Jan Frances Care Center

815 North Country Club Road, Ada, OK 74820 (580) 332-5328
For profit - Corporation 132 Beds BGM ESTATE Data: November 2025 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#236 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Jan Frances Care Center in Ada, Oklahoma has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. They rank #236 out of 282 facilities in the state, placing them in the bottom half of Oklahoma nursing homes, and #3 out of 3 in Pontotoc County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility's situation is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a critical weakness, with a rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a troubling turnover rate of 67%, which is above the state average. While there have been no fines reported, which is a positive aspect, the facility has raised alarms due to critical incidents including a failure to provide proper medication for a resident and a lack of supervision that led to resident-to-resident abuse, highlighting significant risks to resident safety. Overall, families should be cautious and consider these serious deficiencies when researching this facility.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Oklahoma
#236/282
Bottom 17%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 7 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
46 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 7 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 Oklahoma average (2.6)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 67%

20pts above Oklahoma avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: BGM ESTATE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (67%)

19 points above Oklahoma average of 48%

The Ugly 46 deficiencies on record

5 life-threatening
Aug 2025 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 07/28/25 at 4:01 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of an immediate jeopar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 07/28/25 at 4:01 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of an immediate jeopardy situation related to the facility's failure to provide supervision and interventions to prevent resident-to-resident abuse. Resident #1 and Resident #2 became involved in an altercation over cigarettes on 07/19/25. Resident #1 hit Resident #2 with a wet floor sign, causing a fracture to Resident #2's left arm. The facility did not implement interventions to prevent another incident. On 07/27/25, Resident #1 and Resident #4 were involved in an altercation over cigarettes which resulted in the residents slapping each other. No interventions or additional supervision were implemented to prevent another resident-to-resident altercation. On 07/28/25 at 4:11 p.m., the administrator was notified of the immediate jeopardy and was provided the immediate jeopardy template. On 07/30/25 at 12:16 p.m., an acceptable plan of removal was approved by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal, read in part, July 29, 2025Jan [NAME] Care CenterAmended Plan of Removal-Abuse/Resident to Resident Altercation Completion date 07-29-2025 8:00 p.m.All Staff EducationAbuse and Neglect Policy & ProceduresResident-To-Resident AltercationsAll staff will be educated on ensuring the safety and well-being of all residents by preventing, identifying, and managing resident-to-resident altercations. When a resident poses a risk to others, immediate action will be taken including 1:1 supervision and, if necessary, removal or transfer to a more appropriate setting. All staff will be educated on the facility abuse policy, how to identify abuse, the potential for abuse, and the prevention of abuse. [Name withheld], Regional Nurse, will be the instructor for both inservices. [Name withheld] is the Abuse Coordinator and will receive additional education from [name withheld], Regional Nurse. A sign in sheet will be utilized for staff that are currently in the facility. Any remaining staff will be called to the facility for education; or educated over the telephone. Employee names and the time of the telephone call will be documented. This education will be completed by 4:00 p.m. on 7-29-25. Currently in progress:All residents will be assessed for active behavior issues to determine the risks for future altercations. The physician will be notified if any resident is displaying current behaviors. Interventions will be implemented and care plans updated as needed. This was completed on 7-28-25 at 6:00 p.m. Resident #1 will be discharging to another skilled facility today 7-29-25 at 4:00 p.m. Resident #1 is being monitored 1:1 by a CNA and will be monitored until time of discharge today. Resident #1's care plan has been updated. Resident safe surveys were completed by [name withheld], Administrator on 7-28-25 by 6:00 p.m. Non-verbal communication tools such as an emotions picture card will be used to determine if non-verbal residents feel safe. Skin assessments will be completed for all residents that are cognitively impaired to check for bruising or skin tears to rule out physical abuse. Skin assessments were completed by the Regional Nurse, [name withheld]. They were completed 7-29-25 before 8:00 p.m. Upon completion of the immediate corrections, audits and observations will be continued by the Administrator and Interim Director of Nursing for the next 90 days. On 07/31/25, after interviews with facility staff, review of staff in-services and sign-in sheets, resident behavior assessments, resident skin assessments, safe survey forms, and documentation related to one-on-one supervision of Resident #1 prior to discharge, the immediacy was lifted, effective 07/29/25 at 8:00 p.m The deficient practice remained as a pattern harm level with the potential for more than minimal harm.Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide supervision and interventions to prevent resident-to-resident abuse for 3 (#1, 2, and #4) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator reported two incidents of resident-to-resident abuse in the past 90 days. Findings: An Abuse - Reportable Events policy, dated 08/2019, read in part, It is the responsibility of all facility staff to prohibit resident abuse or neglect in any form, and to report in accordance with the law any incident/event in which there is cause to believe a resident's physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect caused by another person.It is the responsibility of all facility staff to prohibit resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident's property in any form .All residents will be immediately protected from harm .If another resident is the alleged perpetrator, they shall immediately be assessed for treatment options. The safety and protection of other residents is the home's primary concern.1.A care plan, dated 04/22/25, showed Resident #1 exhibited agitation and aggressive behaviors. The care plan was updated on 07/21/25 and showed the resident was combative and had been in an altercation with another resident (Resident #2). A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #1, dated 05/10/25, showed the resident had diagnoses which included chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, malignant neoplasm of colon, cerebral infarction, insomnia, and hypertension. The assessment showed the resident had a BIMS of 12, which indicated the resident was moderately impaired with cognition. The assessment showed the resident required partial to moderate assistance with activities of daily living. A nurse progress note, dated 07/19/25 at 2:00 p.m., showed Resident #1 was in a resident-to-resident altercation. The note showed Resident #1 picked up a wet floor sign and hit the other resident (Resident #2). The note showed the provider was notified and a new order was received for Buspar 5 milligrams three times a day for anxiety. A nurse progress note, dated 07/27/25 at 6:29 p.m., showed Resident #1 was outside smoking when they got in an argument with another resident (Resident #4). The note showed the residents exchanged words then started slapping each other. On 07/28/25 at 12:15 p.m., Resident #1 was interviewed in the courtyard/smoking area. The resident was asked if they had any issues with other residents. The resident did not mention Resident #2 but stated Resident #4 had accused them the previous day of coming in their room and waking them up. Resident #1 reported they did not want to be in the facility and wanted to go somewhere else. 2. On 07/28/25 at 10:40 a.m., Resident #2 was observed in their room, sitting in their wheelchair and watching television. The resident was observed to have a scratch or skin tear to the left forearm. The resident was observed to use their left arm for repositioning the wheelchair and their right arm was observed to be flaccid (limp and weak). A soft arm brace was observed on the resident's bed. A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #2, dated 07/07/25, showed the resident had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, muscle wasting, hypertension, chronic pain, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, and depression. The assessment showed the resident had a BIMS of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment showed the resident required set-up assistance or supervision with activities of daily living. A care plan for Resident #2, dated 07/21/25, showed the resident sustained a wrist fracture caused by another resident (Resident #1). On 07/28/25 at 10:45 a.m., Resident #2 was asked about the scratch on their arm and the arm brace. Resident #2 reported Resident #1 had accused them of stealing their cigarettes. Resident #2 reported Resident #1 became more and more angry and picked up a wet floor sign. Resident #2 reported they could tell Resident #1 was going to hit them, so they raised their left arm in defense and Resident #1 hit Resident #2's left arm. Resident #2 reported they have a fracture to the left arm, but the brace gets in the way of using their wheelchair and they were waiting on an appointment with an orthopedic specialist.3. A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #4, dated 07/17/25, showed the resident had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety, and depression. The assessment showed the resident had a BIMS of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment showed the resident required set-up assistance with activities of daily living. A care plan for Resident #4, dated 07/28/25, showed the resident was at risk for emotional trauma related to being hit by another resident (Resident #1). On 07/28/25 at 10:57 a.m., Resident #4 reported on the previous day, they woke up to find Resident #1 in their room looking for cigarettes. The resident stated they were startled, but not scared. Resident #4 reported they went outside to smoke, Resident #1 got mad while discussing cigarettes and acted like they were going to hit Resident #4. The resident reported Resident #1 hit them on the arm and Resident #4 told them they would fight back. On 07/28/25 at 11:20 a.m., CNA #1 reported they were working the day of the incident between Resident #1 and Resident #2, when Resident #1 accused Resident #2 of stealing their cigarettes. CNA #1 reported after the incident happened, the nurse was dressing Resident #2's arm when Resident #1 came back around and was still angry. CNA #1 reported the staff had to circle around Resident #2 so the nurse could finish dressing the resident's arm. On 07/28/25 at 11:30 a.m., CNA #2 reported they witnessed the incident between Resident #1 and Resident #2. CNA #2 reported they saw and heard the two residents in the hallway and noticed they became louder and louder. CNA #2 reported they alerted LPN #1, but Resident #1 hit Resident #2 with the wet floor sign before staff could reach them and intervene. On 07/28/25 at 11:55 a.m., LPN #1 reported they witnessed the incident between Resident #1 and Resident #2. LPN #1 reported they heard the residents arguing and gradually getting louder. LPN #1 reported they started down the hall to separate the residents, but Resident #1 hit Resident #2 with the wet floor sign before they could get to them. LPN #1 reported the incident started when Resident #1 accused Resident #2 of stealing their cigarettes. LPN #1 reported they immediately separated the residents but did not interview other residents following the incident. On 07/28/25 at 2:00 p.m., the administrator reported Resident #1 was not happy at the facility, and due to the resident's behaviors, they had been trying to get Resident #1 transferred to another facility, but had been unsuccessful in finding a place that would accept the resident. The administrator reported they were not aware of any other incidents involving Resident #1, until the incident the previous day involving Resident #4. The administrator was asked if there were any interventions in place after the 07/19/25 incident to prevent another incident, or if Resident #1 was receiving closer supervision. The administrator stated, No.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an incident of misappropriation of property for 1 (#4) of 2 residents sampled for misappropriation of funds. The administrator repor...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an incident of misappropriation of property for 1 (#4) of 2 residents sampled for misappropriation of funds. The administrator reported two incidents of misappropriation of resident funds. Findings: An Abuse - Reportable Events policy, dated 08/2019, read in part, It is the responsibility of all facility staff to prohibit resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident's property in any form; and to report in accordance with the law any incident/event in which there is cause to believe a resident's physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse, neglect and/or exploitation caused by another person .All alleged allegations of abuse will be reported to the appropriate state agency and to all other agencies as required by regulation. An OSDH incident report form, dated 06/27/25, showed a previous staff member, social services #1, had taken money from residents on two different occasions. The report listed only one resident by name and gave details of that investigation. A quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #4, dated 07/17/25, showed the resident had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety, and depression. The assessment showed the resident had a BIMS score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A care plan for Resident #4, dated 07/28/25, showed the resident had a behavior of manipulation or fabrication toward staff and other residents. On 07/28/25 at 4:15 p.m., the administrator was asked which residents had money taken from the previous social services staff, as only one was listed on the incident report. The administrator reported it was Resident #4, but the administrator was not working at the facility during that time and was not familiar with how the incident was handled. On 07/31/25 at 4:20 p.m., the administrator and regional director of operations were interviewed regarding the social services staff member taking money from Resident #4. The regional director reported the ombudsman informed them about the incident and offered to report the incident to APS. The regional director reported they did an investigation, looked into the resident's bank statements and withdrawals, and ultimately the staff member admitted to taking the money from Resident #4. The regional director reported this was against their policy and the staff member was terminated. The regional director stated they did not report the incident to OSDH, as they thought the ombudsman would report it. On 08/01/25 at 8:45 a.m., the administrator reported they were not working at the facility when the incident occurred with Resident #4 and the previous social services staff. The administrator stated they were the one that reported the incident involving a different resident, and if they had been at the facility, they would have done the same related to the incident with Resident #4. On 08/01/25 at 10:25 a.m., the ombudsman reported they had gone to the facility when Resident #4 called them to say the social services staff had asked to borrow money. The resident told the ombudsman they had given the staff member their debit card and thought they would pay back the money. The ombudsman reported they offered to submit an APS report for the facility regarding the incident. The ombudsman reported they did not know if the facility called the police or did an investigation, but they should have. On 08/01/25 at 10:40 a.m., Resident #4 reported they thought they were friends with the previous social services staff and did not hesitate to give the staff member their debit card. The resident stated they had learned a lesson and would not do it again.
Apr 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's emergency contact was notified of medication ch...

