SHAWN MANOR NURSING HOME

2024 TURNER ROAD, PONCA CITY, OK 74604 (580) 765-3364
For profit - Corporation 96 Beds CONHOLD Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#26 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Shawn Manor Nursing Home in Ponca City, Oklahoma, has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #26 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 4 in Kay County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility's performance trend is stable, with three reported issues in both 2023 and 2024. Staffing is average with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 48%, which is better than the state average of 55%, suggesting some staff longevity. While the nursing home has no fines on record and provides more RN coverage than 92% of other facilities, there have been serious incidents, including a resident with cognitive impairments being found in a closed room with another resident, leading to inappropriate behavior. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
C+
60/100
In Oklahoma
#26/282
Top 9%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Holding Steady
3 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2024: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Oklahoma avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: CONHOLD

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

4 actual harm
Nov 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurately coded for two (#3 and #5) of 13 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The DON identified f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurately coded for two (#3 and #5) of 13 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The DON identified four residents who were ordered antiplatelet medications and five residents who were ordered anticoagulant medications. Findings: 1. Resident #3 had diagnoses which included heart failure and long term use of anticoagulant medication. Review of the October 2024 medication administration record did not reveal the resident had received an anticoagulant medication. A physician's order, dated 10/11/24, documented the resident was ordered clopidogrel (an antiplatelet medication) 75mg daily. The admission assessment, dated 10/17/24, documented the resident received an anticoagulant medication. The assessment did not indicate an antiplatelet medication had been received. 2. Resident #5 had diagnoses which included atherosclerotic heart disease. A physician's order, dated 06/23/23, documented the resident was ordered clopidogrel 75mg daily. Review of the September 2024 medication administration record did not reveal the resident had received an anticoagulant medication. The quarterly assessment, dated 09/29/24, documented the resident received an anticoagulant medication. The assessment did not indicate an antiplatelet medication had been received. On 11/19/24 at 10:55 a.m., the MDS coordinator reviewed the assessments for Resident #3 and Resident #5 and stated they had coded the residents were on anticoagulant medications because they thought clopidogrel was an anticoagulant. On 11/19/24 at 11:00 a.m., the DON stated clopidogrel should be coded as an antiplatelet on the assessments for Resident #3 and Resident #5.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the food service supervisor completed certification as a certified dietary manager within three years of beginning employment per St...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the food service supervisor completed certification as a certified dietary manager within three years of beginning employment per State requirement. The administrator identified 26 residents resided in the facility and 23 residents received services from the kitchen. Findings: The Food Services Manager policy, revised 10/08, read in part, The Food Services Manager is a qualified supervisor licensed by this state. The DM was hired on 11/13/2015. There was no documentation the DM had completed certification as a certified dietary manager. On 11/18/24 at 1:07 p.m., the DM stated they had been in the dietary manager role for 9 years. They stated they completed the dietary manager training, but had not taken the exam for the certification. On 11/19/24 at 10:35 a.m., the administrator stated the DM had been in their role since 2015. They stated the DM did not have their certification.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to adhere to enhanced barrier precautions for: a. one (#9) of one sampled resident reviewed for a urinary catheter; and b. one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to adhere to enhanced barrier precautions for: a. one (#9) of one sampled resident reviewed for a urinary catheter; and b. one (#14) of one sampled resident observed for medication administration via peg tube. The administrator identified 26 residents resided in the facility and 11 residents were on enhanced barrier precautions. Findings: An undated ENHANCED BARRIER PRECAUTIONS facility policy, read in part, Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include: Device care or use .urinary catheter, feeding tube. 1. Resident #9 had diagnoses which included benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. A physician's order, dated 05/31/24, documented enhanced barrier precautions for an indwelling medical device three times a day for infection control. Resident #9's care plan for EBP, revised 07/22/24 documented the resident was on EBP related to their suprapubic catheter. It documented staff only had to wear gowns and gloves when touching the resident or body fluids in the resident's room. On 11/19/24 at 8:51 a.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 entered Resident #9's room. They provided privacy. Both CNAs donned gloves and changed the resident's shirt. CNA #1 and CNA #2 transferred the resident to their bed using a lift. On 11/19/24 at 8:56 a.m., CNA #1 provided peri care with the assistance of CNA #2. LPN #1 put cream on the resident's buttocks. CNA #1 and LPN #1 changed gloves. A new brief was put on the resident. Resident #9 was repositioned in bed. All three staff removed gloves and exited room. Trash was removed. LPN #1 stated they would be back to complete catheter care. CNA #1, CNA #2, and LPN #1 did not wear a gown during the provision of care. Resident #9 had a suprapubic catheter. There was a wood dresser inside the resident's room by the door with a sticker on top labeled enhanced barrier precautions. The drawer had face masks, sanitizer, and gowns. A box of large gloves hung above the dresser on the wall in the room. A box of medium gloves hung on the wall outside resident's door. On 11/19/24 at 9:02 a.m., LPN #1 went into Resident #9's room to complete catheter care. Privacy was provided. On 11/19/24 at 9:04 a.m., LPN #1 flushed Resident #9's catheter with 60 ml of uric acid. They changed their gloves and removed the old split gauze from the pubic catheter site. LPN #1 cleansed the site and catheter tubing with cleanser and changed their gloves. They applied a new split gauze and tape. They removed their gloves, adjusted the resident, and took the trash out. LPN #1 did not wear a gown during catheter care. On 11/19/24 at 10:12 a.m., CNA #1 stated the facility process for EBP was to wash hands, wear a gown, gloves, and a face mask. On 11/19/24 at 10:13 a.m., CNA #1 stated EBP signs were posted on resident doors and carts were placed outside of resident rooms. They stated Resident #9 was on EBP. On 11/19/24 at 10:14 a.m., CNA #1 stated they did not wear a gown during the provision of care for Resident #9. They stated they should had worn a gown. On 11/19/24 at 10:15 a.m., LPN #1 stated the resident was on EBP for the suprapubic catheter. They stated they were to use gloves and hand sanitizer during care of the resident. On 11/19/24 at 10:16 a.m., LPN #1 stated they did not wear a gown during the provision of care for the resident. They stated a gown was worn for Covid-19, influenza, and airborne precautions. On 11/19/24 at 10:18 a.m., LPN #1 read the EBP sign on Resident #9's dresser. They stated they should have worn a gown. 2. Resident #14 had diagnoses which included gastrostomy status. A Physician Order, dated 05/31/24, documented the resident was on EBP for an indwelling medical device. The Care Plan, dated 06/19/24, documented the resident was on EBP for the presence of a feeding tube. On 11/19/24 at 8:53 a.m., a nightstand inside the door of Resident #14's room was observed to contain PPE and had signage which indicated the resident was on EBP. On 11/19/24 at 9:28 a.m., LPN #1 was observed to administer medications via peg tube to Resident #14. LPN #1 was observed to don gloves, but was not observed to utilize a gown. On 11/19/24 at 9:46 a.m., LPN #1 was observed to perform peg tube care for Resident #14. LPN #1 was observed to don gloves but was not observed to utilize a gown. On 11/19/24 at 10:19 a.m., LPN #1 stated they were supposed to wear a gown and gloves when residents were on EBP. They stated they had only utilized gloves, but should have donned a gown as well when they had provided medications and peg tube care for Resident #14. On 11/19/24 at 10:22 a.m., the DON/IP stated any resident who had an indwelling medical device were on EBP. The DON stated staff were to utilize gowns, gloves, and eye protection if there was a risk of splash, for residents who were on EBP.
Nov 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to perform range of motion and positioning for one (#12) of one resident whose clinical records were reviewed for range of motio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to perform range of motion and positioning for one (#12) of one resident whose clinical records were reviewed for range of motion and positioning. The DON identified two residents with orders for range of motion and positioning. Findings: On 10/31/23 at 2:30 p.m., Resident #12 was observed in bed. The resident's left hand was observed with fingers drawn in. There was no positioning device or hand roll positioned within the left hand. On 11/01/23 at 9:04 a.m., Resident #12 was observed in their room. The resident's fingers of their left hand were drawn in. The resident denied the facility provided range of motion and denied the facility used a hand roll or other positioning device to position the fingers of the left hand. On 11/01/23 at 11:15 a.m., Resident #12 was observed in their room. The resident's fingers of their left hand were drawn in and there was no hand roll or other positioning device to position the fingers of the left hand. On 11/01/23 at 2:55 p.m., Resident #12 was observed in their room. The resident's fingers of their left hand were drawn in and there was no hand roll or other positioning device to position the fingers of the left hand. On 11/02/23 at 8:35 a.m., Resident #12 was observed in their room. The resident's fingers of their left hand were drawn in and there was no hand roll or other positioning device to position the fingers of the left hand. On 11/02/23 at 12:55 p.m., Resident #12 was observed in their room. The resident's fingers of their left hand were drawn in and there was no hand roll or other positioning device to position the fingers of the left hand. The order summary, dated 11/02/23 at 2:26 p.m., read in part, .cleanse bilateral hands with warm water and soap, dry thoroughly, place and maintain [positioning device] or hand roll in Left Hand only with gentle ROM including extension to fingers and wrist of both hands as tolerated, every 6 hours as needed for prevention . On 11/02/23 at 3:10 p.m., LPN #1 was asked if Resident #5 received range of motion and positioning aides for their left hand. The LPN stated the resident was not receiving therapy and there was no order for nursing to do it. On 11/02/23 at 3:25 p.m., LPN #2 was asked if Resident #5 received range of motion and positioning aides for their left arm. The LPN stated the resident was not currently receiving therapy and there was no order for nursing to provide range of motion and positioning for Resident #5 since the resident had moved halls more than a year ago. On 11/02/23 at 3:38 p.m., the DON was asked if the facility had a restorative program. The DON stated no. The DON was asked if nursing provided range of motion and positioning for residents. The DON stated the nurse aides provided some range of motion. The DON was asked if Resident #5 received the warm water washes and positioning aide for their left hand. The DON reviewed the orders and treatment sheets and stated no. The DON stated the order for range of motion and positioning was not entered as a routine order so did not come up on the computer for nursing to provide. The DON stated to prevent contractures, any order for range of motion and positioning needed to be routine.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to create a water management plan for the prevention of waterborne pathogens for the facility. The Administrator stated 29 residents resided a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to create a water management plan for the prevention of waterborne pathogens for the facility. The Administrator stated 29 residents resided at the facility. Findings: A Legionella Surveillance and Detection policy, revised date 09/23 read in part .Legionellosis outbreaks are generally linked to locations where water is held or accumulates and pathogens can reproduce . On 11/02/23 at 10:20 a.m., the Administrator stated they knew of the requirement for a water management plan and had attended a seminar on the subject, but had not yet begun to develop the plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0571 (Tag F0571)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed ensure the co-pay charged to a resident account did not exceed the Medicaid payment limit for one (Resident #5) of four resident whose monies ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed ensure the co-pay charged to a resident account did not exceed the Medicaid payment limit for one (Resident #5) of four resident whose monies were held in the resident trust. The Administrator identified 20 residents who received Medicaid and 17 residents whose monies were held in the facility trust. Findings: Resident #5 had diagnoses which included bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. On 10/31/23 at 3:07 p.m., Resident #5 stated they received $50.00 a month for personal funds. The trust transaction history, dated 11/02/23, documented the resident received $1854.00 per month and paid $112.00 a month for a medical supplement and $1677.00 to the facility as their vendor payment for a total of $1789.00 in payments, leaving the resident with $65.00 per month for their personal funds. On 11/02/23 at 11:50 a.m., the administrator stated residents' who received Medicare and Medicaid would have $75.00 in personal funds after supplement payment and vendor payment. The administrator stated they did not know why Resident #5 only received $65.00 in personal funds but would review the account with the business office manager. On 11/02/23 at 1:15 p.m., the administrator stated the resident's funds were garnished for life by Medicare for overpayment. The administrator was asked to provide legal documentation of the lifetime garnishment. No documentation of garnishment was provided by the end of the survey.
Sept 2022 16 deficiencies 4 Harm
