CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide the resident or the resident's responsibl...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide the resident or the resident's responsible party a bed hold notice when the resident was transferred to the hospital for one (#68) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for hospitalizations.
The facility identified 18 residents who have been transferred from the facility in the last 3 months.
Findings:
Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizophrenia and manic depression.
A nurse's note, dated 10/30/20 at 10:47 a.m., documented the resident was sent to a local hospital due to threatening behaviors towards his roommate.
The note documented an immediate notice of discharge was issued as the resident needs cannot be met.
There was no documentation to indicate a bed hold policy was provided to the resident or his legal representative prior to discharge.
On 07/14/21 at 10:54 a.m., the administrator was asked if there was documentation to indicate the resident or legal representative was provided a bed hold policy prior to the resident's transfer to the hospital. He stated he would review the chart and let me know.
At 11:02 a.m., the administrator stated there was not a bed hold policy provided to the resident or representative on the day of discharge.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Transfer
(Tag F0626)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to readmit a resident to the facility after hospital...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to readmit a resident to the facility after hospitalization for one (#68) of one sampled residents.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
Resident #68 was admitted to the facility with diagnoes which included anxiety, manic deprssion and pychotic disorder.
A discharge assessment with return anticipated was conducted on10/29/20.
A nurse's note, dated 10/30/20 at 10:47 a.m., documented the resident was sent to the hospital due to threatening behavior towards roommate. The note documented the resident consente and requested to go to (name-deleted hospital]. An immediate notice of discharge was issued as the residents [NAME] could not be met and his behaviors endangerd other in the facility. A notice of discharge was mailed to the guardian and an email copy also sent. A copy of the discharge notice was also sent to ombudsmans office.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included hemiplegia to the left side with contracture of lower left extremity and cognitive deficit following cerebrovascular disease.
A nurse's note, dated 06/30/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included hemiplegia to the left side with contracture of lower left extremity and cognitive deficit following cerebrovascular disease.
A nurse's note, dated 06/30/21 at 5:45 a.m., documented, Resident had 3 separate times sliding out of bed but did not fall. Resident was found by staff prior to fall. First time resident was holding on the side of the bed when staff safely helped him to the floor. Second time resident was wedged between the bed and wall head down with legs on the floor. Staff found him this way and helped him back in bed. Third time staff found resident sliding down to fall mat with staff assist on his buttock. No incidents considered a fall. Staff found resident prior to fall. Frequent bed checks done all night.
The comprehensive care plan, dated 06/29/21, did not include the falls which occurred on 06/30/21 with interventions.
On 07/14/21 at 9:55 a.m., the DON was asked if the resident's care plan included the falls which occurred on 06/30/21 with interventions. She stated no.
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ the care plan was updated and revised with new interventions to prevent the elopement for one (#7) of one sampled resident was reported and investigated and
~ the care plan was updated and revised for falls for one (#38) for one of five sampled residents who were reviewed for accidents. The facility identified five residents who were at risk for elopement.
Findings:
1. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and depression.
Am admission assessment, dated 03/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assistance with transfers and ambulation with the use of a wheelchair. There were no behaviors documented.
The care plan for elopement, initiated on 04/06/21, documented the resident was an elopement risk/wanderer. Interventions documented,
~ the resident's safety would be maintained. the resident would not leave the facility unattended,
~ exit doors will be disguised, door knobs and handles would be covered and tape placed on the floor.
~ the resident would be distracted from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book. Resident prefers: (this was blank).
~ staff to Identify pattern of wandering: was wandering purposeful, aimless, or escapist? Was the resident looking for something? Did it indicate the need for more exercise? Intervene as appropriate.
~ staff to monitor residents location every (no documentation) Document wandering behavior and attempted diversional interventions in behavior log.
~ provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside and outside, reorientation strategies including signs, pictures and memory boxes.
~ staff to redirect resident to common area's
~ The resident's triggers for wandering/eloping are (this was blank).
A behavior monitoring sheet, dated 04/06/21, documented the resident had exit seeking behaviors. Staff were to document the number of times if resident had exhibited the above behavior during the shift. Interventions included, .0)NONE; 1)1 on 1; 2)Activity; 3)Adjust room temperature; 4)Backrub; 5)Change position; 6)Give fluids; 7)Give food; 8)Redirect; 9)Remove resident from environment; 10)Return to room; 11)Toilet.
A nurse's note, dated 05/25/21 at 8:30 p.m. documented, Late Entry: Note Text: Res [resident] found outside exterior door, retrieved by staff and brought into facility. No injuries or duress noted to res. Res returned to his room and assisted to bed w [with] no difficulty.
A nurse's note, dated 05/28/21 at 2:33 p.m. documented, Up in w/c [wheelchair] attempting to get outside, pushing and kicking the exist doors, attempted to orient him to his surroundings per staff that he lives here, easily become agitated, cursing and even told one staff that if she don't stay away from him, he will kill her. Informed [name-deleted doctor] about resident behavior. (1545) [3:45] Seen by [name-deleted physician] this PM, new order rec'd [received] to increase Wellbutrin [an anti depressant medication] to 300 mg [milligrams] daily, Tylenol 650mg PO TID [by mouth three times a day], Prilosec 20 mg PO daily and Depakote 125 mg PO BID [twice daily] noted and faxed to the pharmacy, attempted to notify the family without success will try it again.
A nurse's note, dated 05/29/21 at 1:23 p.m., documented, Called his daughter, [name-deleted] and informed her about resident behavior and the new orders rec'd. Resident up in w/c propelling self up and down the halls trying to get out the building via the exit doors, refused to listen to the staff. I made her daughter aware of the behavior he exhibiting now and she agreed to talk to him on the phone, I handed the phone to Mr. Brewer and he started talking to her. Continues to monitor his progress and changes in condition.
A nurse's note, dated 05/30/21 at 1:35 a.m., documented, resident wanders to other resident rooms redirected to his room ADL performed stayed awake and shouting cn. continue to redirect resident will continue to monitor.
An elopement evaluation, dated 6/8/2021, documented, Evaluation: Elopement Score: 4.0 History of elopement while at home: Yes. History of or attempted leaving the facility without informing staff: Yes. Verbally expressed the desire to go home, packed belongings to go home or stayed near an exit door: Yes. Wanders: Yes. Wandering behavior a pattern or goal-directed: Yes. Wanders aimlessly or non-goal-directed: Yes. Wandering behavior likely to affect the safety or well-being of self/others: Yes. Wandering behavior likely to affect the privacy of others: No. Recently admitted or re-admitted (within past 30 days) and has not accepted the situation: No.
A nurse's note, dated 06/01/21 at 8:00 p.m. documented, Per CNA a resident on 300 hall told her this resident is out in the parking lot. Found resident at the second row of cars from the building moving fast. Returned resident to building. Found that front doors were both unlocked. Had to reset doors to get them to lock. CNA was going to inform nurse. Resident with no apparent injuries.
An incident report dated 06/06/21 at 3:23 p.m., documented another resident informed staff the resident was outside of the facility gate in the backyard. The resident was brought back into the facility without incident.
On 07/14/21 at 9:53 a.m., the director of nursing was asked if the elopement on 06/01/21 was investigated and new interventions implemented to prevent further elopement. She stated there was no documentation an incident report form was completed to indicate it was investigated and there were no interventions updated to the care plan. She stated he had not eloped again since that time. He had been in the courtyard and in the front entrance where there was a code to get out. She was asked if the documented interventions were in place. She stated no, she did not see the interventions documented to be in place.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly assess pain and administer pain medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly assess pain and administer pain medication in a timely manner for one (#65) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for pain management.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
Resident #65 had diagnoses which included chronic pain syndrome.
A physician's order, dated 11/04/20, documented, .oxyCODONE HCl Tablet 5 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Pain .
A physician's order, dated 11/04/20, documented, .MONITOR FOR PAIN EVERY SHIFT USE 0-10 SCALE .
A pain assessment, dated 11/04/20, did not include a goal regarding the resident's expectations for pain managment.
A skilled evaluation, dated 11/05/20 at 10:27 a.m., documented, .Indicators of pain: Vocal complaints of pain .Pain location #1: Lower back .Pain score: 6 .Spasm.
The clinical record did not include documentation of pain medication administered to the resident until 11/06/20 at 8:15 a.m. A period of 21 hours and 48 minutes after the resident rated his pain at six.
An administration note, dated 11/06/20 at 8:15 a.m., documented, .oxyCODONE HCl Tablet 5 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Pain c/o lower back pain @ 7/10, PRN pain medication administered. FIRST DOSE OF PAIN MED ADM .
On 07/14/21 at 1:44 p.m., the DON was asked how and when pain was assessed for a new admission. She stated they had orders to assess the pain every shift, the LPN would initiate the pain assessment and complete it within 72 hours of admission to see how the resident's pain was over a period of time. She was asked how the staff knew when to administer pain medication. She stated they observed for signs and symptoms of pain and if the resident was able to verbalize the resident would inform them of the pain rating.
She was asked how the staff knew the residents' goal for pain management. She stated the pain goal should be documented on the pain assessment, it should document what their acceptable tolerable level of pain was. She was asked if the pain assessment dated [DATE] included the goal for pain management. She stated no. She was asked what pain rating staff would administer pain medicine. She stated she would not know what pain rating to administer pain medication if the pain goal was not documented on the pain assessment.
She was asked what the resident rated his pain on 11/05/20 at 10:27 a.m. She stated a six. She was asked what intervention was used for his pain rated six. She stated the resident had not received pain medicine, but he should have. She was asked when pain assessments were completed by an RN. She stated on admit, quarterly and if there was a significant change. She stated an RN had not completed a pain assessment for resident #65.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0776
(Tag F0776)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a chest x-ray was performed for one of one...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a chest x-ray was performed for one of one (#3) sampled resident who was reviewed for radiological services.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included CHF, cirrhosis of liver, DM type II and edema.
Physician orders, dated 06/04/21, documented to obtain a STAT chest x-ray.
No chest x-ray results were found in the clinical record.
On 07/14/21 at 11:16 a.m., an interview was conducted with the DON. The ADON, MDS nurse, corporate nurse and and wound nurse were also present during the interview.
The DON was asked what the results were for the stat chest x-ray ordered on 06/04/21. After looking at the computer, the DON stated, I don't see it. She asked the ADON to call x-ray and see if they had a copy. The ADON later stated the x-ray had not been performed.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure:
~ residents received care in...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure:
~ residents received care in a dignified manner for one (#115) of three sampled residents reviewed for incontinent care; and
~ residents were treated with dignity for three (#33, #53 and #60) residents observed during one of two dining observations.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility; 68 residents required assistance with toileting.
Findings:
1. On 06/29/21 at 10:58 a.m., resident #33 was observed seated in her geri chair in the open room just before the dining room. She was leaning over the left side of the chair.
At 11:32 a.m., certified nurse aide (CNA) #4 came and assisted the resident out of the room and stated she was going to get her a pillow.
At 11:35 a.m., she was brought back into the room and left her in front of the television. She continued to lean over to the left side of the chair.
The resident continued in the same position until 12:33 p.m.
At 12:33 p.m., the resident was transferred into the dining room for the noon meal.
At 12:52 p.m., two staff members pulled up the resident under her arms for repositioning. The meal tray was then delivered.
At 12:57 p.m., she was served her first bite of food. The resident sat in her geri chair without being repositioned or toileted for two hours before the noon meal was served.
2. On 06/29/21 from 10:58 a.m. through 12:18 p.m., resident #53 was observed seated in the front room in her geri chair.
At 12:18 p.m., CNA #4 transferred the resident out of the room. She stated she needed to take her to the bathroom.
At 12:25 p.m., the resident was brought back into the front room and placed in front of the television.
At 12:33 p.m., the resident was transferred into the dining room for the noon meal.
At 12:41 p.m., two staff members grabbed the resident under her arms and pulled her up in the geri chair.
At 12:54 p.m., the residents meal tray was brought to her. She immediately grabbed her tea and began drinking.
At 12:56 p.m., staff sat down by her to assist. The resident picked up her fork and started feeding herself. The resident sat in her geri chair without being repositioned or toileted for two hours before the noon meal was served.
3. On 06/30/21 at 12:33 p.m., resident #60 was observed sitting up in his wheelchair. His bedside table was beside him and his noon meal tray was on the table. Registered Nurse (RN) #was observed standing up next to the resident assisting him with the meal.
On 07/08/21 at 9:37 a.m. the resident was observed sitting up in his wheelchair. His bedside table was beside him and his breakfast tray was on the table. The DON and this surveyor observed RN #1 standing up next to the resident assisting him with his meal. The DON was asked if the staff should be standing to assist a resident with their meal. She stated no. She was asked if the staff was aware they should be seated beside a resident to assist them with their meal. She stated yes. The DON obtained a chair for the staff to sit on.
4. On 07/06/21 from 10:00 a.m. until 10:06 a.m., resident #115 was heard yelling four times from his room. He was asking someone to please come and help him go to the bathroom. A housekeeper was standing at the end of the hall.
From 10:06 a.m. until 10:07 a.m., the resident yelled out six times for assistance in going to the bathroom.
At 10:07 a.m., CNA #1 came out of the room of resident #60 and CNA #2 remained in the room gathering linens.
From 10:08 a.m. until 10:09 a.m., the resident yelled out four times for assistance in going to the bathroom.
At 10:09 a.m., CNA #1 went to the door to see what the resident needed.
At 10:10 a.m., she came out of the room, stopped at linen cart, gathered linens and went back into room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA #1 and #2 began making the bed.
From 10:12 a.m. until 10:14 a.m., the resident yelled out four more times asking for someone to please help him to the bathroom. The DON heard the resident at the front of the hall and informed staff to assist the resident.
At 10:15 a.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed to don gown and gloves before entering the room.
