MEADOWBROOK NURSING CENTER

113 EAST JONES, CHOUTEAU, OK 74337 (918) 476-8918
For profit - Partnership 65 Beds BGM ESTATE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
78/100
#18 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Meadowbrook Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good facility, which means it is a solid choice but not without its issues. It ranks #18 out of 282 nursing homes in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half, and #1 out of 4 in Mayes County, which suggests it is the best option locally. The facility is showing improvement, with a significant reduction in reported issues from 13 in 2023 to just 1 in 2024. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 42%, which is lower than the state average, indicating a stable workforce that can provide consistent care. However, there have been some serious concerns, including incidents of resident-to-resident abuse and failure to properly assess and create care plans for residents with specific health needs, pointing to areas where the facility needs to improve its practices. Additionally, there were issues with pest control in the kitchen, which could affect cleanliness and food safety. Overall, while Meadowbrook Nursing Center has strengths in staffing and overall ratings, families should be aware of the recent incidents and ongoing concerns.

Trust Score
B
78/100
In Oklahoma
#18/282
Top 6%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
13 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
42% turnover. Near Oklahoma's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$7,443 in fines. Lower than most Oklahoma facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 13 issues
2024: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (42%)

    6 points below Oklahoma average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near Oklahoma avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $7,443

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: BGM ESTATE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program for the kitchen and failed to maintain the kitchen environment in an effort to promote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program for the kitchen and failed to maintain the kitchen environment in an effort to promote an effective pest control program for the kitchen. The ADON stated 20 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The pest control service notification, dated 07/17/24, read in part, .Technician looked in pest control. [sic] Log and roaches were reported in break room and in dining room technician inspected, see no dead, no feces or live activity at time of service. Technician treated entryways, common areas. Offices, break room, dining room, nurses station, and kitchen with liquids. Inspected exterior bait stations, updated cards and replaced bait . On 08/04/24 at 9:17 a.m., an initial tour of the kitchen was performed and the following observations were made: - roaches in and around the low temperature dish machine; - missing baseboards in the dish room, dry storage room, and main kitchen areas; - standing water under the dish machine when not in use; - missing floor tiles in the dish room and door thresholds of the dish room and dry storage; - buckled flooring in the dish room; - peeling wallpaper and plaster in the dish room; - 50 gallon trash can with no lid; - rusted metal door frames; - rear kitchen door which could not easily be secured and left light visible around the door when held taut to the frame; - mop bucket with standing liquid and dead bugs in it located just outside of the rear kitchen door; and, - the outside commercial size trash container not covered with lids. On 08/07/24 at 10:00 a.m., a tour of the kitchen was performed with the administrator and maintenance supervisor. The maintenance supervisor stated they had toured the kitchen earlier in the week and had noticed the different breaks in the environment and would make the needed repairs. The maintenance supervisor stated the staff had reported seeing roaches in the dining room and the pest control company had been out to spray but they had not noticed the roaches in the dish machine. The maintenance supervisor stated they would work with the dish machine technician and pest control company to eliminate the roaches.
Jul 2023 13 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents did not experience resident to 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 ensure residents did not experience resident to resident abuse for two (#10 and #16) of two residents sampled for abuse. The facility failed to ensure: a. Res #80 did not assault and injure Res #10 and #16. b. Res #10 was assessed for psychosocial harm and interventions were put in place to mitigate the harm after the assault by Res #80. c. a follow up of Res #16 possible brain bleeding caused by the assault by Res #80 was conducted. d. they instituted new interventions to protect the staff, the resident, or other residents when the facility the facility knew or should have known Res #80 was capable of aggressive behaviors towards others and had continued behaviors. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility policy, titled Abuse - Reportable Events, revised on 01/2018, read in parts, .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 .6. Protection .c. 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 .7 .c. After investigation, administration will analyze the occurrence to determine what changes, if any, are needed to the policies and procedures to prevent further occurrences . 1. An incident report, titled Incident Report Form, dated 04/12/23 at 12:45 a.m., included a nurse note which documented Res #80 was observed lying in bed and was on 15 minute visual checks for history of climbing out windows. The note documented at 12:50 a.m., a loud noise was heard and Res #80 was banging on the door of Res #16 and a CNA had shut the door of Res #16 to protect them as Res #16 was defenseless. The note documented Res #80 had pulled Res #16 off their bed and on to the floor. The note documented at 12:55 a.m., 911 was notified and the police, fire, and an ambulance had arrived. The note documented Res #80 had poured mouthwash on the police officers and was yelling at them to get out of Res #80's home. The note documented Res #10 came out of their room with multiple skin tears to their arms and stated Res #80 had grabbed their arms and forced them out of their bed. The note documented first aide was provided to Res #10 and the police sat with Res #80 while placement at a hospital with the appropriate psychiatric services were found and transport could be arranged. A police report titled, Incident/Offence Report, dated 04/12/23 at 12:49 a.m., documented a offence of simple assault when a resident became combative to staff members and other residents. The report documented at the time of arrival of the author of the report, Res #80 was sitting at the nursing station and appeared calm. The report documented the nursing staff reported to them Res #80 had pulled Res #10 out of their bed and in the process had injured Res #10's arm. The report documented the officer could see what looked like a piece of missing skin from Res #10's arm. The report documented a witness statement of CNA #1 who had heard Res #16 yelling and went to check on them. The report documented when the CNA entered the room they found Res #16 on the floor and then Res #80 had gone to Res #10's room and assaulted them. The report documented the CNA took Res #10 to Res #16's room to get away from Res #80 and closed the door. The report documented the CNA stated Res #80 was pounding on the door, spraying Lysol at them, and striking them. 2. Res #10 had diagnoses which included anxiety disorder, schizoaffective disorder, insomnia, and recurrent depressive disorder. An annual assessment, dated 09/06/22, documented Res #10 was intact in cognition and required supervision and set up with ADLs. A nurse note, dated 04/12/23 at 5:05 a.m., documented the resident had been in an altercation with another resident. The note documented this resident defended theirself and received multiple skin tears on bilateral arms. A nurse note, dated 04/12/23 at 1:47 p.m., documented after the altercation with the other resident there was now bruising to bilateral lower arms. The note documented the resident had two bruises on the right arm measuring 12.0 x 3.0 cm and another one measuring 2.0 x 3.0 cm. The note documented the resident's left arm had a 20.0 x 3.0 cm injury which was not defined and a 3.0 x 2.0 cm skin tear to the posterior antecubital area with treatment in place. The note documented the resident complained of mild pain and soreness in the shoulder and neck area. Interventions, dated 04/12/23, were added to the resident's care plan for falls and documented an intervention/approach to monitor skin tears for signs and symptoms of infection and for bruising on bilateral upper extremities to treat as ordered by the physician. The care plan entry documented to frequently check the resident through the night to ensure their safety. A progress note from a mental health provider, dated 05/06/23, documented a chief complaint of Establish care for depression. The note documented the resident did not like it in the nursing home. The note documented the resident stated their anxiety was under control with medications and they denied mood swings, new or worsening depression, or night terrors. A progress note from a mental health provider, dated 06/02/23, documented chief complaint of Follow up Schizoaffective. The note documented the resident had anxiety and was worried about their health and was able to sleep with medications. A progress note, dated 06/26/23 at 2:44 p.m., documented the resident was seen by their physician and had complained of anxiety, pain in their feet, and daily headaches. The note documented the physician ordered depakote twice daily for the headaches and increased the resident's dose of trazodone to 75 mg at night. On 07/31/23 at 11:49 a.m., Res #10 was observed in their room lying on their bed. The resident stated they remembered the incident when they was assaulted by Res #80 very well and had not felt safe living in the facility since. The resident stated their fear was getting better but they were very frightened for a long time. The resident recalled the incident when Res #80 entered her room, pulled them up from their bed, and was scratching their arms causing them to bleed. When asked what the facility had done to help them feel safe the resident stated they were told Res #80 would not be returning to the facility. The resident was asked if they went to the hospital after the incident and they stated they had not but wished they had because their neck had bothered them since then. The resident stated they had told the doctor about their neck pain but they did not do anything about it. On 07/31/23 at 12:07 p.m., the administrator was asked if they had conducted an in-service on what to do with this type of resident to resident abuse. The administrator stated they would have to check the in-service book. The administrator was asked if the facility had checked to ensure the residents felt safe after the incident. The administrator stated Res #10 had expressed they did not feel safe at the facility and anytime the door bell rang Res #10 would become frightened and express worry that Res #80 was returning to hurt them. The administrator was asked if the facility had put anything in place to help Res #10 with their anxiety regarding Res #80 and the administrator stated they kept reassuring the resident that Res #80 would not be returning. The administrator asked if the facility had looked into mental health counseling for the resident to help them process and deal with the feelings, and stated not to their knowledge. The administrator was asked if the care plan had been updated to include interventions to help the resident feel safe. The administrator stated not to their knowledge. On 07/31/23 at 12:25 p.m., the administrator and RN #1 provided two copies of mental health notes for Res #10 dated after the incident. The administrator and RN #1 were asked if they had made the mental health professional aware of the event and Res #10's fearfulness. RN #1 stated they were unaware if the mental health professional had been made aware as they were a new service for the facility. RN #1 stated the Res #10 seemed better in June of this year than they were in May after the event when they had been very fearful. The administrator stated they looked though the in-service book and a post incident in-service was not conducted. The administrator stated they had spoken with staff during the stand up meeting on the morning of the incident only and had no documentation on what was discussed. On 07/31/23 at 1:25 p.m., the mental health professional was interviewed by phone and stated they had seen the resident in May and June as part of the resident's regular psychiatric health care. The mental health professional stated they always asked about abuse when starting care for a new client and if it was not documented in their notes it was because the resident had denied abuse occurred. The mental health professional was asked if the facility had told them the resident had been experiencing fearfulness related to an assault which had occurred in April of 2023. The mental health professional stated they had not been notified and it could take several months for a resident to open up about what they were dealing with since this was a new service provider to the facility and only saw clients at the facility starting in May. The mental health provider stated another service had been providing mental health services at the facility before April. 3. Res #16 had diagnoses which included symptomatic epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, schizoaffective disorders, and chromosomal abnormality. An annual assessment, dated 03/12/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with most ADLs, had upper extremity impairment on one side and lower extremity impairment on both sides. A nurse note, dated 04/12/23 at 1:15 a.m., documented the resident had been possibly injured in a fall and was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. A nurse note, dated 04/12/23 at 4:40 a.m., documented a nurse from the hospital had contacted the facility for further information on Res #16. The nurse stated the resident had a brain bleed and was being held for observation for six hours and then a new CT would be done. A nurse note, dated 04/12/23 at 10:10 a.m., documented the facility called the hospital and spoke with the ER nurse, who at that time, told the facility it was not a brain bleed but was it was possible bruising and a non emergent MRI would be needed to be set up as an outpatient. A nurse note, dated 04/12/23 12:18, documented the resident had returned to the facility and the CT scans at the hospital had indicated an impression of a small left frontal hyperdensity which may have reflected a small parenchymal bleed. The note documented a follow up was recommended in two weeks. