GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER

181 DUNLAP ROAD, BLOUNTVILLE, TN 37617 (423) 323-7112
For profit - Limited Liability company 160 Beds PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
25/100
#250 of 298 in TN
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Greystone Health Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #250 out of 298 facilities in Tennessee, placing it in the bottom half statewide, and #5 out of 7 in Sullivan County, meaning only two local options are considered worse. While the facility has shown improvement over the past year, reducing issues from 16 to 3, the overall environment remains troubling. Staffing is rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a 43% turnover rate, which is lower than the state average but still below average overall. Families should be aware of concerning incidents, including a failure to protect residents from abuse, with multiple reports of physical altercations among residents, and inadequate documentation of staff hours, which raises questions about transparency and accountability.

Trust Score
F
25/100
In Tennessee
#250/298
Bottom 17%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
16 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near Tennessee's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$30,631 in fines. Lower than most Tennessee facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Tennessee. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below Tennessee average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Tennessee average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near Tennessee avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $30,631

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
May 2025 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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

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 ensure resident's right to retain personal pos...

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 ensure resident's right to retain personal possessions for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Tracheostomy, Dependence on Ventilator, Gastrostomy Status, Need for Assistance with Personal Care. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 revealed a Discharge return anticipated MDS assessment was completed on 1/29/2025 and an entry MDS assessment was completed on 3/18/2025. Review of nurse's progress notes for Resident #1 revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on 1/29/2025 and returned to the facility on 3/18/2025. Review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 scored a 13 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. During a telephone interview on 5/13/2025 at 4:47 PM, Resident #1's family member stated the resident had been hospitalized for 1 month related to trouble breathing. When Resident #1 returned to the facility, the resident's personal belongings, including a statue of [NAME] and a small tree the family decorated for the holidays, were missing from the room. The resident's family member stated a facility staff member was notified of the missing personal items, but did not know the staff member's name. Further interview revealed a staff member had told Resident #1's granddaughter the resident's personal belongings had been packed in a box and reported later the resident's items could not be found. During an observation of Resident #1's room on 5/14/2025 at 8:30 AM, revealed a tree and statue of [NAME] were not in the resident's room. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 9:01 AM, Social Worker A stated housekeeping boxed resident items and stored them on 3rd floor when a resident left the facility. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 1:35 PM, the Housekeeping Manager stated Resident #1 asked a housekeeper where her personal belongings were when she returned from the hospital. The Housekeeping Supervisor recalled Resident #1 was missing a .Christmas tree and trinkets .I remember she had a tree .she [Resident #1] asked about the tree .When I went up there [3rd floor], I found a journal, notepad, brush, crossword puzzle book, and a daily devotional book. I brought those down to her . The Housekeeping Manager stated resident's belongings who left the facility were placed in a box or bag and labeled with the resident's name and date and was placed in storage. Any boxes/bags dated 30 days or older were to be discarded.We started the 30 day thing because the room [where resident items were stored] was packed . The Housekeeping Manager stated a previous administrator had instructed them [housekeeping staff] to discard resident's personal items which had been stored for 30 days. She stated .when I went to Social Services, I was told the resident [Resident #1] had been gone over 30 days . so the items would have been discarded. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 1:45 PM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated she did not recall if she reached out to Resident #1's family to see if they wanted the resident's belongings or to notify them the resident's belongings were going to be discarded after the 30 days. The SSD stated she spoke with Social Worker A, who told her she did not contact Resident #1's family regarding discarding the resident's personal belongings. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 2:00 PM, the Regional Clinical Director stated she was not aware the former Administrator had advised the housekeeping staff to discard discharged or hospitlized residents' personal items after 30 days and the facility did not have a policy regarding disposal of resident's personal items. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 3:25 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff were expected to notify Administration when resident personal items could not be found.
Apr 2025 2 deficiencies
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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

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 ensure resident's right to retain personal pos...