At 10:45 a.m., CNA #1 was asked if the resident informed her of his need to go to the bathroom. She stated yes, but she told him she would be back to assist him.
At 11:00 a.m., the DON was made aware of the observations. She stated she should have changed the resident before making the bed, she would in-service the staff.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included hemiplegia to the left side with contracture of lower left extremity and cognitive deficit following cerebrovascular disease.
A nurse's note, dated 06/30/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
4. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included hemiplegia to the left side with contracture of lower left extremity and cognitive deficit following cerebrovascular disease.
A nurse's note, dated 06/30/21 at 5:45 a.m., documented, Resident had 3 separate times sliding out of bed but did not fall. Resident was found by staff prior to fall. First time resident was holding on the side of the bed when staff safely helped him to the floor. Second time resident was wedged between the bed and wall head down with legs on the floor. Staff found him this way and helped him back in bed. Third time staff found resident sliding down to fall mat with staff assist on his buttock. No incidents considered a fall. Staff found resident prior to fall. Frequent bed checks done all night.
On 07/14/21 at 7:30 a.m., LPN #5 stated she would define a fall as a resident landing on the floor with any body part. She stated if there was a resident fall unwitnessed or witnessed staff was to assess the resident for injuries, fill out an incident report and report the fall to family, the physician, and to the facility supervisor. She was asked if she had filled out an incident report and reported the falls on 06/30/21 to the supervisor. She stated no.
At 8:45 a.m., the DON stated the incidents which involved resident #38 on 06/30/21 should have been considered and treated as falls. She stated an incident report should have been completed by the employee at the time of the falls. The falls should have been reported to the family, physician, and the supervisor in order for the care plan team to initiate goals and interventions specific to the falls.
At 9:03 a.m., the DON stated there were no notifications made regarding the falls on 06/30/21.
3. Resident #45 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus.
A physician's order, dated 10/10/20, documented, .fsbs tid before meals .notify MD if fsbs is .greater than 300 .
The nursing MAR, dated 06/2021, documented, .FSBS TID before meals .Notify MD if FSBS is .greater than 300 .start date .10/10/2020 .06/23/21 at 0730 .301 .at 1130 .309 .06/25/21 at 0730 .335 .06/27/21 at 1130 .323 .
The clinical record did not include documentation to show the blood sugars greater than 300 had been reported to the physician.
On 07/13/21 at 11:19 a.m., the DON was asked what parameters were ordered for when to report the blood sugar. She stated if it was over 300. She was asked if the blood sugars over 300 on 06/23/21 at 7:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., on 06/25/21 at 7:30 a.m. and on 06/27/21 at 11:30 a.m. had been reported to the physician. She stated no, they had not followed the physician's orders.
2. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included type II diabetes mellitus.
Physician orders, dated 03/17/21, documented the resident was to:
~ have FSBS testing performed before meals and at bedtime (7:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.), and
~ receive Humulin Regular Insulin 100 unit/ml SQ before meals and at bedtime per sliding scale:
if FSBS is 71 - 149 = 0 units;
150 - 199 = 1 unit;
200 - 249 = 3 units;
250 - 299 = 5 units;
300 - 349 = 7 units;
350 - 999 = 8 units, administer 8 U and call physician.
The nursing MAR, dated 05/01/21 - 05/31/21, documented the following results and sliding scale insulin (Humulin Regular insulin):
~ 05/10/21 at 8:00 p.m., FSBS was 375 with 8U SS insulin given,
~ 05/18/21 at 11:00 a.m., FSBS was 361 with 8U SS insulin given, and
~ 05/22/21 at 8:00 p.m., FSBS was 355 with 8U SS insulin given. There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered on the MAR.
There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the above FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered found in the clinical record.
The nursing MAR, dated 06/01/21 - 06/30/21, documented the following results and sliding scale insulin (Humulin Regular insulin):
~ 06/03/21 at 11:00 a.m., FSBS was 354 with 8U SS insulin given,
~ 06/18/21 at 8:00 p.m. FSBS was 353 with 8U SS insulin given, and
~ 06/22/21 at 07:00 a.m., FSBS was 397 with 8U SS insulin given. There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered on the MAR.
There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the above FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered found in the clinical record.
On 07/08/21 at 11:10 a.m., the DON was asked if the above FSBS results had been reported to the physician as ordered. She stated she would have to look at the clinical record.
At 11:39 a.m., the DON stated, I was not able to locate any documentation that the elevated blood sugars were called to the physician.
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify
~ the physician for increased fingerstick blood sugar readings for three (#3, #45 and #115) of three sampled residents who had orders for blood sugar monitoring and
~ the physician and the resident's representative regarding falls for one resident (#38) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for accidents.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility; 22 residents who resided in the facility required fingerstick blood sugar readings.
Findings:
1. Resident #115 had diagnoses which included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, diabetes mellitus, and pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the right and left heel.
An admission assessment, dated 06/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired.
Physician orders, dated 07/2021, documented staff were to offer a snack at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m., for a diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, perform a fingerstick blood sugar in the morning and at bedtime, and notify the physician if the blood sugar reading was greater than 250 mg/dl.
The 07/2021 treatment administration record documented the residents fingerstick blood sugars as follows:
~ 07/02/21 - 283
~ 07/03/21 - 325
~ 07/05/21 - 492
~ 07/06/21 - 392
On 07/0721 at 9:51 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) was asked to review the orders related to blood sugar monitoring. She was asked where staff would document the notification to the physician for the blood sugar reading. She stated it would be in the progress notes. After she reviewed the clinical record, she stated there was no documentation to indicate the physician had been notified. She stated she would notify him herself.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide personal privacy for two (#21 and #41) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for privacy and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide personal privacy for two (#21 and #41) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for privacy and dignity.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
Residents #21 and #41 were roommates.
Resident #21 had diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident with hemiplegia, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease.
A quarterly assessment, dated 01/19/21, documented resident #21 had moderately impaired cognition and required limited to extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The assessment documented the resident had urinary and bowel incontinence.
Resident #41 had diagnoses which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, and anemia.
A quarterly assessment, dated 05/05/21, documented resident #41 had moderately impaired cognition and required limited to extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The assessment documented the resident had urinary and bowel incontinence.
On 06/30/21 at 8:58 a.m., resident #21 stated he did not know why they took the privacy curtain down but they did. He stated he and his roommate had to have their briefs changed in front of each other. Resident #41 stated he was not sure how long the curtain had not been there. He stated he thought they should have the curtain so when care was given they would not have to watch their roommate receiving care.
On 07/01/21 at`9:00 a.m., resident #21 was asked how it made him feel to not have a privacy curtain between him and his roommate. He stated, The curtain should be there, I don't want to look at my roommate's butt all the time. I don't like it.
07/12/21 at 1:27 p.m., an observation was made of resident #21. The resident's buttocks was exposed for LPN #5 and CNA #3 to assess for incontinent care. Privacy curtains were not available in the room. The resident's roommate was in the room at the time of the observation.
At 1:33 p.m., the laundry supervisor was asked what the curtain hanging in each room was for. He stated the curtain in each room was hung to ensure each resident had privacy and maintained dignity while staff assisted them with personal care. The laundry supervisor was asked which rooms required privacy curtains. He stated all rooms required privacy curtains. He was asked who was responsible for ensuring privacy curtains were hung in each room. He stated he was responsible for ensuring there was a privacy curtain hung in each room.
On 07/13/21 at 2:42 p.m., the administrator and the laundry supervisor were asked to observe the room of residents #21 and #41. They were asked if there was a privacy curtain in the room between the two residents. They each stated no and they were not sure how long the curtain had not been there. The administrator stated there should be a privacy curtain. The administrator stated the curtain was to provide privacy and dignity for the residents.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ assistive devices were clean for one (#21) of four sampled residents who were reviewed for a clean,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ assistive devices were clean for one (#21) of four sampled residents who were reviewed for a clean, comfortable, homelike environment and
~ personal property was kept safe from loss for two (#34 and #66) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for the loss or theft of personal property.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
1. Resident #21 had diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident with hemiplegia, diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease.
On 06/29/21 at 3:31 p.m., the resident was observed self-propelling in his wheelchair in the common area. His wheelchair had sticky brown and black substances, white flakes, and tan smeared substances on the seat, on all of the metal, and all over the wheels.
On 07/13/21 at 9:28 a.m., the resident was observed self-propelling in his wheelchair wearing the same clothes he had on the day before with a white stain on the front of his shirt. His wheelchair was observed to have the same multi-colored particles and smeared substances stuck to the seat and metal parts of the chair as observed on 06/29/21. The resident was asked if staff assisted him with clothing changes.
At 2:34 p.m., CNA #3 was asked how often residents were assisted with their clothing changes. He stated they changed the residents clothes every morning and every evening. He was asked if there were any residents that refused having their clothes changed. He stated the only resident that refused was resident #22.
On 07/14/21 at 11:26 a.m., the resident was self-propelling in his wheelchair. The resident had the same clothes as the prior day. The resident's wheelchair was observed with the same multi-colored particles and smears as observed on 06/29/21.
At 11:40 a.m., CNA #4 was asked when residents assistive devices such as wheelchairs were cleaned. She stated they were supposed to be cleaned on the night shift by the aides. CNA #4 was asked to observe the wheelchair of resident #21. She was asked what she observed on the wheelchair. She stated it looked like old food pieces and grime. She stated she was not sure but it looked as if it had not been cleaned in a long time. CNA #4 stated the wheelchair should have been cleaned.
At 11:51 a.m., the ADON was asked if resident assistive devices were cleaned regularly. She stated yes, they were supposed to be cleaned on night shift by the aides. She was asked if there was documentation showing what devices were cleaned and when. She stated they had used equipment cleaning logs for the aides to document what assistive devices they cleaned and when they were cleaned in the past. She stated they had not documented any of that for quite sometime. She stated she did not know how long it had been since the assistive devices had been cleaned. The ADON was informed of the observations for resident #21.
2. Resident #34 had diagnoses which included quadriplegia, diabetes mellitus, and neurogenic bladder.
On 06/29/21 at 2:32 p.m., the resident was asked if he had any personal items missing. He stated he had been missing his two favorite pair of pants for two months. He stated they were a pair of jeans and a pair of space jams pants. He stated he had given up hope on finding them. He stated he had reported the missing items to several staff members. He stated there was not a social service staff at the time. He stated the laundry staff had helped look for the missing items, but they were never found. He stated the facility had not replaced the pants or reimbursed him for the cost of the pants.
On 06/30/21 the facility grievance book was reviewed for missing clothing items. No grievances were documented regarding the missing clothing items for the resident.
On 07/13/21 at 10:00 a.m., the laundry staff stated she had looked for the missing clothing items for the resident, she remembered the resident had searched for the items in the laundry. She stated, I don't know what happened when we couldn't find them.
At 10:05 a.m., the laundry staff was asked if there was a procedure that should be followed for reported missing clothing items that were not found. She stated she did not know. She thought they just looked for the items. She stated she did not do anything else.
At 10:11 a.m., the laundry supervisor stated the clothing should be labeled before they were delivered to the laundry room. He stated they asked family to have the clothing labeled before they left the facility. He stated labeling clothing had not always happened and the laundry attendants tried to figure out whose clothing they had and labeled it themselves.
At 10:15 a.m., the laundry supervisor stated if they were unable to locate missing clothing, the laundry staff reported to social services or administration so the items would be replaced or the resident would be reimbursed.
At 10:21 a.m., the social service director was asked if he had any information about missing clothing items for the resident. He stated he was not aware of anything about the missing clothing.
3. Review of the grievance log and the resident's clinical record did not include documentation regarding the loss of and/or missing items for resident #66.
On 07/15/21 at 8:42 a.m., the laundry staff was asked what they did when a resident reported missing clothing. She stated on addmission, they put the resident's name on the clothing articles so they knew who they belonged to. She stated the admission person was responsible to label the clothing. She was asked what happened if the items could not be located. She stated she informed the resident she could not find it. She was asked if the facility replaced lost items. She stated she had never known items to be replaced.
She stated she had received reports of resident #66 having missing items and she had located most of the items herself. She stated the weekend staff was known for placing labeled items in the area of unlabeled items and that is where she would locate missing items sometimes. She stated she had reported the weekend staff to her supervisor and the administrator, but the problem still existed. She was asked if they had a problem regarding the residents' clothing not getting labeled upon admission and items going missing. She stated, Yes.
At 8:55 a.m., the admissions staff was asked who was reponsible for making sure the residents' clothing was labeled. He stated he had taken over the duty about one month ago because they had a lot of clothing going missing. He used the clothing labels on their clothes and made a list of items.
He was asked who labeled the clothing when he was not on duty. He stated he did not know. He thought the nurses did it. He stated they should also label the items that come in after admision and do an inventory sheet and give it to him and document in the clinical record.
At 9:08 a.m., the administrator was asked who was responsible for making sure the residents' clothing was labeled. He stated the admissions staff. He stated if the clothing made it to the laundry without a label the laundry staff would label it. He stated the laundry staff should look at the clothing when they removed it from the residents' room and if there was not a label they should put a label on it. He stated they were in the process of getting bags for each residents' clothing so they could wash all items in one bag.
He was asked if he was aware of the weekend laundry staff not making sure the laundry got to the right resident. He stated no. He stated he knew some of the clothing got placed on a rack with the no labels clothing, but when the weekday laundry staff came in they checked the rack for labeled items and returned them to the right resident.
He was asked who labeled the clothing when the admission staff was not working. He stated the nurse did the inventory sheet and the weekend laundry staff should be doing the labeling. He stated if the clothing did not get labeled on the weekend, the admission staff followed up when he came in and made sure the clothing got labeled.
