CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD

801 NORTH WASHINGTON, WEATHERFORD, OK 73096 (580) 772-3993
Non profit - Church related 81 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
36/100
#153 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Corn Heritage Village and Rehab of Weatherford has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #153 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma places it in the bottom half, and it is the second-ranked facility in Custer County, meaning there is only one local option that is better. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 reported in 2024 to 6 in 2025. While staffing is average with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 54%, there is less RN coverage than 90% of Oklahoma facilities, which is concerning as RNs play a crucial role in addressing health issues. Specific incidents of concern include a critical situation where a resident with dementia managed to leave the facility unsupervised, and a serious case where a resident suffered burns from excessively hot food, highlighting significant safety and care deficiencies. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing levels, the facility’s serious issues and low trust grade raise red flags for prospective residents and their families.

Trust Score
F
36/100
In Oklahoma
#153/282
Bottom 46%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$14,020 in fines. Higher than 83% of Oklahoma facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Oklahoma average (2.6)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near Oklahoma avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $14,020

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
May 2025 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE] at 4:27 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health verified the existence of an Immediate Jeopardy Situation. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE] at 4:27 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health verified the existence of an Immediate Jeopardy Situation. The facility failed to provide supervision to prevent elopement. Resident #1 resided on the memory unit. A quarterly resident assessment, dated [DATE], showed Resident #1 had moderate cognition impairment, had no wandering behavior seven days prior to the assessment, could walk 150 feet, and had a diagnosis of dementia. Resident #1's care plan, dated [DATE], showed they were at risk for elopement. Behavior notes showed Resident #1 had been experiencing increased behaviors. On [DATE], Resident #1 was getting dressed and stated they had to get out because their daughter died. There were no interventions implemented after the increased behaviors. An incident report, dated [DATE], showed the facility received a phone call at 3:35 p.m., telling them Resident #1 was approximately two blocks away from the facility. Shift assignment sheets for [DATE] on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, showed two CNAs had been assigned to the memory unit. Time records, dated [DATE], showed one of the two CNAs did not come into work until 4:35 p.m. On [DATE] at 4:33 p.m., the administrator and DON were notified of the existence of an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation related to elopement for Resident #1. The IJ template was provided to the administrator. On [DATE] at 10:43 a.m., an acceptable plan of removal was approved by Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal, read in part, Corn Heritage Village & Rehab of [NAME] Plan of Removal for IJ Total number of residents potentially at risk are 13 Action to Remove Immediacy On [DATE]th all sunroom windows had new window alarms installed, windows have been adjusted to open only a few inches where no residents can get through it (in guidance with fire chief). Resident #1 was immediately placed on one-on-one care till [Res #1] was transported to Geri-psych due to voicing self-harm on same day and is not currently in facility. All staff shall receive in-service education on all aspects of the elopement policy and resident behaviors that may indicate elopement. by 12:00 pm [DATE], this training will be done by the Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing or designee. An elopement assessment will be completed on all residents in the memory care unit and current behaviors reviewed for changes. Nursing director is monitoring and ensuring there is adequate and appropriate staffing in memory care unit every shift Action to Prevent Recurrence Res #1 is not currently in facility When Res# l returns to facility, new elopement assessment shall be completed Nursing team shall check windows every shift to ensure they are secure. Nursing team shall ensure there are always appropriate numbers of nursing staff in memory care unit. Facility shall consult with Fire Marshall for any more possible solutions to securing windows in the memory care unit The Hall Monitor assigned to that hall shall ensure all possible exit points are secure during his/her rounds. Maintenance Director shall check all exit points weekly to ensure safety of residents. All new staff Hired after [DATE] shall receive the same education on all aspects of Elopement. All staff shall receive education on elopement with an emphasis on resident behaviors that may indicate possible elopement and appropriate interventions. Monitoring implementation of Plan of Removal All education, implementation and monitoring of this plan of removal will be completed by the Director of Nursing and administrator and/or their designee. Emergency QAPI meeting will be conducted on [DATE] @ 10:00am to review protocols put into place. This plan will continue to be reviewed in the regulatory quarterly QAPI meetings. On [DATE] at 10:32 a.m., after interviews with facility staff, review of in-services, elopement assessments, and staffing, the immediacy was lifted, effective [DATE] at 12:00 p.m. The deficient practice remained at an isolated level with the potential for more than minimal harm. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent elopement for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for elopement. The DON identified 62 residents reside in the facility and 13 residents were at risk for wandering. Findings: On [DATE] at 11:58 a.m., the memory care unit sunroom was observed to have 11 windows approximately one and one-half feet off the ground. An undated Wandering/Elopement policy, read in part, To ensure the residents' safety utilizing the least restrictive means available. To provide a safe and secure environment. An Elopement Risk Evaluation, dated [DATE], showed Resident #1 was at risk of elopement. A quarterly resident assessment, dated [DATE], showed Resident #1 had moderate cognition impairment, had no wandering behavior seven days prior to the assessment, could walk 150 feet, and had a diagnosis of dementia. A Care Plan Report, dated [DATE], showed Resident #1 was at risk for elopement and would have supervision to prevent exiting the building unattended. A Time & Attendance record, dated [DATE], showed CNA #7 (one of the two scheduled CNAs) did not clock in for the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift until 4:35 p.m. A hand written document, dated [DATE], read in part, [CNA #6 and CMA #3] did rounds in the unit with 2nd shift [CNA #8] [at] 3:10 - 3:15 [Resident #1] was in the unit sun room pacing back [and] forth. Before we left the unit after doing rounds [CNA #6] told the 2nd shift CNA [CNA #8] to keep an eye on the doors in the unit sunroom where [Resident #1] was seen by the 3 of us. After I clocked out and got to my car I left the facility parking lot making a right going to the next block over where I seen [Resident #1] walking kinda [kind of] fast on the sidewalk on E Huber Ave right on N [NAME]. I immediatley [sic] pulled over onto E Huber Ave to stop [Resident #1] from going further away from the facility and contacted the charge nurse [at] 3:35 after stopping [Resident #1]. The document was signed by CMA #3. Resident #1 was located two blocks from the facility on a busy four lane road. An Incident Report Form, dated [DATE], read in part, At 15:35 [3:35 p.m.] received phone call that resident [Resident #1] was observed by staff member [staff initials] 2 blocks from facility on the sidewalk. The nurse immediately went that direction. Resident is observed without physical distress. [Resident #1] is however, observed with agitation and anxiety.On initial investigation, it was identified that resident had climbed out of a window in the sun room of the memory care unit. On [DATE] at 11:52 a.m., CNA #1 was asked how they were made aware of residents in the memory unit at risk of elopement. They stated anyone who could walk was at risk for elopement. On [DATE] at 11:59 a.m., CMA #2 was asked how they were made aware of residents in the memory unit at risk for elopement. They stated the charge nurse and administrative staff would let them know. CMA #2 was asked how they staffed in the memory unit. They stated they assigned two CNAs, a CMA that worked the unit and two other halls, and a charge nurse who worked the unit and other halls. The CMA stated staff were to make rounds every fifteen minutes in the unit. On [DATE] at 12:58 p.m., the administrator was asked how staff ensured wanderers were kept safe. They stated with wander guards, locked doors, and every two hour rounds. The administrator stated immediately after Resident #1 eloped, they went to the memory care unit and found one of the windows was opened with the screen out of it. On [DATE] at 1:23 p.m., CMA #3 stated they had done rounds with oncoming CNA #8 for the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., CNA #7 was not going to be in until 5:00 p.m. CMA #3 stated they had seen Resident #1 while making rounds with CNA #8 during shift change. They stated CNA #8 had been informed to watch Resident #1 closely because they had been pacing. On [DATE] at 2:10 p.m., the DON was asked if one CNA was enough to keep residents safe in the memory care unit. They stated, Most of the time, yes.