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 a resident's emergency contact was notified of medication changes and the physician and emergency contact were notified of a change in condition for 1(#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for notification of change. The AIT identifed 48 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #1 had diagnoses which included painful micturition (act of urinating), personal history of urinary calculi, urinary tract infection, and anxiety disorder. A resident care plan, revised 03/17/25, showed Resident #1 had a catheter and was at increased risk for urinary tract infections. The care plan showed the resident had chronic pain. A physician's order, dated 03/18/25, showed Ativan (antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg two times a day for seven days. A physician's order, dated 03/20/25, showed pyridium (relieves symptoms caused by urinary tract infections and other urinary problems) 200 mg three times a day for seven days. A physician's order, dated 03/24/25, showed Ativan 0.5 mg two times a day. There was no documentation Resident #1's emergency contact was notified of the change in medication orders. A progress note, dated 03/28/25 at 3:58 a.m., read in part, An aide reported that resident was not acting right, resident just staring at the ceiling, VS [vital signs] 89/52, 92, 18, 98.7, 93% on RA [room air], no distress notes, resident not answer questions, resident had vomited earlier this shift.Had given a pain pill earlier for c/o [complain of] back pain. There was no documentation Resident #1's physician and emergency contact were notified of the change in condition. On 04/04/25 at 2:13 p.m., LPN #1 was asked who was notified for a change in a resident. LPN #1 stated either the resident's physician assistant or doctor. LPN #1 stated administration, the DON, and the family were also notified. LPN #1 stated the staff would assess the resident and notify the doctor of what they found, follow any orders, then notify the DON and the family. On 04/03/25 at 2:25 p.m., LPN #1 was shown the electronic medical record progress notes to review for Resident #1. After review, LPN #1 was asked if the resident's emergency contact was notified for changes to the resident's medication on 03/20/25 for pyridium. LPN #1 stated, Do not see where they did. LPN #1 was asked if the resident's emergency contact was notified for the Ativan order dated 03/24/25 changing to twice a day. They stated, Don't see. LPN #1 was asked where the emergency contact and the physician was notified about Resident #1 Not acting right on 03/28/25. They stated, Don't see. LPN #1 stated they usually completed a note and also an observation note that had all the contact information on it.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a urinalysis to detect signs of urinary infection and blood for 1 (#1) of 3 residents sampled for unnecessary medication. The AIT id...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a urinalysis to detect signs of urinary infection and blood for 1 (#1) of 3 residents sampled for unnecessary medication. The AIT identified 48 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #1 had diagnoses which included urinary tract infection, personal history of urinary calci, painful Micturition (painful urination), malignant neoplasm of the prostate and kidney failure. An Encounter Note, dated 01/08/25, showed a TRUS (trans rectal ultrasound) of the prostate had been performed that day. The note showed to obtain a urinalysis to detect signs of urinary infection and blood. The note showed Resident #1 required surgical treatment. There was no documentation to show a urinalysis was obtained in Resident #1's clinical record. A resident care plan, revised 03/17/25, showed Resident #1 had a catheter and was at increased risk for urinary tract infections. On 04/07/25 at 3:27 p.m., the DON was asked to locate the urinalysis requested on the encounter note dated 01/08/25. They stated it may have been thinned and went to look for it. On 04/07/25 at 3:57 p.m., the assistant director of nursing stated they were not able to locate the urinalysis.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were maintained during catheter care for 1 (#2) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for activi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were maintained during catheter care for 1 (#2) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for activities of daily living care for dependent residents. The AIT identified 48 residents resided at the facility. Findings: On 04/04/25 at 11:13 a.m., LPN #1 performed hand hygiene, donned gloves, gathered supplies of saline, drain sponge and another sponge, and placed then on the resident's bedside table. LPN #1 removed the old drain sponge from the suprapubic catheter and no drainage observed. LPN #1 cleaned the area, applied an ointment, covered the resident with their blanket, threw away the trash, adjusted the resident's covers, bedside table, television remote, and the resident's phone. LPN #1 did not change their gloves or perform proper hand hygiene during the performance of catheter care. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included painful micturition (act of urinating), personal history of urinary calculi, urinary tract infection, and anxiety disorder. A resident care plan, revised 03/17/25, showed Resident #1 had a catheter and was at increased risk for urinary tract infections. On 04/04/25 at 11:25 a.m., LPN #1 stated they should have changed their gloves after cleaning the tube.
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for elopement. The assistant administrator rep...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for elopement. The assistant administrator reported 50 residents resided in the facility. The facility elopement book identified four residents at risk for elopement. Findings: A policy titled Wandering, Unsafe Resident, dated 12/01/08, read in part, The facility will strive to prevent unsafe wandering while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents who are at risk for elopement. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included dementia. An elopement risk evaluation, dated 08/19/24, showed Resident #1 was at risk for elopement. A care plan, dated 08/19/24, showed Resident #1 was an elopement risk due to ambulation status, history of elopement, dementia, and wandering. A progress note, dated 01/11/25 at 5:09 a.m., showed the resident got up through the night wandering halls, trying to go into other resident rooms, and was easily redirected. A quarterly assessment, dated 01/13/25, showed Resident #1's cognition was severly impaired and the brief interview for mental status was unable to be scored. A incident report, dated 03/12/25, showed the facility was notified by a realtor at 11:20 a.m. of a possible missing resident. The report showed staff returned Resident #1 to the facility. The report showed the resident's window screen had been removed and the window was open. The report showed the resident had been last seen in the front lobby at 10:30 a.m. A progress note, dated 03/12/25 at 12:16 p.m., showed a real estate office reported a resident was sitting in their office. The progress note showed Resident #1 was picked up by a nurse and the resident reported to the nurse it was a nice day for a walk. The progress note showed it appeared the resident had removed their window screen and climbed out the window. On 03/17/25 at 4:00 p.m., the assistant administrator reported Resident #1 had been moved to a room on the front hall due to plumbing issues from the resident stuffing items down their toilet. The assistant administrator reported after the elopement, another resident reported Resident #1 had been messing with their window before the incident. The assistant administrator reported the resident had been moved back to their old room which improved their wandering behavior.
Jan 2025 1 deficiency
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide hot water in resident bathroom sinks for three (#12, 22, and #26) of three residents sampled for comfortable and home...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide hot water in resident bathroom sinks for three (#12, 22, and #26) of three residents sampled for comfortable and homelike environment. The administrator reported 46 residents resided in the facility. An undated Maintenance Policy, read in parts, The facility shall complete a routine maintenance and preventive maintenance program to assure the safety and comfort of the residents. The following items shall be tested weekly .water temperature. 1. On 01/07/25 at 11:42 a.m., Resident #12 reported the water in their bathroom sink never got hot. The water was checked with the surveyor holding their hand under the running water for two minutes and the water never warmed up. On 01/09/25 at 10:04 a.m., the water temperature was rechecked in Resident #12's bathroom. After letting the hot water run for two minutes, a digital temperature reading was 68.9 degrees Fahrenheit. The resident reported maintenance staff had been in their room to check the water temperature, but nothing had changed. A maintenance temperature log was reviewed. The log documented the most recent water temperature check for Resident #12's room was on 01/03/25. The temperature reading was 100 degrees Fahrenheit. 2. On 01/07/25 at 1:30 p.m., Resident #22 reported they did not have hot water and the water in their sink never got hot. The resident reported they had previously reported this to maintenance staff. The water was checked by the surveyor holding their hand under the running water for two minutes and the water never warmed up. On 01/09/25 at 9:59 a.m., the water temperature was rechecked in Resident #22's bathroom. After letting the hot water run for two minutes, a digital temperature reading was 83.5 degrees Fahrenheit. A maintenance temperature log was reviewed. The log documented the most recent water temperature check for Resident #22's room was on 12/27/24. The temperature reading was 104 degrees Fahrenheit. 3. On 01/07/25 at 1:45 p.m., Resident #26 reported they did not have hot water in their sink and it was never warm. The resident reported they had previously talked to maintenance staff about the hot water issue. The water was checked by the surveyor holding their hand under the running water for two minutes and the water never warmed up. On 01/09/25 at 9:58 a.m., the water temperature was rechecked at Resident #26's sink. After letting the hot water run for two minutes, a digital temperature reading was 78.8 degrees Fahrenheit. A maintenance temperature log was reviewed. The log documented the most recent water temperature check for Resident #26's room was on 12/27/24, with a temperature reading of 104 degrees Fahrenheit. 4. Resident council meeting minutes, dated 11/26/24, read in part, maintenance forgets to do things. Resident council meeting minutes, dated 12/17/24, read in parts, maintenance is friendly .slow to complete things. On 01/08/25 at 4:29 p.m., the DON reported a clipboard was used to report maintenance issues. The DON reported they kept a copy of the maintenance request then put a copy on the clipboard for maintenance to work from. The DON was uncertain of specific residents who had reported complaints related to lack of hot water in their rooms. On 01/09/25 at 10:29 a.m., maintenance staff reported they checked water temps and air temps on a regular basis. They reported random rooms were checked weekly and temperatures were documented on a log. The maintenance staff reported they had issues off and on with hot water in resident rooms and was aware of the complaints. On 01/09/25 at 10:35 a.m., the corporate administrator reported they currently had maintenance staff checking water temperatures in every room of the building to check for adequate hot water.
Oct 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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure availability of hot water for three (#7, 8, an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure availability of hot water for three (#7, 8, and #9) of nine sampled residents reviewed for reasonable accommodations of needs. The ADON reported 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, cerebral infarction, and pressure ulcer of left heel. Resident #7's cognition was moderately impaired. On 10/09/24 at 1:25 p.m., Resident #7 reported they could not shave in their bathroom or wash their hands without hot water. The hot water measured 72.5 degrees Fahrenheit in their bathroom sink. 2. Resident #8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following other cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side, cerebrovascular disease, and acute appendicitis. Resident #8's cognition was intact. On 10/09/24 at 1:29 p.m., Resident #8 reported there was no hot water and they could not shave in their bathroom. The hot water measured 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit. 3. Resident #9 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included COPD, chronic pain, and diarrhea. Resident #9's cognition was intact. On 10/09/24 at 1:53 p.m., Resident #9 reported it took ten minutes for the water to get hot. They reported they would like to wash their hands with hot water. The hot water measured 93 degrees Fahrenheit. On 10/09/24 at 4:20 p.m., Maintenance reported the water pumps sent out hot water to different areas of the building. They reported two water pumps were not functioning and had been ordered. They reported those rooms did not reach a comfortable temperature and the water temperature should be comfortable for the residents.
May 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage for eight consecutive hours per day, seven days a week. The regional director reported 32 residents resided in the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage for eight consecutive hours per day, seven days a week. The regional director reported 32 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A staffing policy, not dated, read in part A registered nurse will be employed full time on the day shift, with coverage seven days a week, as the facility's director of nursing service. Clinical staff time detail reports were reviewed for 04/01/24 through 05/21/24. The reports documented no RN coverage in the facility seven days a week. On 05/21/24 at 11:05 a.m., the Regional Director reported the facilty had not hired a DON since the last DON had walked out in March 2024. The Regional Director reported the corporate RN was working as the DON. On 05/22/24 at 10:55 a.m., the Regional Director reported the corporate RN worked in the facility eight hours a day, five days a week. The Regional Director reported the facility had no RN coverage on the weekends.
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 F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a licensed administrator. Findings: A Administrator policy, dated 07/01/11, read in part .Qualifications/Experience/Requirements: A...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a licensed administrator. Findings: A Administrator policy, dated 07/01/11, read in part .Qualifications/Experience/Requirements: A current, valid state nursing home administrator license is required . The Regional Director reported 32 residents resided in the facility. The staff list provided by the Regional Director, dated 05/21/24, documented no Administrator. On 05/21/24 at 11:05 a.m., the Regional Director reported no licensed Administrator had been hired since the last Administrator walked out in March 2024. The Regional Director reported they had hired a new office staff member that would start Administrator school the first week of June. The Regional Director reported not being a licensed Administrator and was covering until the office staff member was licensed. On 05/22/24 at 10:25 a.m., the Regional Director reported the facility had submitted paperwork to name an Administrator they were operating under. The Regional Director reported the named Administrator was only used for on-call for questions and in the facility as needed. The Regional Director reported the listed Administrator was over two other nursing homes.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure housekeeping services maintained a clean environment. The ADON reported 32 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure housekeeping services maintained a clean environment. The ADON reported 32 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility Housekeeping Guideline manual, dated 01/01/05, read in part, .Daily cleaning resident rooms .Empty and clean trash cans .Dust mop floors .Damp mop floors . The facility housekeeping checklist order, provided by the Regional Director, not dated, read in part, .Daily order of housekeeping to-dos, this includes sweeping, mopping, picking up trash, making it look presentable .Front entrance/lobby .Around nursing station .Start on a hallway .Take all the trash out of the rooms on the hall .Sweep out all the rooms on the hall .Mop all the rooms on the hall .Sweep and mop the actual hallway itself . On 03/25/24 at 2:15 p.m., upon entrance to the facility, the lobby and hallway floors were observed to be dirty with brown sticky spots in multiple areas. The floors were observed to have dirt debris randomly throughout the lobby and hallways. The lobby area had a strong odor of urine. No housekeeping staff were observed cleaning the facility. On 03/25/24 at 2:30 p.m., resident #2's room was observed to have brown sticky spots on the floor and trash was on the floor around the overflowing trash can. On 03/25/24 at 2:30 p.m., resident #2 reported their room was not cleaned very often. The resident reported the floor in their room was dirty, not just old. The resident reported the floor was not swept and mopped daily. The resident reported not being aware of the last time the room was mopped. On 03/25/24 at 2:35 p.m., resident #1 reported their room was not cleaned very often, and was not aware of the last time it had been mopped. The resident reported the floors were not clean. On 03/26/24 at 11:30 a.m., the Regional Director reported three new housekeeping staff were being trained that day to get the facility cleaned properly. On 03/27/24 at 4:30 p.m., the Regional Director reported being in agreement the facility was dirty on 03/25/24. The Regional Director reported the housekeeping staff needed more training and needed a supervisor.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received showers as scheduled for two (#3 and #6) of six residents reviewed for activities of daily living. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received showers as scheduled for two (#3 and #6) of six residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The ADON reported 32 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #3 had diagnoses which included non-traumatic brain dysfunction and metabolic encephalopathy. Resident #3's assessment, dated 02/20/24 documented cognition severly impaired and dependent on staff for bathing. Resident #3's shower sheets, provided by the Regional Director for February 2024, failed to document scheduled showers were performed for February 1st, 6th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, and 29th. Resident #3's shower sheets, provided by the Regional Director for March 2024, failed to document scheduled showers were performed for March 2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 16th, 19th, 21st and 23rd. Resident #3's care plan, dated 03/21/24, read in part, .Resident ADL functions: Assist x 1 staff with bathing . The facility's shower schedule, dated 03/26/24, documented resident #3's showers were scheduled on the 6-12 shift for Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. On 03/26/24 at 1:51 p.m., Resident #3's family member #2 reported the resident did not receive showers three times a week as scheduled. Family member #2 reported the resident was scheduled for a shower that day but had not received one and the resident's blankets had not been changed. On 03/26/24 at 3:55 pm, the Regional Director reported resident #3 had not received the scheduled shower for that day on the 6-2 shift. On 03/26/24 at 4:00 p.m., CNA #1 reported residents' scheduled showers were not always completed as scheduled due to days when they were short staffed for nurse aides. The CNA reported if showers were missed they would try to get them done the next day. 2. Resident #6 had diagnoses which included vascular dementia and non-traumatic brain dysfunction. The facility's Resident/Family Concern/Grievance form, dated 03/01/24, documented .Resident's family stated that resident hasn't been showered and clothes have not been changed .Nursing department head review and action taken: Resident is being showered immediately and clothes changed .We will monitor showers on the resident . Resident #6's assessment, dated 03/11/24, documented cognition was moderately impaired, partial to moderate staff assistance was required for bathing, and always incontinent of bladder and bowel. The assessment documented moisture associated skin damage. Resident #6's care plan. dated 03/15/24, read in part, .Limited assist x 1 staff with ADLs . Resident #6's shower sheets, provided by the Regional Director for February 2024, failed to document scheduled showers for February 2nd, 5th, 12th, 16th, 23rd, 26th, and 28th. Resident #6's shower sheets, provided by the Regional Director for March 2024, failed to document scheduled showers for March 1st, 6th, and 20th. The facility's shower schedule, dated 03/26/24, documented resident #6's showers were scheduled on the 2-10 shift for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On 03/26/24 at 3:25 p.m., Resident #6's family member #1 reported their only concern was the resident had not received showers as scheduled. Family member #1 reported the resident was scheduled for showers three times a week and had only been receiving one a week. On 03/27/24 at 4:30 p.m., the Regional Director reported not being aware of any issue with showers being provided as scheduled. The Regional Director reported documentation was not available to provide proof that resident showers were provided as scheduled or had been refused by the resident.
Dec 2023 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain housekeeping services necessary to provide a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The Administrator report...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain housekeeping services necessary to provide a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The Administrator reported 27 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility Housekeeping Service Policy, not dated, documented in part, .the facility shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, orderly and attractive condition .daily room care shall be provided for each resident of the facility .deep cleaning of resident rooms will be performed on schedule .floors shall be maintained in clean and safe condition .housekeeping employees will be available to assist with spills and other accidents throughout the day . On 12/03/23 at 4:00 p.m., a tour of the facility was conducted. The floors in the lobby and all hallways were observed to be dirty with brownish-black spots observed in several areas, as well as trash and general debris on the floors. Resident rooms were observed to be cluttered with trash on the floors and cluttered bedside tables. No housekeeping staff was observed in the building. On 12/04/23 at 8:36 a.m., resident #1's family member reported the facility was filthy on a regular basis. They stated they had cleaned the hall bathroom before themselves, swept the floor of trash, and had noticed the same dirty footprints in the hall for several days straight. They stated the facility had housekeeping staff but their hours had been cut so much that they weren't in the facility long enough to clean well. On 12/04/23 at 10:34 a.m., resident #21's room was observed to have trash and debris scattered on the floor. An empty medicine cup, a plastic spoon, an old hospital ID bracelet, and a plastic vial was observed in addition to several pieces of paper. [NAME] stains were observed on the floor which appeared to be liquid spills. The resident pointed out brown stains under their bed and stated those had been there at least a couple of weeks since they were admitted to the facility. The resident reported they saw housekeeping staff in the hallway occasionally but they did not come into their room. On 12/04/23 at 10:50 a.m., , resident #10's room was observed to have a dirty floor with debris and dust, the window seal with light colored dust and debris, clothing in the corner between the bed and wall, and pieces of trash and paper scattered along the baseboards. The toilet was observed to have a brownish-black buildup of residue in the toilet bowl. The resident reported they did not see housekeeping staff come in their room to clean but occasionally the aides emptied the trash. On 12/04/23 at 1:38 p.m., resident #25's toilet was observed to have a brownish-black ring around the toilet bowl and brown splatters and stains on the wall around the toilet and door frame. On 12/04/23 at 2:05 p.m., resident #32's room was observed to have a dirty floor with what appeared to be spills and a sticky substance. The sink in the bathroom was observed to have brown stains and debris at the sink drain. The toilet was observed with a black buildup of residue. On 12/05/23 at 10:23 a.m., the housekeeping supervisor reported the facility's housekeeping staff had recently had their hours cut back to six or six and a half hours per day. They stated there was housekeeping staff scheduled every day, with a part-time housekeeper on the weekend. The supervisor was asked if staff had a cleaning checklist to refer to and she stated they didn't use a checklist but staff had been trained on how to properly clean and deep-clean a resident's room. The supervisor reported this past weekend she had an employee out sick and didn't have anyone to work in their place. The condition of restrooms and toilets was discussed and the supervisor reported the products they had been using were not getting the toilets clean. The supervisor stated they had used the same cleaning products for a long time, from the same company, and she was uncertain if they would be allowed to try something different. The condition of the floors was discussed and the supervisor stated they worked on the black spots every now and then but currently did not have anyone to buff the floors. On 12/05/23 at 3:52 p.m., the DON provided documentation of weekly cleaning schedules, assignments to be completed by the CNA's for equipment, etc, and reported there was no documentation that cleaning tasks had been performed. The DON toured the facility with the surveyor and observed a resident's wheelchair with debris buildup on the seat and lock bases, a sit-to-stand unit with dust and debris on the base and foot rest, a resident's electric wheelchair with crumbs and debris on the seat, hand controls, and foot rest, and bedside tables throughout the facility that were dirty with food, trash, and debris. On 12/07/23 at 9:54 a.m., the administrator reported the facility had housekeeping staff every day of the week but hours had been cut related to low census. She stated they normally had two housekeepers who worked the same hours, but stated she was trying to change the schedules where they would overlap to cover more hours during the day. The administrator stated she had talked to the housekeeping supervisor as recent as the previous week and told them they needed to step it up. On 12/07/23 at 10:12 a.m., a telephone interview was conducted with an anonymous concerned visitor to the facility. They stated they visited the facility often and it was always filthy. They reported the bathrooms were nasty and stated they were worse than a gas station bathroom.
Jul 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify a resident's representative, when the resident was sent to the emergency room for treatment, for one (#10) of three residents review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify a resident's representative, when the resident was sent to the emergency room for treatment, for one (#10) of three residents reviewed for notification of changes. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 07/12/23, documented 32 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #10 had diagnoses which included dementia, psychosis, anxiety, and depression. A significant change MDS assessment, dated 04/05/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired with cognition and was independent with most activities of daily living. A progress note, dated 05/31/23 at 1:12 p.m., documented the resident returned to the facility with a family member. The note documented the resident became dizzy when getting out of the car and almost fell. The note documented staff assessed the resident, called the medical provider, and received an order to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. The note documented the resident's son and daughter were present. The note did not document the resident's representative/POA was notified of the incident. A progress note, dated 05/31/23 at 7:37 p.m., documented the resident returned to the facility via private vehicle. There was no documentation to indicate the resident's representative/POA was notified. On 07/13/23 at 11:30 a.m., resident #10's clinical record was reviewed and documented the resident's representative/POA was listed as the first emergency contact. On 07/13/23 at 1:48 p.m., LPN #1 was interviewed regarding the facility process for notification. The LPN reported any time there was an incident with a resident, the resident's physician, family, DON, and administrator would be notified as soon as possible. The LPN reported the emergency contact information could be located in the resident's clinical record. On 07/13/23 at 3:30 p.m., LPN #2 was asked what the facility's policy and procedure was for notification of resident representatives. The LPN reported any time there was an incident involving a resident, the resident's physician, family, DON, and administrator was notified. The LPN reported the emergency contact information could be found in the resident's clinical record, and stated if they couldn't reach the first contact they would go down the list until a family member or representative could be reached.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 prevent abuse, and implement interventions to prevent further abuse, for three (#2, #7, and #9) of three residents sampled for abuse. The administrator reported two incidents of abuse in the previous six months. Findings: A facility policy, Abuse - Reportable Events dated 08/2019, read in part, .It is the responsibility of all facility staff to prohibit resident abuse or neglect in any form .Physical action within the definition of abuse, including, but not limited to hitting, slapping, punching, and kicking .Sexual abuse .non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident .The facility will attempt to screen for potentially abusive residents via the admission .If another resident is the alleged perpetrator, they shall immediately be assessed for treatment options .The safety and protection of other residents is the home's primary concern . 1. Res #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, diabetes, restlessness/agitation, anxiety, depression, legally blind, and peripheral vascular disease. A quarterly MDS assessment for Res #2, dated 05/15/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment documented the resident was independent with most activities of daily living and exhibited verbal behaviors towards others. An OSDH incident report form, dated 06/28/23, documented an incident involving Res #2 and Res #7. The report documented Res #7 was outside smoking when Res #2 started rubbing Res #7's upper arm and upper back. Res #7 told Res #2 to stop, the resident would not stop, and Res #7 slapped Res #2 across the face. Interventions documented Res #2 would be discharging to another facility. No other interventions related to protecting other residents was documented on the report. An OSDH incident report form, dated 06/29/23, documented Res #9 was sitting in the lobby when Res #2 came up and pulled Res #9's ears and hit the resident on the back of the head. Res #9 was assessed and did not require medical attention. The report documented Res #2 would be discharging to another facility. No other interventions related to protecting other residents was documented on the report. Res #2's care plan, updated 07/05/23, documented in part, .Assess if the resident's behavioral symptoms present a danger to the resident and/or others. Intervene as needed .Inappropriate sexual behavior .gestures .bold behaviors .allow privacy .help resident find other placement .Risk for combative or aggressive behaviors to residents/staff . Res #2 discharged from the facility on 07/06/23. 2. Res #7 had diagnoses which included diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis, depression, and anxiety. An annual MDS assessment for Res #7, dated 04/16/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact and was independent with most activities of daily living. A care plan for Res #7, updated 07/06/23, documented the resident had exhibited agitation and aggressive behavior when the resident slapped another resident. There was no other documentation related to behaviors. On 07/11/23 at 3:05 p.m., Res #7 was asked if they were aware of any abuse or had experienced any abuse while living at the facility. The resident reported an incident when Res #2 had touched them inappropriately. Res #7 stated they immediately reported the incident and Res #2 no longer lived at the facility. 3. Res #9 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, psychosis, muscle wasting, conduct disorder, and traumatic brain injury. An annual MDS assessment for Res #9, dated 04/25/23, documented the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living. A care plan for Res #9, updated 07/05/23, documented the resident had behaviors of using foul language toward staff and socially inappropriate behaviors/comments. The care plan documented the resident had a history of hitting another resident defending himself. On 07/12/23 at 10:00 a.m., the administrator was interviewed regarding Res #2's behaviors. The administrator reported she had been at the facility approximately one month and had submitted two incident reports to OSDH involving Res. #2 and resident to resident abuse. The administrator reported the resident had been transferred to another facility the previous week. On 07/12/23 at 4:43 p.m., the ADON was interviewed regarding Res #2's behaviors and interventions to prevent abuse. The ADON stated they had been looking for another facility to transfer the resident to for quite some time, but it had been difficult due to his need for dialysis treatments. On 07/13/23 at 1:34 p.m., LPN #3 reported Res #2 liked to play and would sometimes get too rough with Res. #9. The LPN stated that although Res #2 was legally blind, the resident was cognitively intact and could move about the facility independently. The LPN stated staff routinely kept an eye on Res #2 when he was out of his room and interacting with other residents. On 07/13/23 at 1:48 p.m., LPN #1 reported Res #2 was known to agitate other residents and wouldn't keep his hands to himself. When asked what the LPN meant by this, she stated he would pick at other residents, touch staff inappropriately, and he had touched one female resident inappropriately (Res #7). The LPN stated staff always monitored Res #2 when he was out and about in the facility.
Jan 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one (#1) of three residents revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for one (#1) of three residents reviewed for rehabilitative or restorative services. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 42 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #1 had diagnoses which included hydrocephalus, dysphagia, psychotic disorder, and anxiety. A care plan for Res #1, dated 04/04/22, documented the facility was to implement an exercise program for the resident which targeted strength, gait, and balance. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 01/13/23, documented Res #1 was severely impaired with daily decision making and required extensive to total assistance with ADLs. The assessment documented the resident did not have a ROM deficit and did not receive physical, occupational, speech therapy, or restorative services. On 01/25/23 at 1:19 p.m., Res #1 was observed sitting in a wheelchair and listening to the radio. The resident was dressed appropriately, clean, hair combed into a pony tail, and had a sucker. When the resident was asked if she went to activities, she stated, No, as she was handicapped but the staff visited her in her room. On 01/26/23 at 1:09 p.m., PT #1 stated the facility did not have a restorative program. On 01/26/23 at 1:50 p.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 reported they did not provide any PROM or ROM for the residents in the facility. They stated only physical therapy could do ROM. When asked about Res #1 they stated she could not assist them to stand and did not walk. On 01/26/23 at 1:55 p.m., the corporate director of operations stated the facility did not have a restorative program. On 01/26/23 at 1:57 p.m., the corporate RN stated the facility did not train CNAs on PROM, ROM, or any functional maintenance or restorative care at that time. She stated the facility had a restorative policy but had not implemented it yet.
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 F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to appoint an administrator who was licensed by the State of Oklahoma. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 42 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to appoint an administrator who was licensed by the State of Oklahoma. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 42 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 01/25/23 at 12:30 p.m., on entrance to the facility the Corporate Director of Operations reported the facility did not currently have an administrator who was licensed in the State of Oklahoma. She stated she was currently managing the facility until the AIT could complete the required training and receive their license as an administrator.
Nov 2022 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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to administer medications according to physician orders for six (#5, 8, 11, 42, 45, and #72) of 13 residents reviewed for medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to administer medications according to physician orders for six (#5, 8, 11, 42, 45, and #72) of 13 residents reviewed for medication administration. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #5 had diagnoses which included heart failure and hypertension. A physician order, dated 10/24/22, documented to administer carvedilol 25 mg twice a day for hypertension. The order documented to hold the medication if the systolic BP was less than 100 or the diastolic BP less than 60. The November 2022 MAR documented on 11/07/22 a BP of 100/54. The carvedilol medication was administered and not held. On 11/13/22 at 3:51 p.m., the DON stated the medication should have been held. 2. Res #8 had diagnoses which included A-fib and secondary hypertension. A physician order, dated 05/31/22, documented to administer hydralazine 25 mg every six hours for hypertension. The order documented to hold the medication if the systolic BP was less than 100 or the diastolic BP less than 60. The October 2022 MAR documented on 10/25/22 a BP of 123/57. The hydralazine medication was administered and not held. On 11/13/22 at 3:52 p.m., the DON stated the medication should have been held. 3. Res #11 had diagnoses which included hypertension. A physician order, dated 03/16/22, documented clonidine HCL 0.1 mg, administer 1/2 tab to equal 0.05 mg twice a day PRN for BP higher than 160/90. The October 2022 MAR documented on 10/25/22 a BP of 164/97. According to the MAR, clonidine was not administered. The November 2022 MAR documented on 11/01/22 a BP of 161/90, on 11/08/22 a BP of 167/90, and 11/12/22 a BP of 167/83. According to the MAR, clonidine was not administered. On 11/13/22 at 3:50 p.m., the DON stated the clonidine should have been given as ordered. 4. Res #42 had diagnoses which included hypertension, heart failure, and A-fib. A physician order, dated 08/06/21, documented to administer amiodarone (an antiarrhythmic medication) 200 mg once a day for persistent atrial fibrillation. The October 2022 MAR documented the amiodarone medication was held on the 14th, 20th, 24th, 26th, 29th, 30th, and the 31st. There were no parameters documented to hold the medication. The November 2022 MAR documented the amiodarone medication was held on the 1st, 6th, 8th, and the 9th. There were no parameters documented to hold the medication. On the back side of the MAR, there was hand written documentation the amiodarone was held due to low BP readings. On 11/10/22 at 4:40 p.m., CMA #1 was asked why the amiodarone was held on the above dates. She stated usually if other BP medications were held then she thought that all heart medications should be held due to the parameters of the other medications. On 11/10/22 at 4:45 p.m., the DON was shown the MARs where the amiodarone had been held. She stated the amiodarone was for A-fib and should not have been held. 5. Res #45 had diagnoses which included angina pectoris and hypertension. A physician order, dated 10/30/22, documented isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg once a day for hypertension. The order documented to hold the medication if the systolic BP was less than 105. The November 2022 MAR documented on the 4th the resident's BP was 102/90 and the isosorbide mononitrate medication was administered. On 11/13/22 at 3:53 p.m., the DON stated the medication should have been held. 6. Res #72 had diagnoses which included atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and hypertension. A physician order, dated 04/14/22, documented isosorbide mononitrate 10 mg once a day for atherosclerotic heart disease. There were no ordered parameters to hold the medication. The October 2022 MAR documented on the 16th, 23rd, 29th, 30th, and the 31st the medication was not administered. The November 2022 MAR documented on the 6th the medication was not administered. On 11/10/22 at 4:41 p.m., CMA #1 was asked why the isosorbide mononitrate was held on the above dates. She stated usually gives the medication but sometimes she thought if the BP was low then all the BP medications should be held. On 11/10/22 at 4:46 p.m., the DON was shown the MARs where the isosorbide mononitrate had been held. She stated the medication should not have been held.
Sept 2022 28 deficiencies 4 IJ (1 facility-wide)
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** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure residents we...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure residents were free from neglect. Res #152 admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE] for skilled nursing services. Res #152's medical records did not document an admission assessment, skilled services progress notes, ADL documentation, meal or fluid intake, completed medication administration record, vital signs, or ongoing assessment of resident status. Res #152 expired in the facility four days after admission. On [DATE] at 1:13 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation. On [DATE] at 1:19 p.m., the administrator was notified of the IJ situation related to neglect for Res #152. On [DATE] at 9:32 a.m., an acceptable plan of removal was submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal documented: [DATE] Jan [NAME] Care Center Plan of Removal for 4 IJs Completion Date 9-15-22 11:00 p.m. All education will be done by the Regional Nurse, [name deleted], and [name deleted], Regional Director. All Staff Education Abuse and Neglect Policy & Procedures. Identify types of abuse and neglect with feedback from the participants through group discussion. Clinical Staff Education Medication Administration Policy & Procedure. Discussed medication availability, timely administration of all medications, resident refusal of medications. Reviewed the process for significant medication errors. Vital Sign Documentation Reviewed the importance of obtaining vitals signs for the surveillance monitoring daily; and resident assessments and skilled documentation when required. Resident Assessment/Change of Condition/Interventions. Reviewed the importance of resident assessments for new admissions, readmissions, and when the resident has a change of condition. Reviewed appropriate and timely interventions. ADL Documentation. Handout given to all participants. Reviewed what ADLs are and how to document them each shift. Discussed the importance of accurate coding. Reviewed person-centered care and resident independence when possible. Reviewed decline in function and range of motion. Skilled Nursing Documentation- Implemented all residents will be assessed and documented on when they are receiving skilled nursing care on each shift. Reviewed skill documentation guidelines. Instructed the nurses where their nursing resource book is at the nurses station and the importance of referring to it when the need arises. Upon completion of the immediate corrections; audits and observations will continue by the DON or designee for 60 days. Audit Skilled Nursing Documentation Surveillance Monitoring on all Residents Medication Administration/Documentation Observation. Audit of all medications to ensure availability, accuracy of physician orders, and accuracy of medication administration records. Nurse assessment on all Residents for change of condition, decline in function, and appropriate interventions. Audit ADL Documentation Regional Nurse will assume the Interim DON position immediately. She is currently at the facility. An additional RN has been hired for two days a week to relieve the DON, to ensure 7 day a week RN coverage. On [DATE] and [DATE], interviews were conducted with nursing staff regarding education and in-service information pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. The staff stated they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information provided in the in-service pertaining to the plan of removal. Documentation was provided related to the medication carts and ADL documentation audits. The IJ was lifted, effective [DATE] at 5:58 p.m., when all components of the plan of removal had been completed. The deficiency remained at a isolated level of actual harm. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from neglect for one (#152) of two residents reviewed for death in the facility. Res #152's medical records did not document an admission assessment, skilled services progress notes, ADL documentation, meal or fluid intake, completed medication administration record, vital signs, or ongoing assessment of resident status. Res #152 expired in the facility four days after admission. The Residents Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility abuse policy, dated 08/2019, documented the definition of neglect read in parts, .The failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress .It is the responsibility of every employee to report immediately anything that could adversely affect the health and welfare of any resident . An undated facility policy, titled Documentation of Medication Administration read in part, .Administration of medication must be documented immediately after (never before) it is given . An undated facility policy, titled Charting and Documentation read in part, .All observations, medications administered, services performed, etc., must be documented in the resident's clinical records . An undated facility policy, titled Activities of Daily Living, read in parts, .It is our responsibility to support residents at their highest level of function .recognize if there is a decline in the resident's abilities, report decline, make referrals for appropriate programs and develop a plan of care that meets the resident needs, preferences and choices . Facility inservice records documented staff received training on neglect on [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. Resident #152 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including interstitial pulmonary disease, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, COPD, atherosclerotic heart disease, history of TIA and cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, hydronephrosis with renal and urethral calculus obstruction, muscle weakness, and dementia. A hospital record, dated [DATE], read in parts, .was found to have DVT in R soleus vein on b/l Doppler LE studies. AC therapy discussed with pharmacy and detailed below .For follow-up provider .Further COPD work-up indicated. PFTs as able .discharged with Foley for significant urinary retention and tamsulosin/finasteride therapy. Recommend routine Foley replacement and monitoring of kidney function .Lovenox 40 mg SQ daily. Continue until Cr improves. Monitor BMP daily. When Cr clearance, do full dose therapeutic Lovenox BID 1mg/kg dosing. Monitor for signs of bleeding. Check Xa level 4-6hrs post dose per provider discretion .7. Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia .To need home O2 on discharge. Desats to low-mid 80's on room air trial .Hemorrhagic shock .Continue Midodrine 10mg TID . A nurses progress note, dated [DATE] at 6:00 p.m., documented Res #152 was transferred to the facility for skilled nursing care via a private vehicle by his family. He was assisted to a room via wheelchair and required two staff to transfer into bed. The resident was alert and oriented times one, confused, and disoriented. The note documented the resident had even and non-labored respirations without cough or congestion. The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Skin integrity was documented and noted issues measured. The note documented the resident required assistance with all ADLs, and must be spoon fed meals. The note documented the resident's vital signs. The progress note did not include documentation of supplemental oxygen therapy or the presence of a Foley catheter. An LTC -admission Assessment/Observation Documentation form, dated [DATE], had no resident observations or assessments documented. A LTC - 48 Hour Baseline Care Plan form, dated [DATE], documented interventions which included the following: anticipate the resident's needs and observe for non-verbal cues; consult PT, OT, ST as needed; provide one staff assist with bathing/hygiene; provide one staff assist with dressing/grooming; provide one staff assist with eating; provide one to two staff assist with toileting; provide two staff assist with ambulation/transferring; administer medications as ordered; assess, monitor; and document mood; keep call bell in reach and encourage use; weigh weekly for four weeks; monitor meal percentages; encourage fluids; monitor for signs/symptoms of dehydration; obtain laboratory work as ordered; provide hydration per guidelines; monitor for edema/dyspnea; perform oral care twice daily; turn every two hours and as needed; report to charge nurse any redness/skin breakdown immediately; perform breathing treatments; monitor lab work as ordered; monitor for signs/symptoms of bleeding; monitor pain; assess vital signs; monitor endurance/complications; monitor edema; monitor for signs/symptoms of heart failure and dyspnea; check O2 saturation every shift; assess for pain; and assess for constipation. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented diclofenac 1% topical, apply two grams to affected area four times daily. There were no documented administrations of this medication. A respiratory flowsheet, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented revefenacin 175 mcg nebulization daily. This medication was not documented to be administered on [DATE]. The respiratory flowsheet documented Brovana 15 mcg nebulization twice daily at 08:00 a.m. and 08:00 p.m. This medication was not documented to be administered on [DATE] for the p.m. dose and [DATE] for the a.m. or p.m. dose. A TAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented to clean left heel blister with normal saline, apply skin prep twice per day. The [DATE] morning treatment was not documented as completed. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented the facility was to administer gabapentin 60 mg two capsules at bedtime, meloxicam 15 mg one tablet every day, midodrine 10 mg three times daily, polyethylene glycol one packet two times daily, Senokot two tablets twice daily, tamsulosin 0.4 mg at bedtime, calcium carbonate one tablet twice daily, cholecalciferol 1000 units daily, finasteride 5 mg daily, folic acid 1 mg daily, Theragran-m one tablet daily, and thiamine 100 mg daily. There were no documented administrations for any of the above medications. No vital signs or ADL care were documented from [DATE] to [DATE]. No progress notes or assessments were documented on [DATE] or [DATE]. A review of the resident's clinical records did not document an order for urinary catheter care or supplemental oxygen. An admission MDS assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility, locomotion, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and toilet use; extensive assistance of one staff for bathing, had limited range of motion in both lower extremities, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, had shortness of breath with exertion, when sitting, and when lying flat, received no medications, and received oxygen therapy. A nursing progress note, dated [DATE] at 6:11 p.m., documented therapy staff notified a nurse Res #152 needed to be assessed. The note documented when the nurse assessed the resident a temperature of 97.8 degrees F was obtained and a blood pressure could not be obtained. The note documented the nurse contacted EMS to transfer the resident to the emergency room. The note documented Res #152 expired before emergency personnel arrived to the facility. A State of Oklahoma Certificate of Death, dated [DATE], documented Res #152's immediate cause of death as cardiac arrest, with acute respiratory failure documented as a condition that lead to death, and interstitial pulmonary disease documented as the underlying cause of death. The death certificate documented other significant conditions contributing to death as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On [DATE] at 2:25 p.m., CNA #3 stated Res #152 was not in the facility very long, but she remembered he was doing good when he first admitted and was eating well. She stated the resident was total care. She stated two days after the resident admitted to the facility he stopped eating and responding to staff and died shortly after. She stated she would have reported it to the nurse if she felt like a resident was not receiving care or being neglected. She stated she did not notify the nurse for any changes for Res #152. On [DATE] at 2:28 p.m., LPN #3 stated she did not remember any details of Res #152's care because she had just started at the facility around the time he was a resident. She stated to ensure residents received care she would help the CNAs whenever she could with call lights. She stated the CNAs were expected to check and change residents every two hours and turn them on the same interval. She stated the aides were supposed to fill out a shower sheet which was turned in to the nurses. She stated there was not a system in place to monitor the CNAs to ensure the required care was completed, and the nurses did not double check any documentation completed by the CNAs. On [DATE] at 7:58 a.m., the ADON stated she remembered going into Res #152's room to place a pillow under his feet. She stated he had family in the room at the time and they requested another blanket for the resident. She stated there were no other issues with the resident at that time. She did not provide a date for this interaction. On [DATE] at 8:00 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she remembered Res #152 and had taken his vitals. She was unable to locate the vital signs in the EHR. She stated she had assisted him by feeding him. She stated she was the nurse who charted the progress note on [DATE] when the resident expired. She stated the nurses on the floor were responsible for completing the 48 hour care plan. On [DATE] at 10:15 a.m., corporate RN #1 stated there was no DON at the facility and she was the highest level nurse in the facility. She stated the only time she saw Res #152 was when she performed a COVID-19 test. She was provided with documentation from Res #152's medical record to review. She stated according to the documentation on the MAR the medications were not administered. She stated the ADON was supposed to be in charge along with the charge nurses. She stated the nurses should not have wasted their time writing a MAR as the green page on the carbon copy was a temporary MAR. She stated they should have completed the admission process and ensured everything was in place. She stated the white copy of the orders should have been sent to the pharmacy and she would check to see if his medications were ever sent. She stated Res #152 should have had a full assessment every shift since he was a skilled resident. She stated if the documentation was blank the care did not happen. On [DATE], the facility provided additional documentation for Res #152's medical record. These included: a pharmacy drug order fill sheet which documented Res #152's blood thinner had been delivered to the facility on [DATE], an additional MAR, a progress note from the physician dated [DATE], and a progress note from the physician assistant dated [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:24 a.m., the administrator stated he expected a new admission to have their documentation completed as soon as they enter the facility including a full head to toe assessment, orders entered, skin issues documented, and hospital discharge documentation reviewed as applicable. He stated he expected residents to be assessed and receive medications as ordered. He stated the facility has a morning meeting to discuss new admissions to ensure the process is followed. He was unsure if a record was kept of what was discussed during the morning meeting regarding Res #152 since the facility only sometimes kept written records of these meetings.