He was asked what they did if the clothing was not located. He stated if a grievance was filled out and they were unable to locate the clothing, they replaced it. He stated the grievance process was not happening before he came in April, but it was now.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for falls and we...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for falls and weight loss for two (#45 and #51) of nine sampled residents who were reviewed for accidents and nutrition.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
1. Resident #45 had diagnoses which included a history of falls.
A quarterly assessment, dated 06/18/21, documented the reident had not had a fall since the previous assessment.
The resident's care plan, updated on 06/28/21, documented the resident had a fall on 06/04/21.
On 07/13/21 at 11:51 a.m., MDS #1 was asked how she determined the response for the assessment of previous falls. She stated she looked under risk management to see if the resident had had a fall. She was asked what was documented for falls was on the resident's care plan dated 06/28/21. She stated the care plan documented he had had a fall on 06/04/21 and the fall was not captured on the MDS dated [DATE].
2. Resident #51 had diagnoses which included malnutrition.
The clinical record documented the following weights:
~ 05/25/21 - 184.6
~ 06/21/21 - 157.6
A 5-day assessment, dated 06/25/21, documented the resident had no weight loss since the previous assessment. The assessment documented the resident weighed 185.
On 07/13/21 at 11:48 a.m., MDS #1 was asked how she determined the response for the weight loss/gain assessment. She stated they reviewed the weights in the clinical record. She was asked what weight she had based the response of 185 on. She stated the only weight that was documented when she had completed the assessment was 185. She stated sometimes the weights got put in the computer after they received the list of weights. She was asked what weight was documented on 06/21/21. She stated 157.6. She was asked if the assessment was accurate for weight loss. She stated, I guess it wasn't.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ dementia was included in the baseline c...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ dementia was included in the baseline care plan for one (#51) and
~ the resident/representative received a copy of the list of medications and the baseline care plan for two (#51 and #59) of nine sampled residents who were reviewed for baseline care plan.
The facility identified 14 new admissions in the last 30 days.
Findings:
1. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia and malnutrition.
The baseline care plan, dated 05/18/21, documented no response to the following areas:
~ Current medication list provided to resident/representative and
~ Signature of resident and Representative.
The baseline care plan did not include a problem, goal and interventions related to dementia.
On 07/13/21 at 11:36 a.m., the MDS nurse was asked if she was responsible for the development of the care plans. She stated she did the care plans with the nurses' help. She was asked how she ensured the care plan included dementia if the resident had this diagnosis. She stated if the resident had dementia or cognition issues the care plan auto populated and they edited it to make it personalized. She stated when the nurse did their assessment, it triggered to care plan it.
She was asked if resident #51 had a diagnosis of dementia. She stated he had vascular dementia. She was asked if the baseline care plan include dementia. She stated the baseline did not have anything on cognition, dementia was not on the care plan. She was asked if the care plan should have included dementia. She stated yes, it looked like the triggers were not pulled over.
She was asked what the process was to ensure the resident and/or representative received a copy of the baseline care plan. She stated they had recently hired a new social service staff and now they tried to have the care plan meeting right after they admitted . She was shown a copy of the resident's baseline care plan and asked if they used the area on the care plan to show the resident/representative received a copy. She stated she did not think they did that. She stated the resident/representative had not received a copy of the baseline care plan.
2. Resident #59 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and encounter for dialysis.
The baseline care plan, dated 05/18/21, documented the following:
~ Current medication list provided to resident/representative No and
~ the Signature of resident and Representative was blank.
On 07/13/21 at 4:55 p.m., the MDS nurse was asked if the resident/representative had received a copy of the medication lise and the baseline care plan. She stated no.
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 record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan included dementia and the use of an antipsychotic and anticoagulant medication for one...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan included dementia and the use of an antipsychotic and anticoagulant medication for one (#51) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
Resident #51 had diagnoses which included dementia.
A physician's order, dated 05/18/21, documented, .Apixaban [anticoagulant] .5 MG .two times a day related to ACUTE EMBOLISM AND THROMBOSIS .
A physician's order, dated 05/25/21, documented, .RisperDAL [antipsychotic] .0.5 MG .at bedtime for .psychosis .
A physician's order, dated 05/25/21, documented, .RisperiDONE [antipsychotic] .0.25 MG .at bedtime for .psychosis .
The comprehensive care plan, dated 06/07/21, did not include a focus, goal and interventions related to dementia and the use of antipsychotic and anticoagulant medication.
On 07/12/21 at 3:44 p.m., the DON was asked if the resident's care plan included the use of antipsychotic and anticoagulant medication. She stated no. She stated the care plan should include the use of the medications.
On 07/13/21 at 11:36 a.m., the MDS nurse was asked if she was responsible for the development of the care plans. She stated she did the care plans with the nurses' help. She was asked how she ensured the care plan included dementia if the resident had the diagnosis. She stated if the resident had dementia or cognition issues the care plan auto populated and they edited it to make it personalized. She was asked if the comprehesive care plan included dementia. She stated no. She was asked if the care plan should include dementia. She stated yes.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #33 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and Parkinson's Disease.
On 07/01/21 at 9:45 a.m., the resident w...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #33 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and Parkinson's Disease.
On 07/01/21 at 9:45 a.m., the resident was observed in a broda chair in the common area with green sweat pants on and a white shirt with brown stains on the front. She was asked if she had her clothing changed everyday. She stated no, just every few days or so. She was asked how often she would like her clothing changed. She stated she would like her clothing changed more than staff offers and every night. She was asked if she was assisted with repositioning and toileting throughout the day. She stated she got tired of sitting in the same position all day.
On 07/12/21 at 12:32 p.m., the resident was observed in a broda chair in the common area, leaning to the right with her eyes closed.
At 12:47 p.m., the resident was observed being pushed to the dining area in her broda chair, leaning to the right.
At 12:59 p.m., CNA #4 was observed pushing the resident to her room in her broda chair. The resident was left alone in her room, leaning to the right in the broda chair.
At 3:45 p.m., the resident was observed in her room sitting in her broda chair, leaning to the right. The resident had been continuously observed since 12:32 p.m. (three hours and 13 minutes) in the same position in her broda chair, without being assisted with repositioning.
CNA #4 and the ADON were observed to transfer the resident to bed. CNA #4 was observed to provide incontinent care to the resident with the assistance of the ADON. The resident's brief was observed to be heavily saturated with urine with a large bowel movement coming out of the top of the back of the brief. CNA #4 was asked when the staff had last assisted the resident with incontinent care. She stated, I changed it before breakfast.
At 8:15 p.m., the ADON was asked how often the staff should provide incontinent care and repositioning for a resident. She stated every two hours. She was asked how they monitored to ensure staff repositioned and checked dependent residents for incontinent care. She stated by laying eyes on the residents, being mindful and asking staff and the residents.
At 8:22 p.m., the DON was asked how often a dependent resident should be checked for incontinent care. She stated about every two hours. She was asked how they ensured the staff were checking frequently enough. She stated by making rounds. The DON was informed of the observations with resident #33.
4. Resident #53 had diagnoses which included chronic lung disease, hypertension and osteoporosis.
On 07/12/21 at 12:50 p.m., the staff was observed to transfer the resident to her bed. No incontinent care was provided for the resident.
At 4:30 p.m., the resident was observed in bed in her room. The resident had been continuously observed since 12:50 p.m. (three hours and 40 minutes) in the same position in bed, without being assisted with repositioning and incontinent care.
CNA #3 and CNA #4 were observed to provide incontinent care for the resident. The resident's brief was observed to be moderately saturated with urine with a small bowel movement. The staff were asked how long it had been since they had provided incontinent care for the resident. CNA #4 stated the resident had not had a brief change or incontinent care check since before breakfast.
At 8:15 p.m., the ADON was asked how often the staff should provide incontinent care and repositioning for a resident. She stated every two hours. She was asked how they monitored to ensure staff repositioned and checked dependent residents for incontinent care. She stated by laying eyes on the residents, being mindful and asking staff and the residents.
At 8:22 p.m., the DON was asked how often a dependent resident should be checked for incontinent care. She stated about every two hours. She was asked how they ensured the staff were checking frequently enough. She stated by making rounds. The DON was informed of the observations with resident #53. She was asked if 12:50 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. was an appropriate length of time for a dependent resident to wait for an incontinent care check. She stated she would not answer this question.
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ timely incontinent care was performed for three (#33, #53 and #115) of four sampled residents observed for incontinent care and
~assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) was provided for one (#68) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for assistance with ADLs.
The facility identified 68 residents who required assistance with toileting.
Findings:
1. Resident #115 had diagnoses which included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, diabetes mellitus, and pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the right and left heel.
An admission assessment, dated 06/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and he required limited assistance with one staff member for ambulation.
On 07/06/21 from 10:00 a.m. until 10:06 a.m., resident #115 was heard yelling four times from his room. He was asking someone to please come and help him go to the bathroom. A housekeeper was standing at the end of the hall.
From 10:06 a.m. until 10:07 a.m., the resident yelled out six times for assistance in going to the bathroom.
At 10:07 a.m., CNA #1 came out of the room of resident #60 and CNA #2 remained in the room gathering linens.
From 10:08 a.m. until 10:09 a.m., the resident yelled out four times for assistance in going to the bathroom.
At 10:09 a.m., CNA #1 went to the door to see what the resident needed.
At 10:10 a.m., she came out of the room, stopped at linen cart, gathered linens and went back into room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA #1 and #2 began making the bed.
From 10:12 a.m. until 10:14 a.m., the resident yelled out four more times asking for someone to please help him to the bathroom. The DON heard the resident at the front of the hall and informed staff to assist the resident.
At 10:15 a.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed to don gown and gloves before entering the room.
At 10:45 a.m., CNA #1 was asked if the resident informed her of his need to go to the bathroom. She stated yes, but she told him she would be back to assist him.
At 11:00 a.m., the DON was made aware of the observations. She stated she should have changed the resident before making the bed, she would in-service the staff.
2. Resident #68 had diagnoses which included anxiety disorder and manic depression.
A quarterly assessment, dated 05/14/19, documented the resident's cognition was intact and required extensive assistance of two staff members for bathing.
The ADL sheet for 10/2019 was reviewed. There was no documentation to indicate the resident was provided assistance with ADLs from 10/07/20 through 10/21/20.
On 07/14/21 at 1:45 p.m., the director of nursing reviewed the activities of daily living sheet (ADL) was asked why there was a gap in documentation for the provision of ADL care from 10/07/20 through 10/21/20. She stated she was employed at that time, however she would ask staff if they remembered.
On 07/14/21 at 2:09 p.m., the corporate nurse reviewed the ADL sheet and stated they were in conversion of starting the system point click care and was using both paper and computer. She stated she would look for PCC documentation of the care
At 3:30 p.m. the corporate nurse stated they could not find documentation to indicate the resident had received a bath or ADL assistance from 10/07/21 though 10/21/21.
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident #314 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included urinary tract infection, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident #314 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included urinary tract infection, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and atherosclerotic heart disease.
A care plan, dated 06/15/21, documented the resident had potential for skin issues. The care plan documented to apply skin prep to bilateral heels per physician order and bilateral heel spenco boots in place per physician order.
A physician's order, dated 06/15/21, documented placement of spenco boots [heel protectors] to bilateral feet and ensure placement each shift.
An initial admission skin assessment, dated 06/15/21, documented the resident did not have any skin issues.
A physician's order, dated 06/18/21, documented weekly skin assessments.
An admission assessment, dated 06/21/21, documented the resident was totally dependant on staff for activities of daily living and bed mobility.
A skin evaluation assessment, dated 07/05/21, documented a blister like area measured at 0.5 cm in length and 0.4 cm in width.
A skin evaluation assessment, dated 07/09/21, documented the right heel had a blister like area with a length of 2.5 cm and width of 2.0 cm.
On 07/12/21 at 1:23 PM, the resident was observed in the dining area. The resident did not have spenco boots on his feet.
On 07/12/21 at 3:57 PM, the resident was observed in the therapy room without the spenco boots on. Two therapy staff were observed taking off the resident's socks and looking at his heels. The staff stated the resident had pressure wounds on both heels. The right heel was observed with a black/blue discolored area with a small white spot in the center of the black and blue area. The area was approximately 2 diameter. An area was observed on the left inner heel with black and blue discoloration, approximately 0.5 cm.
The therapy staff left the room and when he returned he stated he had notified the wound care nurse of the areas on the heels. He was observed with spenco boots and he applied the boots to both feet. The therapy staff stated the wound care nurse had informed him she had been notified of the heel wounds last week on Friday.
On 07/13/21 at 8:38 AM, the resident was observed in his broda chair. The resident did not have his spenco boots in place.
On 07/13/21 at 2:16 PM, the resident was observed with no spenco boots in place.
On 07/13/21 at 3:06 PM, LPN #9 stated the daily treatment for the resident's heels was skin prep every shift. She stated the resident's heels were breaking down. She observed the right heel and stated the wound was not currently open or draining, but it was worse. She observed the left heel and stated it was very small, but not open, a slight discoloration. She stated the wounds could be caused from pressure due to the location of the areas. She stated the wound care nurse did see the resident. The resident was observed to not have spenco boots in place.
On 07/13/21 at 3:12 PM, LPN #1/wound nurse was asked if she was aware of the wounds to the resident's heels. She stated she saw them last week on Friday. She stated it was a blister or bruised area. She stated she was not sure what was causing the wounds. She stated now that she was aware of the wounds she would make sure to offload and keep the wound from deteriorating. She stated the resident had not seen a wound care physician.
On 07/13/21 at 3:47 PM, LPN #1/wound nurse stated the initial skin evaluation was incorrect. She provided documentation from the sending facility, dated 06/01/21, with a diagnosis of pressure induced deep tissue damage of right heel. There were no measurements in the documentation provided. She stated the resident had this deep tissue injury before he entered the facility.