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/17/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with most ADLs, had upper extremity impairment on one side and lower extremity impairment on both sides. On 07/26/23 at 3:50 p.m., the administrator stated Res #80 was on every 15 minute observation and when the CNA had last checked on her she was in bed with her eyes closed. The administrator stated the CNA heard a noise and Res #80 had pulled Res #16 out of their bed and onto the floor. The administrator stated the nurse and the CNAs were immediately in the room removing Res #80 from the room and Res #16 was sent to the hospital. The administrator stated Res #16 returned later that day and neuro checks were done on the resident. The administrator was asked if they had any indication the resident may have been physically aggressive before they were admitted to the facility. The administrator stated the family had stated Res #80 had ''sundowners'' but there was no mention of physical aggression at that time. On 07/31/23 at 11:52 a.m., Res #16 was observed sitting in a geri-chair in the dining room positioned to look out the window. The resident was observed to be clean, dressed, and not in obvious distress. The resident was unable to be interviewed. The resident's hard chart and EHR were reviewed and no documentation of the follow up from the hospital visit on 04/12/23 were located. On 07/31/23 at 4:15 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 provided documentation from the physician they had ordered extended neuro checks on the resident and if anything changed the physician would consider further imaging. The MDS coordinator stated they thought the physician may not have followed up as the resident had a history of a previous traumatic brain injury and their condition. 4. Res #80 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance. A base line care plan, dated 04/03/23, documented the resident was exit seeking and to redirect to room when wandering into others rooms. An admission assessment was not available. A nurse note, dated 04/03/23 at 9:35 p.m., documented Res #80 was wandering the facility and was exit seeking. The note documented the resident was entering other resident rooms and turning the lights on and had to be redirected but continued to pace the halls. A nurse note, dated 04/04/23 at 10:30 p.m., documented the resident was wandering up and down the halls and entering other resident rooms. The note documented the resident refused to go to their room and continued entering other resident rooms and going through their belongings. The note documented the resident stated, This is my house and they are in my rooms and I can go where I want. The note documented the staff continued to try to redirect the resident and the resident slapped a CNA's arm when the CNA placed their hand over a light switch to prevent Res #80 from turning on the light. The note documented the staff continued to walk with the resident as they paced the halls to attempt to redirect them when they tried to enter other resident room. The note documented Res #80 was paying no attention to redirection attempts. A nurse note, dated 04/04/23 at 11:04 p.m., documented the nurse was called to the end of the hall as Res #80 was attempting to climb out of the window. The note documented documented Res #80 punched the nurse in the jaw on the lower side of their face when they attempted to close the window and told the resident they could get cut by glass if they tried to break through the glass. The note documented the resident then returned to their room and sat in a recliner. The note documented the administrator was notified of the incident. A nurse note, dated 04/05/23 at 2:36 p.m., documented Res #80 was attempting to open a window in the front office and climb out and attempted to swing at the BOM. A nurse note, dated 04/05/23 at 3:11 p.m., documented the resident was in another resident's room and was swinging at staff for trying to close the window. The note documented Res #80 also was swinging at therapy personal for assisting the nursing staff. The note documented the physician was contacted and the resident was sent to ER for evaluation and treatment at a geri-psych unit. A nurse note, dated 04/05/23 at 10:16 p.m., documented the resident was brought back to the facility as the hospital did not think the resident needed a psychiatric evaluation and had contacted APS and obtained a police escort to return the resident to the facility. The note documented the family were notified that no acts of aggression towards staff or other residents would be tolerated and the resident would be referred out for geri-psych the next day for an appropriate evaluation. A nurse note, dated 04/07/23 at 5:50 a.m., documented Res #80 was constantly having to be redirected to not go in other resident rooms. A nurse note, dated 04/08/23 at 7:12 p.m., documented a woman called the facility to notify the nursing staff Res #80 was crawling out of the bedroom window. The note documented the nursing staff found the resident walking towards the highway. The note documented the staff returned the resident to the facility and placed the resident on 15 minute visual checks. A nurse note, dated 04/09/23 at 3:58 p.m., documented the resident had been placed in isolation due to a positive COVID-19 test and was non-compliant. A nurse note, dated 04/11/23 at 9:18 p.m., documented the resident was positive for COVID-19 and was up and ambulating around the facility. A nurse note, dated 04/12/23 at 2:30 a.m., documented 15 minute visual check completed at 12:45 a.m. The note documented around 12:50 a.m., Res #80 was in the room of Res #10, grabbing and clawing at the resident. The note documented Res #80 yelled at Res #10 to get out of bed and out of their house. The note documented Res #10 went to the bathroom to clean blood off of their arms and Res #80 went to Res #16's room and pulled defenseless resident on to the floor. The note documented a CNA responded by protecting Res #16 from Res #80s screaming and angry rage. The note documented 911 was notified and police, fire, and ambulance responded quickly. The note documented Res #80 responded by swinging at staff and throwing mouthwash on the officers. The note documented the EMTs were reluctant to transport Res #80. The note documented the ambulance left with Res #80 to a geri-psych unit at a hospital. A Discharge summary, dated [DATE], documented the residents provisional diagnosis was dementia with behavioral disturbance and the final diagnosis was dementia with severe behavioral disturbance. On 07/31/23 at 9:18 a.m., the DON stated they had Res #80 on 15 minute checks and a CNA had just walked by. The DON stated they heard yelling and the resident was attacking two other residents as well as the staff members. The DON called EMS, the police, and contacted the physician right after EMS was called to get the resident to a place they could receive help. On 07/31/23 at 5:00 p.m., the administrator, RN #1, and the MDS coordinator, were in the administrator's office and were asked if they had any knowledge Res #80 could possibly become aggressive. The MDS coordinator stated the facility had been actively seeking placement in an geri-psych facility since the resident returned from the hospital after striking a staff member on 04/05/23 and the resident was placed on every 15 minute checks due to the elopement attempts. RN #1 confirmed every 15 minute checks had not worked to prevent exit seeking behavior and the resident should have been placed on one-on-one supervision. The MDS coordinator stated it would be hard to say if one on one supervision until placement in a geri-psych facility would have prevented the resident from attempting to hurt others but it might have made it much less likely.
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 a DNR form was signed by an individual who was authorized to sign for a resident in the event the resident could no longer speak for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a DNR form was signed by an individual who was authorized to sign for a resident in the event the resident could no longer speak for themselves for one (#15) of one resident sampled for advanced directives. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 20 residents who resided in the facility had advanced directives. Findings: Res #15 had diagnoses which included diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, and depressive episodes. Res #15's DNR form, dated 10/04/19, was signed by an individual without POA authority to sign for Res #15. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/19/23, documented the resident was intact in cognition and required set up and supervision with most ADLs. On 07/27/23 at 12:30 p.m., the BOM stated Res #15 had been admitted to the facility prior to their starting employment at the facility. The BOM stated the resident was in their right mind and could sign for themselves. The BOM stated the individual who signed the DNR form was not the resident's POA.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with mental illness diagnoses was referred to OHCA for a PASRR II evaluation on admission to the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with mental illness diagnoses was referred to OHCA for a PASRR II evaluation on admission to the facility for one (#10) of two residents reviewed for PASRR II. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 10 residents residing in the facility had documented psychiatric diagnoses. Findings: Res #10 had diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder, recurrent depressive disorders, conversion disorder, and mixed anxiety disorders. A physician order, dated 02/01/21, documented the facility was to administer five mg of aripiprazole (an antipsychotic medication) daily for a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. An annual assessment, dated 09/06/22, documented the resident currently was not considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. The assessment documented the resident was intact in cognition and received an antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medication daily during the assessment period. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/28/23, documented the resident was intact in cognition, required set up and supervision with most ADLs, and received an antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medication daily during the assessment period. On 07/26/23 at 1:10 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated the resident was not referred to OHCA for a PASRR level II evaluation at the time of Res #10's transfer into the facility from another facility. The MDS coordinator stated they should have obtained a PASRR II evaluation. On 07/31/23 at 11:49 a.m., the resident was observed lying on her bed in her room. At that time the resident reported they had an increase in fearfulness since an incident in April of this year. The resident stated they were starting to feel safer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to initiate and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development Legionellosis and Pontiac fever c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to initiate and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development Legionellosis and Pontiac fever caused by Legionella bacteria. The Resident Census and Conditions of Resident form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated policy, titled Reducing the Risk of Legionella in Facility Water Systems Policy, read in part, .The facility will complete the following steps to implement a Water Management Program that considers the ASHREA industry standard and the CDC toolkit. Establish a Water Management Program Team that will meet monthly as needed to address any issues that arise that could pose a threat to water safety. Describe the building water systems using text and flow diagrams. Conduct a facility risk assessment to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in the facility water system. Decide where control measures should be applied and how to monitor them. Establish ways to intervene when control limits are not met. Make sure the program is running as designed and is effective. Document and communicate all the activities of the Water Management Program . On 07/07/23 at 2:37 p.m., during an interview with the maintenance man, they stated they did not know what Legionella was in reference to Legionella prevention. On 07/27/23 at 2:53 p.m., the administrator stated the facility had not looked at the Legionella policy for some time and stated it had not been implemented. The maintenance man reviewed the policy and stated they did some of the things as part of their regular duties. The maintenance man stated the regular duties were not associated with Legionella prevention.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure regular inspection of all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails, if any, were conducted as part of a regular maintenan...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure regular inspection of all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails, if any, were conducted as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. An admission assessment for Res #7, dated 05/17/23, documented the resident was receiving hospice care. A care plan approach, dated 05/22/23, documented the resident's bed would have side rails in place in bed to aide in repositioning and to define the edges of the bed. On 07/25/23 at 11:23 a.m., the resident was observed in their room in bed. The resident was awake and unable to be interviewed. The resident's bed was observed in the high position and full bed rails were observed in the up position on both sides of the resident's bed. The bed was observed to be equipped with a low air loss mattress. 2. A quarterly assessment for Res #13, dated 03/14/23, documented the resident was receiving hospice services. On 07/25/23 at 3:24 p.m., the resident's bed was observed with half side rails up on both sides and was equipped with a low loss air mattress. On 07/27/23 at 2:07 p.m., the DON stated the resident's family wanted the side rails up and requested the facility place them on the resident's bed to prevent the resident from falling. On 07/27/23 at 2:30 p.m., the maintenance man asked if he did regular inspections of the resident beds. The maintenance staff member stated they looked at them if there was a rip in the mattress or if the bed controls were not working. When asked if they did regular inspections of the beds, the maintenance staff member stated they would have to check the facility book. On 07/27/23 at 2:51 p.m., the maintenance staff member reviewed the maintenance book and stated it was not part of the regular inspection schedule.
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