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to assess, monitor and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to assess, monitor and provide interventions for Res #152. Res #152 admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE] for skilled nursing services. Res #152's medical records did not document an admission assessment, skilled services progress notes, ADL documentation, meal or fluid intake, completed medication administration record, vital signs, or ongoing assessment of resident status. Res #152 expired in the facility four days after admission. On [DATE] at 1:13 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation. On [DATE] at 1:19 p.m., the administrator was notified of the IJ situation related to quality of care for Res #152. On [DATE] at 9:32 a.m., an acceptable plan of removal was submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal documented: [DATE] Jan [NAME] Care Center Plan of Removal for 4 IJs Completion Date 9-15-22 11:00 p.m. All education will be done by the Regional Nurse, [name deleted], and [name deleted], Regional Director. All Staff Education Abuse and Neglect Policy & Procedures. Identify types of abuse and neglect with feedback from the participants through group discussion. Clinical Staff Education Medication Administration Policy & Procedure. Discussed medication availability, timely administration of all medications, resident refusal of medications. Reviewed the process for significant medication errors. Vital Sign Documentation Reviewed the importance of obtaining vitals signs for the surveillance monitoring daily; and resident assessments and skilled documentation when required. Resident Assessment/Change of Condition/Interventions. Reviewed the importance of resident assessments for new admissions, readmissions, and when the resident has a change of condition. Reviewed appropriate and timely interventions. ADL Documentation. Handout given to all participants. Reviewed what ADLs are and how to document them each shift. Discussed the importance of accurate coding. Reviewed person-centered care and resident independence when possible. Reviewed decline in function and range of motion. Skilled Nursing Documentation- Implemented all residents will be assessed and documented on when they are receiving skilled nursing care on each shift. Reviewed skill documentation guidelines. Instructed the nurses where their nursing resource book is at the nurses station and the importance of referring to it when the need arises. Upon completion of the immediate corrections; audits and observations will continue by the DON or designee for 60 days. Audit Skilled Nursing Documentation Surveillance Monitoring on all Residents Medication Administration/Documentation Observation. Audit of all medications to ensure availability, accuracy of physician orders, and accuracy of medication administration records. Nurse assessment on all Residents for change of condition, decline in function, and appropriate interventions. Audit ADL Documentation Regional Nurse will assume the Interim DON position immediately. She is currently at the facility. An additional RN has been hired for two days a week to relieve the DON, to ensure 7 day a week RN coverage. On [DATE] and [DATE], interviews were conducted with nursing staff regarding education and in-service information pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. The staff stated they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information provided in the in-service pertaining to the plan of removal. Documentation was provided related to the medication cart and ADL documentation audits. The IJ was lifted, effective [DATE] at 5:58 p.m., when all components of the plan of removal had been completed. The deficiency remained at a isolated level of actual harm. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assess, monitor, and provide interventions for one (#152) of seven residents reviewed for quality of care. Res #152's medical records did not document an admission assessment, skilled services progress notes, ADL documentation, meal or fluid intake, completed medication administration record, vital signs, or ongoing assessment of resident status. Res #152 expired in the facility four days after admission. The Residents Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy, titled Documentation of Medication Administration read in part, .Administration of medication must be documented immediately after (never before) it is given . An undated facility policy, titled Charting and Documentation read in part, .All observations, medications administered, services performed, etc., must be documented in the resident's clinical records . An undated facility policy, titled Activities of Daily Living, read in parts, .It is our responsibility to support residents at their highest level of function .recognize if there is a decline in the resident's abilities, report decline, make referrals for appropriate programs and develop a plan of care that meets the resident needs, preferences and choices . Facility inservice records documented staff received training on neglect on [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. Resident #152 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including interstitial pulmonary disease, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, COPD, atherosclerotic heart disease, history of TIA and cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculus obstruction, muscle weakness, and dementia. A hospital record, dated [DATE], read in parts, .was found to have DVT in R soleus vein on b/l Doppler LE studies. AC therapy discussed with pharmacy and detailed below .For follow-up provider .Further COPD work-up indicated. PFTs as able .discharged with Foley for significant urinary retention and tamsulosin/finasteride therapy. Recommend routine Foley replacement and monitoring of kidney function .Lovenox 40 mg SQ daily. Continue until Cr improves. Monitor BMP daily. When Cr clearance, do full dose therapeutic Lovenox BID 1mg/kg dosing. Monitor for signs of bleeding. Check Xa level 4-6hrs post dose per provider discretion .7. Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia .To need home O2 on discharge. Desats to low-mid 80's on room air trial .Hemorrhagic shock .Continue Midodrine 10mg TID . A nurses progress note, dated [DATE] at 6:00 p.m., documented Res #152 was transferred to the facility for skilled nursing care via a private vehicle by his family. He was assisted to a room via wheelchair and required two staff to transfer into bed. The resident was alert and oriented times one, confused, and disoriented. The note documented the resident had even and non-labored respirations without cough or congestion. The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Skin integrity was documented and noted issues measured. The note documented the resident required assistance with all ADLs, and must be spoon fed meals. The note documented the resident's vital signs. The progress note did not include documentation of supplemental oxygen therapy or the presence of a Foley catheter. An LTC -admission Assessment/Observation Documentation form, dated [DATE], had no resident observations or assessments documented. A LTC - 48 Hour Baseline Care Plan form, dated [DATE], documented interventions which included the following: anticipate the resident's needs and observe for non-verbal cues; consult PT, OT, ST as needed; provide one staff assist with bathing/hygiene; provide one staff assist with dressing/grooming; provide one staff assist with eating; provide one to two staff assist with toileting; provide two staff assist with ambulation/transferring; administer medications as ordered; assess, monitor; and document mood; keep call bell in reach and encourage use; weigh weekly for four weeks; monitor meal percentages; encourage fluids; monitor for signs/symptoms of dehydration; obtain laboratory work as ordered; provide hydration per guidelines; monitor for edema/dyspnea; perform oral care twice daily; turn every two hours and as needed; report to charge nurse any redness/skin breakdown immediately; perform breathing treatments; monitor lab work as ordered; monitor for signs/symptoms of bleeding; monitor pain; assess vital signs; monitor endurance/complications; monitor edema; monitor for signs/symptoms of heart failure and dyspnea; check O2 saturation every shift; assess for pain; and assess for constipation. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented diclofenac 1% topical, apply two grams to affected area four times daily. There were no documented administrations of this medication. A respiratory flowsheet, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented revefenacin 175 mcg nebulization daily. This medication was not documented to be administered on [DATE]. The respiratory flowshet documented Brovana 15 mcg nebulization twice daily at 08:00 a.m. and 08:00 p.m. This medication was not documented to be administered on [DATE] for the p.m. dose and [DATE] for the a.m. or p.m. dose. A TAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented to clean left heel blister with normal saline, apply skin prep twice per day. The [DATE] morning treatment was not documented as completed. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented the facility was to administer gabapentin 60 mg two capsules at bedtime, meloxicam 15 mg one tablet every day, midodrine 10 mg three times daily, polyethylene glycol one packet two times daily, Senokot two tablets twice daily, tamsulosin 0.4 mg at bedtime, calcium carbonate one tablet twice daily, cholecalciferol 1000 units daily, finasteride 5 mg daily, folic acid 1 mg daily, Theragran-m one tablet daily, and thiamine 100 mg daily. There were no documented administrations for any of the above medications. No vital signs or ADL care were documented from [DATE] to [DATE]. No progress notes or assessments were documented on [DATE] or [DATE]. A review of the resident's clinical records did not document an order for urinary catheter care or supplemental oxygen. An admission MDS assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility, locomotion, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and toilet use; extensive assistance of one staff for bathing, had limited range of motion in both lower extremities, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, had shortness of breath with exertion, when sitting, and when lying flat, received no medications, and received oxygen therapy. A nursing progress note, dated [DATE] at 6:11 p.m., documented therapy staff notified a nurse Res #152 needed to be assessed. The note documented when the nurse assessed the resident a temperature of 97.8 degrees F was obtained and a blood pressure could not be obtained. The note documented the nurse contacted EMS to transfer the resident to the emergency room. The note documented Res #152 expired before emergency personnel arrived to the facility. A State of Oklahoma Certificate of Death, dated [DATE], documented Res #152's immediate cause of death as cardiac arrest, with acute respiratory failure documented as a condition that lead to death, and interstitial pulmonary disease documented as the underlying cause of death. The death certificate documented other significant conditions contributing to death as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On [DATE] at 2:25 p.m., CNA #3 stated Res #152 was not in the facility very long, but she remembered he was doing good when he first admitted and was eating well. She stated the resident was total care. She stated two days after the resident admitted to the facility he stopped eating and responding to staff and died shortly after. She stated she would have reported it to the nurse if she felt like a resident was not receiving care or being neglected. She stated she did not notify the nurse for any changes for Res #152. On [DATE] at 2:28 p.m., LPN #3 stated she did not remember any details of Res #152's care because she had just started at the facility around the time he was a resident. She stated to ensure residents received care she would help the CNAs whenever she could with call lights. She stated the CNAs were expected to check and change residents every two hours and turn them on the same interval. She stated the aides were supposed to fill out a shower sheet which was turned in to the nurses. She stated there was not a system in place to monitor the CNAs to ensure the required care was completed, and the nurses did not double check any documentation completed by the CNAs. On [DATE] at 7:58 a.m., the ADON stated she remembered going into Res #152's room to place a pillow under his feet. She stated he had family in the room at the time and they requested another blanket for the resident. She stated there were no other issues with the resident at that time. She did not provide a date for this interaction. On [DATE] at 8:00 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she remembered Res #152 and had taken his vitals. She was unable to locate the vital signs in the EHR. She stated she had assisted him by feeding him. She stated she was the nurse who charted the progress note on [DATE] when the resident expired. She stated the nurses on the floor were responsible for completing the 48 hour care plan. On [DATE] at 10:15 a.m., corporate RN #1 stated there was no DON at the facility and she was the highest level nurse in the facility. She stated the only time she saw Res #152 was when she performed a COVID-19 test. She was provided with documentation from Res #152's medical record to review. She stated according to the documentation on the MAR the medications were not administered. She stated the ADON was supposed to be in charge along with the charge nurses. She stated the nurses should not have wasted their time writing a MAR as the green page on the carbon copy was a temporary MAR. She stated they should have completed the admission process and ensured everything was in place. She stated the white copy of the orders should have been sent to the pharmacy and she would check to see if his medications were ever sent. She stated Res #152 should have had a full assessment every shift since he was a skilled resident. She stated if the documentation was blank the care did not happen. On [DATE], the facility provided additional documentation for Res #152's medical record. These included: a pharmacy drug order fill sheet which documented Res #152's blood thinner had been delivered to the facility on [DATE], an additional MAR, a progress note from the physician dated [DATE], and a progress note from the physician assistant dated [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:24 a.m., the administrator stated he expected a new admission to have their documentation completed as soon as they enter the facility including a full head to toe assessment, orders entered, skin issues documented, and hospital discharge documentation reviewed as applicable. He stated he expected residents to be assessed and receive medications as ordered. He stated the facility has a morning meeting to discuss new admissions to ensure the process is followed. He was unsure if a record was kept of what was discussed during the morning meeting regarding Res #152 since the facility only sometimes kept written records of these meetings.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure ensure residents were ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure ensure residents were free of significant medication errors. Res #152 admitted to the facility on [DATE] for skilled nursing services with orders including midodrine (a medication that raises blood pressure) 10 mg three times daily. Medication administration records documented Res #152 did not receive this medication at any time during his admission. Res #152 expired in the facility four days after admission. During the course of the investigation, five additional residents (#3, 14, 34, 40, and #56) were found to have significant medication errors. On [DATE] at 1:13 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation related to a significant medication error for Res #152 On [DATE] at 1:19 p.m., the administrator was notified of the IJ situation. On [DATE] at 9:32 a.m., an acceptable plan of removal was submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal documented: [DATE] Jan [NAME] Care Center Plan of Removal for 4 IJs Completion Date 9-15-22 11:00 p.m. All education will be done by the Regional Nurse, [name deleted], and [name deleted], Regional Director. All Staff Education Abuse and Neglect Policy & Procedures. Identify types of abuse and neglect with feedback from the participants through group discussion. Clinical Staff Education Medication Administration Policy & Procedure. Discussed medication availability, timely administration of all medications, resident refusal of medications. Reviewed the process for significant medication errors. Vital Sign Documentation Reviewed the importance of obtaining vitals signs for the surveillance monitoring daily; and resident assessments and skilled documentation when required. Resident Assessment/Change of Condition/Interventions. Reviewed the importance of resident assessments for new admissions, readmissions, and when the resident has a change of condition. Reviewed appropriate and timely interventions. ADL Documentation. Handout given to all participants. Reviewed what ADLs are and how to document them each shift. Discussed the importance of accurate coding. Reviewed person-centered care and resident independence when possible. Reviewed decline in function and range of motion. Skilled Nursing Documentation- Implemented all residents will be assessed and documented on when they are receiving skilled nursing care on each shift. Reviewed skill documentation guidelines. Instructed the nurses where their nursing resource book is at the nurses station and the importance of referring to it when the need arises. Upon completion of the immediate corrections; audits and observations will continue by the DON or designee for 60 days. Audit Skilled Nursing Documentation Surveillance Monitoring on all Residents Medication Administration/Documentation Observation. Audit of all medications to ensure availability, accuracy of physician orders, and accuracy of medication administration records. Nurse assessment on all Residents for change of condition, decline in function, and appropriate interventions. Audit ADL Documentation Regional Nurse will assume the Interim DON position immediately. She is currently at the facility. An additional RN has been hired for two days a week to relieve the DON, to ensure 7 day a week RN coverage. On [DATE] and [DATE], interviews were conducted with nursing staff regarding education and in-service information pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. The staff stated they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information provided in the in-service pertaining to the plan of removal. Documentation was provided related to the medication cart and ADL documentation audits. The IJ was lifted, effective [DATE] at 5:58 p.m., when all components of the plan of removal had been completed. The deficiency remained at a pattern level of actual harm. Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for six (#3, 14, 34, 40, 56, and #152) of 13 residents reviewed for medications. The Residents Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy, titled Charting and Documentation read in part, .All observations, medications administered, services performed, etc., must be documented in the resident's clinical records . An undated facility policy, titled Medication Errors and Drug Reactions read in part, .Report all medication errors and drug reactions immediately to the attending physician, Director of Nursing Service and Administrator . A undated facility policy titled Identifying and Managing Medication Errors and Adverse Consequences read in parts, .The staff and practioner shall try to prevent medication errors and adverse medication consequences, and shall strive to identify and manage them appropriately when they occur .1. A Nurse or Certified Medication Aide (where applicable) shall document all medications administered to each resident on the resident's medication administration record (MAR) .2. Administration of medication must be documented immediately after (never before) it is given . 1. Resident #152 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including interstitial pulmonary disease, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, COPD, atherosclerotic heart disease, history of TIA and cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculus obstruction, muscle weakness, and dementia. A hospital record, dated [DATE], read in parts, .was found to have DVT in R soleus vein on b/l Doppler LE studies. AC therapy discussed with pharmacy and detailed below .For follow-up provider .Further COPD work-up indicated. PFTs as able .discharged with Foley for significant urinary retention and tamsulosin/finasteride therapy. Recommend routine Foley replacement and monitoring of kidney function .Lovenox 40 mg SQ daily. Continue until Cr improves. Monitor BMP daily. When Cr clearance, do full dose therapeutic Lovenox BID 1mg/kg dosing. Monitor for signs of bleeding. Check Xa level 4-6hrs post dose per provider discretion .7. Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia .To need home O2 on discharge. Desats to low-mid 80's on room air trial .8. Hemorrhagic shock .Continue Midodrine 10mg TID . An LTC -admission Assessment/Observation Documentation form, dated [DATE], had no resident assessment or observations documented. A nurses progress note, dated [DATE] at 6:00 p.m., documented Res #152 was transferred to the facility for skilled nursing care via a private vehicle by his family. He was assisted to a room via wheelchair and required two staff to transfer into bed. The resident was alert and oriented times one, confused, and disoriented. The note documented the resident had even and non-labored respirations without cough or congestion. The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Skin integrity was documented and noted issues measured. The note documented the resident required assistance with all ADLs, and must be spoon fed meals. The note documented the resident's vital signs. The progress note did not include documentation of supplemental oxygen therapy or the presence of a Foley catheter. A LTC - 48 Hour Baseline Care Plan form, dated [DATE], documented interventions which included anticipate the resident's needs and observe for non-verbal cues; administer medications as ordered; perform breathing treatments; monitor lab work as ordered; monitor for signs/symptoms of bleeding; monitor pain; assess vital signs; monitor endurance/complications; monitor edema; monitor for signs/symptoms of heart failure and dyspnea; check O2 saturation every shift; assess for pain; and assess for constipation. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented the facility was to administer diclofenac 1% topical, apply two grams to affected area four times daily. There were no documented administrations of this medication. A respiratory flowsheet, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented revefenacin 175 mcg nebulization daily. This medication was not documented as administered on [DATE]. The respiratory flowsheet documented to administer Brovana 15 mcg nebulization twice daily at 08:00 a.m. and 08:00 p.m. This medication was not documented as administered on [DATE] for the p.m. dose and [DATE] for the a.m. or p.m. dose. A TAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented to clean left heel blister with normal saline, apply skin prep twice per day. The [DATE] morning treatment was not documented as administered. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented the facility was to administer: - gabapentin 60 mg two capsules at bedtime, - meloxicam 15 mg one tablet every day, - midodrine 10 mg three times daily, - polyethylene glycol one packet two times daily, - Senokot two tablets twice daily, - tamsulosin 0.4 mg at bedtime, - calcium carbonate one tablet twice daily, - cholecalciferol 1000 units daily, - finasteride 5 mg daily, - folic acid 1 mg daily, - Theragran-m one tablet daily, and - thiamine 100 mg daily. There were no documented administrations for any of the above medications. An admission MDS assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility, locomotion, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and toilet use; extensive assistance of one staff for bathing, had limited range of motion in both lower extremities, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, had shortness of breath with exertion, when sitting, and when lying flat, received no anticoagulant medication, and received oxygen therapy. A nursing progress note, dated [DATE] at 6:11 p.m., documented therapy staff notified a nurse Res #152 needed to be assessed. The note documented when the nurse assessed the resident a temperature of 97.8 degrees F was obtained and a blood pressure could not be obtained. The note documented the nurse contacted EMS to transfer resident to the emergency room. The note documented Res #152 expired before emergency personnel arrived to the facility. A State of Oklahoma Certificate of Death, dated [DATE], documented Res #152's immediate cause of death as cardiac arrest, with acute respiratory failure documented as a condition that lead to death, and interstitial pulmonary disease documented as the underlying cause of death. The death certificate documented other significant conditions contributing to death as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On [DATE] at 2:25 p.m., CNA #3 stated Res #152 wasn't in the facility very long, but she remembered he was doing good when he first admitted and was eating well. She stated the resident was total care. She stated two days after the resident admitted to the facility he stopped eating and responding to staff and died shortly after. She stated she would have reported it to the nurse if she felt like a resident was not receiving care or being neglected. She stated she did not notify the nurse for any change in condition or suspicion of neglect for Res #152. On [DATE] at 7:58 a.m., the ADON stated she remembered going into Res #152's room to place a pillow under his feet. She stated he had family in the room at the time and requested another blanket for the resident. She stated there were no other issues with the resident at that time. She did not provide a date for this interaction. On [DATE] at 8:00 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she remembered Res #152 and had taken his vitals. She was unable to locate the vital signs in the EHR. She stated she had assisted him by feeding him. She stated she was the nurse who charted the progress note on [DATE] when the resident expired. On [DATE] at 10:15 a.m., corporate RN #1 stated there was no DON at the facility and she was the highest level nurse in the facility. She stated the only time she saw Res #152 was when she Covid tested him. She was provided with documentation from Res #152's medical record to review. She stated according to the documentation on the MAR the medications were not administered. She stated the ADON was supposed to be in charge along with the charge nurses. She stated the nurses shouldn't have wasted their time writing a MAR as the green page on the carbon copy was a temporary MAR. She stated they should have completed the admission process and ensured everything was in place. She stated the white copy of the orders should have been sent to the pharmacy and she would check to see if his medications were ever sent. She stated Res #152 should have had a full assessment every shift since he was a skilled resident. She stated if the documentation was blank the care did not happen. On [DATE], the facility provided additional documentation for Res #152's medical record. These included: a pharmacy drug order fill sheet which documented Res #152's blood thinner, Lovenox, had been delivered to the facility on [DATE], an additional MAR, a progress note from the physician dated [DATE], and a progress note from the physician assistant dated [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:24 a.m., the administrator stated he expected a new admission to have their documentation completed as soon as they enter the facility including: a full head to toe assessment, orders entered, skin issues documented, and hospital discharge documentation reviewed as applicable. He stated he expected residents to be assessed and received medications as ordered. He stated the facility has a morning meeting to discuss new admissions to ensure the process is followed. He was unsure if a record was kept of what was discussed during the morning meeting regarding Res #152 since the facility only 2. Resident #14 had diagnoses which included hypertension, heart failure, and edema. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented to give carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice per day and hold medication for systolic blood pressure below 100, diastolic blood pressure under 60, and heart rate below 55. Physician orders, dated [DATE], documented to give Eliquis 2.5 mg twice per day and documented nursing was to monitor residents on anticoagulants for bleeding every shift. An annual MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired and received anticoagulants seven out of seven days during the review period. On [DATE] at 8:20 a.m., CMA #1 was observed during medication pass taking VS for Res #14 which included a blood pressure reading of 103/58. The CMA stated that she was going to hold the resident's blood pressure medication because of the reading. The CMA prepared the medications and included the carvedilol. The medications passed did not include the resident's dose of Eliquis. On [DATE] at 4:12 p.m., CMA #1 stated that she did not give the Eliquis for Res #14 because it was not available in the cart and had to be ordered from the pharmacy. She stated she should have held Res #14's carvedilol based on the blood pressure reading. On [DATE] at 10:02 a.m., the corporate RN stated for medications that were not on the cart the staff should have gone into their cubbies in the medication room to make sure it was not in there, then check to see if it was ordered, and if ordered, check if it was delivered and look for it. She stated if a resident had an out of parameter blood pressure reading the medication should have been held and the nurse notified so that it could be re-checked. 5. Res #40 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented Novolog administer 5 units subcutaneous with meals. This order was not on the order set, dated [DATE]. A physician order, dated [DATE] and continued on [DATE], read in part, Novolog U-100 Insulin aspart (insulin aspart u-100) solution; 100 unit/mL; amt: Per Sliding Scale; If Blood Sugar is less than 60, call MD. If Blood Sugar is 101 to 120, give 3 Units. If Blood Sugar is 121 to 150, give 4 Units. If Blood Sugar is 151 to 200, give 5 Units. If Blood Sugar is 201 to 250, give 8 Units. If Blood Sugar is 251 to 300, give 10 Units. If Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, give 12 Units. If Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give 16 Units. If Blood Sugar is greater than 400, call MD. subcutaneous Three Times A Day 07:00 AM, 11:30 AM, 04:30 PM A five day assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident was intact with cognition and required extensive assistance with most ADLs. The assessment documented the resident received insulin four days during the look back period. A care plan, last reviewed [DATE], documented Res #40 had a diagnosis of diabetes and required insulin as ordered to manage. The care plan documented to administer medications and insulins as ordered. Review of the diabetic flow sheets for Res #40, dated [DATE] - [DATE], reveled six missed doses of Novolog 5 units to be given with meals. On [DATE] on the morning shift, the diabetic flow sheet documented a BS of 121 with 0 insulin given. The sliding scale order documented the resident should have received 4 units. On [DATE] on the evening shift, the diabetic flow sheet documented a BS of 236 with 4 units of insulin given. The sliding scale order documented the resident should have received 8 units. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented to administer Lantus (a type of insulin) 18 units subcutaneous twice daily. On [DATE] on the morning shift, the diabetic flow sheets, documented a BS of 253 and the resident was administered 5 units of Novolog insulin. The sliding scale order documented the resident should have received 10 units. Lantus insulin was not documented as being administered on [DATE] and [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:20 a.m., LPN #2 stated with a BS of 253, the resident should have received 10 units when it documented 5 units was given. The LPN stated with a BS of 236, the resident should have been given 8 units and was given 4 units. The LPN stated with a BS of 121, the resident was given zero units and should have received 4 units. LPN #2 stated it looked like it was two different nurses who had made the insulin errors. LPN #2 stated the errors were significant medication errors. The LPN stated when there are blanks for the insulin on the MAR, if it was not documented given it was not done. 3. Res #56 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Levemir FlexTouch U-100 insulin pen, 60 units subcutaneous twice a day. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Novolog Flexpen Insulin, 25 units subcutaneous before meals. An admission assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident was intact in cognition and required limited to total assistance. The assessment documented the resident had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 8:50 p.m., documented a nurse had administered the wrong insulin to Res #56. The note documented the nurse gave Novalog insulin instead of Levemir. The note documented the PA was notified and the resident was sent to the hospital. On [DATE] at 2:54 p.m., Res #56 was observed sitting in her room. She stated she had to go to the hospital because the facility administered too much insulin. On [DATE] at 9:51 a.m., the corporate director of operations provided a copy of the incident report which documented the staff member who self reported the insulin error had been in-serviced on the five rights of medication administration. Res #56's insulin records were reviewed and the records did not document Levemir was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE], for the evening dose. The records did not document Novolog was administered on [DATE] before breakfast, [DATE] before the noon meal, and [DATE] before the evening meal. One dose on [DATE] documented the resident's blood sugar was 110 prior to the noon meal and no insulin was given. On [DATE] at 10:28 a.m., the ADON reviewed the [DATE] diabetic records and stated if the missing doses were not documented they were not administered. She confirmed on the date of [DATE] at the noon dose, the resident should have received 25 units of Novolog as the physician ordered. She stated this was a significant error. 4. Res #34 had diagnoses which included chronic pain, long term use of anticoagulants, and urinary tract infection. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer gabapentin capsule (an anticonvulsant medication sometimes used for chronic pain) 300 mg twice daily for a diagnosis of chronic pain. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document gabapentin was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Eliquis (an anticoagulant medication) 2.5 mg twice a day for a diagnosis of long term (current) use of anticoagulants. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Eliquis was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer sertraline (an antidepressant medication) 50 mg daily for a diagnosis of depressive episodes. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document sertraline was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Buspar (an antianxiety medication) 5 mg three times daily. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Buspar was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] for both the 8:00 a.m. and the 2:00 p.m. shift and the 8:00 p.m. dose on [DATE] and [DATE]. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Buspar was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] through [DATE] for both the 8:00 a.m. and the 2:00 p.m. dose. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Macrobid (an antibiotic medication) twice daily for 10 days. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Macrobid was administered on [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] for the morning dose. 5. Res #3 had diagnoses which included restlessness and agitation, major depressive disorder single episode severe with psychotic disorder, unspecified symptoms involving cognitive functions and awareness, and abnormal weight loss. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Remeron (an antidepressant medication sometimes used to increase a patient's appetite) 15 mg once daily for a diagnosis of abnormal weight loss. A [DATE] MAR did not document Remeron was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], through [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE] through [DATE]. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Remeron was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Risperdal (an antipsychotic medication) 2 mg twice a day. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Risperdal was administered on the morning doses on [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Risperdal was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and the evening dose of [DATE]. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Ativan Gel (an antianxiety medication) 1 ml every four hours for a diagnosis of restlessness and agitation. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Ativan Gel was administered for all doses on [DATE], and the 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. doses on [DATE], [DATE] and [DATE]. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document Ativan gel was administered for the 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. doses on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. The MAR documented the Ativan dose was not administered at the 12:00 p.m. dose on [DATE] and [DATE]. The MAR did not document the doses of Ativan at 08:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m., on [DATE] was administered. A physician order, dated [DATE], documented the facility was to administer Risperdal 0.5 mg once a day at noon. A review of the [DATE] MAR did not document the noon dose of Risperdal was administered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. A review of [DATE] MAR did not document the noon dose of Risperdal was administered on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 12:18 p.m., the corporate RN confirmed she was aware there was an issue with medications being administered as ordered. She stated errors or omissions of doses of medications such as insulin or psychotropic medications were considered significant.
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to designate a registe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to designate a registered nurse to serve as DON on a full-time basis and ensure a registered nurse served in the facility for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week to assess residents and provide oversight for facility staff. Res #152 admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE] for skilled nursing services. Res #152's medical records did not document an admission assessment, skilled services progress notes, ADL documentation, meal or fluid intake, completed medication administration record, vital signs, or ongoing assessment of resident status. There was no registered nurse or DON to manage staff or provide oversight to ensure these tasks were completed seven days per week from [DATE] to [DATE]. Res #152 expired in the facility four days after admission. On [DATE] at 1:13 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation related lack of DON and full-time registered nurse coverage. On [DATE] at 1:19 p.m., the administrator was notified of the IJ situation. On [DATE] at 9:32 a.m., an acceptable plan of removal was submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal documented: [DATE] Jan [NAME] Care Center Plan of Removal for 4 IJs Completion Date 9-15-22 11:00 p.m. All education will be done by the Regional Nurse, [name deleted], and [name deleted] Regional Director. All Staff Education Abuse and Neglect Policy & Procedures. Identify types of abuse and neglect with feedback from the participants through group discussion. Clinical Staff Education Medication Administration Policy & Procedure. Discussed medication availability, timely administration of all medications, resident refusal of medications. Reviewed the process for significant medication errors. Vital Sign Documentation Reviewed the importance of obtaining vitals signs for the surveillance monitoring daily; and resident assessments and skilled documentation when required. Resident Assessment/Change of Condition/Interventions. Reviewed the importance of resident assessments for new admissions, readmissions, and when the resident has a change of condition. Reviewed appropriate and timely interventions. ADL Documentation. Handout given to all participants. Reviewed what ADLs are and how to document them each shift. Discussed the importance of accurate coding. Reviewed person-centered care and resident independence when possible. Reviewed decline in function and range of motion. Skilled Nursing Documentation- Implemented all residents will be assessed and documented on when they are receiving skilled nursing care on each shift. Reviewed skill documentation guidelines. Instructed the nurses where their nursing resource book is at the nurses station and the importance of referring to it when the need arises. Upon completion of the immediate corrections; audits and observations will continue by the DON or designee for 60 days. Audit Skilled Nursing Documentation Surveillance Monitoring on all Residents Medication Administration/Documentation Observation. Audit of all medications to ensure availability, accuracy of physician orders, and accuracy of medication administration records. Nurse assessment on all Residents for change of condition, decline in function, and appropriate interventions. Audit ADL Documentation Regional Nurse will assume the Interim DON position immediately. She is currently at the facility. An additional RN has been hired for two days a week to relieve the DON, to ensure 7 day a week RN coverage. On [DATE] and [DATE], interviews were conducted with nursing staff regarding education and in-service information pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. The staff stated they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information provided in the in-service pertaining to the plan of removal. Documentation was provided related to the medication cart and ADL documentation audits. Documentation was provided to verify a full time DON and a PRN registered nurse had been hired to provide coverage seven days a week. The IJ was lifted, effective [DATE] at 5:58 p.m., when all components of the plan of removal had been completed. The deficiency remained at a widespread level of actual harm. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to designate a registered nurse to serve as DON on a full-time basis and ensure a registered nurse served in the facility for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week to assess residents and provide oversight for facility staff. The Residents Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #152 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including interstitial pulmonary disease, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, COPD, atherosclerotic heart disease, history of TIA and cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculus obstruction, muscle weakness, and dementia. A hospital record, dated [DATE], read in parts, .was found to have DVT in R soleus vein on b/l Doppler LE studies. AC therapy discussed with pharmacy and detailed below .For follow-up provider .Further COPD work-up indicated. PFTs as able .discharged with Foley for significant urinary retention and tamsulosin/finasteride therapy. Recommend routine Foley replacement and monitoring of kidney function .Lovenox 40 mg SQ daily. Continue until Cr improves. Monitor BMP daily. When Cr clearance, do full dose therapeutic Lovenox BID 1mg/kg dosing. Monitor for signs of bleeding. Check Xa level 4-6hrs post dose per provider discretion .7. Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia .To need home O2 on discharge. Desats to low-mid 80's on room air trial .Hemorrhagic shock .Continue Midodrine 10mg TID . A nurse progress note by LPN #5, dated [DATE] at 6:00 p.m., documented Res #152 was transferred to the facility for skilled nursing care via a private vehicle by his family. He was assisted to a room via wheelchair and required two staff to transfer into bed. The resident was alert and oriented times one, confused, and disoriented. The note documented the resident had even and non-labored respirations without cough or congestion. The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Skin integrity was documented and noted issues measured. The note documented the resident required assistance with all ADLs, and must be spoon fed meals. The note documented the resident's vital signs. The progress note did not include documentation of supplemental oxygen therapy or the presence of a urinary catheter. An LTC -admission Assessment/Observation Documentation form, dated [DATE], had no resident observations or assessments documented by the LPN #5 who opened the document. A LTC - 48 Hour Baseline Care Plan form, dated [DATE], documented interventions which included the following: anticipate the resident's needs and observe for non-verbal cues; consult PT, OT, ST as needed; provide one staff assist with bathing/hygiene; provide one staff assist with dressing/grooming; provide one staff assist with eating; provide one to two staff assist with toileting; provide two staff assist with ambulation/transferring; administer medications as ordered; assess, monitor; and document mood; keep call bell in reach and encourage use; weigh weekly for four weeks; monitor meal percentages; encourage fluids; monitor for signs/symptoms of dehydration; obtain laboratory work as ordered; provide hydration per guidelines; monitor for edema/dyspnea; perform oral care twice daily; turn every two hours and as needed; report to charge nurse any redness/skin breakdown immediately; perform breathing treatments; monitor lab work as ordered; monitor for signs/symptoms of bleeding; monitor pain; assess vital signs; monitor endurance/complications; monitor edema; monitor for signs/symptoms of heart failure and dyspnea; check O2 saturation every shift; assess for pain; and assess for constipation. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented diclofenac 1% topical, apply two grams to affected area four times daily. There were no documented administrations of this medication. A respiratory flowsheet, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented revefenacin 175 mcg nebulization daily. This medication was not documented to be administered on [DATE]. The respiratory flowshet documented Brovana 15 mcg nebulization twice daily at 08:00 a.m. and 08:00 p.m. This medication was not documented to be administered on [DATE] for the p.m. dose and [DATE] for the a.m. or p.m. dose. A TAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE] was provided to surveyors on [DATE]. It documented to clean left heel blister with normal saline, apply skin prep twice per day. The [DATE] morning treatment was not documented as completed. A MAR, dated [DATE] to [DATE], documented the facility was to administer gabapentin 60 mg two capsules at bedtime, meloxicam 15 mg one tablet every day, midodrine 10 mg three times daily, polyethylene glycol one packet two times daily, Senokot two tablets twice daily, tamsulosin 0.4 mg at bedtime, calcium carbonate one tablet twice daily, cholecalciferol 1000 units daily, finasteride 5 mg daily, folic acid 1 mg daily, Theragran-m one tablet daily, and thiamine 100 mg daily. There were no documented administrations for any of the above medications. No vital signs or ADL care were documented from [DATE] to [DATE]. No progress notes or assessments were documented on [DATE] or [DATE]. A review of the resident's clinical records did not document an order for urinary catheter care or supplemental oxygen. An admission MDS assessment completed by the LPN MDS coordinator, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility, locomotion, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and toilet use; extensive assistance of one staff for bathing, had limited range of motion in both lower extremities, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, had shortness of breath with exertion, when sitting, and when lying flat, received no medications, and received oxygen therapy. A nursing progress note documented by the LPN MDS coordinator, dated [DATE] at 6:11 p.m., documented therapy staff notified a nurse Res #152 needed to be assessed. The note documented when the nurse assessed the resident a temperature of 97.8 degrees F was obtained and a blood pressure could not be obtained. The note documented the nurse contacted EMS to transfer the resident to the emergency room. The note documented Res #152 expired before emergency personnel arrived to the facility. A State of Oklahoma Certificate of Death, dated [DATE], documented Res #152's immediate cause of death as cardiac arrest, with acute respiratory failure documented as a condition that lead to death, and interstitial pulmonary disease documented as the underlying cause of death. The death certificate documented other significant conditions contributing to death as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On [DATE] at 2:28 p.m., LPN #3 stated there was not a system in place to monitor the CNAs to ensure the required care was completed, and the nurses did not double check any documentation completed by the CNAs. On [DATE] at 7:58 a.m., the LPN ADON stated she remembered going into Res #152's room to place a pillow under his feet. She stated he had family in the room at the time and they requested another blanket for the resident. She stated there were no other issues with the resident at that time. She did not provide a date for this interaction. On [DATE] at 8:00 a.m., the LPN MDS coordinator stated she remembered Res #152 and had taken his vitals. She was unable to locate the vital signs in the EHR. She stated she had assisted him by feeding him. She stated she was the nurse who charted the progress note on [DATE] when the resident expired. She stated the nurses on the floor were responsible for completing the 48 hour care plan. On [DATE] at 10:10 a.m., the corporate RN was shown the missing documentation on the [DATE] and [DATE] MAR. She stated the MAR should not have been blank and this has been a problem with the CMA staff for a while. She stated the facility not having a DON to monitor documentation has contributed to this problem. On [DATE] at 10:15 a.m., corporate RN #1 stated there was no DON at the facility and she was the highest level nurse in the facility. She stated the only time she saw Res #152 was when she performed a COVID-19 test. She was provided with documentation from Res #152's medical record to review. She stated according to the documentation on the MAR the medications were not administered. She stated the ADON was supposed to be in charge along with the charge nurses. She stated the nurses should not have wasted their time writing a MAR as the green page on the carbon copy was a temporary MAR. She stated they should have completed the admission process and ensured everything was in place. She stated the white copy of the orders should have been sent to the pharmacy and she would check to see if his medications were ever sent. She stated Res #152 should have had a full assessment every shift since he was a skilled resident. She stated she did not perform an assessment on Res #152. She stated if the documentation was blank the care did not happen. She stated she was normally at the facility two days a week. On [DATE] at 3:32 p.m., the administrator stated the facility had placed an advertisement for an RN and RN DON and had been running ads for sometime. On [DATE] at 10:24 a.m., the administrator stated he expected a new admission to have their documentation completed as soon as they enter the facility including a full head to toe assessment, orders entered, skin issues documented, and hospital discharge documentation reviewed as applicable. He stated he expected residents to be assessed and receive medications as ordered. He stated the facility has a morning meeting to discuss new admissions to ensure the process is followed. He was unsure if a record was kept of what was discussed during the morning meeting regarding Res #152 since the facility only sometimes kept written records of these meetings. On [DATE] at 3:06 p.m., the BOM stated the facility had not had a full time RN or DON since [DATE].
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were not in common areas of the faci...

