AVE MARIA HOME

2805 CHARLES BRYAN RD, BARTLETT, TN 38134 (901) 386-3211
Non profit - Corporation 100 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
28/100
#232 of 298 in TN
Last Inspection: May 2022

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Ave Maria Home in Bartlett, Tennessee, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall quality of care. It ranks #232 out of 298 facilities in Tennessee, placing it in the bottom half, and #17 out of 24 in Shelby County, meaning there are only a few better options locally. While the facility has shown improvement over the past two years, reducing issues from five in 2022 to one in 2024, it still has serious weaknesses, including $27,921 in fines, which is concerning and higher than 83% of Tennessee facilities. Staffing is a positive aspect, with a turnover rate of 0%, indicating that staff members remain long-term, which can benefit residents. However, there have been critical incidents, such as a resident with severe cognitive impairment leaving the facility unnoticed, and a failure to maintain food safety standards, which raises alarms about the overall supervision and care provided.

Trust Score
F
28/100
In Tennessee
#232/298
Bottom 23%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$27,921 in fines. Higher than 84% of Tennessee facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 5 issues
2024: 1 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Tennessee average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $27,921

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Mar 2024 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** Based on policy review, wunderground.com, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide adequ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, wunderground.com, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and an environment free of accident hazards for cognitively impaired residents and residents at risk of elopement for 2 of 5 (Resident #1 and #5) sampled residents reviewed for elopement and accident hazards. On 6/7/2023, Resident #1, a severely cognitively impaired resident, left the facility around lunch time without staff knowledge in her wheelchair, went down the facility drive, down a hill toward the facility dumpster, and was out of the facility at least 15 minutes. A facility staff member found Resident #1 when the staff member was going towards the dumpster, 360 feet from the facility. Resident #5 was a moderately cognitively impaired resident, assessed to be at risk for elopement and wandering, and the wandering placed him at significant risk of a dangerous place. On 1/9/2024 at approximately 5:45 PM, Resident #5 left the facility in their wheelchair through the side door without staff knowledge and was out of the facility at least 15 minutes. Resident #5 was found by a visitor, 274 feet from the facility, on a sidewalk by a parking lot, and the temperature was approximately 37 degrees. The facility failed to ensure interventions for Resident #5 were implemented timely, and failed to ensure the interventions were monitored for effectiveness. The facility's failure to implement interventions for a resident identified at risk of wandering and failure to ensure adequate supervision and an environment free of accidents and hazards resulted in Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #1 and Resident #5. Immediate Jeopardy (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident). The Administrator, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator in Training (AIT) were notified of the IJ for F-689 on 3/25/2024 at 5:02 PM, in the Conference Room. A partial extended survey was conducted 3/26/2024 through 3/27/2024 for F689. The facility was cited Immediate Jeopardy at F-689, at a severity of J which is Substandard Quality of Care. The Immediate Jeopardy for F-689 began on 6/7/2023 and is ongoing. The findings include: 1. Review of the policy titled, Accidents and Supervision, dated 8/2023, revealed .The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as is possible. Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents .'Risk' refers to any external factor, facility characteristic .or characteristic of an individual resident that influences the likelihood of and an accident .'Supervision .' refers to intervention and means of mitigating risk of an accident . Review of the facility policy titled, Elopement and Wandering Elders, date reviewed 1/12/2024, revealed .This facility ensures that elders who exhibit wandering behavior and/or at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents, and receive care in accordance with their person-centered plan of care addressing the unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk .Wandering is random or repetitive locomotion .the person appears to be searching for something such as an exit .Elopement occurs when a resident leaves the premises or a safe area without authorization .The facility shall establish and utilize a systematic approach to monitoring and managing residents at risk for elopement or unsafe wandering . 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Dementia, Hypothyroidism, Hypertension, and Muscle Weakness. Review of the Psychiatric Follow Up Note dated 3/15/2023, revealed .Medication maintenance follow up .Patient pleasantly confused upon approach .sitting in milieu [a person's social environment] .Patient [Resident #1] with Dementia .Will continue to monitor closely . Review of the Wander Data Collection Tool for Resident #1 dated 3/27/2023, revealed .Is the resident cognitively impaired with poor decision making skills .YES .Does the resident ambulate independently .YES .Does the resident have any visual, auditory or communication deficits .YES .Based off of the Summary of Findings, is resident a wander/elopement risk .No . Review of the Care Plan for resident #1 dated 3/29/2023, revealed .At risk for falls R/T [related to] impaired cognition, impaired safety awareness and hx [history] of falls . Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, which indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired, was not coded for wandering, and required extensive assistance with 1 person assist for transfers. Review of the Physician PROGRESS NOTE . dated 5/3/2023, revealed Resident #1 was .seen for evaluation, management and treatment of multiple complex medical diseases .Patient continued physical therapy treatment for functional decline .Mental status is confused. Patient does not walk but is up in a wheelchair . Review of the Resident Incident Report dated 6/7/2023, for Resident #1 revealed .Elder [Resident #1] noted outside of greenhouse home [a self-functional residential home] on front driveway. Elder brought back into home by DON and maintenance staff . Review of the wunderground.com [weather website] dated 6/7/2023, revealed the weather at 12:54 PM was 88 degrees. Review of the Wander Data Collection Tool for Resident #1 dated 6/7/2023, revealed .Has the resident wandered .YES .Does the wandering place the resident at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place such .outside the facility .YES .Is the resident cognitively impaired with poor decision making skills .YES .Does the resident ambulate independently .YES .Does the resident verbally express the desire to go home or packed belongings to leave .YES .Does the resident have any visual, auditory or communication deficits .YES .Based off of the Summary of Findings, is resident a wander/elopement risk .YES . Observation in the living room area on 3/12/2024 at 4:45 PM, revealed Resident #1 neatly dressed and groomed, wearing glasses, sitting in a wheelchair in the living room area, talking to other residents, and pleasantly confused. During an interview on 3/13/2024 at 4:51 PM, Maintenance Staff M stated, .I think I was going to the dumpster .and I see a lady [Referring to Resident #1] .and I made a phone call .somebody got loose [to come assist] .she [Resident #1] was in a wheelchair .I went down and got her [Resident #1] . During an interview on 3/19/2024 at 11:04 AM, Staff A stated, .we just got through serving lunch .when I looked saw her [Resident #1] going in there [in the therapy room] .I knew she [Resident #1] would be in there for a while .I get a knock on the door from the DON and she said when was the last time [Staff A] seen [Named Resident #1] and said she [Resident #1] had got out .she [Resident #1] is very smart .she [Resident #1] watched us go into our rooms .she [Resident #1] looked around and .went out the front door .said they found her [Resident #1] down the hill .by the generator .gone about 10 minutes .one of the Maintenance man [men] brought her [Resident #1] back . During an interview on 3/19/2024 at 11:42 AM, Staff B stated, .sometimes that door [the door Resident #1 exited] doesn't close all the way .I was in the room [in another