Jan 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident and/or their legal representative were informed i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident and/or their legal representative were informed in writing of alternative treatments and side effects of the use of a psychotropic medication for one (#47) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. The DON identified 68 residents residing in the facility. Findings: A Psychotropic Medication policy, undated, read in part, Consent: Provide the resident/resident representative with information on the medication, indication, dose, side effects, adverse consequences, and goal of treatment. Obtain informed consent from the resident/resident representative. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia and unspecified mood [affective] disorder. A physician's order, dated 01/09/25, documented Resident #47 received olanzapine oral tablet (antipsychotic medication) 2.5 mg by mouth two times a day for anxiety and aggressive behaviors related to unspecified mood [affective] disorder. Resident #47's clinical record was reviewed. The clinical record did not contain signed consent for the use of a psychotropic medication, nor documentation that education and alternative treatments were discussed with the resident and/or their legal representative. On 01/22/25 at 2:45 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 was asked if residents/representatives were informed of risk/benefits of antipsychotic medications and signed consent for usage if prescribed. They stated, Yes. After reviewing the clinical record for Resident #47, MDS coordinator #1 acknowledged no consent had been signed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed to self-administer med...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed to self-administer medication for one (#31) of one sampled resident reviewed for self administering medications. The DON identified nine residents received nebulizer breathing treatments and 68 residents received medications from the facility. Findings: The facility's Self Administration of Medication policy and procedure, dated 04/10/14, read in part , A physician order must be obtained and permission given. The policy also read, The resident will review with the nurse all medications that they are taking identify the accurate dosage, correct time and why they are taking the medication. Resident #31 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included type 2 diabetes, tremors, adjustment insomnia, depression, other amnesia, and acute kidney failure. Resident #31's quarterly assessment, dated 11/12/24, documented their cognition was intact with minimal impairments. Resident #31's physician's order, dated 11/14/24, documented they were prescribed ipratropium-albuterol solution (bronchodilator) 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML 1 vial inhale orally every 6 hours for shortness of breath, cough and congestion. The physician order did not document Resident #31 had permission to self-administer medication. On 01/22/25 at 11:20 a.m., Resident #31 was observed in their room. Resident #31 had a nebulizer mask and was giving themselves a breathing treatment. No nurse was observed present in the resident's room or in the hall way. On 01/22/25 at 11:22 a.m., LPN #3 came from a room where the door was closed across the hall from Resident #31's room. LPN #3 was asked what was going on in Resident #31's room. LPN #3 stated the resident was getting a routine breathing treatment. LPN #3 was asked who was in the room with Resident #31 supervising the breathing treatment. They stated, Nobody. LPN #3 was asked what the policy was for residents self-administering medications. LPN #3 stated they should have remained with the resident. LPN #3 acknowledged that they stepped out and went into another resident's room and shut the door across the hall. LPN #3 stated Resident #31 did not have an order to self-administer medications. On 01/22/25 at 11:29 a.m., Resident #31 was asked what they were doing. They stated they were giving themselves a breathing treatment. They were asked was a nurse present in the room. Resident #31 stated, No, not today. On 01/22/25 at 11:37 a.m., the DON was asked what was the policy for residents who self-administer medication. The DON stated there should have been a physician order that gave permission and the resident should review with the nurse the dosage, time, and why they need the medication. The DON was asked if there was an order for Resident #31 to self-administer medication and breathing treatments. The DON stated across the hall was not considered supervision. The DON stated there was no order for Resident #31 to self-administer medications and they were not assessed to self- administer medications. The DON stated the facility's Self Administration of Medication policy was not followed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a MDS assessment for one (#47)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a MDS assessment for one (#47) of five sampled residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The administrator identified 68 residents resided in the facility Findings: Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia and unspecified mood [affective] disorder. A nurse's note, dated 01/06/25 at 3:10 p.m., documented Resident #47 was threatening to leave the facility and a WanderGuard device was placed on their left ankle by the nurse on duty. An admission MDS assessment, dated 01/10/25, documented in section P, item P0100 E, Resident #47 did not use a wander/elopement alarm. On 01/22/25 at 10:40 a.m., Resident #47 was observed sitting on the side of their bed. A WanderGuard device was noted on their left ankle. On 01/22/25 at 2:30 p.m., MDS coordinator #2 was asked if Resident #47 wore a WanderGuard device. They stated, Yes. After reviewing Resident #47's MDS, the MDS coordinator acknowledged MDS item P0100 E had been answered inaccurately.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was labeled and dated for one (#...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was labeled and dated for one (#218) of 18 sampled residents reviewed for labeling and dating of oxygen tubing. The DON identified 18 residents had physician orders for supplemental oxygen. Findings: The facilty's Oxygen System Change Out policy, revised 10/11/17, read in part, Each new oxygen set will be labeled with the date of change and the nurses initials. Resident #218 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of the pelvis, fracture of the fifth cervical vertebrae, and osteoporosis. Resident #218's physician's order, dated 01/17/25, read in part, 2L via nc to maintain spo2 [greater than] 89% PRN every shift. On 01/21/25 at 12:21 p.m., Resident #218 was observed in their bed wearing oxygen with a nasal cannula attached to an oxygen concentrator There was no date or label on oxygen tubing concentrator indicating when the oxygen tubing was administered. On 01/23/25 at 11:51 a.m., Resident #218 was observed wearing oxygen via a nasal cannula. There was a bag taped to the oxygen saturator and no date was observed indicating when O2 tubing was administered. On 01/23/25 at 11:53 a.m., LPN #4 was asked what the policy and procedure was when a resident had a saturator and O2. LPN #4 stated the tubing needed to be labeled with the day it was administered and who administered it. They were asked to come to Resident #218's room. On 01/23/25 at 11:59 a.m., LPN #4 was asked what they observed in Resident #218's room. LPN #4 stated they did not see a label with the date the oxygen tubing was administered and who administered the tubing. On 01/23/25 at 12:07 p.m., the ADON was asked what the policy was when a resident was prescribed supplemental oxygen equipment. The ADON stated the oxygen tubing and bag should be labeled and dated the day they were administered. The ADON went into Resident #218's room and was asked to discuss what they observed. The ADON stated there was no label or date on the oxygen tubing or bag and their policy was not followed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours 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 the baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours for two (#47 and #218) of 17 sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The administrator identified 68 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 6:00 p.m. with diagnoses which included dementia and unspecified mood [affective] disorder. The baseline care plan for Resident #47 documented an implementation date of 01/06/25 at 9:40 a.m. A total of 63.75 hours following the resident's admission. 2. Resident #218 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included COPD and encounter for orthopedic aftercare (pelvic fracture). The baseline care plan for Resident #218 documented an implementation date of 01/20/25 at 8:10 a.m. A total of 72 hours following the resident's admission. On 01/22/25 at 2:28 p.m., MDS coordinator #1 was asked what was the facility policy on completion of the baseline care plan for newly admitted residents. They stated the baseline care plan was completed within the first 24 hours after admission. After reviewing the baseline care plans for Resident #47 and Resident #218, MDS coordinator #1 acknowledged the care plans had not been completed within 24 hours by the admitting nurse or the nurse taking responsibility for the resident immediately after.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a family representative and physician were notified of an ab...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a family representative and physician were notified of an abuse allegation for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for notifications. The administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cognitive communication deficit and major depressive disorder. A comprehensive assessment, dated 09/05/24, documented Resident #1's cognition was significantly impaired. The facility's Incident Report Form, dated 08/18/24, documented Resident #1 alleged allegations of abuse/mistreatment by an unidentified direct care staff. The facility's electronic health record did not document the family representative or physician was notified of the abuse/mistreatment allegation on 08/18/24. On 10/10/24 at 11:30 a.m., a family representative was asked if they were notified of the abuse allegation on 08/18/24. The family representative stated they were not notified of the allegation of abuse. On 10/10/24 at 12:00 p.m., the DON was asked what the policy and procedure was for notifications after an abuse allegation. They stated the family representative and physician should be notified and documented in the progress notes. The DON was asked to provide documentation to show when the family representative and physician was notified. The DON stated there was no documentation in the electronic health record the family representative and physician were notified. The DON was asked to provide a copy of the policy regarding required notifications. The DON stated they did not have a policy regarding notifications of family and physicians after an abuse allegation.