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read in parts, ~ had severe cognitive impact; ~ inattentive behavior with fluctuations; ~ disorganized thinking, present with fluctuations; and ~ altered level of conciousness, present with fluctuations. A Nurse's Note dated, [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., read in part, .Late Entry: Note Text: DELAYED ENTRY: [Resident #32] was found visiting .[Resident #85] in [Resident #85's] room with the door shut. Informed by nurse it is fine to visit, but the door has to remain open. [Resident #32] shortly returned to .own room where .[Resident #85] followed and closed the door again. When nurse returned to room and opened door .[Resident #85] hands were groping at [Resident #32's ] lap asking why not and [Resident #32] was heard stating no because my pants are too tight. [Resident #32] informed that [Resident #85] is .married .and became upset stating that [Resident #85] lied to [Resident #32] and [Resident #32] informed [Resident #85] [they] didn't want anything to do with [Resident #85] anymore. [Resident #32's family] informed of the interaction . The clinical record contained no documentation an incident report had been completed. The clinical record contained no documentation an investigation had been completed for resident to resident sexual abuse. The clinical record contained no documentation the event had been thoroughly investigated, interventions placed to ensure protection of the residents, or that reporting had been initiated to OSDH and/or Local Law Enforcement. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked if an investigation had been completed for the incident on [DATE] involving Resident #32 and a male resident. The DON stated, I talked with all involved, the [resident #85], the female [resident #32], and [Resident #32's family member]. Spoke with CNA and nurse. The DON was asked did [Resident #85] have any more incidents with any other residents. The DON stated, It was stated, [Resident #85] went into [Resident #25's] room on [DATE]. Based on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for four of six residents reviewed for abuse. a. Three residents (#85, 25,and #32) were identified to be involved with resident to resident sexual encounters, to include touching, petting, and groping. b. One resident (#22) was identified to have physical aggression toward other residents, to include hitting, scratching, and attempting to run into residents while propelling self in hallway. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents identified 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's, undated, Abuse and Neglect - Administrative Protocol policy, read in parts, .residents of this facility will be free of abuse, neglect . Prevention .will provide protection of residents in the case of any allegations of abuse, neglect .conduct any investigations in a timely manner . Identify .recognize and report any and all signs of abuse, neglect .teach the staff signs to identify abuse . Protect .will act immediately to protect the resident when being notified of any allegation .will take measures as appropriate to protect one resident from another, on a case by case basis . 1. Resident #85 had diagnosis to include cerebral infarction, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and cognitive communication deficit. An admission assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #85 as follows: ~had clear speech, was understood and understood others; ~moderate cognitive impairment for daily decision making; ~inattentive, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness that did not fluctuate; ~no behaviors; ~required limited assistance for bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, toileting, hygiene and bathing; and ~utilized a w/c for mobility and locomotion. The [DATE] physician orders did not document any identified targeted behaviors to monitor. A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 10:00 p.m., read in parts, .has been observed exhibiting flirtatious and hypersexualized behaviors throughout the weekend with peers to include getting close to individuals, groping peer in .room behind closed doors even after being informed by nurse if [Resident #85] is visiting doors must remain open. Resident was found with hands in the lap of a peer tugging on .pants asking why not. As the weekend progressed it has been stated by another resident that [Resident #85] was present in their room and giving unwanted attention. Redirection attempted by staff bringing up the topic of resident's wife or asking resident if he'd like to go on a walk in the building to go visit the birds. Redirection attempts appeared to work well . The clinical record contained no other documentation of flirtatious/hypersexualized behaviors. A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 6:47 a.m., documented Resident #85 had expired. The only comprehensive care plan, dated [DATE], provided by the facility, did not identify or address hypersexuality, other behaviors, or the history of behaviors. The clinical record did not document how the peer/residents were protected when Resident #85 exhibited flirtatious and hypersexualized behaviors. The clinical record did not document the resident to resident behaviors had been reported to supervisors or that an abuse investigation was initiated. The incident was not reported to OSDH or local law enforcement. On [DATE] at 10:56 a.m., in the presence of the administrator and Consultant #3, the DON was asked to review Resident #85's nurse notes dated [DATE]. The DON was asked if the DON was aware of the entry. The DON stated, Eventually. The DON was asked if the allegation was investigated. The DON stated the facility did an investigation and the event did not appear as described in the nurse's documentation. The DON was asked where were the investigative notes and the incident reports. The DON stated the nurse that documented the event should have completed the incident report. The DON stated we talked to other staff that was on the shift the progress note was entered and there were conflicting stories. The DON was asked what residents were identified during their investigations. The DON stated Resident #32 was the first person, but the door was opened. The second resident identified was Resident #25. Resident #25 reported resident #85 had come into Resident #25's room briefly and left. Resident #25 had reported to therapy and paid no concern. The DON stated Resident #85 had a history to wander. The DON was asked what interventions were put into place to protect the residents. The DON did not respond. The DON was asked what the facility's abuse policy documented should be put into place. The DON stated, Investigate. Report it. Notify family, doctor and state. The nurse should have notified the DON immediately. The DON was asked if the facility followed their abuse policy for reporting. No response was provided. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked when should the event have been reported. Consultant #3 stated the event should have been reported within 24 hour, maybe 2 hours. The DON stated the facility talked to all individuals involved and the families were made aware. At 11:10 a.m., the BOM entered the interview. The DON was asked if Resident #85 had been assessed and care planned for dementia with behaviors. The BOM stated the behavior notes were in hospital records. At 11:35, the administrator, DON and the MDS coordinator were asked when did they become aware of the entry on Resident #85's record. The DON stated on Monday when the records were reviewed for weekend issues. They were asked if the facility had followed their policy to prevent abuse/neglect. The DON stated, No. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked, when the allegation was identified, what was put into place to protect all residents during and after the investigation. Consultant #3 stated the nurse note documented the staff redirected Resident #85. They were asked if the staff did continuous monitoring of Resident #85 to ensure the safety of other residents. No response was provided. 2. Resident #25 had diagnoses to include anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and PTSD. A quarterly assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 as follows: ~clear speech, usually understood, usually understands; ~cognitively intact for daily decision making; ~is inattentive, had disorganized thinking and altered level of consciousness that does not fluctuate; and ~had delusion. A care plan, dated [DATE], documented as follows: ~ .Depression .orders per my PCP for an antidepressant .observe me for decline in mood, increase in self isolation, depression .Report to Nurse/PCP s/sx of depression, including .verbalizing negative statements, repetitive anxious or health-related complaints . ~ .Antipsychotic .order .for antipsychotic medication brexiprazole .Report to nurse s/sx .confusion, mood change, change in normal behavior, hallucination/delusion . ~ .Delusional .at risk for delusional episodes .history of altered memories of recent events and feelings of being exploited .establish baseline level of functioning .Discuss with me and my family any concerns about delusions .Monitor and address environmental factors recent change in environment, environmental noise and commotion .Monitor and report to MD new onset s/sx of delusional episodes .delusions, hallucinations .Monitor my safety daily .sometimes because of my delusional thinking, I don't feel safe .attempt to remind me of known facts . The care plan did not address specific delusions held by Resident #25. A provider Progress Note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note documented Resident #25 was to be evaluated by mental health services due to increase of anxiety and taking two medications to improve anxiety. A provider Progress Note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .talking all about her last couple months of medical problems, but her stories do not make sense .ambulance personnel picked her up on a fire truck along with a lot of dancing girls . A second, provider Progress Note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was being seen as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .states that this last weekend she had a situation that she did not want to talk about it, but she states that she thought this was her safe haven and now she is not sure. She states that this event triggered her PTSD . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:30 a.m., read in parts, .approximately 10:45 [a.m.] resident requested to speak to nurse and ended up confiding in CMA that a peer at this facility entered her room the day prior during the morning and proceded to grope her breasts and other inappropriate behaviors while she was in bed. Resident stated that her peer told her he would return to do more later. Resident verbalized being scared to be viewed as a snitch, and scared of causing trouble because she doesn't want to be kicked out of the facility. Resident reassured her concerns are not being taken lightly. Resident informed that the facility's chain of command has been notified. Resident stated the incident triggered her PTSD to a similar event in her life that occurred in 2005. Resident also later confided in her daughter. Nurse informed the daughter that the DON and administrator have been notified and the situation is on going, but is being taken seriously. Resident has cried several times throughout the day when recounting the event. Resident is also requesting a 'stop sign' in front of her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 7:30 a.m., read in parts, .This nurse was informed of an incident that took place on Saturday 8/13 .asked the resident about the incident .stated she was up in wheelchair when the male came into her room .he touched her chest when stating cold hands warm heart .memory of the situation was different than the previous chart entry .like the stop sign reminder placed on her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:14 p.m., read in parts, .Resident was adamant .did not receive her gabapentin .contacted evening shift charge to confirm if medication was given .Due to uncertainty and the medication being documented as given night shift did not administer the medication . The nurse progress notes contained no other documentation of behaviors or delusions, prior to the resident to resident sexual altercation with Resident #85 on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 1:15 p.m., Resident #25 was asked if it was okay to discuss an encounter she had briefly mentioned previously the day before regarding a male resident having entered her room. Resident #25 agreed to the interview. Resident #25 was asked if Resident #25 recalled having mentioned a male resident that came into Resident #25's room. Resident #25 stated she did and identified Resident #85. Resident #25 stated Resident #85 had entered the room and at first patted her hand and told her that her hands were cold. Resident #25 stated a reply was made, Cold hands, Warm heart. At that time, Resident #85 grabbed the breast of Resident #25. Resident #25 stated a history of PTSD due to having been raped, beaten and left in an apartment alone to die, so the event was very upsetting. Resident #25 stated she felt comfortable to report to the physical therapist and a certain nurse aide. Resident #25 stated the DON came and visited about the event and Resident #25 had voiced the event was frightening. Resident #25 stated no further information had been shared regarding the incident so was not aware if the facility had taken care of the issue. Resident #25 was asked if there were any other persons at the facility she was afraid of, leery of, or concerned about. Resident #25 stated there had not been a personal encounter or observation but other female residents had warned to watch out for [Resident #27]. Resident #25 stated had not seen anything first hand but have the ability to say no. Resident #25 stated worry/concern for female residents that are unable to have a voice. On [DATE] at 3:15 p.m., the DON was asked to clarify why Resident #25 was seen by a provider for a skilled visit twice on [DATE]. After review of the progress notes and personal e-mails which the notes were sent, the DON stated the second progress note was received via e-mail on [DATE], but would call the provider to clarify. No other information was provided regarding clarification of the provider progress notes. The clinical record contained no documentation how Resident #25 was protected after the allegation of sexual abuse was identified. The clinical record did not document the resident to resident sexual assault had been thoroughly investigated. The records did not document an investigation had been completed; a report submitted to OSDH; or Local Law Enforcement had been notified from [DATE] until [DATE]. The facility did not take action to follow their abuse policy until after the surveyor asked about the investigation and reports to the required agencies. 3 Resident #22 had diagnoses to include sequelae of cerebral infarction, cerebral ischemia, cognitive communication deficit, vascular dementia without behaviors, and personal history of other mental and behavioral disorders. A physician's order, dated [DATE], documented Resident #22 was to have behavior monitoring every shift with the target behaviors to include nervousness, anxious, agitation, insomnia, scratching, and pinching. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in part, .mood problem .Sometimes I am verbally aggressive to start and other residents . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 12:06 p.m., read in parts, .is in hallway in wheelchair running resident/staff over and spitting on the floor . The clinical record did not contain an incident report to identify other residents involved, an investigation of the event, interventions to protect other residents in the immediate area, or report to the proper agencies. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Monitor/record occurrence of for [sic] target behavior symptoms like pacing, wandering, disrobing, inappropriate response to verbal communication, violence/aggression towards staff/others . A physician's order, dated [DATE], documented Resident #10 was to be administered Depakote 125 mg daily for history of other mental and behavioral disorders. On [DATE], the Depakote was increased to administer 125 mg two times a day. On [DATE], the Depakote was increased to administer 125 mg three times a day. A nurse noted, dated [DATE] at 4:36 p.m., read in parts, .rolled by another resident & reached out & scratched her on the arm, drawing blood . An incident report was not located in the record to determine if the resident to resident altercation with injury had been investigated, interventions placed to protect, or notification/reporting had been completed and submitted to required agencies. On [DATE] at 3:00 p.m., the DON and Consultants #1 and #2 were asked if incident reports were initiated/completed regarding resident to resident altercations for Resident #22. Consultant #2 stated she did not see one. The DON and Consultants #1 and #2 were asked if the abuse policy had been followed to ensure resident to resident altercations were investigated, interventions to protect other residents put into place and/or reporting to state/local agencies was completed as required. No response was provided.