resident's room] and then they brought her [Resident #1] back in [in [NAME] House #1] .the DON came in and told me about it .they said she [Resident #1] had went down the hill by the dumpster .they fixed the door [door that Resident #1 eloped from] . During an interview on 3/19/2024 at 12:12 PM, the Director of Information Technology (IT) stated, .people think the mag [magnetic door locking system] was not shutting all the way and she [Resident #1] was able to press the button and get out .I checked the mag to make sure the mag was locking and replaced .exit button [green button] . During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 12:23 PM, the DON was asked how Resident #1 got out of the Greenhouse. The DON stated, .I was made aware by the Housekeeping Supervisor .she said elder [Resident #1] was out in her wheelchair .I retrieved her [Resident #1] from the parking lot from [Named Maintenance Staff M] .she [Resident #1] got out of the front door . The DON was asked if she aware of any problems of the door not closing all the way. The DON stated, No .he [IT- Information technologist] immediately worked on the door . The DON was asked did you ever monitor the door. The DON stated, No. The facility was unable to provide documentation the door was monitored to ensure the door continued to work correctly. Observation outside of Greenhouse #1 on 3/20/2024 beginning at 3:00 PM, with Maintenance Staff #M, the Administrator, the DON, and the AIT revealed Maintenance Staff M used a measuring wheel to measure the distance where Resident #1 traveled [on 6/7/2023], from Resident #1's Greenhouse front door, on the sidewalk to the facility driveway, down the hill and left into a paved driveway. The measurement from the front door to where Resident #1 was located on 6/7/2023, measured approximately 360 feet. During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 3:20 PM, the Administrator was asked if a Greenhouse door is not working properly who should be notified. The Administrator stated, .Maintenance .they are on call 24/7 . During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 9:53 AM, the Maintenance Supervisor stated, .[Maintenance] sometimes get complaints that the door [door that Resident #1 eloped from] wasn't closing properly .we tell them [staff] you have to make sure they [staff] close the door properly . During a telephone interview on 3/25/2024 at 2:21 PM, the Maintenance Supervisor confirmed he didn't have a work order for the Greenhouse exit door that Resident #1 eloped from and stated, .if we had anything .it got throwed [thrown] away . 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, Hypothyroidism, Dizziness and Giddiness, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, 4th and 7th Rib Fractures, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Review of the Wander Data Collection Tool for Resident #5 dated 12/19/2023 revealed, .Has the resident wandered .Did the resident wander at home, in previous living settings, family/significant others voiced concerns .YES .Does the wandering place the resident at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place such as stairs or outside the facility .YES .Is the resident cognitively impaired with poor decision making skills .YES .Dose the resident ambulate independently, with or without the use of assistive devices, including a wheelchair .YES .Does the resident have any visual, auditory or communication deficits .YES .Is the resident seeking to find spouse or family .YES .Based off the Summary of Findings, is resident a wander/elopement risk .YES, the resident is a wandering/elopement risk . The facility failed to implement interventions to address the elopement risk and wandering identified in the 12/19/2023 wander data collection tool. Review of the Physician Orders for Resident #5 revealed, .Order Date .12/19/23 .Monitor for behaviors q [every] shift . Review of the Care Plan for Resident #5 revealed, .12/22/2023 .Potential for decline in functional ability related to impaired mobility .Up in w/c [wheelchair] daily .Transfer with up to two person assist . The facility failed to implement interventions to address the elopement risk and wandering identified in the 12/19/2023 wander data collection tool. Review of the 5 day MDS dated [DATE], revealed Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 8 which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired and was not coded for behaviors or wandering identified in the 12/19/2023 wander data collection tool. Review of the wunderground.com dated 1/9/2024, revealed the weather at 5:54 PM as 37 degrees. Review of the REPORTABLE INCIDENT CHECKLIST revealed, .THE INCIDENT [Elopement of Resident #5] OCCURRED 1-9-2024 . Review of the POST-INCIDENT ACTIONS for resident #5 dated 1/10/2024 at 6:00 PM, revealed, .Incident Type: Wander onto grounds [on 1/9/2024] .Equipment: Wheelchair .Exiting facility .Approx [approximately] 6 p.m [6:00 PM] .Shabhaz [A term the facility uses for Certified Nursing Assistant] approached this writer [Staff E] with elder in wheelchair stating that elder [Resident #5] was noted outside in parking lot by a visitor and was brought back into facility by the visitor .Immediate Post-Incident Action: Wander Guard . Review of the Physician Orders for Resident #5 dated 1/11/2024 revealed, .Apply Wanderguard Check function daily; Check placement q [every] shift . Review of the Departmental Notes revealed on 2/8/2024, Resident #5 was discharged home with family. Observation outside of [NAME] House #8 on 3/20/2024 beginning at 3:00 PM, with Maintenance Staff M, the Administrator, the DON, and AIT revealed Maintenance Staff M used a measuring wheel to measure the distance from the door Resident #5 eloped from, to the sidewalk, and to the parking lot where Resident #5 was found by a visitor. The measurement from the front door to where Resident #5 was located in the parking lot was approximately 274 feet. During a telephone interview on 3/18/2024 at 3:45 PM, Visitor #1 stated, .he [Resident #5] was about to come off the sidewalk into the parking lot .it was getting cold .about 5:30-6:00 [PM] o'clock . he [Resident #5] was headed completely opposite of where he needed to go . Visitor #1 confirmed she took him back into the Greenhouse. During an interview on 3/19/2024 at 9:20 AM, the DON confirmed Resident #5 had eloped on 1/9/2024. The DON was asked what measures were put in for Resident #5's elopement. The DON stated, .wander guard . The DON confirmed the wanderguard order was written on 1/11/2024. During a telephone interview on 3/19/2024 at 3:28 PM, Staff C stated, .camera showed he [Resident #5] went through the .door [side door] .about 15 minutes the doorbell ring [rings] .it was [Named Visitor #1] .bringing him [Resident #5] back .rolled him up in wheelchair .he felt so cold .he was dressed .no jacket .I took him right to the nurse and told her what happened .he had dementia .I don't know how he knew how to do that .went through the double doors [that goes through a hallway that leads to the side door] and pushed the green button .and then he went around sidewalk .he was in the parking lot .he was so cold . During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 2:24 PM, the AIT was asked what door Resident #5 got out of. The AIT stated, .we don't know for sure .we didn't see him [Resident #5] .there is a wall behind the kitchen .and we don't see him come out .the camera picked him up through a window in the therapy gym inside that house .there is a little walk way and he [Resident #5] was on that sidewalk .it's not on camera when the visitor met up with him .you can see him roll himself [in his wheelchair] to the sidewalk towards the main building and then it goes out of view . The AIT confirmed she doesn't know how long he was gone, and they believe he went out the laundry door. During an interview on 3/25/2024 at 12:09 PM, House Manager L was shown Resident #5's Wander Data Collection Tool assessment that was done on 12/19/2023 and confirmed he was an elopement and wandering risk. House Manager #1 was shown Resident #5's care plan and was asked if he was care planned for wandering and elopement. The House Supervisor stated, .I don't see anything .till 1/9 . House Manager #1 confirmed the care plan should have included interventions for wandering/elopement. House Manager #1 was shown the physician orders to apply wanderguard for Resident #5 and was asked the date the order was written for a wander guard. House Manager #1 stated, .1/11 . During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 7:45 AM, the DON confirmed that the facility was unable to provide documentation that Resident #5's wander guard was placed on 1/9 and stated, .we put it on just don't have documentation . The DON was unable to confirm the wander guard was placed on Resident #5 until 1/11/2024, 2 days after he eloped from the facility.