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the development of care plans to meet the residents' needs for three (#10, 13, and #26) of 13 residents whose records ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the development of care plans to meet the residents' needs for three (#10, 13, and #26) of 13 residents whose records were reviewed. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed related to: a. schizoaffective disorder for Res #10 and #13. b. the use of diuretics, antianxiety, and anticoagulant use for Res #26. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #26 had diagnoses which included permanent atrial fibrillation, generalized anxiety disorder, and hypertension. A physician order, dated 08/06/22, documented the facility was to administer 2.5 mg of Eliquis (an anticoagulant medication) once daily for a diagnosis of permanent atrial fibrillation. A physician order, dated 09/14/22, documented the facility was to administer 40 mg of furosemide (a diuretic medication) once daily for a diagnosis of secondary hypertension. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/07/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition; had trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, or sleeping too much; and had little interest or pleasure in doing things during the assessment period. The assessment documented the resident received an antianxiety, anticoagulant, and diuretic medication daily during the assessment period. A care plan, last reviewed on 06/12/23, documented the resident was at risk for decline/adverse consequences related to medication for anxiety, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and pain. The goal of the care plan was for the resident not to exhibit signs or symptoms of drug related side effects or adverse drug reactions through the next review. The care plan did not document a plan of care for the use of furosemide, a care plan to address resident specific target symptoms and non pharmacological interventions for the use of buspirone, and a care plan related to atrial fibrillation signs and symptoms and side effects to monitor for with the use of Eliquis. A physician order, dated 06/16/23, documented the facility was to administer five mg of buspirone (a medication used to treat anxiety) twice daily for a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. On 07/26/23 at 8:14 a.m., Res #26 was observed in the dining room in a wheelchair. The resident was unable to be interviewed. On 07/26/23 at 12:18 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated the care plan did not have a resident specific plan of care related to the use of furosemide or Eliquis. The MDS coordinator stated the signs and symptoms of anxiety were generic ones added quickly from the order set. The MDS coordinator stated the care plan should have included specific target behaviors for buspirone, and Eliquis specific monitoring. 2. Res #10 had diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder. A physician order, dated 02/01/21, documented the facility was to administer five mg of aripiprazole (an antipsychotic medication) daily for a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/28/23, documented the resident was intact in cognition; had a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia; and received antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications daily during the assessment period. The resident's care plan was reviewed and did not document a plan of care related to schizoaffective disorder. On 07/26/23 at 1:22 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 reviewed Res #10's plan of care and confirmed it did not document a plan of care related to schizoaffective disorder. The MDS coordinator stated they had recently taken over the care plans and had been working on them. 3. Res #13 had diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder - bipolar type. A physician order, dated 12/01/20 to administer five mg of Zyprexa (an antipsychotic medication) twice daily for diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder - bipolar type. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/12/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition and required extensive to total assistance with most ADLs. The assessment documented the resident had bipolar disease, schizophrenia, COPD, and received oxygen therapy while a resident at the facility. On 07/26/23 at 1:22 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 reviewed the resident's care plan and confirmed there was no care plan related to schizoaffective disorder. The MDS coordinator stated they had been working on the care plans.
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 a resident's care plan was revised with new interventions to prevent falls and offered the resident's representative t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan was revised with new interventions to prevent falls and offered the resident's representative to participate in the care plan meetings for one (#22) of three residents reviewed for falls. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #22 had diagnoses which included dementia and DM. A care plan, dated 04/04/22, documented Problem: I am at increased risk for falls r/t my confusion, forgetfulness, impaired judgement and safety awareness, potential vision impairment. The documented interventions on the 04/04/22 care plan were for staff to keep the resident's bed in lowest position when they were in it, keep personal items and frequently used items within reach, ensure the resident was wearing their glasses when they were out of bed, and for staff to ensure the resident was wearing appropriate footwear when they were out of bed. An Event Report, dated 01/13/23 at 10:41 p.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat in their room attempting to crawl to the restroom. The report documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use their call light for any needs while in bed. The care plan was not updated with the new intervention of educating the resident to utilize their call light. An Event Report, dated 01/19/23 at 00:19 a.m., documented the nurse found the resident on the fall mat next to their bed and was trying to get to their bucket to pee. The report documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use their call light if they needed assistance during the night. The care plan was not updated with encourage the resident to use their call light. An Event Report, dated 01/22/23 12:03 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor in the living room and stated they were trying to get to the bathroom. The report documented the resident was not injured and was instructed to wait for staff. The report documented the resident was placed on every 15 minute checks. The care plan was not updated with the every 15 minute checks. An Event Report, dated 01/31/23 at 5:02 a.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat next to their bed. The report documented the resident was attempting to go to the restroom and complained of left knee pain. The report documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use the call light if they need to get out of bed again. The care plan was not updated with staff to encourage the resident to use the call light. A nurse note dated 02/06/23 at 11:24 p.m., documented a CNA had found the resident on the floor mat beside their bed. The note documented the resident stated they were trying to go to the bathroom. The note documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use the call light if assistance was needed. The note documented the staff checked the call light to ensure it was operational. The care plan was not updated with staff to encourage the resident to use the call light. An Event Report was not provided for review. An Event Report, dated 02/09/23 at 9:09 p.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat in their room and documented the resident was attempting to use the bathroom. The report documented the resident was not injured and the nurse reminded the resident to use their call light for assistance and the resident seemed to understand. The care plan was not updated with remind the resident to use the call light for assistance. An annual assessment, dated 03/21/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with ADLs, and was frequently incontinent of urine. The assessment documented the resident was not steady and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance for moving from a seated to a standing position, walking, turning around, moving on and off the toilet, and surface to surface transfers. The assessment documented the resident had fallen since the admission/entry or reentry, or the prior assessment. The assessment documented the resident had two or more non injury falls, one fall with minor injury, and no falls with major injury. The care area assessment triggered falls for care planning. An Event Report, dated 04/27/23 at 5:02 a.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat in their room and stated they were attempting to empty the urinal. The report documented the resident was not injured and was re-educated on the use of the call light. The report documented an intervention of fall mat. The care plan was not updated with educate the resident on the use of the call light or fall mat. An Event Report, dated 05/03/23 at 11:30 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor by an aide. The report documented the resident received a one cm laceration on the right eyebrow and refused to go to the hospital. The report documented the intervention of fall mat, call light, reeducation on getting assistance before getting up was effective. The care plan was not updated with any new interventions. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/19/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with ADLs, and was frequently incontinent of urine. The assessment documented the resident was not steady and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance for moving from a seated to a standing position, walking, turning around, moving on and off the toilet, and surface to surface transfers. The assessment documented the resident had fallen since the admission/entry or reentry, or the prior assessment. The assessment documented the resident had experienced one non injury fall, one minor injury fall, and no falls with major injury. An Event Report, dated 06/24/23 at 1:13 a.m., documented the resident was observed laying on their stomach on the floor beside of the bed. The report documented the resident was trying to ensure they were wearing underwear and was normally confused. The report did not document any new interventions but documented rest as an effective intervention. The care plan was not updated with any new interventions to prevent falls. An Event Report, dated 07/01/23 at 6:52 p.m., documented the resident slid out of a Broda chair while sitting in the living room. The report documented the resident was not injured and was placed back in their chair and taken to bed. No interventions were documented in the report. The report documented resident does not remember to ask staff for help and will get up on . own under the section for interventions. An Event Report, dated 07/05/23 at 1:44 a.m., documented the resident was found sitting on their bottom on the fall mat next to their bed. The report documented the resident stated they were trying to fix their bed. The report documented the resident was not injured and no new interventions were documented. The care plan was not updated with new interventions to prevent falls. An Event Report, dated 07/10/23 at 10:37 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor on the fall mat in front of their recliner. The report did not document what the resident was attempting to do but did document the resident was not injured. The report did not document new interventions to prevent falls and the care plan was not updated with interventions to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. An Event Report, dated 07/24/23 at 9:55 