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 residents were not in common areas of the facility while wearing hospital gowns instead of appropriate clothing and foot coverings for one (#31) of one residents reviewed for dignity. The Residents Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy, titled Loss of Personal Items Policy, read in parts, .In the event an item [sic] is lost or misplaced, the staff or president will report the loss to the administrator immediately .A complete survey of the facility will be make [sic] to locate the item if misplaced .In the even the item is not found and the resident so requests, the loss will be reported to the local police department . Resident #31 had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, hemiplegia/hemiparesis affecting left non-dominant side, depression, and chronic pain. An admission MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance of one staff to dress, and the ability to make choices about the clothing he wore was somewhat important. A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition, and required limited assistance of one staff to dress. On 09/12/22 at 5:41 p.m., Res #31 was observed seated in a wheelchair in the dining room wearing a hospital gown and had no shoes or socks. On 09/12/22 at 6:05 p.m. Res #31 stated the facility lost all his clothing in the laundry, and now he did not have any other clothing but his underwear. He told the staff and nothing had been done. On 09/13/22 at 12:19 p.m., staff was observed taking Res #31 to the dining room with pajama pants and tee shirt on. The resident had no socks or shoes on feet. On 09/13/22 at 3:13 p.m., Res #31 was observed outside in smoking area with no socks or shoes on. On 09/13/22 at 3:37 p.m., Res #31 stated he didn't know where the clothes he was wearing came from and they were not his. He stated his shoes were under his bed. On 09/14/22 at 9:44 a.m., Res #31 observed wheeling himself down hall in his wheelchair. He was dressed, shaven, and had shoes on his feet. He stated he was wearing his own clothes and they was the only set of clothing that the facility had found that belonged to him. He stated it only took them 9 months to find one set of his clothes. On 09/16/22 at 10:53 a.m., Res #31 was observed in the hall to be clean and dressed, with non-skid socks on. On 09/16/22 at 11:40 a.m., CNA #2 stated if a resident didn't have any clothing the staff would put them in a hospital gown and then go down to laundry to find them some clothing. On 09/16/22 at 11:50 a.m., CNA #1 stated the staff had to go to laundry to find the resident's clothes. She stated clothing had been an issue since the laundry supervisor quit and they all had to contribute on all shifts to get it taken care of. On 09/16/22 at 1:19 p.m., the corporate director stated laundry had been backed up, but there were two people working in the laundry right now. She stated Res #31 had clothing donated because he admitted to the facility without any clothes. On 09/16/22 at 4:41 p.m., CNA #1 stated sometimes Res #31 gets upset about not having any clothing and would say he didn't know what the facility did with his clothes. She stated the resident wanted to get up out of bed more since getting a roommate, and doesn't want to be in a hospital gown when out of bed. She stated she felt the lack of clothing could affect his dignity, and if it were her in his situation she would want her own clothes. On 09/16/22 at 4:45 p.m., LPN #1 stated the resident's lack of clothing could be a dignity issue.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives (Do Not Resuscitate) were completed to include the required signatures for one (#7) of one sampled resident who ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives (Do Not Resuscitate) were completed to include the required signatures for one (#7) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for advanced directives. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #7 had diagnoses which included cognitive communication deficit. A quarterly assessment, dated 08/13/22, documented the resident was moderately impaired with cognition and required limited assistance with most activities of daily living. Review of the medical record for Res #7 documented their code status as Do Not Resuscitate. The DNR form contained a printed name in the signature of POA and beside the printed name was documented gave verbal agree over phone and a phone number. The DNR was dated 04/07/20 and signed by two witnesses. The medical record did not contain any POA paperwork for Res #7. On 09/15/22 at 9:20 a.m. the BOM stated Res #7 had a POA who was supposed to bring in the POA paperwork to the facility. The BOM stated the DNR came with Res #7 when they admitted to 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