On 07/13/21 at 4:54 PM, LPN #9 was asked to look at a skin assessment which she completed on admission. The assessment documented the resident did not have skin breakdown. She stated she did not remember the resident having any skin issues on his heels on admission.
On 7/14/21 at 9:00 AM, RN #1 was asked if any treatments were in place for the resident's heels. He stated they were currently doing skin prep to both heels. They had recently started applying heel protectors. He was asked if the wound size had increased on the skin assessment he completed on 07/09/21 compared to the the skin assessment documented on 07/05/21. He stated the wound had not gotten larger during that time period. The wound looked much better on 07/09/21 based on his previous observations. He stated he had not noticed the 07/05/21 skin assessment measurements were different from his assessment on 07/09/21, but from his observations the wound had been getting better.
On 07/14/21 at 1:41 PM, LPN #10 was asked if he should have contacted the physician when he noted the skin condition worsening on 07/05/21 from the initial assessment on 06/15/21. He stated his measurements were incorrect. The wound was never 0.5 cm. He stated the wound had always been much bigger than that measurement [0.5 cm] and he would correct his documentation.
On 07/14/21 at 1:45 PM, the director of nursing was made aware of the findings and acknowledged the concerns. She stated the initial skin assessment and the skin assessment documented on 07/05/21 were not accurate.
4. Resident #45 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus.
A physician's order, dated 10/10/20, documented, .fsbs tid before meals .notify MD if fsbs is .greater than 300 .
The nursing MAR, dated 06/2021, documented, .FSBS TID before meals .Notify MD if FSBS is .greater than 300 .start date .10/10/2020 .06/23/21 at 0730 .301 .at 1130 .309 .06/25/21 at 0730 .335 .06/27/21 at 1130 .323 .
The clinical record did not include documentation to show the blood sugars greater than 300 had been reported to the physician.
On 07/13/21 at 11:19 a.m., the DON was asked what parameters were ordered for when to report the blood sugar. She stated if it was over 300. She was asked if the blood sugars over 300 on 06/23/21 at 7:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., on 06/25/21 at 7:30 a.m. and on 06/27/21 at 11:30 a.m. had been reported to the physician. She stated no, they had not followed the physician's orders.
5. Resident #59 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus.
A physician's order, dated 03/15/21, documented, .Snack two times a day .Morning and Afternoon snack time .
On 07/07/21 at 3:04 p.m., the resident was asked how the staff provided snacks. She stated they did not provide a snack unless her blood sugar test was low.
On 07/08/21 at 2:46 p.m., the resident was asked if she had received an afternoon snack. She stated, Yes, they have been bringing them since you have been here. She was asked how many days she had received the morning and afternoon snack recently. She stated, How many days have you been here? She stated the staff did not always offer/pass the snacks.
2. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included CHF, cirrhosis of liver, DM type II and edema.
A physician order, dated 03/12/21, documented the resident was to receive potassium chloride ER 10 mEq daily for hypokalemia [low potassium].
Physician orders, dated 03/19/21, documented to increase to 20 mEq daily.
A lab result, dated 03/22/21, documented a K+ level of 4.5 [lab reference range 3.5 - 5.1].
The MAR, dated 03/01/21 - 03/31/21, documented the resident received:
~ Potassium Chloride ER 10 mEq daily, on 03/13/21 through 03/31/21, and
~ Potassium 20 mEq daily on 03/20/21 through 03/31/21, for a total of 30 mEq of Potassium daily, from 03/20/21 through 03/31/21, instead of the ordered 20 mEq daily (12 days).
The MAR, dated 04/01/21 - 04/30/21, documented the resident received:
~ Potassium Chloride ER 10 mEq daily, and
~ Potassium 20 mEq daily the entire month of April, for a total of 30 mEq daily all month (31 days) instead of the ordered 20 mEq daily.
The MAR, dated 05/01/21 - 05/31/21, documented the resident received:
~ Potassium Chloride ER 10 mEq daily from 05/01/21 through 05/26/21 , and
~ Potassium 20 mEq daily the entire month of May, for a total of 30 mEq daily all month, for a total of 30 mEq from 05/01/21 through 05/26/21 (26 days) instead of the ordered 20 mEq daily.
The resident received potassium 30 mEq daily from 03/20/21 through 05/26/21, which was 10 meq more than the 20 mEq ordered by the physician on 03/19/20. The resident received one and a half times the ordered dose for 69 days.
An emergency room report, dated 06/25/21 at 1:30 p.m., documented:
.Chief Complaint Bradycardia
History of Present Illness .presents via EMS .for weakness and a low heart rate .denies syncopal episode .has had heart rates in the low 40s according to nursing staff at his facility .
Laboratory Data .Potassium Level: 6.6 mEq/L. Critical (06/25/21 12:18:00 [12:18 p.m.]) .
Physical Exam .Blood Pressure: 109/71 .Heart Rate: 46 .Respiratory Rate: 14 .SaO2: 89% .
Emergency Department Course Patient is interviewed and examined. EMS report is reviewed .reviewed his EKG, chest x-ray, and labs. Given his indeterminate heart block and elevated potassium .discuss [sic] case with [Physician name deleted] on-call for unassigned cardiology .he is agreeable with admission and further treatment of the hyperkalemia in hopes that his bradycardia and rhythm disturbance will improve with correction of his hyperkalemia. At present heart rate is 49 .blood pressure of 133/89 and an O2 saturation of 94% on 3 L nasal canula.
Impression Symptomatic bradycardia Hyperkalemia Room air hypoxia .
A hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE] at 10:21 p.m., documented,
.Admitting Diagnosis 1. Hyperkalemia .2.Chronic kidney disease, stage 3a .4.Bradycardia .5.Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease .7.Hypertensive heart disease with heart failure .Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia .
Lab Results .Potassium Level 4.3 mEq/L [06/26/21] H 5.4 mEq/L [06/25/21] .
Hospital Course Patient is admitted via the emergency room from the nursing home .found to be profoundly lethargic .also significant hypercapnic bulimic [sic]. Is given large doses of his cardiac [sic] rhythm improved. Is also given doses of Narcan with restoration of his normal mental function. On 6/26/2021 he was ready for discharge from the hospital. His narcotics have been canceled as well as his potassium supplementation .
Discharge Plan Will be discharged to [Facility name deleted] .His oxycodone was discontinued as was his potassium supplementation .he will continue to be seen by his private physician in the nursing home .
Discharge Diagnosis .1. Hyperkalemia .2. Chronic kidney disease .4. Bradycardia .5. Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease .7. Hypertensive heart disease with heart failure .8. Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia .
Hospital discharge orders faxed to the facility, on 06/26/21 at 10:32 a.m., documented, .STOP taking these medications .Potassium Chloride 20 mEq By Mouth Every Day .
On 06/25/21 at 12:04 p.m., an order note documented, .Low heartrate [sic] .On call physician for [Physician's name deleted] notified of resident's condition. Low heartrate [sic], Low [sic] oxygen saturation. Order to send resident to [Hospital name deleted] for evaluation and treatment .
On 06/26/21 at 3:08 p.m., a nurse's note, documented, .Res returned @1100 [11:00 a.m.] from 24 hr observation at [Hospital name deleted] via [Transportation company name deleted]. Dx hyperkalemia [high potassium] w potassium lab results at 6.6 Res alert, oriented, in good spirits, in no acute distress. Res c/o pain 6/10 to LLE, end of R stump.
N.O. to .dc Potassium Chloride 20mEq po q day .All other orders resumed.
N.O. per Dr [NAME] .recheck BMP Monday .
On 06/30/21 at 10:51 a.m., during the initial resident interview, when the resident was asked if he had any recent hospitalizations, he stated he had gone to the hospital on Friday night (06/25/21). He stated he was admitted and returned to the facility on Saturday (06/26/21).
The resident was asked why he was sent to the hospital. He stated the facility gave him too much potassium. He was asked what symptoms he had. He stated he was dizzy and disoriented.
On 07/13/21 at 3:21 p.m., requested medication error reports for the resident from the DON. She stated there had been none since she came three weeks ago. She was asked to see if any medication error reports had been completed for the resident since he was admitted on [DATE].
At 3:40 p.m., the DON stated she was not able to find any medication error reports for the resident.
On 07/14/21 at 11:16 a.m., an interview was conducted with the DON. The ADON, MDS nurse, corporate nurse and and wound nurse were also present during the interview.
The DON was asked what the resident's orders were for potassium in March 2021. The MDS nurse stated the orders for potassium was 10 mEq daily on 03/13/21 and on 03/20/21, it was changed to 20 mEq daily. She stated the potassium 20 mEq was dc'd on 06/29/21.
They were asked to look at the MARs and tell the surveyors what doses of potassium the resident actually received. After looking at the computer, the MDS nurse stated he received potassium 10 mEq starting 03/13/21 and the 10 mEq was dc'd on 05/26/21. She then stated he was started on potassium 20 mEq on 03/20/21 and it was not dc'd until 06/29/21.
They were asked if the potassium 10 mEq should have been dc'd on 03/20/21 when the potassium 20 mEq was started. After looking at the computer, the DON stated, Yes, it should have been dc'd.
She was asked how much potassium he actually received. She stated 30 mEq per day from 03/20/21 through 05/26/21. She was asked how much he should have received during that time frame. She stated according to the orders, he should have only received 20 mEq from 03/20/21 on.
They were asked what symptoms the resident was exhibiting on 06/25/21 when he went to the ER according the nurses notes. The wound care nurse stated a low heart rate and low O2 sat, after looking at the computer. She was asked how low his heart rate and O2 sats were. She stated she was not sure, the notes did not say.
They were asked what the resident's admitting dx was at the hospital. The DON stated he had a potassium of 6.6.
The DON was asked if the facility was following the physician's orders for the potassium. She stated, No.
3. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included type II diabetes mellitus.
Physician orders, dated 03/17/21, documented the resident was to:
~ have FSBS testing performed before meals and at bedtime (7:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.), and
~ receive Humulin Regular Insulin 100 unit/ml SQ before meals and at bedtime per sliding scale:
if FSBS is 71 - 149 = 0 units;
150 - 199 = 1 unit;
200 - 249 = 3 units;
250 - 299 = 5 units;
300 - 349 = 7 units;
350 - 999 = 8 units, administer 8 U and call physician.
The nursing MAR, dated 05/01/21 - 05/31/21, documented the following results and sliding scale insulin (Humulin Regular insulin):
~ 05/10/21 at 8:00 p.m., FSBS was 375 with 8U SS insulin given,
~ 05/18/21 at 11:00 a.m., FSBS was 361 with 8U SS insulin given, and
~ 05/22/21 at 8:00 p.m., FSBS was 355 with 8U SS insulin given. There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered on the MAR.
There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the above FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered found in the clinical record.
The nursing MAR, dated 06/01/21 - 06/30/21, documented the following results and sliding scale insulin (Humulin Regular insulin):
~ 06/03/21 at 11:00 a.m., FSBS was 354 with 8U SS insulin given,
~ 06/18/21 at 8:00 p.m. FSBS was 353 with 8U SS insulin given, and
~ 06/22/21 at 07:00 a.m., FSBS was 397 with 8U SS insulin given. There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered on the MAR.
There was no documentation of the physician having been notified of the above FSBS results of 350 or greater as ordered found in the clinical record.
On 07/08/21 at 11:10 a.m., the DON was asked if the above FSBS results had been reported to the physician as ordered. She stated she would have to look at the clinical record.
At 11:39 a.m., the DON stated, I was not able to locate any documentation that the elevated blood sugars were called to the physician.
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure:
~ physician's orders were implemented for the application of boots for one (#115) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for pressure ulcers,
~ physician orders were implemented in the notification of increased fingerstick blood sugar readings for three (#3, #45 and #115) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications,
~ physician orders were implemented for changes made in dosage of potassium chloride for one (#3) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications,
~ physician ordered snacks were provided for two (#59 and #115) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for snacks and
~ accurate assessment, monitoring and intervention was provided related to skin integrity for one (#314) of three sampled residents who was reviewed for skin integrity.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
1. Resident #115 had diagnoses which included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, diabetes mellitus, and pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the right and left heel.
On 06/29/21 at 3:24 p.m., the resident was observed in bed with a floor mat. The resident was not observed to have boots on his feet.
An admission assessment, dated 06/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and he required limited assistance with one staff member for ambulation.
On 06/30/21 at 10:06 a.m., the resident was observed to be in bed. There were no boots observed on the resident or in the room.
Physician orders, dated 07/2021, documented staff were to offer a snack at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m., for a diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, perform a fingerstick blood sugar in the morning and at bedtime and notify the physician if the blood sugar was greater than 250 mg/dl, and the resident was to wear protective boots in which the nurse was to check the placement. every shift.
On 07/01/21 at 2:22 p.m., the resident was observed up in his wheelchair. The resident was not observed to be wearing the boots.
The 07/2021 treatment administration record documented the residents fingerstick blood sugars as follows:
~ 07/02/21 - 283
~ 07/03/21 - 325
~ 07/05/21 - 492
~ 07/06/21 - 392
On 07/06/21 at 10:00 a.m., the resident was observed in bed. There were no boots observed on the resident or in the room.
On 07/07/21 at 9:51 a.m., the DON was asked to observe the resident who was up in his wheelchair. She was asked if he was wearing the boots the physician has ordered. She stated no, they were up on the bed. She was asked if the boots should be on the resident. She stated yes. The DON instructed the charge nurse to go and place the boots on the resident.
The DON was asked to review the orders related to blood sugar monitoring. She was asked
where staff would document the notification to the physician for the blood sugar reading. After she reviewed the clinical record, she stated there was no documentation the physician was notified. She stated she would notify him herself.
On 07/08/21 at 10:57 a.m., snacks were brought down by dietary and placed on the treatment cart. The resident was asked if he had received a snack. He stated no. The therapist in the room stated he was not provided a snack but she would see that he got one.