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure controlled medication counts were correct, and controlled medication counts were completed every shift for two (#10 an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure controlled medication counts were correct, and controlled medication counts were completed every shift for two (#10 and #39) sampled residents reviewed during narcotic count. The DON identified the resident census was 66. Findings: A undated Controlled Medications-Administration policy, read in parts, .When a controlled medication is administered, the licensed nurse administering the medication immediately enters all of the following information on the accountability record .At each shift change, a physical inventory of all controlled medications is conducted by two licensed nurses and/or one nurse and a CMA .is documented on an audit record . 1. Resident #10 had diagnoses which included peripheral autonomic neuropathy, restless legs, and high blood pressure. A Physician Order, dated 04/18/23 documented Resident #10 was to be administered Pregabalin 50 mg two times per day. 2. Resident #39 had diagnoses which included Anorexia, pain, and dementia. A Physician Order, dated 01/18/23, documented Resident #39 was to be administered Marinol 2.5 mg at bedtime. On 10/29/23 at 3:07 p.m., the medication storage room was observed with CMA #2. A card with twelve Marinol tablets was observed in the refrigerator. A narcotic count was completed with CMA #2. Resident #39's controlled administration record documented 13 Marinol capsules remained. Resident #10's pregabalin documented 31 tablets, but the medication card contained thirty tablets. CMA #2 reviewed the MAR and stated it was administered last night by CMA #3 but had not been documented as administered on the controlled administration record. CMA #2 was asked if they had completed the narcotic count for Marinol at shift change this morning. They stated they had not counted the Marinol this morning. On 10/29/23 at 3:40 p.m., CMA #2 stated they had given Resident #10's pregabalin this morning but had not signed the medication out on the sheet. On 10/29/23 at 3:50 p.m., the ADON reviewed the MAR for Resident #39 and stated the resident had been administered the Marinol last night but staff had not signed the medication out on the narcotic count sheet. The ADON was asked how often narcotics should be counted. They stated every shift change. They were asked if the Marinol was counted at shift change at eleven last night and seven this morning how was the count incorrect. They stated staff did not count correctly.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff to provide restorative services for one (#49) of two sampled residents reviewed for restorative services. The DON ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff to provide restorative services for one (#49) of two sampled residents reviewed for restorative services. The DON identified 39 residents received restorative services and the resident census was 66. Findings: Resident #39 had diagnoses which included repeated falls and a fracture of the right femur. A physical therapy Restorative Care Program form, dated 10/21/22, documented Resident #49 was to receive restorative services three times a week as tolerated. ARestorative Care Flow Record, dated 09/03/23 through 09/30/23 did not document Resident #49 had received restorative services for five of twelve opportunities. ARestorative Care Flow Record, dated 10/01/23 through 10/28/23 did not document Resident #49 had received restorative services for six of twelve opportunities. On 10/31/23 at 10:41 a.m., the RA and was asked if restorative services had been provided three times a week for September and October 2023. They stated they were unsure. They were asked who provided the restorative services if they were not working. They stated they were unsure and there was not another RA. The RA stated they may have had to work the floor on some of the missing days. The RA was asked how often they have to work the floor. They stated they were not sure what position they would be working until they arrived to work. On 10/31/23 at 3:43 p.m., the ADON was shown the restorative records. They stated Resident #49 had not received their exercises according to the order. The ADON was asked if the RA is not available, does the restorative exercises not get completed. They stated, Yes. On 11/01/23 at 12:55 p.m., the ADON was asked if the RA gets pulled to the floor to work. They stated the RA does get pulled to work the floor at times. The ADON was asked what impact not having restorative services could have on the residents. They stated they could have a decline in their ADL's. The ADON was asked if the residents who receive restorative services needs are being met if restorative services are not being provided. They stated, No.
Jun 2022 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and anxiety ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and anxiety disorder. A quarterly assessment, dated 04/06/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact. An incident report, dated 06/01/22, documented the resident spilled her cup of noodles on her the previous night and received burns with blisters to her left upper arm, neck, and chest area. On 06/24/22 at 12:31 p.m., the resident reported the water was too hot and the cup of noodles burned her when she spilled the noodles on her. The resident reported she picked up the cup and her arm jerked and water splashed her on the left upper arm and a few areas on her chest. The burn areas on her chest are now healed. The burn area to left inner arm is healing with no signs of infection. On 06/24/22 at 1:17 p.m., LPN #2 reported the resident still ate noodles almost on a daily basis either as a snack or for a meal if she did not like what was on the menu. The LPN was asked what intervention was put in place to prevent this type of accident from happening again. LPN #2 reported she educated the CNA's on her shift to read the back of the box, to follow the directions, and not to fill it with as much water. On 06/24/22 at 1:44 p.m., record review had no documentation of interventions to prevent this from happening again and the resident's care plan had not been updated. 5. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia. An annual assessment, dated 08/09/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The assessment documented the resident did not wander. An elopement risk assessment, dated 10/15/21, documented the resident was not at risk for elopement. The assessment documented the resident was at risk for personal injury related to wandering. An investigation report, for an incident on 01/01/22, documented the alarm for the exit door on the memory care unit had been going off due to the wind and maintenance was notified. The investigation report documented the staff reported the resident was put to bed at 9:30 p.m. The investigation report documented at approximately 9:45 p.m. the resident left the building through the exit door on the memory care unit and fell down resulting in a fractured clavicle and two fractured ribs. The investigation report documented the door alarm cord had been disabled. A video recording of the incident, on 01/01/22, showed the resident exited the building at 9:52 p.m. A video recording of the incident, on 01/01/22, showed the memory care staff sitting at the nurse station at 9:53 p.m. A nurse note, dated 01/01/22 at 10:30 p.m., documented, Incident Note Text: Around 22:15, a bell rang on front door and noted the police and a lady and stated that the lady called the police that there was a person lying on the pathway outside the building by the pathway to main road. Upon visualizing the person it was noted that it was our resident. Pulse was noted, skin was pale and cold, resident was confused and she was cold blankets were put on the resident as the EMS were on there [sic] way. Resident was sent to [hospital name deleted] for be Evaluation and treated. Daughter was notified. DON was notified. Hospital records, dated 01/01/22, indicated Res #23 arrived in the ED at 10:37 p.m. The xray reports documented the resident received a third rib fracture with trace adjacent pneumothorax on the right side, fourth rib fracture on the right side, and a fracture of the medial and lateral aspect of the right clavicle. A file containing corrective measures documented direct care staff were in-serviced on 01/03/22 to respond to all alarms, to look outside to make sure no residents were outside after an alarm, to not disconnect secondary alarms, and to round every two hours to include checking security of all doors. Documentation showed that a third alarm was ordered for the memory care exit door and the speaker was to be placed down the hall of the memory care unit. Documentation showed the maintenance man was to check door alarms monthly. A significant change assessment, dated 01/11/22, documented the resident did not wander. A care plan, dated 01/11/22, had no interventions pertaining to prevention of elopement documented after the resident's elopement. A facility policy titled, Staffing and Environment of the Special Care Unit, dated February 2022, was updated and documented all staff working in the memory care unit had to visualize every resident every 30 minutes during their shift and visually checked during rounds with outgoing shift. On 06/23/22 at 8:58 a.m., the administrator demonstrated the 3rd alarm, which was added to the memory care unit exit door, was in working order. The new alarm speaker was in hallway by resident rooms so it can be heard throughout the unit. On 06/23/22 from 2:30 p.m. to 3:19 p.m. the alarm on the exit door in the memory care unit was observed to sound approximately 19 times for about one second each time. No staff on the unit was observed to check the exit door. On 06/23/22 at 2:53 p.m. an unnamed staff member was observed entering the memory care unit and began to receive report from the CNA from day shift. The oncoming staff member and the leaving staff member were not observed to round and check the exit doors on the unit. On 06/23/22 at 3:22 p.m., CNA #3 reported rounds were done every two hours which included checking residents to make sure they were clean and dry. The CNA reported at shift change they checked the residents to make sure they are clean and dry, emptied trash cans, and gave report about what happened during the shift to the oncoming staff. The CNA did not report the exit door was to be checked. On 6/23/22 at 3:26 p.m., CNA #4 reported that rounds were every two hours and the residents were checked and toileted as needed. The CNA reported rounds with the outgoing shift consisted of checking residents to make sure they were clean and dry, and made sure trash and laundry was picked up. The CNA did not report the exit door was to be checked. On 06/23/22 at 3:30 p.m., CNA #5 reported rounds with the oncoming shift consisted of checking residents to make sure they were clean and dry, to make sure trash and laundry were picked up. The CNA reported rounds were done every two hours to check and toilet the residents. The CNA did not report the exit door was to be checked. On 06/23/22 at 4:33 p.m., CNA #6 reported she was working the 3-11 shift the day Res #23 eloped. The CNA reported she performed patient care, made sure the residents were clean and dry, made sure they were in the right rooms, and reported they kept the residents' doors open because so many were a fall risk. The CNA reported rounds were every two hours to perform the same duties as throughout the shift. The CNA did not report being instructed to check that the exit door was secured. On 06/23/22 4:39 p.m., the administrator was informed staff members did not report they had been visualizing the exit doors on their rounding. The administrator was asked how the facility made sure the CNAs were checking the exit door alarms to ensure they were working? The administrator reported there was no documentation of monitoring kept by the memory care staff to ensure the exit door and alarms were being checked. The administrator stated the only documentation of the door being checked was the documentation of the monthly check performed by maintenance. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure interventions and supervision were in place to prevent accident hazards including falls, elopement, and burns, for five (#12, 19, 23, 29, and #56) of five residents reviewed for accidents and falls. The facility failed to ensure: a. steps to prevent reoccurrence of falls were put in place for Res #12, 29, and #56. Res #56 sustained a laceration to their head which required sutures. Resident #12 had sustained a hematoma to her forehead. Res #29 sustained a skin tear from a fall on 01/23/22, a bruise to the right side of his head on 05/06/22, and a laceration to his scalp on 05/09/22. b. staff members monitored the external door of the memory care unit to ensure they were securely closed and the alarms were functional for Res #23. A hospital examination summary documented Res #23 had sustained a right third rib fracture with a trace adjacent pneumothorax, a fourth rib fracture on the right, and fracture of the medial and lateral aspect of the right clavicle when the resident fell outside during an elopement from the Memory Care unit. c. interventions were put in place to ensure Res #19's cup of noodles prepared by staff were not so hot as to cause burns if spilled for Res #19. Res #19 spilled a cup of noodles prepared by staff resulting in burns to the upper chest/neck and the left arm. The facility identified one resident who had eloped, one resident who sustained a burn, and the fall tracking reports documented residents in the facility had fallen 219 times in the previous six months. Findings: A facility policy, titled FALL INJURY PREVENTION, read in part: .4. ANY INFORMATION RECEIVED REGARDING A RESIDENT'S FALL RISK WILL BE RELAYED TO THE CAREPLAN COORDINATOR SO THAT MEASURES CAN BE IMPLEMENTED TO PREVENT FALL INJURIES AND ATEMPT [sic] TO DECREASE FALL OCCURANCES. IF THE MEASURES IMPLEMENTED ARE NOT EFFECTIVE, THEN THE CAREPLAN WILL BE MODIFIED TO BETTER SUIT THE RESIDENT . 1. Res #56 had diagnoses which included fracture of unspecified neck of right femur, dementia, and lumbago with sciatica. An admission assessment for Res #56, dated 12/29/21, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required supervision with most ADLs, and had a fall prior to admission. The care area assessment documented falls had triggered for care planning. A review of the resident's care plan did not document a fall prevention care plan had been developed for Res #56. An incident report, dated 02/22/22, documented Res #56 was putting on her sock and walking to her shoes when she slipped and fell to the floor. The incident report documented Res #56 was unable to move her right leg. The incident report documented the resident was sent to the emergency department. An incident report, dated 02/28/22, documented the resident fell trying to get to the restroom. The incident report documented the resident was holding onto her ribs and complaining of pain. The incident report documented petechia to the rib area. The incident report documented the resident was educated to use the call light, the staff were to check on her more frequently, and were to move the pressure pad to her wheelchair when she would go to the dining area. A significant change assessment for Res #56, dated 03/02/22, documented Res #56 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, limited assistance with transfers, had one fall with major injury, and did not walk. A care plan, updated on 03/04/22, documented Res #56 had an ADL deficit related to her fall on 02/22/22 which resulted in a right fractured hip. The care plan documented the resident now required extensive assistance with self care and ADL needs. The care plan documented to ensure Res #56 was wearing comfortable non slippery shoes, and restorative care. The care plan documented interventions to prevent falls which included staff were to assist her to the bathroom before and after each meal and before bed, ensure the call light was within reach, ensure a floor free from spills and clutter, activities to minimize falls, provision of a glare free light, use of a safety alarm, to keep personal items within reach, to keep the bed in the lowest position, and to follow the fall protocol. An incident report, dated 03/07/22, documented Res #56 fell in front of her recliner without injury. No new STPR were added to the care plan. An incident report, dated 03/09/22, documented Res #56 fell on the floor without injury when trying to get to her bed. No STPR were documented. An incident report, dated 04/27/22, documented Res #56 was found sitting upright in the closet. The incident report documented Res #56 was complaining of a headache with visual disturbances and hip pain. The incident report documented Res #56 was sent to the emergency room. No STPR were documented. An incident note, dated 05/05/22, documented Res #56 was found sitting on the floor holding on to her recliner. The note documented the resident stated she was not hurting bad and was provided Tylenol. The note did not document STPR for falls. An incident note, dated 05/25/22, documented Res #56 was found on the floor in her room with copious amounts of blood on the floor in front of the resident. The note documented the chair alarm was actively working and in place. The note documented Res #56 had sustained a large laceration above the right eyebrow and was sent to the hospital where the resident received sutures. The note documented Res #56 was placed on hourly rounding for seven days. An incident report, dated 05/25/22, documented Res #56 was found in the floor in her room. The incident report documented the batteries were changed on her chair alarm. No STPR were documented. An incident note, dated 05/28/22, documented a CNA had found Res #56 on the floor in her room. The note documented the resident was not injured. The note did not document STPR of falls. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/01/22, documented Res #56 was severely impaired in cognition, required limited to extensive with most ADLs , and had experienced two or more falls with no injury, two or more falls with injury, and two or more falls with major injury. A care plan note, dated 06/03/22, documented Res #56 had a fall and sustained a head injury requiring sutures. The note documented Res #56's family refused a room change to allow the staff to visualize the resident via passerby supervision. The note documented to continue the plan of care and added no other STPR of falls. On 06/21/22 at 2:30 p.m., Res #56 was observed sitting alone in the dining room. The resident was observed counting straws and was unable to clearly answer interview questions. On 06/24/22 at 1:59 p.m., MDS coordinator #2 reported she was aware of Res #56 recent falls. The MDS coordinator reported she had not updated the care plan with any STPR after each fall. At that time, the DON reported she had only worked as the DON since 06/20/22 and the ADON was not available for interview. 2. Res #12 had diagnoses which included dementia, seizures, and cerebral infarction. A care plan, dated 09/16/20, documented Res #12 was a moderate risk for falls related to confusion and unaware of safety needs. The care plan documented to keep the call light within reach, place a fall mat next to her bed, follow the fall protocol, footwear to include non-skid shoes, to keep the area free from obstructions, and to provide for activities to minimize the potential for falls. An annual assessment for Res #12, dated 9/26/21, documented the resident needed extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers and did not walk. The assessment documented Res #12 had not fallen since the previous assessment. The care area assessment documented falls were triggered for care planning. An incident note, dated 01/08/22, documented the staff had found Res #12 on the floor sitting in front of the chair. The incident note documented the STPR as CNAs educated to assist Res #12 to her wheelchair instead of her recliner for meals. An incident note, dated 01/17/22, documented Res #12 was found on the floor with her blankets around her. The incident note documented Res #12 was not injured. The incident note did not document any STPR for falls for Res #12. An incident note, dated 02/18/22 documented Res #12 fell from her wheelchair in the dining room. The note documented Res #12 had sustained a hematoma to her forehead and the facility initiated neuro checks on the resident. The note did not document any STPR for falls. An incident note, dated 03/22/22, documented the housekeeper had found Res #12 on the floor of her room. The note documented it appeared Res #12 had set her recliner in an upright position and then slid out of it and onto the floor and documented the resident did not appear to have injured herself. The incident report documented the STPR was to place the remote of the recliner into the pocket of the recliner to prevent the resident from accidentally dumping herself out of the recliner. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/27/22, documented Res #12 was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive assistance with most ADLs, and did not walk. The assessment documented the resident had one fall without injury. The care plan, last reviewed on 03/29/22, did not document the new intervention of eating in her wheelchair instead of her recliner or to place the remote of the recliner in the pocket of the recliner to prevent accidental activation. An incident note, dated 06/15/22, documented housekeeping found Res #12 on the floor of her room between the recliner and her wheelchair. The incident note documented it appeared Res #12 had not injured herself. The incident note documented a STPR as Dysem (an anti-slip material) in the resident's wheelchair to prevent her from sliding out again. The care plan was reviewed and did not document the new intervention. On 06/24/22 at 10:00 a.m., Res #12 was observed sleeping in her recliner. The resident's wheelchair was observed and did not have Dysem in the seat. A fall mat was observed in the room, half way slid under the bed. A fall alarm was not observed. On 06/24/22 at 10:44 a.m., CMA #1 and CNA #1 were asked about fall prevention for Res #12 and stated Res #12 was supposed to have Dysem in her wheelchair. The CMA and CNA stated the aides were in a learning circle meeting and only CNA #3 was on the floor to care for the residents. On 06/24/22 at 10:45 a.m., CNA #2 stated Res #12 had a fall alarm. On 06/24/22 at 10:46 a.m., CMA #1 entered Res #12's room and stated the resident's wheelchair did not have a sheet of Dysem in it to prevent slipping. The CMA stated the resident had a fall mat as well but did not know if it was still an intervention since the resident had been reassigned to a room out of the Memory Care unit. On 6/24/22 at 10:28 a.m., CNA #3 was asked about fall interventions for Res #12. CNA #3 stated Res #12 required extensive assistance and was unable to provide additional fall prevention interventions. CNA #3 was asked where to look for interventions and stated they should have been documented on the residents' care plan. CNA #3 stated she could also ask a Charge Nurse. On 06/24/22 at 12:03 p.m., RN #1 stated she did the fall tracking and the Charge Nurses were to update residents' care plans after falls. On 06/24/22 at 12:08 p.m., RN #2 reviewed Res #12's care plan and stated it had not been updated. The RN stated the facility had not provided the appropriate interventions to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. 