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments accurately reflected the resident status for one (#56) of 20 residents whose assessments were rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments accurately reflected the resident status for one (#56) of 20 residents whose assessments were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #56 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated 08/31/22, documented the facility was to administer Levemir (a long acting insulin) 60 units SQ twice daily. A physician order, dated 08/31/22, documented the facility was to administer Novolog (a short acting insulin) 25 units, SQ before meals. An MDS admission assessment, dated 09/03/22, documented Res #56 was intact in cognition and required limited to total assistance with ADLs. The assessment documented Res #56 had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The assessment documented no insulin was administered during the assessment period. On 09/13/22 at 2:54 p.m., Res #56 was observed in her room sitting at the bedside. She stated she had to go the hospital recently due to the facility giving her the wrong dose of insulin. On 09/16/22 at 8:59 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she went off the admitting orders to code the MDS admission assessment. At that time, the MDS coordinator reviewed the admission orders and Res #56's insulin records. She stated she missed the insulin and did not enter the information regarding the insulin use in the resident's assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to initiate a baseline care plan and provide a copy of the care plan to one (#60) of 20 residents whose records were reviewed. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to initiate a baseline care plan and provide a copy of the care plan to one (#60) of 20 residents whose records were reviewed. The new resident Roster/Sample Matrix documented seven residents were admitted in the previous 30 days. Findings: Res #60 had diagnoses which included orthopedic aftercare, pathological fracture, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. A review of Res #60's admission orders documented the facility was to administer 14 different medications, three separate treatments, a diet order, and an order for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy. On 09/14/22 at 9:12 a.m., Res #60 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in her room. Res #60 stated she did not receive a baseline care plan. She stated she was put in bed and left. On 09/15/22 at 12:47 p.m., the MDS coordinator reviewed Res #60's clinical records and stated the records did not document a baseline care plan was completed. The MDS coordinator stated when a resident was admitted and the initial assessment was done, the admission nurse should have completed a baseline care plan. She stated the facility needed to have someone to monitor this to ensure it was done. The MDS coordinator stated the resident or representative was to get a copy of the baseline care plan. She stated she was unaware the baseline care plan was to contain the physician orders, treatments, diet order, and therapy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's fall was investigated and steps to prevent recurrence of falls were initiated for one (#8) of one residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's fall was investigated and steps to prevent recurrence of falls were initiated for one (#8) of one resident sampled for falls. The Corporate Director of Operations reported 41 residents fell in the previous six months. Findings: Res #8 had diagnoses which included COVID-19, urinary tract infection, and schizophrenia. An admission assessment, dated 05/22/22, documented Res #8 was severely impaired in cognition and required supervision to limited assistance with ADLs and had not fallen. Nurse notes, dated 08/01/22, documented Res #8 complained of rib pain after a self reported fall in the dining room. The notes documented the staff were unaware the resident had fallen. The notes documented an X-ray was obtained for Res #8. The notes documented the resident's ribs were negative for fracture. The notes documented the primary care provider and family were notified. The notes did not document steps to prevent recurrence of falls. A care plan, last reviewed on 08/28/22, documented Res #8 had fallen in the dining room on 05/19/22. The care plan did not document Res #8 had fallen on 08/01/22 and no new interventions to prevent falls were documented since 05/19/22. On 09/19/22 at 9:57 a.m., the corporate RN stated an incident report and investigation for the fall on 08/01/22 was not generated. On 09/19/22 at 9:59 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she did not do an update of the resident's care plan as she was unaware of the fall. She stated she was made aware of falls either by the event incident report or by stand up meeting.
CONCERN (D)