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor beside of their bed. The report documented the resident stated they were attempting to fix the trash can liner. The report documented the trash can was found on top of the resident's head and they were uninjured. The report did not document new interventions to prevent falls. The care plan was not updated. On 07/25/23 at 12:05 p.m., the resident was observed dozing in their Broda chair in their room. The resident's family was present in the room and the resident's representative stated the resident had fallen trying to get up and received a hip X-ray. The resident's representative stated the resident's hip was not fractured. At that time, the resident woke up and was able to speak but did not appear to be able be interviewed and nodded to the resident's representative to speak for them. The resident's representative was asked if they were invited to come to care plan meetings or if the facility contacted them on the phone to have input on the care plan. The resident's representative stated they were aware of what care plan meetings were but were not asked to attend or have input in the care plan process or updates. On 07/27/23 at 11:45 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 reviewed Res #22's fall history for this year and confirmed there were no new interventions added to the care plan to prevent falls. The MDS coordinator was asked if the facility had invited the resident's representative to care plan meetings. The MDS coordinator stated they did not have regular care plan meeting since last year but would call the resident's family some times. The MDS coordinator stated the last time they conducted a care plan meeting which included Res #22 or their representative was at the beginning of the year. The MDS coordinator stated the facility did not document the care plan meeting.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received the care and adequate supervision to prevent falls for one (#22) of three residents reviewed for fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received the care and adequate supervision to prevent falls for one (#22) of three residents reviewed for falls. MDS coordinator #1 documented 12 residents had fallen during the previous six months. Findings: Res #22 had diagnoses which included dementia, diabetes, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and diarrhea. A care plan, dated 04/04/22, documented the resident at increased risk for falls r/t confusion, forgetfulness, impaired judgement and safety awareness, potential vision impairment. The care plan, read in part, .DX Alzheimer's, glaucoma 02/08/22, I bumped my arm in the shower and obtained a skin tear. Tx orders written. 06/24/22 fall without injury. 06/30/22 I was found in my room, on my left side, laying next to my fall mat. No injury. 07/01/22 Witnessed fall in living room. No injury. 07/05/22 Unwitnessed non-injury fall. 07/7/22 I was found laying on my fall mat next to bed. I wanted to use the BR. No injury. 07/10/22 Unwitnessed non-injury fall. 07/16/22 Found on fall mat by bed. No injury. 07/24/22 non-injury fall. 08/1/22 0015 [12:15 a.m.] Found on floor in room. Neuro checks initiated. No injury. 08/01/22 0030 [12:30 a.m.] Found laying on stomach on fall mat. No injury. 11/16/22 Non-injury fall . The documented interventions or approaches on the 04/04/22 care plan were for staff to keep the resident's bed in lowest position when they were in it, keep personal items and frequently used items within reach, ensure the resident was wearing their glasses when they were out of bed, and for staff to ensure the resident was wearing appropriate footwear when they were out of bed. The care plan did not document any new interventions or approaches after 04/04/22. An Event Report, dated 01/13/23 at 10:41 p.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat in their room attempting to crawl to the restroom. The report documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use their call light for any needs while in bed. The care plan documented an addition to the problem list of 1/13/23 Non-injury fall. The care plan did not document the approach to prevent the reoccurrence of falls of encourage the resident to use their call light. The care plan documented a addition to the problem list of 1/18/23 witnessed fall no injury. An Event Report, dated 01/19/23 at 00:19 a.m., documented the nurse found the resident on the fall mat next to their bed and was trying to get to their bucket to pee. The report documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use their call light if they needed assistance during the night. The care plan did not document the approach to prevent the reoccurrence of falls of encourage the resident to use their call light. An Event Report, dated 01/22/23 12:03 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor in the living room and stated they were trying to get to the bathroom. The report documented the resident was not injured and instructed to wait for staff. The report documented the resident was placed on every 15 minute checks. The care plan problem list documented 01/22/23 unwitnessed fall in living room. No injury. on the problem list. The care plan did not document the approach of every 15 minute checks. An Event Report, dated 01/31/23 at 5:02 a.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat next to their bed. The report documented the resident was attempting to go to the restroom and complained of left knee pain. The report documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use his call light if they need to get out of bed again. The care plan problem list documented 1/31/23 Unwitnessed fall no injury. The care plan did not document an updated approach to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. A nurse note dated 02/06/23 at 11:24 p.m., documented a CNA had found the resident on the floor mat beside their bed. The note documented the resident stated they were trying to go to the bathroom. The note documented the resident was not injured and was encouraged to use the call light if assistance was needed. The note documented the staff checked the call light to ensure it was operational. The care plan documented an addition to the problem list of 02/6/23 Unwitnessed fall no injury. The care plan did not document an updated approach to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. An Event Report for the fall on 02/06/23 was not provided for review. An Event Report, dated 02/09/23 at 9:09 p.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat in their room and documented the resident was attempting to use the bathroom. The report documented the resident was not injured and the nurse reminded the resident to use their call light for assistance and the resident seemed to understand. The care plan problem list was updated with 02/9/23 unwitnessed fall no injury. The care plan did not document an updated approach to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. An annual assessment, dated 03/21/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with ADLs, and was frequently incontinent of urine. The assessment documented the resident was not steady and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance for moving from a seated to a standing position, walking, turning around, moving on and off the toilet, and surface to surface transfers. The assessment documented the resident had fallen since the admission/entry or reentry, or the prior assessment. The assessment documented the resident had two or more non injury falls, one fall with minor injury, and no falls with major injury. The care area assessment triggered falls for care planning. An Event Report, dated 04/27/23 at 5:02 a.m., documented the resident was found on the fall mat in their room and stated they were attempting to empty the urinal. The report documented the resident was not injured and was re-educated on the use of the call light. The report documented an intervention of fall mat. The care plan documented an update to the problem list of 04/27/23 Unwitnessed fall no injury. The care plan did not document an updated approach to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. An Event Report, dated 05/03/23 at 11:30 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor by an aide. The report documented the resident received a one cm laceration on the right eyebrow and refused to go to the hospital. The report documented the intervention of fall mat call light reeducation on getting assistance before getting up' was effective. The care plan documented an update to the problem list of 05/03/23 Unwitnessed fall no injury. The care plan did not document an updated approach to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/19/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with ADLs, and was frequently incontinent of urine. The assessment documented the resident was not steady and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance for moving from a seated to a standing position, walking, turning around, moving on and off the toilet, and surface to surface transfers. The assessment documented the resident had fallen since the admission/entry or reentry, or the prior assessment. The assessment documented the resident had experienced one non injury fall, one minor injury fall, and no falls with major injury. An Event Report, dated 06/24/23 at 1:13 a.m., documented the resident was observed laying on their stomach on the floor beside of the bed. The report documented the resident was trying to ensure they were wearing underwear and was normally confused. The report documented rest as an effective intervention. An Event Report, dated 07/01/23 at 6:52 p.m., documented the resident slid out of a Broda chair while sitting in the living room. The report documented the resident was not injured and was placed back in their chair and taken to bed. No interventions were documented in the report. The report, read in part, .resident does not remember to ask staff for help and will get up on .own . under the section for interventions. An Event Report, dated 07/05/23 at 1:44 a.m., documented the resident was found sitting on their bottom on the fall mat next to their bed. The report documented the resident stated they were trying to fix their bed. The report documented the resident was not injured and no new interventions were documented. The care plan was not updated. An Event Report, dated 07/10/23 at 10:37 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor on the fall mat in front of their recliner. The report did not document what the resident was attempting to do but did document the resident was not injured. The report did not document new interventions to prevent falls and the care plan was not updated. An Event Report, dated 07/24/23 at 9:55 p.m., documented the resident was found on the floor beside of their bed. The report documented the resident stated they were attempting to fix the trash can liner. The report documented the trash can was found on top of the resident's head and they were uninjured. The report did not document new interventions to prevent falls. The care plan was not updated. On 07/25/23 at 12:05 p.m., the resident was observed dozing in their Broda chair in their room. The resident's family was present in the room and the resident's representative stated the resident had fallen trying to get up and needed a hip X-ray. The resident's representative stated the resident's hip was not fractured. At that time, the resident woke up and was able to speak but did not appear to be able be interviewed and nodded to the resident's representative to speak for them when spoken to. On 07/27/23 at 11:45 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 reviewed Res #22's fall history for this year and confirmed there were no new interventions added to the care plan to prevent falls. The MDS coordinator stated there should have been new intervention or approaches to prevent falls initiated when the previous interventions were found to be ineffective.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