3. Resident #29 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included dementia, displaced fracture of neck of left femur, history of falling, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. An incident note, dated 01/08/22, documented Res #29 had fallen in his bathroom. The STPR was documented as Resident could benefit us [sic] of Pressure Alarm. Educated resident to use call light when he needs help. A health status note, dated 1/8/22, documented the resident's right hip had a non-displaced fracture. An admission assessment, dated 01/16/22, documented Res #29 was severely impaired in cognition, required limited to extensive assistance with ADLs and did not walk. The admission assessment documented Res #29 had a fall with fracture prior to admission. The care area assessment documented falls were triggered for care planning. An incident note, dated 01/17/22, documented Res #29 was found lying on his left side with his walker and cane knocked over beside him. The note did not document where this fall had occurred. The note documented Res #29 refused to go to the emergency room and a mobile xray was ordered. The STPR of falls for Res #29 was documented as resident educated to use call light to let staff assist resident with his needs An incident note, dated 01/21/22, documented Res #29 was found on his knees beside of his bed. The note documented Res #29 denied injury. The note documented a pressure pad was applied to Res #29's bed. A plan of care note, dated 1/23/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor between his bed and recliner. The note documented Res #29 had a skin tear which was treated with steri strips. The note documented Res #29 stated he was had put his call light on and waited for some time then tried to go to the bathroom on his own. The note documented staff members educated the resident to wait on staff even if he has to wait a little longer because he fell two days in a row. The note stated the pressure pad for the resident could not be located so a clip alarm was placed on Res #29's wheelchair. The resident's care plan was not updated to include a clip alarm on the resident's wheelchair. A care plan note, dated 1/24/22, documented Res #29 was heard yelling out and was found on his back in the bathroom floor. The note documented Res #29 was hurting but refused to go to the emergency room. The note documented Res #29 stated he was trying to clear out the shower so he could take a shower. The note documented the nurse educated him to wait on staff because he will get injured if he continued to walk without assistance. The note documented the clip alarm was located on Res #29's bed and was placed on the resident. The note did not document STPR of the falls. An incident note, dated 02/11/22, documented an unidentified CNA was pushing Res #29 out of his room when his foot was caught under the wheelchair flipping him out of the wheelchair onto his face. The STPR was documented as ensuring foot pedals were applied to the wheelchair. A plan of care note, dated 02/13/22, documented Res #29 refused to allow the foot pedals to be on his wheelchair. No other STPR was documented since the foot pedals were not to be used. A plan of care note, dated 02/16/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor in front of the recliner next to the bed. The note documented Res #29 had removed the clip alarm and placed it in his wheelchair. No injuries were documented. No STPR was documented. An incident note, dated 03/03/22, documented Res #29 had activated the bathroom call light. The note documented Res #29 was found on the floor in front of the toilet and was without injury. The note documented Res #29 reported he was trying to go to the bathroom. The note documented a bed alarm was placed under the resident to prevent further falls. An incident note, dated 03/03/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor next to his bed. The note documented Res #29 was not injured and the clip and bed alarm were in place and functioning. No STPR was documented in the incident note. An order note, dated 03/04/22, documented Res #29 had fallen two times in 24 hours and asked for labs and a urinalysis. The note documented orders were obtained. A plan of care note, dated 04/16/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor in his room and was attempting to get back in his wheelchair. The note documented Res #29 was not injured. The note documented to encourage the resident to use call light and ask for assistance when attempting to transfer. The note did not document new STPR to prevent falls. A quarterly assessment for Res #29, dated 04/18/22 documented Res #29 was moderately impaired in cognition, required limited assistance with most ADLs, and did not walk. The assessment documented Res #29 had a fall with fracture prior to admission and two or more falls since admission. A care plan, reviewed on 04/18/22, documented Res #29 was at risk for falls and had fallen in the past 2-6 months. The care plan documented the following interventions as bed alarm, anticipate Res #29's needs, call light in reach and encourage him to use it, activities to promote exercise, appropriate footwear, follow fall protocol, keep environment free from spills, clutter, provide glare free light, bed in the low position, and ensure his personal items are within reach. A care plan note, dated 05/01/22, documented when a CNA responded to a call light, Res #29 was found on the floor in the bathroom. The note documented the resident stated he slid out of his wheelchair and hit his head on the floor and complained of hip pain. The STPR was documented as Dysem placed in wheelchair at that time. A care plan note, dated 05/06/22 documented Res #29 fell in his room an sustained a bruise to the right side of his head. The note documented the resident grimaced when his right arm was moved and orders for an xray of the right shoulder was obtained. The note did not document STPR. An incident note, dated 05/09/22 documented a CNA had found Res #29 on the floor at the foot of his bed next to his wheelchair. The note documented a laceration to the left side of Res #29's scalp which stopped bleeding when pressure was applied. The STPR was documented as resident educated to use call light when needing to ambulate from bed/wheelchair. A care plan note, dated 05/25/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor in front of the toilet. The note documented the wheelchair alarm was in place and working. The note did not document a STPR. An incident note, dated 06/05/22, documented Res #29 was lying on the floor on his left side with his left arm under him. The note documented Res #29 stated he was trying to get out of his recliner. The note documented Res #29 had been incontinent of urine and the floor was wet. The note documented to use a chair alarm when the resident was in the recliner. An incident note, dated 06/19/22, documented Res #29 was found sitting on the floor in front of the bathroom door. The note documented the clip alarm was on the chair but not attached to Res #29. The note documented the resident was unharmed and staff were educated on the importance of ensuring the clip alarm was attached to the resident. No STPR was documented regarding this fall. On 06/22/22 at 9:18 a.m., Res #29 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. He stated he had fallen several times and got hurt once. Res #29's wheelchair was observed to have a chair alarm attached. On 06/24/22 at 10:31 a.m., Res #29 was observed to have moved several objects to his bed. A battery operated toothbrush was observed on his bed with the battery compartment opened and the batteries were not in the compartment. One battery was observed on the floor and Res #29 was observed to try to operate a grab extender to pick up the battery. Res #29 stated he was unable to make the grab extender work. On 06/24/22 at 10:45 a.m., CMA #1 and CNA #1 were asked about fall prevention for Res #29 and stated Res #29 was supposed to have a chair and bed alarm. They were unaware of any other interventions put in place to prevent Res #29 from falling. On 6/24/22 at 10:28 a.m., CNA #3 was asked about fall interventions for Res #29. CNA #3 stated this resident was a one person assist and did not know of any fall interventions for Res #29. On 06/24/22 at 12:21 p.m., LPN #1 stated the charge nurses were to put new interventions in place whenever a resident had fallen. The LPN reviewed Res #29's care plan and stated the interventions on the care plan were not appropriate for this resident as his recall was so poor. She stated the staff should have provided new interventions with each fall.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of significant weight loss for one (#13) of two sampled residents reviewed for weight ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of significant weight loss for one (#13) of two sampled residents reviewed for weight loss. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 63 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A quarterly assessment for Res #13, dated 03/28/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact, was not on a physician prescribed weight loss program, and required supervision while eating. Res #13 record documented a 12.5% weight loss over six months. The resident's weights were documented as followed: 12/28/21 14:40 152.0 Lbs 01/25/22 15:32 152.0 Lbs 02/22/22 15:46 148.0 Lbs 03/29/22 16:08 146.5 Lbs 04/26/22 14:58 139.0 Lbs 05/17/22 15:47 140.0 Lbs 06/08/22 16:30 133.0 Lbs A registered dietician's note, dated 03/23/22, read in part, . RECOMMENDATION: Recommend House Supp. BID for continued sig wt loss . A registered dietician's note, dated 04/19/22, read in part, .pending order from prev. visit . A registered dietician's note, dated 05/17/22, read in part, .Prev. recommended house shakes BID- Update? On 06/26/22 at 2:25 p.m., clinical records were reviewed and contained no documentation that the physician was notified of weight loss and recommendation from the registered dietician. On 06/22/22 at 2:32 p.m., the ADON stated the dietician emailed recommendations to the dietary manager and the dietary manager was responsible for giving them to medical records to send to the physician. The ADON reported the physician was not notified of the resident's weight loss. On 06/24/22 at 8:40 a.m., the DM stated she was supposed to give the dietician's recommendation to medical records to be sent to the physician. The DM reported the physician was not notified of Res #13's dietitian recommendations.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide letters of NOMNC to two (#50 and #56) of three residents reviewed who were reviewed for Beneficiary Notices. Page three of the entr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide letters of NOMNC to two (#50 and #56) of three residents reviewed who were reviewed for Beneficiary Notices. Page three of the entrance conference worksheet documented seven residents were discharged from Medicare covered Part A stay with benefit days remaining in the last six months. Findings: 1. Res #50 was admitted to Part A skilled services on 02/11/22, discharged from Part A skilled services on 04/06/22, and remained in the facility. The facility did not provide Res #50 with a NOMNC letter. 