OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING

850 EAST MIDLOTHIAN BLVD, YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44507 (330) 788-3038
For profit - Individual 99 Beds DAVID OBERLANDER Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
11/100
#890 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: June 2023

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

Overview

Oasis Center for Rehabilitation and Healing has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its care quality. Ranked #890 out of 913 in Ohio, this facility is in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #27 out of 29 in Mahoning County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is showing signs of improvement, with the number of issues decreasing from 19 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a weak point, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 50%, which is slightly above the state average. While there have been no fines reported, there are critical incidents to be aware of, including a resident being sexually assaulted by another resident and a serious failure in caring for a resident who developed a severe pressure ulcer due to inadequate prevention measures. Overall, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
11/100
In Ohio
#890/913
Bottom 3%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
19 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Ohio. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
66 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 19 issues
2024: 10 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Ohio average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 50%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: DAVID OBERLANDER

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 66 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu as written. This affected two residents (#5 and #89) of five residents reviewed for nutrition and had the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu as written. This affected two residents (#5 and #89) of five residents reviewed for nutrition and had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the kitchen excluding seven residents (#7, #25, #44, #50, #52, #61 and #85) who the facility identified as receiving nothing by mouth. The facility census was 92. Findings include: 1.Review of medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 02/02/23. Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure, morbid obesity due to excess calories, schizophreniform disorder, anxiety disorder, congestive diastolic heart failure, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 08/12/24, revealed Resident #5 was cognitively intact and was independent for eating. Review of physician orders revealed Resident #5 had a diet order dated 05/31/24 for CCHO (consistent carbohydrate)/NAS (no added salt) diet, mechanically altered chopped texture, thin liquids consistency. Observations conducted on 09/10/24 during initial facility tour from 8:14 A.M. to 8:35 A.M. revealed the posted menu in the dining room for breakfast on 09/10/24 revealed waffles, bacon, fruit cup, cream of wheat, milk and juice were to be served. Observation of Resident #5's breakfast tray revealed the resident was served two waffles, bacon, a bowl of dry cereal, milk and juice. Review of the dietary tray ticket sitting on the Resident #5's meal tray at the time of observation revealed under the dislike/do not serve section there was nothing noted indicating that fruit should not have been served and under the special instructions section it was indicated the resident wanted cold cereal instead of hot cereal. Interview with Resident #5 at the time of observation revealed she would have eaten the fruit cup if it had been served. Interview on 09/10/24 at 8:20 A.M. with Occupational Therapy Assistant #410 confirmed there was no fruit cup on Resident #5's breakfast tray. Interview on 09/10/24 at 8:45 A.M. with Dietary [NAME] #362 revealed when asked why the fruit cup had not been served for breakfast, she stated she didn't see it on the menu. Interview on 09/11/24 with Ombudsman #433 revealed the biggest concern at the building for her was dietary, which included meals not matching the posted menu. Review of Oasis Healthcare Menu Extension Tuesday 09/10/24 revealed the CCHO diets were to receive one four ounce slotted spoodle (a type of serving utensil that is a combination between a spoon and a ladle) of fruit for breakfast Review of undated facility policy Accuracy of Quality of Tray Line Service revealed the meal will be checked against therapeutic diet spread sheet to assure that foods are served as listed on the menu and each meal will be checked for accuracy of following the therapeutic diet extensions. 2. Review of medical record for Resident #89 revealed an admission date of 02/10/24. Diagnoses included acute kidney failure, type two diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and dysphagia. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 06/12/24, revealed Resident #89 was moderately impaired cognitively and was independent for eating. Review of physician orders revealed a diet order dated 02/15/24 for a regular diet, mechanically altered ground texture, thin liquids consistency. Observations conducted on 09/10/24 during initial facility tour from 8:14 A.M. to 8:35 A.M. revealed the posted menu in the dining room for breakfast on 09/10/24 revealed waffles, bacon, fruit cup, cream of wheat, milk and juice were to be served. Observation of Resident #89's breakfast tray revealed the resident was served two waffles, ground sausage, a bowl of cream of wheat, milk and juice. Review of the dietary tray ticket sitting on Resident #89's tray at the time of observation revealed under the dislike/do not serve or special instructions sections, there was nothing noted indicating that fruit should not have been served. Interview on 09/10/24 at 8:23 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant #312 confirmed there was no fruit cup on Resident #89's breakfast tray. Interview on 09/10/24 at 8:45 A.M. with Dietary [NAME] #362 revealed when asked why a fruit cup had not been served for breakfast, she stated she didn't see it on the menu. Interview on 09/11/24 with Ombudsman #433 revealed the biggest concern at the building for her was dietary, which included meals not matching the posted menu. Review of Oasis Healthcare Menu Extension Tuesday 09/10/24 revealed mechanical soft ground texture diets were to receive one four-ounce portion of diced peaches for breakfast. Review of undated facility policy Accuracy of Quality of Tray Line Service revealed the meal will be checked against therapeutic diet spread sheet to assure that foods are served as listed on the menu and each meal will be checked for accuracy of following the therapeutic diet extensions. This deficiency represents noncompliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00157225.
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 F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure palatable food was served to all residents. This affected three residents (#36, #39 and #45) of five residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure palatable food was served to all residents. This affected three residents (#36, #39 and #45) of five residents reviewed for nutrition and had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility identified seven residents (#7, #25, #44, #50, #52, #61, and #85) as not receiving anything by mouth. The census was 92. Findings include: 1.Review of the spread sheet for lunch on 09/10/24 revealed one three ounce chicken breast, one four ounce spoodle or one number eight scoop of parmesan creamed noodles, one four ounce slotted spoodle of French style green beans, one dinner roll, mixed fruit, milk of choice and beverage of choice was to be served. During observation of tray line on 09/10/24 between 11:45 A.M. and 1:15 P.M. revealed the noodles appeared to not have any cream sauce on them. Interview on 09/10/24 at 12:00 P.M. with Dietary [NAME] #362 confirmed there was no cream sauce on the noodles. She stated she had put butter and dried parmesan on the noodles and had no recipe for the parmesan creamed noodles. Interview on 09/10/24 at 12:01 with Dietary Director (DD) #366 revealed the recipe book had been in his office, and he was in the process of updating the recipes. Observation of the recipe book on 09/10/24 at 12:27 P.M. with DD #366 revealed there was no recipe in the book for parmesan creamed noodles, and DD#366 confirmed a recipe for parmesan creamed noodles had not been printed out until the state surveyor had asked for one on 09/10/24. DD#366 went on to say Dietary [NAME] #366 should be following recipes, and if she was unsure, she should have asked. On 09/10/24 at 1:05 P.M., a test tray was observed by the state surveyor as the last cart was beginning to be loaded. At 1:14 P.M., Dietary [NAME] #366 plated the test tray and the test tray was then loaded onto the food cart. At 1:15 P.M., the dietary cart with the test tray on it was taken to the 400 hall. By 1:21 P.M. the seventeen trays on the dietary cart had been passed and DD#366 took the test tray off the cart and took the tray to a table in the main dining room. DD #366 used a calibrated facility thermometer to take the temperatures of the items on the test tray. The temperature of the chicken was 151 degrees Fahrenheit (F), the green beans were 141 degrees F, the noodles were 151 degrees F., the canned peaches were 58 degrees F, the milk was 43.6 degrees F, and the coffee was 163.3 degrees F. As DD# 366 was taking the temperature of the items, the state surveyor was tasting the items. The chicken tasted warm, was moist and had good flavor. The noodles tasted warm but were bland and had no flavor. The green beans tasted warm but were bland and had no flavor. The fruit tasted cold and had good flavor. The milk tasted cold and did not taste spoiled. The coffee was very warm and had a good flavor. After DD #366 had taken the temperature of the items, he tasted the chicken and felt it tasted warm and had good flavor. When he tasted the green beans, he felt the green beans were bland and were over cooked. When he tasted the noodles, he felt they were undercooked and had no flavor. Review of recipe for Parmesan Cream Noodles, dated 09/10/24, confirmed the facility had not followed the recipe. According to the recipe, for 83 four-ounce servings the facility would have needed five and one half pounds of egg noodles, one quart milk, two cups butter, one and one-eighth quart of water, six and two-thirds tablespoons chicken base, one pound parmesan cheese grated, one and one-eighth teaspoons of lemon pepper, and one and one-eighth teaspoon of Italian seasoning and one half cup flour. For the sauce, milk, butter and water were to be brought to a simmer. The chicken base was then to be added, and the mixture was to be stirred well. The mixture was then to be thickened with roux to a light gravy consistency. The parmesan cheese was to be added to the mixture and the mixture was to be removed from the heat. The sauce was to be tasted and adjusted with seasonings if necessary. The sauce was then to be added to the cooked noodles. 2. Review of medical record for Resident #39 revealed an admission date of 03/13/23. Diagnoses included primary pulmonary hypertension, morbid obesity due to excess calories, type two diabetes without complications, heart failure and depression. Review of physician orders revealed a diet order dated 09/05/23 for CCHO (Consistent Carbohydrate) /NAS (No Added Salt) diet, mechanically altered chopped texture, thin liquid consistency. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 08/14/24, revealed Resident #39 was cognitively intact and was independent for eating. Interview on 09/10/24 at 2:12 P.M. with Resident #39 revealed a lot of the food was bland and for lunch on 09/10/24, the noodles tasted bland. 3. Review of medical record for Resident #45 revealed an admission date of 01/08/21. Diagnoses included sepsis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), morbid obesity with aveolar hypoventilation, multiple sclerosis, major depressive disorder, resistive to multiple antibiotics, and acute on chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Review of Resident #45's physician orders revealed a diet order dated 08/06/ 24 for CCHO, Regular texture, and thin liquids consistency. Review of modification of end of the MDS assessment, dated 08/06/24, revealed Resident #45 was cognitively intact and was independent for eating. Interview on 09/10/24 at 2:13 P.M. with Resident #45 revealed the facility does not use seasoning, and the food was bland. 4. Review of Resident #36 revealed an admission date of 03/01/23. Diagnoses included osteomyelitis left ankle and foot, type two diabetes, unspecified chronic bronchitis, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic kidney disease stage four, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Review of Resident #36's physician orders revealed a diet order, dated 02/27/24, for CCHO/NAS diet, regular texture, thin liquids. Review of quarterly MDS assessment, dated 08/13/24, revealed Resident #36 was cognitively intact and was independent for eating. Interview on 09/10/24 at 2:26 P.M. with Resident #36 revealed the food was terrible and bland. Interview on 09/11/24 with Ombudsman #433 revealed the biggest concern at the building for her was dietary, which included meals not matching the posted menu. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00157225.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all residents who rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions. This had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the kitchen. The facility identified seven residents (#7, #25, #44, #50, #52, #61, and #85) as receiving nothing by mouth. The census was 92. Findings include: 1.Observation of the kitchen on 09/10/24 from 8:14 A.M. to 8:35 A.M. with Cook/Assistant Dietary Director (DD) #365 and DD #366 revealed the following concerns: In the walk in cooler, there was one half factory bag of shredded mozzarella cheese opened and resealed with plastic wrap with no date; four waffles wrapped in plastic wrap with no date; one hardboiled egg wrapped in plastic wrap with no date; one factory bag with four hardboiled eggs opened and resealed with plastic wrap with no date, and two opened, approximately four inch, stacks of sliced American cheese resealed with plastic wrap with no date. On a metal shelf under the exhaust hood to the left of the ovens revealed an opened bag with an unidentified product, which looked like brown sugar, which had been resealed with plastic wrap with no date or label. In the dry storage area, there was one half bag of dried penne pasta which was open to air. At the time of observation, DD#366 confirmed items opened should be resealed, labeled, and dated. Review of undated facility policy Food Storage, revealed all foods should be covered, labeled and dated. 2. Observation of the kitchen on 09/10/24 from 8:14 A.M. to 8:35 A.M. with Cook/Assistant Dietary Director (DD) #365 and DD #366 revealed the sticker on the facility exhaust hood revealed it had been last cleaned commercially in January 2024. Observation of the four square shaped vents in the hood range revealed there was an accumulation of dust and debris visible in the square vents. At the time of observation, DD #366 confirmed the areas of concern in the exhaust hood and stated the hood should be cleaned professionally every six months. Interview on 09/11/24 at 10:14 A.M. with the Administrator confirmed the exhaust hoods had not been cleaned every six months as required. He stated the facility was supposed to be on a schedule, where every January and July a commercial company was to come to the facility to clean the exhaust hoods. He stated the commercial company had reached out to the previous maintenance person's phone for a confirmation to come and clean the hoods. The company never got that confirmation since that maintenance person no longer worked for the facility, and as a result, the facility was skipped for the July cleaning. Review of undated policy Hood Cleaning revealed hood cleaning venting system shall be cleaned regularly by a system professional to reduce the potential for a grease fire. The Dining Services director or designee arranges with outside service for cleaning of hood ventilation system. Service would be performed at least every six months. Each hood will have a sticker attached that shows date of last professional cleaning. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00157225.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policies, facility menu, and job descriptions, the facility administration failed to ensure there was an adequate supply of emergency food and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policies, facility menu, and job descriptions, the facility administration failed to ensure there was an adequate supply of emergency food and water on hand as required. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents in the facility. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Review of the administrator job description revealed the administrator was responsible for establishing systems to enforce the facility policies and procedures and to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations. Review of maintenance supervisor job description revealed the maintenance supervisor would observe all facility policies and procedures and develop and implement maintenance systems to meets residents' needs in compliance with federal, state and local requirements. Review of Food Service Director job description revealed the food service director would implement dietary and food service policies and procedures to meet residents' needs and in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements and a monitoring system for the dietary and food service department. The food service director would also make recommendations for implementation to assure compliance with federal, state, and local requirements, which included purchase or requisition of food, equipment and supplies. Review of the facility document titled HPSI Emergency Menu Plan Manual revealed the facility had a seven day emergency menu which included shelf stable milk, pop tarts, granola bars, tuna salad, chicken salad, vegetable beef stew, chili with beans, pimento cheese sandwiches, beef ravioli and various canned fruits. The manual indicated approximately two gallons of water per person per day should be stored for drinking, food preparation and hygiene. Observation of the kitchen on 09/10/24 from 8:46 to 8:57 A.M. with Dietary Director (DD) #366 and Cook/Assistant DD #365 revealed there were bare spots on the shelves in the dry storage area and in the walk-in coolers and freezers. Upon further review of the stock in the freezer and refrigerator and the facility emergency menu revealed an inadequate supply of food items to support the emergency menu. DD#366 confirmed the facility did not have an emergency supply of food as required. Interview on 09/10/24 at 3:06 P.M. and on 09/11/24 at 8:07 A.M. with Maintenance Director #401 revealed there was not an emergency supply of water in the building. He went on to state the facility had an emergency water supply in the past, but the facility got rid of the emergency water supply in June 2024 since the stored water bottles were exploding and the water had expired. When asked what the facility would do if there was a water line break, Maintenance Director #401 stated I don't know what I would do if there was a disaster of drinkable water. I don't know what we would do. He stated he had brought the concern to Maintenance Director #402, who did the ordering, that the facility needed to have an emergency water supply. Maintenance Director #401 stated he had lost sleep over it, all the time. Observation of the dry food storage area and the central supply area on 09/10/24 from 3:30 P.M. to 3:35 P.M. with Maintenance Director #401 confirmed there was no emergency supply of water in the facility. Interview on 09/11/24 at 9:19 A.M. with Maintenance Director #402 revealed the facility had ordered pallets of water about two years ago, and since they had been sitting so long, the containers broke and leaked and then they expired. He stated he had brought up to the Administrator the concern about not replenishing the emergency water supply. Maintenance Director #402 felt the concern had been ignored and thought maybe something had changed and the facility no longer needed a supply of emergency water. Maintenance Director #402 stated he probably should have asked if the facility still needed a supply of emergency water. Interview on 09/11/24 at 10:14 A.M. with the Administrator revealed he knew the facility had issues with the cases of the stored water breaking and then they expired. He stated the facility never got around to ordering more emergency water, but he knew the facility needed to have an emergency supply of water at the facility. The administrator went on to state he knew the supply of food got close on food delivery day but only having food for the day of delivery was too close. Review of facility undated policy Food and Nutrition Services Disaster Plan revealed in case the facility was unable to receive deliveries an emergency supply of food, beverages, and supplies must be available in the facility and a minimum of a three to seven day supply was recommended. In case of no water supply or water supply was shut off, the facility should have an emergency potable water supply equivalent to one half gallon per person/day minimum for drinking and one half gallon/person per day for other uses for at least seven days or per regulatory requirements. This deficiency represents noncompliance as an incidental finding during investigation of Complaint Number OH00157225.
May 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure the memory care unit environment was maintained in a clean, comfortable and homelike manner. This had the pot...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure the memory care unit environment was maintained in a clean, comfortable and homelike manner. This had the potential to affect all 22 residents (Residents #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #12, #13, #16, #23, #32, #40, #55, #58, #62, #64, #67, #71, #72, #75, #85, #86, and # 94) living on the memory care unit out of 94 residents living in the facility. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Observation was conducted on 05/14/24 at 8:25 A.M. on the memory care unit and revealed upon entering the unit there was a strong, pervasive odor of foul smelling urine present, and the smell carried throughout the entire unit. Interview on 05/14/24 at 8:40 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #703 revealed he confirmed the memory care unit had a strong odor of foul smelling urine. LPN #703 stated housekeeping did clean on the unit, however, they did not spend much time on the memory care unit and did not remove the foul smelling urine odor. Observation was conducted on 05/14/24 at 10:30 A.M. of housekeeping on the memory care unit. The housekeeper was spraying air freshener throughout the memory care unit. A strong, pervasive odor of foul smelling urine could still be detected despite the air freshener. Review of the facility policy titled Homelike Environment last revised February 2021, revealed under section two it states The facility staff and management maximize, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting. These characteristics include, under letter A. a clean, sanitary and orderly environment, under letter F. pleasant, neutral scents. Under section three the policy states The facility staff and management minimizes, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a depersonalized, institutional setting. These characteristics include, under letter B. institutional odors. This deficiency identified non-compliance as an incidental finding during the investigation of Master Complaint Number OH00153659 and Complaint Numbers OH00153284 and OH00153155.
Apr 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of the Hydrion Test Strip instructions the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen to prepare food in a manner to prevent contamination and food born...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the Hydrion Test Strip instructions the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen to prepare food in a manner to prevent contamination and food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all residents (#15, #16, #18, #28 and #31) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Observation on 04/11/24 at 10:05 A.M. during a tour of the kitchen revealed a puree prep station with a buildup of grease and dirt on the bottom shelf. The top shelf of the puree prep station had a buildup of dirt on it. The white tiles around the walls in the kitchen had a buildup of black dirt on them. The microwave was dirty with dried food splatter in it. The three-sink sanitation station had a container of Hydrion strips (test strips to test the chemical levels for proper sanitization) expired 03/15/22. The findings were verified by the Dietary Manager (DM) #675 at the time of the tour. On 04/11/24 an interview with DM #675 during the tour of the kitchen revealed food preparation stations were to be cleaned after each use. DM #675 also verified the Hydrion stips with the expiration date of 03/15/22 were being used to test sanitization levels. A review of the Hydrion Test Strip instructions on www.essentiallab.com revealed the test strips remain accurate until the expiration date. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00152468.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary environment. Th...