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 ensure a resident's nutritional preference was accommodated and provide substitutions for food dislikes for one (#23) of four...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's nutritional preference was accommodated and provide substitutions for food dislikes for one (#23) of four residents reviewed for food. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. The corporate director documented all residents receive food from the kitchen. Findings: Res #23 had diagnoses which included paraplegia, hypoglycemia, cognitive communication defect, GERD, and other specified disorders of teeth and supporting structures. A 5-day MDS assessment, dated 07/06/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact. On 09/16/22 at 11:13 a.m., Res #23 stated the facility did not bring other sides if she did not want what was served. She stated her dietary card documented she did eat fish but when she had told the staff in the past she did not want fish they did not provide her with a substitution. She stated she kept food in her personal freezer and would have to wait for staff to finish with everyone else before they would assist her to heat something up. On 09/16/22 at 11:40 a.m., CNA #2 stated if a resident did not like what was being served she would offer them an Ensure after checking with the nurse to make sure the resident could have one. On 09/16/22 at 11:50 a.m., CNA #1 stated if a resident stated they did not like what was served she would ask what they liked and go to the kitchen to get it. She stated the options were limited for substitutions but included multiple kinds of soup with crackers or a grilled cheese. On 09/16/22 at 11:31 a.m. the DM provided the dietary card for Res #23 which documented fish as a dislike. On 09/16/22 at 2:00 p.m. Res #23 stated she was served fish for lunch. She stated she ate the potatoes and hush puppies but did not eat the fish or coleslaw. On 09/16/22 at 2:05 p.m., the DM stated he served Res #23 fish at lunch. He stated he made a chicken substitute for her but forgot to put it on her plate.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to act upon grievances presented during resident council meetings or provide rationale as to why concerns could not be met. The Resident Censu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to act upon grievances presented during resident council meetings or provide rationale as to why concerns could not be met. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident council minutes were reviewed for 12/01/21, 05/13/22, 06/23/22, and 08/18/22, which were all of the meeting minutes provided for review for the last 12 months. There was no documentation the residents' grievances had been acted upon. On 09/15/22 at 10:26 a.m., a resident council meeting was conducted in the activity room. Five residents attended the meeting. The ombudsman was present. No staff were present during the meeting. During the meeting, residents stated that they were not sure who the grievance official was but they thought it was the administrator. They stated none of the staff, including the administrator, ever responded to their concerns or gave a reason as to why the concerns were not addressed. On 09/15/22 at 12:00 p.m., the administrator was shown the grievances on the resident council minutes. He stated he was present for the May 2022 and June 2022 resident council meetings. He was asked how he responded to grievances presented in the meetings. He stated he read the meeting minutes and tried to personally talk to the individual resident who voiced the concern about what could be done to resolve the grievance. The administrator denied having an official grievance process or having documentation of the interventions acted upon to resolve the residents' concerns. He stated he did not keep documentation of the rationale of how the grievances were or were not addressed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0642 (Tag F0642)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) coordinated, signed, and transmitted the resident assessments to CMS when completed for three (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) coordinated, signed, and transmitted the resident assessments to CMS when completed for three (#2, #6, and #3) of three residents reviewed for assessments over 120 days. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. A quarterly assessment, dated 07/04/22, was reviewed as in progress for Res #2. The assessment administration page documented the MDS coordinator #1 signed the areas she completed. There was no RN signature for the assessment completion. 2. An annual assessment, dated 08/09/22, was reviewed as in process for Res #6. The assessment administration page documented the MDS coordinator #1 signed the areas she completed. There was no RN signature for the assessment completion. On 09/16/22 at 4:44 p.m., the MDS coordinator #1 stated the assessments were waiting on the signature from the corporate RN. MDS coordinator #1 stated the MDSs were completed just waiting on RN signature to transmit them. The MDS coordinator #1 stated corporate RN was usually in the facility and would sign the MDSs. The MDS coordinator #1 stated in July the corporate RN knew which MDSs she had to sign but in August she would have to tell her the ones which need to be signed. MDS coodinator #1 stated she had been working the floor a lot and did not have a process for getting the MDSs signed by a RN. 3. Res #3 had diagnoses which included traumatic subdural hemorrhage, abnormal weight loss, and persistent mood disorder. A quarterly resident assessment, dated 04/24/22, was conducted and documented as Production Accepted. A significant change assessment, dated 07/06/22, was conducted and documented in the EHR as in process. On 09/15/22, at 12:48 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated she documented the MDS assessments but could not transmit them as they had to be signed by an RN. She stated the corporate RN was to review, sign, and transmit the assessments after the review was completed. On 09/15/22 at 1:35 p.m., the corporate RN stated she reviewed and signed assessments when she was notified by text or email there was one to review. She stated she had been very busy lately with working as an RN at the facility and could not verify if or when she had received notification the assessment for Res #3 had been completed.
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** 4. Res #14 had diagnoses which included hypertension, heart failure, and edema. Physician orders, dated 06/11/22, documented to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Res #14 had diagnoses which included hypertension, heart failure, and edema. Physician orders, dated 06/11/22, documented to give Eliquis 2.5 mg twice per day and documented nursing was to monitor residents on anticoagulants for bleeding every shift. An annual MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, and received anticoagulants seven out of seven days during the review period. A care plan, revised 09/04/22, did not include Res #14's anticoagulant. On 09/19/22 at 10:56 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she did not care plan Res #14's anticoagulant but should have. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan which reflected the residents' current status for four, (#14, 51, 56, and #60) of 20 residents whose records were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #51 had diagnoses which included chronic congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and severe protein calorie malnutrition. An admission assessment, dated 05/28/22, documented Res #51 was severely impaired in cognition, required supervision to limited assistance with ADLs, and did not walk. On 06/22/22 a discharge return not anticipated assessment was completed. Res #51's clinical records were found to not document a comprehensive care plan. On 09/16/22 at 1:16 p.m., the MDS coordinator confirmed she had not developed a comprehensive care plan for Res #51. 2. An admission assessment for Res #56, dated 09/03/22, documented the resident was intact in cognition and had a urinary catheter. The care area assessment documented urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter triggered for care planning. A review of the resident's care plan did not document a plan of care related to an indwelling urinary catheter. On 09/16/22 at 11:00 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she had not completed the care plan for Res #56. 3. Res #60 had diagnoses which included encounter for orthopedic aftercare, diabetes, pathological fracture, chronic obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic kidney disease. An admission MDS assessment, dated 08/23/22, documented Res #60 was intact in cognition and required supervision to limited assistance with ADLs. On 09/14/22 at 9:12 a.m., Res #60 was observed in her room. She stated she was not informed of her care plan. A review of Res #60's clinical record did not document a comprehensive care plan for Res #60. On 09/15/22 at 12:47 p.m., the MDS coordinator reported Res #60 did not have a comprehensive care plan. She stated she did not have time to complete the care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' care plans were reviewed and updated and failed to ensure the resident and/or representative participation ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' care plans were reviewed and updated and failed to ensure the resident and/or representative participation in the care plan process for three (#8, 24, and #34) of twenty residents whose records were reviewed for care planning. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #8 had diagnoses which included COVID-19, urinary tract infection, and schizophrenia. An admission assessment, dated 05/22/22, documented Res #8 was severely impaired in cognition and required supervision to limited assistance with ADLs and had not fallen. Nurse notes, dated 08/01/22, documented Res #8 complained of rib pain after a self reported fall in the dining room. The notes documented the staff were unaware the resident had fallen. The notes documented an X-ray was obtained for Res #8. The notes documented the residents ribs were negative for fracture. The notes documented the primary care provider and family were notified. The notes did not document steps to prevent recurrence of falls. A care plan, last reviewed on 08/28/22, documented Res #8 had fallen in the dining room on 05/19/22. On 09/19/22 at 9:57 a.m., the corporate RN stated an incident report and investigation for the fall on 08/01/22 was not generated. On 09/19/22 at 9:59 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she did not do an update of the resident's care plan as she was unaware of the fall. She stated she was made aware of falls either by the event incident report or by stand up meeting. 2. Res #24 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus with chronic kidney disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, and traumatic subdural hemorrhage. An admission assessment, dated 03/29/22, documented Res #24 was intact in cognition and required supervision to total assistance with ADLs. A care conference entry, dated 04/06/22, documented the resident's wife attended the care plan meeting. On 09/13/22 at 11:06 a.m., Res #24 was observed in his room. The resident stated he had not been asked to review his care plan with the facility. On 09/15/22 at 12:39 p.m., the MDS coordinator reported she did not have a care plan conference after the quarterly assessment, dated 06/29/22. She stated she did not have the care conference with the resident as he did not want to get out of bed. The MDS coordinator was asked if she could have had the care conference in the resident's room. She stated she could have. 3. Res #24 had diagnoses which included cardiomegaly, delusional disorder, unspecified mood disorder, Alzheimer's disease, and anxiety disorder. A care plan conference note, dated 01/19/22, documented the resident's representative was invited but chose not to participate. A quarterly assessment was conducted on 04/25/22. The resident clinical records did not document a care plan meeting had been conducted. An annual assessment was conducted on 07/24/22. A care conference note, dated 07/24/22, documented family were invited to the care plan meeting, no attendance, see conference care plan sheet in chart. On 09/13/11 at 3:46 p.m., the resident's representative family member stated they had not been invited to a care plan meeting since the first year Res #24 had been in the facility. On 09/15/22 at 12:43 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated there was no documentation of invitation to care plan meetings. She stated the facility sent out letters. She stated the records did not document a care conference following the April 2022 quarterly assessment. The MDS coordinator stated a care conference was not conducted and it should have been.
CONCERN (E)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling catheter received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling catheter received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections for three (#8, 45, and #56) of three residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented six residents with indwelling or external catheters. Findings: A facility policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary, revised in 2010, read in parts, .2. Maintain an accurate record of the resident's daily output, per facility policy and procedure .The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. The date and time that catheter care was given . 1. Resident #8 was admitted with diagnoses which included benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary tract infection. A care plan, dated 05/10/22, documented the resident had the potential for urinary complications related to having a suprapubic catheter. It documented a goal of the resident would not have signs and/or symptoms of infection or urinary complications with approaches to obtain this goal which included catheter care per protocol and to empty the leg bag every shift and as needed with intake and output documentation. A physician's order, dated 05/11/22, documented to empty drainage bag and record urine output at the end of each shift and provide catheter care every shift. The July 2022 paper TAR had blank documentation for six of the 93 opportunities to document catheter care. The TAR documented urinary output had not been recorded for 55 of 93 opportunities to document urinary output. The August 2022 paper TAR had blank documentation for seven of the 93 opportunities to document catheter care. The TAR documented urinary output had not been recorded for 34 of the 93 opportunities to document urinary output. The EHR documented eight entries of urinary output for the months of July 2022 and August 2022. On 09/19/22 at 10:05 a.m., the resident was observed lying in bed with a suprapubic catheter attached to a urinary leg bag in place. There was no redness or drainage observed around the catheter entry site. Approximately 100 ml of clear yellow urine was observed in the urinary leg bag. At that time, the resident stated the staff provided catheter care and emptied the catheter bag every once in a while but not three times a day. On 09/19/22 at 10:12 a.m., LPN #2 stated the CNA and/or the LPN working the floor was responsible to ensure tasks were completed and documented either on the paper TAR or the EHR. She confirmed documentation was missing for the dates in question and there was no way to know if care was provided on the dates and times in question. On 09/19/22 at 10:15 a.m., the corporate RN was asked about the lack of documentation on the paper TAR and in the EHR. She stated catheter care and urinary output should have been documented in the EHR and on the TAR for the dates and times in question but it was not done. 2. Resident #45 was admitted with diagnoses which included end-stage renal disease and neurogenic bladder. A physician's order, dated 01/20/22, documented to provide urinary catheter care every shift and as needed, keep the catheter bag below the level of the bladder at all times and never let the bag touch the floor, and take and record urine output every shift. A care plan, dated 02/26/22, documented the resident had a potential for urinary complications related to an indwelling catheter. It documented a goal of the resident would not have signs and/or symptoms of infection or urinary complications with approaches to obtain this goal which included catheter care per protocol, keep drainage bag off floor and covered for dignity, and measure and record catheter output every shift. The July 2022 paper TAR had blank documentation for seven of the 93 opportunities to document catheter care. The TAR had blank documentation for six of the 93 opportunities to document the catheter bag was below the level of the bladder at all times and off the floor. The TAR had blank documentation for 56 of the 93 opportunities to document urinary output. The August 2022 paper TAR had blank documentation for 15 of the 93 opportunities to document catheter care. The TAR had blank documentation for 15 of the 93 opportunities to document that the catheter bag was below the level of the bladder at all times and off the floor. The TAR had blank documentation for 52 of the 93 opportunities to document urinary output. The EHR documented 22 entries of urinary output for the months of July 2022 and August 2022. On 09/13/22 at 10:17 a.m., the resident was observed lying in bed with the catheter bag lying on the floor. Clear yellow urine was observed in the bag and no dignity bag was observed. On 09/13/22 at 10:18 a.m., the resident stated they have had a catheter for years and preferred to have it due to incontinence. The resident stated the staff did not provide routine catheter care and they had to perform it themselves much of the time during a shower. The resident denied any pain or irritation at the catheter entry site. On 09/15/22 at 9:30 a.m., LPN #2 stated either the CNA or the LPN would perform catheter care and document each shift. She stated the CNAs would empty the catheter and report the output to the nurse at the end of every shift and the nurse on shift would document the results on the TAR or in the EHR. She stated it must not have been completed since it was not documented for the days in question. On 09/15/22 at 10:00 a.m., CNA #2 stated she emptied this resident's catheter at different times on different days during her shift and she recorded the amount in the EHR. She denied being aware of any policy or procedure of when to empty the catheter, the every shift output orders, and where the amounts needed to be documented. She stated she had never reported the amount to the LPN to document on the TAR or the EHR. On 09/15/22 at 10:10 a.m., the corporate RN was provided with the TAR for July 2022 and August 2022. She stated catheter care and output should have been recorded as ordered but it was not getting done by staff.3. Res #56 had diagnoses which included COPD, acute and chronic respiratory failure, acute kidney failure, and diabetes. An admission order, dated 08/31/22, documented to change the urinary catheter once a month on the 21st. An admission assessment for Res #56, dated 09/03/22, documented the resident was intact in cognition and had a urinary catheter. The care area assessment documented urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter triggered for care planning. On 09/13/22 at 2:54 p.m., Res #56 was observed sitting in her room. Res #56 was observed to have an indwelling urinary catheter draining clear amber urine. The urinary catheter bag was observed to not have a privacy bag. At that time, Res #56 stated she had the catheter due to urinary incontinence. She stated for now it was her choice to keep the catheter as it took too long for staff to answer the call lights and she would have been soaking in urine all the time. A review of the resident's care plan did not document a plan of care related to a indwelling urinary catheter. A review of Res #56's MAR and TAR did not document any orders for urinary catheter care. On 09/16/22 at 10:37 a.m., the ADON reviewed Res #56's clinical records and reported the records did not contain documentation Res #56 had any catheter care during her stay. The ADON stated she saw the catheter the previous evening as she was preparing the resident for a transfer. On 09/16/22 at 11:00 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated she had not completed a care plan for Res #56.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure respiratory orders were followed for one (#5) of one resident sampled for respiratory care. The Resident Census and Co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure respiratory orders were followed for one (#5) of one resident sampled for respiratory care. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented eight residents who received respiratory treatments. Findings: Res #5 had diagnoses which included acute respiratory disease. A care plan, dated 01/20/22, documented Res #5 has episodes of shortness of breath and was at risk for respiratory distress/failure for COVID -19. The care plan did not document what liter O2 was to be administered. The care plan documented to apply O2 as ordered and encourage the resident to take slow deep breaths. Physician orders dated, 02/13/22, documented O2 at 2 liters via nasal cannula continuous to maintain O2 sat of 90%, record O2 sat every shift, and to document, date, and change the O2 tubing weekly on Sunday night shift. A review of the resident's TAR for July 2022, had six days where the resident's oxygen sat was not documented. There were two times the oxygen tubing was not documented as changed for July. A review of the resident's TAR for August 2022, had 13 days where the resident's oxygen sat was not documented. On 09/13/22 at 3:19 p.m., Res #5 had the call light on to ask for water in her oxygen bottle. At that time the resident's O2 was set on 2.5 liters per nasal cannula. Res #5 stated she thought the staff changed the tubing every two weeks. On 09/16/22 at 9:45 a.m., the resident's O2 tubing was observed to be dated 08/28. The O2 setting was still at 2.5 liters. On 09/16/22 at 1:03 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated the O2 tubing should have been changed weekly. She stated the monitoring of the resident's O2 should have been completed every shift and the flowsheets were not completed. MDS coordinator #1 stated the resident's O2 order was for two liters and this is where the oxygen should have been set.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to assess and monitor for pain every shift according to the plan of care for one (#40) of one resident reviewed for pain. The R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to assess and monitor for pain every shift according to the plan of care for one (#40) of one resident reviewed for pain. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #40 had diagnoses which included chronic pain. Physician orders, dated 08/05/22, documented acetaminophen 325 mg give two every eight hours PRN mild pain or fever, Lyrica 100 mg one every day, and tramadol 50 mg give one every eight hours PRN for pain. A five day assessment, dated 08/09/22, documented the resident was intact with cognition, required extensive assistance with ADLs, and had pain he rated at a 10 which make it hard to sleep. The assessment documented the resident did not receive copious during the assessment period. A care plan, last reviewed 08/17/22. documented the resident had chronic pain, to administer medications as ordered, and to monitor and record any complaints of pain, location, frequency, effect on function, intensity, alleviating factors, and aggravating factors. Review of the resident's HER did not document pain assessments had been completed. On 09/13/22 at 9:38 a.m., Res #40 stated he was in pain all the time with his back. Res #40 stated if they gave him pain medication he took it. Res # 40 was observed in his bed, on his back, with the head of the bed elevated. On 09/13/22 at 9:41 a.m., Res #40 stated he was in pain because facility could not give him anything for his pain unless the physician recommended it. Res #40 stated the doctor had not increased his pain medication and he hurt all the time. On 09/15/22 at 5:03 p.m., CMA #1 stated she asked the resident about his pain and he tells her if he was having any. CMA #1 stated he had PRN tramadol on 8/10/22 at 7:00 a.m., and had not had any since. CMA #1 stated she would document on the back of the MAR when a PRN was given. The MAR documentation for pain was reviewed for September 1st through the September 16, 2022. There were six missing entries for monitoring the resident's pain on the flow sheet. On 09/16/22 at 1:33 p.m., Res #40 was observed in his bed with the head of the bed elevated. Res #40 stated he was having pain today. Res #40 was asked from 0 to 10 how bad was his pain. Res #40 stated a 20. Res #40 was asked if he was aware he had pain medication he could ask for. Res #40 stated he did not know that. He stated he wanted something for his back pain. On 09/16/22 at 1:36 p.m., the corporate RN was told the resident had reported he was in pain and rated his pain 20 out of 10. The corporate RN stated so he shook his head yes? She was told Res #40 stated his pain was 20 out of 10. A nurse note, dated 09/16/22 at 1:43 p.m., documented Res #40 had relayed a message he was hurting and when she assessed him he stated his pain level was 20/10 in his back. She documented she instructed the CMA to give a dose of PRN trauma. On 09/16/22 at 2:41 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated she did not know where the pain assessments were located. On 09/16/22 at 2:45 p.m., LPN #2 stated the pain assessment would be under observations in the EHR. She stated she did not see any pain assessments for Res #40. On 09/16/22 2:53 p.m., the corporate RN stated the pain assessments were documented on the MAR. On 09/16/22 at 2:54 p.m., CMA #1 made a copy of the paper MAR. She was asked at that time if the resident had been assessed every shift for pain. CMA #1 stated there were missing pain assessments for the resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to perform ongoing assessment and oversight of the resid...