At 2:21 p.m., a dietary staff was observed to have snacks in her hand to pass out. She started to go down hall 300 but looked at the three snacks and stated they were for hall 4. She did not go down the hall. She went to halls 4 and 6 This resident did not get a snack
At 2:28 p.m., the resident and his roommate were asked if they had been offered their 2:00 p.m. snack. They each stated no, but they would like a snack and a cup of coffee.
07/12/21 at 2:40 p.m., a snack was observed to be offered to the resident's roommate, but not resident #115. He was asked if he would like a snack. He stated yes, he didn't get one.
At 7:45 p.m., the dietary staff was observed to take a clear bucket with snacks and place on the treatment cart.
At 7:56 p.m., the staff began passing the snacks.
At 8:03 p.m., the resident's roommate was observed to be offered a snack.
At 8:10 p.m., resident #115 was asked if he was offered a bedtime snack. He stated no. The roommate stated he did not think the resident was in the room.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included hemiplegia to the left side with contracture of lower left extremity and cognitive deficit following cerebrovascular disease.
A quarterly assessment, dated...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included hemiplegia to the left side with contracture of lower left extremity and cognitive deficit following cerebrovascular disease.
A quarterly assessment, dated 04/19/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired. He required extensive assistance with transfers and mobility with the use of a wheelchair.
The care plan, last revised for falls on 06/18/21, did not include documentation of the falls that occurred on 06/30/21.
A nurse's note dated, 06/30/21 at 5:45 a.m., documented, Resident had 3 separate times sliding out of bed but did not fall. Resident was found by staff prior to fall. First time resident was holding on the side of the bed when staff safely helped him to the floor. Second time resident was wedged between the bed and wall head down with legs on the floor. Staff found him this way and helped him back in bed. Third time staff found resident sliding down to fall mat with staff assist on his buttock. No incidents considered a fall. Staff found resident prior to fall. Frequent bed checks done all night.
On 07/14/21 at 7:30 a.m., LPN #5 stated she would define a fall as a resident landing on the floor with any body part. She stated if there was a resident fall, staff was to assess the resident for injuries and fill out an incident report. She was asked if she had filled out an incident report for the falls on 06/30/21. She stated no.
At 8:45 a.m., the DON stated the incidents which occurred on 06/30/21 should have been considered and treated as falls. She stated an incident report should have been completed by the employee at the time of the falls. The falls should have been reported to the care plan team to initiate goals and interventions specific to the falls.
At 9:53 a.m., the DON was asked if the falls on 06/30/21 had been investigated with new interventions put in place. She stated there was no documentation on an incident report form to indicate the falls were investigated and there were no specific fall interventions documented on the resident's care plan for the falls on 06/30/21.
At 10:05 a.m., the DON was asked if the falls on 06/30/21 had been reported and investigated. She stated no.
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ the elopement was reported and investigated for one (#7) and
~ falls were identified and investigated for one (#38) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for accidents.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility; five residents were identified at risk for elopement.
Findings:
Resident #7 had diagnoses which included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and depression.
An admission assessment, dated 03/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assistance with transfers and ambulation with the use of a wheelchair. There were no behaviors documented.
The care plan for elopement, initiated on 04/06/21, documented the resident was an elopement risk/wanderer. Interventions documented,
~ the resident's safety would be maintained. the resident would not leave the facility unattended,
~ exit doors will be disguised, door knobs and handles would be covered and tape placed on the floor.
~ the resident would be distracted from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book. Resident prefers: (this was blank).
~ staff to Identify pattern of wandering: was wandering purposeful, aimless, or escapist? Was the resident looking for something? Did it indicate the need for more exercise? Intervene as appropriate.
~ staff to monitor residents location every (no documentation) Document wandering behavior and attempted diversional interventions in behavior log.
~ provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside and outside, reorientation strategies including signs, pictures and memory boxes.
~ staff to redirect resident to common area's
~ The resident's triggers for wandering/eloping are (this was blank).
A behavior monitoring sheet, dated 04/06/21, documented the resident had exit seeking behaviors. Staff were to document the number of times if resident had exhibited the above behavior during the shift. Interventions included, .0)NONE; 1)1 on 1; 2)Activity; 3)Adjust room temperature; 4)Backrub; 5)Change position; 6)Give fluids; 7)Give food; 8)Redirect; 9)Remove resident from environment; 10)Return to room; 11)Toilet.
A nurse's note, dated 05/25/21 at 8:30 p.m., documented, Late Entry: Note Text: Res [resident] found outside exterior door, retrieved by staff and brought into facility. No injuries or duress noted to res. Res returned to his room and assisted to bed w [with] no difficulty.
A nurse's note, dated 05/28/21 at 2:33 p.m., documented, Up in w/c [wheelchair] attempting to get outside, pushing and kicking the exist doors, attempted to orient him to his surroundings per staff that he lives here, easily become agitated, cursing and even told one staff that if she don't stay away from him, he will kill her. Informed [name-deleted doctor] about resident behavior. (1545) [3:45] Seen by [name-deleted physician] this PM, new order rec'd [received] to increase Wellbutrin [an anti depressant medication] to 300 mg [milligrams] daily, Tylenol 650mg PO TID [by mouth three times a day], Prilosec 20 mg PO daily and Depakote 125 mg PO BID [twice daily] noted and faxed to the pharmacy, attempted to notify the family without success will try it again.
A nurse's note, dated 05/29/21 at 1:23 p.m., documented, Called his daughter, [name-deleted] and informed her about resident behavior and the new orders rec'd. Resident up in w/c [wheelchair] propelling self up and down the halls trying to get out the building via the exit doors, refused to listen to the staff. I made her daughter aware of the behavior he exhibiting now and she agreed to talk to him on the phone, I handed the phone to [resident #7] and he started talking to her. Continues to monitor his progress and changes in condition.
A nurse's note, dated 05/30/21 at 1:35 a.m., documented, resident wanders to other resident rooms redirected to his room ADL [activities of daily living] performed stayed awake and shouting cn. continue to redirect resident will continue to monitor.
An elopement evaluation, dated 6/8/2021, documented, Evaluation: Elopement Score: 4.0 History of elopement while at home: Yes. History of or attempted leaving the facility without informing staff: Yes. Verbally expressed the desire to go home, packed belongings to go home or stayed near an exit door: Yes. Wanders: Yes. Wandering behavior a pattern or goal-directed: Yes. Wanders aimlessly or non-goal-directed: Yes. Wandering behavior likely to affect the safety or well-being of self/others: Yes. Wandering behavior likely to affect the privacy of others: No. Recently admitted or re-admitted (within past 30 days) and has not accepted the situation: No.
A nurse's note, dated 06/01/21 at 8:00 p.m., documented, Per CNA [certified nurse aide] a resident on 300 hall told her this resident is out in the parking lot. Found resident at the second row of cars from the building moving fast. Returned resident to building. Found that front doors were both unlocked. Had to reset doors to get them to lock. CNA was going to inform nurse. Resident with no apparent injuries.
An incident report, dated 06/06/21 at 3:23 p.m., documented another resident informed staff the resident was outside of the facility gate in the backyard. The resident was brought back into the facility without incident.
On 07/14/21 at 9:53 a.m., the DON was asked if the elopement on 06/01/21 was investigated and new interventions implemented to prevent further elopement. She stated there was no documentation an incident report form was completed to indicate it was investigated and there were no interventions updated to the care plan. She stated he had not eloped again since that time. He had been in the courtyard and in the front entrance where there was a code to get out. She was asked if the documented interventions from the care plan were in place. She stated no, she did not see the interventions documented were in place.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #314 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included urinary tract infection, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #314 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included urinary tract infection, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and atherosclerotic heart disease.
An admission assessment, dated 06/21/21, documented the resident was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living.
On 06/30/21 at 10:56 AM, the resident's family member was interviewed and stated the staff did not always bring him water. The family member stated she would come to visit and he would not have water. She stated she would ask staff for water and sometimes it took them two hours before they brought the water.
A care plan, dated 07/01/21, documented the resident was at risk for dehydration. The resident would continue to be adequately hydrated on an ongoing daily basis for the next 90 days. The staff would encourage fluid intake by offering fluids of choice as much as possible.
On 07/01/21 at 6:55 AM, the resident's room was observed to have a cup of water but the water was not within reach.
On 07/06/21 at 12:41 PM, the resident's room was observed to have no water cup at the bedside or in the room.
A physician's order, dated 07/09/21, documented give the resident sodium chloride solution 0.9% at 60 ml per hour every 24 hours for dehydration for two days a total of two L.
On 07/12/21 at 2:24 PM, the resident was observed sitting in his broda chair with his wife at bedside. The floor nurse entered the room. There were no fluids offered at this time.
On 07/12/21 at 2:36 PM, the resident's wife left the facility. The resident was observed sitting in his broda chair. A water cup was located on his bedside table across the room on the other side of the bed, not within reach.
On 07/12/21 at 3:10 PM, LPN #9 entered the room. There was no water offered to the resident at this time.
On 07/12/21 at 3:20 PM, the resident was assisted to therapy. The therapy staff provided therapy and some adl care. The therapy staff did not offer the resident fluids during this time.
On 07/12/21 at 4:08 PM, the resident was brought back from therapy by therapy staff. The CNA met the therapy staff in the resident's room. She provided the resident with his call light. There were no fluids offered.
On 07/12/21 at 4:16 PM, two CNA staff members provided incontinent care for the resident. The resident was not offered fluids.
On 07/12/21 at 5:25 PM, the resident was observed lying in bed. The resident had been observed continuously for three hours. There had been no fluids offered during this time.
On 07/12/21 at 5:28 PM, the resident's meal tray was placed at bedside and no fluids were offered at this time.
On 07/13/21 at 8:19 AM, the resident was observed sitting up in his broda chair. A water cup was observed to be on the far side of the room on the bedside table.
On 07/13/21 at 2:26 PM, CNA #6 was asked if the resident was able to assist himself with hydration. She stated he could not provide hydration for himself. She was asked how often fluids should be provided for the resident. She stated staff should offer him fluids every hour. She was asked how often she had provided hydration today. She said during dining this morning and this afternoon. She stated she also offered him fluids when she laid him down.
On 07/13/21 at 2:29 PM, LPN #9 was asked if the resident was dependent on staff for his hydration needs. She stated the resident was dependent on staff for fluids. She was asked how often the resident should be offered fluids. She stated he should be offered fluids every two hours.
On 07/14/21 at 10:00 AM, RN #1 was asked if the resident had been recently diagnosed with dehydration. He stated the resident's wife felt the resident was lethargic and this happened the last time he was dehydrated. She spoke with the physician and he gave the resident fluids. The RN was asked how often the resident should receive hydration. He stated the resident should be hydrated every two hours or more often.
3. Resident #51 had diagnoses which included malnutrition.
A physician's order, dated 05/25/21, documented, .weekly weights x 4 every Tue for 4 weeks .
A weight was documented on 05/25/21 as 184.6.
No weights were documented in the clinical record from 05/26/21 through 06/20/21.
A weight was documented on 06/21/21 as 157.6.
A 5-day assessment, dated 06/25/21, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. He was independent with setup help only required for eating.
The nutrition, amount eaten task, dated 06/2021, had 55 of 90 missed opportunities.
On 06/30/21 at 12:29 p.m., the resident was observed sitting in his room with his eyes closed and his head down. His food tray was observed sitting in front of him with the plate covered.
At 12:34 p.m., the resident was observed in the same position as 12:29 p.m., sitting in his room with his eyes closed and his head down. The food tray was not observed in his room.
At 12:46 p.m., the resident's food tray was observed on the meal cart identified by the meal ticket label used for all resident trays. The food was observed untouched with the exception of a few bites gone from the cookie and the noodle dish.
During the seventeen minute observation of the resident for the noon meal on 06/30/21, no staff was observed to encourage or assist the resident with eating.
On 07/08/21 at 1:44 p.m., CNA #1 was asked how they monitored and documented on the residents who required assistance with eating. She stated they assisted the residents in their room if the resident refused to eat in the dining room. They documented meal percentages every meal. She was asked who obtained the residents' weights. She stated the aides and the nurses did the weights. She stated the nurse would tell them if they needed to weigh the residents.
She was asked if she was familiar with resident #51. She stated yes. She was asked how much assistance the resident required with eating. She stated he needed limited assistance and cuing, he refused to eat because he was never hungry.
At 1:54 p.m., RN #1 was asked how and who monitored the residents to ensure they were getting enough nutrition. He stated the nurse and the aide monitored during the meal time and in between meals and they documented if the resident was not eating and gave encouragement. They gave different food or snacks. He was asked how often they monitored meal percentages. He stated the aide monitored and documented the meal percentages every meal and informed the nurse if the resident was not eating.
He was asked what the order was for weighing the resident. He stated weekly weights x 4 starting on 05/25/21 and ending on 06/22/21. He was asked what the results of the weekly weights were. He stated on 05/25/21 he weighed 184.6. He stated the next weight was on 06/21/21 and it was 157.6. He was asked if the resident had been weighed every week for four weeks starting 05/25/21. He stated, I don't see it.
On 07/12/21 at 2:44 p.m., the DON was asked how often the staff monitored and documented meal percentages. She stated it should be every meal. She was asked if meal percentages were documented every meal in June, 2021 for resident #51. She stated no.
She was asked what the physician order dated 05/25/21 pertaining to weights documented. She stated weekly weights for four weeks. She was asked if the staff had weighed the resident per the physician order. She stated no. She was asked if the resident had weight loss during the month he was not weighed weekly. She stated he had lost from 184 pounds on 05/25/21 to 157 pounds on 06/21/21, less than one month. She was asked if the staff had obtained weights and monitored the nutrition intake per the physician orders/policy. She stated no.