May 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete discharge assessments for 1 of 21 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete discharge assessments for 1 of 21 sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Assessment Frequency/Timeliness, revised on 2/15/2021, revealed .A discharge assessment will be completed within 14 days of the discharge date . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hyperlipidemia, Diabetes, and Mitral Valve Prolapse. Review of the Nurse's Note revealed Resident #1 was discharged home on 1/13/2022. The facility failed to complete a discharge MDS assessment for Resident #1. During an interview on 5/12/2022 at 9:36 AM, the MDS Coordinator confirmed the discharge MDS should have been submitted by 1/27/2022.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were completed to accurately reflect the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were completed to accurately reflect the residents' status for hospice services and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for 2 or 21 sampled residents (Resident #28 and Resident #71) reviewed for Minimum Data Assessments (MDS). The findings include: Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's, Dementia, Anorexia, and Hypertension. Review of a Physician's Order Sheet revealed, Order date 2/15/2022 .Admit to [Named Hospice Facility] .for terminal dx [diagnoses] of Alzheimer's Disease . Review of the significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #28 was not assessed for receiving hospice services. During an interview on 5/11/2022 at 10:24 AM, the MDS Coordinator confirmed Resident #28 began hospice services in February 2022 and should have been coded for receiving hospice services on the significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE]. Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's, Dementia, and Multiple Sclerosis. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility failed to assess Resident #71's ADL functional status on the assessment with a computer generated answer of Not Assessed. During an interview on 5/11/2022 at 10:20 AM, the MDS Coordinator confirmed the boxes should not have dashes and Resident #71's ADL status should have been assessed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the Care Plan to reflect the residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the Care Plan to reflect the residents' current status for 2 of 21 sampled residents (Resident #28) reviewed for Care Plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 2/15/2021, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident .to meet a resident's medical, nursing .needs that are identified .That comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following .The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, Anorexia, and Hypertension. Review of a Physician's Order Sheet revealed, Order date 2/15/2022 .Admit to [Named Hospice Facility] .for terminal dx [diagnoses] of Alzheimer's Disease . Review of the Care Plan revealed the Care Plan was not revised or updated to reflect the use of hospice services until 5/11/2022. During an interview on 5/11/2022 at 3:43 PM, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator confirmed that the Care Plan should have been updated and revised to reflect the use of hospice services for Resident #28. During an interview on 5/11/2022 at 4:17 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed that Care Plans should be updated and revised to reflect any changes in a resident's condition.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to provide communication from the dialysis center and failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to provide communication from the dialysis center and failed to provide care and services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #17) reviewed for dialysis. The findings include: Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Anxiety, Left Below Knee Amputation, End Stage Renal Disease, Sepsis, and Metabolic Encephalopathy. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #17 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for making decisions and received dialysis. The facility was unable to provide a Dialysis Communication Record (dialysis communication) for Resident #17 for the following dates: a. 2/4/2022 b. 2/7/2022 c. 2/9/2022 d. 2/11/2022 e. 2/16/2022 f. 2/25/2022 g. 3/2/2022 h. 4/6/2022 i. 4/18/2022 j. 4/27/2022 k. 5/4/2022 During an interview on 5/11/2022 at 4:05 PM, the Medical Director was asked should the dialysis communication record be completed each trip to dialysis. The Medical Director stated, Yeah . During an interview on 5/12/2022 at 11:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked what is the process for communication between the facility and dialysis. The DON stated, .We fill out the top section and send it to the dialysis clinic. Dialysis clinic fills out the dialysis section and send the record back with the resident. They are kept in a binder in his [Resident #17's] greenhouse . The DON confirmed the Dialysis Communication Report should be filled out completely.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and secure envir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and secure environment and failed to ensure fall risk assessments were completed for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #8, #49, #55, and 239) reviewed for accident hazards and falls. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Fall Prevention Program, revised 2/1/2022, revealed .Each resident will be assessed for the risks of falling and will receive care and services in accordance with the level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls .The facility utilizes a standardized risk assessment for determining a resident's fall risk .Complete a fall risk assessment every 90 days and as indicated when the resident's condition changes .When any resident experiences a fall, the facility will .Complete a post-fall assessment . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Atrial Fibrillation, Hypertension, and Cerebrovascular Accident. Review of annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating Resident #8 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of staff for all activities of daily living (ADL's). Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #8's last fall assessment was completed on 11/7/2021. Review of the Resident Incident Report dated 3/22/2022, revealed Resident #8 had a fall on 5/4/2022 at 2:15 PM. The facility was unable to provide quarterly Fall Risk Assessments for Resident #8. The facility was unable to provide a Fall Risk Assessment on 5/4/2022, when Resident #8 had a fall in the facility. During an interview on 5/12/2022 at 9:32 AM, the MDS Coordinator stated, .I do a MDS schedule monthly and give to the nurses to complete the fall assessments when they are due . The MDS Coordinator was asked when next Fall Risk Assessment should have been completed after 11/7/2021. The MDS Coordinator stated, .January 2022 and April 2022 .after her fall on 5/4/2022 . Review of medical record, revealed Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Ataxia, Epilepsy, Coronary Heart Disease, and Hypertension. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed Resident #49 had a BIMS of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and required limited assistance of staff for all ADL's. Review of the medical record, revealed there was no quarterly Fall Risk Assessment for 9/2021. During an interview on 5/12/2022 at 9:36 AM, the MDS Coordinator confirmed Resident #49 should have had a Fall Risk Assessment completed for 9/2021. Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Spinal Stenosis, Paraplegia, and Ataxia. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed Resident #55 had a BIMS of 15, indicating cognitively intact, and required extensive assistance of staff for all ADL's. Review of the facility's Resident Incident Report, dated 4/27/2022, revealed Resident #55 had a fall on 4/27/2022 at 11:45 AM. The facility was unable to provide a Fall Risk Assessment on 4/27/2022 after Resident #55 had a fall in the facility. During an interview on 5/12/2022 at 12:03 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that Fall Risk Assessments should be completed after each fall. The DON confirmed Resident #55 should have had a Fall Risk Assessment completed on 4/27/2022. Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #239 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction, Pneumonia, Heart Failure, and Hypertension. Review of the Base Line Care Plan dated 5/5/2022, revealed Resident #239 had cognitive loss with behavioral symptoms. Observation in the resident's room on 5/9/2022 at 11:13 AM and 3:19 PM, and on 5/10/2022 at 8:29 AM, revealed a plastic container of disinfectant wipes with a warning sign that read .Hazardous to Humans . sitting on the night stand. During an interview on 5/11/2022 at 4:13 PM, the DON was asked where should disinfectant wipes be stored. The DON stated, They should be stored inside the Nurses' Station out of the reach of elders [residents].