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 perform ongoing assessment and oversight of the resident after dialysis treatments for one (#49) of one resident sampled for dialysis. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented two residents resided in the facility who required dialysis. Findings: Resident #49 had diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and noncompliance with renal dialysis. A physician order, dated 08/16/22, documented the resident was to receive dialysis treatments Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 6:40 a.m. A dialysis communication form, dated 08/17/22, documented no information under Resident Specific Post-Dialysis Information (completed by facility upon return). The document had spaces to record vital signs, pain, status of access graft/catheter upon return, if bruit/thrill present, if resident returned with any orders, if the resident was offered a meal upon return, medications received upon return, and skin condition of the resident. A nurse progress note, dated 08/17/2022 at 3:14 p.m., regarding post dialysis assessment, did not document vital signs. An admission MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact and received renal dialysis. A dialysis communication form, dated 08/22/22, documented no information under Resident Specific Post-Dialysis Information (completed by facility upon return). A nurse progress note, dated 08/22/2022 at 3:17 p.m., regarding post dialysis assesments, did not document vital signs. No dialysis communication form or nurses note were documented Monday 08/29/22 after the resident returned from dialysis. A dialysis communication form, dated 08/31/22, documented no information under Resident Specific Post-Dialysis Information (completed by facility upon return). A nurse progress note, dated 08/31/2022 at 11:01 a.m., regarding post dialysis assessments, did not document vital signs. A dialysis communication form, dated 09/02/22, documented no information under Resident Specific Post-Dialysis Information (completed by facility upon return). There was no post-dialysis nurses note on 09/02/22 after the resident returned from dialysis. No dialysis communication form or nurse notes were documented Monday 09/05/22 after the resident returned from dialysis. A dialysis care plan, revised 09/05/22, documented staff were to communicate with dialysis center staff regarding plan of care, lab values, diet/fluid restriction recommendations, and auscultate shunt site for bruit and palpate for thrill per protocol or every shift. The care plan documented the staff were to assess for the presence or absence of bruit/thrill and to notify the physician and dialysis center of absent thrill/bruit ASAP. No dialysis communication form was documented Wednesday 09/07/22 after the resident returned from dialysis. No dialysis communication form or nurse notes were documented Friday 09/09/22 after the resident returned from dialysis. On 09/13/22 at 3:57 p.m., Res #49 stated staff have never looked at his port or taken vital signs when he returned from dialysis. On 09/14/22 at 4:32 p.m., LPN #4 stated there was a dialysis communication form the nurses on the floor filled out and sent with the resident to dialysis and when the resident returned the resident brought the form to the nurse. She stated the completed forms were then filed in the resident's chart. She stated vitals should have been taken before and after the residents went to dialysis and the port or fistula should have been assessed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor blood pressure before administering medications for one (#45) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor blood pressure before administering medications for one (#45) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #45 was admitted with diagnoses which included congestive heart failure, hypertension, and end-stage renal disease. A care plan, dated 02/25/19, documented to administer medications as ordered and to evaluate, record, and report effectiveness and adverse side effects of medications. A physician's order, dated 01/20/22, documented to administer carvedilol 12.5 mg orally twice a day and isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg orally once a day for a diagnosis of hypertension. Both orders documented to hold the medication if the systolic blood pressure was less than 100 and/or the diastolic blood pressure was less than 60. The July 2022 MAR documented carvedilol 12.5 mg was administered on 07/15/22, 07/16/22, and 07/17/22 without documentation of a blood pressure reading. Isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg was administered on 07/29/22 and 07/30/22 without documentation of a blood pressure reading. The August 2022 MAR documented that carvedilol 12.5 mg was administered on 08/07/22, 08/11/22, 08/12/22, 08/13/22, 08/15/22, 08/16/22, 08/17/22, 08/18/22, and 08/20/22 without documentation of a blood pressure reading. Isosorbide mononitrate 30 mg was administered on 08/06/22, 08/07/22, 08/11/22, 08/12/22, 08/13/22, 08/15/22, 08/16/22, 08/18/22, 08/20/22, and 08/21/22 without documentation of a blood pressure reading. On 09/15/22 at 9:00 a.m., the resident was observed in her room and stated the staff did not check a blood pressure every day before they administered the blood pressure medications. On 9/15/22 at 9:30 a.m., LPN #2 stated it was the CMA's responsibility to obtain and document blood pressure results on the MAR prior to giving medications with parameter orders. LPN #2 was shown the blank documentation on the MAR for July 2022 and August 2022. She stated if a blood pressure was not documented prior to giving the medication then there was no way to prove it was done. On 09/15/22 at 9:41 a.m., CMA #1 stated it was the CMA's responsibility to obtain a blood pressure prior to giving medications and to document why a medication was not given. CMA #1 was shown the blank documentation on the MAR for July 2022 and August 2022. She stated a blood pressure must not have been obtained before the medications were given. On 09/15/22 at 10:10 a.m., the corporate RN was shown the missing documentation on the July 2022 and August 2022 MAR. She stated the MAR should not have been blank and this has been a problem with the CMA staff for a while. She stated the facility not having a DON to monitor documentation has contributed to this problem.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor for behaviors and side effects related to psychotropic medications for five (#3, 5, 25, 34, and #40) of five resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor for behaviors and side effects related to psychotropic medications for five (#3, 5, 25, 34, and #40) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 38 residents received psychotropic medications. Findings: 1. Resident #25 was admitted with diagnoses which included hydrocephalus, pseudobulbar affect, generalized anxiety disorder, visual hallucinations, and, psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition. An admission assessment, dated 04/12/22, documented the resident had disorganized thinking that changes in severity and behavioral symptoms not directed toward others (e.g., physical symptoms such as hitting or scratching self, pacing, rummaging, public sexual acts, disrobing in public, throwing or smearing food or bodily wastes, or verbal/vocal symptoms like screaming, disruptive sounds). A physician's order, dated 06/13/22, documented to observe resident closely for significant side effects of Risperdal including sedation, drowsiness, dry mouth, constipation, blurred vision, extra pyramidal reaction, weight gain, edema, postural hypotension, sweating, loss of appetite, and urinary retention every shift. The physician order documented to record target behavior: (Yelling, hitting, spitting, cursing, false accusations, and rejection of care) at the end of each shift marking the number of episodes, intervention, and outcome. A physician's order, dated 06/30/22, documented to observe resident closely for significant side effects of Vistaril including sedation, drowsiness, ataxia (drunk walk), dizziness, nausea, vomiting, confusion, headache, blurred vision, and skin rash every shift. The physician order documented to record antianxiety target behavior: (Restless, picking, wandering, shortness of breath, itching) at the end of each shift marking the number of episodes, intervention, and outcome. The July 2022 TAR had no documentation for 27 of the 93 opportunities to observe resident closely for side effects of Vistaril and Risperdal. There was no documentation for 28 of the 93 opportunities to document target behavior of Vistaril and Risperdal. The August 2022 TAR had no documentation for 24 of the 93 opportunities to observe resident closely for side effects of Risperdal. There was no documentation for 23 of the 93 opportunities to document target behavior of Risperdal. On 09/13/22 at 9:45 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in their room in a wheelchair. The resident was not able to make eye contact upon being interviewed. The resident was confused to surroundings and stated they did not feel good but was unable to explain why. The resident fell asleep during the interview. On 09/13/22 at 10:01 a.m., the resident was observed sitting calmly in their room in a wheelchair. The resident was screaming Help me, Help me. A CNA responded to the resident's room and asked the resident What's wrong? The resident did not respond to the CNA but continued to scream Help me intermittently. On 09/16/22 at 10:31 a.m., LPN #2 was shown the blank documentation on the TAR for July 2022 and August 2022. She stated if it was not documented then it was not done. On 09/16/22 at 10:35 a.m., the corporate RN was shown the blank documentation on the TAR for July 2022 and August 2022. She stated the TAR should have documentation for the dates and times in question but they were blank so there was no way of knowing if this task was performed.2. Res #5 was admitted with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, single episode, severe without psychotic features. A physician order, dated 06/10/22, documented Lexapro an (antidepressant medication) administer 5 mg once a day for specified depressive disorders. A physician order, dated 06/10/22, documented Rozerem a (sedative medication) to give 8 mg at bedtime for insomnia. A physician order, dated 06/10/22, documented Trintellix an (antidepressant medication) give 10 mg at bedtime for other specified depressive episodes. An annual assessment, dated 07/30/22, was still in progress for no RN signature. The assessment documented Res #5 was moderately impaired with cognition and the mood section was scored at a six or mild depression. The assessment documented the resident had no behaviors and received an antidepressant and a hypnotic for seven days during the assessment period. A care plan, last reviewed 08/02/22, documented Res #5 was at risk for adverse consequences related to receiving mood stabilizer medication. The care plan documented to monitor for drug use effectiveness, adverse consequences, and monitor mood and response to medication. The care plan documented the resident would demonstrate beneficial effects from medications as evidenced by sleeping 6-8 hours per night, would have no adverse reaction to medications. and to monitor for behavior (sleeplessness) for which the medication was being given. Side effect monitoring for Lexapro and Trintellix from September 1st to September 15th did not document entries 22 of 43 opportunities. Side effect monitoring for Rozerem for September 1st to the 15th did not document entries 22 out of 43 opportunities. Behavior monitoring for September 1st to the 15th did not document entries for 33 out of 43 opportunities. Sleep monitoring from September 1st to the 15th missed four nights out of 15 nights. On 09/15/22 at 5:19 p.m., LPN #2 stated behavior and side effect monitoring should have been completed daily. 3. Res #40 had diagnoses which included unspecified mood [affective] disorder. A physician order, dated 07/08/22, documented Lexapro 10 mg every day for depressive episodes. Physician orders, dated 08/05/22, documented Abilify 15 mg give one once a day and olanzapine 10 mg give one once a day. A five day assessment, dated 08/09/22, documented the resident was intact with cognition and required extensive assistance with most ADLs. The assessment documented the resident's mood score was seven, or mild depression, and he had no behaviors. The assessment documented the resident received an antipsychotic and an antidepressant medication four days during the look back period. A care plan, last reviewed 09/14/22, documented the resident was at risk for adverse consequences related to receiving antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. The care plan documented to assess, record effectiveness of drug treatment, and monitor and report signs of sedation. The side effect and behavioral monitoring sheets for August 2022 and September 2022 had mulitple entry spaces without documentation. There was no documentation for monitoring olanzapine in the resident's clinical records. On 09/15/22 at 5:19 p.m., LPN #2 stated the side effect and behavior monitoring should be completed daily. She stated they should be monitoring the olanzapine also. LPN #2 stated the flow sheets were not completely filled out. The note on the front of the behavior book at the nurses station documented nurses your initials are required daily. 4. Res #3 had diagnoses which included restlessness and agitation, delirium due to known physiological condition, major depressive disorder, persistent mood disorder, unspecified symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions and awareness, and altered mental status. Physician orders, dated 06/15/21, documented the facility was to monitor closely for significant side effects of the use of Trazodone and Remeron ( antidepressant medications) and to observe for the target behaviors of crying, rejection of care, and oversleeping, which Trazodone and Remeron was ordered for, and document the number of episodes at the end of each shift. A physician order, dated 08/11/21, documented the facility was to administer Trazodone 100 mg at bedtime,for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, single episode, severe with psychotic features. Physician orders, dated 11/17/21, documented the facility was to observe the resident closely for side effects of Ativan (an antianxiety medication) use and to observe for the target behaviors of yelling, restless, resistance of care, wandering, and cussing staff, which Ativan was prescribed for and to document the number of episodes at the end of each shift. A physician order, dated 02/08/22, documented the facility was to administer Remeron 15 mg once daily for abnormal weight loss. A quarterly assessment, dated 04/24/22, documented Res #3 was severely impaired in cognition, experienced feeling tired or having little energy nearly every day, and had physical and verbal behaviors directed towards others four to six days during the assessment period. The assessment documented the resident rejected care one to three days. The assessment documented the resident required supervision to extensive assistance with ADLs and received antipsychotics, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications seven days during the seven day assessment period. A physician order, dated 05/09/22, documented the facility was to administer Risperdal (an antipsychotic medication) two mg twice a day for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with severe psychotic features. Physician orders, dated 06/15/22, documented the facility was to monitor closely for significant side effects of the use of Risperdal and to observe for the target behaviors of yelling, spitting, cursing, false accusations, and rejection of care, which Risperdal was prescribed for and document the number of episodes at the end of each shift. A physician order, dated 06/15/22, documented the facility was to administer Ativan gel one ml every four hours for restlessness and agitation. A significant change in status assessment, dated 07/06/22 and still in progress, documented the resident had little interest or pleasure in doing things nearly every day, felt tired or had little energy for half or more days, and had poor appetite or overeating for several days. The assessment documented the resident had physical and verbal behaviors for four to six days and rejected care one to three days. The assessment documented the resident behavior interfered in the resident's care and his symptoms were worse. The assessment documented the resident required supervision to extensive care with ADLs and received antipsychotics, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications, seven days of the seven day assessment period. A physician order, dated 07/13/22, documented the facility was to administer Risperdal 0.5 mg once a day at noon for a diagnosis of delirium due to known physiological condition. Res #3's care plan, last reviewed on 08/02/22, documented the staff were to assess for side effects of medications. A review of the August 2022 side effect and behavior monitoring for the medications Ativan, Risperdal, Trazadone, and Remeron, documented no side effect monitoring or behavior monitoring occurred for 22 of 31 opportunities on day shift and three of 31 opportunities on evening shift. 5. Res #34 had diagnoses which included unspecified mood disorder, delusional disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, depressive episodes, and Alzheimer's disease A physician order, dated 02/09/21, documented the facility was to administer sertraline (an antidepressant medication) 50 mg once daily. Physician orders, dated 02/09/21, documented the facility was to closely monitor for significant side effects from the use of buspirone and to monitor for the target behaviors of restlessness, excessive worry, and paranoia, which buspirone was prescribed for, and document the number of episodes each shift. Physician orders, dated 02/22/22, documented the facility was to monitor for target behaviors of crying, withdrawal, rejection of care, and oversleeping, which Zoloft (sertraline) was prescribed for, and to document the number of episodes each shift, and to monitor for significant side effects from the use of Zoloft every shift. A physician order, dated 07/11/22, documented the facility was to administer buspirone five mg tablet three times daily for a diagnosis of mood disorder. An annual assessment, dated 07/24/22, documented Res #34 was severely impaired in cognition and exhibited physical and verbal behaviors directed towards others for four to six days of the assessment period. The assessment documented the behaviors put the resident at significant risk for physical illness or injury, interfered with the resident's care, social interactions, and activities. The assessment documented the resident's behaviors put others at significant risk for injuries, disrupted care, and the living environment. The assessment documented the resident required supervision to extensive assistance with ADLs and received an antianxiety and antidepressant medications daily during the assessment period. A care plan for Res #34 related to anxiety, last reviewed on 08/02/22, documented the staff were to monitor the resident's mood and response to medication. A review of Res #34's behavior flowsheet for the month of August 2022 failed to document monitoring for buspirone and sertraline for 22 of 31 opportunities on day shift, and one evening shift of 31 opportunities. On 09/15/22 at 12:21 p.m., the corporate RN was asked to review the documentation for monitoring of psychotropic medications for Res #3 and #34. The corporate RN confirmed multiple missing entries for documentation of monitoring and stated it was just like all the rest of the documentation, and if it was not documented it was not done.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below five percent for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below five percent for two (#14 and #42) of five residents observed during medication pass. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy, titled Documentation of Medication Administration read in part, .Administration of medication must be documented immediately after (never before) it is given . An undated facility policy, titled Medication Errors and Drug Reactions read in part, .Report all medication errors and drug reactions immediately to the attending physician, Director of Nursing Service and Administrator . An undated facility policy, titled Self-Administration of Drugs read in parts, .the staff and practitioner will assess each resident's mental and physical abilities, to determine whether a resident is capable of self-administering medications .In addition to general evaluation of decision-making capacity, the staff and practitioner will perform a more specific skill assessment, including (but not limited to) the resident's: a. Ability to read and understand medication labels; b. Comprehension of the purpose and proper dosage and administration time for his or her medications; c. Ability to remove medications from a container and to ingest and swallow (or otherwise administer) them and d. Ability to recognize risks and major adverse consequences of his or her medications . 1. Resident #14 had diagnoses which included hypertension, heart failure, and edema. A physician order, dated 06/11/22, documented to give carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice per day and hold medication for systolic blood pressure below 100, diastolic blood pressure below 60, and heart rate below 55. A physician order, dated 06/11/22, documented to give Eliquis 2.5 mg twice per day. An annual MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired and received anticoagulants seven out of seven days during the review period. On 09/15/22 at 8:20 a.m., CMA #1 was observed during medication pass taking VS for Res #14 which included a blood pressure reading of 103/58. The CMA stated that she was going to hold the resident's blood pressure medication because of the reading. The CMA prepared the medications and included the carvedilol. The medications passed did not include the Eliquis. On 09/15/22 at 4:12 p.m., CMA #1 stated that she did not give the Eliquis for Res #14 because it was not available in the cart and had to be ordered from the pharmacy. She stated she should have held Res #14's carvedilol based on the blood pressure reading. On 09/19/22 at 10:02 a.m., the corporate RN stated for medications that were not on the cart the staff should have gone into their cubbies in the medication room to make sure it was not in there, then check to see if it was ordered, and if so, check when it was delivered, and look for it. She stated if a resident had an out of parameter blood pressure reading the medication should have been held and the nurse notified so the blood pressure could be re-checked. 2. Resident #42 had diagnoses which included COPD, and allergic rhinitis. A physician order, dated 05/17/22, documented staff were to administer Flonase allergy relief, spray one spray in each nostril twice daily. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 08/15/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact. On 09/15/22 at 08:30 a.m., CMA #1 was observed passing medications to Res #42 and handed the Flonase nasal spray to the resident who then self-administered the medication. A record review documented Res #42 did not have an assessment, order, or care plan, for self-administration of medications. On 09/15/22 at 4:12 p.m., CMA #1 stated she was unaware of any assessments or orders for residents who wished to self-administer medications. She stated for the resident in question the resident preferred to do their own nasal spray. On 09/19/22 at 10:03 a.m., the corporate RN stated residents should be assessed to see if they can administer their own medications. She stated she was unaware Res #42 wanted to self administer the Flonase nasal spray.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired supplies and medications were disposed of. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired supplies and medications were disposed of. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 09/16/22 at 8:19 a.m., a tour of the medication room was conducted. The following expired medications and supplies were observed in the medication room: - one opened 100 unit/1 ml insulin needle without safety mechanism - two opened exactamed 5 ml oral syringes - one Medtronic quick-set expired 06/2010 - one quarter full bottle of rubbing alcohol expired 05/2016 - one 22 g/1 inch BD angiocath IV catheter expired 10/2019 - one 18 g/1.16 inch BD insyte autoguard BC winged IV catheter expired 09/30/2020 - one silicone latex covered Foley catheter 24 fr 30 ml expired 10/12/2021 - one Dynarex IV administration set expired 01/27/2022 - one opened bottle Nutricia Pro-stat sugar free complete 30 fl oz bottle expired 03/03/2022 - one open tube of Zim's max freeze pro formula cold therapy cooling gel expired 06/2022 - one Medical Action Industries central line dressing tray with Tegaderm expired 06/30/2022 - one heparin lock flush solution expired 07/2022 - one Truecare IV administration set with GVS easydrop flow regulator expired 07/09/2022 - two Truecare IV administration set with GVS easydrop flow regulator expired 07/11/2022 - eight heparin lock flush solution expired 08/2022 - one opened heparin lock flush solution expired 08/2022 - three Truecare IV administration set with GVS easydrop flow regulator expired 08/02/2022 - one v.a.c. freedom 300 ml canister with gel expired 08/31/2022 On 09/16/22 at 08:30 a.m., the corporate RN stated it was the responsibility of the CMAs and nurses to dispose of expired medications and supplies. She stated there was no set schedule but they were expected to do it regularly. On 09/16/22 at 9:44 a.m., the medication cart for center hall was observed. It had two loose pills in center of lower drawer. On 09/16/22 at 10:40 a.m., the medication cart for south hall was observed. It had one loose pill in the left of the top drawer.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the person designated to serve as the DM had a current certification. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documente...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the person designated to serve as the DM had a current certification. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents who resided in the facility with two resident who received tube feedings. Findings: The Association of Nutrition & Foodservice Professionals website documented CDM CFPP credential read in part, .you will also need to maintain it by completing and reporting continuing education as well as paying the annual certification fee .Certificants must comply with all recertification requirements to maintain use of the credential . On 09/15/22 at 10:10 a.m. the DM was asked if he was current with his dietary manager training. The DM stated he did not have a current certificate of training. He stated he let it lapse. On 09/16/22 at 11:25 a.m., the DM presented a certificate for certified Dietary Manager, dated 10/11/14. On 09/19/22 at 11:23 a.m., during a meeting with the administrator and the corporate director, the corporate director stated she was unaware of the requirement to maintain a CDM.
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 and interview, the facility failed to provide food which was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form identified 5...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide food which was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form identified 53 residents who resided in the facility. The corporate director, documented the facility did not have any residents who were NPO. Findings: 1. On 09/12/22 at 5:02 p.m., corn dogs were observed on the steam table. The corn dogs were observed to have been burnt and split open. On 09/12/22 at 5:13 p.m., an observation was made of 13 meals in disposable boxes which were sitting on an open cart in the hall way. The other meals were observed in a hot box on the hall. On 09/12/22 at 5:34 p.m., three meals were observed to have been brought out of the kitchen on an open cart and placed in the hall. One cover on one of the meals was observed to have not been on properly and the macaroni and cheese was not covered. On 09/12/22 at 5:37 p.m., hospitality aide #1 was observed to place the tray in the warmer. On 09/13/22 at 10:26 a.m., Res #23 stated the food was not good. She stated it was never hot and she preferred to have her food hot. On 09/13/22 at 10:36 a.m., Res # 15 stated the food was terrible and cold most of the time. On 09/13/22 at 10:54 a.m., Res # 51 stated the food was not so good and cold most of the time. On 09/13/22 at 2:58 p.m., observed Res #32's noon meal still sitting on his overbed table. Res #32 stated the food was bad. He stated he could not eat it. He stated he had a couple of bites of the barbeque, tried the potato salad, and coleslaw, but could not eat it. On 09/13/22 at 3:42 p.m., Res #31 stated they were served burnt corn dogs last night and he ate all of it he could. On 09/15/22 at 10:26 a.m., during the resident council meeting, the residents stated the food was cold for all meals which were delivered to the resident rooms. On 09/15/22 at 12:16 p.m., the hot cart was observed being taken to the hall along with a requested test tray. On 09/15/22 at 12:47 p.m., after the last meal was served from the hot cart, the test tray was obtained. The temperature of the food obtained at 12:49 p.m. The chicken fried steak was 108 degrees F, mashed potatoes were 118.5 degrees F, and the green beans 108.9 degrees F. The chicken fry steak and potatoes with gravy were luke warm to taste, the green beans are cool to taste. The green beans and potatoes did not have any seasoning On 09/15/22 at 5:49 p.m., the DM stated he only had a few resident who had told him they were tired of the same foods. He said he had been told the food was a little on the cooler side. He stated did not want residents to complain the food was cold. 2. Res #40 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus, nutritional anemia, and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance. A physician order, dated 08/05/22, documented the resident was to receive a puree diet with nectar thick liquids. A five day assessment, dated 08/09/22, documented the resident was intact with cognition, required supervision with eating and extensive assistant with other ADLs. The assessment documented the resident had a mechanically altered diet. A care plan, last reviewed 08/17/22, documented Res #40 required a therapeutic and mechanically altered diet related to diabetes. On 09/13/22 at 9:44 a.m., Res #40 stated the food was [expletive deleted] even the hog wouldn't eat it. He stated he was not happy with the food. 3. Res #34 had diagnoses which included nutritional deficiency An annual assessment, dated 07/24/22, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition and required supervision to extensive assistance with ADLs. The assessment documented the resident received a mechanically altered diet. On 09/13/22 at 3:47 p.m., a family member of Res #34 stated the food was pitiful. The family member stated they were very disappointed with the dietary department and a person not only experienced their meals with their taste, but with their eyes too. The family member stated everything was the same color and the residents received the same thing over and over. On 09/14/22 at 6:00 p.m., Res #34 was observed sitting in her room in her wheel chair and her dinner was sitting on an overbed table and appeared untouched. When asked if she was going to eat, she stated she did not like the food. 4. Res #56 had diagnoses which included diabetes. An admission assessment, dated 09/03/22, documented Res #56 was intact in cognition and required limited to total assistance with most ADLs. On 09/13/22 at 2:51 p.m., Res #56 stated the food was terrible.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and distributed in a sanitary manne...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and distributed in a sanitary manner. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. The corporate director documented all residents receive food from the kitchen. Findings: 1. On 09/12/22 at 5:13 p.m., CNA #4 was observed while delivering meals to resident rooms. CNA #4 was observed to use the bed controller to sit the head of the bed up, then returned to cart for another meal, placed a drink on the meal tray, and delivered the meal to another resident room. The CNA was observe to serve meals to five resident rooms without performing hand hygiene. At 5:18 p.m. CNA #4 was observed to shut a resident door, returned to the food cart, pour a cup of coffee, pulled up his pants, and then delivered another meal without performing hygiene. At 5:23 p.m., CNA #4 was observed to use his right hand and push a resident in a wheel chair while he delivered a meal tray to separate resident's room. He then went back to the meal cart and delivered another meal tray without performing hand hygiene. On 09/12/22 at 5:41 p.m., hospitality aide #1 delivered a meal to a resident's room. She was then observed to return to the meal cart with hands in her pockets and moved a tray from the top of the cart, and some dirty drink cups off the top of the water fountain. She was then observed to enter a store room without performing hand hygiene. On 09/12/22 at 5:48 p.m., CNA #4 helped a resident with the call light, moved an overbed table in the resident's room, then went back to food cart and delivered a meal to another resident room, sat down, and assisted the resident to eat. Hand hygiene was not observed. On 09/15/22 at 12:18 p.m., CNA #2 was observed to pour several drinks while touching the rim of the glasses. She delivered several trays and did not use any hand hygiene. On 09/13/22 at 12:26 p.m., hospitality aide #1 was observed to take a meal tray to a resident room, return to the hall cart for another meal tray, and delivered the tray to and resident room, touched and moved the resident's overbed table, returned back to cart for another tray, which she took to a third resident room. She was observed to then touch the door knob of room [ROOM NUMBER], then delivered meal to lobby and gave it to CNA #4. She was observed to touch a resident who was asleep on the couch. Hand hygiene was not observed during this observation. On 09/13/22 at 12:32 p.m., the hospitality aide was instructed to use hand sanitizer by a staff member. On 09/15/22 at 5:27 p.m., LPN #4 was asked when hand hygiene was appropriate to be used when passing meals. LPN #4 stated hand hygiene should be performed when passing trays after each room. 2. On 09/12/22 at 4:53 p.m., the initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. The hand washing sink was used at this time and was observed to be dirty with debris all over the sink. On 09/12/22 at 5:02 p.m., debris was observed on the floor by the coffee pot and refrigerator. Three boxes of orange juice were observed sitting in the floor by the freezer. The label on the boxes documented to thaw at 38 degrees or cooler. At that time cook #1 was asked about the boxes of juice on the floor. [NAME] #1 stated they were thawing there from about noon. She then stated it should not be on the floor thawing. On 09/12/22 at 5:06 p.m., dust was observed on the lower shelving of the prep tables. On 09/12/22 at 5:08 p.m., the ice machine was checked by cook #1 with a white cloth. The drop cover was wiped and a visible pink slime was observed on the front of the ice shield. [NAME] #1 stated she did not know what the pink slime was or who cleaned the ice machine. On 09/15/22 at 10:07 a.m., while washing hands at the hand washing sink, there was a slotted spoon on the hand washing sink under the paper towel holder. A glass with yellow liquid was observed on a shelf above the prep table. The shelving under the prep tables had been cleaned. On 09/15/22 at 10:08 a.m. the DM stated the spoon should not have been on the hand washing sink and moved it to the dish room. He stated the glass was most likely a staff members and they should not have been drinking in the prep area. On 09/15/22 at 10:14 a.m., the DM stated they did not have a cleaning schedule and they have been having a big turn over in staff. On 09/15/22 at 5:49 p.m., the DM stated nothing should be thawing out of the refrigerator like the orange juice. He stated maintenance cleaned the ice machine every 30 days and wiped it down and every six months maintenance would take it apart and clean it. He stated sanitizer should be used between every tray when passing meals.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' medical records were complete, readily accessible, and systematically organized for three, (#8, 56, and #152) of 20 residents whose records were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 resident resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #152 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including interstitial pulmonary disease, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, COPD, atherosclerotic heart disease, history of TIA and cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculus obstruction, muscle weakness, and dementia. An LTC -admission Assessment/Observation Documentation form, dated 08/22/22, had no resident observations or assessments documented. A MAR, dated 08/01/22 to 08/21/22, documented diclofenac 1% topical, apply two grams to affected area four times daily. There were no documented administrations of this medication. A respiratory flowsheet, dated 08/01/22 to 08/31/22 was provided to surveyors on 09/16/22. It documented revefenacin 175 mcg nebulization daily. This medication was not documented to be administered on 08/23/22. The respiratory flowshet documented Brovana 15 mcg nebulization twice daily at 08:00 a.m. and 08:00 p.m. This medication was not documented to be administered on 08/22/22 for the p.m. dose and 08/23/22 for the a.m. or p.m. dose. A TAR, dated 08/01/22 to 08/31/22 was provided to surveyors on 09/16/22. It documented to clean left heel blister with normal saline, apply skin prep twice per day. The 08/25/22 morning treatment was not documented as completed. A MAR, dated 08/22/22 to 09/21/22, documented the facility was to administer gabapentin 60 mg two capsules at bedtime, meloxicam 15 mg one tablet every day, midodrine 10 mg three times daily, polyethylene glycol one packet two times daily, Senokot two tablets twice daily, tamsulosin 0.4 mg at bedtime, calcium carbonate one tablet twice daily, cholecalciferol 1000 units daily, finasteride 5 mg daily, folic acid 1 mg daily, Theragran-m one tablet daily, and thiamine 100 mg daily. There were no documented administrations for any of the above medications. No vital signs or ADL care were documented from 08/22/22 to 08/25/22. No progress notes or assessments were documented on 08/23/22 or 08/24/22. A review of the resident's clinical records did not document an order for urinary catheter care or supplemental oxygen. An admission MDS assessment, dated 08/25/22, documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility, locomotion, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and toilet use; extensive assistance of one staff for bathing, had limited range of motion in both lower extremities, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, had shortness of breath with exertion, when sitting, and when lying flat, received no medications, and received oxygen therapy. On 09/15/22 at 10:15 a.m., corporate RN #1 stated there was no DON at the facility and she was the highest level nurse in the facility. She stated the only time she saw Res #152 was when she performed a COVID-19 test. She was provided with documentation from Res #152's medical record to review. She stated according to the documentation on the MAR the medications were not administered. She stated the ADON was supposed to be in charge along with the charge nurses. She stated the nurses should not have wasted their time writing a MAR as the green page on the carbon copy was a temporary MAR. She stated they should have completed the admission process and ensured everything was in place. She stated the white copy of the orders should have been sent to the pharmacy and she would check to see if his medications were ever sent. She stated Res #152 should have had a full assessment every shift since he was a skilled resident. She stated if the documentation was blank the care did not happen. On 09/16/22, the facility provided additional documentation for Res #152's medical record. These included: a pharmacy drug order fill sheet which documented Res #152's blood thinner had been delivered to the facility on [DATE], an additional MAR, a progress note from the physician dated 08/23/22, and a progress note from the physician assistant dated 08/24/22. On 09/19/22 at 10:24 a.m., the administrator stated he expected a new admission to have their documentation completed as soon as they enter the facility including a full head to toe assessment, orders entered, skin issues documented, and hospital discharge documentation reviewed as applicable. He stated he expected residents to be assessed and receive medications as ordered. He stated the facility has a morning meeting to discuss new admissions to ensure the process is followed. He was unsure if a record was kept of what was discussed during the morning meeting regarding Res #152 since the facility only sometimes kept written records of these meetings. 2. Resident #8 was admitted with diagnoses which included benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary tract infection. A care plan, dated 05/10/22, documented the resident had the potential for urinary complications related to having a suprapubic catheter. It documented a goal of the resident would not have signs and/or symptoms of infection or urinary complications with approaches to obtain this goal which included catheter care per protocol and to empty the leg bag every shift and as needed with intake and output documentation. A physician's order, dated 05/11/22, documented to empty drainage bag and record urine output at the end of each shift and provide catheter care every shift. The July 2022 paper TAR had blank documentation for six of the 93 opportunities to document catheter care. The TAR documented urinary output had not been recorded for 55 of 93 opportunities to document urinary output. The August 2022 paper TAR had blank documentation for seven of the 93 opportunities to document catheter care. The TAR documented urinary output had not been recorded for 34 of the 93 opportunities to document urinary output. The EHR documented eight entries of urinary output for the months of July 2022 and August 2022. On 09/19/22 at 10:05 a.m., the resident was observed lying in bed with a suprapubic catheter attached to a urinary leg bag in place. There was no redness or drainage observed around the catheter entry site. Approximately 100 ml of clear yellow urine was observed in the urinary leg bag. At that time, the resident stated the staff provided catheter care and emptied the catheter bag every once in a while but not three times a day. On 09/19/22 at 10:12 a.m., LPN #2 stated the CNA and/or the LPN working the floor was responsible to ensure tasks were completed and documented either on the paper TAR or the EHR. She confirmed documentation was missing for the dates in question and there was no way to know if care was provided on the dates and times in question. On 09/19/22 at 10:15 a.m., the corporate RN was asked about the lack of documentation on the paper TAR and in the EHR. She stated catheter care and urinary output should have been documented in the EHR and on the TAR for the dates and times in question but it was not done. 3. Res #56 had diagnoses which included COPD, acute and chronic respiratory failure, acute kidney failure, and diabetes. An admission order, dated 08/31/22, documented to change the urinary catheter once a month on the 21st. An admission assessment for Res #56, dated 09/03/22, documented the resident was intact in cognition and had a urinary catheter. The care area assessment documented urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter triggered for care planning. On 09/13/22 at 2:54 p.m., Res #56 was observed sitting in her room. Res #56 was observed to have an indwelling urinary catheter draining clear amber urine. The urinary catheter bag was observed to not have a privacy bag. At that time, Res #56 stated she had the catheter due to urinary incontinence. She stated for now it was her choice to keep the catheter as it took too long for staff to answer the call lights and she would have been soaking in urine all the time. A review of the resident's care plan did not document a plan of care related to a indwelling urinary catheter. A review of Res #56's MAR and TAR did not document any orders for urinary catheter care. On 09/16/22 at 10:37 a.m., the ADON reviewed Res #56's clinical records and reported the records did not contain documentation Res #56 had any catheter care during her stay. The ADON stated she saw the catheter the previous evening as she was preparing the resident for a transfer.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to have an effective administration to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicab...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to have an effective administration to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The facility failed to ensure: a. residents were not in common areas of the facility while wearing hospital gowns instead of appropriate clothing and foot coverings. b. grievances presented during resident council meetings were acted on or provide rationale as to why concerns could not be met. c. advanced directives (Do Not Resuscitate) were completed to include the required signatures. d. residents were free from neglect. e. resident assessments accurately reflected the resident status. f. a registered nurse reviewed, dated, signed, and transmitted the resident assessments to CMS when completed. g. baseline care plans were intimated and to provide a copy of the care plan to residents and/or their representatives. h. comprehensive care plans were developed which reflected the residents' current status. i. ensure residents' care plans were reviewed and updated and failed to ensure the resident and/or representative participation in the care plan process. j. to assess, monitor, and provide interventions for residents reviewed for quality of care. k. resident's fall was investigated and steps to prevent recurrence of falls. l. residents with an indwelling catheter received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections. m. respiratory orders were followed. n. assess and monitor for pain every shift according to the plan of care. o. the staff performed ongoing assessment and oversight of the resident after dialysis treatments. p. to monitor blood pressures before administering medications which were ordered with blood pressure monitoring. q. behaviors and side effects monitoring related to the administration of psychotropic medications were conducted. r. a medication error rate below five percent. s. residents were free of significant medication errors. t. expired supplies and medications were disposed of. u. the person designated to serve as the DM had a current certification. v. a resident's nutritional preference was accommodated and provide substitutions for food dislikes. w. food was provided which was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. x. food was prepared, stored, and distributed in a sanitary manner. y. residents' medical records were complete, readily accessible, and systematically organized. z. the facility employed the services of a qualified social worker on a full time basis. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 09/14/22 at 2:28 p.m., the administrator stated the facility had 138 licensed beds. The administrator stated the facility did not have a qualified social worker on staff. On 09/15/22 at 10:10 a.m., the corporate RN was shown the missing documentation on the July 2022 and August 2022 MAR. She stated the MAR should not have been blank and this has been a problem with the CMA staff for a while. She stated the facility not having a DON to monitor documentation has contributed to this problem. On 09/15/22 at 10:15 a.m., corporate RN #1 stated there was no DON at the facility and she was the highest level nurse in the facility. She stated the only time she saw Res #152 was when she performed a COVID-19 test. She was provided with documentation from Res #152's medical record to review. She stated according to the documentation on the MAR the medications were not administered. She stated the ADON was supposed to be in charge along with the charge nurses. She stated the nurses should not have wasted their time writing a MAR as the green page on the carbon copy was a temporary MAR. She stated they should have completed the admission process and ensured everything was in place. She stated the white copy of the orders should have been sent to the pharmacy and she would check to see if his medications were ever sent. She stated Res #152 should have had a full assessment every shift since he was a skilled resident. She stated she did not perform an assessment on Res #152. She stated if the documentation was blank the care did not happen. She stated she was normally at the facility two days a week. On 09/15/22 at 12:00 p.m., the administrator was shown the grievances on the resident council minutes. He stated he was present for the May 2022 and June 2022 resident council meetings. He was asked how he responded to grievances presented in the meetings. He stated he read the meeting minutes and tried to personally talk to the individual resident who voiced the concern about what could be done to resolve the grievance. The administrator denied having an official grievance process or having documentation of the interventions acted upon to resolve the residents' concerns. He stated he did not keep documentation of the rationale of how the grievances were or were not addressed. On 09/15/22 at 12:47 p.m., the MDS coordinator reviewed Res #60's clinical records and stated the records did not document a baseline care plan was completed. The MDS coordinator stated when a resident was admitted and the initial assessment was done, the admission nurse should have completed a baseline care plan. She stated the facility needed to have someone to monitor this to ensure it was done. The MDS coordinator stated the resident or representative was to get a copy of the baseline care plan. She stated she was unaware the baseline care plan was to contain the physician orders, treatments, diet order, and therapy. On 09/19/22 at 10:24 a.m., the administrator stated he expected a new admission to have their documentation completed as soon as they enter the facility including a full head to toe assessment, orders entered, skin issues documented, and hospital discharge documentation reviewed as applicable. He stated he expected residents to be assessed and receive medications as ordered. He stated the facility has a morning meeting to discuss new admissions to ensure the process is followed. He was unsure if a record was kept of what was discussed during the morning meetings.
CONCERN (F)