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ water was available and in reach for two (#7 and #115) and
~ provide sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration for one (#314) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for hydration; and
~ weights were obtained according to the physician's order and meal percentage were monitored according to the care plan for one (#51) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for nutrition.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
1. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and depression.
An admission assessment, dated 03/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, was independent with set up only for eating.
On 06/29/21 at 3:17 p.m., on 06/30/21 at 10:11 a.m., on 07/01/21 at 8:43 a.m., the resident's room was not observed to have water available in the room. There was no water pitcher observed in the room.
2. Resident #115 had diagnoses which included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, diabetes mellitus, and pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the right and left heel.
On 06/29/21 at 3:24 p.m., the resident was observed in bed, with a floor mat beside it. A sign with full transmission based precautions was on the door. There was no water observed in the room.
An admission assessment, dated 06/30/21, documented the residents cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, he required limited assistance with one staff member for ambulation, and was independent with set up for eating.
On 06/30/21 at 10:06 a.m., the resident was observed to be in bed. There was no water observed in the resident's room.
On 07/06/21 at 10:00 a.m., a bedside table was observed in the resident's room. There was no water pitcher available.
On 07/14/21 at 10:36 a.m., the DON was informed of the observations of water not being available in the rooms. She stated she was aware and informed staff they needed to have water or fluids at the bedside. She stated for those who are on thickened liquids, the fluids were to be kept on the medication cart and should be offered when providing care.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to have ongoing communication and collaboration with...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to have ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding care and services for one (#64) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for communication regarding care and services for dialysis.
The facility identified three residents who received dialysis.
Findings:
Resident #64 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic kidney disease, dependence on renal dialysis, and type two diabetes.
Physician orders, dated 01/23/20, documented Dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/04/20, documented the resident may be sent to [hospital name deleted] for a fistulogram related to prolonged post treatment bleeding.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/06/20, documented the dialysis facility scheduled a fistulogram with [hospital name deleted] with a follow up appointment for Thursday 03/12/20 at 10:30 AM.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/18/20, documented the resident missed the appointment. The dialysis staff called the nursing home and reached the administrator. The administrator provided the dialysis facility with his phone number for the physician to coordinate care.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/27/20, documented a call was placed to the nursing home administrator to coordinate care and there was no answer.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 04/06/20, documented social services at the nursing home was contacted and made aware of how important it was for the resident to make the next scheduled appointment due to the severity of the issue.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 04/06/20, documented the patient was scheduled for a fistulogram at [hospital name deleted] on 04/09/20 at 7:30 AM. The note documented all appointment information was faxed to the nursing home social services director. The social services staff member was notified of the severity of the issues.
A patient appointment/care issue email from a dialysis staff, which was sent to staff in the dialysis center, dated 04/15/20, documented the dialysis center tried scheduling the resident for fistulograms and appointments in order to protect the resident's fistula. The email documented the nurse suspected significant stenosis. The email documented the physician and nurse had made several attempts to contact the facility to coordinate care with no return calls. The email documented the dialysis facility called the social service worker from the nursing home and she was resistant to take the resident to an appointment for fear of the COVID virus. The email also documented the social service worker stated the fistulogram was not necessary or essential to the resident's health. The email documented the resident was not taken to his appointment.
A progress note from the named dialysis center, dated 05/05/20, documented the team had been trying to have the patient's access checked before it fails. The resident had missed two appointments due to the director of nursing not arranging for the resident to be transported and saying it was not an essential procedure. The note documented the dialysis facility tried on multiple occasions to contact the facility and the nursing home administration did not return the calls.
The facility's appointment book was reviewed. There was no documentation the resident had been scheduled for transportation to any appointments.
The resident's clinical record was reviewed. There was no documentation found in the chart where the facility had documented problems with the fistula or communication with dialysis concerning issues with the fistula.
On 07/08/21 at 2:08 PM, the DON stated there were no appointments for the resident in 2020.
On 07/13/21 at 10:10 AM, the DON was asked if there were any transportation or appointments set up for the resident to go to for a fistulogram. The DON stated we can only provide you with that book. That is all we have.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0745
(Tag F0745)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide needed services from an outside entity fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide needed services from an outside entity for a resident needing transportation to a medically necessary appointment for one (#64) of one sampled residents who were reviewed for medical social service needs.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
Resident #64 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic kidney disease, dependence on renal dialysis, and type two diabetes.
Physician orders, dated 01/23/20, documented Dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/04/20, documented the resident may be sent to [hospital name deleted] for a fistulogram related to prolonged post treatment bleeding.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/06/20, documented the dialysis facility scheduled a fistulogram with [hospital name deleted] with a follow up appointment for Thursday 03/12/20 at 10:30 AM.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/18/20, documented the resident missed the appointment. The dialysis staff called the nursing home and reached the administrator. The administrator provided the dialysis facility with his phone number for the physician to coordinate care.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 03/27/20, documented a call was placed to the nursing home administrator to coordinate care and there was no answer.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 04/06/20, documented social services at the nursing home was contacted and made aware of how important it was for the resident to make the next scheduled appointment due to the severity of the issue.
A note from the named dialysis facility, dated 04/06/20, documented the patient was scheduled for a fistulogram at [hospital name deleted] on 04/09/20 at 7:30 AM. The note documented all appointment information was faxed to the nursing home social services director. The social services staff member was notified of the severity of the issues.
A patient appointment/care issue email from a dialysis staff, which was sent to staff in the dialysis center, dated 04/15/20, documented the dialysis center tried scheduling the resident for fistulograms and appointments in order to protect the resident's fistula. The email documented the nurse suspected significant stenosis. The email documented the physician and nurse had made several attempts to contact the facility to coordinate care with no return calls. The email documented the dialysis facility called the social service worker from the nursing home and she was resistant to take the resident to an appointment for fear of the COVID virus. The email also documented the social service worker stated the fistulogram was not necessary or essential to the resident's health. The email documented the resident was not taken to his appointment.
A progress note from the named dialysis center, dated 05/05/20, documented the team had been trying to have the patient's access checked before it fails. The resident had missed two appointments due to the director of nursing not arranging for the resident to be transported and saying it was not an essential procedure. The note documented the dialysis facility tried on multiple occasions to contact the facility and the nursing home administration did not return the calls.
The facility's appointment book was reviewed. There was no documentation the resident had been scheduled for transportation to any appointments.
The resident's clinical record was reviewed. There was no documentation found in the chart where the facility had documented problems with the fistula or communication with dialysis concerning issues with the fistula.
On 07/08/21 at 2:08 PM, the DON stated there were no appointments for the resident in 2020.
On 07/13/21 at 10:10 AM, the DON was asked if there were any transportation or appointments set up for the resident to go to for a fistulogram. The DON stated we can only provide you with that book. That is all we have.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #51 had diagnoses which included dementia.
A physician's order, dated 05/25/21, documented, .RisperDAL [antipsychot...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #51 had diagnoses which included dementia.
A physician's order, dated 05/25/21, documented, .RisperDAL [antipsychotic] .0.5 MG .at bedtime for .psychosis .
A physician's order, dated 05/25/21, documented, .RisperiDONE [antipsychotic] .0.25 MG .at bedtime for .psychosis .
The clinical record did not include documentation of the resident being monitored for behaviors to assess the effectiveness of the use of antipsychotic medication.
On 07/12/21 at 4:14 p.m., LPN #8 was asked how they monitored the effectiveness of antipsychotic medication. She stated they observed the resident for behavioral changes. She was asked how they were aware of what behaviors to observe the residents for. She stated they either observed for aggressive behaviors or the opposite, it depended on the resident. She was asked where they documented the behavior monitoring for the use of an antipsychotic. She stated they documented in the progress notes if the resident had behaviors and the documented on the daily charting on TAR under behavior monitoring. She showed me an example of a resident who had behavior monitoring documented on the TAR every shift. She was asked if all residents who take an antipsychotic have behavior monitoring assessed and documented. She stated they should. She was asked how they knew if the antipsychotic medication was effective. She stated all the staff observed for behaviors over a period of time.
On 07/14/21 at 1:55 p.m., the DON was asked how the staff monitored for the effectiveness of antipsychotic medication. She stated they observed and documented behaviors every shift. She was asked if the staff had monitored for the effectiveness of the antipsychotic medication risperidone for resident #51. She stated she did not see behavior monitoring in the clinical record.
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure:
~ behaviors were identified for the use of an antipsychotic medication for one (#115); and
~ monitoring for the effectiveness of the use of antipsychotic medication was completed for one (#51) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
1. Resident #115 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and delirium due to known physiological conditions.
An admission assessment, dated 06/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, and received an antipsychotic and an antidepressant medication for seven of seven days in the look back period.
The physician's orders, dated 06/23/21, documented the resident was to receive Zyprexa (an antipsychotic medication) twice a day for dementia with psychosis and Bupropion (an antidepressant) in the afternoon.
The treatment administration record, dated 06/2021, documented, BEHAVIOR MONITORING FOR: ()MEDICATION: Zyprexa DOCUMENT # OF TIMES RESIDENT HAS EXHIBITED THE ABOVE BEHAVIOR DURING SHIFT.
INTERVENTION CODES: 0)NONE; 1)1 on 1; 2)Activity; 3) Adjust room temperature; 4) Backrub; 5)Change position; 6) Give fluids; 7)Give food; 8) Redirect; 9)Remove resident from environment;
10)Return to room; 11)Toilet every shift DOCUMENT RESIDENT OUTCOME FOLLOWING INTERVENTION USING THE FOLLOWING CODES: I= IMPROVEMENT S= SAME W= WORSENED. There were no behaviors identified for staff to monitor.
On 07/12/21 at 4:02 p.m., the DON reviewed the treatment sheet and was asked about the lack of documented behaviors for staff to observe. She stated there should be behaviors documented so staff are aware of what behaviors should be monitored.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ a gradual dose reduction was acted upon and
~ a clinical rationale was documented by the physician with specifi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ a gradual dose reduction was acted upon and
~ a clinical rationale was documented by the physician with specific orders in response to a gradual dose reduction for the use of psychotropic medication for one (#45) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications.
The facility identified 70 residents who received medication in the facility.
Findings:
Resident #45 had diagnoses which included depression.
A Consultant Pharmacist/Physician Communication form, dated 06/17/20, documented, .receiving Lexapro 20mg. Per CMS regulations, please evaluate resident for trial dose reduction .Lexapro 10mg QD . The physician had signed and dated the form on 06/23/20. There was no physician/prescriber response documented.
A physician's order, dated 10/09/20, documented, .ESCITALOPRAM [antidepressant] 10 MG .1 .in the morning for Depression .Pharmacy Discontinued .01/27/21 .
A physician's order, dated 01/27/21, documented, .Escitalopram Oxalate [antidepressant] 20 MG .one time a day .MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER .
A Consultant Pharmacist/Physician Communication form, dated 05/19/21, documented, .Please evaluate and consider gradual dose reduction for antidepressant therapy. Escitalopram 20 mg QD [right arrow] Escitalopram 10 mg QD . No response was documented by the physician.
On 07/13/21 at 5:48 p.m., the DON was asked what their process was to ensure GDRs were acted upon timely by the physician. She stated she had recently taken it over and she contacted the physician when the GDR was written and they were acted upon the same week. She stated she made a copy of the GDR to ensure she received a response to each one. She stated the ADON would put the orders in the computer when the response was received. The ADON would then give the response to the DON so she could mark them as completed.
She was asked what they expected as an acceptable clinical rationale from the physician in response to a GDR. She stated if the physician was not going to honor the GDR recommendation, she expected a reason to be documented. She stated they needed justification to keep the resident on the current dose. She was asked if a GDR should have a physician's signature and no clinical rationale documented. She stated no.
She was asked what time frame she expected to receive a response to a GDR. She stated within the week the GDR was requested. She was asked what the GDR dated 06/17/20 requested related to the Lexapro. She stated a trial dose reduction of lexapro from 20 mg to 10 mg. She was asked what the response from the physician was on 06/23/21. She stated she did not see a response. She stated, I don't know what he was saying. She stated she could not find an order to know what dose the resident had been taking from the date of the GDR on 06/17/20 until the physician's order dated 10/09/20.
On 07/14/21 at 8:24 a.m., the DON was asked if they had received a response to the GDR dated 05/19/21 regarding the Escitalopram (antidepressant). She stated she was not able to locate a response to the GDR.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication administration o...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication administration observation error rate of less than 5% for 30 medications observed to be administered.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
1. Resident #56 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included parkinsons disease and pain unspecified.
A physician's order, dated 03/27/21, documented gabapentin capsule (cap) 100 mg give one capsule by mouth two times a day for neuropathy.
A nurse's note, dated 03/27/21, documented a new order from hospice for gabapentin 100 mg 2 cap by mouth two times a day (bid).
On 07/01/21 at 7:30 AM, CMA #2 was observed during a medication pass. She popped one pill bubble on the card which had two pills in the card bubble. The orders on the card read gabapentin cap 100 mg take two caps by mouth twice a day. There was a change of direction sticker observed on the card.
On 07/06/21 at 09:13 AM, the DON was asked to verify the card with two pills in the package. She was notified two pills were observed to be given during the medication pass observation. She was notified the error was identified after the medication orders on the electronic medical record were reconciled.
At 5:12 PM, the DON was asked if they had a physician's order for gabapentin 100 mg bid two tabs which was referenced in a nurse's note on 03/27/21.
At 5:32 PM, the DON stated there was no physician's order for the two gabapentin 100 mg bid on 03/27/21.
2. Resident #61 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, hemiplegia following cerebral infarction and dysphagia.
A physician's order, dated 06/01/21, documented flush PEG tube with 30 ml of water prior to medication pass, 10 ml between each medication and 60 ml after the medication pass.