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read in parts, ~ had severe cognitive impact; ~ inattentive behavior with fluctuations; ~ disorganized thinking, present with fluctuations; and ~ altered level of consciousness, present with fluctuations. A Nurse's Note dated, [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., read in part, .Late Entry: Note Text: DELAYED ENTRY: [Resident #32] was found visiting .[Resident #85] in [Resident #85's] room with the door shut. Informed by nurse it is fine to visit, but the door has to remain open. [Resident #32] shortly returned to .own room where .[Resident #85] followed and closed the door again. When nurse returned to room and opened door .[Resident #85] hands were groping at [Resident #32's ] lap asking why not and [Resident #32] was heard stating no because my pants are too tight. [Resident #32] informed that [Resident #85] is .married .and became upset stating that [Resident #85] lied to [Resident #32] and [Resident #32] informed [Resident #85] [they] didn't want anything to do with [Resident #85] anymore. [Resident #32's family] informed of the interaction . The clinical record contained no documentation an incident report had been completed to ensure an investigation was initiated. The clinical record contained no documentation an investigation had been completed for resident to resident sexual abuse. The clinical record contained no documentation the event had been thoroughly investigated, or interventions placed to ensure protection of the residents. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked if an investigation had been completed for the incident on [DATE] involving Resident #32 and a male resident. The DON stated, I talked with all involved, the [resident #85], the female [resident #32], and [Resident #32's family member]. Spoke with CNA and nurse. The DON was asked did [Resident #85] have any more incidents with any other residents. The DON stated, It was stated, [Resident #85] went into [Resident #25's] room on [DATE]. Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to fully develop and/or implement an abuse policy to prevent, protect, investigate and report allegations of abuse. This affected: a. Five residents (#85, 25, 32, 27 and #10) with altered cognition for daily decision making who were identified to be involved with resident to resident sexual encounters. b. One resident (#22) was identified to have physical aggression toward other residents. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents identified 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's, undated, Abuse and Neglect - Administrative Protocol policy, read in parts, .residents of this facility will be free of abuse, neglect .The facility will implement the following .for abuse prevention and investigation . Screening .Training .provide all new employees training in Abuse recognition, prevention and reporting before floor employment begins and retrain on a semi-annual basis thereafter . Prevention .will provide protection of residents in the case of any allegations of abuse, neglect .conduct any investigations in a timely manner . Identify .will train the staff to observe, recognize and report any and all signs of abuse, neglect .teach the staff signs to identify abuse . Investigate .will thoroughly investigate any and all allegations of abuse, neglect .Staff will notify Administrator and Director of Nursing of all allegations .will act immediately when being notified of an allegation .will conduct and/or facilitate interviews of the direct resident(s) involved in the allegation, all other interviewable residents and all staff members, and any visitors that have knowledge or witnessed the allegation will also be interviewed. A written report or statement will be gathered and maintained on all interviews will notify all parties of the outcomes of the investigation and forward all necessary reports to OSDH and any other officials warranted . Protect .will act immediately to protect the resident when being notified of any allegation .will notify and request Local Law Enforcement if the allegation warrants their involvement .will separate any residents as necessary if the allegation is a resident to resident abuse .will take measures as appropriate to protect one resident from another, on a case by case basis . Reporting .will sent a report to all reporting agencies as required by OSDH guidelines .will send a report to the Oklahoma State Department of Health and adult protective services immediately, but not later than 2 hours of being notified of the allegation, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serous bodily injury .will send copies and necessary forms to the Nurse Aide Registry for Certified Nurse Aides, Certified medication aides and nontechnical workers .will forward copies of the reports to the Oklahoma Board of Nursing if a Licensed Nurse is involved in the allegations . 1. Resident #85 had diagnosis to include cerebral infarction, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and cognitive communication deficit. An admission assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #85 as follows: ~had clear speech, was understood and understood others; ~moderate cognitive impairment for daily decision making; ~inattentive, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness that did not fluctuate; ~no behaviors; ~required limited assistance for bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, toileting, hygiene and bathing; and ~utilized a w/c for mobility and locomotion. The 08/2022, physician orders did not identify any targeted behavior to monitor. The physician orders did not include what behaviors Resident #85 displayed due to dementia with behavioral disturbance. A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 10:00 p.m., read in parts, .has been observed exhibiting flirtatious and hypersexualized behaviors throughout the weekend with peers to include getting close to individuals, groping peer in .room behind closed doors even after being informed by nurse if [Resident #85] is visiting doors must remain open. Resident was found with hands in the lap of a peer tugging on .pants asking why not. As the weekend progressed it has been stated by another resident that [Resident #85] was present in their room and giving unwanted attention. Redirection attempted by staff bringing up the topic of resident's wife or asking resident if he'd like to go on a walk in the building to go visit the birds. Redirection attempts appeared to work well . The clinical record contained no other documentation of flirtatious/hypersexualized behaviors. A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 6:47 a.m., documented Resident #85 had expired. The only comprehensive care plan, dated [DATE], provided by the facility, did not identify or address hypersexuality, other behaviors, or a history of behaviors. The clinical record did not document how the peer/residents were protected when Resident #85 exhibited flirtatious and hypersexualized behaviors. The clinical record did not document the hypersexualized behaviors had been reported to the supervisors and an investigation initiated. On [DATE] at 10:56 a.m., in the presence of the administrator and Consultant #3, the DON was asked to review Resident #85's nurse notes dated [DATE]. The DON was asked if the DON was aware of the entry. The DON stated, Eventually. The DON was asked if the allegation was investigated. The DON stated the facility did an investigation and the event did not appear as described in the nurse's documentation. The DON was asked where were the investigative notes and the incident reports. The DON stated the nurse that documented the event should have completed the incident report. The DON stated we talked to other staff that was on the shift the progress note was entered and there were conflicting stories. The DON was asked what residents were identified during their investigations. The DON stated Resident #32 was the first person, but the door was opened. The second resident identified was Resident #25. Resident #25 reported resident #85 had come into Resident #25's room briefly and left. Resident #25 had reported to therapy and paid no concern. The DON stated Resident #85 had a history to wander. The DON was asked what interventions were put into place to protect the residents. The DON did not respond. The DON was asked what the facility's abuse policy documented should be put into place. The DON stated, Investigate. Report it. Notify family, doctor and state. The nurse should have notified the DON immediately. At 11:10 a.m., the BOM entered the interview. The DON was asked if Resident #85 had been assessed and care planned for dementia with behaviors. The BOM stated the behavior notes were in hospital records. The DON did not provide additional information. At 11:35, the administrator, DON and the MDS coordinator were asked when did they become aware of the entry on Resident #85's record. The DON stated on Monday when the records were reviewed for weekend issues. The DON stated the LPN that made the entry on Resident #85 was a new hire to the facility. The DON was asked if new employees receive training at the time of hire regarding the abuse policy. The DON stated, Yes. They were asked if the facility had followed their policy to prevent abuse/neglect. The DON stated, No. They were asked if the facility completed a thorough investigation at the time of the event per their abuse policy. The administrator stated, No. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if all staff and residents capable of interview, had been interviewed to identify if other residents had been involved. The DON stated we talked to staff that were here that shift and the resident's family. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked, when the allegation was identified, what interventions were put into place to protect all residents during and after the investigation. Consultant #3 stated the nurse note documented the staff redirected Resident #85. They were asked if the staff did continuous monitoring of Resident #85 to ensure the safety of other residents. No response was provided. 2. Resident #25 had diagnoses to include anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and PTSD. A quarterly assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 as follows: ~clear speech, usually understood, usually understands; ~cognitively intact for daily decision making; ~is inattentive, had disorganized thinking and altered level of consciousness that does not fluctuate; and ~had delusion. A care plan, dated [DATE], documented as follows: ~ .Depression .orders per my PCP for an antidepressant .observe me for decline in mood, increase in self isolation, depression .Report to Nurse/PCP s/sx of depression, including .verbalizing negative statements, repetitive anxious or health-related complaints . ~ .Antipsychotic .order .for antipsychotic medication brexiprazole .Report to nurse s/sx .confusion, mood change, change in normal behavior, hallucination/delusion . The care plan did not address PTSD for Resident #25. A provider Progress Note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note documented Resident #25 was to be evaluated by mental health services due to increase of anxiety and taking two medications to improve anxiety. A provider Progress Note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .talking all about her last couple months of medical problems, but her stories do not make sense .ambulance personnel picked her up on a fire truck along with a lot of dancing girls . A second provider Progress Note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was being seen as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .states that this last weekend she had a situation that she did not want to talk about it, but she states that she thought this was her safe haven and now she is not sure. She states that this event triggered her PTSD . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:30 a.m., read in parts, .approximately 10:45 [a.m.] resident requested to speak to nurse and ended up confiding in CMA that a peer at this facility entered her room the day prior during the morning and proceded to grope her breasts and other inappropriate behaviors while she was in bed. Resident stated that her peer told her he would return to do more later. Resident verbalized being scared to be viewed as a snitch, and scared of causing trouble because she doesn't want to be kicked out of the facility. Resident reassured her concerns are not being taken lightly. Resident informed that the facility's chain of command has been notified. Resident stated the incident triggered her PTSD to a similar event in her life that occurred in 2005. Resident also later confided in her daughter. Nurse informed the daughter that the DON and administrator have been notified and the situation is on going, but is being taken seriously. Resident has cried several times throughout the day when recounting the event. Resident is also requesting a 'stop sign' in front of her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 7:30 a.m., read in parts, .This nurse was informed of an incident that took place on Saturday 8/13 .asked the resident about the incident .stated she was up in wheelchair when the male came into her room .he touched her chest when stating cold hands warm heart .memory of the situation was different than the previous chart entry .like the stop sign reminder placed on her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:14 p.m., read in parts, .Resident was adamant .did not receive her gabapentin .contacted evening shift charge to confirm if medication was given .Due to uncertainty and the medication being documented as given night shift did not administer the medication . The nurse progress notes contained no other documentation of behaviors or delusions. On [DATE] at 1:15 p.m., Resident #25 was asked if it was okay to discuss an encounter she had briefly mentioned previously the day before regarding a male resident having entered her room. Resident #25 agreed to the interview. Resident #25 was asked if Resident #25 recalled having mentioned a male resident that came into Resident #25's room. Resident #25 stated she did and identified Resident #85. Resident #25 stated Resident #85 had entered the room and at first patted her hand and told her that her hands were cold. Resident #25 stated a reply was made, Cold hands, Warm heart. At that time, Resident #85 grabbed the breast of Resident #25. Resident #25 stated a history of PTSD due to having been raped, beaten and left in an apartment alone to die, so the event was very upsetting. Resident #25 stated she felt comfortable to report to the physical therapist and a certain nurse aide. Resident #25 stated the DON came and visited about the event and Resident #25 had voiced the event was frightening. Resident #25 stated no further information had been shared regarding the incident so was not aware if the facility had taken care of the issue. On [DATE] at 3:15 p.m., the DON was asked to clarify why Resident #25 was seen by a provider for a skilled visit twice on [DATE]. After review of the progress notes and personal e-mails which the notes were sent, the DON stated the second progress note was received via e-mail on [DATE], but would call the provider to clarify. No other information was provided regarding clarification of the provider progress notes. The clinical record contained no documentation how Resident #25 was protected after the allegation of sexual abuse was identified. The clinical record did not document the resident to resident sexual assault had been thoroughly investigated. The records did not document an investigation had been completed. The facility did not take action to follow their abuse policy until after the surveyor asked about the investigation and reports to the required agencies. 3. Resident #27 was admitted with diagnoses to include anxiety, history of transient ischemic attack, cerebral infarction, and dementia without behaviors. Physician orders, dated [DATE] and continued to current, documented Resident #27 was to have behavior monitoring every shift for the target behavior of wandering, restlessness, insomnia, sadness, anxiety, and irritation/upset. A physician order, dated [DATE] and continued to current, documented Resident #27 was to receive Donapezil 10 mg at bedtime for dementia without behaviors. An annual assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #27 as follows: ~speech is unclear, rarely/never understood, and sometimes understands; ~short/long term memory deficits; ~modified independence for daily decision making; ~independent in walking, locomotion, eating, toileting, and hygiene; ~required supervision for bed mobility, and transfers; ~required limited assistance for dressing and bathing; and ~no behaviors had been observed during the assessment period. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .staff for reminders, cueing and direction for activities, cognitive stimulation, social interaction r/t cognitive deficits .need assistance of one for many ADLs due to weakness and forgetfulness .enjoys passing out clothing protectors in dining room .Impaired Cognitive function r/t hx CVA and TIAs with problems with decision making .need cueing, reminders and supervision/assistance with all decision making . A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .sexuality .attracted to an alert consensual female. We enjoy private time together occasionally .allow mutually consensual intimacy as desired .wife is aware of my attraction for another resident .respects my rights .only asks that [Resident #27] be reminded that he is married .Provide privacy as requested. Close privacy curtain and door when privacy desired . The care plan regarding sexuality for Resident #27 was initiated on [DATE] and not revised until [DATE]. A care plan regarding anxiety, initiated [DATE], and last revised on [DATE], read in parts, .anti-anxiety medication r/t Anxiety disorder .Monitor/document side effects .Mania, Hostility and rage, Aggressive or impulsive behavior, Hallucinations . The clinical record did not document Resident #27 had been assessed to ensure the cognitive capacity was intact to consent in a sexual relationship. The clinical record did not contain documentation to the frequency/extent of the relationship between Resident #27 and Resident #10. No entries were provided to indicate staff were monitoring Resident #27 and/or Resident #10. The facility abuse policy did not address how staff were to identify consensual resident to resident physical contact versus how to identify inappropriate touching/sexuality between residents with impaired cognition. On [DATE] at 3:31 p.m., Resident #29 stated that Resident #10 and Resident #22 wander throughout the facility and do not have cognitive skills to make good choices. Resident #29 stated that Resident #10 lived across hall from a male resident, which only knew the first name of the male resident. Resident #29 stated Resident #10 goes into the male resident room frequently. Resident #10 and the male resident have been observed to kiss and male resident have his hands under Resident #10's blouse. Resident #29 stated she did not feel other residents should have to watch/observe this public display. On [DATE] at 11:35 a.m., the administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if they were aware residents in the facility had concerns of inappropriate sexual touching between residents was occurring without supervision. They were informed only a first name had been identified. The administrator and DON identified the residents as Resident #27 and Resident #10. The administrator stated, Resident #27 and Resident #10 sat in the church service the weekend prior, holding hands through the church services. On [DATE] at 12:55 p.m., Resident #27's wife was asked if Resident #27 required cues/reminders. She stated the resident does have trouble communicating and may say the wrong words than what was meant. Resident #27's wife was asked if there had ever been any concerns with behaviors. Resident #27's wife stated none that she was aware of. Resident #27's wife was asked if she had ever been informed of resident touching other female residents. The wife stated Resident #27 has always been one to pat or give hugs. The wife was asked if the facility had spoken to her about Resident #27 having a female friend which he spend time with, and/or holding hands. The wife stated she had been notified of an indiscretion several years ago, she did not like it but did not feel she had any say in the matter. The wife stated she understood that it had ended, as the female resident involved had passed away. The wife was asked if she had been informed of a current female resident he was fond of. The wife stated she was aware he visited with another female resident but only that they spend time to visit each other. The wife was asked if Resident #27 had the capability to make good choices, what he would think if he thought others believed he was sexually inappropriate with the touch/pats/hugs. The wife stated Resident #27 would be very upset, if Resident #27 thought people believed he was inappropriate with female residents. On [DATE] at 2:40 p.m., the DON, Consultant #1 and Consultant #2 were asked if Resident #27's care plan was initiated on [DATE] for sexuality, why was this portion of the care plan not updated at any time until [DATE]. Consultant #1 reviewed the care plan and stated it appeared the issue had been resolved on the care plan at some time and was recently re-opened and put back into the care plan. The DON, Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if this was the same female as having been discussed on [DATE]. The DON stated there have been two female residents that Resident #27 had been involved with. The DON, Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if Resident #27's family was aware of the current relationship. The DON stated the wife was aware. The DON was asked if the wife had been told the entirety of the relationship due to the wife's belief of the current relationship was verbal exchange only. The DON stated she was not sure why the wife would say that. The DON stated she would have to look in the nurse notes to find the documentation the wife had been made aware of the situation. They were asked if the resident's with cognition impairment had been assessed to ensure they were able to give consent to a physical relationship. No information was provided. The DON was asked if an in-service had been provided to the staff after initiating the discussion of resident to resident physical altercation/relationships on [DATE]. The DON acknowledged staff had been in-serviced on the abuse policy. The DON was asked what information was provided to staff to ensure staff could determine the difference between consensual touching/relationships versus an event that a cognitive impaired resident should be protected from. No response was provided. The DON was asked how Resident #27 was being monitored in his relationship with Resident #10 to ensure the physical relationship remained consensual. No response was provided. The DON was asked if the relationship was consensual, how often did the facility re-evaluate/re-assess both residents to ensure the extent of the physical relationship and if it continued to be consensual for both residents. No response was provided. A policy was not provided regarding determination of consensual sexual relationships between residents that reside in the facility. 4. Resident #10 had diagnoses to include depressive disorder and dementia without behaviors. The physician orders, dated [DATE], documented Resident #10 was to be monitored for behaviors due to medication side effects of a hypnotic and anti-depressant, to include sadness and crying. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Cognitive Loss .forgetful .make my own decisions but please intervene if indicated .Keep My routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible in order to decrease confusion . A significant change of status/five day skilled assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident as follows: ~clear speech, understands and is understood; ~moderately impaired for daily decision making; ~is inattentive, has disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness that does not fluctuate; and ~required supervision with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Sexuality .am attracted to an alert consensual male. We enjoy private time together .Allow mutually consensual intimacy as desired .Physician is aware of my desire for mutually consensual intimacy with another resident .Provide privacy as requested. Close privacy curtain and door when privacy is desired . The care plan did not address a consensual sexual relationship with a male resident prior to [DATE]. The clinical record did not contain documentation regarding when the relationship began between Resident #10 and resident #27. The clinical record did not contain documentation Resident #10 was assessed to ensure cognitive skills were intact to consent to a sexual relationship. The clinical records of Resident #10 and #27 did not contain documentation the residents had been monitored do ensure the relationship was/continued to be consensual. The facility's abuse policy did not address how residents would be determined to enter into a consensual sexual relationship, or to provide guidance to the staff in determining consensual sexual relationship versus resident to resident altercation that would require protection, investigation and reporting. On [DATE] at 3:31 p.m., Resident #29 stated Resident #10 and Resident #22 wander throughout the facility and do not have cognitive skills to make good choices. Resident #29 stated that Resident #10 lived across hall from a male resident, which only knew the first name of the male resident. Resident #29 stated Resident #10 goes into the male resident room frequently. Resident #10 and the male resident have been observed to kiss and male resident have his hands under Resident #10's blouse. Resident #29 stated she did not feel other residents should have to watch/observe this public display. On [DATE] at 11:35 a.m., the administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if they were aware residents in the facility had concerns of inappropriate sexual touching between residents was occurring without supervision. They were informed only a first name had been identified. The administrator and DON identified the residents as Resident #27 and Resident #10. The administrator stated, Resident #27 and Resident #10 sat in the church service the weekend prior, holding hands through the church services. On [DATE] at 2:45 p.m., the DON, Consultant #1 and Consultant #2 were asked when did the sexual relationship begin between Resident #10 and Resident #27. The DON stated, Not sure. The DON, Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if Resident #10 had documentation of the relationship in the clinical record. No response was provided. They were asked if the care plan had addressed the sexual relationship between Resident #10 and Resident #27, prior to the initial discussion on [DATE]. Consultant #2 stated it does not look like it by looking at the current care plan. The DON and Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if the situation was being monitored by the facility, where would the encounters between the residents be documented. No response was provided. The DON and Consultant #1 and #2 were asked what intervention/consents were placed prior to [DATE]. The DON stated the families knew. No documentation of family awareness prior to [DATE] was provided. The DON and Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if the facility had at any time considered an investigation and/or incident report to ensure Resident #10 and Resident #27 had in fact began as a consensual sexual relationship. No information was provided. The DON and Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if the required assessments documented Resident #10 to be moderately impaired for daily decision making, how was it determined a resident with cognitive deficit had the ability to provide consensual sexual consent. No response was provided. The DON was asked if the staff had been in-served between [DATE] and [DATE] regarding abuse. The DON stated the staff had been in-serviced for abuse. The DON was asked what information was provided to the staff to ensure staff could recognize the difference between consensual sexual relationships versus a resident to resident encounter that would meet the requirements to investigate, and protect. No information was provided. A copy of the in-services for abuse was provided. The facility abuse policy remained the same as the policy provided to the surveyor on [DATE]. The policy did not contain information to provide education/guidance for resident to resident sexual relationships/encounters. 5. Resident #22 had diagnoses to include sequelae of cerebral infarction, cerebral ischemia, cognitive communication deficit, vascular dementia without behaviors, and personal history of other mental and behavioral disorders. A physician's order, dated [DATE], documented Resident #22 was to have behavior monitoring every shift with the target behaviors to include nervousness, anxious, agitation, insomnia, scratching, and pinching. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in part, .mood problem .Sometimes I am verbally aggressive to start and other residents . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 12:06 p.m., read in parts, .is in hallway in wheelchair running resident/staff over and spitting on the floor . The clinical record did not contain an incident report to identify other residents involved, an investigation of the event, interventions to protect other residents in the immediate area, or report to the proper agencies. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Monitor/record occurrence of for [sic] target behavior symptoms like pacing, wandering, disrobing, inappropriate response to verbal communication, violence/aggression towards staff/others . A physician's order, dated [DATE], documented Resident #10 was to be administered Depakote 125 mg daily for history of other mental and behavioral disorders. On [DATE], the Depakote was increased to administer 125 mg two times a day. On [DATE], the Depakote was increased to administer 125 mg three times a day. A nurse noted, dated [DATE] at 4:36 p.m., read in parts, .rolled by another resident & reached out & scratched her on the arm, drawing blood . The clinical records did not contain documentation the resident to resident altercation with injury had been investigated, or interventions placed to protect residents during or after the investigation. On [DATE] at 3:00 p.m., the DON and Consultants #1 and #2 were asked if incident reports we[TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read in parts, ~ had severe cognitive impact; ~ inattentive behavior with fluctuations; ~ disorganized thinking, present with fluctuations; and ~ altered level of conciousness, present with fluctuations. A Nurse's Note dated, [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., read in part, .Late Entry: Note Text: DELAYED ENTRY: [Resident #32] was found visiting .[Resident #85] in [Resident #85's] room with the door shut. Informed by nurse it is fine to visit, but the door has to remain open. [Resident #32] shortly returned to .own room where .[Resident #85] followed and closed the door again. When nurse returned to room and opened door .[Resident #85] hands were groping at [Resident #32's ] lap asking why not and [Resident #32] was heard stating no because my pants are too tight. [Resident #32] informed that [Resident #85] is .married .and became upset stating that [Resident #85] lied to [Resident #32] and [Resident #32] informed [Resident #85] [they] didn't want anything to do with [Resident #85] anymore. [Resident #32's family] informed of the interaction . The clinical record contained no documentation the event had been thoroughly investigated, interventions placed to ensure protection of the residents, or that reporting had been initiated to OSDH and/or Local Law Enforcement. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked if an investigation had been completed for the incident on [DATE] involving Resident #32 and a male resident. The DON stated, I talked with all involved, the [resident #85], the female [resident #32], and [Resident #32's family member]. Spoke with CNA and nurse. The DON was asked did [Resident #85] have any more incidents with any other residents. The DON stated, It was stated, [Resident #85] went into [Resident #25's] room on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked why staff had not reported the incident. The DON stated, I don't know. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to report allegations of abuse and neglect to local law enforcement and OSDH for for four (#85, 25, 32, and #22) of six sampled residents reviewed for abuse. a. Three (#85, 25, and #32) of six sampled residents were identified to be involved with resident to resident sexual encounters, to include touching, petting, and groping. b. One resident (#22) was identified to have physical aggression toward other residents, to include hitting, scratching, and attempting to run into residents while propelling self in hallway. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents identified 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's, undated, Abuse and Neglect - Administrative Protocol policy, read in parts, .residents of this facility will be free of abuse, neglect .The facility will implement the following . Reporting .will sent a report to all reporting agencies as required by OSDH guidelines .will send a report to the Oklahoma State Department of Health and adult protective services immediately, but not later than 2 hours of being notified of the allegation, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serous bodily injury .will send copies and necessary forms to the Nurse Aide Registry for Certified Nurse Aides, Certified medication aides and nontechnical workers .will forward copies of the reports to the Oklahoma Board of Nursing if a Licensed Nurse is involved in the allegations . 