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 provide a clean and sanitary environment. This had the potential to affect all 92 residents in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 04/11/24 at 9:35 A.M. during a tour of the facility revealed the shower room on 300-hall had broken tile around shower drain. The handwashing sink was visibly dirty. The supply cart for shower items had visible dirt on it. The paper towel dispenser had visible dirt on top of it. Hair and dirt were noted on baseboard heating unit. The tub had dirt around the drain (dirty buildup of soap scum), and the area around the tub ledge had a buildup of dirt on it. The floor was dirty. The toilet was full of a bowel movement. There were two broken tiles noted at the bottom of the doorway to that hall. The activity lounge on the 400-hall had visible dirt on the walls and chair rail. The base board heating unit had a buildup of dust on it. The windowsill had a buildup of dust and dirt. All observations were verified by Concierge #808 at the time of the tour. On 04/11/24 at 11:40 A.M. an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a broken screen in the window. The baseboard heating units had a buildup of dirt on them. There were leaves, built-up dust clumps, food and plastic silverware noted inside baseboard heating unit. There was a buildup of dirt on the windowsill. There was a buildup of visible dirt on the blinds. There was a buildup of dust on top of the paper towel holder and a buildup of visible dust on the overbed light fixture. On 04/11/24 at 1:35 P.M. an interview with Environmental Safety and Services Director (ESSD) #759 revealed resident rooms were to be cleaned daily. Rooms were terminally cleaned when a resident discharged . ESSD #759 also verified the findings in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. A review of the facility policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Environmental Surfaces, dates August 2020, revealed environmental surfaces will be disinfected or cleaned on a regular basis (e.g. daily, three times per week) and when surfaces are visibly soiled. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00152468.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide palatable food when gelatine was served in a liquid form. This had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the ki...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide palatable food when gelatine was served in a liquid form. This had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified five residents (#15, #16, #18, #28 and #31) who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 92. Findings include: Interview on 04/11/24 at 11:30 A.M. with Resident #85 revealed no menus were provided to residents, and the food was not good. On 04/11/24 at 12:05 PM. observation of tray line in kitchen revealed a meal of pork chops, mashed potatoes, sauerkraut, and gelatine with diced pears. A test tray was requested. On 04/11/24 at 12:40 P.M. the food cart arrived to the 400-hall. At 12:50 P.M. the test tray was obtained after last the resident's tray was delivered. The gelatine was in a liquid form with diced pears in it. Interview at the time of the observation with Dietary Manager #675 verified the gelatine was not served as it should have been at the time of the test tray. Interview on 04/12/24 at 10:05 A.M. with Resident #69 revealed the food was terrible. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00152468.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective and individualized ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective and individualized pressure ulcer prevention program for Resident #101 to prevent the development of a facility acquired pressure ulcer to the back of the resident's neck. Actual Harm occurred on 02/27/24 when Resident #101, who was cognitively impaired, ventilator dependent, at risk for pressure ulcer development and required total dependence on staff for bed mobility and all activities of daily living, was assessed on 02/27/24 by Wound Nurse Practitioner (NP) #703 to have a Stage IV (full thickness skin and tissue loss) facility acquired pressure ulcer with correction of the staging completed on 03/05/24 to an unstageable (full thickness loss of tissue completely covered by dead tissue) pressure ulcer to his rear neck found under his tracheostomy ties. The pressure ulcer measured 2.0 centimeters (cm) in width by 1.2 cm in length with no depth noted with the pressure ulcer having 100 percent eschar (dead tissue) to the wound bed with no undermining (tissue loss under the wound margins), tunneling, nor drainage or odor present. The facility failed to ensure adequate interventions/care including skin monitoring were provided to prevent the development of the ulcer and failed to timely identify the ulcer prior to it being a Stage IV/unstageable pressure ulcer. This affected one resident (#101) of three residents reviewed for ventilator dependence and pressure ulcers. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #101 revealed an original admission date of 01/12/24 with subsequent hospital stays dated 01/13/24 to 01/16/24, 01/20/24 to 01/25/24, 01/31/24 to 02/06/24, and 02/29/24 to 03/06/24 with diagnoses including sepsis, diabetes mellitus, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, ventilator dependent with tracheostomy, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, hypertension, fractures of the right and left tibias, injury to thoracic spinal cord, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, fracture of facial bones, right shoulder dislocation, right ulna fracture, dislocation of right humerus, multiple bilateral rib fractures, and paraplegia. The most recent hospitalization on 02/29/24 was due to pneumonia for which he was treated in the hospital with antibiotics. Review of the Nursing admission Evaluation for Resident #101 dated 01/12/24, revealed Resident #101 was admitted to the facility with multiple wounds. Wounds to his scalp, face and several toes were from being struck by an automobile while crossing the street. Two wounds to his upper and lower back were surgical wounds and four wounds to his right and left buttock, right gluteal fold and occipital head were caused from pressure prior to admission to the facility. There was no wound identified to the resident's back/rear neck under tracheostomy (Trach) ties at the time of admission. Review of the Medicare five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 02/13/24, revealed Resident #101 had severely impaired cognition, and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs) including bed mobility, turning, and repositioning, bowel incontinence care, and management of a suprapubic catheter. Review of the plan of care for Resident #101, initiated 01/12/24, revealed Resident #101 had potential or actual impairment to skin integrity related to fragile skin. Interventions included to supply education to the resident, family and caregivers of causative factors and measures to prevent skin injury, ensure good nutrition and hydration in order to promote healthier skin, follow facility protocols for treatment of injury, keep skin clean and dry, use lotion on dry skin, monitor and document location, size and treatment of skin injury, report abnormalities, failure to heal, signs and symptoms of infection, and maceration to the physician. In addition the plan of care included Resident #101 was ventilator dependent with interventions to include monitor, document and report as needed any pressure ulcers. Preventative measures included turning at least every two hours, use pressure relief mattress or turning bed if indicated, follow prevention of pressure ulcer plan of care and maintain nutritional needs. The disciplines responsible were listed as the licensed nurses. Review of the weekly skin and wound evaluations dated 02/07/24, 02/13/24, and 02/15/24 revealed there were no new open areas identified on Resident #101's body. Review of the Skin and Wound Evaluation V7.0 document, dated 02/27/24 and authored by Wound NP #703 revealed while completing treatment to a wound on the occipital (back of head) portion of Resident #101's head, there was a (new) pressure area found under the resident's trach ties. The wound was documented to be an in house acquired Stage IV pressure ulcer measuring 2.0 centimeters (cm) width by 1.2 cm length with no depth noted and with 100 percent eschar (dead tissue). There was no undermining or tunneling; there was no drainage or odor present. Review of a progress note dated 03/05/24 by Wound NP #703 revealed a correction in the staging of Resident #101's rear neck wound from a Stage IV to an unstageable due to wound bed having 100% eschar tissue. Review of the physician's orders dated January 2024, February 2024 and March 2024 revealed an order dated 01/19/24 for trach ties to be changed weekly on Fridays or as needed, head of bed elevated to no less than 30 degrees, low air loss mattress to bed at all times. An order for wound care, dated 02/28/24 for the wound on the resident's neck to be cleaned with normal saline, apply skin prep to the perimeter and then apply Medi honey to the wound bed and cover with a foam dressing everyday shift for wound management and as needed was also noted. At the time this order was received, it was noted that Resident #101 was also receiving daily wound treatments to a wound on the back of his head (for a pressure ulcer present on admission) that was above the new Stage IV/unstageable pressure ulcer first identified on 02/27/24. Review of the February 2024 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #101 revealed trach ties were to be changed every Friday. The February TAR indicated the trach ties had been changed on 02/09/24, 02/16/24, and 02/23/24. Wound treatments to the rear neck pressure ulcer were completed every dayshift beginning on 02/28/24. Review of the Braden Scale risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #101 was at a high risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of the Braden Scale risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #101 was at a moderate risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of a typed statement dated 03/12/24, authored by Primary Care Physician (PCP) #900 and submitted via email correspondence to the surveyor on 03/12/24 revealed PCP #900 enclosed a pressure injury audit and wrote the area on his rear neck that was caused by the trach tie was in my opinion unavoidable. The physician included the wound, in the PCP's opinion was unavoidable not only due to the resident's extensive comorbidities but also due to the resident requiring a ventilator and trach ties to hold trach in place with the trach tie a medical necessity to sustain life. The head of the resident's bed elevated due to continuous tube feeding. The resident being completely immobile, sliding down in bed and requiring staff to turn him. Fecal incontinence requiring staff to frequently provide incontinence care. And the resident being bedfast with several functional limitations in range of motion. Review of the Pressure Injury Audit, dated 03/12/24, authored by PCP #900 revealed Resident #101 had a nosocomial (health care associated) existing pressure ulcer to his rear neck measuring 2.72 cm length by 1.92 cm depth and unstageable. Eschar or slough was present, and no signs of infection. Comments included: New area to rear neck found on 02/27/24. Resident was struck by an automobile, admitted with multiple wounds and multiple fractures. Resident has been to the hospital 4 times since 1/12/24. Resident has an unstageable pressure area to the rear neck from his trach tie. Trach tie is a medical necessity. Resident cannot survive without ventilator support. Curawound nurse practitioner will see on a weekly basis. Intermittent observations were conducted of Resident #101 in his room from 03/06/24 to 03/11/24 and revealed the resident was in bed lying on a low air loss mattress on his right side or back and had an enteral tube feed pump infusing enteral feeding continuously via PEG (percutaneous enterogastric) tube with the head of his bed elevate to approximately 30 degrees. Resident #101's eyes were open, but no meaningful attempts to communicate were made from him upon greetings. Interview on 03/05/24 at 1:00 P.M. with Respiratory Therapist (RT) #701 revealed NP #703 called and notified him on 02/27/24 of the new pressure ulcer found on the back of his neck and under the trach ties which was due to the trach ties being too tight. He was informed of the new orders in place. Interview on 03/05/24 at 2:00 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the wound to the back of Resident #101's neck under the trach ties was found on 02/27/24 by Wound NP #703. A phone interview on 03/06/24 at 12:53 P.M. with Wound NP #703 revealed Resident #101 was found on 02/27/24 with an unstageable pressure wound to the back of his neck caused by the trach ties. Wound NP #703 then stated she was not comfortable with speaking on the phone and provided no further information about the wound. Interview on 03/06/24 at 1:25 P.M. with RT #701 revealed trach ties on any ventilator dependent resident should not cause pressure ulcers to the back of a resident's neck. RT #701 revealed Resident #101's wound was avoidable because the trach ties should be checked daily when staff provided care to ensure at least two fingers could be slipped under the ties to ensure the ties were not too tight on the resident's body. RT #701 confirmed the respiratory therapist was the only staff person who would change trach ties and the trach ties were dated when put on Resident #101 and last changed on 02/23/24. RT #701 revealed the nurses signed off the tie changes on the TAR whereas the RT documented it on the ventilator shift assessment. Observation was conducted on 03/07/24 at 11:00 A.M. of Resident #101 receiving wound care by Licensed Practical nurse (LPN) #717 and LPN #718 who was the facility wound care nurse. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #709 and STNA #716 were also in the room to help position the resident. The observation revealed Resident #101 was difficult to position on his side, he was on a low air loss mattress, tube feeding was placed on hold and the head of the bed was lowered to complete treatment to the wound on the back of his neck. LPN #718 performed hand hygiene, applied gloves, loosened trach ties, and removed the old dressing dated 03/06/24. The wound dressing had no excessive drainage, the wound bed was 100% eschar with pink wound edges without undermining and no signs of infection in the wound. LPN #718 performed hand hygiene and applied new gloves, cleansed the area with normal saline, applied skin prep to the perimeter and then applied Medi honey to the wound bed and covered with a foam dressing and then retightened the trach ties placing two fingers underneath the trach ties to ensure they were not too tight causing additional pressure. The resident was repositioned in bed on his back, he was alert but not responsive to the staff speaking to him. The head of bed was again elevated to at least 30 degrees, tube feeding was turned back on and was running at the appropriate settings. LPN #718 verified these findings at the time of the observation. Interview on 03/11/24 at 1:12 P.M. with the facility wound care nurse, LPN #718 revealed resident was on a low air loss mattress and all other wound care orders were followed. She stated the wound to the back of Resident #101's neck was avoidable, could have been monitored better, and were caused by the trach ties being too tight. LPN #718 indicated Resident #101's PCP #900 does not follow the wounds because there was a physician with the wound care team if any orders were needed, and Wound NP #703 came to the building weekly to assess the wounds in the facility, to do measurements, do treatments and to write any new orders if necessary. PCP #900 verified in a written statement Resident #101, who was dependent on staff for all of his care needs, was found to have a pressure ulcer to the back/rear of his neck that was unstageable at the time of development. Although the physician expressed in writing it was his opinion the ulcer was unavoidable, interviews with RT #701 and LPN #718 identified the pressure ulcer was avoidable and caused by the resident's trach ties being too tight. In addition, the facility's identification of the resident's co-morbidities and increased care needs should have resulted in a more effective and individualized plan of care and pressure ulcer prevention program in accordance with the facility policy to prevent the development of this pressure ulcer. Review of the facility policy titled, Prevention of Pressure Injuries, last revised in April 2020 revealed the purpose of this procedure was to provide information regarding identification of pressure injury risk factors and interventions for specific risk factors. This deficiency represents noncompliance identified under Complaint Number OH00151700.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure all residents were treated with dignity and respect at all times due to multiple staff members not wearing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure all residents were treated with dignity and respect at all times due to multiple staff members not wearing name badges while on duty in the facility. This had the potential to affect all 96 residents living in the facility. The facility census was 96. Findings include: Interviews were conducted intermittently beginning on 03/04/24 at 3:24 P.M. and continued on 03/05/24, 03/06/24, 03/09/24 and 03/11/24 with Residents #10, #13, #24, #35, #50, #57, #60, #62, #65, #74, #75, #84, #90, #94, #96, #97, and #99 who all revealed the staff working in the facility did not wear name tags so they did not always know who was providing care for them. Interviews conducted with the Administrator on 03/04/24 at 1:30 P.M. and on 03/05/24 at 11:00 A.M. confirmed all staff were to wear their name tags at all times while at work so residents are able to identify them. The Administrator stated he was aware the majority of his staff did not wear their name tags, and he was just happy they showed up for work so he did not push the issue with the staff. Observations made on 03/05/24 at 2:30 P.M. and on 03/06/24 form 12:46 P.M. to 2:15 P.M. of State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #702, STNA #707, STNA #708, STNA #709, STNA #710, STNA #711, Transportation Aide (TA) #704, and Housekeeper #712 revealed they were not wearing their name tags. Interviews conducted on 03/05/24 at 2:30 P.M. and on 03/06/24 form 12:46 P.M. to 2:15 P.M. with STNA #702, STNA #707, STNA #708, STNA #709, STNA #710, STNA #711, TA #704, and Housekeeper #712 confirmed they were not wearing their name tags. Review of the undated facility policy titled Dress Code revealed under the category Name Badges, All employees must wear a name tag so that residents can identify you. This deficiency represents noncompliance identified under Complaint Number OH00151054.
Aug 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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure restorative range of motion (ROM) exercises w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure restorative range of motion (ROM) exercises were completed as ordered by the physician. This finding affected two residents (#8 and #76) of three residents reviewed for restorative ROM exercises. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #76's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses including anoxic brain damage, muscle weakness, and tracheostomy status. Review of Resident #76's physician orders revealed an order dated 03/29/23 for restorative passive ROM exercises to all extremities for at least fifteen minutes a day every shift. Review of Resident #76's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive two staff assist for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene as well as total dependence of two staff assist for transfers, eating, and toilet use. Review of the State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) tracking documentation from 07/07/23 to 08/15/23 revealed no evidence Resident #76 received passive ROM exercises as ordered. Interview on 08/15/23 at 12:10 P.M. with the Administrator confirmed the order was accidentally entered into Resident #76's electronic charting for staff to do passive ROM exercises as needed. He confirmed Resident #76's medical record and STNA documentation did not have evidence the passive ROM exercises were completed by the nursing staff as ordered. 2. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness, acute on chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, and unspecified dementia. Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed an order dated 02/05/22 for active ROM exercises to all extremities at least fifteen minutes a day every night shift. Review of Resident #8's MDS 3.0 quarterly comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident exhibited moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the STNA tracking documentation from 07/18/23 to 08/16/23 revealed no evidence Resident #8 received active ROM exercises as ordered on 07/19/23, 07/23/23, 07/27/23, 07/29/23, 07/30/23, 07/31/23, 08/03/23, 08/07/23, 08/11/23 and 08/14/23. Interview on 08/16/23 at 9:20 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #8's medical record did not have evidence the resident received active ROM exercises for ten days from 07/18/23 to 08/16/23. Review of the Restorative Range of Motion Exercises policy, revised 10/10, revealed the purpose of the procedure was to exercise the resident's joints and muscles. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145460.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of Resident #76's medical record. This finding ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of Resident #76's medical record. This finding affected one resident (#76) of three residents reviewed for the accuracy of the medical records. Findings include: Review of Resident #76's medical record revealed he was admitted on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses including anoxic brain damage, muscle weakness, and tracheostomy status. Review of Resident #76's physician orders revealed an order dated 03/08/23 to shower/bed bath the resident per the resident's father's preference every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; an order dated 03/29/23 for restorative bilateral hand/wrist splint on for six hours and assess skin prior to application, apply at 12:00 A.M. and remove at 6:00 A.M.; an order dated 06/21/23 to cleanse the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG or G tube which was a thin, flexible tube inserted into the stomach wall for nutrition or fluids) with normal saline, apply a dry drain dressing every nightshift; an order dated 07/07/23 to cleanse the left heel with normal saline, pad and protect every night shift for wound prevention; and an order dated 07/25/23 to cleanse the left great toe with Dakins (antimicrobial wound cleanser) 0.125% (percent), apply Medihoney (wound gel with antibacterial properties) to the wound, cover with an abdominal pad and wrap with Kling gauze every night shift for wound management. Review of Resident #76's progress note dated 08/08/23 at 1:21 P.M. indicated the resident was sent out to the hospital per Physician #918. He was sent out due to having a small opening on the top of his head with metal showing and the physician stated that it looked like it may be hardware from a previous procedure. Review of Resident #76's treatment administration record (TAR) dated 08/09/23 revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #879 documented she completed the left great toe pressure ulcer wound care dressing, left heel wound care dressing, PEG tube dressing, application of bilateral hand/wrist splints, and a shower one day after the resident was already admitted to the hospital. Interview on 08/15/23 at 2:12 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed LPN #885 had documented Resident #76 received care after the resident was already admitted to the hospital and the medical record did not accurately reflect the resident's care. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145460.
Aug 2023 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistance with showers received them based on their preference. This affected two residents (#72 and #78) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #72 revealed an admission date of 01/08/21. Diagnoses included Multiple Sclerosis, morbid obesity, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), and hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #72 was cognitively intact. She required total assistance of two people for transfers and toilet use, extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility and dressing and extensive assistance of one person for hygiene. It was very important for her to choose between a bed bath, tub bath, and shower. Review of the physician's orders for July 2023 revealed Resident #72 was to receive a shower based on preference, on Wednesday and Saturday, in the morning and refusals were to be documented. Review of the shower schedule revealed Resident #72 was supposed to receive a shower on Wednesdays and Saturdays on first shift. Review of the State Tested Nurse's Aide (STNA) tasks dated 07/08/23 through 07/31/23 revealed Resident #72 had a shower on 07/08/23. Review of the shower sheets revealed Resident #72 had a shower on 07/12/23 and a bed bath on 07/01/23, 07/05/23, 07/19/23, 07/22/23, and 07/29/23. She refused a shower and/or bed bath on 06/28/23. Interview on 07/31/23 at 11:31 A.M. with Resident #72 revealed she would like to have a shower twice a week. She knew her shower days were Wednesday and Saturday, but she does not always get them. Observation at the time of the interview revealed Resident #72's hair was greasy and unkempt. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #78 revealed an admission date of 12/18/21. Diagnoses included pulmonary embolism, pulmonary fibrosis, respiratory failure, and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #78 was severely cognitively impaired. He required extensive assistance of one person for toilet use, limited assistance of one person for transfers, dressing and hygiene and supervision of one person for bed mobility. It was somewhat important for him to choose between a bed bath, tub bath, and shower. Review of the physician's orders for July 2023 revealed Resident #78 was supposed to receive a shower based on preference, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on night shift, and refusals were to be documented. Review of the shower schedule revealed Resident #78 was supposed to receive a shower on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on night shift. Review of the STNA tasks dated 07/04/23 through 07/28/23 revealed no documented evidence Resident #78 received a shower during the time frame. Review of the shower sheets revealed Resident #78 had a shower on 07/19/23 and 07/24/23, a bed bath on 07/03/23, 07/17/23, 07/26/23, and 07/28/23. He refused on 06/30/23, 07/05/23, 07/07/23, and 07/14/23. Resident #78 was in the hospital on [DATE] through 07/12/23 and again on 07/19/23 through 07/23/23. Interview on 07/31/23 at 9:16 A.M. with Resident #78 revealed he does not get showers, he only got washed up and could not recall when it last occurred. He stated sometimes he would prefer a shower to a bed bath. Interview on 07/31/23 at 2:10 P.M. with STNA's #208 and #209 revealed they asked the resident if they preferred a shower or a bed bath. If a bed bath was preferred over a shower on any given day, they would document such in the medical record, as well as document any shower or bed bath refusals. STNA #208 confirmed Resident #72 preferred a shower over a bed bath. She also confirmed she knew Resident #78 had been in the hospital a few times recently, but she was unsure if she preferred a shower or a bed bath. Interview with Administrator on 08/01/23 at 9:54 A.M. verified resident preferences for type and frequency of showers was assessed on admission. He confirmed showers were not provided to Residents #72 and #78 based on preference or schedule. Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL), supporting, dated March 2018, revealed residents who were unable to carry out ADL independently would receive services necessary to maintain good hygiene. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH0014779.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #78's medical record...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #78's medical record was updated to reflect his most current care needs. This affected one resident (#78) of three residents reviewed for general care and services. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #78 revealed an admission date of 12/18/21. Diagnoses included pulmonary embolism, pulmonary fibrosis, respiratory failure, and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #78 was severely cognitively impaired. He required extensive assistance of one person for toilet use, limited assistance of one person for transfers, dressing, and hygiene, and supervision of one person for bed mobility. Review of the physician's orders for July 2023 revealed Resident #78 required the use of a Hoyer (mechanical) lift with the assistance of two people for transfers. Interview on 07/31/23 at 9:16 A.M. with Resident #78 revealed he had a fall while getting on the scale. He denied using a Hoyer lift and said he could transfer himself. Review of the fall investigation dated 07/16/23 revealed Resident #78 was standing on the scale when he fell. He was assessed and no injuries were noted. As part of the fall investigation completed on 07/16/23, he was referred to therapy for bilateral extremity weakness. Interview on 08/01/23 at 7:50 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #208 and STNA #210 revealed Resident #78 required limited assistance of one person for transfers. Neither STNA had any knowledge of Resident #78 ever using a Hoyer lift. Review of the physical therapy (PT) progress notes dated 07/28/23 revealed Resident #78 performed transfers with moderate assistance. Interview on 08/01/23 at 8:30 A.M. with the Administrator revealed Resident #78 was made a Hoyer lift for transfers as a result of the fall investigation completed 07/16/23 until he could be evaluated by therapy, as a precaution. He confirmed the order for Hoyer use for transfers was inaccurate and should have been discontinued upon evaluation from therapy. Review of the facility policy titled Charting and Documentation, dated July 2017, revealed any changes in the residents' condition would be documented in the medical record. This deficiency is an incidental finding discovered during 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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Hoyer (mechanical) lifts were functi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure Hoyer (mechanical) lifts were functioning appropriately. This affected two residents (#72 and #90) of three residents reviewed for accidents and had the potential to affect 23 additional residents (#8, #11, #13, #15, #16, #20, #21, #25, #26, #27, #30, #39, #41, #50, #54, #60, #63, #64, #65, #66, #68, #78, and #80) identified by the facility as requiring the use of a Hoyer lift for transfers. The facility census was 88. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #72 revealed an admission date of 01/08/21. Diagnoses included Multiple Sclerosis, morbid obesity, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), and hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #72 was cognitively intact. She required total assistance of two people for transfers and toilet use, extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility and dressing, and extensive assistance of one person for hygiene. Review of the physician's orders for July 2023 revealed Resident #72 required the assistance of two people using a Hoyer lift for transfers. Review of the progress note dated 07/03/23 revealed Resident #72 was lowered to the floor while being transferred with the Hoyer lift. She sustained an injury to her right calf which was treated with a bandage. Interview on 07/31/23 at 11:31 A.M. with Resident #78 revealed staff was using the Hoyer lift with her when the lift dropped slightly. She denied hitting the floor and was not injured. She revealed the incident occurred sometime around the Fourth of July holiday. Review of the fall investigation dated 07/04/23 revealed Resident #72 was lowered to the floor while using the Hoyer lift. She was assessed for injury and her right calf was bandaged. The investigation revealed the leg of the Hoyer lift moved during the lift, despite the legs being locked prior to transfer. The lift was immediately taken out of service and inspected by the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Maintenance Director. It was revealed the leg spring was worn and needed replaced as well as a leg handle groove being worn. Both other Hoyer lifts in the facility were inspected with no abnormalities found. Hoyer lift competency was provided to all State Tested Nurse Aides (STNAs). 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #90 revealed an admission date of 08/30/22. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, diabetes, morbid obesity, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #90 was cognitively intact. He was totally dependent on two people for transfers, required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, and extensive assistance of one person for dressing, toilet use, and hygiene. Review of the physician's orders for July 2023 revealed Resident #90 required the assistance of two people using a Hoyer lift for transfers. Review of the progress noted dated 07/08/23 revealed Resident #90 tipped over in the Hoyer lift while two STNAs were attempting to transfer him into the shower chair. The Hoyer lift was observed with the legs inverted. Resident #90 was assessed, and no injuries were noted. Interview on 07/31/23 at 7:16 A.M. with Resident #90 revealed he fell to the floor when staff was using the Hoyer lift and the legs of the lift inverted. He could not recall exactly when the incident occurred. Review of the fall investigation dated 07/11/23 revealed Resident #90 tipped over while being transferred with the Hoyer lift while two STNAs were attempting to transfer him into the shower chair. Resident #90 was assessed for injury, and no injuries were found. The investigation revealed the leg of the Hoyer lift inverted during transfer to the shower chair, causing Resident #90 to be lowered to the floor. The Hoyer lift was inspected by maintenance and no issues were found. Interview on 08/01/23 at 8:06 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the Hoyer lifts involved in the incidents with Residents #78 and #90 were two different Hoyer lifts. The one involving Resident #78 was taken out of service after the incident and replaced with a rental, and eventually a new unit. He revealed the lift needed a new spring and the handle to open the legs was worn. The Hoyer involving Resident #90 was repaired by maintenance. The DON revealed maintenance checked the functionality of the lifts monthly. Review of the inspection log for Hoyer lifts for 2023 provided by the facility revealed the facility used four Hoyer lifts, and each one was inspected monthly with no issues being noted. Review of the facility policy titled Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents, dated December 2013, revealed maintenance would perform routine checks of mechanical (Hoyer) lifts to ensure they remained in good working order. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH0014779.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure a variety of foods were offered and failed to honor resident preferences for meals. This affect...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure a variety of foods were offered and failed to honor resident preferences for meals. This affected five residents (#22, #5, #61, #62, and #78) and had the potential to affect all residents, except for seven residents (#10, #11, #12, #14, #16, #27 and #73) who received no food by mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed an admission date of 12/18/22. Diagnoses included sepsis, diabetes, malnutrition, and kidney failure. Review of the diet orders and preferences provided by the facility revealed Resident #22 requested meat with her meal each morning. Review of the menu for the month of July 2023 revealed scrambled eggs were served 15 of 30 days. Interviews on 07/31/23 at 7:16 A.M. with Residents #5, #61, #62, and #78 revealed the same food was always served, especially eggs at breakfast. They didn't eat when they got tired of the same thing being served. Interview and observation on 07/31/23 at 9:16 A.M. revealed Resident #62 had a meal consisting of two muffins and scrambled eggs for breakfast. Observation at the time of the interview of Resident #62's tray ticket revealed he asked for meat for breakfast but did not receive any. Review of the menu for breakfast on 08/01/23 revealed a menu of oatmeal or cold cereal, ham, egg, and cheese breakfast omelet muffin and toast. Observation of breakfast on 08/01/23 at 8:40 A.M. revealed scrambled eggs and toast were served. Observation of Resident #22's breakfast revealed she did not receive meat with her meal. Interview at the time of the observation with Resident #22 confirmed the observation. Interview on 08/01/23 at 8:48 A.M. with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #204 confirmed no substitutions were made to the meal for breakfast on 08/01/23. He confirmed he was not aware scrambled eggs were served in place of the ham, egg, and cheese breakfast omelet. He also confirmed some residents received meat at their request but was not aware Resident #22 did not receive the meat she had requested each morning at breakfast. Review of the facility policy titled Food and Nutrition Services dated October 2017 revealed residents would be provided with a well-balanced and consider meal preferences. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00144779.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed as written. This had the potential to affect all residents, with the exception of seven residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed as written. This had the potential to affect all residents, with the exception of seven residents (#10, #11, #12, #14, #16, #27 and #73) who received no food by mouth. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the menu for breakfast on 08/01/23 revealed a menu of oatmeal or cold cereal, ham, egg, and cheese breakfast omelet muffin and toast. Observation of breakfast on 08/01/23 at 8:40 A.M. revealed scrambled eggs and toast were served. Observation on 08/01/23 at 8:45 A.M. of the menu substitution log revealed no evidence of a substitution to the breakfast meal. Interview on 08/01/223 at 8:48 A.M. with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #204 confirmed no substitutions were made to the meal for breakfast on 08/01/23. He confirmed he was not aware scrambled eggs were served in place of the ham, egg, and cheese breakfast omelet. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00144779.