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

Social Worker (Tag F0850)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to employ the services of a qualified social worker on a full time basis. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to employ the services of a qualified social worker on a full time basis. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 53 resident resided in the facility. Findings: On 09/12/22 the corporate director provided a copy of the work schedules of all departments in the facility for review. The work schedules did not document a social worker. On 09/14/22 at 2:03 p.m., the SSD reported she was not a qualified social worker. The SSD stated she had been in the position since April of 2022. On 09/14/22 at 2:28 p.m., the administrator stated the facility had 138 licensed beds. The administrator stated the facility did not have a qualified social worker on staff. On 09/15/22 at 10:26 a.m., during the resident council meeting, residents in attendance reported they were not informed of physician appointments until shortly prior to the departure time. The residents stated they felt very rushed.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 5 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 46 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Jan Frances Care Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Jan Frances Care Center an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Oklahoma, 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 Jan Frances Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Jan Frances Care Center's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 20 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Jan Frances Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 46 deficiencies at Jan Frances Care Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 41 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Jan Frances Care Center?

Jan Frances Care Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by BGM ESTATE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 132 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 36% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Ada, Oklahoma.

How Does Jan Frances Care Center Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, Jan Frances Care Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (67%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Jan Frances Care Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Jan Frances Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Jan Frances Care Center has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 5 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 Oklahoma. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Jan Frances Care Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Jan Frances Care Center is high. At 67%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Jan Frances Care Center Ever Fined?

Jan Frances Care Center 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 Jan Frances Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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