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 attempt appropriate alternatives prior to installing ...

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 attempt appropriate alternatives prior to installing side or bed rails; conduct a thorough assessment for the need of a side/bed rail; failed to ensure the resident and/or resident representatives were educated related to risk of side rails; and the informed consent documented the required components for two (#7 and #13) of two residents whose beds were equipped with side/bed rails. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #7 was admitted on [DATE] at 5:19 p.m., and had diagnoses which included sequelae of cerebral infarction, abnormal finding of lung field, and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. The EHR documented the resident was receiving hospice services from admission. A side rail assessment in the resident's EHR, dated 05/11/23, did not document the resident's size and weight, sleep habits, existence of delirium, cognition, communication, or diagnoses. The side rail assessment did not document alternatives that were attempted prior to the installation or use of side rails and how these failed to meet the resident's needs. The assessment did not document an assessment of the risks for the use of side rails. A paper, titled Bed Rail Evaluation & Consent, dated 05/11/23, documented a check mark next to a section which identified the use of bed rails as up on both sides of the bed for safety and prevention of fall injury. The paper documented the resident was unable to utilize the call light. The paper documented a hand written section which documented Risk/Benefits explain to family. Rails per family request as enabler. The form was signed by a resident representative. The hand written section did not document what assessed medical needs would be addressed by the use of bed rails; the resident's benefits from the use of bed rails and the likelihood of these benefits; the resident's risks from the use of bed rails and how these risks will be mitigated; and alternatives attempted that failed to meet the resident's needs; and alternatives considered but not attempted because they were considered to be inappropriate. An admission assessment, dated 05/17/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with ADLs, and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The assessment documented the resident was receiving hospice care. A care plan approach, dated 05/22/23, documented the resident's bed would have side rails in place in bed to aide in repositioning and to define the edges of the bed. On 07/25/23 at 11:23 a.m., the resident was observed in their room in bed. The resident was awake and unable to be interviewed. The resident's bed was observed in the high position and full bed rails were observed in the up position on both sides of the resident's bed. The bed was observed to be equipped with a low air loss mattress. On 07/27/23 at 2:00 p.m., the DON was asked to review the side rail consent and confirmed the consent and assessment did not document the required components. At that time, the DON and the corporate nurse viewed the resident's bed. Both full bed rails were up on both sides of the bed. The corporate nurse stated they were unaware the resident had full bed rails. The DON stated hospice brought the bed into the facility. The ADON stated they had went over the resident's assessment, but the family were the ones who wanted the rails to prevent falls. 2. Res #13 had diagnoses which included depressive disorder, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. A Side Rail Evaluation Screen dated 03/13/23, did not document the resident's size and weight, sleep habits, existence of delirium, cognition, communication, or diagnoses. The side rail assessment did not document alternatives that were attempted prior to the installation or use of side rails and how these failed to meet the resident's needs. The assessment did not document the risks for the use of side rails. A care plan, dated 01/18/21 to encourage the resident to use side rails and to reassess the resident as needed to determine if side rails were still needed. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/14/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with most ADLs and did not walk. The assessment documented the resident was always incontinent of urine and bowel, and was receiving hospice services. A hand written section on a side rail assessment, dated 07/05/23, documented risk versus benefits were explained to the family. The hand written section documented the family requested the side rails as an enabler and the consent was obtained by phone. On 07/25/23 at 3:24 p.m., the resident's bed was observed with half side rails up on both sides and was equipped with a low loss air mattress. On 07/27/23 at 2:07 p.m., the DON stated the resident's family wanted the side rails up and requested the facility place them on the resident's bed to prevent the resident from falling.
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication was administered and not held without an order to hold based on blood pressure readings for on...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication was administered and not held without an order to hold based on blood pressure readings for one (#26) of five residents whose medications were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #26 had diagnosis which included hypertension. A physician order, dated 08/06/22, documented the facility was to administer valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide 160-12.5 mg (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) two tablets daily for a diagnosis of hypertension. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/07/23, documented the resident was severely impaired with cognition and required limited to extensive assistance with most ADLs. A care plan, dated 08/18/22, documented the resident was at risk for decline or adverse consequences related to medications for hypertension. The care plan documented an approach to conduct an monthly pharmacy review. A pharmacist review, dated 09/09/22, documented a request for the physician to add hold parameters to valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide. The physician did not respond to the request. A pharmacist review, dated 04/05/23, documented a request for the physician to add hold parameters to valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide. The physician did not respond to the request. A Medication Administration Record, dated 06/01/23 - 06/30/23, documented valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide was held due to blood pressure out of parameters on 06/05/23, 06/13/23, and 06/28/23. A Medication Administration Record, dated 07/01/23 - 07/26/23, documented valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide was held due to blood pressure parameters out of parameters on 07/06/23, 07/18/23, 07/19/23, 07/20/23, 07/24/23, and 07/25/23. On 07/26/23 at 8:14 a.m., the resident was observed in the dining room in a wheelchair. The resident could nod yes and no but was unable to be interviewed. On 07/26/23 at 12:18 p.m., MDS coordinator stated if there was not an order to hold medications for blood pressure readings, the medication should not have been held. The MDS coordinator stated the nursing staff should have contacted the physician for clarification of the order.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure monthly consultant pharmacist were acted on for two (#8 and #26) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure monthly consultant pharmacist were acted on for two (#8 and #26) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Resident's form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #8 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, recurrent depressive disorders, and hypertension. A physician order, dated 07/12/19, documented the facility was to administer five mg of amlodipine (a medication used to treat hypertension) daily for a diagnosis of hypertension. A Extended DRR Report, dated 09/10/22, documented a pharmacist recommendation to add hold parameters for blood pressure to the amlodipine order. The facility was not able to provide a physician response to the recommendation and the order remained unchanged. An Extended DRR Report, dated 10/07/22, documented Sliding scale insulin use is on the Beers Criteria List, no longer recommended in LTC setting due to higher risk of hypoglycemia without improvement in hyperglycemia management. The report documented a recommendation to discontinue the sliding scale insulin and replace it with Trulicity if additional glycemic control was wanted. The report documented if the physician did not feel discontinuing the sliding scale insulin to consider starting the sliding scale at 250 - 300 at 3 units of insulin. The report documented duloxetine 30 mg BID, unchanged since 11/2021 and to add side effect monitoring. The facility was not able to provide documentation the physician responded to the DRR report. The EHR documented the siding scale insulin order did not change until 03/03/23. The EHR did not document side effect monitoring was ordered for Res #8. A physician order, dated 11/06/22, documented the facility was to administer 20 mg of duloxetine (an antidepressant medication) twice daily. An Extended DRR Report, dated 12/13/22, recommended to add side effect monitoring for antidepressant use. The EHR documentation did not reveal an order to monitor for side effects of antidepressant use. A physician order, dated 03/03/23, documented the facility was to administer Humalog per sliding scale for a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy four times daily. The order included if the FSBS was less than 60 to call the physician. If the FSBS reading was 250 - 300 to administer 3 units. If the FSBS reading was 301 - 350 to administer 6 units. If the FSBS reading was 351 - 400 to administer 9 units. If the FSBS reading was greater than 400 to notify the physician. An Extended DRR Report'', dated 04/05/23, documented a recommendation to consider discontinuing sliding scale insulin related to the new order for Trulicity started on 02/2023. The report documented a recommendation to add blood pressure parameters to the amlodipine order. The DRR report documented an optional physician signature. The resident's order for insulin sliding scale remained unchanged. The EHR did not document blood pressure parameters to the amlodipine order. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/14/23, documented the resident was intact in cognition, required supervision to limited assistance with ADL, and received insulin, an anticoagulant, and diuretic daily during the assessment period. A physician order, dated 06/16/23, documented the facility was to administer 20 mg of duloxetine (a medication used to treat depression) twice daily for a diagnosis of recurrent depressive disorders. On 07/27/23 at 9:00 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they did not realize all of the recommendations had to be addressed until just recently. The MDS coordinator stated the EHR did not document an order to monitor for antidepressant medication however the EHR documentation revealed an order for monitoring for anticonvulsant use and stated the resident was not receiving one. The MDS coordinator was asked about the recommendation for monitoring for amlodipine. The MDS coordinator stated they just realized this was a recommendation and the physician should have been contacted for clarification or an order. 2. Res #26 had diagnoses which included symbolic dysfunctions, generalized anxiety disorder, and hypertension. A physician order, dated 08/06/22, documented for the facility to administer Valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide 160-12.5 mg (a medication used to treat hypertension) once a day for a diagnosis of hypertension. An Expanded DRR Report, dated 09/09/22, documented a recommendation to add blood pressure parameters for Valsartan - hydrochlorizide. The facility were unable to provide a physician response to the recommendation. An Expanded DRR Report, dated 12/13/22, documented a request to attempt the resident's twice daily dose of buspirone five mg twice daily. The facility was unable to provide a response from the physician to the DRR report. An Expanded DRR Report, dated 04/05/23, documented a recommendation to add blood pressure parameters for Valsartan - hydrochlorizide. The facility were unable to provide a physician response to the recommendation. The physician's signature was documented on the Attending Physician (optional) line. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/07/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition. The assessment documented the resident required limited to extensive assistance with ADLs and received an antianxiety, anticoagulant, and diuretics, daily during the assessment period. A physician order, dated 06/16/23, documented to administer 5 mg of buspirone (a medication used to treat anxiety) twice daily for a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. On 07/26/23 at 8:14 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in a wheelchair looking out the window at the field behind the facility. The resident was unable to be interviewed. On 07/26/23 at 12:56 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they were unable to locate the physician response for 12/13/22. On 07/26/23 at 12:18 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated they had not sent the DRR reports to the physician to review and respond and just recently understood the physician should have been sent the recommendations and responded to them.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

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 obtain the following information from the hospice ser...