Feb 2020 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to revise the care plan to reflect the resident's...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to revise the care plan to reflect the resident's current status for wounds and the use of a wanderguard 3 of 21 sampled residents (Residents #8, #14, and #44) reviewed. The findings include: 1. Review of the medical record, showed Resident #8 had diagnoses of Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate, Parkinson's Disease, Diabetes, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Stage 4, Pressure-Induced Tissue Damage of the Left Heel. Review of the Care Plan dated 10/22/2019 and revised 11/30/2019, showed Resident #8 was assessed as having an unstageable deep tissue injury to the left heel and a Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the right great toe. Review of the December 2019 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed an order dated 10/23/2019 and discontinued on 12/4/2019, for treatment to an Unstageable ulcer of the left heel, and an order dated 11/26/2019 and discontinued 12/26/2019, for a treatment to the right great toe. Review of a Departmental Note dated 1/8/2020 showed the wound to Resident #8's heel was resolved. The facility failed to update the Care Plan to reflect the wounds to the left heel and the right great toe that had been resolved. 2. Review of the medical record showed, Resident #14 had diagnoses of Muscle Weakness, Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure, Pulmonary Hypertension, Anxiety, and Acute Pyelonephritis. Review of the February 2020 Physician Orders, showed an order dated 1/15/2020 for a wanderguard to prevent elopement. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed Resident #14 was assessed as using a wander/elopement alarm daily. Review of the Care Plan dated 6/5/2019, showed the Care Plan was not revised to include the use of a wanderguard. Observation in [NAME] House #1 on 2/18/2020 at 11:13 AM, 12:25 PM, 3:59 PM, 2/19/2020 at 8:08 AM, 11:40 AM, and 4:54 PM, 2/20/2020 at 10:09 AM and 4:37 PM, and 2/21/2020 at 8:01 AM, showed Resident #14 had a wanderguard to her left wrist. The facility failed to revise the Care Plan to reflect the use of the wanderguard. 3. Review of the medical record, showed Resident #44 had diagnoses of Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Neuropathy, Depression, Anxiety, and Hypertension. The Care Plan dated 5/18/2018 and revised 7/23/2019, documented .Pressure Ulcer stage 2 sacrum/coccyx .Wound will be free of drainage and exhibit signs of healing within the next 30 days 8/22/18 [2018] .Potential for alteration in skin .Will have no skin breakdown (ongoing) . Review of a Wound Assessment Report dated 10/27/2019, showed a lesion on the left buttock. Review of a Progress Note dated 11/27/2019, showed a stage 2 sacral pressure ulcer. Review of a Wound Assessment Report dated 1/23/2020, showed a stage 3 pressure ulcer of the sacrum with a wound identification date of 10/27/2019. The facility failed to update the Care Plan to reflect actual skin breakdown and a Stage 3 pressure ulcer of the Sacrum. During an interview conducted on 2/21/2020 at 9:42 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the Care Plan should be updated to reflect the resident's current status.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to document treatments for pressu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to document treatments for pressure ulcers for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #91) reviewed with pressure ulcers. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Skin Care, revised 8/13/2013, showed, .To identify and promote the healing process for pressure ulcers and to prevent further skin breakdown .The Treatment Nurse/Charge Nurse will notify the resident's family and physician of any open wounds .and treatment .and will document in the resident's medical record . 2. Review of the medical record showed Resident #91 had diagnoses of Hypertension, Osteoarthritis, Depression, Hemiplegia following Cerebral Infarction, and Fractured Shaft Right Tibia and Fibula. Review of the Physician Orders dated 11/6/2019, showed, .Right Heel .Cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply SANTYL [sterile enzymatic debriding ointment], and Calcium Alginate [water insoluble substance for treating pressure ulcers], Cover with dry dressing. Q [every] day and PRN [as needed] . Review of the November 2019 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed there were no treatments documented on 11/7/2019, 11/10/2019, 11/12/2019, 11/14/2019, 11/16/2019, 11/17/2019, 11/22/2019, 11/25/2019, 11/26/2019, 11/30/2019, and 11/31/2019 for the right heel. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed Resident #91 was assessed as having 1 unhealed unstageable pressure ulcer. Wound care observation in the resident's room on 2/20/2020 at 10:28 AM, showed Resident #91 had a pressure ulcer to the right heel with the appearance of a healing stage 2 pressure ulcer, with a small amount of granulation tissue noted in the center of the wound. During an interview conducted on 2/20/2020 at 7:52 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked where the daily treatments for Resident #91 were documented. The DON stated, .The Wound Care Nurse was entering orders as PRN and not daily . The DON confirmed that the Wound Care Nurse did not enter the daily treatment orders correctly in the Electronic Medical Record, and therefore the daily orders did not show up on the TAR to be performed. During an interview conducted on 2/21/2020 at 9:50 AM, the DON confirmed treatments should be documented as ordered.
Mar 2019 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #40 was treated with respect and dignity when 1 of 18 (Shahbaz , the certified nursing assistant manager of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #40 was treated with respect and dignity when 1 of 18 (Shahbaz , the certified nursing assistant manager of the [NAME] House home, #3) staff referred to a clothing protector as a bib during the dining observation. The findings include: The facility's .Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity policy dated 11/2018, documented, .All staff members are involved in providing care to resident to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect resident rights . Observation in the dining area of [NAME] House #3 on 3/4/19 at 11:34 AM, revealed Shahbaz #3 speaking to Resident #40 and stated to the resident she would get you a bib. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/6/19 at 1:58 PM, in the Conference Room, the DON was asked if it was appropriate to use the word bib. The DON stated, No, it is a clothing protector.
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 policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MD...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed for activities for 1 of 22 (Resident #17) sampled residents reviewed. The findings include: The facility's .Activities policy dated 9/18 documented, .Each elder's interest and needs will be assessed on a routine basis .Activity assessment to include elder's interest, preferences and needed adaptations . Medical record review revealed Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Coronary Artery Disease, Septicemia, Hip Fracture, Alzheimer's Disease, and Prostate Cancer. The admission MDS dated [DATE] documented, .Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities .NOT ASSESSED . Interview with the MDS Coordinator on 3/6/19 at 6:57 PM in the Conference Room, the MDS Coordinator was asked if the activity section of the admission MDS should have been completed. The MDS Coordinator stated, Yes. The MDS Coordinator was asked if Resident #17's activities section was completed. The MDS Coordinator stated, It was dashed. We dash it when it has not been done .