On 07/01/21 at 8:25 AM, RN #1 was observed administering PEG medications during a medication pass. The RN was observed to flush with 30 ml after the medication administration.
At 9:54 AM, RN #1 was asked how he knew the orders for how much water to flush with before and after medication administration. He stated it was on the TAR. He was asked to review the TAR regarding the flush orders. He stated he had not seen the full order when he flushed after the medication for resident #61.
On 07/06/21 at 3:14 PM, the ADON was notified of the medication error rate, including the incorrect flush.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to
~ ensure the medication storage room was being monitored for temperature for one of one medication storage ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to
~ ensure the medication storage room was being monitored for temperature for one of one medication storage room and
~ medication carts were free of loose pills and expired medications for two of three medication carts observed for storage and labeling.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
On 06/30/21 at 3:50 PM, the DON and the surveyor observed the medication storage room. A small refrigerator was observed labeled as 210 which was locked for medication storage. Inside the refrigerator a locked box for cold narcotic storage was observed to not be affixed to the refrigerator. Dronabinol [cannabinoid] 5 mg cap 24 count was observed inside the locked box.
The refrigerator had latanoprost 0.005% eye drop which had an expiration date 04/2021.
On 06/30/21 at 4:33 PM, the medication room was observed to have had a thermometer, but no documentation the medication room was being monitored for temperature.
The DON was asked if the facility had a temperature log for the medication room. She stated they did not have a temperature log. The DON was asked if the narcotic medication storage box should be affixed to the refrigerator. She stated it should be affixed. She was asked if the latanoprost eye drop was expired. She stated it was expired.
On 07/06/21 at 10:50 AM, medication cart 400 was observed with LPN #3. The cart was observed to have three lose medications. The cart had sodium bicarbonate, magnesium 250 mg tabs and fexofenadine hydrochloride which all had expiration dates of 06/2021.
At 11:11 AM, LPN #1 was asked if the medications found on the cart were expired. She stated they were expired. The LPN notified the DON of the expired medications.
At 11:39 AM, LPN #3 was asked what the facilities process was for making sure medications which were expired were removed from the carts. She stated she did not know of a process. She stated the infection prevention nurse went through the carts last week or maybe the week before.
At 11:42 AM, the infection prevention nurse was asked what the facilities process was for making sure expired medications were removed from the medication carts. She stated there were three nurses which checked the carts once or twice a week. She was asked if the carts being checked was scheduled and documented anywhere. She stated they were not. She stated the pharmacy came out monthly and that was scheduled and documented. The carts had been checked by the pharmacy on the 23rd and the 27th of June.
At 11:55 AM, CMA #1 observed medication cart 300 with the surveyor. The cart was observed to have 10 loose pills. She was asked if the pills were appropriately stored and labeled. She stated they were not.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of ordered laboratory result...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of ordered laboratory results for one (#4) of six sampled residents who were reviewed for laboratory services.
The facility identified 70 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings:
Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified infectious disease, chronic kidney disease and urinary tract infections.
A nurse's note, dated 03/12/21 at 6:00 PM, documented the [hospital name deleted] called the resident on his personal phone stating you have some critical labs values and need to be taken to the hospital at once. Your potassium is high. The nurse note documented the resident came and told the charge nurse on the hall about the phone call. The note documented the resident was transported by ambulance to the ER.
A nurse's note, dated 03/12/21, documented the resident had critical labs increased potassium and was sent to the ER.
A nurse's note, dated 03/13/21 at 00:00 AM, documented the resident returned to the facility. The nurse's note documented the report from [hospital name deleted] the nurse stated that resident left AMA without completing the treatment and no paper work was given.
A nurse's noted, dated 03/13/2021 at 6:17 PM, documented the physician was in house and was notified that the resident left AMA from the hospital. The physician gave a new order for a stat bmp lab.
A physician's order, dated 03/13/21, documented stat BMP.
The BMP laboratory report, dated 03/14/21, documented high potassium level.
The clinical record did not include documentation the physician had been notified of the high potassium level.
On 07/14/21 at 3:50 PM, LPN #1 stated there was no documentation in the computer. She stated she checked the nurse notes and skilled notes. She said it was not documented the resident's physician had been notified of the laboratory test results.
On 07/15/21 at 12:35 PM, the corporate nurse stated the physician was not notified of lab values for 03/14/21 and should have been notified.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0802
(Tag F0802)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient dietary staff to serve the resident's in a timely manner for two of two meals ob...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient dietary staff to serve the resident's in a timely manner for two of two meals observed.
The facility identified 64 residents who received food from the kitchen.
Findings:
On 06/29/21 at 10:20 a.m., during the initial tour of the kitchen, the DM was asked what the facility's meal times were. She stated, 7:30 [a.m.], 11:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
At 11:55 a.m., during the lunch observation, the DM began to dish food onto plates to be placed on the hall carts.
At 1:05 p.m., the last plate was observed going out to the dining room.
On 07/06/21 at 12:45 p.m., the last hall tray was placed on the hall cart and sent out to the hall. At 12:46 p.m., the first dining room tray left the kitchen to be served. At 1:15 p.m., the last dining room tray was observed leaving the kitchen to be served.
On 07/08/21 at 8:50 a.m., a staff member was observed taking a breakfast tray into a res room on hall 600. Upon opening the hall meal cart, only one empty shelf was observed, they had just started serving breakfast hall trays.
On 07/14/21 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DM. She was asked what time meals were served. She stated 7:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
She was asked lunch was served so late on 06/29/21, which was the first day of the survey. She stated, It was just me and [cook #2 name deleted], just two people.
She was asked why the meal was late being served, on 07/06/21, the last tray was served at 1:15 p.m. She stated, I don't know about the dining room.
The DM was asked why breakfast was late on 07/08/21, they were still serving hall trays at 8:50 a.m. She did not respond. She was then asked what the process was and why breakfast would have been late. She stated, I don't know the hall tray situation and them serving.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for two of two meals observed.
The facility identified 64 residents who receiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for two of two meals observed.
The facility identified 64 residents who received food from the kitchen.
Findings:
The menu, provided for 06/29/21, documented the residents were to receive the following for lunch: .Buttered New Potatoes .Dinner Roll .Peanut Butter Pie .
On 06/29/21 at 11:55 a.m., cook #2 was observed removing the boiling new potatoes from the stove, draining the potatoes in a strainer over the sink, replacing the potatoes in the pan, placing the potatoes back on the stove and breaking them up with a potato masher, placing them in a steam table container and placing them on the steam table. No seasonings or butter were observed being placed in the potatoes before the DM was observed to dish the potatoes onto the plates for serving at 12:06 p.m.
At 12:06 p.m., the CD began to dish food onto plates to be placed on the hall carts. She was observed to place half a slice of white bread onto the plates (with the exception of the puree diets)instead of dinner rolls as listed on the menu. A large cooking sheet with baked, light golden brown, dinner rolls were observed on the stovetop.
At 1:05 p.m., the last plate was observed going out to the dining room. No dinner rolls were observed to have been served during this meal. At some point during the meal service, when the surveyor's back was turned, the dinner rolls on the stovetop disappeared.
At 1:21 p.m. resident #34 stated the food was never seasoned. He also stated there is no variety or alternatives, they even run out of food sometimes and they serve a snack for dinner. The food is never the same that the menu states we are going to have, this is frustrating.
On 06/30/21 at 9:52 a.m., resident #25 was asked if they get the food that is on the daily menu. She stated they just bring the food they want to bring us, we don't get the food that is on the menu.
The menu provided, for 07/07/21, documented the residents who received a mechanical soft diet were to receive soft fresh fruit for lunch.
On 07/07/21 at 11:17 a.m., the lunch trays were observed in the kitchen in the hall carts, on top of the hall carts and on the kitchen counter. All trays had the same desert, berries and cream on them. The puree diets had puree berries and cream.
On 07/14/21 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DM. She was asked what time meals were served. She stated 7:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
The DM was asked about the lunch service on 06/29/21, which was the first day of the survey. She was asked:
~ why they did not serve the hot rolls as listed on the menu. She stated, I burnt them,
~ where the rolls went, she stated they went in the trash,
~ why the residents did not receive the peanut butter pie listed on the menu. She stated, Probably because we didn't have the ingredients,
~ why no butter was added to the buttered new potatoes on the menu, she stated, I don't know. She [cook #2] usually follows her recipes.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 07/12/21 at 08:36 p.m., a CMA was observed help a resident call in for a pizza.
On 07/14/21 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was co...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 07/12/21 at 08:36 p.m., a CMA was observed help a resident call in for a pizza.
On 07/14/21 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DM. She was asked why no butter was added to the buttered new potatoes served for lunch on 06/29/21, she stated, I don't know. She [cook #2] usually follows her recipes.
The DM was asked about the puree prep and lunch meal observations on 07/06/21. She was asked:
~ why she had used beef broth instead of chicken broth to thin the puree chicken breast. She stated, The recipes say chicken or beef. She was informed that the beef broth had overpowered the chicken and tasted like beef instead of chicken. She was then asked if chicken broth should have been used instead, since she had it available (she had used it in the rice at the same meal). She did not respond,
~ why no seasoning was used in the green beans, as they had tasted bland with no seasoning detected. She stated she had used either Lowry's seasoning salt or Mrs. Dash and garlic. She then stated the residents were always complaining that there was either too much or not enough seasoning, and
~ why there had no ice observed in the ice tea glasses by the time the dining room was served lunch. She stated, I know, we try to put them in the freezer. That ice isn't doing good, we have a problem with that ice. It doesn't last long.
On 07/07/21 at 3:04 p.m., resident #59 was observed eating a meal from a local restaurant. She stated the meal was provided by her daughter. She stated she did not want to eat the lunch provided by the facility. The resident's noon meal tray was observed untouched on the counter.
Based on observations, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide food that was palatable for two of two meals observed.
The facility identified 64 residents who received food from the kitchen.
Findings:
On 06/29/21 at 10:50 a.m., resident #31 stated the food was not good.
At 11:13 a.m., both residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] stated they got very little food and it did not taste good.
At 11:43 a.m., resident #59 was asked how the food was at the facility. She stated it was terrible. She stated she would not eat the slop and she had her family bring in her food. She described the salad as all melted together with cheese. She stated they did not give you a choice and they always had scrambled eggs that were burned. She stated, Nine out of ten times the eggs are scorched.
At 12:33 p.m., the staff was observed to start passing the meal trays on hall 300. The tea was observed with melted ice on all trays.
At 12:35 p.m., a piece of chicken fried chicken and potatoes which only had a couple of bites eaten were observed on resident #31's lunch tray in his room. He stated, I only ate half, it's not good.
At 1:21 p.m., resident #34 stated the food was never seasoned. He stated the food did not taste good, they got the same vegetable at least three or four times a week and he was really tired of it.
At 3:45 p.m., during the initial interview, when asked about the food, resident #23 stated, The food is just awful. When asked for specifics, she stated the food was almost always overcooked or undercooked and the other morning the scrambled eggs were ice cold.
On 06/30/21 at 9:52 a.m., resident #25 was asked if there was anything on the alternative menu she could choose from. She stated there were three items they could choose if they did not like the food they were serving. They could have a sandwich, soup or salad and this was only if they had these items on hand. They often did not have the alternate items. She stated she did not like being limited to the same three items all the time. She stated if they chose the alternate items they had to wait longer than the scheduled meal time. She stated the food was not seasoned and did not taste good.
At 10:55 a.m., during the initial interview, when asked about the food, resident #3 stated the food was terrible. When asked for specifics, he stated the food was cold most of the time and the processed meat they served was not nutritious.
At 2:11 p.m., during the resident council meeting, the residents were asked how the food was. The residents stated, We don't get fried eggs anymore, we get a puddle of scrambled eggs. The residents were asked if the staff prepared the buttered potatoes with butter. They stated no, they did not have butter. The staff had told them they had a shortage of butter.
On 07/06/21 at 10:40 a.m., the DM was observed preparing the puree meal for lunch. She was observed placing four cooked chicken breasts, beef broth and thickener in the food processor. When finished, the surveyor tested the chicken and found that the beef taste from the broth overpowered the chicken to the point of not being able to identify the mixture as being chicken by taste. The DM then prepared the puree rice. She was observed placing chicken broth in the food processor with the rice. When tested the rice had a chicken flavoring which was pleasant for the main dish of chicken.
At 11:19 a.m., cook #2 was observed pouring tea in cups full of ice. At 12:46 p.m., when the first dining room tray went out of the kitchen, no ice was observed to remain in any of the cups of ice tea left for the dining room trays.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to:
provide alternates of similar nutritive value and are appealing to residents who request a different meal c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to:
provide alternates of similar nutritive value and are appealing to residents who request a different meal choice or chooses not to eat the food initially served for four (#22, 25, 34 and #59) of ____ sampled residents who were interviewed concerning food.
The facility identified 64 residents who received food from the kitchen.
Findings:
On 06/29/21 at 11:43 a.m., resident #59 was asked how the food was at the facility. She stated it was terrible. She stated they did not give you a choice and they always had scrambled eggs that were burned.
At 1:21 p.m., resident #34 stated they get the same vegetable at least three or four times a week and he gets really tired of it. He also stated there is no variety or alternatives
On 06/30/21 at 9:52 a.m., resident #25 was asked if there was anything on the alternative menu she could choose from. She stated there were three items they could choose if they did not like the food they were serving. They could have a sandwich, soup or salad and this was only if they had these items on hand. They often did not have the alternate items. She stated she did not like being limited to the same three items all the time. She stated if they chose the alternate items they had to wait longer than the scheduled meal time. She stated the food was not seasoned and did not taste good.
At 2:11 p.m., during the resident council meeting, the residents were asked how the food was. The residents stated, We don't get fried eggs anymore, we get a puddle of scrambled eggs.