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 ensure resident's right to retain personal possessions for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Tracheostomy, Dependence on Ventilator, Gastrostomy Status, Need for Assistance with Personal Care. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 revealed a Discharge return anticipated MDS assessment was completed on 1/29/2025 and an entry MDS assessment was completed on 3/18/2025. Review of nurse's progress notes for Resident #1 revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on 1/29/2025 and returned to the facility on 3/18/2025. Review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 scored a 13 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. During a telephone interview on 5/13/2025 at 4:47 PM, Resident #1's family member stated the resident had been hospitalized for 1 month related to trouble breathing. When Resident #1 returned to the facility, the resident's personal belongings, including a statue of [NAME] and a small tree the family decorated for the holidays, were missing from the room. The resident's family member stated a facility staff member was notified of the missing personal items, but did not know the staff member's name. Further interview revealed a staff member had told Resident #1's granddaughter the resident's personal belongings had been packed in a box and reported later the resident's items could not be found. During an observation of Resident #1's room on 5/14/2025 at 8:30 AM, revealed a tree and statue of [NAME] were not in the resident's room. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 9:01 AM, Social Worker A stated housekeeping boxed resident items and stored them on 3rd floor when a resident left the facility. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 1:35 PM, the Housekeeping Manager stated Resident #1 asked a housekeeper where her personal belongings were when she returned from the hospital. The Housekeeping Supervisor recalled Resident #1 was missing a .Christmas tree and trinkets .I remember she had a tree .she [Resident #1] asked about the tree .When I went up there [3rd floor], I found a journal, notepad, brush, crossword puzzle book, and a daily devotional book. I brought those down to her . The Housekeeping Manager stated resident's belongings who left the facility were placed in a box or bag and labeled with the resident's name and date and was placed in storage. Any boxes/bags dated 30 days or older were to be discarded.We started the 30 day thing because the room [where resident items were stored] was packed . The Housekeeping Manager stated a previous administrator had instructed them [housekeeping staff] to discard resident's personal items which had been stored for 30 days. She stated .when I went to Social Services, I was told the resident [Resident #1] had been gone over 30 days . so the items would have been discarded. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 1:45 PM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated she did not recall if she reached out to Resident #1's family to see if they wanted the resident's belongings or to notify them the resident's belongings were going to be discarded after the 30 days. The SSD stated she spoke with Social Worker A, who told her she did not contact Resident #1's family regarding discarding the resident's personal belongings. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 2:00 PM, the Regional Clinical Director stated she was not aware the former Administrator had advised the housekeeping staff to discard discharged or hospitlized residents' personal items after 30 days and the facility did not have a policy regarding disposal of resident's personal items. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 3:25 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff were expected to notify Administration when resident personal items could not be found. Refer to Event ID: 52HY11
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility documentation review, observation, and interview the facility failed to use a disinfectant according to the ma...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility documentation review, observation, and interview the facility failed to use a disinfectant according to the manufacturer's instructions on 1 of 3 hallways observed for disinfectant use to prevent the spread of candida auris and other infectios organisms. The findings include: Review of facility undated document titled, Healthcare SEVICES GROUP, revealed .PURPOSE: To teach environmental Services employees the proper cleaning method to sanitize .any area in a healthcare facility .when using cleaning products always refer to the manufacturer's recommended dwell time. Dwell time .is how long a chemical needs to be in contact with the surface in order to effectively sanitize or disinfect . Review of facility undated document titled .VIRASEPT . revealed .is a .Detergent-Disinfectant .Effective in 4 minutes .Apply Virasept with a coarse trigger sprayer, cloth .or by soaking to thoroughly wet surface .Allow surface to remain wet for at least 4 minutes . During an observation on 4/2/2025 at 2:30 PM, on the 100 hall, Housekeeper M was observed disinfecting the entrance doorknob to room [ROOM NUMBER] the housekeeper sprayed Virasept cleaning solution on a washcloth, wiped the doorknob with the washcloth, then sprayed the doorknob with the Virasept cleaning solution the doorknob was dry within 3 minutes the housekeeper did not respray the doorknob with the solution at any time in order to keep the doorknob wet for at least 4 minutes per the manufacturer's instructions. During an interview on 4/2/2025 at 2:00 PM, The Housekeeping Manger stated .we have the Vircept that we use we spray the surface, and we got to let it set for 4 minutes it has to be wet for 4 minutes and then we wipe it . During an interview on 4/2/2025 at 2:25 PM, Housekeeper M stated .it's [the doorknob surface] supposed to be wet for 4 minutes .I did see it wasn't wet .it was dry before 4 minutes . and the doorknob was not properly disinfected according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Oct 2024 14 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility policy review, review of resident council minutes, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' grievances related to adding more fresh fruits to meals and staff yelli...