2. Res #56 was admitted to Part A skilled services on 02/25/22, discharged from Part A skilled services on 04/22/22, and remained in the facility. The facility did not provide Res #56 with a NOMNC letter. On 06/22/22 at 2:44 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated she only provided an ABN letter to residents who remained in the facility when they were discharged from Part A services and had benefit days remaining. The MDS coordinator stated she was unaware the NOMNC letter was required to be provided as well.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, other muscl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, other muscle spasm, and anxiety disorder. A quarterly assessment, dated 04/06/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact. An incident report, dated 06/01/22, documented the resident spilled her cup of noodles on her the previous night and received burns with blisters to her left upper arm, neck, and chest area. On 06/24/22 at 12:31 p.m., the resident reported she had involuntary spasms. She reported the water was too hot and the cup of noodles burned her when she spilled the noodles on her. The resident reported she picked up the cup and her arm jerked and water splashed her on the left upper arm and a few areas on her chest. On 06/24/22 at 1:17 p.m., LPN #2 reported the resident still ate noodles almost on a daily basis either as a snack or for a meal if she did not like what was on the menu. The LPN was asked what intervention was put in place to prevent this type of accident from happening again. LPN #2 reported she educated the CNA's on her shift to read the back of the box, to follow the directions, and not to fill it with as much water due to resident's history of spilling items and muscle spasms. On 06/24/22 at 1:44 p.m., record review had no documentation of interventions to prevent this from happening again and the resident's care plan had not been updated. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop comprehensive resident centered care plans to address the residents' current needs for four (#12, 19, 29, and #56) of four residents sampled for accident hazards. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 63 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility policy, titled FALL INJURY PREVENTION, read in part: .4. ANY INFORMATION RECEIVED REGARDING A RESIDENT'S FALL RISK WILL BE RELAYED TO THE CAREPLAN COORDINATOR SO THAT MEASURES CAN BE IMPLEMENTED TO PREVENT FALL INJURIES AND ATEMPT [sic] TO DECREASE FALL OCCURANCES. IF THE MEASURES IMPLEMENTED ARE NOT EFFECTIVE, THEN THE CAREPLAN WILL BE MODIFIED TO BETTER SUIT THE RESIDENT . 1. Res #56 had diagnoses which included fracture of unspecified neck of right femur, dementia, and lumbago with sciatica. An admission assessment for Res #56, dated 12/29/21, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, required supervision with most ADLs, and had a fall prior to admission. The care area assessment documented falls had triggered for care planning. A review of the resident's care plan did not document a fall prevention care plan had been developed for Res #56. An incident report, dated 02/22/22, documented Res #56 was putting on her sock and walking to her shoes when she slipped and fell to the floor. The incident report documented Res #56 was unable to move her right leg. The incident report documented the resident was sent to the emergency department. An incident report, dated 02/28/22, documented the resident fell trying to get to the restroom. The incident report documented the resident was holding onto her ribs and complaining of pain. The incident report documented petechia to the rib area. The incident report documented the resident was educated to use the call light, the staff were to check on her more frequently, and were to move the pressure pad to her wheelchair when she would go to the dining area. A significant change assessment for Res #56, dated 03/02/22, documented Res #56 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, limited assistance with transfers, had one fall with major injury, and did not walk. A care plan, updated on 03/04/22, documented Res #56 had an ADL deficit related to her fall on 02/22/22 which resulted in a right fractured hip. The care plan documented the resident now required extensive assistance with self care and ADL needs. The care plan documented to ensure Res #56 was wearing comfortable non slippery shoes, and restorative care. The care plan documented interventions to prevent falls which included staff were to assist her to the bathroom before and after each meal and before bed, ensure the call light was within reach, ensure a floor free from spills and clutter, activities to minimize falls, provision of a glare free light, use of a safety alarm, to keep personal items within reach, to keep the bed in the lowest position, and to follow the fall protocol. An incident report, dated 03/07/22, documented Res #56 fell in front of her recliner without injury. No new STPR were added to the care plan. An incident report, dated 03/09/22, documented Res #56 fell on the floor without injury when trying to get to her bed. No STPR were documented. An incident report, dated 04/27/22, documented Res #56 was found sitting upright in the closet. The incident report documented Res #56 was complaining of a headache with visual disturbances and hip pain. The incident report documented Res #56 was sent to the emergency room. No STPR were documented. An incident note, dated 05/05/22, documented Res #56 was found sitting on the floor holding on to her recliner. The note documented the resident stated she was not hurting bad and was provided Tylenol. The note did not document STPR for falls. An incident note, dated 05/25/22, documented Res #56 was found on the floor in her room with copious amounts of blood on the floor in front of the resident. The note documented the chair alarm was actively working and in place. The note documented Res #56 had sustained a large laceration above the right eyebrow and was sent to the hospital where the resident received sutures. The note documented Res #56 was placed on hourly rounding for seven days. An incident report, dated 05/25/22, documented Res #56 was found in the floor in her room. The incident report documented the batteries were changed on her chair alarm. No STPR were documented. An incident note, dated 05/28/22, documented a CNA had found Res #56 on the floor in her room. The note documented the resident was not injured. The note did not document STPR of falls. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/01/22, documented Res #56 was severely impaired in cognition, required limited to extensive with most ADLs , and had experienced two or more falls with no injury, two or more falls with injury, and two or more falls with major injury. A care plan note, dated 06/03/22, documented Res #56 had a fall and sustained a head injury requiring sutures. The note documented Res #56's family refused a room change to allow the staff to visualize the resident via passerby supervision. The note documented to continue the plan of care and added no other STPR of falls. On 06/21/22 at 2:30 p.m., Res #56 was observed sitting alone in the dining room. The resident was observed counting straws and was unable to clearly answer interview questions. On 06/24/22 at 1:59 p.m., MDS coordinator #2 reported she was aware of Res #56 recent falls. The MDS coordinator reported she had not updated the care plan with any STPR after each fall. At that time, the DON reported she had only worked as the DON since 06/20/22 and the ADON was not available for interview. 2. Res #12 had diagnoses which included dementia, seizures, and cerebral infarction. A care plan, dated 09/16/20, documented Res #12 was a moderate risk for falls related to confusion and unaware of safety needs. The care plan documented to keep the call light within reach, place a fall mat next to her bed, follow the fall protocol, footwear to include non-skid shoes, to keep the area free from obstructions, and to provide for activities to minimize the potential for falls. An annual assessment for Res #12, dated 9/26/21, documented the resident needed extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers and did not walk. The assessment documented Res #12 had not fallen since the previous assessment. The care area assessment documented falls were triggered for care planning. An incident note, dated 01/08/22, documented the staff had found Res #12 on the floor sitting in front of the chair. The incident note documented the STPR as CNAs educated to assist Res #12 to her wheelchair instead of her recliner for meals. An incident note, dated 01/17/22, documented Res #12 was found on the floor with her blankets around her. The incident note documented Res #12 was not injured. The incident note did not document any STPR for falls for Res #12. An incident note, dated 02/18/22 documented Res #12 fell from her wheelchair in the dining room. The note documented Res #12 had sustained a hematoma to her forehead and the facility initiated neuro checks on the resident. The note did not document any STPR for falls. An incident note, dated 03/22/22, documented the housekeeper had found Res #12 on the floor of her room. The note documented it appeared Res #12 had set her recliner in an upright position and then slid out of it and onto the floor and documented the resident did not appear to have injured herself. The incident report documented the STPR was to place the remote of the recliner into the pocket of the recliner to prevent the resident from accidentally dumping herself out of the recliner. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/27/22, documented Res #12 was severely impaired in cognition, required extensive assistance with most ADLs, and did not walk. The assessment documented the resident had one fall without injury. The care plan, last reviewed on 03/29/22, did not document the new intervention of eating in her wheelchair instead of her recliner or to place the remote of the recliner in the pocket of the recliner to prevent accidental activation. An incident note, dated 06/15/22, documented housekeeping found Res #12 on the floor of her room between the recliner and her wheelchair. The incident note documented it appeared Res #12 had not injured herself. The incident note documented a STPR as Dysem (an anti-slip material) in the resident's wheelchair to prevent her from sliding out again. The care plan was reviewed and did not document the new intervention. On 06/24/22 at 10:00 a.m., Res #12 was observed sleeping in her recliner. The resident's wheelchair was observed and did not have Dysem in the seat. A fall mat was observed in the room, half way slid under the bed. A fall alarm was not observed. On 06/24/22 at 10:44 a.m., CMA #1 and CNA #1 were asked about fall prevention for Res #12 and stated Res #12 was supposed to have Dysem in her wheelchair. The CMA and CNA stated the aides were in a learning circle meeting and only CNA #3 was on the floor to care for the residents. On 06/24/22 at 10:45 a.m., CNA #2 stated Res #12 had a fall alarm. On 06/24/22 at 10:46 a.m., CMA #1 entered Res #12's room and stated the resident's wheelchair did not have a sheet of Dysem in it to prevent slipping. The CMA stated the resident had a fall mat as well but did not know if it was still an intervention since the resident had been reassigned to a room out of the Memory Care unit. On 6/24/22 at 10:28 a.m., CNA #3 was asked about fall interventions for Res #12. CNA #3 stated Res #12 required extensive assistance and was unable to provide additional fall prevention interventions. CNA #3 was asked where to look for interventions and stated they should have been documented on the residents' care plan. CNA #3 stated she could also ask a Charge Nurse. On 06/24/22 at 12:03 p.m., RN #1 stated she did the fall tracking and the Charge Nurses were to update residents' care plans after falls. On 06/24/22 at 12:08 p.m., RN #2 reviewed Res #12's care plan and stated it had not been updated. The RN stated the facility had not provided the appropriate interventions to prevent the reoccurrence of falls. 