Jun 2023 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete resident assessments within the required times frame for Resident #439. This affected one resident (#439) of 24 residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete resident assessments within the required times frame for Resident #439. This affected one resident (#439) of 24 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #439 revealed an admission date of 05/13/23. Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malignant neoplasm of the esophagus, and hypertension. Review of Resident #439's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments revealed admission and Medicare five-day assessments were initiated with assessment reference dates (ARD) of 05/20/23 but were not completed as required. Further review of Resident #439's admission MDS revealed sections not completed included sections A, B, G, GG, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, S and V. Sections of Resident #439's Medicare five-day assessment that were not completed included sections A, B, G, GG, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P and S. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #643 on 06/08/23 at 8:26 P.M. verified the admission and Medicare five-day MDS assessment for Resident #439 were initiated but were not completed as required. LPN #643 explained the resident assessments did not get completed on time because LPN #643 was on vacation and there was no one to cover to get the MDS assessments completed on time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to complete in a timely manner a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for Resident #82. This affected one resident (#82) of 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to complete in a timely manner a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for Resident #82. This affected one resident (#82) of 24 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #82 revealed an admission date of 03/14/23. Diagnoses included acute embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of right distal lower extremity, acute embolism and thrombosis of right tibial vein, hypertension, and bipolar disorder. Further review of medical record for Resident #82 revealed a smoking risk form was completed on 03/14/23 and identified Resident #82 to be independent with smoking. Review of Resident #82's care plan dated 03/15/23 revealed Resident #82 actively smoked and use of cigarettes since admission was not added to the comprehensive care plan until 06/05/23. Observation on 06/05/23 at 1:17 P.M. revealed Resident #82 had a box of cigarettes on the bed side table. Interview on 06/05/23 at 1:20 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #614 confirmed the box of cigarettes on Resident #82's bed side table. LPN #614 explained if a resident was independent for smoking, they were permitted to keep smoking materials at the bedside. Interview on 06/06/23 at 12:30 P.M. with the Administrator revealed smoking assessments were completed on admission by the activity or nursing department and the care plan would then be updated to reflect if a resident was independent with smoking activity. Interview on 06/06/23 at 2:23 P.M. with Director of Nursing confirmed the smoking care plan was not added until 06/05/23.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate and physician ordered care and services to promote wound healing for Resident #57. This affected one resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate and physician ordered care and services to promote wound healing for Resident #57. This affected one resident (Resident #57) of two residents reviewed for wound care. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed an admission date of 08/30/22 with diagnoses including idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, type two diabetes mellitus, severe morbid obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, spinal stenosis, depression, hypothyroidism, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and stage three pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss, subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle are not exposed) to penis/scrotum. Resident #57 had a indwelling urinary catheter due to a neurogenic bladder. Review of Resident #57's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated for 04/16/23, revealed the resident had intact cognition, was independent with eating, required physical extensive assistance by one staff member for dressing, toileting, wheelchair mobility, and personal hygiene, required extensive physical assistance from two staff members for bed mobility and were totally dependent on two staff members for transfers and bathing. Review of Resident #57's care plan, dated 04/10/23, revealed the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter due to a neurogenic bladder and had a pressure ulcer related to immobility. The pressure ulcer interventions included the resident's pressure ulcer will show signs of healing and remain free from infection, the staff were to administer medications and treatments as ordered, staff were to assess, record, and monitor wound healing. Review of Resident #57's physician's orders, dated June 2023, revealed the stage three pressure ulcer to Resident #57's penis and scrotum was to be cleansed with normal saline or sterile water, packed loosely with calcium alginate and cover with a dry clean dressing daily and as needed. Review of Resident #57's Wound assessment and Plan document, dated 05/02/23, by WCP #800 revealed the wound had declined in status measuring 2.6 cm in L x 1.6 cm in W x 0.3 cm in D, 100% granulation tissue. WCP #800 documented the wound declined due to staff not changing the dressing as ordered for one week. WCP #800 documented the dressing removed on 05/02/23 was the same dressing with WCP #800's date and initials present from dressing change on 04/25/23. Observation made on 06/07/23 at 8:05 A.M. of wound care for Resident #57 performed by LPN #687 revealed no hand hygiene was performed during the wound care observation. LPN #687 gathered wound care supplies, applied gloves, proceeded to prep wound care supplies, brought supplies into room and placed all supplies down on Resident #57's tray table without cleaning or placing a barrier. LPN #687 then removed the resident's brief which revealed there was no old dressing present on the wound. LPN #687 continued with wound care with the same gloves on, cleansed the wound with Dakin's solution, applied calcium alginate, and covered with abdominal dressing per physician orders, replaced brief, removed trash, removed gloves and washed hands before exiting the room. Interview on 06/07/23 at 9:19 A.M. with Resident #57 revealed staff did not change his dressing as ordered daily. Resident #57 stated it all depended on who was working. Resident #57 confirmed in May 2023 the wound to his scrotum did get worse which Resident #57 attributed to staff not changing the dressing daily. Interview on 06/07/23 at 12:45 P.M. with WCP #800 revealed Resident #57's pressure ulcer to scrotum was caused by friction from the indwelling urinary catheter. WCP 3800 shared Resident #57's wound was found by staff on 03/06/23, with deterioration of wound on 05/09/23 due to the dressing not being changed daily as ordered. WCP #800 verified the dressing removed on 05/09/23 was the dressing he initialed and dated on 05/02/23. WCP #800 stated the old dressing removed from 05/02/23 had a foul odor. Review of Resident #57's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for May 2023 revealed all treatments had been signed by nursing staff indicating treatments had been completed as ordered for each day in May 2023.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered for Resident #19. This affected one resident (#19) of three residents reviewed for o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered for Resident #19. This affected one resident (#19) of three residents reviewed for oxygen therapy. The facility census was 94. Findings include: Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/05/23. Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute and chronic respiratory failure, severe persistent asthma and shortness of breath. Review of Resident #19's physician orders for June 2023 revealed an order for continuous oxygen administration at four liters per minute (LPM). Observation on 06/05/23 at 12:00 P.M. revealed Resident #19 was receiving oxygen continuously at three and a half LPM. Interview on 06/05/23 at 12:01 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #658 confirmed Resident #19 was receiving oxygen continuous at three and a half LPM. Observation on 06/06/23 at 3:07 P.M. revealed Resident #19 was receiving oxygen continuously at three and a half LPM. Interview on 06/06/23 at 3:07 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #19 was receiving oxygen continuous at three and a half LPM in lieu of the physician order for continuous oxygen at four LPM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration and wound care for residents #57, #64, and #443...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration and wound care for residents #57, #64, and #443, and failed to ensure a urinary catheter drainage bag was off the floor for Resident #440. This affected four residents (#57, #64, #443, and #440) of 24 residents reviewed for infection control. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. During an observation of medication administration on 06/06/23 at 7:44 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #614 without performing hand hygiene prepared medications for Resident #443. Following preparation of medications, LPN #614 entered the room without performing hand hygiene. LPN #614 handed Resident #443 the medication cup filled with prepared medications. Resident #443 took all medications and LPN #614 threw the empty medication cup in the trash can and walked out of the room without performing hand hygiene. Interview on 06/06/23 at 7:55 A.M. with LPN #614 confirmed no hand hygiene was performed before or after medication administration for Resident #443. 2. During an observation of medication administration on 06/06/23 at 7:59 A.M., LPN #612 without performing hand hygiene prepared medications for Resident #64. Following preparations of medication, LPN #612 entered the room without performing hand hygiene and handed Resident #64 the medication cup filled with prepared medications. Resident #64 took all medications and LPN #612 threw the empty medication cup in the trash can and walked out of the room without performing hand hygiene. Interview on 06/06/23 at 8:18 A.M. with LPN #612 confirmed no hand hygiene was performed before or after medication administration. 3. Review of medical record for Resident #440 revealed an admission date of 04/07/23. Diagnoses included acute cystitis without hematuria, dysphagia, adult failure to thrive, and urinary tract infection. Review of physician orders for Resident #440 revealed an order dated 05/23/23 to maintain urinary catheter to straight drain, keep the urinary catheter below the level of the bladder, check placement and function every shift, monitor for any kinks in the tubing and to keep the urinary drainage bag covered. Observation on 06/05/23 at 10:00 A.M. revealed Resident #440's catheter bag on the floor under the bed with no privacy bag attached. Interview on 06/05/23 at 10:03 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide #656 confirmed Resident #440's catheter bag was on the floor and did not have a privacy bag attached. . 4. Record review for Resident #57 revealed an admission date of 08/30/22. Diagnosis included idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, type two diabetes mellitus, severe morbid obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, spinal stenosis, depression, hypothyroidism, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and stage three pressure ulcer to penis/scrotum. Review of Resident #57's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated for 04/16/23, revealed the resident had intact cognition, was independent with eating, required physical extensive assistance by one staff member for dressing, toileting, wheelchair mobility, and personal hygiene, required extensive physical assistance by two staff members for bed mobility and were totally dependent on two staff members for transfers and bathing. Observation made on 06/07/23 at 8:05 A.M. of wound care for Resident #57 performed by LPN #687 revealed there was no hand hygiene performed during wound care observation. LPN #687 gathered wound care supplies, applied gloves, proceeded to prep wound care supplies, brought supplies into the room and placed all supplies down on the resident's tray table without cleaning or placing a barrier. LPN #687 then removed the resident's brief, continued with wound care with same gloves on, cleansed residents wound with Dakin's solution, applied calcium alginate, and covered with abdominal dressing per physician orders, replaced brief, removed trash, removed gloves and washed hands as exited the room. Interview on 06/07/23 at 8:45 A.M. with LPN #687 revealed she confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene prior to gathering wound care supplies, she did not cleanse tray table or place a barrier, and she did not perform hand hygiene after removing residents brief, or after cleansing the wound. Review of facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, last revised August 2019, revealed staff were to wash hands with soap and water for the following situations: when hands are visibly soiled, before direct care with residents, before performing any non-surgical invasive procedures, before and after handling an invasive devise, before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, and other dressing supplies, after handling used dressings, and after removing gloves. The policy also stated the use of alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water are used for before preparation or handling medications. Review of policy titled Administering Medication, last revised 04/19, revealed staff are to follow established facility infection control procedures such as hand washing for the administration of medications. Review of policy titled Urinary Catheter Care, last revised 09/14, revealed staff are to ensure catheter tubing and drainage bags were kept off the floor
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observations, and interview the facility failed to maintain appropriate pest control to prevent infestation. This affected two (Resident #30, #52) of 24 residents reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations, and interview the facility failed to maintain appropriate pest control to prevent infestation. This affected two (Resident #30, #52) of 24 residents reviewed for physical environment. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 12/05/22. Diagnoses included encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the genitourinary system, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder system, and retention of the urine. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/11/23, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 08/02/19. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, paranoid personality disorder, and anxiety disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/22/23, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Observations on 06/05/23 at 2:35 P.M. revealed Residents #30 and #52 were lying in their beds. Observations revealed approximately 20 knats sitting on Resident #52's bed cover and at least 10 gnats located on the curtain separating the two beds. Interview on 06/05/23 at 2:40 P.M. with State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #645 verified the observations and removed the bed linens and curtain. Observation and interview on 06/06/23 at 3:09 P.M. with the Maintenance Director (MD) verified the gnats on Resident #30's, and #52's bed linen and curtains. The Maintenance Director stated the exterminator would be out to spray the facility on 06/08/23. The Maintenance Director stated the gnats show up at random times and said he could not comment on why and where the gnats are entering the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #30, #35, #237 and #440 were treated in a dignified and respectful manner including covering their indwelli...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #30, #35, #237 and #440 were treated in a dignified and respectful manner including covering their indwelling catheter drainage bags. This affected four residents (Resident #30, #35, 237, and Resident #440) of seven residents reviewed for indwelling catheters. The facility census was 94. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 12/05/22. Diagnoses included encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the genitourinary system, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder system, and retention of the urine. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/11/23, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Resident #30 required an indwelling catheter. Review of physician order dated 06/02/23 revealed staff were to maintain indwelling catheter until follow up with urology to remove catheter in office. Observation on 06/05/23 at 1:51 P.M., Resident #30 was observed sitting in the hallways with other residents. Resident #30's drainage bag was not covered and draining urine into the bag which was clearly visible to others. Interview on 06/05/23 at 1:53 P.M., LPN #681 verified the drainage bag was not covered. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 12/22/19. Diagnoses included retention of urine and presence of urogenital implants. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/14/23, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Resident #35 required an indwelling catheter. Review of the plan of care dated 06/18/21 revealed the resident had a suprapubic catheter related to flaccid neurogenic bladder. Interventions included to maintain foley catheter to straight drain, check placement and function every shift, and keep urinary drainage bag covered. Review of physician order dated 08/31/21 revealed staff were to check placement and function every shift and keep urinary drainage bag covered. Observations on 06/05/23 at 9:30 A.M., Resident #35 was observed sitting in the hallway with another resident. Resident #35's catheter bag was not covered and draining urine into the bag which was clearly visible to others. Interview on 06/05/23 at 10:19 A.M., State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #645 verified the drainage bag was not covered. 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #237 revealed an admission date of 09/01/16. Diagnoses included calculus of bile duct with acute cholecystitis with obstruction. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 04/06/23, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of physician order dated 05/24/23 revealed staff were to empty cholecystostomy bag and record milliliters every shift. Observation on 06/05/23 at 10:22 A.M., Resident #237 was observed sitting at the table in the dining room with other residents. Resident #237's cholecystostomy bag was not covered and draining gallbladder bile into the bag which was clearly visible to others. Interview on 06/05/23 at 10:23 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #681 verified the drainage bag was not covered. 4. Review of medical record for Resident #440 revealed an admission date of 04/07/23. Diagnoses included acute cystitis without hematuria, dysphagia, adult failure to thrive, and urinary tract infection. Review of physician orders for Resident #440 revealed an order dated 05/23/23 to maintain urinary catheter to straight drain, keep urinary catheter below the level of the bladder, check placement and function every shift, monitor for any kinks in the tubing, and to keep the urinary drainage bag covered. Observation on 06/05/23 at 10:00 A.M. revealed Resident #440's urinary catheter drainage bag on the floor beside the bed with no privacy cover over the bag. Interview on 06/05/23 at 10:03 A.M. with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #656 confirmed Resident #440's urinary catheter drainage bag was on the floor and did not have a privacy cover. Review of a policy titled, Catheter care, Urinary, dated 2104, revealed limited direction for staff related to keeping drainage bags covered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on policy review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain all resident rooms in a clean and comfortable manner. This affected six residents (Resident #12, #21, #187, #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain all resident rooms in a clean and comfortable manner. This affected six residents (Resident #12, #21, #187, #27, 50, and Resident #10) of 24 residents reviewed for physical environment. The facility census was 94. Findings included: On 06/06/23 at 11:33 A.M. observations revealed discolored and dirty flooring in Residents #12 and #21's room, black marks on the room baseboards, water marks from a dark liquid, and orange food particles on the floor. On 06/06/23 at 11:37 A.M. observations revealed discolored and dirty flooring in Residents #187 and #27's room, black marks on the room baseboards, water marks, and a spilled plastic cup with red liquid in it spilling out onto the floor. On 06/06/23 at 11:40 A.M., observations revealed discolored and dirty flooring in Residents #50 and #10's room, black marks on the room baseboards, and scraps of paper on the floor. Observation of the 400 unit on 06/07/23 at 10:50 A.M. revealed all the same observations in the rooms belonging to Resident #10, #12, #21, #27, #50 and #187 indicating the rooms had still not been cleaned, with the exception of the plastic cup with the spilled red liquid in it on the floor of Resident #27 and #187's room was no longer on the floor. On 06/07/23 at 11:43 A.M. tour of the 400 hall was conducted with the Administrator who verified the rooms for Resident #10, #12, #21, #27, #50 and #187 had not been appropriately cleaned. The Administrator stated the facility was working on getting new flooring for the 400 unit in the near future. Review of Facility policy Quality of Life- Homelike Environment, dated 05/2017, revealed that The facility staff and management shall maximize, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting. These characteristics included a clean, sanitary, and orderly environment.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was staffed with sufficient, competent support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was staffed with sufficient, competent support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services for resident food production and service. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen except four residents (Resident #22, #73, #79 and Resident #80) who did not receive nutrition by mouth. The census was 94 residents. Findings include: Observations on 06/06/23 at 11:53 A.M. of the facility kitchen and puree food process revealed [NAME] #618 pureeing meatloaf and green beans. [NAME] #618 placed two large chunks of meatloaf into the food processor, then added approximately eight ounces of beef broth which [NAME] #618 did not measure prior to adding it to the meat. Observations of the pureed meatloaf at the end of the puree process revealed the meatloaf was watery and looked unpalatable. [NAME] #618 began adding an unmeasured amount of thickening powder three different times to thicken puree. Cook #618 moved on to pureeing the green beans. First, [NAME] #618 emptied the pot of green beans into the food processor and then added approximately four ounces of broth before pureeing the beans. The green bean puree was of a watery, soup-broth consistency that did not look palatable. [NAME] #618 began to add an unmeasured amount of the thickening powder three times to thicken the green beans. At the end of the puree process, the surveyor taste tested the pureed green beans which were bland in taste. The Dietary Director (DD) was involved at that point and took over seasoning the beans to allow the cook to continue prepping the tray line. After adding seasoning, pureeing and taste testing an additional three times, the beans were seasoned appropriately. Interview on 06/06/23 at 12:10 P.M., the DD stated he had been working hard to get the kitchen staff up to a competent skill level to provide better meals in a timely manner. DD stated he was not aware of [NAME] #618's skill level or training because the cook was already working when he started working. Observations on 06/07/23 at 11:55 A.M. of the lunch tray line revealed staff prepping lunch including spaghetti with meat sauce, mixed vegetables, and hamburgers. Observations of temperatures taken by [NAME] #618 revealed the spaghetti sauce was 106 degrees, the puree spaghetti and sauce were 109 degrees, and the hamburgers were 134 degrees. [NAME] #618 took no further action to heat the food to appropriate temperatures. The surveyor notified the DD of the low temperatures and DD directed [NAME] #618 to place those food items on the stove to bring up to appropriate temperature. Observations of [NAME] #618 plating food revealed the menu stated eight ounces of spaghetti and meat sauce. [NAME] #618 was plating four ounces of spaghetti until the DD was made aware due to the surveyor's observations. The DD directed [NAME] #618 to place two scoops of spaghetti on the plate. Observation and interview on 06/07/23 at 12:50 P.M. of a lunch meal test tray with the DD revealed the spaghetti was at a palatable temperature, however, the mixed vegetables were cold, mushy, and bland. During this observation, the DD tasted the food and verified the findings. Review of the personnel file for [NAME] #618 revealed a hire date of 12/15/22 for the position of Dietary Aide. Review of the facility documents in the file revealed a Dietary Aide Job Description/Competency/Evaluation for both annual and probationary reviews. There was no completed 90-day evaluation. Review of the Dietary Aide/Cook Orientation Checklist, dated 12/15/22, revealed [NAME] #618 received education on food safety but had not received training in food/culinary services before being hired as a dietary aide. Interview on 6/07/23 at 4:00 P.M., Dietitian #801 stated she had been working with the facility for two weeks and recognized the education needed for kitchen staff. The Dietitian stated she was in the facility 12 hours a week and would be working with the DD to get the kitchen staff trained appropriately. Interview on 06/07/23 at 4:09 P.M., the Administrator stated the DD was responsible for training all kitchen staff. The Administrator stated the facility had four dietary managers in 2023. Review of the 90-day evaluation for [NAME] #618 revealed the evaluation was completed for overall kitchen staff performance, not evaluating the cook's actual performance or skill competency. The Administrator stated [NAME] #618 was hired to cross train as both a cook and dietary aide since 12/15/22.
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to dispose of garbage/refuse appropriately. This had the potential to affect all 94 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to dispose of garbage/refuse appropriately. This had the potential to affect all 94 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. Findings include: Observation was conducted on 06/05/23 at 9:08 A.M. with the Dietary Director (DD) of the kitchen's outside dumpster. Surrounding the dumpster was debris including dirty latex gloves, plastic bottles and bags and cardboard boxes. Interview during the observations, the Dietary Director verified the observations and stated he was still educating the staff on proper disposal of garbage.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview, the facility failed to check all employees against the State Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to or on their first day of wor...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview, the facility failed to check all employees against the State Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) prior to or on their first day of work/hire to ensure the employee did not have a finding entered in the NAR concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property as required. This had the potential to affect all 94 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the personnel file for the Administrator revealed a hire date of 06/28/21. The printed evidence of the Administrator being checked against the NAR was not completed until 05/23/22. Review of the personnel file for Activity Assistant (AA) #695 revealed a hire date of 08/04/21. The printed evidence of AA #695 being checked against the NAR was not completed until 06/08/23. Review of the personnel file for Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) #646 revealed a hire date of 12/08/21. The printed evidence of COTA #646 being checked against the NAR had no date of completion. It was unknown whether the NAR check was completed prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Review of the personnel file for Activity Director (AD) #613 revealed a hire date of 10/26/21. The printed evidence of AD #613 being checked against the NAR had no date of completion. It was unknown whether the NAR check was completed prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Review of the personnel file for State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #653 revealed a hire date of 05/04/22. The printed evidence of STNA #653 being checked against the NAR was not completed until 05/11/22. Review of the personnel file for Dietary [NAME] (DC) #630 revealed a hire date of 05/05/23. The printed evidence of DC #630 being checked against the NAR had no date of completion. It was unknown whether the NAR check was completed prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Review of the personnel file for Dietary Aide (DA) #682 revealed a hire date of 01/19/23. The printed evidence of DA #682 being checked against the NAR had no date of completion. It was unknown whether the NAR check was completed prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Review of the personnel file for Dietary Manager (DM) #661 revealed a hire date of 04/14/23. The printed evidence of DM #661 being checked against the NAR had no date of completion. It was unknown whether the NAR check was completed prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Review of the personnel file for STNA #625 revealed a hire date of 05/16/23. The printed evidence of STNA #625 being checked against the NAR had no date of completion. It was unknown whether the NAR check was completed prior to or on the first day of work/hire. Interview on 06/08/23 at 11:14 A.M. with the Administrator verified NAR checks for AA #695, STNA #653 and Administrator were not completed prior to or on the first date of hire. Administrator confirmed the NAR checks completed for DA #682, STNA #625, DC #630, COTA #646, DM #661 and AD #613 had no date of completion and there was no evidence the NAR checks were completed prior to or on the first date of hire. Review of the facility policy titled, Freedom from Abuse Neglect and Exploitation, revised October 2022, revealed to prohibit abuse, neglect, and exploitation of resident property the screening of potential employees would include checking with appropriate licensing boards and registries.
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #67's care plan was revised to reflect increased behaviors. This affected one resident (#67) of three residents reviewed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #67's care plan was revised to reflect increased behaviors. This affected one resident (#67) of three residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 89. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #67 revealed an admission date of 02/02/23. Diagnoses included non-pressure chronic ulcer of right heel and midfoot with unspecified severity, type two diabetes without complications, personality disorder, opioid dependence, chronic kidney disease stage three, insomnia and venous/arterial ulcers. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/16/23, revealed Resident #67 was cognitively intact, had 12 to 14 days of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless during assessment reference period, required no set up or assistance with bed mobility, walk in room, or eating, required one-person physical assist for transfers, locomotion on and off unit, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene, and had two venous/arterial ulcers. Review of the Resident #67's progress notes dated from 02/22/23 to 05/16/23 revealed on 03/29/23 Resident #67 yelled at staff and called them obscenities, on 04/11/23 refused to see the wound doctor, on 04/14/23 called the nurse an obscenity and stuck his middle finger up in front of the nurse and the physician who were sitting at the nurses station, was blasting music in the courtyard, hallway and room and would not turn it down when asked by staff to turn it down, and was making vulgar, sexually inappropriate comments to female staff members, On 04/28/23 was coming out of therapy and gave a staff member the middle finger while wheeling self-backwards down hallway, on 05/01/23 refused to see the psychiatrist, on 05/09/23 was making inappropriate sexual comments about a male nursing assistant's mother and told staff he didn't need anyone to tell him what he can and can't say, and on 05/14/23 used inappropriate language and comments to a nurse and staff members. Record review of Resident #67's care plan, dated 02/27/23, revealed a focus regarding Resident #67 had the potential to be verbally aggressive related to ineffective coping skills, mental/emotional illness and poor impulse control. The goals were for Resident #67 to verbalize understanding of the need to control verbally abusive behaviors and demonstrate effective coping skills through the review date of 06/10/23. The interventions included to give medications as ordered, analyze what triggers and deescalates behaviors and document, assess and anticipate residents needs, triggers, understanding of the situation and coping skills, provide positive feedback for good behavior and consult psychiatric services as needed. Further review of Resident #67's care plan revealed it had not been updated to reflect the recent increase in verbal and physical behaviors such as giving the middle finger, verbal obscenities and sexually inappropriate comments toward staff as indicated from 02/22/23 to 05/16/23 in the progress notes. Interview on 05/16/23 at 1:20 P.M. with RN #349 revealed behaviors should be care planned, confirmed Resident #67's behaviors were not care planned, and explained there was no reason why the care plan had not been updated. Interview on 05/16/23 at 1:27 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #67's care plan should have been revised to address the increased behaviors and stated the facility had hired someone to help with care plans. Review of facility policy Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016, revealed care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' condition change. This deficiency resulted from incidental findings during the investigation of Complaint Number OH00142850.