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to provide timely laboratory services to meet the needs of 1 of 5 (Resident #69) sampled residents. The findings includ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to provide timely laboratory services to meet the needs of 1 of 5 (Resident #69) sampled residents. The findings include: The facility's undated .Laboratory Services and Reporting policy, documented, .The facility must provide or obtain laboratory services when ordered by a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist in accordance with state law .The facility must provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of this residents .the facility is responsible for the timeliness of the services . Medical record review revealed Resident #69 was admitted to the facility 2/21/19 with diagnoses of Diabetes, Atrial Fibrillation, Cardiac Pacemaker, Cardiomyopathy, and Hypertension. Review of a PHYSICIAN'S TELEPHONE ORDERS AUDIT dated 2/8/19 for Resident #69 revealed a laboratory (lab) order for a Prothrombin (PT) level and International Normalized Ratio (INR) level to be obtained every Monday and Thursday. The facility was unable to provide a copy of the PT and INR lab results for Monday, February 11, 2019. Interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Supervisor on 3/6/19 at 3:18 PM, in [NAME] House (GH) #8 Nursing office, the LPN Supervisor was asked for the PT and INR lab results ordered for Resident #69 on Monday, 2/8/19. The LPN Supervisor stated, It wasn't done. I called the lab and they told me they didn't have it . Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/7/19 at 6:23 PM, in the Conference Room, the DON confirmed that the PT and INR tests for Resident #69 were not performed as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to document significant changes i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to document significant changes in the resident's medical condition in the medical record for 1 of 3 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for hospitalization and failed to ensure medical information was kept private and confidential for 1 of 10 (Resident #187) residents in [NAME] House (GH) #8. The findings include: 1. The facility's undated .Notification of Changes policy documented, .The purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility .consults the resident's physician .when there is a change requiring notification .Circumstances requiring notification include .Significant change in the resident's physical mental or psychosocial condition such as deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial status . 2. Medical record review revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Anemia, Dementia with Lewy Bodies, Hypertension, Polycythemia, and Pleural Effusion. A Departmental Notes Nursing note dated 3/3/19 documented, .Elder has N.O. [new order] for a CXR [Chest X-Ray] with ribs view due to pain. Awaiting x-ray to be performed . A Chest X-Ray report dated 3/3/19 documented, .Large left sided pleural effusion . Review of the Nursing notes for 3/3/19 revealed no documentation of the abnormal Chest X-Ray report or if the physician had been notified. Phone interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 3/7/19 at 10:53 AM, LPN #6 was asked if she had received a shift report for Resident #6 when she worked on 3/3/19. LPN #6 stated, .Yes .I was told she did have a chest x-ray ordered .she was having pain to her rib area . LPN #6 confirmed she received the chest x-ray results. LPN #6 was asked if she notified the doctor of the results. LPN #6 confirmed she called the nurse practitioner and stated, I don't have an idea what time I talked to her . Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/7/19 at 6:02 PM in the Conference Room, the DON was asked if LPN #6 had documented notification of the chest x-ray results for Resident #187 to the nurse practitioner. The DON stated, No .I would have wanted her to document talking to the FNP [Family Nurse Practitioner] about the chest x-ray and what the FNP wanted her to do. 3. The facilty's .Employee Handbook . dated June, 2017, documented, .HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY ACT .the purpose of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) is to protect the security and privacy of protected health information .As a healthcare provider who conducts transactions electronically, [name of the facilty] are considered a covered entity under the rule and required by federal law to implement these standards and regulations .requires specific security measures to be in place to protect an individual's health information that is sent or stored electronically .Any violation of HIPPA by an employee of [name of the facilty] are considered extremely serious . 4. Medical record review revealed Resident #187 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Muscle Weakness, Hypertension, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Acute Kidney Failure. Observations outside Resident #187's room on 3/5/19 at 8:28 AM revealed Resident #119's personal health information on the computer monitor on an unattended overbed table, open and visible to the public. Interview with LPN #7 on 3/5/19 at 8:32 AM outside Resident #187's room, LPN #7 was asked if Resident #187's electronic record should be left open, unattended, and visible to the public. LPN #7 stated, No Interview with the DON on 3/7/19 at 6:56 PM, outside the Administrator's office, the DON was asked if a resident's personal health information displayed on a computer monitor should be left open, unattended, and visible to the public. The DON stated, It's not the best practice.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on policy review, abuse investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to report an alleged abuse within the required time allotment for 2 of 4 (Resident #135 and #188) residents invol...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, abuse investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to report an alleged abuse within the required time allotment for 2 of 4 (Resident #135 and #188) residents involved in an abuse allegation. The findings include: The facility's .Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated 12/12/18, documented, .Reporting of all alleged violations to the Abuse Prevention Coordinator, the Administrator, state agency, and to all other required agencies .within specified timeframes .b. Not later that 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury . The facility's .Disciplinary Report . dated 12/19/18 documented, .On 12/18/2018 it was reported to GH [Green House] Guide that employee [named Shahbaz #2] was overheard telling elder [named Resident #135], 'Don't you talk to me like that. Shut up.' while providing ADL [activity of daily living] care on Monday 12/17/2018. Later that evening, she was overheard telling elder [named Resident #188], 'Don't come over here and bother me.' These statements were witnesses [witnessed] by two staff members . The facility's State of Tennessee .Incident Reporting System . documented, .Date of Occurrence .12/17/2018 .On 12/19/18 it was reported to the abuse prevention coordinator that a nurse overheard a CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] talking negatively to elder [named Resident #135.] The nurse reported walking into the elder's room and heard the CNA say Don't you talk to me like that. Shut up .The nurse also reported that later that same evening that the same CNA said to another elder [named Resident #188], Don't come over here and bother me. The facility's untitled witness statement from Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 dated 12/18/18 at 3:35 PM, documented, .During my shift at approx. [approximately] 800 [8:00] pm 12/17/18, I went to pass meds to an elder who had them do [due] between 700 [7:00] & [symbol for and] 800 pm. Upon entering the elder's room I overheard the elder mumbling something as the CNA was redressing her. In her reply the CNA told the Elder Don't you talk to me like that. Shut up .Later that night at approx. 1000 [10:00] pm, I was in the nurses room and overheard the CNA tell another Elder who was in a wheelchair at this time .Dont [don't] come over here and bother me .When asked by another nurse if that was how she spoke, I then told her about the incident early that day. Interview with LPN #2 on 3/7/19 at 4:44 PM, in the Conference Room, LPN #2 was asked what was said by Shahbaz (the certified nursing assistant manager of the [NAME] House home) #2 to Resident #135. LPN #2 confirmed the witness statement dated 12/18/18 at 3:35 PM. LPN #2 was asked when the incident of verbal abuse occurred and confirmed the incident occurred about 6 PM on 12/17/18. LPN #2 was asked what else occurred that evening. LPN #2 stated, .She verbally abused another resident in the hearth room. LPN #2 was asked when the incidents were reported. LPN #2 stated, I reported it at the same time she was saying it to the other elder [12/17/18 at 10:00 PM] .I was bringing it to my supervisors attention when I heard her say it to the other resident. LPN #2 was asked how much time elapsed between the incidents. LPN #2 stated, Approximately 3 hours. LPN #2 was asked if Shahbaz #2 worked the next night (12/18/18). LPN #2 stated, yes ma'am. Interview with the Administrator on 3/7/19 at 2:57 PM in the Conference Room, the Administrator was asked when the incident with Resident #135 occurred. The Administrator stated, 12/17/18. The Administrator was asked when she was notified of the allegation. The Administrator stated, She notified her supervisor, who notified me on 12/19. The Administrator was asked when she should have been notified. The Administrator stated, She should have notified me right away.