3. Resident #29 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included dementia, displaced fracture of neck of left femur, history of falling, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. An incident note, dated 01/08/22, documented Res #29 had fallen in his bathroom. The STPR was documented as Resident could benefit us [sic] of Pressure Alarm. Educated resident to use call light when he needs help. A health status note, dated 1/8/22, documented the resident's right hip had a nondisplaced fracture. An admission assessment, dated 01/16/22, documented Res #29 was severely impaired in cognition, required limited to extensive assistance with ADLs and did not walk. The admission assessment documented Res #29 had a fall with fracture prior to admission. The care area assessment documented falls were triggered for care planning. An incident note, dated 01/17/22, documented Res #29 was found lying on his left side with his walker and cane knocked over beside him. The note did not document where this fall had occurred. The note documented Res #29 refused to go to the emergency room and a mobile xray was ordered. The STPR of falls for Res #29 was documented as resident educated to use call light to let staff assist resident with his needs An incident note, dated 01/21/22, documented Res #29 was found on his knees beside of his bed. The note documented Res #29 denied injury. The note documented a pressure pad was applied to Res #29's bed. A plan of care note, dated 1/23/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor between his bed and recliner. The note documented Res #29 had a skin tear which was treated with steri strips. The note documented Res #29 stated he was had put his call light on and waited for some time then tried to go to the bathroom on his own. The note documented staff members educated the resident to wait on staff even if he has to wait a little longer because he fell two days in a row. The note stated the pressure pad for the resident could not be located so a clip alarm was placed on Res #29's wheelchair. The resident's care plan was not updated to include a clip alarm on the resident's wheelchair. A care plan note, dated 1/24/22, documented Res #29 was heard yelling out and was found on his back in the bathroom floor. The note documented Res #29 was hurting but refused to go to the emergency room. The note documented Res #29 stated he was trying to clear out the shower so he could take a shower. The note documented the nurse educated him to wait on staff because he will get injured if he continued to walk without assistance. The note documented the clip alarm was located on Res #29's bed and was placed on the resident. The note did not document STPR of the falls. An incident note, dated 02/11/22, documented an unidentified CNA was pushing Res #29 out of his room when his foot was caught under the wheelchair flipping him out of the wheelchair onto his face. The STPR was documented as ensuring foot pedals were applied to the wheelchair. A plan of care note, dated 02/13/22, documented Res #29 refused to allow the foot pedals to be on his wheelchair. No other STPR was documented since the foot pedals were not to be used. A plan of care note, dated 02/16/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor in front of the recliner next to the bed. The note documented Res #29 had removed the clip alarm and placed it in his wheelchair. No injuries were documented. No STPR was documented. An incident note, dated 03/03/22, documented Res #29 had activated the bathroom call light. The note documented Res #29 was found on the floor in front of the toilet and was without injury. The note documented Res #29 reported he was trying to go to the bathroom. The note documented a bed alarm was placed under the resident to prevent further falls. An incident note, dated 03/03/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor next to his bed. The note documented Res #29 was not injured and the clip and bed alarm were in place and functioning. No STPR was documented in the incident note. An order note, dated 03/04/22, documented Res #29 had fallen two times in 24 hours and asked for labs and a urinalysis. The note documented orders were obtained. A plan of care note, dated 04/16/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor in his room and was attempting to get back in his wheelchair. The note documented Res #29 was not injured. The note documented to encourage the resident to use call light and ask for assistance when attempting to transfer. The note did not document new STPR to prevent falls. A quarterly assessment for Res #29, dated 04/18/22 documented Res #29 was moderately impaired in cognition, required limited assistance with most ADLs, and did not walk. The assessment documented Res #29 had a fall with fracture prior to admission and two or more falls since admission. A care plan, reviewed on 04/18/22, documented Res #29 was at risk for falls and had fallen in the past 2-6 months. The care plan documented the following interventions as bed alarm, anticipate Res #29's needs, call light in reach and encourage him to use it, activities to promote exercise, appropriate footwear, follow fall protocol, keep environment free from spills, clutter, provide glare free light, bed in the low position, and ensure his personal items are within reach. A care plan note, dated 05/01/22, documented when a CNA responded to a call light, Res #29 was found on the floor in the bathroom. The note documented the resident stated he slid out of his wheelchair and hit his head on the floor and complained of hip pain. The STPR was documented as Dysem placed in wheelchair at that time. A care plan note, dated 05/06/22 documented Res #29 fell in his room an sustained a bruise to the right side of his head. The note documented the resident grimaced when his right arm was moved and orders for an xray of the right shoulder was obtained. The note did not document STPR. An incident note, dated 05/09/22 documented a CNA had found Res #29 on the floor at the foot of his bed next to his wheelchair. The note documented a laceration to the left side of Res #29's scalp which stopped bleeding when pressure was applied. The STPR was documented as resident educated to use call light when needing to ambulate from bed/wheelchair. A care plan note, dated 05/25/22, documented Res #29 was found on the floor in front of the toilet. The note documented the wheelchair alarm was in place and working. The note did not document a STPR. An incident note, dated 06/05/22, documented Res #29 was lying on the floor on his left side with his left arm under him. The note documented Res #29 stated he was trying to get out of his recliner. The note documented Res #29 had been incontinent of urine and the floor was wet. The note documented to use a chair alarm when the resident was in the recliner. An incident note, dated 06/19/22, documented Res #29 was found sitting on the floor in front of the bathroom door. The note documented the clip alarm was on the chair but not attached to Res #29. The note documented the resident was unharmed and staff were educated on the importance of ensuring the clip alarm was attached to the resident. No STPR was documented regarding this fall. On 06/22/22 at 9:18 a.m., Res #29 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. He stated he had fallen several times and got hurt once. Res #29's wheelchair was observed to have a chair alarm attached. On 06/24/22 at 10:31 a.m., Res #29 was observed to have moved several objects to his bed. A battery operated toothbrush was observed on his bed with the battery compartment opened and the batteries were not in the compartment. One battery was observed on the floor and Res #29 was observed to try to operate a grab extender to pick up the battery. Res #29 stated he was unable to make the grab extender work. On 06/24/22 at 10:45 a.m., CMA #1 and CNA #1 were asked about fall prevention for Res #29 and stated Res #29 was supposed to have a chair and bed alarm. They were unaware of any other interventions put in place to prevent Res #29 from falling. On 6/24/22 at 10:28 a.m., CNA #3 was asked about fall interventions for Res #29. CNA #3 stated this resident was a one person assist and did not know of any fall interventions for Res #29. On 06/24/22 at 12:21 p.m., LPN #1 stated the charge nurses were to put new interventions in place whenever a resident had fallen. The LPN reviewed Res #29's care plan and stated the interventions on the care plan were not appropriate for this resident as his recall was so poor. She stated the staff should have provided new interventions with each fall.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. An admission assessment for Resident #20, dated 04/08/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required extensi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. An admission assessment for Resident #20, dated 04/08/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with hygiene and physical help with bathing. The resident's record documented she was scheduled for showers on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The ADL reports from May 26th 2022 through June 23rd 2022 documented the resident was bathed on 05/28/22, 06/07/22, 06/20/22, and 06/23/22. 06/21/22 at 9:00 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in her recliner. The resident reported she does not get her showers like she was supposed to. The resident reported that if the aides do not have time to give her a shower then she did not get one. 4. On 06/21/22 at 9:21 a.m., during a resident council meeting, residents reported they had to wait up to an hour for their call lights to be answered. One resident reported they had gone for long periods between showers. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide ADL care in a timely manner for three (#20, 55, and #212) of four residents reviewed for ADL care. The Census and Conditions of Residents'' report documented 63 residents required assistance with ADL care. Findings: 1. Res #55 had diagnoses which included heart failure, neuropathy, fibromyalgia, urinary tract infection, urge incontinence, depression, muscle weakness, and chronic pain. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/31/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required assistance with bathing. The resident's bathing records documented the resident was scheduled for baths on the three to eleven shift on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The bathing record, for March 2022, documented the resident received a bath five times of 14 opportunities. The bathing record, for April 2022, documented the resident received a bath seven times of 13 opportunities. The bathing record, for May 2022, documented the resident received a bath four times of 13 opportunities. The bathing record, for June 2022, documented the resident received a bath three times of 10 opportunities. On 06/21/22 at 11:10 a.m., the resident stated the facility was short staffed at times and had to miss her shower due to not enough staff available to assist. The resident reported she had to wait awhile for help after pushing call light on morning shifts more often than the other shifts. On 06/24/22 at 12:18 p.m., the DON stated if the residents were scheduled for baths three times a week, that was what they should receive unless they refused. 