evening. There was no documented evidence the resident's physician was notified of the resident's complaints of pain. Review of nursing note dated 07/07/18 at 8:43 A.M., revealed Resident #59 received PRN Tramadol and Ativan to prevent pain with transfers and anxiety. Nursing note dated 07/08/18 at 8:44 A.M., revealed Resident #59 received PRN Tramadol to prevent pain when getting up for morning care, and PRN Ativan to prevent anxiety. At 12:05 P.M., the resident received PRN Acetaminophen for complaints of pain with movement. Nursing note dated on 07/09/18 at 7:55 A.M., revealed Resident #59 received PRN Tramadol for pain with repositioning. Review of Resident #59's nursing note date 07/14/18 at 4:36 A.M., revealed the resident received PRN Ativan and Tramadol for complaints of left hip pain, increased anxiety and agitation after NPI were ineffective. The resident was re-approached several times to attempt personal care and repositioning without success. She was assisted into bed with extensive assistance of two staff. The resident was verbally and physically combative. There was no documented evidence the resident's physician was notified of the resident's continued complaints of pain. Review of Resident #59's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 07/03/18 through 07/20/18, revealed the resident received PRN Tramadol 14 times, PRN Acetaminophen five times, and PRN Ativan 11 times. The medications were documented as effective. On 07/20/18 at 11:30 A.M., review of the nursing note revealed Resident #59's physician was notified of the resident's continued complaints of pain in her left hip. The staff was unable to determine if there was a cause of pain or it was a behavior. An order was obtained for an x-ray of the resident's bilateral hips and pelvis. Review of Resident #59's bilateral hips and pelvis x-ray revealed the x-ray was obtained on 07/20/18 and results faxed to the facility on [DATE]. The x-ray showed there was a fracture involving the left femoral neck with displacement. The age of the fracture was acute (recent onset). Bony ossification pattern was normal. Review of Resident #59's facility nurse practitioner note dated 07/31/18, revealed she had assessed the resident on 07/03/18, at which time the resident denied any pain, and had no specific findings of acute hip injury, including abnormal rotation, shortened leg length, or bruising. She further documented, due to continued intermittent complaining of left hip pain after 07/03/18, an x-ray was ordered on 07/20/18, and the resident was found to have a hip fracture. Review of Resident #59's nursing notes revealed the physician was notified of the resident's hip fracture on 07/22/18 and instructed the facility to notify the orthopedic physician on 07/23/18. The orthopedic physician was notified and instructed the facility to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation. Review of the physician emergency room documentation dated 07/23/18 revealed Resident #59's left leg was externally rotated, and shortened, upon physical examination. Continued review of the hospital documentation revealed the resident had hip pain for some time, however it was unknown when she potentially even broke the hip. Resident #59 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] for repair of a fractured left hip, and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #150 on 07/31/18 at 3:07 P.M., revealed the facility was unaware of how the resident broke her hip, however she just was not getting any better, and was having a lot of pain. She stated the resident was not standing right, and was more agitated than normal. Interview with Physician #120 on 08/02/18 at 9:44 A.M., revealed he examined the resident on 06/28/18. He stated he was in the facility weekly, and in contact with the DON frequently, however was not notified of any significant change in the resident's status until 07/20/18 when the facility called and requested an x-ray, due to continued pain in the left hip. Interview with the DON on 08/02/18 at 9:50 A.M., revealed she was completing assessments of Resident #59 daily after 07/03/18, on the days she was in the facility. She verified she had no documentation of these assessments. She verified the facility did not document any notification to the physician until 07/20/18, despite the continued nursing documentation of pain and difficulty with care since 07/03/18. Review of an undated facility policy titled Pain Assessment and Management Policy, revealed the purpose of the procedure was to help the staff identify pain in the resident, and to develop interventions that are consistent with the resident's goals, and needs, and address the underlying causes of pain.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all 88 residents in the facility who receive food from ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment in the kitchen. This had the potential to affect all 88 residents in the facility who receive food from the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on 07/30/18 at 9:32 A.M., revealed the pot rack above the food preparation table was dirty with dust particles hanging from it. In addition, there was dirt and dust on ceiling kitchen pipe,s and fluorescent lights. The floor was sticky with food droppings on it. Observation of the kitchen on 08/01/18 at 10:49 A.M., revealed the pot rack above the food preparation table was still dirty with dust particles hanging from it. In addition, there still was dirt and dust on ceiling kitchen pipes, and fluorescent lights. The floor was still sticky with food droppings on it. Interview at the time of the second observation with Dietary Manager (DM) #100 confirmed the above findings. Interview on 08/01/18 at 11:25 A.M., with Maintenance Director #50 confirmed there was dirt and dust on the ceiling pipes, fluorescent lights, and pot rack. He stated the maintenance department must receive a work order to clean the kitchen.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $16,801 in fines. Above average for Ohio. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade D (46/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 46/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Green Hills Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GREEN HILLS CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Green Hills Center Staffed?

CMS rates GREEN HILLS CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 86%, which is 39 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 86%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Green Hills Center?

State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at GREEN HILLS CENTER during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 20 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Green Hills Center?

GREEN HILLS CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by OTTERBEIN SENIORLIFE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 74 certified beds and approximately 68 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEST LIBERTY, Ohio.

How Does Green Hills Center Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, GREEN HILLS CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (86%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Green Hills Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Green Hills Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GREEN HILLS CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Green Hills Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at GREEN HILLS CENTER is high. At 86%, the facility is 39 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 86%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Green Hills Center Ever Fined?

GREEN HILLS CENTER has been fined $16,801 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Ohio average of $33,247. 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 Green Hills Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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