CONCERN (E)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on policy review, disciplinary report review, staff working schedule review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent further potential abuse for 2 of 4 (Resident #135 and #188) residents r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, disciplinary report review, staff working schedule review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent further potential abuse for 2 of 4 (Resident #135 and #188) residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: The facility's .Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, dated 12/12/18 documented, .The facility will make efforts to ensure all Elders are protected from physical and psychosocial harm during and after the investigation .Examples include but are not limited to .Responding immediately to protect the alleged victim and integrity of the investigation .Examining the alleged victim for any sign of injury . The facility's .Disciplinary Report . dated 12/19/18, documented, .On 12/18/2018 it was reported to GH [Green House] Guide that employee [named Shahbaz, the certified nursing assistant manager of the [NAME] House home,#2] was overheard telling elder [named Resident #135] Don't you talk to me like that. Shut up. while providing ADL [activity of daily living] care on Monday 12/17/2018. Later that evening, she was overheard telling elder [named Resident #188], Don't come over here and bother me. These statements were witnesses [witnessed] by two staff members. The facility's untitled witness statement from Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 dated 12/18/18 at 3:35 PM, documented, .During my shift at approx. [approximately] 800 [8:00] pm 12/17/18, I went to pass meds to an elder who had them do [due] between 700 [7:00] & [symbol for and] 800 pm. Upon entering the elder's room I overheard the elder mumbling something as the CNA [certified nursing assistant] was redressing her. In her reply the CNA told the Elder Don't you talk to me like that. Shut up .Later that night at approx. 1000 [10:00] pm, I was in the nurses room and overheard the CNA tell another Elder who was in a wheelchair at that time .Dont [don't] come over here and bother me .When asked by another nurse if that was how she spoke, I then told her about the incident early that day. Review of the staff working schedule for 12/18/18 revealed Shahbaz #2 worked 12/18/18 but was removed from the schedule 12/19/19. Interview with the Administrator on 3/7/19 at 2:57 PM in the Conference Room, the Administrator was asked what the charge nurse should do if she heard another staff verbally abuse a resident. The Administrator stated, Take her away from providing care to that elder, and send her home. The Administrator was asked why Shahbaz #2 was not sent home after the first incident. The Administrator stated, I do not know. The Administrator was asked if Shahbaz #2 was allowed to work on 12/18 or 12/19. The Administrator stated, I do not know. Interview with LPN #2 on 3/7/19 at 4:44 PM in the Conference Room, LPN #2 was asked what Shahbaz #2 said to Resident #135. LPN #2 stated, .I overheard her telling [named Resident #135] to shut up and to not speak to her like that. I don't think she knew I was in there because when she saw me she stopped talking immediately. LPN #2 was asked if she thought that behavior was abusive. LPN #2 stated, I believe it is. LPN #2 was asked what time the incident occurred. LPN #2 stated, Maybe about 6 PM, approximately. LPN #2 was asked what else occurred that evening. LPN #2 stated, .She verbally abused another resident [Resident #188] in the hearth room. LPN #2 was asked when the incidents were reported. LPN #2 stated, I reported it at the same time she was saying it to the other elder [Resident #188] .I was bringing it to my supervisor's attention when I heard her say it to the other resident [Resident #188]. LPN #2 was asked how much time elapsed between the incidents. LPN #2 stated, Approximately 3 hours. LPN #2 was asked if Shahbaz #2 worked the next night. LPN #2 stated, Yes Ma'am. LPN #2 was asked which GH she was assigned to as charge nurse. LPN #2 stated, 7 and half of 6. LPN #2 was asked if she left this GH and went to her other assigned GH at any other time after the incident leaving Shahbaz #2 unsupervised. LPN #2 stated, Yes, Ma'am. LPN #2 confirmed that Shahbaz completed her shift on 12/17/18 and was allowed to come back to work on 12/18/18.
CONCERN (E)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on document review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure daily staffing information was posted in a pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on document review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure daily staffing information was posted in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors in 6 of 9 (Green House (GH) #1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8) [NAME] Houses, and failed to document on the staffing postings the total number of actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care each shift in 9 of 9 (GH #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) [NAME] Houses for 94 of 94 days of daily staff postings reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's AVE [NAME] DAILY NURSE STAFFING FORM [NAME] House 8-9 dated 3/4/19 documented staffing for both GH #8 and GH #9. Observations in GH #8 on 3/4/19 at 11:14 AM, revealed there was not a posting of the licensed and unlicensed staff directly responsible for resident care posted. Observations in the GH #3 nursing office on 3/5/19 at 11:37 PM revealed the facility's AVE [NAME] DAILY NURSE STAFFING FORM [NAME] House 1-4 dated 3/5/19 was posted on the glass window facing into the nursing office. The Staffing Form was not readily accessible to residents and visitors. The Staffing Form did not document the correct total number of staff and the actual hours worked by each staff member. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/5/19 at 11:38 AM in GH #3, the DON was asked where staff postings were located. The DON stated House 1-4, staffing is posted in house 3, in the nursing office. The DON was asked where the other staff postings were located. The DON stated .House 8-9 is in house 9 nursing office, and house 5-7 is in House 6 nursing office . Review of the facility's staff postings for GH #1 through #9 for the time period of 12/1/18 through 3/4/19 revealed no documentation of the total hours worked each shift by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care . Interview with the DON on 3/7/19 at 9:56 AM in the Conference Room, the DON confirmed the daily staff postings were not posted in a prominent place and were not readily accessible to residents and visitors. The DON confirmed that actual hours worked were not documented on the staff postings that were reviewed for the time period of 12/1/18 through 3/4/19.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored safely ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored safely and securely when medications were left unattended by 2 of 4 (Staff Development Coordinator and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3) nurses observed during medication administration. The findings include: 1. The facility's undated Medication Storage Policy documented, .It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the medication rooms or Wall-a-[NAME] [a locked medication storage cabinet inside the residents room] according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security . 2. Observations in Resident #66's room on 3/5/19 at 5:10 PM revealed the Staff Development Coordinator preparing to administer an intravenous (IV) medication. The Staff Development Coordinator placed the medication on the over bed table in front of Resident #66. The Staff Development Coordinator left the room and walked to the nursing office down the hall, leaving the IV medication unattended on the over bed table. 