May 2021 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident's hearing aides were replaced timely. This affected one (Resident #73) of one resident reviewed for missi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident's hearing aides were replaced timely. This affected one (Resident #73) of one resident reviewed for missing hearing aides. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #73's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/31/19 and diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, dementia, and schizophrenia. Review of Resident #73's Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment revealed resident had severe cognitive impairment and needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, locomotion, and activities of daily living. Interview on 05/04/21 at 2:35 P.M. of Family Member (FM) #606 revealed Resident #73's hearing aides were lost two years ago and had not been replaced. Interview on 05/11/21 at 12:12 P.M. with Business Office Manager/Social Worker Delegate (BOM/SWD) #512 revealed the facility Social Worker resigned in October 2020 and she was the Social Worker Delegate. BOM/SWD #512 stated in January 2021 she was looking over resident paperwork and noticed there was an open file for Resident #73's hearing aides. BOM/SWD #512 investigated why the hearing aides had not been replaced and saw the physician never signed off on the order. BOM/SWD #512 had the physician sign the order and ordered the hearing aides on 01/13/21. BOM/SWD #512 said Resident #73 received his hearing aides in April 2021. BOM/SWD #512 said Resident #73 was very hard of hearing and needed the hearing aides for communication with the staff. BOM/SWD #512 said she had no idea why it took two years for the hearing aides to be replaced. Observation and interview on 05/11/21 at 12:30 P.M. of Resident #73 revealed the resident was laying in bed with the head of the bed elevated watching television. BOM/SWD #512 asked Resident #73 if he was wearing his hearing aides. Resident #73 could not hear the question and BOM/SWD #512 spoke very loudly and asked Resident #73 where his hearing aides were located. Observation revealed the hearing aides were in a case on the bedside table. Resident #73 said he would like to have his hearing aides put in his ears. BOM/SWD #512 asked STNA #541 to assist Resident #73 to put the hearing aides in his ears. Review of Resident #73's Certificate of Medical Necessity for Hearing Aids revealed a hearing test was performed on 09/22/20 and Resident #73 had severe hearing loss making communication difficult. Review of Resident #73's Audiology Visit on 04/19/21 at 11:10 A.M. revealed reason for visit was hearing aid fitting. Facility staff would assist with insertion and removal of hearing aides. Resident #73 was fitted with the hearing aides and wanted to wear them while laying in bed. Facility nursing staff were informed Resident #73 was wearing his hearing aides and given the case and accessories. Review of Resident #73 medical record revealed a physician order written 02/04/19, may have Dental, Audiology, Podiatry, Optometry, ENT, and Psychological evaluations and treatment as indicated, with resident, family, and responsible party consent. Review of Resident #73 care plan dated 04/04/19, 08/30/19, and 09/03/19 revealed the resident had a communication problem related to hearing deficit and wore a hearing aid but it was currently misplaced. An intervention dated 02/13/19 revealed to refer to Audiology for hearing consult as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a nutritional progress note was completed and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a nutritional progress note was completed and interventions implemented after one resident had a recurring Stage II pressure ulcer found on the right buttock. This affected one (Resident #4) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care and services. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/06/19 and diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, protein calorie malnutrition, and functional quadriplegia. Review of Resident #4's Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated , 04/28/21 revealed the resident's cognitive status was not assessed, and the resident had total dependence for bed mobility, transfers, and activities of daily living. Resident #4 was transported to the hospital on [DATE] for evaluation of a pressure ulcer. Review of the pressure ulcer risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 was at high risk for the development of pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #4's nursing progress notes written on 10/30/20 revealed an open area was found on the resident's coccyx measuring 2.0 centimeters (cm) x 1.0 cm.; cleanse area with normal saline, apply calcium alginate, cover with foam, and notify the wound nurse. Review of Resident #4's Weekly Wound Report dated 11/04/20 revealed a Stage II pressure ulcer was found on the resident's right buttock on 10/30/20 and measured 1.3 cm (length) x 1.4 cm (width) x 0.2 cm (depth). Review of Resident #4's Weekly Wound Report dated 11/17/20 revealed a Stage III pressure ulcer was found on her right buttock measuring 2.1 cm x 1.1 cm x 0.2 cm. Review of Resident #4's Weekly Wound Report dated 01/05/21 revealed a Stage III pressure ulcer on her right buttock measuring 3.1 cm x 6.6 cm x 0.9 cm. The documentation stated the wound had declined. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed on 10/19/20 a Quarterly Nutrition Assessment was done, but no further nutrition progress notes or assessments were documented until a Comprehensive Nutrition Assessment was completed on 01/18/21. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed from 11/07/20 (weight: 147.8 pounds) through 12/27/20 (weight: 134.6 pounds) Resident #4 experienced an unplanned severe weight loss of 8.93 percent. Review of Resident #4's Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) drawn on 12/22/20 revealed a low albumin blood level of 2.7 grams/deciliter (g/dL) (normal values: 3.5 g/dL to 5.5 dL). Review of Medscape information titled Albumin (updated 04/10/20) included the albumin test measured the amount of albumin in the clear liquid portion of the blood, and conditions associated with low levels of albumin included malnutrition. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed a physician order on 09/18/20 for Mighty Shakes to be given two times a day for nutritional supplement. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed a physician order on 09/19/20 for Ensure, eight ounces to be given one time a day for nutritional supplement. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed unclear documentation when the right buttock pressure ulcer first occurred and was healed, before a recurring pressure ulcer was found on the right buttock on 10/30/21. On 05/11/21 at 11:58 A.M. interview with Licensed Practical Nurse/Wound Nurse (LPN/WN) #566 and Wound Physician (WP) #605 revealed Resident #4 had a recurring pressure ulcer on her right buttock, was a functional quadriplegic, and had a nutrition deficiency along with other problems. WP #605 was unable to provide the date when the right buttock pressure ulcer first occurred or the date it was healed before it recurred on 10/30/21. WP #605 said Resident #4 had an albumin of 2.7 g/dL in December 2020 and confirmed the resident was ordered Mighty Shakes and Ensure in September 2020, and no further nutritional supplements had been ordered through January 2021 when Resident #4 was evaluated for and had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG) placed in the hospital on [DATE] for tube feeding. On 05/11/21 at 2:54 P.M. interview of Registered Dietitian (RD) #604 confirmed Resident #4 had a nutritional assessment completed on 10/19/20 and there was no progress note addressing the pressure ulcer on Resident #4's right buttock found on 10/30/20. RD #604 said there should have been a nutritional progress note after the pressure ulcer was found on 10/30/20. Review of Resident #4's care, initiated 12/11/19 and revised 05/06/21, included Resident #4 had nutritional problems or potential for nutritional problems related to malnutrition, total dependence for eating and for severe cognitive impairment. Resident #4 had a PEG tube as well as continuing to receive a diet by mouth. Interventions dated 12/11/19 included Registered Dietitian to evaluate and make diet change recommendations as needed. This deficiency substantiates Master Complaint Number OH00122257.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility failed to ensure all nurses were trained regarding ventilator care and related documentation. This had the potential to affect one (Residents #59) of three residents reviewed for ventilat...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility failed to ensure all nurses were trained regarding ventilator care and related documentation. This had the potential to affect one (Residents #59) of three residents reviewed for ventilator care. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: Interview on 05/10/21 at 10:56 A.M. of Respiratory Therapist (RT) #506 revealed he was the Respiratory Therapist for four facilities. This facility was the only one of the four that accommodated residents requiring mechanical ventilation, but the other facilities had residents who required BiPap (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) (non-invasive form of therapy for patients suffering from sleep apnea, and delivered pressurized air through a mask to the patient's airways). RT #506 said he provided an inservice on mechanical ventilation for nurses when they were hired by the facility. The Administrator would let him know a nurse was hired and needed an inservice. RT #506 said after the initial training on mechanical ventilation no additional inservices were conducted because there was only one Respiratory Therapist for four facilities and he did not have time. RT #506 said the initial training did not include BiPap training. RT #506 said he would make the time if a nurse told him they were not comfortable with mechanical ventilation or BiPap and educate them in the area they were uncomfortable. RT #506 said he wished he had more time for education because many nurses were not comfortable with mechanical ventilation and BiPap, and relied on the Respiratory Therapist to take care of everything. RT #506 said he was not in the facility 24 hours a day and it was a problem when he was absent. RT #506 said some nurses do not know how to properly set up a BiPap, suction residents, and don't know the difference between the different treatments. RT #506 said he worked Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. and would come in to the facility as needed during his off hours. RT #506 stated he was off work since 04/14/21, and RT #609 covered for him while he was off work. RT #506 said a Respiratory Therapist was hired at the end of April and would be working 25 hours a week. Interview and review of education titled Agency and Staff Nursing Check-list for Ventilator Care at Oasis Center for Rehab and Healing on 05/10/21 at 11:15 A.M of RT #506 revealed facility nurses and agency nurses were educated regarding mechanical ventilation. RT #506 said there was nothing written in the education about ventilator malfunction, or using an ambu bag but he went over it verbally when he did the in-service. RT #506 said he educated all the nurses and agency nurses. Review on 05/10/21 of the education titled Agency and Staff Nursing Check-list for Ventilator Care at Oasis Center for Rehab and Healing competencies sign-off sheets did not reveal documentation all the nurses and agency nurses had been in-serviced on mechanical ventilation. Interview on 05/11/21 at 2:42 P.M. with Corporate Operation Staff Person #609 confirmed there was no documentation all nurses who worked in the facility were educated and trained on mechanical ventilation. Interview on 05/10/21 at 1:26 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #524 revealed she was educated by RT #506 on mechanical ventilation and was comfortable taking care of residents. LPN #524 said she checked settings displayed on the ventilator and would document them in the medical record but the numbers were usually really close to the previous numbers documented and she would copy the same numbers the other nurses recorded in the electronic record. LPN #524 stated other nurses did the same thing. Interview on 05/10/21 at 2:00 P.M. with LPN #522 revealed she was educated by RT #506 on mechanical ventilation and was comfortable taking care of the residents. LPN #524 said she checked the settings displayed on the ventilators to make sure they matched what was in the resident record, but did not record them in the electronic record because that was the Respiratory Therapists responsiblility. LPN #524 said she would mark an NA (not applicable) in the electronic record. Review of Resident #59's electronic record revealed on 05/03/21, 05/04/21, and 05/05/21 revealed the same ventilator settings were recorded for each day. Review of Resident #59's electronic record on 05/07/21, 05/08/21, and 05/09/21 revealed NA was marked for each of the ventilator settings. Review of Resident #59's electronic record did not reveal a Ventilator Shift Assessment form was documented from 05/01/21 through 05/10/21. Interview on 05/10/21 at 2:10 P.M. of RT #506 revealed the displayed ventilator settings constantly changed and did not stay the same. RT #506 said the nurses should be documenting what the settings actually were when they checked the ventilators. Interview on 05/10/21 at 2:20 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the nurses should be documenting the settings displayed on the ventilators when they checked them. The DON said there was a flow sheet for the settings the nurses could take in the room to record the settings and they were not using it, but he would make sure going forward the flow sheet would be used for documentation. The DON further stated there was a Ventilator Shift Assessment form that was not being used. The DON said he would educate the staff on the importance of using the flow sheet and the Ventilator Shift Assessment form.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain its dumpster area in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 89 facility residents. Findings includ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain its dumpster area in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 89 facility residents. Findings include: Observation of the facility's dumpster area on 05/03/21 at 9:31 A.M. revealed one of the two dumpster lids was not closed. Debris including used disposable gloves, boxes, and other garbage was observed on the ground around the bins. Interview on 05/03/21 at 9:31 A.M. with Dietary Manager #553 verified the findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate incontinence care was provided in a manner to prevent cross contamination and infection. This affected one...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate incontinence care was provided in a manner to prevent cross contamination and infection. This affected one (Resident #63) of one resident reviewed for incontinence care. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #63's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/26/21 and diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia. Review of Resident #63's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 05/05/21 revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and activities of daily living. Observation on 5/05/21 at 12:38 P.M. of State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #502 walking into Resident #63's room to provide incontinence care. She gathered disposable gloves, disposable cleansing wipes, and a clean incontinence brief. The resident had a urinary catheter attached to a drainage bag which was observed as STNA #502 turned Resident #63 on his left side. STNA #502 did not prepare an area to place dirty supplies and linens before starting the perineal care. STNA #502 unfastened the incontinence brief, pulled it down and proceeded to clean Resident #63's rectal area and buttocks. After each cleansing wipe became soiled STNA #502 placed it on the soiled incontinence brief. There was no barrier under the incontinence brief and some bowel movement material soiled the draw sheet and the bed sheet. STNA #502 took the soiled incontinence brief with the soiled cleansing wipes and placed it on the bed while putting a clean incontinence brief on Resident #63. STNA #502 rolled the soiled draw sheet under Resident #63, and had him turn on his right side and she pulled the draw sheet off the bed. Resident #63 proceeded to have another bowel movement. STNA #502 walked to the resident's cupboard and without changing the gloves she used to clean the bowel movement took a clean incontinence brief and sheet out of the cupboard, walked into the bathroom and brought more cleansing wipes and peri-wash and placed them on the bed. STNA #502 sprayed peri-wash on the disposable wipes, pulled the incontinence brief down and began cleaning bowel movement from Resident #63's rectal area and buttocks. STNA #502 again placed the soiled cleansing wipes on the incontinence brief without a barrier between the soiled incontinence brief and the sheet. When STNA #502 was finished cleaning Resident #63 she put a clean incontinence brief on him, took the soiled incontinence briefs and disposed of them in the bathroom trash can, came back to the bed and changed the sheet. STNA #502 threw the soiled sheet and draw sheet on the floor, picked them up when she was finished, took them into the hall, and placed them in a laundry hamper. STNA #502 came back in the room, took the gloves off she used for perineal care, did not wash her hands or use hand sanitizer, and assisted Resident #63 with his meal set-up. There was no incontinence care provided to Resident #63's penis, catheter, or scrotum. Interview on 05/05/21 at 1:00 P.M. of STNA #502 revealed STNA #502 confirmed she did not perform perineal care for Resident #63's penis, catheter, inner thighs, or scrotum. STNA #502 said the catheter looked clean and she did not think it needed care. STNA #502 confirmed she did not use hand sanitizer or wash her hands before touching Resident #63's meal tray. STNA #502 confirmed she did not prepare an area to place dirty incontinence care items before she started the perineal care and as a result bowel movement material got on the draw sheet and bed sheet and both had to be changed. Review of Resident #63's care plan, dated 02/26/21, revealed it included the resident having an indwelling catheter, and the resident will show no signs and symptoms of urinary infection through the review date. Review of the facility policy titled Perineal Care (revised 10/2010) revealed it included the purpose of this procedure was to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition. For a male resident with an indwelling catheter, gently wash the juncture of the tubing from the urethra down the catheter about three inches. Gently rinse and dry the area. Continue to wash the perineal area including the penis, scrotum, and inner thighs. Thoroughly rinse the perineal area in the same order, using fresh water and a clean wash cloth. Gently dry the perineum using the same sequence. Instruct the resident to turn on his side and wash and rinse the rectal area thoroughly, including the area under the scrotum, the anus, and the buttocks. Dry area thoroughly. Make the resident comfortable when finished. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. This deficiency substantiates Master Complaint Number OH00122257.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon resident council's concern regarding the provision of snacks. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon resident council's concern regarding the provision of snacks. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61, #79, #80, #81, and #83) residents, and had the potential to affect all 87 residents who received food from the facility (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: The Resident Council minutes from 02/22/21 revealed Resident #47 had stated the only options for snacks were tea, milk, juice, and chips. The resident wanted to have sandwiches and cookies available in addition to what was offered. The Plan of Correction from Dietary did not address snacks. The Resident Council meeting minutes from 03/22/21 revealed Residents #11, #51, #79, #80, and #81 agreed the residents were not receiving snacks in the evening except maybe once a week; and when snacks were passed there was not enough to go around. When the residents asked for a snack or something extra with dinner or an alternate for dinner, they were told the kitchen was closed, there was nothing in the kitchen, or the State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNAs) couldn't get anything from the kitchen. One resident stated people were going to bed hungry due to not having food that was appealing to eat and not having evening snacks. The Plan of Correction received from Dietary revealed snacks were prepared by kitchen and left in cooler for staff to reduce waste cost. The staff needed to collect the food from the coolers and deliver it to the residents. On 05/05/21 at 4:00 P.M. a Resident Council Meeting was held by the surveyors. The meeting was attended by Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #51, #61, #79, and #83. All the residents laughed when they were asked if they got a snack in the evening. They revealed snacks were rarely received. Resident #51, a diabetic, revealed she was to have an evening snack with three carbohydrate servings. The resident received a bedtime snack three out of seven days and then it was incorrect. Interview on 05/06/2021 at 2:33 P.M. with LPN #522 revealed she worked both shifts in the facility and evening snacks were routinely not sent by the dietary department. LPN #522 added she and her nursing staff had to go into the kitchen and make sandwiches, grab cottage cheese and fruit cups and other snack items so the residents had snacks to eat at night. She explained dietary might send snack trays once or twice a week but when they did, they did not send out enough for all the residents who wanted a snack. Interview on 05/12/21 at 10:21 A.M. with the administrator revealed the process for resident council was for Activities Director #525 to present at morning meeting the day after each meeting. The department head was responsible for responding. Snacks had been identified as an issue. Review of the Snacks (Between Meal and Bedtime) Serving policy, dated 09/2010, revealed that snacks were to be prepared per resident's care plan and needs. Review of the Resident Food Preferences policy, dated 11/2015, revealed the Food Service department was to offer a variety of foods at each scheduled meal, as well as access to foods throughout the day and night.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. Interviews on 05/05/21 at 4:00 P.M. of Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #51, #61, #79, #80, #82, and #83 during the Resident Council Meeting revealed the washing machine and dryer kept breaking d...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Interviews on 05/05/21 at 4:00 P.M. of Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #51, #61, #79, #80, #82, and #83 during the Resident Council Meeting revealed the washing machine and dryer kept breaking down during the last couple months and the clothes were not getting washed and dried timely. Resident #79 said the laundry aide told him this morning the laundry was backed up and she was unable to keep up with it. Resident #79 further stated there were not enough staff assigned to do the laundry, and the residents were wearing dirty clothes. Resident #51 said only three pairs of her underwear were returned from the laundry and she washed her own underwear so she could have clean undergarments to put on. Observation and interview on 5/05/21 at 4:51 PM with Administrator #552 revealed two large laundry room bins on wheels were heaped full of dirty clothes, two large bins on wheels were three quarters full, and one large bin on wheels was half full. Administrator #552 said one washer and one dryer were down and had been fixed approximately a week ago. Administrator #552 did not know if this was normal amount of dirty clothes that needed washed on a daily basis. Observation of large bins on wheels in the clean laundry area revealed clothes in the bins that needed folded and put away. Observation on 05/06/21 at 7:40 A.M. of the laundry room revealed two washing machines that were full of clothes,running, and were mid-cycle. There were two large laundry bins on wheels piled high with dirty clothing; two large bins on wheels were three quarters full of dirty clothes; and one bin that was half full of dirty clothes. Two large trash cans on wheels used for laundry were observed full of dirty clothes. On 05/06/21 from 7:48 A.M. through 8:18 A.M. obsevation of the laundry area and interview with Laundry Aide (LA) #572 revealed there were two laundry aides and they rotated days worked. LA #572 said most of the time there was only one laundry aide from 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. per day. LA #572 stated no other facility staff helped with laundry. LA #572 said residents complain they don't get their clothes back from laundry; she tried her best, but she was one person and could only do so many clothes in a day especially when the washing machine or dryer broke down. LA #572 said the washing machine and dryer break down at least once or twice a month and need to be fixed. Observation of two large trash cans on wheels in the clean laundry area revealed they were full of clothes and covered with a sheet. LA #572 said the clothes were washed the day before and needed dried. Interview on 05/06/21 at 8:21 A.M. of State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #608 revealed residents told her they did not get their clothes back timely from the laundry department, including undergarments. Interview on 05/06/21 at 11:00 A.M. of Maintenance Director (MD) #527 revealed the washing machine and dryer needed to be repaired in March 2021 and April 2021. He could not remember how many times in the months prior to March and April the machines needed repaired. MD #527 said one washing machine and one dryer were very old and often needed repairs. Interview on 05/06/21 at 11:43 A.M. of Registered Nurse (RN) #501 and State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #607 revealed residents told them their clothes were not washed and returned from the laundry area, including undergarments. RN #501 said the washing machine and dryer break frequently and the clothes get backed up when that happens. RN #501 said there was only one laundry aide and when the washing machine or dryer breaks they cannot catch up with the laundry with only one washer or dryer, and no other staff member did the laundry. RN #501 and STNA #607 said it seemed like every time they came to work either the washer or dryer was broken. Interview on 05/12/21 at 1:00 P.M. of MD #527 and review of the facility repair records for the washing machine and dryer revealed a call was placed to the repair company on 04/21/21 and the repairs to the washing machine were completed on 04/23/21. A call was placed to the repair company on 03/29/21 for the dryer and the repairs were completed on 04/08/21. Another call was placed to the repair company on 04/12/21 and the repairs were completed 04/14/21. MD #527 confirmed the dryer was not working from 03/29/21 through 04/08/21 and from 04/12/21 through 04/14/21. MD #527 further stated a new washing machine was purchased 03/31/21 and the chemicals for the new washing machine needed adjusted and the washing machine was not working at that time. MD #527 was unable to provide records for the washing machine chemical adjustment or the dates the washing machine was not in operation. Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility did not ensure adequate cleaning of the resident rooms or common areas. The facility also failed to ensure laundry was washed and dried in a timely manner. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61, #79, #80, #82, and #83) of 24 residents reviewed for their living environment. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: 1. Record review of the Resident Council Minutes dated 02/22/2021, 03/22/2021, and 04/26/2021 revealed there were pervasive complaints regarding trash not being emptied sometimes for days; housekeepers not cleaning under beds and tables and not dusting nightstands or dressers; and mopping of the rooms only occurred once a week if at all. Resident #79 complained and Resident # 51 agreed the trash and linen containers were frequently full, and the lids were either off or falling off making the 400 hallway stink. An initial observation was conducted on 05/03/2021 from 9:40 A.M. to 10:11 A.M. of the 400 unit and general facility environment. The 400 unit was the largest unit in the facility. It appeared the unit had not been cleaned yet as there were random, various size pieces of what looked like toilet paper and straw wrappers on the hallway floors. The resident bathrooms appeared to be reasonably cleaned yet several rooms had trash cans that were not emptied and floors in need of sweeping and mopping. Observation on 05/04/2021 at 12:14 P.M. of the rooms of Residents #47 and #51 revealed both of the trash cans in their rooms were overflowing with garbage. Underneath the bed of Resident #51 was a build up of dirt and several pieces of paper, food wrappers, and other objects. Underneath the bed of Resident #47 was a build up of dirt and dried brown spots in an irregular pattern. Residents #47 and #51 both complained the trash was usually not emptied on the weekends and housekeeping almost never swept nor mopped under the beds. Both residents said housekeeping had not been in their room yet and sometimes they may not come in to clean at all, and the nursing staff have to empty the trash. Interview on 05/04/2021 at 1:46 P.M. with Resident #79 revealed the trash does not ,get emptied on weekends stinking up the rooms and halls on the 400 unit. He said he complained numerous times but it was still a problem. Interview was conducted on 05/05/2021 at 10:22 A.M. with Housekeeper #528 who said he was the housekeeper responsible for the 400 unit and he took great pride in his work. Interview was conducted on 05/06/2021 at 2:33 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #522, who said the trash was not emptied on weekends unless the nurses and aides do it, the housekeepers do not sweep before they mop, and when they do mop they do not get under the beds. Interview was conducted on 05/11/2021 at 12:05 P.M. with Housekeeper #555 who said on weekends there were only two housekeepers scheduled for the entire facility and approximately 80 percent of the cleaning gets done. He said during the week there were three to four housekeepers which made it easier to get the floors swept and mopped. Observation and interview was conducted on 05/12/2021 at 10:31 A.M. with the Administrator in the room of Resident #47 and #51. Underneath the bed of Resident #51 remained a build up of dirt and several pieces of paper, food wrappers, and other objects as seen by the surveyor on 05/04/2021. The Administrator verified the observation and said Housekeeper #528 usually serviced that unit and she believed he was having some problems with his vision and maybe could not see under the beds. The Administrator said her expectations was the housekeepers would clean under the bed and empty trash daily and they did have a cleaning checklist to follow if they needed it.