2. Res #212 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had muscle weakness and physical debility. An admission assessment, dated 06/20/22, documented the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and required assistance with toileting and bathing. The resident's bathing record documented the resident was scheduled for bathing on the evening shift on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The June 2022 bathing record documented the resident had a bath on 06/14/22 and 06/20/22. On 06/21/22 at 2:00 p.m., the resident stated he had to wait long periods of time for help. He stated there were 30 to 45 minute wait times on average for assistance after pushing the call light. He stated he had urinated on himself several times while waiting for help. He stated the long waiting times happened on all shifts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to meet the needs of the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to meet the needs of the residents. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 63 residents reside in the facility. Findings: 1. The admission assessment for Res #20, dated 04/08/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with hygiene and physical help with bathing. The resident's record documented she was scheduled for showers on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The ADL reports from May 26th 2022 through June23rd 2022 documented the resident was bathed on 05/28/22, 06/07/22, 06/20/22, and 06/23/22. On 06/21/22 at 9:00 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in her recliner. The resident reported she did not get her showers like she was supposed to. The resident reported that if the aides did not have time to give her a shower then she did not get one. 2. Res #55 had diagnoses which included heart failure, neuropathy, fibromyalgia, urinary tract infection, urge incontinence, depression, muscle weakness, and chronic pain. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/31/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required assistance with bathing. The resident's bathing records documented the resident was scheduled for baths on the three to eleven shift on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The bathing record, for March 2022, documented the resident received a bath five times of 14 opportunities. The bathing record, for April 2022, documented the resident received a bath seven times of 13 opportunities. The bathing record, for May 2022, documented the resident received a bath four times of 13 opportunities. The bathing record, for June 2022, documented the resident received a bath three times of 10 opportunities. On 06/21/22 at 11:10 a.m., the resident stated the facility was short staffed at times and had to miss her shower due to not enough staff available to assist. The resident reported she had to wait awhile for help after pushing call light on morning shifts more often than the other shifts. On 06/24/22 at 12:18 p.m., the DON stated if the residents were scheduled for three times a week, that was what they should receive unless they refused. 3. Res #212 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had muscle weakness and physical debility. An admission assessment, dated 06/20/22, documented the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and required assistance with bathing. The resident's bathing record documented the resident was scheduled for bathing on the evening shift on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The June 2022 bathing record documented the resident had a bath on 06/14/22 and 06/20/22. On 06/21/22 at 2:00 p.m., the resident stated he had to wait long periods of time for help. He stated there were 30 to 45 minute wait times on average for assistance after pushing the call light. He stated he had urinated on himself several times while waiting for help. He stated the long waiting times happened on all shifts. 4. On 06/21/22 at 9:21 a.m., during a resident council meeting, residents reported they had to wait up to an hour for their call lights to be answered. One resident reported they had gone for long periods between showers. 5. The Quality of Care Monthly Report for March 2022, April 2022, and May 2022 were reviewed. The report for March 2022 documented the facility was short staffed 21 of 93 shifts. The report for April 2022 documented the facility was short staffed 8 of 90 shifts. The report for May 2022 documented the facility was short staffed 13 of 93 shifts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired medications and supplies from the medication storage room were removed and discarded and failed to ensure medications were acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired medications and supplies from the medication storage room were removed and discarded and failed to ensure medications were accurately labeled. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 63 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 06/23/22 at 9:45 a.m., the medication room was observed. The following expired and undated medications and supplies found in the facility's medication room and medication refrigerator: 1. One bottle of Tuberculin Purified Protein opened with no open date on box or bottle. 2. Two doses of prefilled influenza vaccine with an expiration date of 05/05/2022. 3. One bottle of Lorazepam sol 1mg/ml with an expiration date of 02/17/2022. 4. One pack of Albuterol inhalation with an expiration date 01/2022. 5. Three 250 ml bottles of sterile normal saline with an expiration date of 05/19/2022. 6. Two 500 ml bottles of sterile normal saline with an expiration date of 04/06/2022. 7. 16 packages of Kangaroo EPump ENPlus Spike Sets with an expiration date of 07/31/2018. 8. 12 packages of Kangaroo 924 Pump Set with an expiration date of 09/31/2021. 9. Eight packages of COVID-19 RT-PCR Tests with an expiration date of 02/08/2022. 10. Four 22 gauge, 1 inch IV Catheters expiration date of 03/31/2022. 11. Two CultureSwab Plus with an expiration date of 12/31/2021. 12. Two 92 Flow regulator IV set with 15 micron filter in drip chamber with an expiration date of 11/2021. 13. One box Adapt Lubricating deodorant with an expiration date of 03/2016. 14. Three Boxes New Image Closed Mini- Pouch with filter with an expiration date of 01/2022. 15. One Box of New Image Closed Mini- Pouch with filter with an expiration date of 04/2021. 16. One Box of Wound Drainage Collectors with an expiration date of 07/2021. 17. One Box of New Image Drainable Pouch with filter with an expiration date of 05/2021. On 06/23/22 at 9:45 a.m., the ADON reported the expired medications and supplies should have been removed from the medication storage room.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and distributed in a sanitary manner. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 62 r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and distributed in a sanitary manner. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 62 residents received their meals from the facility kitchen. Findings: On 06/21/22 at 8:25 a.m. through 9:00 a.m., during the initial tour of the kitchen area, the DM reported the kitchen staff have been short recently and she was tasked with cooking, cleaning, and stocking the kitchen. Pieces of cereal, dirt, and crumbs were observed throughout the food preparation area and storage area floor. Refrigerator #1 had a saturated towel lining the bottom shelf. The DM reported the refrigerator had been leaking and maintenance had been notified. The inner shelf/rim of the refrigerator was observed to have black and pink sticky substance with food crumbs. The DM reported she would clean it immediately. She stated the facility did not have a cleaning schedule/log for the refrigerators. The refrigerator was observed to have an open container of whole blueberries labeled 5/12. A plastic sealing container holding macaroni and cheese and another one with mashed potatoes were observed. Neither container had been dated with a dispose by date. A plastic sealing container containing pineapple chunks was observed to have a label with the date of 10/01. At that time, the DM reported the contents of these containers should have been disposed of several days ago. Brown debris and crumbs were observed on the floor and shelf immediately below the steam table. The walk-in freezer was observed and had a plastic bag of chicken nuggets which were open to air. The dishwashing area was observed. The log for documentation of sanitizer checks was reviewed and no entries had been made since 06/08/22. The DM stated the dishwashing staff had been on vacation and all kitchen staff had been cleaning the dishes. The facility ice machine, located in the staff break room, was observed. The DM used a clean white cloth to wipe around the inner surfaces of the ice machine. A pink and black thick substance was wiped off the inner door rim with the cloth. The DM stated the ice machine was supposed to be cleaned weekly by staff but could not specify which staff member was responsible for ice machine cleaning. An ice machine cleaning log was not available for review. On 06/21/22 at 9:35 a.m., the administrator observed the towel used to wipe the inner area of the ice machine. The administrator stated the machine was to be deep cleaned monthly by the maintenance department but there was no documentation to show when the ice machine had been cleaned last. He stated the ice machine would be emptied immediately and deep cleaned. On 6/23/22 at 11:15 a.m., the fryer area was observed to have a large amount of splattered dried grease on the wall and electrical outlet directly behind of the fryer. Heavy amounts of dried grease was also noted on the steamer which was directly lateral to the fryer. At that time the DM stated the grease buildup should have been cleaned up. She stated the kitchen had not been deep cleaned in a couple of months due to a limited number of kitchen staff.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $14,020 in fines. Above average for Oklahoma. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (36/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 36/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Oklahoma, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford Staffed?

CMS rates CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford?

State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 15 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford?

CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 81 certified beds and approximately 64 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEATHERFORD, Oklahoma.

How Does Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford Stick Around?

CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 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 Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford Ever Fined?

CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD has been fined $14,020 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Oklahoma average of $33,219. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Corn Heritage Village And Rehab Of Weatherford on Any Federal Watch List?

CORN HERITAGE VILLAGE AND REHAB OF WEATHERFORD 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.