3. Observations in Resident #40's room on 3/6/19 at 8:13 AM revealed LPN #3 preparing to administer medications to Resident #40. LPN #3 opened the Wall-a-roo, and pulled the door down to create a tray. LPN #3 placed an insulin pen on top of the tray. LPN #3 went into the bathroom and washed her hands, leaving the Wall-a-roo door open with the insulin pen on top of the tray and the medications stored in the cabinet unsecured and unattended. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/7/19 at 4:55 PM, in the Main Dining Room, the DON was asked if medications should be left unattended in a resident room. The DON stated, No. The DON was asked if a nurse should go into the bathroom and leave the Wall-a-roo open with an insulin pen on the tray and medications unsecured. The DON stated, No.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure practices to prevent in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure practices to prevent infections and cross-contamination when staff failed to keep an indwelling catheter off the floor for 2 of 4 (Resident #3 and #186) sampled residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters, staff failed to maintain sterile technique during a catheter bag change, staff failed to perform site care to a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for 1 of 1 (Resident #66) residents with a PICC line, and staff failed to wash a contaminated drinking container for 1 of 12 (Resident #66) residents in [NAME] House #7. The findings include: 1. The facility's Catheter Care, Urinary policy dated 10/2010, documented, .If breaks in aseptic technique, disconnection .use aseptic technique and sterile equipment .the urinary drainage bag must be held or positioned lower than the bladder at all times to prevent the urine in the tubing and drainage bag from flowing back into the urinary bladder .be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor . 2. Medical record review revealed Resident #186 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Bladder Neck Obstruction and Retention of Urine. The physician's order dated 2/25/19 documented, .Foley Cath [catheter] . Observations in Resident #186's room on 3/4/19 at 11:45 AM and 4:03 PM revealed Resident #186 in bed with the indwelling urinary catheter bag on the floor. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 on 3/6/19 at 3:14 PM in Resident #186's room, LPN #4 was asked if an indwelling urinary catheter bag should be on the floor. LPN #4 stated, No Ma'am, terrible infection control issue. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/7/19 at 6:27 PM in the Conference Room, the DON was asked if an indwelling urinary catheter bag should be on the floor. The DON stated, No. 3. Medical record review revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Urinary Tract Infection, Uterine Fibroid Tumors, and Urinary Retention. The physician's order dated 9/19/18 documented, .FOLEY CATH . Observations in Resident #3's restroom on 3/6/19 at 9:15 AM revealed the House Manager changing a urinary catheter bag to a leg bag. Shahbaz (the certified nursing assistant manager of the [NAME] House (GH) home)#5 was holding the catheter bag, allowed it to touch the floor and then held the catheter bag above the resident's bladder at the resident's eye level. The House Manager touched the resident and then touched the leg bag connector tip (the tip that connects into the catheter tubing) without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene. Interview with the House Manager on 3/6/19 at 9:36 AM in Resident #3's room, the House Manager was asked if an indwelling urinary catheter bag should be on the floor, be held above the bladder, or if the nurse should touch the resident and then touch the leg bag tip without changing gloves and performing hand hygiene. The House Manager stated, No . Interview with the DON on 3/07/19 at 6:28 PM in the Conference Room, the DON was asked if an indwelling urinary catheter bag should be on the floor, be held above the bladder, or should the nurse touch the resident and then touch the leg bag tip without changing gloves and performing hand hygiene. The DON stated, No .infection control. 4. The facility's Central Venous Catheter Dressing Changes policy dated 5/1/18, documented, .The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-related infections .A physician's order is not needed for this procedure .Change transparent semi-permeable membrane (TSM) dressings at least every 7 days . 5. Medical record review revealed Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Osteomyelitis, Sepsis, Depression, and Peripheral Vascular Disease. The physician's orders dated 3/2019 documented, .Daptomycin [antibiotic used to treat bacterial infection] 350 mg [milligrams] IV [intravenous] through PICC line daily .Cefepime [antibiotic used to treat bacterial infection] .infuse .every 12 hours . The nurses note dated 3/5/19 at 8:26 PM documented, .While hanging the 5pm dose of IV Cefepime via PICC line, RN [Registered Nurse] noticed that the dressing was out of date with old bloody drainage around the biopatch . Observations in Resident #66's room on 3/5/19 beginning at 5:00 PM revealed the Staff Development Coordinator prepared to administer an IV medication. The Staff Development Coordinator asked Resident #66 to pull up his sleeve. Resident #66 exposed his PICC line site. The Staff Development Coordinator observed the PICC line site dressing dated 1/31 and stated, Did you see the date on that .1/31 .that needs to be changed. Observations in Resident #66's room on 3/5/19 at 5:10 PM, revealed Shabaz (the certified nursing assistant manager of the [NAME] House home) #4 entered the room with a plate of food. Resident #66 picked up a metal drinking cup and a plastic lid fell off the cup and onto the floor. Shahbaz #4 picked up the plastic lid off the floor and placed it on the over bed table. Shabaz #4 did not wash the lid before placing it on the table. Resident #66 then placed the lid back on the cup and placed his straw in it without washing the lid. Interview with House Manager #1 on 3/5/19 at 5:33 PM in the [NAME] House #7 Nursing Office, House Manager #1 was asked if staff should pick up a drinking cup lid from from the floor, place the lid on the resident's overbed table, and then return the lid to the resident's cup without washing the lid. House Manager #1 stated, No Ma'am. Interview with the DON on 3/7/19 at 4:55 PM, in the Main Dining Room, the DON was asked how often a PICC line dressing should be changed. The DON stated, Weekly.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on policy review, monthly temperature chart review, observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions when refrigerator an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, monthly temperature chart review, observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions when refrigerator and freezer temperatures were not documented twice per day in 4 of 9 (Green House (GH) #2, 4, 5 and 8) [NAME] Houses, food was not stored in sealed containers, and open foods were not labeled in 3 of 9 (GH #7, 8 and 9) [NAME] Houses. This had the potential to affect 61 residents that received meals from these [NAME] House kitchens. The findings include: 1. The facility's .Monitoring of Cooler/Freezer Temperature policy dated 6/18, documented, .It is the policy of this facility to maintain temperatures of coolers and freezers at the appropriate temperature to promote food safety. This policy also addresses refrigerated storage .Temperatures will be checked and logged at least twice per day by designated personnel . Review of the FREEZER AND REFRIGERATOR TEMPERATURE CHART logs for GH #2 revealed incomplete daily freezer and refrigerator temperature documentation on 31 of 31 days on the December, 2018 and January, 2019 logs and 28 of 28 days on the February, 2019 log. Review of the FREEZER AND REFRIGERATOR TEMPERATURE CHART logs for GH #4 revealed incomplete daily freezer and refrigerator temperature documentation on 31 of 31 days on the December, 2018 and January, 2019 logs and 28 of 28 days on the February, 2019. Review of the FREEZER AND REFRIGERATOR TEMPERATURE CHART logs for GH #5 revealed incomplete daily freezer and refrigerator temperature documentation on 31 of 31 days on the December, 2018 and January, 2019 logs and 28 of 28 days on the February, 2019 log. Review of the FREEZER AND REFRIGERATOR TEMPERATURE CHART logs for GH #8 revealed incomplete daily freezer and refrigerator temperature documentation on 31 of 31 days on the December, 2018 and January, 2019 logs and 28 of 28 days on the February, 2019 log. Interview with the Food Service Supervisor on 3/6/19 at 4:52 PM in GH #4 Dining Room, the Food Service Supervisor was asked if refrigerator and freezer temperatures should be documented on the chart. The Food Service Supervisor confirmed the refrigerator and freezer log sheets were not completed per policy and stated, Yes .it has to be monitored . 