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident #59's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/25/21 and diagnoses including sepsis, chronic respir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident #59's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/25/21 and diagnoses including sepsis, chronic respiratory failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Resident #59's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment revealed the resident's cognitive status was not assessed and he was total dependence for mobility, transfers, and activities of daily living. Resident #59 required mechanical ventilation. Review of Resident #59's physician orders revealed an order on 04/16/21 for mechanical ventilation; ventilator settings: mode: assist control, volume targeted (every bedtime, rest), rate: 14 breaths per minute, tidal volume (amount of air that moves in and out of lungs with each respiratory cycle) 420 milliliters, Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) (pressure in lungs at the end of expiration), plus five, oxygen 4 liters, mode: pressure support ventilation, 12 centimeters water (every day, weaning), PEEP, plus five, oxygen 4 liters; and ensure cuff is inflated to appropriate pressure (no more than 10 cubic centimeters (cc). Review of Resident #59's physician orders revealed an order on 04/16/21 for continuous pulse oximetry every four hours for management of oxygenation status and mechanical ventilation. Review of Resident #59's medical record revealed there was no evidence of a care plan including interventions for ventilator care or oxygen therapy. Interview on 5/11/21 at 3:56 PM with the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #59's medical record did not reveal a care plan including interventions for ventilator care or oxygen therapy. 4. Review of Resident #191's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/26/21 and diagnoses including wedge compression fracture T7-18, dysphagia, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #191's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 05/03/21, revealed moderate cognitive impairment and Resident #191 needed extensive assistance with activities of daily living. Review of Resident #191's physician orders revealed an order written on 04/27/21 for quentiapine fumarate (anti-psychotic) tablet 25 mg, give one tablet two times a day for depression. Review of Resident #191's physician orders revealed an order written on 05/08/21 for Elavil tablet (amitriptyline) 25 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for depression for seven days. Review of Resident #191's medical record revealed no evidence of a care plan including interventions for psychotropic medications. Interview on 5/12/21 at 2:31 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and and MDS Coordinator #538 confirmed Resident #191 did not have a care plan including interventions for psychotropic medications. The DON said the care plans were written by the unit managers, which was a recent change, and the unit managers were still getting used to the new role. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop care plans relative to ventilator care, dialysis care, and psychotropic drug use. This affected four (Residents #54, #59, #65, and #191) of ten residents reviewed for ventilator and dialysis care needs, and unnecessary medications. The facility census was 89 residents. Finding include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #54 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), acute and chronic respiratory failure, colostomy status, tracheostomy status, gastrostomy status, and ventilator dependence. The Discharge Return Anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. The resident was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Record review revealed no ventilator care plan had been developed. The resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Interview on 05/11/21 at 3:37 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there was no ventilator care plan for Resident #54. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #65 revealed an admission date of 03/26/21 with diagnosis including stage five chronic renal failure and dependence on dialysis. Review of the 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. The resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of the physician orders for April 2021 revealed Resident #65 had an order for hemodialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday which started on 03/27/21. Record review revealed no dialysis care plan had been developed. Interview on 05/11/21 at 3:37 P.M. with the DON verified there was no dialysis care plan for Resident #65.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nutritional assessments were completed in a timely manner f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nutritional assessments were completed in a timely manner for five (Residents #9, #22, #30, #70, and #75 ) of 16 sampled residents. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: Record review revealed that Residents #9, #22, #30, #70 and #75, who were all identified in their care plans as being at nutritional risk, did not have a nutritional assessment or a dietary progress note in a reasonable time period. Resident #9 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] after a hospital stay for bloody vomit and a torn esophagus. His last Nutritional Assessment was dated 08/27/2020. Resident #22 had a significant change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] and his last nutritional assessment was 08/17/2020. This resident was care planned as at nutritional risk. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and care planned at nutritional risk. His last nutritional assessment was 11/30/2020 and there was no evidence of a dietary progress note since 08/30/2019. Resident #70 was at nutritional risk and her last nutritional assessment was 07/30/2020; there was no evidence of a dietary progress note since 05/15/2020. Resident #75 was at nutritional risk and her last nutritional assessment was 06/01/2020; there was no evidence of a dietary progress note since 04/05/2019. Interview was conducted on 05/05/2021 at 2:45 P.M. with Registered Dietitian (RD) #570 who revealed she had been the dietitian in the facility since June 2020 and worked 20 hours a week at the facility. She verified she was not up to date on nutritional assessments but did attend the plan of care meetings. Interview and record review was held on 05/06/2021 with the Corporate Operations Staff Person (COSP) #609, the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, and RD #570 who all verified RD #570 had not completed the nutrition assessements according to best practice nor in a timely manner. COSP #609 said they had identified the problem themselves the day prior and were bringing in another RD to review all in-house residents to ensure all nutritional assessments were done and up to date. Record review was conducted of the facility document titled Nutritional Assessment (dated September 2009). The policy stated a nutritional assessment will be conducted for each resident upon admission and as indicated by a change in condition that places the resident at risk for impaired nutrition.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and test tray evaluation, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared by methods to conserve nutritional value and palatablity. This affected 13 residents, includi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and test tray evaluation, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared by methods to conserve nutritional value and palatablity. This affected 13 residents, including 10 (Residents #4, #7, #16, #21, #22, #41, #71, #75, #76, and #193) of 10 residents who received a pureed diet, as well as Residents #27, #28, and #194. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: 1. On 05/04/2021 at 11:12 A.M., interview with Resident #28 revealed the hot food was usually served warm, not hot. He had asked for cucumber salad, carrot sticks and dip and other fresh fruits and fresh vegetables but had not received any of these items. He stated the food could be a lot better, as it often lacked flavor. Interview on 05/04/21 at 12:02 P.M. and on 05/06/21 at 9:19 A.M. with Resident #194 revealed the food was horrible. Things were overcooked, undercooked, or just looked bad. On 05/06/21 for breakfast his bacon wasn't cooked enough, and the cream of wheat was watery. Interview was conducted on 05/04/2021 at 12:05 P.M. with Resident #27 who said the food was terrible and when he asked for something specific it was not what he received. He would no longer eat chicken after he was sent a piece of baked chicken once that was raw inside. He would no longer eat fish because it was so overcooked that he could not eat it. The vegetables were either overcooked or undercooked; there was no consistency relative to the quality of the food. Resident #27 said the food had gotten worse lately because of staffing problems in the kitchen. 2. On 05/05/21 at 4:52 P.M., the surveyor observed the preparation of the pureed foods for meal service, and also sampled these foods for a food quality evaluation. Dietary [NAME] #559 prepared pureed brussels sprouts without using a recipe. The commercial food processor that is generally accepted as the equipment of choice used for processing good quality pureed foods was broken, so a lesser quality blender was used for pureed food preparation. Dietary [NAME] #559 put twelve 1/2 cup portions of brussels sprouts into blender. She then made a small pitcher of chicken broth by adding an unmeasured amount of very hot water to chicken broth paste. This broth was added to come to top of the brussels sprouts in the blender. The mixture was blended until smooth and an unmeasured amount of thickener was added in order to bring the texture of the pureed brussels sprouts to the correct pudding like consistency. The pureed brussels sprouts was smooth but tasted very diluted as there was too much broth added before adding thickener to the food product. Much less thickener would have been needed if the excess broth was not added. The pureed brussels sprouts therefore had a diluted nutritional value as well. Observation and sampling on 05/05/21 at 5:05 P.M. of the pureed meatloaf, which had already been prepared and was on the tray line to be served, revealed the meatloaf was not adequately pureed. When sampled, the meatloaf was not a smooth texture. The pureed meatloaf was watery, as well as tasting and looking diluted. Dietary [NAME] #559 and Dietary Manager (DM) #553 tasted the pureed meatloaf and verified the pureed meatloaf was not fully broken down or appropriately thickened. Dietary [NAME] #559 verified pureed food items were to be of smooth, even consistency and the texture and thickness of pudding. She did not usually sample the pureed foods for taste or texture. Interview on 05/05/21 at 5:12 P.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #553 verified the pureed meatloaf was not pureed appropriately or adequately thickened, and the pureed brussels sprouts were not pureed in a way that provided optimal nutritive value According to the faciilty list of residents and their diets, 10 residents (Residents #4, #7, #16, #21, #22, #41, #71, #75, #76, and #193) received purred foods prepared at the facility. 3. A test tray was requested on 05/06/21 at the lunch meal. The test tray was for a regular and a pureed diet. The test tray was assembled at 1:10 P.M., left the kitchen at 1:12 P.M. arrived on the 400 hall unit at 1:13 P.M. All the unit's trays were passed immediately by more than 5 people. At 1:16 P.M. the test tray was sampled by two surveyors, Dietary Manager (DM) #553, and Registered Dietitian/Licensed Dietitian (RD/LD) #570 after the last tray was served to residents on the 400 hall. The temperature of all the food was acceptable. However, the ham sandwich on the regular tray had been replaced by a bologna and cheese sandwich because the kitchen ran out of the ham. The sandwich consisted of two slices white bread with one slice of bologna and one slice of cheese. The Wedding Soup had one small meatball and did not have a lot of flavor. The pureed food was very bland. The pureed Wedding soup tasted like diluted spinach, with very little additional flavor/taste. The puree ham sandwich was very slightly pink, and the flavor was so diluted that it was difficult to identify what was being eaten. On 05/06/21 at 1:21 P.M. DM #554 and RD/LD #570 verified the pureed food was not very palatable.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and pureed food sampling, the facility failed to puree food to the correct consistency. This affected 10 (Residents #4, #7, #16, #21, #22, #41, #71, #75, #76, and #193...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and pureed food sampling, the facility failed to puree food to the correct consistency. This affected 10 (Residents #4, #7, #16, #21, #22, #41, #71, #75, #76, and #193) of 10 residents who received a pureed diet at the facility. The facilty census was 89 residents. Findings include: On 05/05/21 at 5:05 P.M., observation and tasting of the pureed meatloaf, which had already been prepared and was on the tray-line to be served, revealed the meatloaf was not adequately pureed. When sampled, the meatloaf was not a smooth texture, and was watery, diluted looking, and tasted diluted. Dietary [NAME] #559 and Dietary Manager (DM) #553 tasted the pureed meatloaf and verified it was not fully broken down or adequately thickened. Dietary [NAME] #559 verified the pureed food items were to be of smooth, even consistency and the texture and thickness of pudding. She did not usually sample the pureed foods for taste or texture. On 05/05/21 at 5:12 P.M., interview with Dietary Manager (DM) #553 verified the pureed meatloaf was not pureed adequately or thickened adequately.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Dietary Manager #553 met the minimum qualifications to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. This had the potential ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Dietary Manager #553 met the minimum qualifications to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. This had the potential to affect all 87 residents who received food prepared at facility (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: A review of Dietary Manager (DM) #553 personal file revealed a hire date of 6/24/19. There was no evidence DM #553 was a Certified Dietary Manager. Interview on 05/04/21 at 9:18 A.M. with DM #553 revealed he had worked at the facility for about 2 years. DM #553 had started Dietary Manager training but did not take all the module tests or the final test to become certified. Dietary Manager was not a certified dietary manager and did not have an associate degree or higher in food service management. There was also no evidence that he had any certification related to food service management. On 05/04/21 at 12:15 P.M. interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) #604 revealed she was not full time at the facility, and was scheduled at the facility for approximately twenty hours a week. On 05/06/21 interview with the administrator verified DM #553 was not a Certified Dietary Manager as required.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient kitchen staff were available to prepare resident meals and snacks, serve resident meals, and maintain a cle...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient kitchen staff were available to prepare resident meals and snacks, serve resident meals, and maintain a clean and sanitary environment in the kitchen. This affected all 87 residents who received meals prepared in the facility kitchen (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: 1. Initial tour of the kitchen on 05/03/21 from 9:18 A.M. to 9:39 A.M. revealed the following observations, which were confirmed by Dietary Manager (DM) #553 during the initial tour. : • The refrigerator floor was dirty and needed to be swept and mopped. • The freezer had ice buildup going into freezer and there were bags of ice were place directly on the floor. • The shelf above the stove had accumulated grease and dust. • The stovetop needed to be scrubbed. The oven was dirty, and the oven knobs needed to be cleaned. • There was a soiled serving spoon in the utensil drawer. • The can opener had an accumulation of dried food. • The floors and the lower area of the walls were dirty. Boxes and garbage was observed on the floor. • The door to exit the kitchen into the hallway was black around the doorhandle. • Food supplies/stock were not put away, juice nozzles were sticky with residue, • There were six outdated bags of hot dog buns and two loaves of outdated bread on the bread rack. Interview on 05/03/21 at 9:31 A.M. with DM #553 revealed the kitchen was understaffed. DM #554 was the morning cook that week; there used to be four dietary aides each meal, now there were two a meal; there wasn't enough staff on evenings and another dietary staff member had just quit that day. DM #554 reported management was aware and were trying to hire dietary staff. 2. Observation was conducted on 05/03/2021 from 12:59 P.M. to 1:41 P.M. of the lunch tray pass on the 400 unit. Interview with the Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner (CRNP) #700 on 05/03/2021 at 12:59 P.M. verified no lunch trays had been brought to the unit yet. Interview with LPN #524 on 05/03/2021 at 1:17 P.M. verified the lunch trays had not come to the unit yet and delivery time should have been 12:30 P.M. On 05/03/21 at 1:18 P.M. the first cart containing 20 lunch trays came to the unit and at 1:22 P.M. three staff were observed to start the tray pass. The second cart arrived at 1:30 P.M. which was verified by LPN #524. Residents #38 and #53 were out in the hallway asking for their lunch trays. Activities Employee (AE) #556 got both their trays for them at 1:35 P.M. The final tray was passed at 1:41 P.M. Interview was conducted on 05/04/2021 at 12:05 P.M. with Resident #27 who stated the food was terrible and when he asked for something specific it was not what he received at the meal. He would no longer eat chicken after he was sent a piece of baked chicken once that was raw inside. He would no longer eat fish because it was so overcooked, he could not eat it. The vegetables were either over cooked or undercooked. Resident #27 said the food has gotten worse lately because of staffing problems in the kitchen he has heard about. On 05/05/21 at 4:00 P.M., a Resident Council Meeting was held by the surveyor. The meeting was attended by Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #51, #61, #79, and #83. All the residents laughed when they were asked if they got a snack in the evening. They said they rarely received snacks. Interview on 05/06/2021 at 2:33 P.M. with LPN #522 revealed she worked both shifts in the facility and evening snacks were routinely not sent by the dietary department. LPN #522 added she and her nursing staff had to go into the kitchen and make sandwiches, and grab cottage cheese and fruit cups and other snack items so the residents had snacks to eat at night. She explained dietary might send snack trays once or twice a week but when they did, they did not send out enough for all the residents who wanted a snack. Review of the Dietary Schedule for the week of 05/03/21 through 05/06/21 revealed DM #553 was the morning cook, there was one other evening cook, four dietary aides scheduled 05/03/21 and only three dietary aides scheduled a day for the remainder of the week. The Resident Council meeting minutes from 03/22/21 revealed Residents #11, #51, #79, #80, and #81 agreed the residents were not receiving snacks in the evening except maybe once a week. And when snacks were passed there was not enough to go around. The Plan of Correction received from Dietary revealed snacks were prepared by kitchen and left in cooler for staff to reduce waste cost. The staff needed to collect the food from the coolers and deliver it to the residents.
CONCERN (F)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu and food choice alternates...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu and food choice alternates were available for residents to review in order to meet the resident's needs and food preferences. This affected one (Resident #194) of one resident reviewed for food choices and meal service, and had the potential to affect all 87 residents (Residents #31 and #58 received nothing by mouth) who received meals prepared at the facility. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: Resident #194 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including severe protein-calorie malnutrition, colostomy status, and malignant neoplasm of the rectum. The Medicare 5-day Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 04/08/21, revealed Resident #194 had intact cognition. The resident was independent for eating, bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, and personal hygiene. The resident was on a Regular diet with no restrictions. Interview on 05/04/21 at 12:02 P.M. with Resident #194 revealed residents did not get to ever choose from a menu. The residents didn't get a menu and weren't informed of what was going to be served. Resident #194 was unaware if there was an alternate menu of food items available for additional meal selections or substitutions. Interview on 05/04/21 at 9:18 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #553 revealed residents got a copy of the menus in their admission packet. When a resident was admitted the DM got food preferences and entered them into the dietary computer system. The preferences then print out on the resident's tray card (which is used in the kitchen to prepare the resident's meal tray). The DM verified menus were not passed to residents and a menu was not posted for residents or staff to review to assist them with food choices. Interview on 05/06/21 at 9:45 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #501 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #509 confirmed nursing never received a menu to let residents know what was being served. They did not get an updated one with a new menu cycle. They had no idea of what was served when. They had never seen an alternate menu and had never had a copy of an alternate menu available for residents. Interview on 05/06/21 at 11:35 A.M. with LPN #524 and LPN #566 revealed they did not remember seeing a resident menu or alternate selections. Interview on 05/06/21 at 11:35 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #604 revealed they had never seen menu or an alternate menu. STNA #604 revealed the STNAs usually went to the kitchen and ask what they have if a resident didn't want the meal served. There were usually hamburgers, cheeseburgers, or grilled cheese available. Interview on 05/11/21 at 10:12 A.M. with STNA #575 revealed there were no menus available to give to a resident and no menu posted. The STNAs went in the kitchen and asked what they were serving. The STNA revealed residents got a menu when the first got to the facility but it was usually not correct as to what was actually served. If a resident didn't want the meal served the STNAs went to the kitchen and asked what was available. Cheeseburgers, hamburgers, a ham and cheese sandwich, a grilled cheese sandwich, or a salad were usually available. There was always a dessert such as applesauce, Jell-O, or ice cream available.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon resident council's concerns regarding the provision of snacks. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon resident council's concerns regarding the provision of snacks. This affected 12 (Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #47, #51, #61, #79, #80, #81, and #83) residents who attended resident council meetings, and had the potential to affect all 87 residents who received food from the facility (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth). The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: The Resident Council minutes from 02/22/21 revealed Resident #47 had stated the only options for snacks were tea/milk/juice and chips. The resident wanted to have sandwiches and cookies available in addition to what was offered. The Plan of Correction from Dietary for this meeting did not address snacks. The Resident Council meeting minutes from 03/22/21 revealed Residents #11, #51, #79, #80, and #81 agreed the residents were not receiving snacks in the evening except maybe once a week. And when snacks were passed there was not enough to go around. When the residents asked for a snack or something extra with dinner or an alternate for dinner, they were told the kitchen was closed, there was nothing in the kitchen, or the State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNAs) couldn't get anything from the kitchen. One resident said people were going to bed hungry due to not having food that was appealing to eat and not having evening snacks. The Plan of Correction received from Dietary revealed snacks were prepared by kitchen and left in cooler for staff to reduce waste cost. The staff needed to collect the food from the coolers and deliver it to the residents. On 05/05/21 at 4:00 P.M. a Resident Council Meeting was held by the surveyors. The meeting was attended by Residents #11, #13, #25, #32, #38, #51, #61, #79, and #83. All the residents laughed when they were asked if they got a snack in the evening. They revealed snacks were rarely received. Resident #51, who was diabetic, revealed she was to have an evening snack with three carbohydrate servings. The resident received a bedtime snack three out of seven days, and then it was incorrect. On 05/06/2021 at 2:33 P.M., interview with LPN #522 revealed she worked both shifts in the facility and evening snacks were routinely not sent by the dietary department. LPN #522 added she and her nursing staff had to go into the kitchen and make sandwiches, and grab cottage cheese and fruit cups and other snack items so the residents had snacks to eat at night. She explained dietary might send snack trays once or twice a week but when they did, they did not send out enough for all the residents who wanted a snack. On 05/12/21 at 10:21 A.M., interview with the administrator revealed the process for resident council was for Activities Director #525 to present concerns at morning meeting the day after each meeting. The Department head was responsible for responding. Snacks had been identified as an issue. Review of the Snacks (Between Meal and Bedtime) Serving policy, dated 09/2010, revealed that snacks were to be prepared per resident's care plan and needs. Review of the Resident Food Preferences policy, dated 11/2015, revealed the Food Service department was to offer a variety of foods at each scheduled meal, as well as access to foods throughout the day and night.
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 store, prepare, and distribute food under sanitary conditions to prevent contamination and potential food borne illness. This had the p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute food under sanitary conditions to prevent contamination and potential food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all 87 residents (Residents #31 and # 58 received nothing by mouth).who were provided meals prepared in the facility kitchen. The facility census was 89 residents. Findings include: Initial tour of the kitchen on 05/03/21 from 9:18 A.M. to 9:39 A.M. revealed the following observations, which were confirmed by Dietary Manager (DM) #553 during the initial tour : • The refrigerator floor was dirty and needed to be swept and mopped. • The freezer had ice buildup going into freezer and there were bags of ice were place directly on the floor. • The shelf above the stove had accumulated grease and dust. • The stovetop needed to be scrubbed. The oven was dirty, and the oven knobs needed to be cleaned. • There was a soiled serving spoon in the utensil drawer. • The can opener had an accumulation of dried food. • The floors and the lower area of the walls were dirty. Boxes and garbage was observed on the floor. • The door to exit the kitchen into the hallway was black around the doorhandle. • Food supplies/stock were not put away, juice nozzles were sticky with residue, • There were six outdated bags of hot dog buns and two loaves of outdated bread on the bread rack. Interview on 05/03/21 at 9:31 A.M. with DM #553 revealed the kitchen was understaffed to meet the needs of completing tasks related to cleaning, cooking, and stocking food supply.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure staff competencies necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population were included in the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure staff competencies necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population were included in the facility assessment. This had the potential to affect all 89 facility residents. Findings include: Record review was conducted of the Facility Assessment Tool, updated 04/06/2021, as provided by the Administrator to the survey team. The persons listed as involved in completing the assessment included the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Governing Body Representative, the Medical Director, a respiratory therapist, and two licensed nurses. Within the section titled Staff training, education and competencies there were no competencies listed for each of the departments providing services to the residents. Interview was conducted on 05/11/2021 at 2:30 P.M. with the Corporate Operations Staff Person (COSP) #609 who said she could verify all the nursing services staff had not been competency trained on ventilators and there were vent dependent residents in the facility. Interview was conducted on 05/11/2021 at 2:33 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) who verified the facility had residents on ventilators, the Respiratory Therapist had done training with some but not all of the nursing staff, and ventilator competency was not listed on the facility assessment for nursing. Interview was conducted on 05/12/2021 at 3:56 P.M. with the Administrator who revealed she had identified prior to the Annual Survey the residents had been complaining about the food and also the housekeeping on the 400 unit yet there were no department specific competencies for dietary or housekeeping on the facility assessment.