1. Resident #85 had diagnosis to include cerebral infarction, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and cognitive communication deficit. An admission assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #85 as follows: ~had clear speech, was understood and understood others; ~moderate cognitive impairment for daily decision making; ~inattentive, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness that did not fluctuate; ~no behaviors; ~required limited assistance for bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, toileting, hygiene and bathing; and ~utilized a w/c for mobility and locomotion The physician orders, dated 08/2022, did not contain medication orders for behavioral issues. The physician orders did not include what behaviors Resident #85 displayed due to dementia with behavioral disturbance. A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 10:00 p.m., read in parts, .has been observed exhibiting flirtatious and hypersexualized behaviors throughout the weekend with peers to include getting close to individuals, groping peer in .room behind closed doors even after being informed by nurse if [Resident #85] is visiting doors must remain open. Resident was found with hands in the lap of a peer tugging on .pants asking why not. As the weekend progressed it has been stated by another resident that [Resident #85] was present in their room and giving unwanted attention. Redirection attempted by staff bringing up the topic of resident's wife or asking resident if he'd like to go on a walk in the building to go visit the birds. Redirection attempts appeared to work well . A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 6:47 a.m., documented Resident #85 had expired. The care plan, dated [DATE], did not address behaviors or the history of behaviors. The care plan provided did not include any identified issues or interventions prior to [DATE]. The clinical record contained no other documentation of flirtatious/hypersexualized behaviors. The care plan did not address Resident #85's hypersexuality. The clinical record did not document the resident to resident behaviors had been reported to supervisors or that an abuse investigation was initiated. The incident was not reported to OSDH or local law enforcement. On [DATE] at 10:56 a.m., in the presence of the administrator and Consultant #3, the DON was asked to review Resident #85's nurse notes dated [DATE]. The DON was asked if the DON was aware of the entry. The DON stated, Eventually. The DON was asked if the allegation was investigated. The DON stated the facility did an investigation and the event did not appear as described in the nurse's documentation. The DON was asked where were the investigative notes and the incident reports. The DON stated the nurse that documented the event should have completed the incident report. The DON was asked what residents were identified during their investigations. The DON stated Resident #32 was the first person, but the door was opened. The second resident identified was Resident #25. Resident #25 reported resident #85 had come into Resident #25's room briefly and left. Resident #25 had reported to therapy and paid no concern. The DON stated Resident #85 had a history to wander. The DON was asked what the facility's abuse policy documented should be put into place. The DON stated, Investigate. Report it. Notify family, doctor and state. The nurse should have notified the DON immediately. The DON was asked if the facility followed their abuse policy for reporting. No response was provided. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked when should the event have been reported. Consultant #3 stated the event should have been reported within 24 hour, maybe 2 hours. The DON stated the facility talked to all individuals involved and the families were made aware. At 11:35, the administrator, DON and the MDS coordinator were asked when did they become aware of the entry on Resident #85's record. The DON stated on Monday when the records were reviewed for weekend issues. The DON stated the LPN that made the entry on Resident #85 was a new hire to the facility. The DON was asked if new employees receive training at the time of hire regarding the abuse policy. The DON stated, Yes. They were asked if the facility had followed their policy to prevent abuse/neglect. The DON stated, No. They were asked if the facility completed a thorough investigation at the time of the event per their abuse policy. The administrator stated, No. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if all staff and residents capable of interview, had been interviewed to identify if other residents had been involved. The DON stated we talked to staff that were here that shift and the resident's family. They were asked if local law enforcement had been notified due to the allegation of an unwanted sexual encounter. The DON and administrator stated the allegation was not substantiated so it was not required to report the incident. The DON stated resident #25 nor the family of resident #32 wanted to press charges and did not feel it needed to be addressed further. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if all allegation of sexual abuse had been reported to OSDH and/or Local Law Enforcement within 2 hours as required by guidelines. The administrator stated the facility did not report since their in-house investigation was not substantiated. The records did not document an incident report or a report submitted to OSDH from [DATE] until [DATE], after the surveyor asked about the investigation and reports to the required agencies. Local law enforcement was observed in the administrator's office on [DATE] at 2:45 p.m., as the surveyor exited the building. 2. Resident #25 had diagnoses to include anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and PTSD. A quarterly assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 as follows: ~clear speech, usually understood, usually understands; ~cognitively intact for daily decision making; ~is inattentive, had disorganized thinking and altered level of consciousness that does not fluctuate; and ~had delusion. A care plan, dated [DATE], documented as follows: ~ .Depression .orders per my PCP for an antidepressant .observe me for decline in mood, increase in self isolation, depression .Report to Nurse/PCP s/sx of depression, including .verbalizing negative statements, repetitive anxious or health-related complaints . ~ .Antipsychotic .order .for antipsychotic medication brexiprazole .Report to nurse s/sx .confusion, mood change, change in normal behavior, hallucination/delusion . ~ .Delusional .at risk for delusional episodes .history of altered memories of recent events and feelings of being exploited .establish baseline level of functioning .Discuss with me and my family any concerns about delusions .Monitor and address environmental factors recent change in environment, environmental noise and commotion .Monitor and report to MD new onset s/sx of delusional episodes .delusions, hallucinations .Monitor my safety daily .sometimes because of my delusional thinking, I don't feel safe .attempt to remind me of known facts . The care plan did not address specific delusions held by Resident #25. A progress note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note documented Resident #25 was to be evaluated by mental health services due to increase of anxiety and taking two medications to improve anxiety. A progress note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .talking all about her last couple months of medical problems, but her stories do not make sense .ambulance personnel picked her up on a fire truck along with a lot of dancing girls . A second progress note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was being seen as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .states that this last weekend she had a situation that she did not want to talk about it, but she states that she thought this was her safe haven and now she is not sure. She states that this event triggered her PTSD . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:30 a.m., read in parts, .approximately 10:45 [a.m.] resident requested to speak to nurse and ended up confiding in CMA that a peer at this facility entered her room the day prior during the morning and proceded to grope her breasts and other inappropriate behaviors while she was in bed. Resident stated that her peer told her he would return to do more later. Resident verbalized being scared to be viewed as a snitch, and scared of causing trouble because she doesn't want to be kicked out of the facility. Resident reassured her concerns are not being taken lightly. Resident informed that the facility's chain of command has been notified. Resident stated the incident triggered her PTSD to a similar event in her life that occurred in 2005. Resident also later confided in her daughter. Nurse informed the daughter that the DON and administrator have been notified and the situation is on going, but is being taken seriously. Resident has cried several times throughout the day when recounting the event. Resident is also requesting a 'stop sign' in front of her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 7:30 a.m., read in parts, .This nurse was informed of an incident that took place on Saturday 8/13 .asked the resident about the incident .stated she was up in wheelchair when the male came into her room .he touched her chest when stating cold hands warm heart .memory of the situation was different than the previous chart entry .like the stop sign reminder placed on her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:14 p.m., read in parts, .Resident was adamant .did not receive her gabapentin .contacted evening shift charge to confirm if medication was given .Due to uncertainty and the medication being documented as given night shift did not administer the medication . The nurse progress notes contained no other documentation of behaviors or delusions. On [DATE] at 1:15 p.m., Resident #25 was asked if it was okay to discuss an encounter she had briefly mentioned previously the day before regarding a male resident having entered her room. Resident #25 agreed to the interview. Resident #25 was asked if Resident #25 recalled having mentioned a male resident that came into Resident #25's room. Resident #25 stated she did and identified Resident #85. Resident #25 stated Resident #85 had entered the room and at first patted her hand and told her that her hands were cold. Resident #25 stated a reply was made, Cold hands, Warm heart. At that time, Resident #85 grabbed the breast of Resident #25. Resident #25 stated a history of PTSD due to having been raped, beaten and left in an apartment alone to die, so the event was very upsetting. Resident #25 stated she felt comfortable to report to the physical therapist and a certain nurse aide. Resident #25 stated the DON came and visited about the event and Resident #25 had voiced the event was frightening. Resident #25 stated no further information had been shared regarding the incident so was not aware if the facility had taken care of the issue. Resident #25 was asked if there were any other persons at the facility she was afraid of, leery of, or concerned about. Resident #25 stated there had not been a personal encounter or observation but other female residents had warned to watch out for [Resident #27]. Resident #25 stated had not seen anything first hand but have the ability to say no. Resident #25 stated worry/concern for female residents that are unable to have a voice. The clinical record did not document the resident to resident sexual assault had been thoroughly reported. The records did not document an investigation had been completed; a report submitted to OSDH; or Local Law Enforcement had been notified from [DATE] until [DATE]. The facility did not take action to follow their abuse policy until after the surveyor asked about the investigation and reports to the required agencies. 3. Resident #22 had diagnoses to include sequelae of cerebral infarction, cerebral ischemia, cognitive communication deficit, vascular dementia without behaviors, and personal history of other mental and behavioral disorders. A physician's order, dated [DATE], documented Resident #22 was to have behavior monitoring every shift with the target behaviors to include nervousness, anxious, agitation, insomnia, scratching, and pinching. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in part, .mood problem .Sometimes I am verbally aggressive to start and other residents . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 12:06 p.m., read in parts, .is in hallway in wheelchair running resident/staff over and spitting on the floor . The clinical record did not contain an incident report to identify other residents involved, an investigation of the event, interventions to protect other residents in the immediate area, or report to proper agencies. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Monitor/record occurrence of for [sic] target behavior symptoms like pacing, wandering, disrobing, inappropriate response to verbal communication, violence/aggression towards staff/others . A nurse noted, dated [DATE] at 4:36 p.m., read in parts, .rolled by another resident & reached out & scratched her on the arm, drawing blood . An incident report was not located in the record to determine if the resident to resident altercation with injury had been investigated, interventions placed to protect, or notification/reporting had been completed and submitted to the required agencies. On [DATE] at 3:00 p.m., the DON and Consultants #1 and #2 were asked if incident reports were initiated/completed regarding resident to resident altercations for Resident #22. Consultant #2 stated she did not see one. The DON and Consultants #1 and #2 were asked if the abuse policy had been followed to ensure resident to resident altercations fully investigated and reported to the required agencies. No response was provided.
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A five day assessment, dated [DATE], read in parts, ~ had severe cognitive impact; ~ inattentive behavior with fluctuations; ~ disorganized thinking, present with fluctuations; and ~ altered level of conciousness, present with fluctuations. A Nurse's Note dated, [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., read in part, .Late Entry: Note Text: DELAYED ENTRY: [Resident #32] was found visiting .[Resident #85] in [Resident #85's] room with the door shut. Informed by nurse it is fine to visit, but the door has to remain open. [Resident #32] shortly returned to .own room where .[Resident #85] followed and closed the door again. When nurse returned to room and opened door .[Resident #85] hands were groping at [Resident #32's ] lap asking why not and [Resident #32] was heard stating no because my pants are too tight. [Resident #32] informed that [Resident #85] is .married .and became upset stating that [Resident #85] lied to [Resident #32] and [Resident #32] informed [Resident #85] [they] didn't want anything to do with [Resident #85] anymore. [Resident #32's family] informed of the interaction . The clinical record contained no documentation an incident report had been completed. The clinical record contained no documentation an investigation had been completed for resident to resident sexual abuse. The clinical record contained no documentation the event had been thoroughly investigated, interventions placed to ensure protection of the residents, or that reporting had been initiated to OSDH and/or Local Law Enforcement. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked was an investigation done for the incident on [DATE] involving Resident #32 and Resident #85. The DON stated, I talked with all involved, the [Resident #85] .[Resident #32], and [Resident #32's family member]. Spoke with CNA and nurse. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked did [Resident #85] have any more incidents with any other residents. The DON stated, It was stated, [Resident #85] went into [Resident #25's] room on [DATE]. [Resident #85] held [Resident #25's] hand, .touched [Resident #25's] heart, kissed [Resident #25's]cheek. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked what was done to protect the residents. The DON stated, [Resident #85] was told to stay out of [Resident #25's] room. On [DATE] at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked why staff had not reported the incident. The DON stated, I don't know. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated, implement interventions to protect residents from further abuse, and report abuse allegations within the appropriate time frame to OSDH, APS, and Local Law Enforcement. This affected four (#85, 22, 25, and #32) of six sampled residents reviewed for abuse. a. Three residents (#85, 25, and #32) of three sampled residents who were identified to be involved with resident to resident sexual encounters, to include touching, petting, and groping. b. One resident (#22) identified to have physical aggression toward other residents, to include hitting, scratching, and attempting to run into residents while propelling self in hallway. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents identified 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's, undated, Abuse and Neglect - Administrative Protocol policy, read in parts, .residents of this facility will be free of abuse, neglect .The facility will implement the following .for abuse prevention and investigation . Prevention .will provide protection of residents in the case of any allegations of abuse, neglect .conduct any investigations in a timely manner . Investigate .will thoroughly investigate any and all allegations of abuse, neglect .Staff will notify Administrator and Director of Nursing of all allegations .will act immediately when being notified of an allegation .will conduct and/or facilitate interviews of the direct resident(s) involved in the allegation, all other interviewable residents and all staff members, and any visitors that have knowledge or witnessed the allegation will also be interviewed. A written report or statement will be gathered and maintained on all interviews will notify all parties of the outcomes of the investigation and forward all necessary reports to OSDH and any other officials warranted . Protect .will act immediately to protect the resident when being notified of any allegation .will notify and request Local Law Enforcement if the allegation warrants their involvement .will separate any residents as necessary if the allegation is a resident to resident abuse .will take measures as appropriate to protect one resident from another, on a case by case basis . Reporting .will sent a report to all reporting agencies as required by OSDH guidelines .will send a report to the Oklahoma State Department of Health and adult protective services immediately, but not later than 2 hours of being notified of the allegation, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serous bodily injury .will send copies and necessary forms to the Nurse Aide Registry for Certified Nurse Aides, Certified medication aides and nontechnical workers .will forward copies of the reports to the Oklahoma Board of Nursing if a Licensed Nurse is involved in the allegations . 1. Resident #85 had diagnosis to include cerebral infarction, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and cognitive communication deficit. An admission assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #85 as follows: ~had clear speech, was understood and understood others; ~moderate cognitive impairment for daily decision making; ~inattentive, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness that did not fluctuate; ~no behaviors; ~required limited assistance for bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, toileting, hygiene and bathing; and ~utilized a w/c for mobility and locomotion The physician orders, dated 08/2022, did not contain medication orders for behavioral issues. The physician orders did not include what behaviors Resident #85 displayed due to dementia with behavioral disturbance. A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 10:00 p.m., read in parts, .has been observed exhibiting flirtatious and hypersexualized behaviors throughout the weekend with peers to include getting close to individuals, groping peer in .room behind closed doors even after being informed by nurse if [Resident #85] is visiting doors must remain open. Resident was found with hands in the lap of a peer tugging on .pants asking why not. As the weekend progressed it has been stated by another resident that [Resident #85] was present in their room and giving unwanted attention. Redirection attempted by staff bringing up the topic of resident's wife or asking resident if he'd like to go on a walk in the building to go visit the birds. Redirection attempts appeared to work well . A nurse's note, dated [DATE] at 6:47 a.m., documented Resident #85 had expired. The care plan, dated [DATE], did not address behaviors or the history of behaviors. The care plan provided did not include any identified issues or interventions prior to [DATE]. The clinical record contained no other documentation of flirtatious/hypersexualized behaviors. The care plan did not address Resident #85's hypersexuality. The clinical record did not document how the peer/residents were protected when Resident #85 exhibited flirtatious and hypersexualized behaviors. The clinical record did not document the resident to resident behaviors had been reported to supervisors or that an abuse investigation was initiated. The incident was not reported to OSDH or local law enforcement. On [DATE] at 10:56 a.m., in the presence of the administrator and Consultant #3, the DON was asked to review Resident #85's nurse notes dated [DATE]. The DON was asked if the DON was aware of the entry. The DON stated, Eventually. The DON was asked if the allegation was investigated. The DON stated the facility did an investigation and the event did not appear as described in the nurse's documentation. The DON was asked where were the investigative notes and the incident reports. The DON stated the nurse that documented the event should have completed the incident report. The DON stated we talked to other staff that was on the shift the progress note was entered and there were conflicting stories. The DON was asked what residents were identified during their investigations. The DON stated Resident #32 was the first person, but the door was opened. The second resident identified was Resident #25. Resident #25 reported resident #85 had come into Resident #25's room briefly and left. Resident #25 had reported to therapy and paid no concern. The DON stated Resident #85 had a history to wander. The DON was asked what interventions were put into place to protect the residents. The DON did not respond. The DON was asked what the facility's abuse policy documented should be put into place. The DON stated, Investigate. Report it. Notify family, doctor and state. The nurse should have notified the DON immediately. The DON was asked if the facility followed their abuse policy for reporting. No response was provided. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked when should the event have been reported. Consultant #3 stated the event should have been reported within 24 hour, maybe 2 hours. The DON stated the facility talked to all individuals involved and the families were made aware. At 11:10 a.m., the BOM entered the interview. The DON was asked if Resident #85 had been assessed and care planned for dementia with behaviors. The BOM stated the behavior notes were in hospital records. At 11:35, the administrator, DON and the MDS coordinator were asked when did they become aware of the entry on Resident #85's record. The DON stated on Monday when the records were reviewed for weekend issues. The DON stated the LPN that made the entry on Resident #85 was a new hire to the facility. The DON was asked if new employees receive training at the time of hire regarding the abuse policy. The DON stated, Yes. They were asked if the facility had followed their policy to prevent abuse/neglect. The DON stated, No. They were asked if the facility completed a thorough investigation at the time of the event per their abuse policy. The administrator stated, No. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if all staff and residents capable of interview, had been interviewed to identify if other residents had been involved. The DON stated we talked to staff that were here that shift and the resident's family. They were asked if local law enforcement had been notified due to the allegation of an unwanted sexual encounter. The DON and administrator stated the allegation was not substantiated so it was not required to report the incident. The DON stated resident #25 nor the family of resident #32 wanted to press charges and did not feel it needed to be addressed further. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked, when the allegation was identified, what was put into place to protect all residents during and after the investigation. Consultant #3 stated the nurse note documented the staff redirected Resident #85. They were asked if the staff did continuous monitoring of Resident #85 to ensure the safety of other residents. No response was provided. The administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if all allegation of sexual abuse had been reported within 2 hours as required by guidelines. The administrator stated the facility did not report since their in-house investigation was not substantiated. The records did not document an incident report or a report submitted to OSDH from [DATE] until [DATE], after the surveyor asked about the investigation and reports to the required agencies. Local law enforcement was observed in the administrator's office on [DATE] at 2:45 p.m., as the surveyor exited the building. 2. Resident #25 had diagnoses to include anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and PTSD. A quarterly assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 as follows: ~clear speech, usually understood, usually understands; ~cognitively intact for daily decision making; ~is inattentive, had disorganized thinking and altered level of consciousness that does not fluctuate; and ~had delusion. A care plan, dated [DATE], documented as follows: ~ .Depression .orders per my PCP for an antidepressant .observe me for decline in mood, increase in self isolation, depression .Report to Nurse/PCP s/sx of depression, including .verbalizing negative statements, repetitive anxious or health-related complaints . ~ .Antipsychotic .order .for antipsychotic medication brexiprazole .Report to nurse s/sx .confusion, mood change, change in normal behavior, hallucination/delusion . ~ .Delusional .at risk for delusional episodes .history of altered memories of recent events and feelings of being exploited .establish baseline level of functioning .Discuss with me and my family any concerns about delusions .Monitor and address environmental factors recent change in environment, environmental noise and commotion .Monitor and report to MD new onset s/sx of delusional episodes .delusions, hallucinations .Monitor my safety daily .sometimes because of my delusional thinking, I don't feel safe .attempt to remind me of known facts . The care plan did not address specific delusions held by Resident #25. A progress note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note documented Resident #25 was to be evaluated by mental health services due to increase of anxiety and taking two medications to improve anxiety. A progress note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was seen by a provider as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .talking all about her last couple months of medical problems, but her stories do not make sense .ambulance personnel picked her up on a fire truck along with a lot of dancing girls . A second progress note, dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was being seen as a routine skilled nursing visit. The progress note read in parts, .states that this last weekend she had a situation that she did not want to talk about it, but she states that she thought this was her safe haven and now she is not sure. She states that this event triggered her PTSD . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:30 a.m., read in parts, .approximately 10:45 [a.m.] resident requested to speak to nurse and ended up confiding in CMA that a peer at this facility entered her room the day prior during the morning and proceded to grope her breasts and other inappropriate behaviors while she was in bed. Resident stated that her peer told her he would return to do more later. Resident verbalized being scared to be viewed as a snitch, and scared of causing trouble because she doesn't want to be kicked out of the facility. Resident reassured her concerns are not being taken lightly. Resident informed that the facility's chain of command has been notified. Resident stated the incident triggered her PTSD to a similar event in her life that occurred in 2005. Resident also later confided in her daughter. Nurse informed the daughter that the DON and administrator have been notified and the situation is on going, but is being taken seriously. Resident has cried several times throughout the day when recounting the event. Resident is also requesting a 'stop sign' in front of her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 7:30 a.m., read in parts, .This nurse was informed of an incident that took place on Saturday 8/13 .asked the resident about the incident .stated she was up in wheelchair when the male came into her room .he touched her chest when stating cold hands warm heart .memory of the situation was different than the previous chart entry .like the stop sign reminder placed on her doorway . A nurse note, dated [DATE] at 11:14 p.m., read in parts, .Resident was adamant .did not receive her gabapentin .contacted evening shift charge to confirm if medication was given .Due to uncertainty and the medication being documented as given night shift did not administer the medication . The nurse progress notes contained no other documentation of behaviors or delusions. On [DATE] at 1:15 p.m., Resident #25 was asked if it was okay to discuss an encounter she had briefly mentioned previously the day before regarding a male resident having entered her room. Resident #25 agreed to the interview. Resident #25 was asked if Resident #25 recalled having mentioned a male resident that came into Resident #25's room. Resident #25 stated she did and identified Resident #85. Resident #25 stated Resident #85 had entered the room and at first patted her hand and told her that her hands were cold. Resident #25 stated a reply was made, Cold hands, Warm heart. At that time, Resident #85 grabbed the breast of Resident #25. Resident #25 stated a history of PTSD due to having been raped, beaten and left in an apartment alone to die, so the event was very upsetting. Resident #25 stated she felt comfortable to report to the physical therapist and a certain nurse aide. Resident #25 stated the DON came and visited about the event and Resident #25 had voiced the event was frightening. Resident #25 stated no further information had been shared regarding the incident so was not aware if the facility had taken care of the issue. Resident #25 was asked if there were any other persons at the facility she was afraid of, leery of, or concerned about. Resident #25 stated there had not been a personal encounter or observation but other female residents had warned to watch out for [Resident #27]. Resident #25 stated had not seen anything first hand but have the ability to say no. Resident #25 stated worry/concern for female residents that are unable to have a voice. On [DATE] at 3:15 p.m., the DON was asked to clarify why Resident #25 was seen by a provider for a skilled visit twice on [DATE]. After review of the progress notes and personal e-mails which the notes were sent, the DON stated the second progress note was received via e-mail on [DATE], but would call the provider to clarify. No other information was provided regarding clarification of the provider progress notes. The clinical record contained no documentation how Resident #25 was protected after the allegation of sexual abuse was identified. The clinical record did not document the resident to resident sexual assault had been thoroughly investigated. The records did not document an investigation had been completed; a report submitted to OSDH; or Local Law Enforcement had been notified from [DATE] until [DATE]. The facility did not take action to follow their abuse policy until after the surveyor asked about the investigation and reports to the required agencies. 3. Resident #27 was admitted with diagnoses to include anxiety, history of transient ischemic attack, cerebral infarction, and dementia without behaviors. Physician orders, dated [DATE] and continued to current, documented Resident #27 was to have behavior monitoring every shift for the target behavior of wandering, restlessness, insomnia, sadness, anxiety, and irritation/upset. A physician order, dated [DATE] and continued to current, documented Resident #27 was to receive Donapezil 10 mg at bedtime for dementia without behaviors. An annual assessment, dated [DATE], documented Resident #27 as follows: ~speech is unclear, rarely/never understood, and sometimes understands; ~short/long term memory deficits; ~modified independence for daily decision making; ~independent in walking, locomotion, eating, toileting, and hygiene; ~required supervision for bed mobility, and transfers; ~required limited assistance for dressing and bathing; and ~no behaviors had been observed during the assessment period. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .staff for reminders, cueing and direction for activities, cognitive stimulation, social interaction r/t cognitive deficits .need assistance of one for many ADLs due to weakness and forgetfulness .enjoys passing out clothing protectors in dining room .Impaired Cognitive function r/t hx CVA and TIAs with problems with decision making .need cueing, reminders and supervision/assistance with all decision making . A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .sexuality .attracted to an alert consensual female. We enjoy private time together occasionally .allow mutually consensual intimacy as desired .wife is aware of my attraction for another resident .respects my rights .only asks that [Resident #27] be reminded that he is married .Provide privacy as requested. Close privacy curtain and door when privacy desired . The care plan regarding sexuality for Resident #27 was not updated from [DATE] until [DATE]. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .anti-anxiety medication r/t Anxiety disorder .Monitor/document side effects .Mania, Hostility and rage, Aggressive or impulsive behavior, Hallucinations . The clinical record did not document Resident #27 had been assessed to ensure the cognitive capacity was intact to consent in a sexual relationship. The clinical record did not contain documentation to the frequency/extent of the relationship between Resident #27 and Resident #10. No entries were provided to indicate staff were monitoring Resident #27 and/or Resident #10. The facility abuse policy did not address how staff were to identify consensual resident to resident physical contact versus how to identify inappropriate touching/sexuality between residents with impaired cognition. On [DATE] at 3:31 p.m., Resident #29 stated that Resident #10 and Resident #22 wander throughout the facility and do not have cognitive skills to make good choices. Resident #29 stated that Resident #10 lived across hall from a male resident, which only knew the first name of the male resident. Resident #29 stated Resident #10 goes into the male resident room frequently. Resident #10 and the male resident have been observed to kiss and male resident have his hands under Resident #10's blouse. Resident #29 stated she did not feel other residents should have to watch/observe this public display. On [DATE] at 11:35 a.m., the administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if they were aware residents in the facility had concerns of inappropriate sexual touching between residents was occurring without supervision. They were informed only a first name had been identified. The administrator and DON identified the residents as Resident #27 and Resident #10. The administrator stated, Resident #27 and Resident #10 sat in the church service the weekend prior, holding hands through the church services. On [DATE] at 12:55 p.m., Resident #27's wife was asked if Resident #27 required cues/reminders. She stated the resident does have trouble communicating and may say the wrong words than what was meant. Resident #27's wife was asked if there had ever been any concerns with behaviors. Resident #27's wife stated none that she was aware of. Resident #27's wife was asked if she had ever been informed of resident touching other female residents. The wife stated Resident #27 has always been one to pat or give hugs. The wife was asked if the facility had spoken to her about Resident #27 having a female friend which he spend time with, and/or holding hands. The wife stated she had been notified of an indiscretion several years ago, she did not like it but did not feel she had any say in the matter. The wife stated she understood that it had ended, as the female resident involved had passed away. The wife was asked if she had been informed of a current female resident he was fond of. The wife stated she was aware he visited with another female resident but only that they spend time to visit each other. The wife was asked if Resident #27 had the capability to make good choices, what he would think if he thought others believed he was sexually inappropriate with the touch/pats/hugs. The wife stated Resident #27 would be very upset, if Resident #27 thought people believed he was inappropriate with female residents. On [DATE] at 2:40 p.m., the DON, Consultant #1 and Consultant #2 were asked if Resident #27's care plan was initiated on [DATE] for sexuality, why was this portion of the care plan not updated at any time until [DATE]. Consultant #1 reviewed the care plan and stated it appeared the issue had been resolved on the care plan at some time and was recently re-opened and put back into the care plan. The DON, Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if this was the same female as having been discussed on [DATE]. The DON stated there have been two female residents that Resident #27 had been involved with. The DON, Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if Resident #27's family was aware of the current relationship. The DON stated the wife was aware. The DON was asked if the wife had been told the entirety of the relationship due to the wife's belief of the current relationship was verbal exchange only. The DON stated she was not sure why the wife would say that. The DON stated she would have to look in the nurse notes to find the documentation the wife had been made aware of the situation. They were asked if the resident's with cognition impairment had been assessed to ensure they were able to give consent to a physical relationship. No information was provided. The DON was asked if an in-service had been provided to the staff after initiating the discussion of resident to resident physical altercation/relationships on [DATE]. The DON acknowledged staff had been in-serviced on the abuse policy. The DON was asked what information was provided to staff to ensure staff could determine the difference between consensual touching/relationships versus an event that a cognitive impaired resident should be protected from. No response was provided. The DON was asked how Resident #27 was being monitored in his relationship with Resident #10 to ensure the physical relationship remained consensual. No response was provided. The DON was asked if the relationship was consensual, how often did the facility re-evaluate/re-assess both residents to ensure the extent of the physical relationship and if it continued to be consensual for both residents. No response was provided. A policy was not provided regarding determination of consensual sexual relationships between residents that reside in the facility. 4. Resident #10 had diagnoses to include depressive disorder and dementia without behaviors. An activity care plan, dated [DATE], documented Resident #10 liked to sit outside and visit with fellow residents. The physician orders, dated [DATE], documented Resident #10 was to be monitored for behaviors due to medication side effects of a hypnotic and anti-depressant, to include sadness and crying. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Cognitive Loss .forgetful .make my own decisions but please intervene if indicated .Keep My routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible in order to decrease confusion . A significant change of status/five day skilled assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident as follows: ~clear speech, understands and is understood; ~moderately impaired for daily decision making; ~is inattentive, has disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness that does not fluctuate; and ~required supervision with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. A care plan, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Sexuality .am attracted to an alert consensual male. We enjoy private time together .Allow mutually consensual intimacy as desired .Physician is aware of my desire for mutually consensual intimacy with another resident .Provide privacy as requested. Close privacy curtain and door when privacy is desired . The care plan did not address a consensual sexual relationship with a male resident prior to [DATE]. The clinical record did not contain documentation regarding when the relationship began between Resident #10 and resident #27. The clinical record did not contain documentation Resident #10 was assessed to ensure cognitive skills were intact to consent to a sexual relationship. The clinical records of Resident #10 and #27 did not contain documentation the residents had been monitored do ensure the relationship was/continued to be consensual. The facility's abuse policy did not address how residents would be determined to enter into a consensual sexual relationship, or to provide guidance to the staff in determining consensual sexual relationship versus resident to resident altercation that would require protection, investigation and reporting. On [DATE] at 3:31 p.m., Resident #29 stated Resident #10 and Resident #22 wander throughout the facility and do not have cognitive skills to make good choices. Resident #29 stated that Resident #10 lived across hall from a male resident, which only knew the first name of the male resident. Resident #29 stated Resident #10 goes into the male resident room frequently. Resident #10 and the male resident have been observed to kiss and male resident have his hands under Resident #10's blouse. Resident #29 stated she did not feel other residents should have to watch/observe this public display. On [DATE] at 11:35 a.m., the administrator, DON and Consultant #3 were asked if they were aware residents in the facility had concerns of inappropriate sexual touching between residents was occurring without supervision. They were informed only a first name had been identified. The administrator and DON identified the residents as Resident #27 and Resident #10. The administrator stated, Resident #27 and Resident #10 sat in the church service the weekend prior, holding hands through the church services. On [DATE] at 2:45 p.m., the DON, Consultant #1 and Consultant #2 were asked when did the sexual relationship begin between Resident #10 and Resident #27. The DON stated, Not sure. The DON, Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if Resident #10 had documentation of the relationship in the clinical record. No response was provided. They were asked if the care plan had addressed the sexual relationship between Resident #10 and Resident #27, prior to the initial discussion on [DATE]. Consultant #2 stated it does not look like it by looking at the current care plan. The DON and Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if the situation was being monitored by the facility, where would the encounters between the residents be documented. No response was provided. The DON and Consultant #1 and #2 were asked what intervention/consents were placed prior to [DATE]. The DON stated the families knew. No documentation of family awareness prior to [DATE] was provided. The DON and Consultant #1 and #2 were asked if the facility had at any time considered an investigation and/or incident report to ensure Resident #10 and Resident #27 had in fact began as a consensual sexual relationship. No information was provided. The DON a[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a base line care plan for one (#31) of one new...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a base line care plan for one (#31) of one newly admitted residents reviewed for base line care plans. The DON reported 34 residents resided in the facility. The Resident Matrix for newly admitted residents, documented three new admissions in the past 30 days. Findings: A P&P titled, Care Plans-Baseline, revised December 2016, read in parts, .To assure that the resident's immediate care needs are met and maintained, a baseline care plan will be developed within forty-eight (48) hours of the resident's admission. Resident #31 admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included fracture of lower end of right femur, type 2 diabetes mellitus and reduced mobility. The clinical records for Resident #31 did not contain a baseline care plan completed within 48 hours of admission to the facility. On 09/07/22 at 3:25 p.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if there was a baseline care plan for Resident #31. The MDS coordinator stated, [Resident #31] came in when I was off of work and was unsure if it had been completed. The MDS coordinator was asked to review the EHR for the baseline care plan. The MDS coordinator stated, It didn't get done.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was updated for one (#24) of 14 sampled residents. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents documen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was updated for one (#24) of 14 sampled residents. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents documented 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A P&P, titled Comprehensive Assessment and the Care Delivery Process, revised December 2016, read in parts, Comprehensive assessments will be conducted to assist in developing person-centered care plans .Monitoring results and adjusting interventions includes .Periodically reviewing progress and adjusting treatments . Resident #24 had diagnoses which included heart failure, dementia and heart disease. Resident #24's care plan, date initiated 06/21/2021, read in part, CODE STATUS: I am a FULL CODE .END OF LIFE CARES [sic]: DNR .Revision on: 05/27/22 . On 09/08/22 at 1:57 p.m., the DON was asked to review the care plan that documented Resident #24 was a full code as well as a DNR. The DON was asked if the care plan was accurate and up to date to reflect the residents code status. The DON stated, I would say not, being it has conflicting information The MDS Coordinator was asked to review Resident #24's focus code status and end of life care plan. The MDS coordinator was asked what was Residents #24's code status. They stated, a full code. They were asked what the end of life care plan documented. They stated, resident is a DNR. They were asked if that was an accurate care plan, they stated I might have just not seen the code status. The MDS coordinator was asked if the residents code status is correct on the care plan. They stated, no.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to promptly notify the physician of STAT laboratory results for one (#18) of three sampled residents reviewed for lab results. The DON reporte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to promptly notify the physician of STAT laboratory results for one (#18) of three sampled residents reviewed for lab results. The DON reported 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A P&P titled, Lab and Diagnostic Test Results-Clinical Protocol, revised November 2018, read in parts, .Nursing staff will consider the following factors to help identify situations requiring prompt physician notification .Whether the physician has requested to be notified as soon as a result is received . Resident #18 had diagnoses which included iron deficiency anemia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated 09/04/22, read in part, .Stat Urinalysis, CMP, CBS [sic] STAT for elevated blood pressure . A Lab Result report, dated 09/05/22 at 12:29 a.m., read in part, .Sodium 134 L .Chloride 95 L .Glucose 211 H .BUN 42.0 H .Albumin 3.0 L .Total Protein 6.1 L .Total Bilirubin 0.1 L .ALP 161 H .Calcium 8.2 L .RBC 2.80 L .HGB 7.6 L .HCT 24.7 L . Resident #18's lab report had no documentation when it was received and reported to the physician by the nurse. On 09/07/22 at 1:30 p.m., the DON was asked for documentation that the physician had been notified about the lab drawn on 09/04/22. The DON reviewed the lab results in the EHR and stated, There was no documentation of that. Unless (the doctor) has it. The DON was asked what the process was to notify the physician of lab results. The DON stated, The nurse receives the labs, takes a picture of it, sends it to the doctor, writes on the lab, the date and time sent and puts it in a box then [the doctor] picks it up the next time [the doctor] comes in. The DON asked LPN #1 if [LPN #1] had pulled the lab results from the weekend. LPN #1 stated they were unaware Resident #18 had lab drawn on the weekend. On 09/07/22 at 2:36 p.m., The DON, approached this surveyor and stated, I called the doctor and asked if [they] had seen the lab on [Resident #18]. [They] had not seen it. The doctor was going to talk to the hospital and family about ordering a blood transfusion for the resident. The DON provided a copy of Residents #18's lab results which was noted by a nurse on 09/07/22 at 1:55 p.m., and signed by the physician on 09/07/22 [untimed].
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0943 (Tag F0943)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