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 obtain the following information from the hospice services, the hospice care plan, election form, physician certification, hospice medication specific to the resident, the hospice physician orders, for one (#7) of one resident reviewed for hospice services. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented three residents who resided at the facility received hospice services. Findings: Res #7 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included sequelae of cerebral infarction and nonspecific abnormal finding of lung field. A physician order, dated 05/15/23, documented to admit the resident to hospice care. An admission assessment, dated 05/17/23, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive to total assistance with ADLs, and was receiving hospice care. On 07/25/23 at 11:23 a.m., Res #7 was observed lying in bed. The resident appeared to be without pain and was unable to be interviewed. A resident friend was at the bedside and stated the resident had been on hospice for some time. The hospice book for Res #7 was reviewed and did not document the hospice care plan, election form, physician certification, hospice medication specific to the resident, the hospice physician orders. On 07/27/23 at 2:00 p.m., the DON reviewed Res #7's hospice records and confirmed the only documentation in the book was the resident's advanced directive. The DON confirmed the facility should have maintained a complete hospice record.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow their QAPI program policy. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow their QAPI program policy. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility policy titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program, revised in February 2020, read in part, .Key components of this process include: a. tracking and measuring performance; b. establishing goals and thresholds for performance measurements; c. identifying and prioritizing quality deficiencies; d. systematically analyzing underlying causes of systemic quality deficiencies; and f. monitoring or evaluating the effectiveness of corrective action/performance improvement activities, and revising as needed . On 07/31/23 at 6:12 p.m., the administrator was asked how the facility came up with areas of improvement to work on. The administrator stated the facility utilized areas of concern brought up in morning meetings, resident complaints, and environmental issues occurring in the facility. When asked about how data for QAPI issues was attained, the administrator stated it was by identifying resident issues brought by the DON, and the IP kept up with infections. When asked how they document the data, the administrator stated no documentation of data collection was kept. The administrator was asked about the process for performance improvement. The administrator stated they gather staff together and discuss the issue and then re-evaluate the issue in 30 days. When asked if there is documentation of an example, the administrator stated no documentation was kept and it is just a discussion. The administrator stated the camera system is utilized to ensure staff are working as they should. The administrator stated they were unsure of how to do the PIP process and needed improvement in that area. The administrator stated they were unable to locate the QAPI book.
Feb 2020 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received insulin as ordered for one (#21) of six sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary med...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received insulin as ordered for one (#21) of six sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified eight residents who received insulin. Findings: Resident #21 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus. A quarterly assessment, dated 01/02/20, documented the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making. A care plan, updated 01/28/20, documented, .I have diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus .Administer oral hypoglycemics and insulin per orders . Review of the February 2020 physician orders revealed the resident was ordered Lantus 40 units at 9:00 p.m. On 02/10/20 at 10:41 a.m., the resident stated she did not think she received her insulin last night. Review of the February treatment administration record revealed the evening nurse had not documented the resident was administered the routine Lantus at 9:00 p.m. on 02/04/20 and 02/09/20. On 02/11/20 at 1:24 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated LPN #1 was on duty on 02/04/20 and 02/09/20. She stated she had placed her initials on 02/04/20 in error and her initials were actually intended for 02/05/20 on the treatment administration record. On 02/12/20 at 8:16 a.m., LPN #1 was asked if she was the charge nurse for resident #21 on 02/04/20 and 02/09/20. She stated yes. She was asked if the resident had received her routine Lantus on 02/04/20 and on 02/09/20. She stated she thought the resident had received routine insulin and sliding scale insulin. She was asked where the insulin administration was documented. She stated, I'm almost certain I documented it. I know I gave it to her, I must not have signed it out. She was asked what the facility protocol was for documenting insulin. She stated they were to document on the treatment administration record. She was asked why the resident's Lantus had not been documented as administered. She stated she just did not sign it out. On 02/13/20 at 9:00 a.m., the administrator was asked how treatment sheets had been monitored to ensure residents received their ordered insulin. He stated, It wasn't
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility had failed to ensure 1. that a full-time DON was employed and 2. the facility had a registered nurse on duty for eight consecutive hou...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility had failed to ensure 1. that a full-time DON was employed and 2. the facility had a registered nurse on duty for eight consecutive hours each day. The administrator identified 32 resident that resided in the facility. On 02/10/20 At 10:29 a.m., the administrator was asked how long he had been the administrator of the facility. He stated about four months. He was asked if the facility employed a full time DON. He stated the facility had not employed a DON, full-time or part-time, since the previous one had ended her employment on 01/30/19. He stated they had been advertising for a replacement. He was asked if the facility had routinely staffed a registered nurse each day of the week. He stated one weekend he believed to be that of 02/01/20 they had not. He was asked to provide the staffing schedule and punch detail for that weekend and the past two weeks. At 1:45 p.m., the administrator provided copies of the January 2020, February 2020 nursing staff schedules and punch detail for all nursing staff during the period of 01/26/20 through 02/09/20. A review of the two schedules found the names of three RN's. The schedule for the dates 02/01/20 through 02/291/20 documented the DON was scheduled to fulfill the requirement for eight consecutive hours of registered nurse coverage on those dates. The punch detail documents were reviewed and three RN's were represented in them. The punch detail reports for the three RN's found none had worked on 02/03/20, 02/04/20, 02/05/20, 02/06/20, or 02/07/20. On 02/12/20 at 11:44 a.m., the administrator was asked if there had been RN coverage for the dates within the pay period of 01/26/10 through 02/09/20. He stated an interim DON had worked 01/26/20 through 01/31/20 and then resigned. He stated there had some RN coverage but not for the dates of 02/03/20 through 02/07/20.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. Resident #34 had diagnoses which included COPD, mood disorder with manic features, depressive episodes, unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia. An annual assessment, dated 11/02...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Resident #34 had diagnoses which included COPD, mood disorder with manic features, depressive episodes, unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia. An annual assessment, dated 11/02/19, documented the resident as cognitively intact, and received seven days each of antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressants during the seven day look back period. A quarterly assessment, dated 1/30/20, documented the resident as cognitively intact, and received seven days each of antipsychotic, antianxiety, antidepressants and hypnotics during the seven day look back period. Review of the February 2020 physician orders revealed the resident had the following orders: ~Abilify 5 mg, once daily, for schizophrenia, started 10/18/17. ~Duloxetine 30 mg, once daily, for depression, started 10/18/17. ~Buspirone 5 mg, twice daily, for depressive disorders, started 11/04/18. A pharmaceutical consultant report of psychoactive gradual dose reduction, dated 11/11/19, documented a request for the physician to review the following medications: ~Aripiprazole 5 mg QD ~Buspirone 5 mg BID ~Duloxetine 30 mg QD. No documentation of the DON or physician signature was on the request. A consulting pharmacist expanded drug regime review report, dated 02/11/20, documented the following observations on 9/09/19: A GDR request for a decrease of buspirone from 5 mg bid to 2.5 mg bid. A GDR request for a decrease of Abilify 5 mg qd to 2 mg qd. A GDR request for a decrease of duloxetine 30 mg qd to duloxetine 20 mg qd. No documentation of the DON or physician signature was on the request. On 02/11/20, the MDS nurse stated the pharmacy requests had been found in a folder in the now vacant don's office, and had not been sent to the physician for review. On 02/12/20 at 12:12 p.m., the administrator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians followed up with pharmacy recommendations. He stated it had been the responsibility of the DON, but she had quit. He was asked who was responsible after the DON's departure. He stated as of 02/11/20, it was the MDS coordinator, but there was no one between those dates. Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure monthly drug regimen reviews were reported to a physician for three (#14, #25, and #34) of five residents reviewed for drug regimen review. The MDS Coordinator identified 32 resident who received medications at the facility. 1. Resident #14 had diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder. A pharmacist consultation to the physician, dated 09/09/19, documented a reduction request for Abilify 5 mg at bedtime to Abilify 2.5 mg at bedtime. The pharmacist consultation was not addressed or signed by the physician. A pharmacist consultation to the physician, dated 11/11/19, documented, .Please evaluate the routine use of the following psychoactive medications and consider a dose reduction. If a reduction is not desired, please indicate below a rationale for the continued use. This resident is prescribed the following psychoactive medications .1. Abilify 5 mg po QHS 2. Buproprion 150 mg BID 3. Citalopram 20 mg QD 4. Depakote DR 500 mg TID 5. Risperdal 0.5 mg BID . The pharmacist consultation was not addressed or signed by the physician. A quarterly assessment, dated 12/19/19, documented the resident received antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications for seven days during the seven day look back period. Review of the February 2020 physician orders revealed the resident had the following orders: ~ Abilify 5 mg QHS-start date 06/12/19; ~ Buproprion 150 mg BID-start date 06/12/19; ~ Citalopram 20 mg QD-start date 06/12/19; ~ Depakote DR 500 mg TID-start date 09/17/19; and ~ Risperdal 0.5 mg BID-start date 10/15/19. 2. Resident #21 had diagnoses which included major depressive disorder. A pharmacist consultation to the physician, dated 09/09/19, documented a reduction request for Trazodone 50 mg at bedtime to Trazodone 25 mg at bedtime. The pharmacist consultation was not addressed or signed by the physician. A pharmacist consultation to the physician, dated 11/11/19, documented, .Please evaluate the routine use of the following psychoactive medications and consider a dose reduction. If a dose reduction is not desired, please indicate below a rationale for the continued use. This resident is prescribed the following psychoactive medications .1. Duloxetine 30 mg QD 2. Zoloft 200 mg QD 3. Please note above three items are PolyPsych - two medications for the same indication given at the same time 4. In addition, concurrent use of Duloxetine and Zoloft may increase risk of serotonin syndrome 5. Trazodone 50 mg QHS . The pharmacist consultation was not addressed or signed by the physician. A quarterly assessment, dated 01/02/20, documented the resident received antidepressant medications for seven days during the seven day look back period. Review of the February 2020 physician orders revealed the resident had the following orders: ~ Duloxetine 30 mg QD-start date 12/09/19; ~ Zoloft 200 mg QD-start date 01/07/20; and ~ Trazodone 50 mg QHS-start date 02/23/19. On 02/12/20 at 10:45 a.m., the MDS coordinator was asked why the pharmacist consultations for resident #14 and #21 had not been addressed or signed by the physician. She stated they had staffing changes with the physician and director of nursing at the time of the pharmacy consultations and there had not been anyone monitoring the process. Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure monthly pharmaceutical consultations were reported to a physician for four (#14, #21 #25, and #34) of five residents reviewed for drug regimen review. The mds coordinator identified 32 residents who received medications at the facility. 3. Resident # 25 had diagnosis which included Alzheimer's disease, pseudobulbar affect, and vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. An active physician's order, dated 01/28/17, documented the resident was to take temazepam 15 mg each day at 8:00 p.m. for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order, dated 09/16/19, documented the resident was to take Neudexta 20-10 mg at 8:00 p.m., for the diagnosis pseudobulbar affect. An active physician's order, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Risperdal 1 mg twice each day for Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. A pharmaceutical consultant report titled, Psychoactive Gradual Dose Reduction, dated 11/11/19, documented the resident's physician was sent a request to evaluate the continued routine use of three medications prescribed to the resident: Risperdal 1 mg given twice each day, temazepam 15 mg to be given at bedtime each day, and Xanax 0.5 mg to be given every six hours each day. The pharmacist request noted that the current diagnosis for the use of Risperdal was not approved per CMS guidelines. The form had a printed area for the DON and physician to sign. Each of those areas were blank. The form had an area for the physician to respond to the pharmacy consultant's request. That area was blank. A pharmaceutical consultant report, titled Neudexta - Intervention Request, dated 11/11/19, documented the facility DON was sent a request to confirm the indication and dosing for the drug Nuedexta. The document asked the DON to clarify the dosing order. The form had two printed areas for the DON to sign. Each of those areas were blank. The form had an area for the DON to respond to the pharmacy consultant's request. That area was blank. The form did not have an area for physician to respond or sign. A medication flow sheet, dated 02/01/20, documented the resident had been administered the following medications on each day during the time period 02/01/20 through 02/11/20: temazepam 15 mg at 8:00 pm., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Nudexta 20-10 mg at 8:00 p.m., for the diagnosis of pseudobulbar affect; Risperdal 1 mg twice a day at 6:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for the diagnosis of vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. 02/12/20 12:12 p.m., the administrator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians followed up with pharmacy recommendations. He stated it had been the responsibility of the former DON but she had quit on 01/30/20. He was asked who was responsible after the DON's departure. He stated as of yesterday, 02/11/20, it was the MDS Coordinator but there was no one assigned to that task between those dates. At 12:16 p.m., the mds coordinator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians were responding to pharmacy reviews and recommendations. She stated as of yesterday (02/11/20) it was her but prior to that it was the DON. She was shown the pharmaceutical recommendations for resident #25, dated 11/11/19 and asked if the physician had responded to them. She stated she found those forms in a folder that was kept for the physician when he comes in on the weekend. She stated he had not seen those recommendations until she had sent it him on 02/12/20.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