Mar 2019 20 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of medical records, Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs), facility investigations, the Abuse policy and procedure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of medical records, Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs), facility investigations, the Abuse policy and procedure and interviews with staff and residents, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4, assessed as severely cognitively impaired and residing on a secured dementia unit, was free from sexual abuse by Resident #324, who was known to have sexually inappropriate behavior. Based on the reasonable person concept, this resulted in Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #4 who was sexually assaulted by Resident #324. Actual harm occurred when Resident #324 was found with his fingers inside Resident #4's vagina and his hand on her breast while she was laying across his bed. This affected one resident (Resident #4) and had the potential to affect 13 vulnerable residents on the secured dementia unit (Residents #7, #11, #18, #24, #30, #31, #33, #39, #52, #61, #64, #67 and #323). On 03/13/19 at 3:01 P.M. the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 02/23/19 at 5:15 P.M. when Resident #324, was discovered by State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #104 with his fingers in Resident #4's vagina and his hand on her breast while she laid across his bed. Resident #4 was severely cognitively impaired and unable to provide consent. The residents were separated and after additional help was obtained, because STNA #104 was the only staff member present for 13 residents with dementia on the secured unit, Resident #324 was placed on one-to-one supervision until emergency medical services (EMS) arrived to transport him to the hospital. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/14/19 at 10:00 P.M. when the facility implemented the following corrective action: • On 02/23/19 at 5:18 P.M., Resident #324 was placed on one-to-one supervision until he was sent to the emergency room on [DATE] at 6:55 P.M. • On 02/23/19 between 5:40 P.M. and 7:40 P.M., RN #200 and the DON assessed Residents #4, #11, #31, #30, #33, #52, #61, #64, #67, #3, #7, #18, #24, #3, #7, #18, #24, #323 for signs/symptoms of sexual abuse. • On 03/13/19 at 6:00 P.M., a new policy and procedure was implemented regarding sexual abuse/sexually inappropriate behavior for a new or an unknown prior behavior and a dementia unit staffing policy. • On 03/13/19 at 6:00 P.M., Regional Administrator #226 educated the Administrator and DON on the facility's abuse policies, procedures and components of a thorough investigation. • On 03/13/19 at 7:00 P.M., the facility implemented a policy that two staff were always to be present in the secured dementia unit. • On 03/13/19 at 7:00 P.M., the Administrator and the DON assessed all residents for a history and/or signs of sexual inappropriateness. • On 03/13/19 at 7:00 P.M. the Administrator and DON audited STNAs #88, #89, #98, #103, #108 and #222 regarding their awareness of residents with inappropriate sexual behaviors and reporting of behaviors. Re-education was completed as necessary. • On 03/13/19 between 8:15 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., all facility staff were educated in person or via telephone regarding abuse policies and procedures, investigation procedures, supervision of residents, the new staffing requirement on the secured dementia unit, and the updated policies that were instituted. • On 03/14/18 interviews between 8:10 A.M. and 5:22 P.M. with RN #200, STNAs #107, #227, #95, and 97, Receptionist #198 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #150 confirmed they were knowledgeable regarding recognition of abuse and actions to take in the event of witnessing or having a suspicion abuse has occurred. • Interview with the DON on 03/15/19 at 3:00 P.M. confirmed all allegations of abuse, even those reported by residents with dementia would be reported. An addendum to FRI #161972 would indicate the allegation was substantiated and all investigations that support abuse occurred will be substantiated. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/14/19, the facility remained out of compliance at a Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility was still in the process of implementing their corrective action and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. The findings of the audits and plan of correction would be forwarded to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee for further recommendations Findings include: Review of FRI #169172 dated 02/23/19 revealed an allegation of sexual abuse by Resident #324 toward Resident #4. The report indicated on 02/23/19 Resident #4 was observed semi-nude in Resident #324's bed. Resident #324 was making physical contact with his hands to Resident #4's genital area. Staff intervened before further escalation. The residents were separated and Resident #324 was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. The facility unsubstantiated the allegation due to inconclusive evidence and abuse was not suspected. Resident #324 did not return to the facility. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #324, a 71- year-old male, was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, auditory hallucinations, paranoid schizophrenia, affective mood disorder, psychotic disorder with hallucinations, anxiety disorder, and non-compliance with medication regimen. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #324 had short and long-term memory problems, moderate cognitive impairment for daily decision making, no behavioral symptoms and required the limited assistance of one person for activities of daily living. Review of the facility's undated timeline of events revealed on 02/20/19, during a nurse to nurse report via phone before Resident #324's transfer from the hospital to the nursing home, the hospital nurse indicated Resident #324 was sexually inappropriate. Review of the admission plan of care dated 02/20/19 revealed Resident #324 had behavioral symptoms with a goal of having fewer episodes of being sexually inappropriate. The interventions included to re-direct the resident as needed, ask for help if resident was abusive or resistive, keep the environment calm and relaxed, remove from public area when behavior improper, encourage diversional activities, monitor internal and external factors and consult psychological services as needed. Review of a progress note dated 02/23/19 at 6:55 P.M. authored by RN #200 revealed Resident #324 was transferred to the hospital where it took three EMS attendants to put him on the gurney because he was very hostile and combative. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #4, a 59 - year-old female, was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including altered mental status, Pick's Disease (shrinking of the frontal and temporal anterior lobes of the brain causing symptoms including changes in behavior or problems with language), anxiety disorder, Alzheimer's disease and dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of physician orders dated 08/18/18 revealed Resident #4 had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of a recreation evaluation dated 09/07/18 revealed Resident #4 was never married, had one child and her occupation was a nurse aide/therapy aide. Review of an activity assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 engaged in small group memory programs and activities. She enjoyed music and with assistance and direction she liked to do Arts and Crafts. Review of the Alzheimer's/dementia unit review dated 02/06/19 indicated Resident #4 wandered and was at risk for elopement and met the criteria for residing on the secured dementia unit. Review of the MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 was severely cognitively impaired and displayed wandering behaviors. She required the limited assistance of one staff for transfers, extensive assistance of one for dressing and toilet use. Review of a late entry progress note dated 02/23/19 and timed 6:00 P.M. authored by the DON, who was not present in the facility at the time of the incident, revealed Resident #4 was in a male resident's room. She was laying on the male resident's bed semi-nude. The male resident was sitting next to her. Staff walked into room and prevented further escalation. It was noted both residents were afflicted with dementia and were unable to give consent for sexual relations. The male resident was sent to hospital and later admitted . A complete body check was completed (for Resident #4) with no abnormalities noted. The son and physician were made aware. Observations of Resident #4 on 03/11/19 at 8:45 P.M., on 03/12/19 at 8:00 A.M. and continued intermittent observations between 03/11/19 and 03/18/19 revealed the resident wandering throughout the hallway of the unit periodically following the nurse or an STNA. At times staff redirected Resident #4 to the dining room. Attempts to contact Resident #4's family on 03/12/19 at 10:48 A.M. and 11:30 A.M. and on 03/13/19 at 3:38 P.M. were unsuccessful. Review of STNA #115's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 7:30 P.M. signed by the DON revealed Resident #324 did not display inappropriate sexual behaviors during the day on 02/23/19. Review of RN #200's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 6:45 P.M. revealed upon RN #200's return to the unit from lunch (no date or time specified) she was notified by LPN #147 that Resident #324 inappropriately touched Resident #4. RN #200 indicated she kept Resident #324 across from the nurse's station and had Resident #4 stay with STNA #104 until EMS arrived to transport Resident #324 to the hospital. When EMS arrived (no time specified) Resident #324 began running around, screaming and became combative. Review of LPN #147's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 9:00 P.M. revealed STNA #104 was banging on the secured dementia unit's door to get help (no date or time specified). After LPN #147 entered the secured dementia unit STNA #104 took Resident #4 and the other residents to the dining room while LPN #147 stayed with Resident #324 at the nurse's station. LPN #147 returned to her unit when RN #200 returned to the secured dementia unit (no time specified) Review of the Assistant Director of Nursing, RN #208's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 9:30 A.M. indicated on 02/25/19 (no time specified) she and RN #204 completed a full head to toe assessment on Resident #4 with no abnormalities noted. Interview with the DON on 03/12/19 at 10:35 A.M. revealed he was notified of the incident on 02/23/19 at 5:45 P.M. He said Resident #324 was placed on one-to-one supervision at 5:15 P.M. (the time STNA #104 found the residents) until EMS removed him from the facility at 6:55 P.M. He said they assessed all the residents on the unit from 5:40 P.M. to 7:40 P.M. to ensure no other residents were affected. He denied knowledge that Resident #324 had a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors. Interview with RN #200 on 03/12/19 at 11:35 A.M. revealed she had never met Resident #324 before 02/23/19. RN #200 said on 02/23/19 Resident #324 followed Resident #4 around and she told STNA #104 to keep an eye on him because something was up. RN #200 got back from lunch to find out STNA #104 found him on top of Resident #4 ready to do it. Resident #324 had a hand on Resident #4's breast and a hand down her incontinence brief. RN #200 said Resident #324 molested Resident #4 and Resident #4 had the mind of a two year old. RN #200 called the DON and was told to keep Resident #324 on one-to-one supervision. RN #200 told the DON she was sending Resident #324 out to the hospital and kept him on one-to-one supervision until he left the facility. RN #200 said the hospital called to send him back to the facility and she refused to accept him because he put everyone at risk. RN #200 indicated she found out in the nurse to nurse report later that day that Resident #324 had a history of being sexually inappropriate. She said he was not appropriate for the facility. A follow up interview on 03/13/19 at 10:39 A.M. with the DON confirmed the facility's investigation related to the sexual abuse indicated the allegation was unsubstantiated. The DON stated he did not feel abuse occurred and from this point forward he would not report allegations if he did not feel they would be substantiated. The DON also indicated he based his reporting on each resident and he would not necessarily report allegations made by a resident with dementia. Interview with STNA #104 on 03/13/19 at 2:11 P.M. revealed she worked on the secured dementia unit on 02/23/19 with RN #200 and STNA #115. When STNA #115 was on break and RN #200 was at lunch she was helping a visitor move items out of room [ROOM NUMBER]. As she was assisting the visitor to the exit door of the secured unit she saw Resident #4 on the edge of Resident #324's bed. Resident #4's feet were on the floor and she was lying back across the bed. Her pants and incontinence brief were around her ankles. Resident #324's fingers were inside Resident #4's vagina and his other hand was on her breast. STNA #104 said she screamed at the sight and immediately removed Resident #4 from the room taking her with her to let the visitor out of the secured dementia unit and called for LPN #147 who was at the adjacent nurse's station. Resident #324 was left in his room. She said LPN #147 assessed Resident #4 and informed RN #200 upon her return from lunch. STNA #104 said Resident #4 stayed with her until Resident #324 was taken to the hospital. STNA #104 indicated Resident #324 said he did not rape the resident, he just touched her. STNA #104 felt Resident #4 did not comprehend the situation. Interview with LPN #147 on 03/13/19 at 2:48 P.M. revealed she was called to the secured unit by STNA #104 who informed her of what she observed. She said she was shocked at what she was told. She said all residents were kept separated from Resident #324 after the incident. Interview with the clinical liaison, who assessed Resident #324 for his appropriateness for admission to the facility, on 03/13/19 at 5:30 P.M. revealed she reviewed the medical record and there was no indication of sexually inappropriate behaviors. The clinical liaison gave no indication she spoke with nurses who cared for Resident #324. Interview with Social Service Designee #221 on 03/14/19 at 7:45 A.M. revealed Resident #4 was a homemaker and had no evidence of being sexually inappropriate or having promiscuous behaviors. Review of the facility's Abuse Investigations policy, dated 12/08/16, indicated while the investigation was being conducted, the resident would be protected, and any accused individuals would be denied unsupervised access to residents. Visits could only be made in designated areas approved by the administrator. If the alleged abuse involved another resident, the accused resident was not to be permitted to make visits to other resident rooms unattended. This deficiency substantiates Self Reported Incident Control Number OH00102888.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to epilepsy, depression a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to epilepsy, depression and schizophrenia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact with no behaviors, independent for most activities of daily living (ADL), always continent of bladder and bowel with no falls and no pressure ulcers. The care plan dated 12/31/18 included care areas for self-care deficit, pain, unclear speech, seizure disorder, risk of falls, potential for behaviors and decline in mood. Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) #169230 dated 02/25/19 revealed the resident reported to the DON on 02/22/19 at approximately 9:00 P.M. that STNA #228, on night shift, threatened him by shaking her fist and slamming the resident's door. Review of the facility investigation dated 02/25/19 revealed there were no statements from any staff or residents. On 03/12/19 at 11:00 A.M the DON provided a typed undated statement listing resident names and indicating no concerns with STNA #228 except for Resident #10. The statement did not include dates and times of interviews. 5. Review of medical record for Resident #43 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with behavior disturbance, acute respiratory failure and pressure ulcer of sacral region. Review of the Minimum Date Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with no behaviors and required extensive assistance of two to total dependence for activities of daily living. Review of the care plan dated 02/22/19 revealed care areas included communication difficulties and impaired cognitive functioning. Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) dated 11/02/19 revealed a substantiated allegation of resident to resident abuse by Resident #43 directed toward Resident #11 on the secured dementia unit. The report investigation form dated 11/02/18 indicated Resident #43 hit Resident #11's arm with his arm at 1:00 P.M. on 11/02/18. The incident was witnessed and reported on 11/02/18 by Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) #191. The witness statement from PTA #191 did not include a time but indicated Resident #43 was grabbing the wheelchair of Resident #283 prior to hitting Resident #11. Resident #283 was calling for help and PTA #191 tried to remove Resident #43's hands from Resident #283's wheelchair. The investigation did not include an assessment of Resident #283 for injuries. Review of a FRI dated 11/15/18 revealed STNA #102 witnessed Resident #43 strike Resident #283 and Resident #61 on 11/14/18 at 1:00 P.M. STNA #102 reported the incident on 11/14/18 (no time) to the DON. Review of the facility investigation revealed there were no staff statements, including STNA #102. The DON completed the facility resident abuse investigation reporting form summarizing what was reported by STNA #102. STNA #102 did not sign the summary that was written by the DON. Interview with the DON on 03/18/19 at 10:56 A.M. verified the above incidents occurred close to each other and review of what may had led up to the incident of 11/02/19 may have prevented the incident on 11/14/19. Review of the facility's Abuse Investigations policy, dated 12/08/16, indicated all reports of alleged resident abuse, neglect, exploitation and injuries of unknown origin would be promptly and thoroughly investigated by the facility's Abuse Prohibition Coordinator. Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Residents policy, revised 12/08/16, revealed while the investigation was being conducted, the resident would be protected, and any accused individuals would be denied unsupervised access to residents. Visits could only be made in designated areas approved by the administrator. If the alleged abuse involved another resident, the accused resident was not to be permitted to make visits to other resident rooms unattended. Investigations would be thoroughly documented including interviews with the person reporting the incident, any witnesses, the resident affected, staff members and volunteers on all shifts who had contact with the resident during the period of the alleged incident, the resident's roommate, family members and visitors and other residents. The investigated would also include review of the resident's medical record to identify events leading up to the alleged incident. Misappropriation of resident property was identified as an act or improper course of conduct, including the deliberate misplacement, exploitation or wrongful (temporary or permanent) use of a resident's belongings or funds without the resident's consent. Upon receiving an incident or suspected incident of misappropriation of resident property, the Administrator/DON/designee would conduct an investigation. Witness reports were to be in writing. Witnesses were required to sign and date such reports. A copy of such reports must be attached to the Abuse Investigation Report Form. The individual conducting the investigation was required to follow the procedure and investigation when an incident of resident misappropriation of property was alleged or suspected. All alleged suspected violations were required to be promptly reported to the appropriate State agencies and other entities or individuals as required by law. The reporting guidance indicated federal regulation required that alleged violations of misappropriation of resident property be reported immediately. The facility must report to the State agencies alleged violations of misappropriation of resident property, if and when the reasonable cause threshold had been achieved. The facility must report misappropriation of resident property within 24 hours after the reasonable cause threshold (suspicion) was concluded. If reasonable cause was not found, the facility was not required to report alleged incidents of misappropriation. This deficiency substantiates Self Reported Incident Control Number OH00102888. 2. Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed diagnoses including major depressive disorder and osteoarthritis. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #72 was able to make himself understood and he understood others. Resident #72 was assessed as being cognitively intact with no indicators of psychosis and no behavioral symptoms. Resident #72 was dependent on staff for transfers. Resident #72 was independent for locomotion on and off the unit. Resident #72 used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of Resident #123's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/15/17. A preadmission screening review (PASAR) dated 08/10/17 indicated Resident #123 received emergency mental health services twice and had two admissions to the inpatient hospital setting for psychiatric services. The PASAR indicated Resident #123 had indications of serious mental illness. Diagnoses included delusional disorders, weakness, major depressive disorder (severe with psychotic features), schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type), bipolar disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. review of a psychiatric progress note dated 10/30/18 indicated Resident #123 was alert and oriented to place and person but not time. No psychotic symptoms were noted. Review of the plan of care summary dated 11/14/18 indicated Resident #123 refused to participate in out of room activities and she socialized with another resident in the movie theater. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 12/21/2018 at 4:13 P.M. indicated Resident #123 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #123 was able to make herself understood and understood others. No hallucinations, delusions or behavioral symptoms were documented. Resident #123 transferred and walked in the room and corridor with supervision. Resident #123 received an antipsychotic and antidepressant seven days. Review of Facility Reported Incident (FRI) #166174 revealed an allegation of sexual abuse was made on 12/27/18 by STNA #225 who reported on 12/27/18 Resident #123 was sitting on a couch in the facility's theater room with Resident #72. As STNA #225 entered the room, she discovered Resident #72 had his hand in Resident #123's pants with a blanket over it. STNA #225 immediately reported the observation. Both residents were immediately interviewed and denied any sexual relationship, stating they were very good friends. The FRI indicated Resident #123 had diagnoses including delusional disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and dementia. Resident #123 denied any sexual contact with Resident #72. Review of the FRI indicated Resident #72 had no psychiatric history and indicated he did not have his hand placed in Resident #123's pants and he was just holding her hand. The conclusion listed on the FRI indicated both residents were their own responsible parties and the psychiatrist verified both residents were competent and able to make decisions about their personal relationships. Review of the facility's Resident Abuse Investigation Report form indicated on 12/27/18 at 10:00 A.M. Activity Staff #82 walked by the theater room and saw Residents #72 and #123 watching television. Resident #123 was on the couch and Resident #72 was in his wheelchair. A blanket was over Resident #123's lap and Resident #72's hand was under the blanket. Activity staff #82 thought, but could not prove, Resident #72's hand was down Resident #123's pants. Activity Staff #82 was the only initial witness and reported the incident at 11:00 A.M. The DON indicated he immediately went to the theater room after being informed of the incident. The DON indicated he saw Residents #72 and #123 sitting next to each other with Resident #72's hand under the blanket. Resident #72's hand was observed moving at the time, but the DON was not certain he was doing anything sexual. The DON documented when he knocked on the door it was open and neither resident seemed startled. The report indicated when Resident #72 was interviewed he stated he was only holding Resident #123's hand and there was nothing sexual about it. Resident #123 stated nothing was happening. They were only holding hands. On 03/12/19 at 10:40 A.M., the DON was interviewed regarding the facility's investigation. The DON verified there was no investigation regarding the failure of Activity Staff #82 to separate the residents before she reported suspected inappropriate sexual interaction. Regarding the discrepancy of the witness information between the FRI and the investigation. The DON stated he originally thought the person who reported the incident was STNA #155 but learned it was Activity Staff #82. On 03/13/19 at 10:39 A.M., the DON was interviewed and verified when Activity Staff #82 thought inappropriate behavior might be occurring between the two residents, the residents were not separated. The DON stated after the allegation of sexual abuse was made, he went to the theater room and interviewed Residents #72 and #123 at the same time instead of interviewing them separately in case there was abuse occurring. The DON stated he was able to observe the top of Resident #123's pants above the blanket but was not sure if the pants had a zipper or other means of access. The DON was asked about the FRI indicating both residents were assessed for competence by a psychiatrist and he verified Resident #72 was not assessed by the psychiatrist because staff knew he was competent. The DON stated when he went to the theater room he could tell from the residents' expressions that Resident #72 did not have his hands down Resident #123's pants. The DON verified he did not obtain written statements according to policy and had not interviewed any additional staff or residents. While being questioned about staff actions and the investigative process, the DON responded he did not feel abuse occurred and from this point forward he would not report allegations if he did not feel they would be substantiated. The DON also indicated he based his reporting on each resident and he would not necessarily report allegations made by a resident with dementia. On 03/18/19 at 7:27 A.M., the Administrator stated he and the DON shared responsibilities for allegations of abuse, neglect and misappropriation. The DON was responsible for investigation of allegations dealing with nursing matters and the administrator dealt more with allegations regarding misappropriation or administrative nature. The Administrator stated he and the DON sometimes discussed investigations and he had not identified any concerns regarding the thoroughness of investigations. 3. Review of Resident #45's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/16/18. Diagnoses included altered mental status, encephalopathy, spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. A modification of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #45 was able to make herself understood, was cognitively intact and exhibited no potential indicators of psychosis such as hallucinations or delusions. During review of the facility's Record of Complaint forms (identified as missing item tracking by the administrator), a complaint form dated 02/20/19 indicated Resident #45 informed the administrator that on Monday (no date specified) around 1:00-2:00 P.M. one of the black aides took some of her Pepsi and drank them. The investigation part of the form indicated the administrator was to check tapes to try and verify if this took place. Under conclusion, documentation indicated administration wanted to replace a 12 pack of Pepsi. During an interview on 03/13/19 at 10:38 A.M., the DON indicated the concierge visited residents every day Monday through Friday. If there were any complaints of abuse, neglect or misappropriation, the allegation was reported to the administrator or himself. On 03/13/19 at 10:43 A.M., the administrator verified he did not report the allegation due to inconsistencies in Resident #45's details of events. The administrator reported he had never checked the video recordings. Resident #45 usually kept the Pepsi in her room. At 11:00 A.M., the administrator stated he spoke to Resident #45's responsible party who verified Resident #45 had Pepsi and did not believe she could have consumed it all herself. The administrator stated he believed the responsible party. Based on review of medical records, Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs), facility investigations, the facility's Abuse policy and procedure, and interviews with staff and residents, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and procedure. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy when Resident #324, who had known inappropriate sexual behavior, was found with his fingers in Resident #4's vagina and his hand on her breast on 02/23/19 at 5:15 P.M. The likelihood of actual harm occurred when the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation and substantiate the allegation of sexual abuse that had been witnessed by STNA #104. This failure prevented recognition and correction of the system to ensure the safety off all residents residing in the secured dementia unit, Residents #4, #7, #11, #18, #24, #30, #31, #33, #39, #52, #61, #64, #67 and #323. In addition the facility failed to ensure staff implemented their abuse policy regarding an allegation of sexual abuse involving Residents #123 and #72, misappropriation alleged by Resident #45, staff to resident abuse alleged by Resident #10, and resident to resident abuse affecting Residents #11, #283, and #61 which did not rise to the level of Immediate Jeopardy. This affected five of 80 facility residents and six FRIs reviewed. On 03/13/19 at 3:01 P.M. the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 02/23/19 at 6:00 P.M. when Resident #324, with known sexually inappropriate behavior, was discovered by STNA #104 with his fingers in Residents #4's vagina and his hand on resident #4's breasts while she was laying across his bed. There was no evidence statements were obtained from residents on the unit, from other staff working on the unit or the visitor who was a potential witness. There was no evidence residents were assessed for inappropriate sexual behaviors. Only one STNA was working on the unit at the time of the incident as the nurse was at lunch and the other STNA was on a break. The facility did not reassess their staffing level on the secured dementia unit following the incident. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/14/19 at 10:00 P.M. when the facility implemented the following corrective action: • On 02/23/19 at approximately 5:18 P.M. Resident #324 was placed on one-to- one supervision until he was sent to the emergency room on [DATE] at 6:55 P.M. • On 02/23/19 between 5:40 P.M. and 7:40 P.M., RN #200 assessed Residents #4, #11, #31, #30, #33, #52, #61, #64 for signs/symptoms of sexual abuse. On 03/14/19 the DON submitted late entry documentation that on 02/23/19 at 7:40 P.M. he assessed Residents #67, #3, #7, #18, #24, #3, #7, #18, #24, #323 for signs/symptoms of sexual abuse. • On 03/13/19 at 6:00 P.M., a new policy and procedures was implemented regarding sexual abuse or sexually inappropriate behaviors for a new or an unknown prior behavior and a dementia unit staffing policy was developed. • On 03/13/19 at 6:00 P.M., Regional Administrator #226 educated the Administrator and DON on the facility's abuse policies, procedures and components of a thorough investigations. • On 03/13/19 at 7:00 P.M., the facility implemented a policy that two staff were always to be present in the secured dementia unit • On 03/13/19 at 7:00 P.M. the Administrator and the DON assessed all residents for a history and/or signs of sexual inappropriateness. • On 03/13/19 at 7:00 P.M. the Administrator and DON audited STNAs #88, #89, #98, #103, #108 and #222 regarding their awareness of residents with inappropriate sexual behaviors and reporting of behaviors. Re-education was completed as necessary. • On 03/13/19 between 8:15 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., all facility staff were educated in person or via telephone regarding abuse policies and procedures, investigation procedures, supervision of residents, the new staffing requirement on the secured dementia unit, and the updated policies that were instituted. • On 03/14/18 Interviews between 8:10 A.M. and 5:22 P.M. with RN #200, STNA #107, #227, #95, and #97, Receptionist #198 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #150 confirmed they were knowledgeable regarding recognition of abuse and actions to take in the event of witnessing or having a suspicion abuse has occurred. • Interview with the DON on 03/15/19 at 3:00 P.M. confirmed all allegations of abuse, even those reported by residents with dementia would be reported, an addendum to FRI #16172 would indicate the allegation was substantiated, and all investigations that support abuse occurred will be substantiated. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/14/19, the facility remained out of compliance at a Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility was still in the process of implementing their corrective action and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. The findings of the audits and plan of correction would be forwarded to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee for further recommendations. Findings include: 1. Review of FRI #169172 dated 02/23/19 revealed an allegation of sexual abuse toward Resident #4 by Resident #324. The report indicated on 02/23/19 Resident #4 was observed semi-nude in Resident #324's bed. He was making physical contact with his hands to her genital area and breasts. Staff intervened before further escalation. The residents were separated and Resident #324 was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. The facility unsubstantiated the allegation due to inconclusive evidence and abuse was not suspected. Resident #324 did not return to the facility. Review of the facility's undated timeline of events revealed on 02/20/19, during a nurse to nurse report via phone before Resident #324's transfer from the hospital to the nursing home, the hospital nurse indicated Resident #324 was sexually inappropriate. Review of RN #200's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 6:45 P.M. revealed upon RN #200's return to the unit from lunch (no time) she was notified by LPN #147 Resident #234 inappropriately touched Resident #4. RN #200 indicated she kept Resident #324 across from the nurse's station and had Resident #4 stay with STNA #104 until emergency medical services (EMS) arrived (no time) to transport Resident #324 to the hospital. When EMS arrived Resident #324 began running around, screaming and became combative. Review of LPN #147's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 9:00 P.M. revealed around 6:00 P.M. STNA #104 was banging on the secured dementia unit's door to get help. After LPN #147 entered the secured dementia unit STNA #104 took Resident #4 and the other residents to the dining room while LPN #147 stayed with Resident #324 at the nurse's station. LPN #147 returned to her unit when RN #200 returned to the secured dementia unit (no time). Review of the Assistant Director of Nursing, RN #208's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 9:30 A.M. indicated on 02/25/19 (no time) she and RN #204 completed a full head to toe assessment on Resident #4 with no abnormalities noted. Interview with the DON on 03/12/19 at 10:35 A.M. revealed he was notified of the incident on 02/23/19 at 5:45 P.M. He said Resident #324 was placed on one-to-one supervision at 5:15 P.M. until EMS removed him from the facility at 6:55 P.M. He said they assessed all the residents on the unit from 5:40 P.M. to 7:40 P.M. to ensure no other residents were affected. He denied knowledge that Resident #324 had a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors. Interview with the DON on 03/13/19 at 10:35 A.M. confirmed the facility investigation was not thorough as it did not include staff, visitor or resident interviews following the incident. Because the investigation was not thorough systemic problems were not identified and corrective action was not put in place. Further interview with the DON on 03/13/19 at 10:39 A.M. confirmed the facility's investigation related to the sexual abuse indicated the allegation was unsubstantiated. He did not feel abuse occurred and from this point forward he indicated he would not report allegations if he did not feel they would be substantiated. The DON also indicated he based his reporting on each resident and he would not necessarily report allegations made by a resident with dementia. Interview with STNA #104 on 03/13/19 at 2:11 P.M. revealed she worked on the secured dementia unit on 02/23/19 with RN #200 and STNA #115. When STNA #115 was on break and RN #200 was at lunch she was helping a visitor move items out of room [ROOM NUMBER]. As she was assisting the visitor to the exit door of the secured unit she saw Resident #4 on the edge of Resident #324's bed. Resident #4's feet were on the floor and she was lying back across the bed. Her pants and incontinence brief were around her ankles. Resident #324's fingers were inside Resident #4's vagina and his other hand was on her breast. STNA #104 said she screamed at the sight and immediately removed Resident #4 from the room taking her with her to let the visitor out of the secured dementia unit and called for LPN #147 who was at the adjacent nurse's station. Resident #324 was left in his room. She said LPN #147 assessed Resident #4 and informed RN #200 upon her return to the secured dementia unit. STNA #104 said Resident #4 stayed with her until Resident #324 was taken to the hospital. STNA #104 indicated Resident #324 said he did not rape the resident, he just touched her. STNA #104 felt Resident #4 did not comprehend the situation and did not appear to have a negative effect from what had occurred. Interview with LPN #147 on 03/13/19 at 2:48 P.M. revealed she was called to the secured unit by STNA #104 who informed her of what she observed. She said she was shocked at what she was told. She said all residents were kept separated from Resident #324 after the incident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's low air loss mattre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's low air loss mattress pump was maintained in good repair. This affected one (Resident #23) of 80 residents screened for condition of equipment. Findings include: On 03/11/19 at 9:13 P.M., Resident #23 was observed lying in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated. Resident #23 stated she could not lie in the bed any more and requested to get out of bed. The mattress pump at the foot of the bed was observed to be crooked and one wire was hanging loose. The pump was not operating. On 03/11/19 at 9:13 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #223 verified the low air loss mattress pump was in disrepair. Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/08/17. Diagnoses included dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. The March 2019 physician order sheet revealed a low loss air mattress was ordered 05/22/18 with orders to check placement and function every shift. A Braden scale assessment for determination of risk of pressure ulcers dated 02/06/19 revealed Resident #23 was at moderate risk. Risk factors included slightly limited sensory perception, a potential problem with friction and shear and very limited mobility. A weekly skin observation assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #23's skin was intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of a facility reported incident (FRI), review of the facility's investigation into an all...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of a facility reported incident (FRI), review of the facility's investigation into an allegation of sexual abuse, review of the facility's Abuse policy and procedures and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented to protect a resident (Resident #123) with a diagnosis of dementia when a staff member reported a suspicion of sexual abuse by Resident #72. This affected two (Resident #72 and #123) of ten residents involved in six FRIs reviewed. Findings include: Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed diagnoses including major depressive disorder and osteoarthritis. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #72 was able to make himself understood and he understood others. Resident #72 was assessed as being cognitively intact with no indicators of psychosis and no behavioral symptoms. Resident #72 was dependent on staff for transfers, independent for locomotion on and off the unit and used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of Resident #123's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/15/17. A preadmission screening review (PAS/RR) dated 08/10/17 indicated Resident #123 received emergency mental health services twice and had two admissions to the inpatient hospital setting for psychiatric services. The PAS/RR indicated Resident #123 had indications of serious mental illness. Diagnoses included delusional disorders, weakness, major depressive disorder (severe with psychotic features), schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type), bipolar disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. A psychiatric progress note dated 10/30/18 indicated Resident #123 was alert and oriented to place and person but not time. No psychotic symptoms were noted. A plan of care summary dated 11/14/18 indicated Resident #123 refused to participate in out of room activities and she socialized with another resident in the movie theater. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) note dated 12/21/18 at 4:13 P.M. indicated a score of 11 which revealed Resident #123 was cognitively moderately impaired. A quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #123 was able to make herself understood and understood others and had a BIMS score of 11. No hallucinations, delusions or behavioral symptoms were documented. Resident #123 transferred and walked in the room and corridor with supervision. Resident #123 received an antipsychotic and antidepressant seven days. Review of Facility Reported Incident (FRI) #166174 revealed an allegation of sexual abuse was made on 12/27/18 by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #225 who reported on 12/27/18 Resident #123 was sitting on a couch in the facility's theater room with Resident #72. As STNA #225 entered the room, she discovered Resident #72 had his hand in Resident #123's pants with a blanket over it. STNA #225 immediately reported the observation. Both residents were immediately interviewed and denied any sexual relationship, stating they were very good friends. The FRI indicated Resident #123 had diagnoses including delusional disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and dementia. Resident #123 denied any sexual contact with Resident #72. The FRI indicated Resident #72 had no psychiatric history and stated he did not have his hand placed in Resident #123's pants and he was just holding her hand. The conclusion listed on the FRI indicated both residents were their own responsible parties and the psychiatrist verified both residents were competent and able to make decisions about their personal relationships. Review of the facility's Resident Abuse Investigation Report form indicated on 12/27/18 at 10:00 A.M. Activity Staff #82 walked by the theater room and saw Residents #72 and #123 watching television. Resident #123 was on the couch and Resident #72 was in his wheelchair. A blanket was over Resident #123's lap and Resident #72's hand was under the blanket. Activity staff #82 thought, but could not prove, Resident #72's hand was down Resident #123's pants. Activity Staff #82 was the only initial witness and reported the incident at 11:00 A.M. The Director of Nursing (DON) indicated he immediately went to the theater room after being informed of the incident. The DON indicated he saw Residents #72 and #123 sitting next to each other with Resident #72's hand under the blanket. Resident #72's hand was observed moving at the time but the DON was not certain he was doing anything sexual. The DON documented when he knocked on the door it was open and neither resident seemed startled. The report indicated when Resident #72 was interviewed he stated he was only holding Resident #123's hand and there was nothing sexual about it. Resident #123 stated nothing was happening. They were only holding hands. On 03/12/19 at 10:40 A.M., the DON was interviewed regarding what action, if any, was taken to protect Resident #123 when Activity Staff #82 believed she may have witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior. The DON stated Activity Staff #82 informed him but Residents #72 and #123 were not separated. When asked what, if anything, he did to intervene when he observed Residents #72 and #123 in the theater with the blanket on top of Resident #123's lap and Resident #72's hand moving, the DON stated he was not going to pull the cover off. Review of the facility's Abuse Investigations policy, dated 12/08/16, indicated all reports of alleged resident abuse, neglect, exploitation and injuries of unknown origin would be promptly and thoroughly investigated by the facility's Abuse Prohibition Coordinator. The policy indicated while the investigation was being conducted, the resident would be protected and any accused individuals would be denied unsupervised access to residents. Visits could only be made in designated areas approved by the administrator. If the alleged abuse involved another resident, the accused resident was not to be permitted to make visits to other resident rooms unattended. On 03/13/19 at 10:39 A.M., the DON was interviewed and verified the conclusive documentation on the FRI indicating both residents were assessed for competence by a psychiatrist was incorrect. Resident #72 was not assessed by the psychiatrist because staff knew he was competent. The DON stated when he went to the theater room he could tell from the residents' expressions that Resident #72 did not have his hands down Resident #123's pants. After interviewing Residents #72 and #123 together, the DON also went to each of their rooms and interviewed them separately. The DON stated if he believed the interaction was sexual in nature he would have increased monitoring of the residents and had the psychiatrist visit the same day. The DON provided a psychiatric progress note dated 01/14/19 which indicated Resident #123 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time with memory gaps. While being questioned about staff actions and the investigative process, the DON responded he did not feel abuse occurred and from this point forward he would not report allegations if he did not feel they would be substantiated. The DON also indicated he based his reporting on each resident and he would not necessarily report allegations made by a resident with dementia.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's Missing Item tracking, review of the facility's abuse policy, medical record review, and staff...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's Missing Item tracking, review of the facility's abuse policy, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to report allegations of misappropriation of resident property to the Ohio Department of Health. This affected one (Resident #45) of one resident who alleged misappropriation of property by staff. Findings include: Review of Resident #45's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/16/18. Diagnoses included altered mental status, encephalopathy, spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. A modification of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #45 was able to make herself understood, was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 and exhibited no potential indicators of psychosis such as hallucinations or delusions. During review of the facility's Record of Complaint forms (identified as missing item tracking by the administrator), a complaint form dated 02/20/19 indicated Resident #45 informed the administrator that on Monday (no date specified) around 1:00-2:00 P.M. one of the black aides took some of her Pepsi and drank them. The investigation part of the form indicated the administrator was to check tapes to try and verify if this took place. Under conclusion, documentation indicated administration wanted to replace a 12 pack of Pepsi. During an interview on 03/13/19 at 10:38 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the concierge visited residents every day Monday through Friday. If there were any complaints of abuse, neglect or misappropriation, the allegation was reported to the administrator or himself. On 03/13/19 at 10:43 A.M., the administrator verified he did not report the allegation to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) due to inconsistencies in Resident #45's details of events. The administrator reported he had never checked the video recordings. Resident #45 usually kept the Pepsi in her room. At 11:00 A.M., the administrator stated he spoke to Resident #45's responsible party who verified Resident #45 had Pepsi and did not believe she could have consumed it all herself. The administrator stated he believed the responsible party. Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Residents policy, revised 12/08/16, revealed misappropriation of resident property was identified as an act or improper course of conduct, including the deliberate misplacement, exploitation or wrongful (temporary or permanent) use of a resident's belongings or funds without the resident's consent. Upon receiving an incident or suspected incident of misappropriation of resident property, the Administrator/DON/designee would conduct an investigation. Witness reports were to be in writing. Witnesses were required to sign and date such reports. A copy of such reports must be attached to the Abuse Investigation Report Form. The individual conducting the investigation was required to follow the procedure and investigation when an incident of resident misappropriation of property was alleged or suspected. All alleged suspected violations were required to be promptly reported to the appropriate State agencies and other entities or individuals as required by law. The reporting guidance indicated federal regulation required that alleged violations of misappropriation of resident property be reported immediately. The facility must report to the State agencies alleged violations of misappropriation of resident property, if and when the reasonable cause threshold had been achieved. The facility must report misappropriation of resident property within 24 hours after the reasonable cause threshold (suspicion) was concluded. If reasonable cause was not found, the facility was not required to report alleged incidents of misappropriation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness, pressure ulcer of the sacra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness, pressure ulcer of the sacral region, history of pulmonary embolism, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, anemia, schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer's disease, intermittent explosive disorder, and anxiety disorder. On 11/14/18, Resident #43 was transferred to Generations Behavioral Health. On 12/30/18, Resident #43 was discharged to the hospital. On 02/05/19, Resident #43 was discharged to the hospital. Review of an email notification dated 03/04/19 indicated the State Ombudsman Office was notified of discharges for the month of February 2019. Attached was Admission/Discharge information for the month of February 2019. The list indicated Resident #43 was discharged to other location on 02/12/19. On 03/15/19 at 11:55 A.M., the Administrator verified the facility had not provided required transfer/discharge notices. Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to send a written notice to the resident and/or responsible party when the facility initiated a discharge while Resident #43 and #324 were hospitalized after an emergency transfer. This affected two residents ( #43 and #324) of three residents (#13, #43 and #324) reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #324 wad admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including visual hallucinations, dementia with behavioral disturbance, muscle weakness, symbolic dysfunctions, auditory hallucinations, brief psychotic disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, affective mood disorder, psychotic disorder with hallucinations, hypertension, anxiety disorder, colon cancer, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and non-compliance with medication regimen. Review of the resident profile indicated a cousin was listed as Emergency Contact #1. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 02/23/19 at 6:55 P.M. indicated he had an emergency transfer to the hospital due to inappropriate sexual behaviors. Resident #324 did not return to the facility. Review of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman monthly notification revealed Resident #324 was on the list however, there was no evidence the resident/responsible party was notified about his discharge from the facility. Interview with the administrator on 03/15/19 at 11:55 A.M. verified the Resident/responsible party was not notified in writing of discharge from the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents and residents' representatives were notifi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents and residents' representatives were notified in writing of the facility's bed hold policy within 24 hours of emergency transfer to the hospital. This affected one (Resident #43) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness, pressure ulcer of the sacral region, history of pulmonary embolism, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, anemia, schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer's disease, intermittent explosive disorder, and anxiety disorder. On 11/14/18, Resident #43 was transferred to Generations Behavioral Health. Resident #43 returned to the facility 12/05/18. On 12/30/18, Resident #43 was discharged to the hospital. Resident #43 returned to the facility 01/25/19. On 02/05/19, Resident #43 was discharged to the hospital. Resident #43 returned to the facility 02/22/19. Review of a Bed Hold Notification policy, not dated, indicated Resident #43's legal representative was notified of the facility's bed hold policy informing her Medicaid eligible residents were entitled to 30 days of hospital and therapeutic leave bed hold days per calendar year. There was no evidence subsequent bed hold policy information was provided when Resident #43 was transferred to the behavioral health facility on 12/05/18 or the hospital on [DATE] and 02/05/19. On 03/15/19 at 11:55 A.M., the Administrator verified the facility had not provided required bed hold notices when Resident #43 was transferred out of the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately assess residents for use of hearing aides and significant weight loss. This affected two (Residents #43 and #72) of 28 residents whose assessments were reviewed for accuracy. Findings include: 1. On 03/11/19 at 8:49 A.M., Resident #72 was interviewed and stated he had two hearing aides. One was given to the social worker to be cleaned. On 03/12/19 at 4:09 P.M., Social Service Designee (SSD) #221 verified she had one of Resident #72's hearing aides and opened a case on her desk which contained a hearing aide with the tubing and ear piece separated. SSD #221 stated she obtained the hearing aide from Resident #72 the prior week to have the audiologist determine if it was repairable. On 03/13/19 at 9:19 A.M., Resident #72 was observed with a hearing aide in his right ear. Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/24/17. Diagnoses included altered mental heart disease and hypertension. Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments dated 11/21/18 and 02/21/19 indicated Resident #72 had adequate hearing with no hearing aides. On 03/12/19 at 4:22 P.M., Resident #72 reported he received the hearing aides in October 2018. On 03/15/19 at 9:33 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) #206 stated she was unaware Resident #72 had hearing aides and did not know when they had been obtained. RN #206 verified the MDS assessments were silent as to the use of hearing aides. 2. Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed diagnoses including moderate protein-calorie malnutrition and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Resident #43 was initially admitted to the facility 10/31/18 with a recorded weight of 208 pounds. On 01/25/18, a weight of 170.2 pounds was recorded. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #43 had not experienced a significant weight loss. On 03/18/19 at 8:50 A.M., Dietitian #132 verified Resident #43 had a significant weight loss of greater than 10% in a three time month period (between 10/31/18 and 01/25/19) but the weight loss was not reflected on the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] because the weight loss occurred while Resident #43 was in the hospital. Dietitian #132 stated he only coded significant weight losses that occurred in the facility. RN #206 was present and referred to the Resident Assessment Instrument manual and stated it did not instruct the weight loss had to occur in the facility in order to be reflected on the MDS.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered the opportunity to meet with the interdisciplinary (IDT) team to provide input into h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered the opportunity to meet with the interdisciplinary (IDT) team to provide input into his care. This affected one (Resident #72) of 12 residents interviewed regarding participation in planning their care. Findings include: On 03/11/19 at 8:38 P.M., Resident #72 stated he was not invited to care plan meetings to discuss his care. Review of the facility's Resident/Patient/Family conference policy, revised 10/05/16, indicated each social worker would encourage the resident and/or family/legal representative to attend care conferences which would be scheduled with the appropriate interdisciplinary team members. The conference would be scheduled based on identified needs and regulatory standards. Plan of care goals were to be discussed with the resident and responsible party to assure their needs were met. Residents and responsible parties were to be encouraged to express their preferences about care and staff to respect and incorporate their preferences in the care decision. Staff were to assure notification of the resident and responsible party of the next scheduled conference and document notification and method in the medical record. Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed diagnoses including heart disease, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There was no documentation regarding care plan meetings found in the medical record. On 03/14/19 at 7:20 A.M., Social Service Designee (SSD) #221 verified she was the person responsible for informing residents and responsible parties of care conferences. A request was made to see copies of notifications. At 7:40 A.M., SSD #221 stated she was unable to find any evidence Resident #72 and/or his responsible party were notified of care conferences held on 10/31/18, 12/05/18 or 03/06/19. SSD #221 stated she believed Resident #72 was informed personally of the care conferences but verified the facility's policy indicated notifications were to be documented and the method of notification was to be documented in the medical record but she had not done so. Review of Plan of Care Summary forms revealed in past six months three care conferences were held. The dates were 10/31/18, 12/05/18, and 03/06/19. The attendees listed did not include Resident #72.
CONCERN (D)

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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the correct use of an air mattress used to prom...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the correct use of an air mattress used to promote the healing of an existing pressure ulcer and prevention of additional pressure injury for Resident #45. This affected one of two residents reviewed for pressure. Findings include: Resident #45 was readmitted [DATE], following a hospitalization for a cerebral vascular accident (CVA-stroke). Additional diagnoses included depression, anxiety and upon readmission, a pressure ulcer to the right heel. Review of the consultant wound care service progress note dated 03/05/19, revealed the ulcer was a deep tissue injury (DTI). A DTI is defined as a purple or maroon localized area of intact skin. The area may be preceded by tissue that is painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer or cooler compared to adjacent tissue. The wound may further evolve and become covered by eschar (dead tissue). Evolution may be rapid exposing additional layers of tissue even with optimal treatment. The wound care consultant progress note dated 03/05/19 and current physician orders, revealed interventions to prevent worsening and promote healing of the wound. These included a low air loss mattress (specialized mattress used to prevent pressure wounds, or worsening of a current wound, and manage pain caused by pressure wounds). The mattress pressure was controlled by a pump, usually located at the foot of the bed. Review of the manufacturer's instructions revealed the pressure of the mattress could be set by turning the pressure adjustment knob. You could set the pressure from Soft-Medium-Firm by turning the knob. You could also set the pressure based on the patient's weight as indicated on the control panel. Record review revealed Resident #45's current weight, obtained on 02/06/19, was 160 pounds. Resident #45 was observed in bed on 03/13/19 at 5:50 P.M. Resident #45 was awake. The low air loss mattress pressure adjustment knob was set on #360 lbs. The mattress was firm and rigid to touch. An interview was completed with Resident #45 at the time of the observation. Resident #45 revealed the mattress was very hard and uncomfortable. The observation was verified with Registered Nurse (RN) #204 at the time it occurred. RN #204 stated I'm not sure how much she weighs, but I know it's not 360 pounds. RN #204 revealed the pressure should be checked by the nurse at least once a shift.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to administer tube feeding solution at the approp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to administer tube feeding solution at the appropriate rate to meet the nutritional needs for one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for tube feeding. The facility also failed to ensure Resident #176 received a recommended nutritional supplement and to identify, implement, monitor and modify interventions consistent with the resident's needs and preferences related to nutrition. This affected one resident (#176) of five residents (#4, #43, #61, #72 and #176) reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #43's medical record revealed diagnoses including moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, difficulty swallowing, and dementia. A hospital history and physical dated 01/12/19 indicated Resident #43 had a feeding tube placed due to poor oral intake and after a failed swallow evaluation on 01/10. A medical nutrition therapy progress note from the hospital dated 01/22/19 indicated a recommendation was made for Jevity 1.5 at 55 milliliter(ml)/hour with 160 ml water flush every four hours to better meet Resident #43's needs. Resident #43 was hospitalized [DATE]. Upon readmission on [DATE], an order was written for nothing by mouth and for Jevity 1.5 via a tube feeding pump at 55 ml/hr continuous. On 02/25/19, an order was written for Proform 30 ml via the gastric tube twice a day for 30 days. On 03/11/19 at 9:05 P.M. and 9:43 P.M., 03/12/19 at 7:49 A.M., and 03/13/19 at 7:51 A.M. and 9:19 A.M. ,Resident #43 was observed receiving Jevity 1.5 via a feeding tube pump at a rate of 50 ml per hour. On 03/13/19 at 7:51 A.M., the Jevity bottle was labeled to indicate a flow rate of 50 ml/hr. On 03/13/19 at 3:34 P.M., Resident #43's Jevity 1.5 flow rate was set at 55 ml/hr. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #150 was present and stated he was uncertain who changed the flow rate to 55 ml/hr as he was the assigned nurse and had not done so. LPN #150 verified the label on the bottle indicated the Jevity 1.5 flow rate was set at 50 ml/hr. On 03/13/19 at 5:35 P.M., Resident #43 was observed receiving Glucerna 1.5 at a flow rate of 55 ml/hr. The bottle was labeled with a start time of 4:40 P.M. Registered Nurse (RN) #204 verified she hung Glucerna 1.5 instead of Jevity 1.5 as ordered. On 03/14/19 at 2:44 P.M., Dietitian (RDLD) #132 provided a nutrition assessment dated [DATE] which revealed Resident #43 needed 100 - 125 grams of protein per day. The protein supplement (Proform) provided 15 grams of protein per day, meaning Resident #43 required a minimum of 85 grams of protein per day through his tube feed formula. When Jevity 1.5 was running at 50 ml/hr, it provided a maximum of 77 grams of protein per day which did not meet Resident #43's protein needs. Review of the facility's Enteral Nutrition policy, revised January 2014, indicated the dietitian, with input from the physician and nurse, would estimate a resident's calorie, protein, nutrient and fluid needs, determine whether the resident's current intake was adequate to meet his or her nutritional needs, recommend special food formulations and calculate fluids to be provided. Enteral nutrition would be ordered by the physician based on the recommendations of the dietitian. The policy was silent as to how frequently staff would monitor flow rates for residents with continuous feedings. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #176 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease with dependence on renal dialysis, severe protein-calorie malnutrition and diabetes. His weight was 133 pounds on 03/05/19. No additional weights were found in the record. Review of the current physician's orders indicated he was on a liberalized renal diet, low fat and low cholesterol. He went to hemodialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays with a chair time from 5:45 P.M. to 9:45 P.M. Review of the admission nutrition assessment dated [DATE] indicated his body mass index was 18 (underweight). He was on a renal diet and reported poor intake but had been eating 75% of meals. He was noted with severe protein calorie malnutrition. The dietitian recommended Nepro a therapeutic nutritional supplement specifically designed to help meet the nutritional needs of patients on dialysis daily with dinner and double entrees with meals. Review of the medical nutritional therapy assessment recommendations form dated 03/06/19 indicated a recommendation for Nepro every day at dinner for increased needs. There was no physician order for the nutritional supplement. Review of the dietary plan of care initiated 03/06/19 indicated the goal was to have gradual weight gain to within 10% of ideal body weight (178 pounds plus or minus 10%) range by review date. The interventions indicated to monitor/record/report to the physician signs/symptoms of malnutrition, muscle wasting or significant weight loss, obtain and monitor laboratory/diagnostic work as ordered, provide and serve supplement and the registered dietitian was to evaluate, make diet change recommendations as needed and obtain a weight every month and as needed. Review of the dialysis plan of care initiated 03/13/19 revealed no special dietary needs such as the need for an early dinner tray. Review of the nutrition progress note dated 03/15/19 at 6:13 A.M. indicated the plan was for Nepro supplement recommended upon admission for increased needs but it was not implemented. The dietitian indicated he would re-recommend Nepro daily at dinner to provide 425 calories and 19 grams of proteins per day. Review of the nurse aide information document indicated to please have a packed dinner for the resident and have him ready for dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Review of the intake records revealed he had four dialysis treatments since his admission. On 03/06/19 his intake was documented as 100% for dinner but there was no documentation of his intake for 03/08/19, 03/11/19 or 03/13/19 (dialysis days). Observation on 03/11/19 at 7:40 P.M. revealed a note was taped above the tray line in the kitchen on 03/11/19 at 7:40 P.M. which indicated to provide Resident #176 an early dinner on Monday, Wednesday and Friday due to dialysis (this conflicted with the nurse aide information of a packed dinner). Interview with Resident #176 on 03/12/19 10:38 A.M. revealed he would like to have something to eat when he returned from dialysis. He said that seemed to be a problem. He reported last night he got two sandwiches that he did not eat. Observation at this time revealed two sandwiches in a plastic baggie on his bedside table. Further interview with Resident #176 on 03/15/19 at 10:15 A.M. indicated he was very upset he was not getting a dinner on his dialysis days. He said he had a snack before he went to dialysis and when he returned on 03/13/19 he got a ham sandwich and a donut and he was hungry. He said he was promised a hot meal and he was not receiving it. Interview with Dietary Manager #131 on 03/15/19 at 10:42 P.M. indicated the dietary staff made him a tray as per the posted sign. He was not aware he was not getting a hot meal tray prior to going to dialysis. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing, Registered Nurse (RN) #208 on 03/18/19 at 7:51 A.M. revealed he was unaware Resident #176 was not receiving the recommended Nepro supplement. She verified the supplement still had yet to be ordered. Interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) #132 on 03/18/19 at 9:15 A.M. indicated theoretically Resident #176's nutritional needs should be met with the ordered diet of double entrees. However, review of the intake documentation revealed it was patchy. He said there were gaps in the documentation that should be documented per meal daily. Because of the missing documentation it was unknown if his nutritional needs were met. He said he was just made aware the resident was not receiving a hot dinner. He showed the surveyor a stack of nutritional therapy assessment recommendations that he found on 03/15/19 that had not been implemented. He said the process was for him to make recommendations on the nutritional therapy assessment recommendations form, the unit nurse was to follow through with notifying the physician and the physician would either order or deny the recommendation. He said it was usually accompanied by a note from the physician. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 03/18/19 at 9:47 A.M. indicated the unit nurse was supposed to notify the physician of any recommendations. He was not aware the recommendations from dietary were not followed up on. He said as of Friday 03/15/19 it was the responsibility of the ADON,RN #208 to contact the physician regarding any recommendations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a tube feeding water flush was delivered per th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a tube feeding water flush was delivered per the physician order. This affected Resident #53, one of three residents reviewed for the use of a feeding tube. Findings include: Resident #53 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory distress, Duchenne [NAME] Muscular Dystrophy, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), ventilator dependence, severe protein calorie malnutrition and anomalies of the dental arch. Resident #53 was non-verbal and communicated by blinking in response to 'yes' and 'no' questions. Resident #53 was observed on 03/13/19 at 5:22 P.M. Resident #53 was resting in bed. The tube feeding was running and set at 40 cubic centimeters (cc) per hour with a water flush of 200 cc every six hours. Resident #53 was observed on 03/14/19 at 7:20 A.M. Resident #53 was resting in bed. The tube feeding was running and set at 40 cc per hour with a water flush of 200 cc every six hours. However, record review at the time of the observation revealed a physician order dated 03/12/19, to decrease the water flush to 150 cc every six hours. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #224 verified the observation at the time it occurred. An interview was completed with LPN #224 immediately following the observation. LPN #224 verified she worked a 12 hour shift. LPN #224 revealed she worked from 7:00 P.M. on 03/13/19 through 7:00 A.M. on 03/14/19. LPN #224 explained she did not work for the facility, but rather, a staffing agency. LPN #224 revealed she was not given the tube feeding water flush rate during the nurse-to-nurse report, and therefore, was not aware of any changes. Review of a Medical Nutritional Therapy Assessment Recommendation dated 03/12/19 was completed. The recommendation advised a decrease to 150 cc water flush every six hours due to a sodium laboratory result dated 03/07/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication prepared by a nurse was administered by the same nurse and the nurse who prepared the medication was knowled...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication prepared by a nurse was administered by the same nurse and the nurse who prepared the medication was knowledgeable regarding how to troubleshoot problems encountered when delivering a medication via a feeding tube. This affected Resident #28, one of seven residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: A medication observation was completed on 03/11/19 at 10:23 P.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #155 prepared 500 milligram of Tylenol for administration via a feeding tube for Resident #28. LPN #155 removed and crushed one tablet from a bottle of Extra Strength Tylenol. LPN #155 dissolved the substance into a medication cup and entered the resident's room. LPN #155 attempted to flush the resident's feeding tube with water. LPN #155 consistently met resistance. LPN #155 activated the resident's call light and LPN #149 responded. LPN #155 explained she needed to administer a medication via the feeding tube and was meeting resistance. LPN #149 checked for residual tube feeding. LPN #149 was able to clear the tube and flushed the tube with water. Then, LPN #149 stated Give me the medication. LPN #155 poured the slightly clouded liquid from the small cup into a larger, clear plastic cup. LPN #155 added water, and handed the cup of liquid to LPN #149. LPN #149 poured the liquid into the feeding tube to administer medication prepared by LPN #155. An interview was completed with LPN #155 and LPN #149 immediately following the observation. The observation was verified. LPN #155 revealed she had just completed nursing school and this was her first job as a licensed nurse. She had been employed with the facility for a little over a week. LPN #149 revealed she had been assigned to precept LPN #155. LPN #149 revealed she had been a licensed nurse for several years. However, LPN #149 had only been employed by the facility for three weeks.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures during medication administration. This affected Residents #276 and #29, two of seven residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures during medication administration. This affected Residents #276 and #29, two of seven residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: A medication observation was completed on 03/13/19 at 7:52 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #146 administered oral medications to Resident #38. LPN #146 did not wash or sanitize her hands following the medication administration. LPN #146 returned to the medication cart and prepared medications for Resident #276. The medications included oral medications and a nasal spray. LPN #146 removed the lid from the nasal spray and handed the spray to Resident #276. Resident #276 inserted the nasal spray into each nares and inhaled two sprays in each nostril. Resident #276 handed the nasal spray to LPN #146. Without washing her hands or applying gloves, LPN #146 accepted the nasal spray and cleaned the insertion tip by rubbing it several times with a tissue. LPN #146 discarded the tissue and capped the nasal spray. LPN #146 did not wash or sanitize her hands. Immediately following, LPN #146 returned to the medication cart and prepared four oral medications for Resident #29. LPN #146 removed a bottle of insulin from the medication cart and applied gloves. LPN #146 did not wash her hands before applying the gloves. LPN #146 drew up the insulin into a syringe. Then, LPN #146 checked the expiration date and discarded the insulin. LPN #146 removed and discarded the gloves. LPN #146 did not wash her hands. LPN #146 left the medication cart and obtained a new bottle of insulin from the medication storage room. Without washing or sanitizing her hands, LPN #146 applied gloves, prepared the insulin and administered the insulin injection to Resident #276. LPN #146 removed her gloves and washed her hands. An interview was completed with LPN #146 immediately following the observation. LPN #146 verified the observation. Review of the Medication Administration policy and procedure, and the Nose Drop Administration policy and procedure dated July 2017 was completed. Each policy included proper handwashing before and after medication administration.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, resident council meeting minutes, kitchen meeting minutes and a test tray, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable and hot foods were served hot. This affec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, resident council meeting minutes, kitchen meeting minutes and a test tray, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable and hot foods were served hot. This affected 13 residents (#4, #7, #11, #24, #30, #31, #33, #39, #52, #61, #64, #67 and #323) on the secured dementia unit and had the potential to affected 59 additional residents who ate food prepared in the kitchen (Residents #13, #23, #26, #28, #32, #43, #53 and #175 did not take food by mouth). Findings include: Interview with Residents #22, #37, #72, #176, #273 and #276 on 03/11/19 at 9:20 P.M. and 03/12/19 at 11:41 A.M. revealed complaints of being served cold food, cold coffee, scorched eggs, hard toast, hard baked potatoes, meals and a limited amount of alternates available. Observation on 03/12/19 at 7:53 A.M. revealed an open air cart of meal trays was delivered by dietary staff to the secured dementia unit, where Residents #4, #7, #11, #24, #30, #31, #33, #39, #52, #61, #64, #67 and #323 resided. At 8:10 A.M. no meal trays had been served. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #200 on 03/12/19 at 8:13 A.M. she frustratedly said she was the only staff on the unit this morning. She said she had to do morning care, get residents dressed and into the dining room and pass medications. She said it was like this all the time. She had voiced her concern to management and nothing had been done. At 8:15 A.M. State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #229 arrived on the unit and at 8:21 A.M. (28 minutes later) the first meal tray was delivered. The last resident received their tray at 8:39 A.M. During interview with Residents #30, #31, #52 and #323 on 03/12/19 beginning at 8:40 A.M. they all said the breakfast was cold. On 03/12/19 at 5:05 P.M. the food temperatures were taken on the steam table by Dietary Aide (DA) #124 using a calibrated probe thermometer. The meat loaf measured 196 degrees Fahrenheit (F), scalloped potatoes 209 degrees F, Brussel sprouts 202 degrees F, gravy 202 degrees F and hamburger patties were 176 degrees F. On 03/13/19 at 7:53 A.M. DA #120 was observed to take food temperatures on the steam table. The scrambled eggs were 207 degrees F, pureed eggs 187 degrees F, pureed pancakes 170 degrees F, hot cereal 190 degrees F and French toast 190 degrees F. Observation on 03/13/19 at 8:07 A.M. revealed an open air cart of meal trays was delivered to the secured dementia unit. At 8:10 A.M. Activity Director #81 was observed to deliver the first meal tray. At 8:18 A.M. the Assistant Director of Nursing, RN #208 arrived and began passing meal trays. All trays were delivered by 8:28 A.M. On 03/13/19 at 8:28 A.M. a test tray was conducted with Dietary Manager (DM) #131 after the last tray was served. DM #131 used a calibrated probe thermometer to measure the food temperatures. The French toast was 114 degrees F, scrambled eggs were 117 degrees F, hot cereal 149 degrees F, coffee 124 degrees F, orange juice 60 degrees F and milk 45 degrees F. The foods were tasted by DM #131 and the surveyor. DM #131 verified at 8:30 A.M. the French toast could be warmer and the eggs were almost cold. Review of the kitchen meeting minutes revealed residents voiced the following concerns related to food temperatures and taste: a. On 08/22/18 meal trays were cold at night. b. On 09/19/18 the chicken was tough and the pasta undercooked. c. On 10/02/18 not enough staff to pass trays on the halls, cold breakfast trays, pork was tough. d. On 11/08/18 not enough staff to pass trays on the halls, pasta undercooked. e. on 12/06/18 meals served later and later, no one to pass trays on the halls. f. On 01/10/19 undercooked pasta and chicken was like a brick. Interview with Dietary Manager #131 on 03/13/19 at 7:45 A.M. indicated he held the monthly kitchen meetings with the residents. He said they had some personal requests but did not complain about food temperatures. He confirmed the facility did not have covers for the food carts which could contribute to the food being cold at the point of service. Review of the resident council minutes dated 03/19/18 indicated residents discussed the palatability of hamburgers and French fries and gave other food suggestions in place of those items.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurately documented including an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurately documented including an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the residents. This affected all 13 residents (#4, #7, #11, #24, #30, #31, #33, #39, #52, #61, #64, #67 and #323) residing on the secured dementia unit. Facility census was 80. Findings include: Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an entry by the Director of Nursing (DON) dated 02/26/19 at 1:08 P.M. as a late entry for 02/23/19 at 6:00 P.M. The note indicated Resident #4 was found in a male resident's room (Resident #324) . She was laying on the male resident's bed semi nude. The male resident was sitting next to her, staff walked into room and prevented further escalation. Both residents were afflicted with dementia and unable to give consent for sexual relations. The male resident was sent to hospital and later admitted . A complete body check was completed with no abnormalities noted. The son made aware as well as physician. Review of Resident #324's medical record revealed a note dated 02/23/19 at 6:55 P.M. indicating the resident was sent to the emergency room. The physician and DON were made aware of the situation. There was no documentation in the medical record to identify what the situation was or why the resident needed sent to the emergency room. A subsequent note dated 02/24/19 at 3:10 A.M. indicated he was admitted to the hospital with the diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of skin checks completed to ensure residents in the secured dementia unit had not been the victims of sexual abuse by Resident #324 revealed they were documented as completed on 03/05/19 for Resident #7, 02/27/19 for Resident #24, 03/05/19 for Resident #39, and 02/27/19 for Resident #323. The medical records of Residents #11, #30, #31, #33, #52, #61, #64 and #67 indicated they had skin checks dated 02/23/19 all at 6:00 P.M.; however, the electronic time stamp indicated the documentation was locked in on 03/13/19 and the documentation was not indicated as a late entry. Interview with the DON on 03/12/19 at 10:35 A.M. revealed he was notified of the incident on 02/23/19 at 5:45 P.M. He said all skin checks were completed on 02/23/19 from 5:40 P.M. to 7:40 P.M. A follow up interview with the DON on 03/13/19 at 10:35 A.M. revealed he was not present in the facility on 02/23/19 at 6:00 P.M. and had not made the observation which was documented in Resident #4's medical record. The observation was made by State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #104 and Registered Nurse (RN) #200 was the nurse assigned on the secured dementia unit at the time of the incident. The DON said he was notified of the incident on 02/23/19 around 6:00 P.M. he told RN #200 to do the skin checks and he would document they were completed. The DON said he completed the documentation for all the residents on 02/23/19 at 6:00 P.M. but did not lock the documentation as complete until 03/13/19. The DON said he should not have documented for another nurse.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. During the resident council meeting on 03/13/19 at 10:40 A.M. Resident #45 said because there was not enough staff, she frequ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. During the resident council meeting on 03/13/19 at 10:40 A.M. Resident #45 said because there was not enough staff, she frequently received her morning medications more than one hour past the scheduled time and her bed was often not made before 11:00 A.M. Resident # 273 said staff often did not have time to make her bed and she would wait up to two hours for her anxiety medication (Vistaril 25 milligrams). 3. Interview on 03/13/19 at 12:20 P.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #150 revealed there was not enough staff to provide residents with the care they needed. The nurse scheduled on the 400 hall also had the short side of the 300 hall. Multiple residents required two assists. If only two nursing assistants were working and they were both in a room of a resident who required the assistance of two, the nurse was also responsible for monitoring call lights and medications were not able to be administered in a timely manner. When there were only two nursing assistants on the 400 hall, residents were not consistently able to be provided with showers so were washed off. LPN #150 verified sometimes residents had to wait for prolonged periods to get in and out of bed due to staff being busy with another resident who required two assists and there was only one Hoyer (mechanical) lift. Interview on 03/14/19 at 9:57 A.M., with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #104 revealed ice water was supposed to be provided to residents every shift. Sometimes, there was not sufficient staff available to provide the ice water. STNA #104 reported 14 residents on her hall required the assistance of two staff. When there were only two nursing assistants, staff were unable to reposition and toilet residents in accordance with their plans of care. Based on observations, interviews and review of resident council minutes, the facility failed to provide a sufficient amount of staff to supervise and provide care and assistance to the residents. This affected all 13 residents (#4, #7, #11, #24, #30, #31, #33, #39, #52, #61, #64, #67 and #323) residing on the secured dementia unit, Residents #45, #273 and had the potential to affect all 80 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of Facility Reported Incident #169172 dated 02/23/19 revealed an allegation of sexual abuse by Resident #324 toward Resident #4. The report indicated on 02/23/19 Resident #4 was observed semi-nude in Resident #324's bed. Resident #324 was making physical contact with his hands to Resident #4's genital area. Staff intervened before further escalation. The residents were separated and Resident #324 was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Interview with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #104 on 03/13/19 at 2:11 P.M. revealed she worked on the secured dementia unit on 02/23/19 with Registered Nurse (RN) #200 and STNA #115. When STNA #115 was on break and RN #200 was at lunch she was helping a visitor move items out of room [ROOM NUMBER]. As she was assisting the visitor to the exit door of the secured unit she saw Resident #4 on the edge of Resident #324's bed. Resident #4's feet were on the floor and she was lying back across the bed. Her pants and incontinence brief were around her ankles. Resident #324's fingers were inside Resident #4's vagina and his other hand was on her breast. STNA #104 said she screamed at the sight and immediately removed Resident #4 from the room taking her with her to let the visitor out of the secured dementia unit and called for Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #147 who was at the adjacent nurse's station. Resident #324 was left in his room. She said LPN #147 assessed Resident #4 and informed RN #200 upon her return from lunch. STNA #104 said Resident #4 stayed with her until Resident #324 was taken to the hospital. Interview with RN #200 on 03/12/19 at 11:35 A.M. revealed on 02/23/19 Resident #324 followed Resident #4 around and she told STNA #104 to keep an eye on him because something was up. RN #200 got back from lunch to find out STNA #104 found him on top of Resident #4 ready to do it. Resident #324 had a hand on Resident #4's breast and a hand down her incontinence brief. Review of LPN #147's statement dated 03/13/19 timed 9:00 P.M. revealed STNA #104 was banging on the secured dementia unit's door to get help (no date or time specified). After LPN #147 entered the secured dementia unit STNA #104 took Resident #4 and the other residents to the dining room while LPN #147 stayed with Resident #324 at the nurse's station. LPN #147 returned to her unit when RN #200 returned to the secured dementia unit. 2. Observation on 03/12/19 at 7:53 A.M. revealed an open air cart of meal trays was delivered to the secured dementia unit by dietary staff. At 8:10 A.M. no meal trays had been served. Interview with RN #200 on 03/12/19 at 8:13 A.M. revealed she was the only staff on the unit this morning. She said she had to do morning care, get residents dressed and into the dining room and pass medications. She said it was like this all the time. She said she had voiced her concern to management and nothing had been done. She said she could not ask assistance from any other unit because it would leave them short. At 8:15 A.M,. STNA #229 arrived on the unit. On 03/12/19 at 8:21 A.M. (28 minutes later) the first meal tray was delivered. The last resident received their tray at 8:39 A.M. During interview with Residents #30, #31, #52 and #323 on 03/12/19 beginning at 8:40 A.M. all said the breakfast was cold. Interview with Resident #24's son on 03/12/19 at 11:02 AM. indicated there was not enough staff. He said there was usually one nurse and one aide. On 03/13/19 at 8:07 A.M. an open air cart of meal trays was delivered to the secured dementia unit. At 8:10 A.M. Activity Director #81 was observed to deliver the first meal tray. At 8:18 A.M. the Assistant Director of Nursing, RN #208 arrived and assisted with the passing of meal trays. All trays were delivered by 8:28 A.M. On 03/13/19 at 8:28 A.M. a test tray was conducted with Dietary Manager (DM) #131 after the last tray was served. DM #131 used a calibrated probe thermometer to measure the food temperatures. The French toast was 114 degrees Fahrenheit (F), scrambled eggs were 117 degrees F, hot cereal 149 degrees F, coffee 124 degrees F, orange juice 60 degrees F and milk 45 degrees F. The foods were tasted by DM #131 and the surveyor. DM #131 verified at 8:30 A.M. the French toast could be warmer and the eggs were almost cold. DM #31 indicated a combination of not enough staff to pass meal trays timely and an open air food cart contributed to the food not being hot enough. Review of the kitchen meeting minutes dated 10/02/18, 11/08/18 and 12/06/18 indicated there was no one to pass trays on the halls. Interview with the Long-Term Care Ombudsman on 03/14/19 at 3:00 P.M. indicated she had concerns the facility did not have enough staff to meet the needs of the residents from her observations and by interviews with residents.
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, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition to prevent cross-contamination or foodborne illness. This ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition to prevent cross-contamination or foodborne illness. This affected all residents who took food by mouth (Residents #13, #23, #26, #28, #32, #43, #53 and #175 did not eat food prepared in the kitchen). Findings include: Observation on 03/11/19 at 7:40 P.M. during tour of the kitchen with Dietary Aide (DA) #128 revealed the chute where the ice dropped into the bin of the ice machine was visibly soiled. DA #128 took a paper towel and wiped the bottom of the chute leaving a clear/gray jelly like sludge on the paper towel. DA #128 said the ice machine was cleaned every other day. Dietary Manager (DM) #131 arrived at that time and said the ice machine was cleaned once a month and verified the paper towel should have come out clean. The microwave walls, door, ceiling and turn table was thick with food debris and dried liquid drips. The oven interior had a large amount of charred food debris on the bottom. The appliances (stove, flat top/fryer, oven) had a dried food, grease and other debris dripped down the sides and front. The top of the oven was thick with removable dirt and debris. The light cages above the stove, ovens and flat top/fryer were thick with dust that could drop into the food. Interview with DM #131 on 03/11/19 at 7:56 P.M. verified the condition of the kitchen. He said they had routine cleaning schedules as posted on the wall. The posting indicated staff had initialed completion of the tasks. On 03/12/19 beginning at 5:00 P.M. tray line was observed. DA #124 was observed to plate the foods. DA #124 took several plates from tray line to another area because they were visibly soiled. On 03/13/19 beginning at 7:53 A.M. tray line was observed. DA #120 was observed to take the lid off the Lowerator (a heated adjustable plate riser) to obtain heated plates to put the food on. The first plate had yellow dried food debris. DA #124 removed the plate and then proceeded to remove five more soiled plates. Beige divided dishes also had dried food and paper debris on the interior and on the sides. DA #124 then went through the Lowerator and removed multiple plates with food debris on them and took them to the dish washer. The dish washer was observed on 03/12/19 at 5:35 P.M. to be working properly. Review of the sanitization policy revised October 2008 indicated all kitchens, kitchen areas and dining areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams, cracks and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges and fasteners will be kept in good repair. All equipment, food contact surfaces and utensils shall be washed to remove or completely loosen soils by using the manual or mechanical means necessary and sanitized using hot water and/or chemical sanitization solution. Ice machines and ice storage containers will be drained, cleaned and sanitized per manufacturer's instructions and facility policy. The food service managers would be responsible for scheduling staff for regular cleaning of the kitchen and dining areas. Food service staff will be trained to maintain cleanliness throughout their work areas during all tasks, and to clean after each task before proceeding to the next assignment. Review of the undated ice machine sanitation policy indicated the kitchen staff would wash, rinse and sanitize the ice making machine monthly. The facility provided a list indicating Residents #13, #23, #26, #28, #32, #43, #53 and #175 did not take food by mouth.
CONCERN (F)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen environment. This affected all residents in the facility who took food by mouth (Residents #13, #2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen environment. This affected all residents in the facility who took food by mouth (Residents #13, #23, #26, #28, #32, #43, #53 and #175 did not take food by mouth). Findings include: On 03/11/19 at 7:40 P.M. the kitchen tour was initially conducted by Dietary Aide (DA) #128 then by the Dietary Manager (DA) #131. The perimeter of the large kitchen was heavy with dark dust, dirt and food debris especially behind the appliances. The section next to the appliances had non-skid mats that had food and other debris filling many of the holes. The floor underneath was also visibly soiled. The white tiled walls were heavily soiled with food and other debris. The walls and floors around the dish washer had large amounts of thick sludge, dirt and food debris built up on the dish machine and the chemical containers used for the dish washer. Interview with DM #131 on 03/11/19 at 7:56 P.M. verified the condition of the kitchen. He said the staff had signed a form they had cleaned the kitchen. The form was posted on the wall and had initials indicating it was complete. He confirmed he was responsible for the supervision of dietary staff and should have ensured the cleaning was completed satisfactorily. Review of the sanitization policy revised October 2008 indicated all kitchens, kitchen areas and dining areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams, cracks and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges and fasteners will be kept in good repair. All equipment, food contact surfaces and utensils shall be washed to remove or completely loosen soils by using the manual or mechanical means necessary and sanitized using hot water and/or chemical sanitization solution. Ice machines and ice storage containers will be drained, cleaned and sanitized per manufacturer's instructions and facility policy. The food service managers would be responsible for scheduling staff for regular cleaning of the kitchen and dining areas. Food service staff will be trained to maintain cleanliness throughout their work areas during all tasks, and to clean after each task before proceeding to the next assignment. The facility provided a list indicating Residents #13, #23, #26, #28, #32, #43, #53 and #175 did not take food by mouth.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, review of posting of staffing information, and review of the night shift floor schedule, the facility failed to ensure posted staffing information was accurate. This had the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of posting of staffing information, and review of the night shift floor schedule, the facility failed to ensure posted staffing information was accurate. This had the potential to affect all 80 residents. Findings include: On 03/11/19 at 10:00 P.M., nursing staffing information posted at the front reception area indicated during the 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift one Registered Nurse (RN), six Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) and five State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs) were working. Observations of staff available and interview of LPN #149 on 03/11/19 at 10:05 P.M. revealed no RN was working and there were five LPNs working. On 03/11/19 at 10:09 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the RN who was scheduled reported off. The DON stated he believed there were six LPNs working. On 03/11/19 at 10:15 A.M., the administrator provided the Night Shift Floor Schedule dated 03/11/19 and verified no RN was working and only five LPNs were working. On 03/11/19 at 10:35 P.M., the administrator verified the staffing information posted was incorrect and stated it was updated once a day, not as changes occurred.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 66 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 11/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing Staffed?

CMS rates OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing?

State health inspectors documented 66 deficiencies at OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING during 2019 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 59 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing?

OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING 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 DAVID OBERLANDER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 90 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio.

How Does Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing Stick Around?

OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING has a staff turnover rate of 50%, which is about average for Ohio nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing Ever Fined?

OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Oasis Center For Rehabilitation And Healing on Any Federal Watch List?

OASIS CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND HEALING 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.