On 09/08/22 at 03:30 p.m., a record review of five employees for abuse and neglect training was completed. LPN #3's employee file was reviewed and had no training documentation on the facility P&P for...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 09/08/22 at 03:30 p.m., a record review of five employees for abuse and neglect training was completed. LPN #3's employee file was reviewed and had no training documentation on the facility P&P for abuse and neglect. LPN #3's date of hire was 06/30/22. On 09/06/22 at 4:51 p.m., the DON was asked why staff had not reported the incident. The DON stated, I don't know. On 09/08/22 at 3:37 p.m., the BOM was asked for LPN #3's abuse and neglect training provided on hire. The BOM stated, It is not in [LPN#3's] chart, [LPN #3] didn't return the policy. The BOM was asked if there was any documentation that LPN #3 had been trained on abuse and neglect. The BOM stated, LPN #3 never returned the policies back to me. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure LPN #3 completed training on abuse and neglect prior to being assigned duties with direct care. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents identified 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's, undated, Abuse and Neglect - Administrative Protocol policy, read in parts, .residents of this facility will be free of abuse, neglect .The facility will implement the following steps for prevention and investigation . Screening .Training .provide all new employees training in Abuse recognition, prevention and reporting before floor employment begins and retrain on a semi-annual basis thereafter . Identify .will train the staff to observe, recognize and report any and all signs of abuse, neglect .teach the staff signs to identify abuse .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered an opportunity to up-date an advanced directive for two (#1 and #27) of three sampled residents reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered an opportunity to up-date an advanced directive for two (#1 and #27) of three sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents documented 34 residents resided in the facility with four residents having formulated an advanced directive. Findings: 1. The admission packet, dated 12/01/20, documented Resident #1 did not have an advance directive or living will. The form documented information was offered to formulate an advance directive. The admission packet and information was signed by the resident's representative. The clinical record contained no further information an advance directive was re-assessed/re-offered to ensure Resident #1's wishes were followed at end of life. 2. An admission packet, dated 08/21/19, documented Resident #27 did not have a DNR or advance directive. The form documented information was offered to formulate an advance directive. The admission packet and information was signed by the resident's representative. The clinical record contained no further information an advance directive was re-assessed/re-offered to ensure Resident #27's wishes were followed at end of life. On 09/08/22 at 1:30 p.m., the DON was asked when were residents offered information to formulate an advance directive. The DON stated the admission packet contained the information to assess for advance directives and ensure information was provided to formulate an advance directive if the resident did not have an advance directive in place. The DON was asked what the facility had in place to periodically re-assess/re-offer information for a resident to formulate/update an advance directive. The DON stated the facility did not have a practice in place to ensure a follow-up was completed to formulate advance directives.
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** 2. Resident #24 had diagnoses which included heart failure, dementia and heart disease. A physician order, dated 05/27/22, read ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #24 had diagnoses which included heart failure, dementia and heart disease. A physician order, dated 05/27/22, read in part, .Admit to [name] Hospice Service .DNR . A significant change assessment, dated 06/08/22, did not document Resident #24 was receiving hospice services. An annual assessment, dated 08/07/22, did not document Resident #24 was receiving hospice services. On 09/08/22 at 2:09 p.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if the significant change assessment on 06/08/22 documented Resident #24 was receiving hospice services. They stated, I didn't get it, so there are some things I missed. The MDS coordinator was asked if Resident #24's annual assessment, dated 08/07/22 documented the resident was receiving hospice services. They stated, No, I didn't catch it on the first one. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessment accurately reflected the residents status for two (#1 and #24) of 14 sampled residents. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents identified 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A P&P, titled Comprehensive Assessment and the Care Delivery Process, revised December 2016, read in parts, .Comprehensive assessments will be conducted to assist in developing person-centered care plans .Comprehensive assessments, care planning and the care delivery process involve collecting and analyzing information, choosing and initiating intervention, and then monitoring results and adjusting interventions . 1. Resident #1 had diagnosis to include centrilobular emphysema, hypertension, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia. A fall care plan, last updated 02/21/22, read in parts, .at risk for falls r/t dementia .cue me routinely for safety while transferring self .assistance as needed .prompt response to all requests for assistance .wearing appropriate footwear . A progress note, dated 04/13/22 at 6:42 p.m., read in parts, .observed resident fall from w/c onto floor . A progress note, dated 04/15/22 at 7:09 p.m., read in parts, .observed resident lying on floor in her room .resident stated got up by herself without help . A quarterly assessment, dated 06/02/22, documented Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment for daily decision making, required supervision of staff for transfers, supervision with two staff assistance for walking, utilized a walker and/or wheelchair for mobility/ambulation and had not had any falls since the prior assessment dated [DATE]. On 09/08/22 at 2:18 p.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if the assessment completed on 06/02/22 was accurate. After review of the progress notes and the assessment, the MDS coordinator stated the assessment did not accurately reflect falls.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure monitoring was completed for the effectiveness of a hypnotic medication for one (#25) of one resident reviewed for the administratio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure monitoring was completed for the effectiveness of a hypnotic medication for one (#25) of one resident reviewed for the administration of a hypnotic medication. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents documented two residents had physician orders for a hypnotic medication to be administered, and the facility census was 34. Findings: Resident #25 had diagnosis to include anxiety disorder, depression, and insomnia. A physician order, dated 07/25/22, documented Resident #25 was to be administered Ramelteon 8 mg every night at bedtime for insomnia. The clinical record did not contain documentation the effectiveness of the hypnotic medication had been monitored. On 09/08/22 at 3:37 p.m., the DON was asked if Resident #25 had been monitored for the effectiveness of Ramelteon that had been administered for insomnia. After review of the record, the DON stated a behavior monitoring order should have been put in place to prompt the monitoring of the effectiveness of the hypnotic medication, but had not been.
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 the facility failed to respond in a timely manner to a pharmacists recommendations for a GDR of a psychotropic medication for one (#16) of five sampled residents r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to respond in a timely manner to a pharmacists recommendations for a GDR of a psychotropic medication for one (#16) of five sampled residents reviewed for pharmacy recommended GDR's. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents, documented 21 residents received psychotropic medications. Findings: A P&P titled, Tapering Medications and Gradual Dose Reduction, revised 2007, read in parts, .After medications are ordered for the resident, the staff and practitioner shall seek an appropriate dose and duration for each medication .Resident who use antipsychotic drugs shall receive a gradual dose reduction .unless clinically contraindicated .The Physician will review periodically whether current medications are still necessary in their current dose . Resident #16 had diagnoses which included, Insomnia and depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic symptoms. A physician medication review report, read in parts, .traZODone HCL Tablet 50 MG Give 0.5 tablet [25 mg] by mouth at bedtime for Insomnia .start date 04/28/21 .Wellbutrin Tablet 100MG .Give 100mg by mouth two times a day related to MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER,RECURRENT,SEVERE WITH PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS .start date 05/30/20 . A Pharmaceutical Consultant Report, dated 02/12/22, read in parts, .Trazadone 25 mg HS started 4/28/21 .Wellbutrin 100mg BID started 5/30/20 . The report documented a request to evaluate the routine use of the medications and consider a dose reduction. The report did not have a physician response or signature. On 09/08/22 at 1:55 p.m., the DON was asked if a GDR had been attempted for Resident #16 for the use of Wellbutrin and/or Trazadone. No response was provided at this time. On 09/08/22 at 2:40 p.m., the DON stated there was one GDR on 02/10/22, and provided a signed copy of an undated GDR. The DON was asked what the date was on the GDR form. The DON left the room with the undated GDR. On 09/09/22 at 11:49 a.m., the DON approached this surveyor and provided a copy of Resident #16's pharmaceutical consultant report for Wellbutrin and Trazadone, dated 02/10/22. The DON stated, The doctor came in and signed it yesterday and dated it today for yesterday.
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure a. staff wore an N-95 while assigned in the COVID-19 isolation unit; and, b. unvaccinated staff wore an N-95 while in the facility per ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a. staff wore an N-95 while assigned in the COVID-19 isolation unit; and, b. unvaccinated staff wore an N-95 while in the facility per facility policy. The DON reported 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A P&P titled, COVID-19 VACCINE IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STAFF MEMBERS WHO REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM VACCINATION, EFFECTIVE 02/14/22, read in part, .Those staff who are not fully vaccinated, or who have been granted an exemption .will adhere to additional precautions .Additional precautions include the use of a well fitted NIOSH approved N-95 mask for source control at all times while in the building . On 09/06/22 at 4:18 p.m., a PPE bin was observed outside of the double doors to enter the COVID isolation unit. Upon entry to the unit CNA #1 was observed sitting at the nurse's desk. CNA #1 was observed to be wearing only a yellow surgical mask. Three residents were housed in the COVID unit, all resident doors were observed to be open to the hallways. PPE bins were located outside the resident's rooms. On 09/08/22 at 7:49 a.m., LPN #4 was the charge nurse for the night shift. LPN #4 was observed at the nurse's desk (outside of the covid unit) and was wearing a surgical mask. On 09/09/22 at 5:39 a.m., CNA #1 was asked what had they been told about wearing PPE in the COVID unit. CNA #1 stated, if we're not in the resident's rooms, can wear a normal mask. On 09/09/22 at 6:13 a.m., LPN #4 who had worked the night shift, was interviewed and was observed wearing a yellow surgical mask. They were asked if they had been vaccinated for COVID. They stated, no. LPN #4 was asked how often are you tested. LPN #4 stated, daily. LPN #4 was asked if there were any other special precautions in place. They stated, None that I have been made aware of. LPN #4 was asked what should be worn while working in the COVID unit. LPN #4 stated, If you are providing personal care its full PPE, gown, gloves, booties, hairnet, N-95 and face shield/goggles. LPN #4 was asked what if someone is just sitting in the unit. They stated, You should be wearing an N-95. On 09/09/22 at 7:42 a.m., the DON was asked if there any special precautions in place for unvaccinated staff. The DON stated, Yes they should be wearing an N-95 when they are at work. Unless documentation for medical reasons. They were asked if any unvaccinated staff have documentation that they cannot wear an N-95? The DON stated, Not that I am aware of. On 09/09/22 at 8:03 a.m., the DON was asked are your staff that are not vaccinated wearing an N-95 mask, while in the facility? The DON stated, There is one that is not. The DON was asked what PPE should be worn by staff in the COVID unit. The DON stated, when the residents are in their rooms, they (staff) can wear the surgical mask when they go in the unit. When they go into the resident room staff should don full PPE. The DON was asked again if that was the policy to allow staff to wear a surgical mask while in the COVID unit. The DON stated, I believe it was just verbal. They were asked if that would be an infection control issue. The DON stated, Yes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement/use a SBAR tool for the use of antibiotics for one (#14) of five sampled residents reviewed for the use of antibiotics. The DON r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement/use a SBAR tool for the use of antibiotics for one (#14) of five sampled residents reviewed for the use of antibiotics. The DON reported 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #14 had diagnoses which included COPD, and high blood pressure. A physician order, dated 08/31/22, read in part, .Azithromycin Packet Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Cough/sputum for 5 days . On 09/09/22 at 1:40 p.m., the DON was asked what criteria was used for the use of antibiotics. The DON stated, the SBAR, and documentation should be in the EHR. On 09/09/22 at 2:37 p.m., LPN #2 was asked if an SBAR had been completed for Resident #14 for the antibiotic ordered on 08/31/22. LPN #2 stated, No. LPN #2 stated, the SBAR is used for respiratory and urinary tract infections. LPN #2 was asked for the antibiotic stewardship P&P. LPN #2 stated, they were unable to locate the P&P.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure consent forms were completed for: a. pneumococcal vaccines were offered to two (#20 and #22) of five sampled residents reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure consent forms were completed for: a. pneumococcal vaccines were offered to two (#20 and #22) of five sampled residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccines; and b. influenza vaccines were offered for one (#20) of five sampled residents reviewed for influenza vaccines. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents, documented five residents had received pneumococcal vaccines, and 20 residents had received influenza vaccines. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents documented 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A P&P, titled Influenza Vaccine, revised March 2022, read in parts, .Between October 1st and March 31st each year, the influenza vaccine shall be offered to residents and employees .For those who receive the vaccine .will be documented in the resident's .medical record .A residents's refusal of the vaccine shall be documented on the informed consent for influenza vaccine and placed in the resident's medical record . A P&P titled, Pneumococcal Vaccine revised March 2022, read in parts, .Prior to or upon admission, residents are assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, are offered the vaccine series within thirty (30) days of admission .If refused .information is documented in the resident's medical record .For each resident who received the vaccine .are documented in the resident's medical record . 1. Resident #20 had diagnoses which included, Alzheimer's disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. On 09/09/22 at 6:54 a.m., Resident #20's EHR was reviewed for immunizations. There was no documentation Resident #20 had received or refused the flu or pneumo vaccination. Resident #20's flu and pneumo consent form, dated 10/13/21, documented . Educational materials provided . The consent form was not completed to reflect Resident #20's consent/decline for the flu or pneumo vaccination. Resident #20's flu and pneumo consent form, dated 06/15/22, documented, Resident #20 had consented to receive the pneumo vaccination. A physician order, dated 06/16/22, read in part .flu or pneumonia vaccine . Resident #20's MAR, dated June 2022, read in part, .Pneumovax 23 Inject 0.5 ml intramuscularly one time . On 06/18/22 the MAR, documented the pneumo vaccination had not been administered. A medication administration note, dated 06/18/22, read in part, .waiting on pharmacy . On 09/09/22 at 8:16 Resident #20's admission flu and pneumo consent form was reviewed with the DON. The DON was asked was Resident #20 admitted during the time of flu season. The DON stated, yes. The DON was asked if the resident had been offered the flu vaccine at that time. The DON stated, The paperwork is just marked education provided. The DON was asked if the physician had ordered the pneumo vaccination since Resident #20 had admitted ? The DON stated, Looks like it was ordered June 16th. The DON was asked if the pneumo vaccination was administered as ordered. The DON stated, there was no documentation the pneumo immunization had been administered. 2. Resident #22 had diagnoses which included high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. On 09/09/22 at 6:54 a.m., Resident #22's EHR was reviewed for immunizations. There was no documentation Resident #22 had received or refused the pneumo vaccination. On 09/09/22 at 8:07 a.m., Resident #22's flu and pneumo consent form was reviewed with the DON. The DON, was asked if Resident #22 was offered the pneumo vaccine at the time of admission. The DON stated, Yes, it appears so .Educational materials provided, it is not marked whether [the resident] would like [to receive] it or not. The DON was asked if the admission paperwork had been completed on the vaccinations offered. The DON stated, no.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure unvaccinated staff tested daily per facility protocol for two...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure unvaccinated staff tested daily per facility protocol for two (LPN #4 and CMA #1) of three unvaccinated staff reviewed for COVID-19 testing. The DON reported three staff who had COVID-19 vaccination exempt status. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents documented 34 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A P&P titled, COVID-19 VACCINE IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STAFF MEMBERS WHO REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM VACCINATION, EFFECTIVE 02/14/22, read in part, .Those staff who are not fully vaccinated, or who have been granted an exemption .will adhere to additional precautions .Additional precautions .daily testing prior to shift . On 09/09/22 at 1:34 p.m., COVID-19 staff testing logs for the month of August 2022 and September 2022 was reviewed. On 09/09/22 at 7:22 a.m., the DON was asked how often COVID-19 testing was being completed. The DON stated, During outbreak, testing all staff and residents every 3-7 days when a positive is identified, with the exception of unvaccinated [staff] who are tested prior to every shift. On 09/09/22 at 2:51 p.m., the BOM was asked to confirm testing documentation for LPN #4 on 08/10/22 ,and CMA #1 on 09/03/22 and 09/04/22. The BOM confirmed there was no documentation for testing on those dates. On 09/09/22 at 3:50 p.m., the DON was asked for documentation to confirm LPN #4 had tested on [DATE], and CMA #1 had tested on [DATE] and 09/04/22. The DON was unable to provide any documentation testing had been completed for LPN #4 on 08/10/22, and CMA #1 on 09/03/22 and 09/04/22.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 4 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Shawn Manor's CMS Rating?

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

How is Shawn Manor Staffed?

CMS rates SHAWN MANOR NURSING HOME's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Shawn Manor?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at SHAWN MANOR NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2024. These included: 4 that caused actual resident harm and 18 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Shawn Manor?

SHAWN MANOR NURSING HOME is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CONHOLD, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 96 certified beds and approximately 25 residents (about 26% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PONCA CITY, Oklahoma.

How Does Shawn Manor Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, SHAWN MANOR NURSING HOME's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Shawn Manor?

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

Is Shawn Manor Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Shawn Manor Stick Around?

SHAWN MANOR NURSING HOME has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Oklahoma nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Shawn Manor Ever Fined?

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

Is Shawn Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

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