3. Resident #34 had diagnoses which included COPD, mood disorder with manic features, depressive episodes, unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia. An annual assessment, dated 11/02...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. Resident #34 had diagnoses which included COPD, mood disorder with manic features, depressive episodes, unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia. An annual assessment, dated 11/02/19, documented the resident as cognitively intact, and received seven days each of antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressants during the seven day look back period. A quarterly assessment, dated 1/30/20, documented the resident as cognitively intact, and received seven days each of antipsychotic, antianxiety, antidepressants and hypnotics during the seven day look back period. Review of the February 2020 physician orders revealed the resident had the following orders: Abilify 5 mg, once daily, for schizophrenia, started 10/18/17. Duloxetine 30 mg, once daily, for depression, started 10/18/17. Buspirone 5 mg, twice daily, for depressive disorders, started 11/04/18. A pharmaceutical consultant report of psychoactive gradual dose reduction, dated 11/11/19, documented a request for the physician to review the following medications: Aripiprazole 5 mg QD Buspirone 5 mg BID Duloxetine 30 mg QD No documentation of the DON or physician signature was on the request. A consulting pharmacist expanded drug regime review report, dated 02/11/20, documented the following observations on 9/09/19: A GDR request for a decrease of buspirone from 5 mg bid to 2.5 mg bid. A GDR request for a decrease of abilify 5mg qd to 2 mg qd. A GDR request for a decrease of duloxetine 30 mg qd to duloxetine 20 mg qd. No documentation of the DON or physician signature was on the request. On 02/11/20, the MDS nurse stated the pharmacy requests had been found in a folder in the now vacant don's office, and had not been sent to the physician for review. On 02/12/20 at 12:12 p.m., the administrator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians followed up with pharmacy recommendations. He stated it had been the responsibility of the DON, but she had quit. He was asked who was responsible after the DON's departure. He stated as of 02/11/20, it was the MDS coordinator, but there was no one between those dates. On 02/12/20 at 4:30 p.m., the administrator was asked if there was documentation of prior GDR's in 2018. He did not provide documentation of the GDR's. 2. Resident #21 had diagnoses which included major depressive disorder. A pharmacist consultation to the physician, dated 09/09/19, documented a reduction request for Trazodone 50mg at bedtime to Trazodone 25mg at bedtime. The pharmacist consultation was not addressed or signed by the physician. A pharmacist consultation to the physician, dated 11/11/19, documented, .Please evaluate the routine use of the following psychoactive medications and consider a dose reduction. If a dose reduction is not desired, please indicate below a rationale for the continued use. This resident is prescribed the following psychoactive medications .1. Duloxetine 30mg QD 2. Zoloft 200mg QD 3. Please note above three items are PolyPsych - two medications for the same indication given at the same time 4. In addition, concurrent use of Duloxetine and Zoloft may increase risk of serotonin syndrome 5. Trazodone 50mg QHS . The pharmacist consultation was not addressed or signed by the physician. A quarterly assessment, dated 01/02/20, documented the resident received antidepressant medications for seven days during the seven day look back period. Review of the February 2020 physician orders revealed the resident had the following orders: ~ Duloxetine 30mg QD-start date 12/09/19; ~ Zoloft 200mg QD-start date 01/07/20; and ~ Trazodone 50mg QHS-start date 02/23/19. On 02/12/20 at 10:50 a.m., the MDS coordinator was asked why the physician had not responded to the pharmacist consultations regarding the resident's antidepressant medications. She stated the former DON was responsible at that time to ensure the physician addressed the pharmacy consultations. She stated some of the consultations had been found in a file in a drawer. 2. Resident # 25 had diagnosis which included Alzheimer's disease, pseudobulbar affect, and vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. An active physician's order, dated 01/28/17, documented the resident was to take temazepam 15 mg each day at 8:00 p.m. for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Risperdal 1 mg twice each day for Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. A pharmaceutical consultant report titled, Psychoactive Gradual Dose Reduction, dated 11/11/19, documented the resident's physician was sent a request to evaluate the continued routine use of three medications prescribed to the resident: Risperdal 1 mg given twice each day, temazepam 15 mg to be given at bedtime each day, and Xanax 0.5 mg to be given every six hours each day. The pharmacist request noted that the current diagnosis for the use of Risperdal was not approved per CMS guidelines. The form had a printed area for the DON and physician to sign. Each of those areas were blank. The form had an area for the physician to respond to the pharmacy consultant's request. That area was blank. A medication flow sheet, dated 02/01/20, documented the resident had been administered the following medications on each day during the time period 02/01/20 through 02/11/20: temazepam 15 mg at 8:00 pm., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Risperdal 1 mg twice a day at 6:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for the diagnosis of vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. On 02/11/20 at 11:18 a.m., the resident was observed in bed with eyes closed. At 2:16 p.m., LPN #3 was asked why is the resident was taking the antipsychotic medication Risperdal. She stated the resident began to have behaviors such as running into others with her wheelchair, kicking the nurses station desk, and that was all she knew. She was asked if the staff monitor behaviors. She stated they do and keep records in behavior flow sheets. She was asked if Risperdal was approved for the diagnosis Alzheimer's disease? She stated she was not aware it was. On 02/12/20 at 8:16 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in her room a chair watching television. The resident was asked questions to determine her orientation to time, place, and situation. The resident's answers were nonsensical. At 8:53 a.m., CNA #1 was asked how long she had worked at the facility. She stated it had been 4 or 5 months. The resident was asked to describe her interactions when working with the resident. She stated she was easy to work with most of the time. She state she would get upset at times but she could be easily distracted with conversations of other topics. She was asked about any training she has had at the facility related working with the elderly. She was asked if she had noticed if the resident had ever seemed over sedated. She stated she had not and that the resident is active most days. She was asked is she had ever heard anyone speaking of giving the resident medications to keep her sedated. She stated she had not. 02/12/20 12:12 PM The administrator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians followed up with pharmacy recommendations including gradual dose reductions. He stated it had been the responsibility of the former DON but she had quit on 01/30/20. He was asked who was responsible after the DON's departure. He stated as of yesterday, 02/11/20, it was the mds coordinator but there was no one assigned to that task between those dates. On 02/12/20 at 12:16 p.m., the MDS Coordinator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians were responding to pharmacy reviews and recommendations. She stated as of yesterday (02/11/20) it was her but prior to that it was the DON. She was shown the pharmaceutical recommendations for resident #25, dated 11/11/19 and asked if the physician had responded to them. She stated she found that forms in a folder that was kept for the physician when he comes in on the weekend. She stated he had not seen that recommendation until she had sent it him on 02/12/20. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommended gradual dose reductions were considered by a physician for three (#21, #25, and #34) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The mds coordinator identified 24 residents who were prescribed psychotropic medications. 