2. The facility's undated Food Expiration Guidelines documented, .All prepared food items .will be discarded after 7 days .The date of open .Frozen items will be labeled . The facility's undated .Food Safety Requirements documented, .Storage of food in manner that helps prevent deterioration or contamination on the food, including from growth of microorganisms .Practices to maintain safe refrigerated storage include Keeping foods covered or in tight containers . Observations in the GH #7 kitchen refrigerator during initial tour on 3/4/19 at 10:45 AM revealed the following: a. 1 open undated carton of liquid eggs b. 1 open undated container of applesauce c. 1 open undated gallon of milk Observations in the GH #7 kitchen refrigerator on 3/4/19 at 4:25 PM revealed the following: a. 1 open, undated container of applesauce b. 1 unlabeled, undated zip top bag with 4 cucumbers c. 2 undated, unlabeled stalks of celery wrapped in plastic wrap d. 1 undated, unlabeled piece of onion in a ziplock bag e. 1 unlabeled, undated piece of onion wrapped in plastic wrap. Observations in the GH #8 pantry refrigerator on 3/4/19 at 11:19 AM revealed the following: a. 1 unlabeled green plastic container containing an unknown substance b. 1 6 ounce container of yogurt dated February 20, 2019 c. 1 unsealed gallon zip top bag of pork chops d. 1 opened, unlabeled 2 liter container of Ginger Ale Observations in the GH #8 pantry freezer on 3/4/19 at 11:23 AM revealed the following: a. a zip top bag containing catfish dated 2/27 b. 3 unlabeled 16 ounce squares of margarine c. an a unlabeled zip top bag of hamburger meat Observations in the GH #8 pantry on 3/4/19 at 11:27 AM revealed an undated gallon zip top bag of rice on a shelf. Interview with the Consultant Dietician on 3/4/19 at 12:08 PM in the GH #8 pantry, the Consultant Dietician confirmed the 6 ounce container of yogurt was out of date. The Consultant Dietician was asked if the unlabeled plastic container with an unknown substance should be in the refrigerator. The Consultant Dietician stated, No. The Consultant Dietician was asked about the unsealed gallon zip top bag of pork chops, and stated, It should not be open. The Consultant Dietician confirmed the open unlabeled 2 liter container of Ginger Ale, and stated, It should be labeled. The Consultant Dietician looked in the freezer and confirmed the catfish was expired. The Consultant Dietician was asked about the 3 unlabeled 16 ounce squares of margarine. The Consultant Dietician stated, .should be in a plastic bag and labeled. The Consultant Dietician confirmed the unlabeled zip top bag of hamburger meat should be labeled. The Consultant Dietician looked at the pantry shelf with the undated gallon zip top bag of rice. The Consultant Dietician confirmed it should be labeled. Observations in the GH #9 pantry on 3/5/19 at 9:21 AM revealed an unsealed bag of wafer cookies dated 2/1 on the pantry shelf. Observations in the GH #9 pantry refrigerator on 3/5/19 at 9:24 AM, revealed the following: a. uncovered romaine lettuce dated 2/27 in the vegetable compartment b. an old reddish brown dried substance under the bottom shelf and over the refrigerated vegetable bins. Observations in GH #9 pantry on 3/6/19 at 8:53 AM, revealed the following: a. an old dried reddish brown substance under the bottom glass shelf and over the vegetable bins in the refrigerator b. uncovered romaine lettuce in the refrigerator c. half of a cucumber in an unlabeled zip top bag in the refrigerated vegetable bin d. a bag of unsealed wafer cookies on the pantry shelf. Interview with the Food Service Supervisor on 3/6/19 at 9:11 AM in the GH #9 pantry, the Food Service Supervisor was asked if the wafer cookies were stored properly. The Food Service Supervisor stated, No. The Food Service Supervisor was asked about the reddish brown substance under the bottom shelf and over the vegetable bins. The Food Service Supervisor confirmed an unknown substance and stated, They should clean it immediately. The Food Service Supervisor was asked about the cucumber. The Food Service Supervisor stated, It's not labeled or dated. The Food Service Supervisor was asked about the lettuce. The Food Service Supervisor stated, That's not wrapped, it could possibly get contaminated. It's unsafe for our residents. Observations in the GH #9 kitchen refrigerator on 3/6/19 at 5:04 PM revealed unlabeled celery and lettuce, and an unsealed zip top bag of 3 pieces of fried chicken. Interview with the Food Service Assistant Supervisor on 3/6/19 at 5:08 PM in GH #9 near the kitchen refrigerator, the Food Service Assistant Supervisor confirmed the celery and lettuce were not labeled and the zip top bag of chicken was not properly stored. Interview with the Food Service Supervisor on 3/7/19 at 7:45 PM in the Conference Room, the Food Service Supervisor was asked if foods should be labeled and dated after they are opened. The Food Service Supervisor stated, Yes. The Food Service Supervisor was asked how vegetables should be stored. The Food Service Supervisor stated, They are usually taken over in a zip lock bag. The Food Service Supervisor was asked if items such as margarine should be labeled if opened. The Food Service Supervisor Yes .like if it's taken out of the original package, yes it should be dated . The Food Service Supervisor was asked if food should be properly sealed so it is not open to air. The Food Service Supervisor stated, Yes.
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), $27,921 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $27,921 in fines. Higher than 94% of Tennessee facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 28/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Ave Maria Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns AVE MARIA HOME an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Tennessee, 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 Ave Maria Home Staffed?

CMS rates AVE MARIA HOME's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ave Maria Home?

State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at AVE MARIA HOME during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 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 Ave Maria Home?

AVE MARIA HOME 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 100 certified beds and approximately 91 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BARTLETT, Tennessee.

How Does Ave Maria Home Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, AVE MARIA HOME's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ave Maria Home?

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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Ave Maria Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, AVE MARIA HOME 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Tennessee. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Ave Maria Home Stick Around?

AVE MARIA HOME has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Ave Maria Home Ever Fined?

AVE MARIA HOME has been fined $27,921 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Tennessee average of $33,358. 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 Ave Maria Home on Any Federal Watch List?

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