On 07/08/21 at 9:55 a.m., res (#22) was observed in the dining room being assisted with breakfast by a nurse. His plate was observed to contain two sausage patties, and two hard boiled eggs. He stated, You know what would make a good breakfast, two fried eggs every morning.
On 07/14/21 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DM. She was asked about choices. She was asked:
~ how she decides what kind of cereal to give the resident since the menus read cereal of choice and few tray tickets stated what kind of cereal the residents liked. She stated they have oatmeal, cream of wheat and several kinds of cold cereal. She stated they knew what the residents liked and disliked,
~ how she determines what kind of eggs a resident wants, since the menu stated egg of choice and few tray tickets state what the resident liked. She stated they had scrambled and boiled eggs. She then stated they served fried eggs only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays,
~ how she determines whether a resident get sausage or bacon when the menu read one piece bacon or sausage and few tray tickets stated what the resident liked. She stated, We fix both and we know who likes what. She was asked about the serving size of one piece and if that was enough for most of the residents. She stated she served two pieces, and
~ how they determine if and what alternate a resident gets. She stated the alternate menus were available on the outside of the door. She was asked how the residents who eat in their rooms were to obtain the menus. She stated the CNAs supposed to go around and ask them.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ meals...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure
~ meals were served in a timely manner for two of two meal services observed,
~ snacks were offered between meals, and
~ substantial snacks were offered to all residents at bedtime when meals were served with greater than 14 hours between them.
The facility identified 64 residents who received food from the kitchen.
Findings:
On 06/29/21 at 10:20 a.m., during the initial tour of the kitchen, the DM was asked what the facility's meal times were. She stated, 7:30 [a.m.], 11:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
At 11:00 a.m., eight residents were observed in the television area outside the dining room (four were in positioning chairs and four were in wheelchairs). Two residents in wheelchairs were observed in the dining room sitting at tables.
At 12:46 p.m., the first hall tray was dished and placed on a hall cart. The last hall tray was dished and placed on a hall cart. The first dining room plate was dished and out to the dining room at this time.
At 1:05 p.m., the last tray left the kitchen for the dining room.
At 1:21 p.m., resident #34 stated the food was never seasoned. He stated he rarely got an evening snack.
On 07/06/21 at 12:45 p.m., the last hall tray was placed on the hall cart and sent out to the hall. At 12:46 p.m., the first dining room tray left the kitchen to be served. At 1:15 p.m., the last dining room tray was observed leaving the kitchen to be served.
On 07/07/21 at 8:40 a.m., two small (shoe box sized) plastic containers were observed on the stainless steel table in the kitchen outside the dry storage room. One contained cheese crackers, oatmeal pies, fig newtons and a puree snack labeled as A.M. snack for res #38.
The other contained cheese crackers labeled as AM snack for res #59, an oatmeal pie labeled as AM snack for res #47 and #12.
At 11:40 a.m., four oatmeal pies were observed on the hall 600 medication cart, labeled as AM snacks for specific residents, with one also stating 3 oz ham/cheese sandwich and one stating 3 oz chocolate health shake typed on the labels. No sandwiches or health shakes were observed on the cart.
At 2:15 p.m., four afternoon snacks were observed on the hall 600 treatment cart of which one was labeled as an hs snack for a specific res.
At 2:20 p.m., res #3 was observed sleeping in bed with no snacks observed on his bedside or over the bed tables. Upon exiting the room, six labeled afternoon snacks were observed on the hall 400 med cart. None were for res #3 who has a dx of diabetes mellitus type 2.
At 3:04 p.m., resident #59 was asked how the staff provided snacks. She stated they did not provide a snack unless her blood sugar test was low. A physician's order for resident #59, dated 03/15/21, documented, .Snack two times a day .Morning and Afternoon snack time .
At 3:08 p.m., res #3 was observed sleeping with no snacks at bedside. His roommate was observed watching TV with no facility snacks observed at his bedside. Upon leaving the room, no snacks were observed on any of the four carts observed parked in the hallway. Walked the length of the hallway with no snacks observed in any of the rooms with their doors opened.
At 3:15 p.m., entered the room of res #23 and observed three packs of fig newtons on her over the bed table. Asked the resident if the staff brought her snacks. She stated, No, I have to go find them. When asked where and when she found the fig newtons, she stated, On a nurses cart .today. All three had labels with other residents' names.
On 07/08/21 at 8:50 a.m., a staff member was observed taking a breakfast tray into a res room on hall 600. Upon opening the hall meal cart, only one empty shelf was observed, they had just started serving breakfast hall trays.
At 9:55 a.m., res (#John [NAME]) was observed in the dining room being assisted with breakfast by a nurse. His plate was observed to contain two sausage patties, and two hard boiled eggs. He stated, You know what would make a good breakfast, two fried eggs every morning.
At 10:05 a.m., res #3 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. When asked what he had for breakfast, he stated, I had one piece of sausage this morning .I ate the sausage only.
At 10:10 a.m., res #23 was observed coming out of her bathroom with her walker. When asked what she had for breakfast, she stated she had one sausage patty and did not eat any of her breakfast. When asked what her breakfast preference was, she stated, Bacon.
At 10:57 a.m., snacks were brought down hall 300 by dietary. Resident #115 was asked if he had received a snack. He stated no. The therapist in the room stated he was not provided a snack.
At 10:58 a.m., six labeled snacks were observed on the 400 hall med cart. There was no snack observed for res #3 who has a dx of DM.
At 11:07 a.m., no snacks were observed on any of the hall 600 carts or in any of the rooms on the hall with their doors open. One resident had a large can of Pringles chips and a soda sitting on his over the bed table.
At 2:20 p.m., no snacks were observed on any of the hall 400 carts. Res #3 was not in his room, no snacks were observed on his bedside or over the bed table.
At 2:21 p.m., dietary staff was observed to have snacks in her hand to pass out. She started to go down hall 300 but looked at the three snacks and stated they were for hall 400. She did not go down the hall.
Resident #115 and #9 were asked if they were offered a snack. They stated no, but they would like one. Resident #9 also requested a cup of coffee to go with his snack.
At 2:25 p.m., no snacks eerie observed on the bedside or over the bed table for resident #23. When asked if she had been offered an afternoon snack, she stated she hadn't asked for one. She then stated that unless you asked for one, they did not offer snacks.
Upon leaving the room, a plastic box was observed on the hall 600 med cart. There were four labeled snacks, none were for resident #23 and two unlabeled oatmeal pies in the box.
At 2:46 p.m., resident #59 was asked if she had received an afternoon snack. She stated, Yes, they have been bringing them since you have been here. She was asked how many days she had received the morning and afternoon snack recently. She stated, How many days have you been here? She stated the staff did not always offer/pass the snacks.
On 07/12/21 at 7:04 p.m., a tray of snacks was taken out by LPN #10
At 7:26 p.m., the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was asked if he had been provided a snack. He stated no, those crackers were brought to him by family.
At 7:45 p.m., dietary staff brought a clear bucket of snacks and placed on the treatment cart on hall 300.
At 7:49 PM, staff placed snacks on a cart which was setting on hall 400. The cart had snacks which included sandwiches with roast beef, peanut butter or cheese crackers, juice and star crunch bars.
At 7:56 PM, the staff on the hall was passing medications and went into room [ROOM NUMBER] and offered a snack. The resident asked for a banana but was told the cart did not have banana. She was given two packages of cheese crackers.
At 8:03 p.m., resident #9 was provided a snack and his roommate resident #115 was not offered one. The resident was asked if he was offered a snack. He stated no, but he would like one.
A snack was observed on the bedside table of resident #60. The table was out of reach for the resident.
At 8:19 p.m., snacks were left outside room on hall 400 and not offered to residents.
At 8:36 p.m., the staff member on the hall provided resident #4 with ice, but she did not provide the resident with a snack. She then took the snacks off the hall to the kitchen area. A few minute later she brought the snacks back to the hall. She pushed the cart down hall 400 and left them setting on the cart.
From 8:54 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., the residents in rooms 403, 404, 405, 407, 413 and 414 were observed to be awake in their rooms watching TV and could have been offered a snack.
On 07/14/21 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DM. She was asked what time meals were served. She stated 7:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
The DM was asked why the the lunch service on 06/29/21, which was the first day of the survey, was so late. She stated, It was just me and [cook #2 name deleted], just two people.
The DM was asked why the lunch service was late being served on 07/06/21, the last tray was served at 1:15 p.m. She stated, I don't know about the dining room.
The DM was asked why breakfast was late on 07/08/21, they were till serving hall trays at 8:50 a.m. She did not respond. She was then asked what the process was and why breakfast would have been late. She stated, I don't know the hall tray situation and them serving.
The DM was asked about snacks. She was asked:
~ what the process was for snacks. She stated they were to give the snacks to the nurses and they passed them out,
~ what time the snacks were offered. She stated, 10 [a.m.], 2 [p.m.] and 7 [p.m.],
~ who received snacks. She stated, Special people, like diabetes or low weight get them [and] everyone by 7:00 [p.m.] or so,
~ what kind of substantial snacks were offered to everyone at bedtime. She stated, Oatmeal pies, cheese crackers, applesauce, [NAME] Krispies treats, sometimes peanut butter sandwiches and left over desserts,
~ what kind of substantial snacks with protein were offered. She stated, I give yogurt [and] cheese and crackers,
~ what was the maximum length of time between meals without a substantial snack being offered to everyone. She did not give a response. When informed it was 14 hours, she stated, No, I never knew that. She was asked how many hours were between their evening meal and breakfast. After pausing a moment, she stated, Eight? She was informed it was 14.5 or 15 depending upon whether the meal times she told the surveyors upon entrance or at the beginning of this interview were used.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement an effective infection control program to prevent the spread of potential infections for one (#115...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement an effective infection control program to prevent the spread of potential infections for one (#115) of 23 sampled residents reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure staff:
~ washed their hands after performing incontinent care and,
~ properly doff an isolation gown after the provision of incontinent care for one (#115) of one sampled residents who was on transmission based precaution and was provided incontinent care.
The facility identified one resident who was on transmission based precautions.
Findings:
The facility policy for COVID-19, Prevention and Control documented, .1. During the care of any resident, facility staff shall adhere to standard precautions, which are the foundation for preventing the transmission of infectious agents in all healthcare settings. The facility will attempt to provide consistent staff assignments to the identified area and/or COVID-10 positive residents.
2. Hand Hygiene: a. Staff will perform hand hygiene frequently, including before and after resident contact, contact with potentially infectious material, and before putting on and upon removal of personal protective equipment, including gloves .
Resident #115 had diagnoses which included non Alzheimer's dementia, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and, delirium due to known physiological condition.
The admission assessment, dated 06/30/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assistance of two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, dressing and toilet use. The assessment also documented he required limited assistance with one staff member for personal hygiene, was always incontinent of his bowel and bladder, had a multi drug resistant organism.
On 07/06/21 at 10:15 a.m., CNA #1 and #2 were observed to don isolation gowns outside of the room for resident #115.
At 10:18 a.m., the CNAs were observed to lay the resident down and remove his brief. There was feces observed coming out of the brief and on the bed linens.
At 10:19 a.m., LPN #9 was asked to bring in clean linens. The CNAs cleaned the feces from the front peri area, turned the resident to his left side and placed a new sheet and bed pad under the resident while using the same gloves.
At 10:26 a.m., the resident was rolled to his right side and staff continued to make the bed and place a new brief on the resident. CNA #2 at this time changed her gloves without sanitizing. CNA #1 went to the wheelchair , which had dirty linens laying on the footrests. She placed the linens on the floor and brought the wheelchair to the bedside. After dressing the resident, the CNAs assisted the resident into his wheelchair by grabbing under each arm and the back of his sweatpants.
CNA #2 untied the top of her isolation gown and pulled the front away from her part of the way and began loosely rolling up the gown with the bottom of the gown flapping as it was rolled up part way and then placed in the trash can with the lower end of the gown hanging out of the trash can.
CNA #1 then pulled the front of the isolation gown and began to roll up backward with the bottom flapping and placed the gown in the trash can with the end hanging out. She did not roll the gown into a ball to place all of it in the trash can.
At 10:42 a.m., CNA #2 was observed to wash her hands, but there were no paper towels in the room to dry her hands.
At 10:43 a.m., CNA #1 obtained the linens off of the floor and brought them over to the soiled bag of linens which were at the residents bedside. She placed the clothes on the floor as she untied the bag of soiled linens. She placed the dirty linens in the bag. She tied up the bag, removed her gloves and transported the soiled linens to the dirty utility room. The CNA was not observed to wash her hands.
At 10:45 a.m., CNA #1 was asked if she had been trained in doffing and donning PPE and infection control procedures. She stated she had been trained, but not at that facility.
At 10:50 a.m., CNA #2 was asked if she had been trained in doffing and donning of PPE. She stated yes. The IP approached and provided education on how to properly doff PPE and dispose of in the trash.
The IP was asked how she monitors staff for compliance in ICP. She stated she provides in-services and would go out on the halls and monitor at least two times a week for observations. She was asked if she had support from management to assist is the provision of ICP and adherence to the practices. She stated the director and administrator provide support to help ensure the CDC / CMS (Centers For Disease Control / Centers for Medicare and Medicaid) guidelines were provided. If concerns were identified with ongoing staff, they would be educated as needed for re-enforcement in ICP. She stated the director of nursing had only been there for 2 weeks. She was asked how long she had worked at the facility. She stated she had been there for three years.
At 11:22 a.m., the director of nursing was informed of the observations. She stated it was a teaching moment and the facility would re-educate the staff on ICP.
On 07/07/21 at 12:05 p.m.,, the IP was asked how she educated staff on ICP and identified trends in IC concerns. She stated she educated staff if there were identified concerns with handwashing, catheter care.