1. Resident # 25 had diagnosis which included Alzheimer's disease, pseudobulbar affect, and vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. An active physician's order, dated 01/28/17, documented the resident was to take temazepam 15 mg each day at 8:00 p.m. for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Risperdal 1 mg twice each day for Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. A pharmaceutical consultant report titled, Psychoactive Gradual Dose Reduction, dated 11/11/19, documented the resident's physician was sent a request to evaluate the continued routine use of three medications prescribed to the resident: Risperdal 1 mg given twice each day, temazepam 15 mg to be given at bedtime each day, and Xanax 0.5 mg to be given every six hours each day. The pharmacist request noted that the current diagnosis for the use of Risperdal was not approved per CMS guidelines. The form had a printed area for the DON and physician to sign. Each of those areas were blank. The form had an area for the physician to respond to the pharmacy consultant's request. That area was blank. A medication flow sheet, dated 02/01/20, documented the resident had been administered the following medications on each day during the time period 02/01/20 through 02/11/20: temazepam 15 mg at 8:00 pm., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Risperdal 1 mg twice a day at 6:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for the diagnosis of vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. On 02/11/20 at 11:18 a.m., the resident was observed in bed with eyes closed. At 2:16 p.m., LPN #3 was asked why is the resident was taking the antipsychotic medication Risperdal. She stated the resident began to have behaviors such as running into others with her wheelchair, kicking the nurses station desk, and that was all she knew. She was asked if the staff monitor behaviors. She stated they do and keep records in behavior flow sheets. She was asked if Risperdal was approved for the diagnosis Alzheimer's disease? She stated she was not aware it was. On 02/12/20 at 8:16 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in her room a chair watching television. The resident was asked questions to determine her orientation to time, place, and situation. The resident's answers were nonsensical. At 8:53 a.m., CNA #1 was asked how long she had worked at the facility. She stated it had been 4 or 5 months. The resident was asked to describe her interactions when working with the resident. She stated she was easy to work with most of the time. She state she would get upset at times but she could be easily distracted with conversations of other topics. She was asked about any training she has had at the facility related working with the elderly. She was asked if she had noticed if the resident had ever seemed over sedated. She stated she had not and that the resident is active most days. She was asked is she had ever heard anyone speaking of giving the resident medications to keep her sedated. She stated she had not. 02/12/20 12:12 PM The administrator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians followed up with pharmacy recommendations including gradual dose reductions. He stated it had been the responsibility of the former DON but she had quit on 01/30/20. He was asked who was responsible after the DON's departure. He stated as of yesterday, 02/11/20, it was the mds coordinator but there was no one assigned to that task between those dates. On 02/12/20 at 12:16 p.m., the MDS Coordinator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians were responding to pharmacy reviews and recommendations. She stated as of yesterday (02/11/20) it was her but prior to that it was the DON. She was shown the pharmaceutical recommendations for resident #25, dated 11/11/19 and asked if the physician had responded to them. She stated she found that forms in a folder that was kept for the physician when he comes in on the weekend. She stated he had not seen that recommendation until she had sent it him on 02/12/20.
CONCERN (E)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the duties and responsibilities of the director of nursing position was delegated to appropriate staff following th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the duties and responsibilities of the director of nursing position was delegated to appropriate staff following the vacancy of that position. The administrator idenfitied 32 residents that required health care monitoring at the facility. An active physician's order for resident #25, dated 01/28/17, documented the resident was to take temazepam 15 mg each day at 8:00 p.m. for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order for resident #25, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Risperdal 1 mg twice each day for Alzheimer's disease. An active physician's order resident #25, dated 09/27/19, documented the resident was to take Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. A pharmaceutical consultant report titled, Psychoactive Gradual Dose Reduction, dated 11/11/19, documented resident #25's physician was sent a request to evaluate the continued routine use of three medications prescribed to the resident: Risperdal 1 mg given twice each day, temazepam 15 mg to be given at bedtime each day, and Xanax 0.5 mg to be given every six hours each day. The pharmacist request noted that the current diagnosis for the use of Risperdal was not approved per CMS guidelines. The form had a printed area for the DON to sign in two places. Each of those areas were blank. The form had an area for the physician to respond to the pharmacy consultant's request. That area was blank. A medication flow sheet, dated 02/01/20, documented that resident #25 had been administered the following medications on each day during the time period 02/01/20 through 02/11/20: temazepam 15 mg at 8:00 pm., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Risperdal 1 mg twice a day at 6:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., for the diagnosis of other Alzheimer's disease; Xanax 0.5 mg every six hours for the diagnosis of vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. On 02/10/20 at 10:05 a.m., the survey team entered the facility for the start of a recertification survey. At 10:29 a.m., the administrator was asked how long he had been the administrator of the facility. He stated about four months. He was asked if the facility employed a full time DON. He stated the facility had not employed a DON, full-time or part-time, since the previous one had ended her employment on 01/30/19. He stated they had been advertising for a replacement. 02/12/20 at 12:12 p.m., the administrator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians followed up with pharmacy recommendations. He stated it had been the responsibility of the former DON but she had quit on 01/30/20. He was asked who was responsible after the DON's departure. He stated as of yesterday [02/11/20] it was the MDS coordinator but there was no one assigned between the dates of 01/30/19 and 02/11/20. At 12:16 p.m., the mds coordinator was asked who was responsible for ensuring physicians were responding to pharmacy reviews and recommendations. She stated as of yesterday [02/11/20] it was her job but prior to that it was the former DON's. She was shown the GDR recommendation for #25, dated 11/11/19 and asked if the physician had responded to it. She stated she found that pharmacy recomendation with those of other residents' in a folder that was kept for the physician when he came in on the weekend. She stated he had not seen that or the other recommendations until I sent them to him yesterday [02/11/20]. On 02/13/20 at 8:00 a.m., LPN #3 was asked if at anytime since the departure of the former DON had she been delegated any of the DON's duties. She stated she had not. At 8:25 a.m., the administrator was asked to describe the duties of the director of nursing position at the facility. He stated that person ensures a registered nurse is on duty eight hours a day seven days a week, that a charge nurse is on duty each shift, mange the staffing in general, ensure charting is followed through, ensures medication consults are performed, ensures charting such as the MAR and TAR are accurate, follow up on incident reports, that gradual dose reductions are considered, ensure behaviors are monitored, be a part of QAPI, monitor infection control, ensure wound care is performed, conduct in-services, staff according to acuity, ensure the destruction of narcotics, and interact with outside vendors such as hospice. He was asked what he did to ensure those tasks were completed after the former DON's departure. He stated that several things fell through the cracks but he did communicate with their contracted consultants. He was asked to whom he had delegated the DON's tasks and duties. He stated he had not delegated those to anyone and that was his fault. He was asked in the absence of a DON, who was ultimately responsible for those tasks being carried out. He stated the administrator and the owners, but that they had placed him in charge of the facility. At 10:40 a.m., the mds coordinator was asked if at anytime since the departure of the former DON had she been delegated any of the DON's duties. She stated she had not.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 42% turnover. Below Oklahoma's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Meadowbrook Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Meadowbrook Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates MEADOWBROOK NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Meadowbrook Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at MEADOWBROOK NURSING CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 18 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Meadowbrook Nursing Center?

MEADOWBROOK NURSING 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 65 certified beds and approximately 26 residents (about 40% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHOUTEAU, Oklahoma.

How Does Meadowbrook Nursing Center Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, MEADOWBROOK NURSING CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Meadowbrook Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Meadowbrook Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MEADOWBROOK NURSING CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Meadowbrook Nursing Center Stick Around?

MEADOWBROOK NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 42%, which is about average for Oklahoma nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Meadowbrook Nursing Center Ever Fined?

MEADOWBROOK NURSING CENTER has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Oklahoma average of $33,153. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Meadowbrook Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

MEADOWBROOK NURSING 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.