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, review of resident council minutes, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' grievances related to adding more fresh fruits to meals and staff yelling and cursing in the hallways were promptly acted upon for 12 of 12 residents who attended the 10/29/2024 resident council meeting. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assistance Procedure, revised 10/30/2023, revealed .The facility will provide a designated staff person who is approved by the resident or group .responsible for responding to written request .The facility will consider the views of a resident or family group and act upon .recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility . Review of Resident Council Minutes dated 8/16/2024, revealed .staff yelling and cursing in the hallways .would like new options on the .menu .tired of tropical fruit . During an interview on 10/29/2024 at 2:00 PM, residents participating in the resident council stated the prior concerns of staff disruptive yelling and cursing in the hallways and menu concerns were not acted upon or corrected. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 8:05 AM, the Dietary Manager (DM) confirmed she was aware residents had stated during the Resident Council Meeting on 8/16/2024 they would like more fresh fruits served. Continued interview confirmed the DM added a fresh fruit bar 1 time in September with no further action. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 8:25 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed she was aware residents had stated staff was loud and cursed in the hallways. Continued interview revealed the DON stated no staff had admitted to the behavior and confirmed she was not aware there were continued concerns.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide 3 of 3 residents (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide 3 of 3 residents (Resident #12, Resident #400, and Resident #401) an Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) after therapy services were discontinued, the resident remained in the facility for long-term care services, or was discharged from the facility. The facility's failure resulted in residents not being informed of the cost of therapy services if continued therapy services were desired which did not allow the residents to have an informed choice. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Advance Beneficiary Notices, revised 10/30/2023, revealed .It is the policy of the facility to provide timely notices regarding Medicare eligibility and coverage .A notice of Medicare Non-Coverage .shall be issued to the resident/ representative when Medicare covered service(s) are ending, no matter if resident is leaving the facility or remaining in the facility . Medical record review revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Anxiety Disorder, and Dysphasia. Review of a Physical Therapy Discharge Summary note dated 8/28/2024, revealed Resident #12 was discharged from skilled Medicare services. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed an ABN was not provided to the resident upon discharge of physical therapy services. Medical record review revealed Resident #400 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure, Dysphasia, and Abnormalities of Gait. Review of a Physical Therapy Discharge Summary note dated 8/15/2024, revealed Resident #400 was discharged from skilled Medicare services. Review of the medical record for Resident #400 revealed an ABN was not provided to the resident upon discharge from physical therapy services. Medical record review revealed Resident #401 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Personal History of Transient Ischemic Attack, Dysphasia, and Other Lack of Coordination. Review of a Physical Therapy Discharge Summary note dated 7/2/2024, revealed Resident #401 was discharged from skilled Medicare services. Review of the medical record for Resident #401 revealed an ABN was not provided to the resident upon discharge from physical therapy services. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 8:20 AM, the Administrator confirmed the ABN notices explaining their informed choice were not given to Resident #12, Resident #400, and Resident #401 prior to discharge from skilled Medicare services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide effective housekeeping and mainten...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide effective housekeeping and maintenance services to ensure a safe, sanitary homelike environment for 1 resident (Resident #51) of 95 residents reviewed for a safe, sanitary homelike environment. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe and Homelike Environment, dated 1/1/2022, revealed .Environment refers to any environment .including .the resident's rooms. Sanitary includes .preventing the spread of disease-causing organisms. Housekeeping and maintenance services will be provided as necessary to maintain a sanitary .environment .reporting lingering odors .to Housekeeping Department. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Refrigerators, dated 1/1/2022, revealed .Housekeeping staff shall record .temperatures daily on a temperature log .shall clean the refrigerator daily .discard any foods that are out of compliance leftovers shall be dated .foods with use by dates shall be discarded . Observations on 10/28/2024 at 11:10 AM, 10/28/2024 at 2:47 PM, 10/29/2024 at 3:07 PM, and 10/30/2024 at 9:42 AM, of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a strong urine odor in the resident's room. A dark brown substance was noted on walls in several places. A rust-colored substance was noted in various places around the air conditioning unit. Dried food was observed inside the vent area of the air conditioning unit. [NAME] stains were observed on the black window curtains. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 9:40 AM, the 2nd Floor Unit Manager and Housekeeping Director confirmed the resident rooms were cleaned daily and as necessary. The Housekeeping Director stated curtains were changed when stained or soiled. While in room [ROOM NUMBER], the Housekeeping Director confirmed dried food debris inside the vent area of the air conditioning unit and the curtains were stained. The 2nd floor unit manager confirmed room [ROOM NUMBER] was not in a sanitary condition and did not represent a homelike environment. Observations on 10/28/2024 at 11:30 AM and 10/29/2024 at 3:02 PM of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a dark brown dried liquid substance in the resident's personal refrigerator. The personal refrigerator contained a piece of cake covered in plastic wrap that was not dated. Observations on 10/28/2024 at 11:42 AM and 10/29/2024 at 3:21 PM of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a dark brown dried liquid substance in the resident's personal refrigerator. The refrigerator contained 3 slices of pepperoni pizza stored in quart bags that did not have a date on it. An unopened pint sized container of milk revealed an expiration date of 8/1/2024. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 9:33AM, the 2nd Floor Unit Manager stated it was the responsibility of the Certified Nursing Aide's (CNA's) to clean personal refrigerators, to perform daily temperature checks, and obtain the information on the temperature log located on the front door of the refrigerator. The 2nd Floor Unit Manager confirmed the personal refrigerators in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had not been cleaned, the food items were not dated, and the milk was expired. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 11:52 AM, the Administrator stated he did not know who was responsible to clean and maintain the residents' personal refrigerators, but stated .I should know so I am going to find out . During an interview with 10/30/2024 at 11:59AM, the Housekeeping Director stated housekeeping staff cleaned the resident personal refrigerators and the CNAs obtained the temperature checks. She confirmed there was confusion regarding who was responsible for cleaning the refrigerators and performing temperature checks.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to submit a Level 2 Preadmission Scre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to submit a Level 2 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 2 residents (Resident #7 and #37). The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, PASARR - Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review, revealed .resident is admitted with a level diagnosis as indicated .review is required upon change in the residents condition . Medical record review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Dementia, Bipolar Disorder, and Psychosis. Review of an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #7 scored a 9 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Medical record review revealed Resident #7's PASARR dated 9/29/2023, did not include a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Medical record review of the Psychiatric Evaluation dated 12/5/2023, revealed Resident #7 had a new diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Medical record review revealed Resident #7 did not have a new PASARR submitted, after the new diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was added on 12/5/2023. Medical record review revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Muscle Weakness, and Generalized Anxiety. Review of the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #37 scored a 4 on the BIMS assessment, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Medical record review revealed Resident #37's PASARR dated 9/26/2023, did not include a diagnosis of Unspecified Mood Disorder. Medical record review of the Psychiatric Evaluation dated 12/20/2023, revealed Resident #37 had a new diagnosis of Unspecified Mood Disorder. Medical record review revealed Resident #37 did not have a new PASARR submitted to the state designated authority after the new diagnosis of Mood Disorder was added on 12/20/2023. During an interview on 12/30/2024 at 3:40 PM, the PASARR Coordinator confirmed it was her expectation Resident #7 should have been referred for a Level 2 PASARR evaluation after a new diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Resident #37 should have been referred for a Level 2 PASARR evaluation, after a new diagnosis of Unspecified Mood Disorder was added.
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 facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain resident-care oxygen equipment in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain resident-care oxygen equipment in a clean and sanitary condition for 2 residents (Resident #23 and Resident #50) of 8 residents observed for oxygen use. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Equipment, revised 10/23/2024, revealed .resident-care equipment will be cleaned .Cleaning .is the removal of visible soil from objects and surfaces .Direct care staff are responsible for cleaning single-resident equipment when visibly soiled . Medical record review revealed Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Stroke, Dementia, Weakness, and Obstructive Sleep Apnea. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 4:10 PM, a blue 5-liter oxygen concentrator was noted beside Resident #23's bed. The blue 5-liter oxygen concentrator was soiled with a tan brown-like substance covering the top and front of the concentrator. During an observation on 10/30/2024 at 9:35 AM, a blue 5-liter oxygen concentrator was noted beside Resident #23's bed. The blue 5-liter oxygen concentrator was soiled with a tan brown-like substance covering the top and front of the concentrator. Medical record review revealed Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Heart Failure, COPD, and Dementia. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 4:00 PM, a black 10-liter oxygen concentrator was noted beside Resident #50's bed. The black 10-liter oxygen concentrator was soiled with a tan brown-like substance covering the top and front of the concentrator. During an observation on 10/30/2024 at 9:37 AM, a black 10-liter oxygen concentrator was noted beside Resident #50's bed. The black 10-liter oxygen concentrator was soiled with a tan brown-like substance covering the top and front of the concentrator. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 9:28 AM, Respiratory Therapist (RT) stated the nursing staff was responsible for cleaning oxygen concentrators for residents on the 2nd floor (Resident #23's and Resident #50's floor). During interview and observation on 10/30/2024 at 9:35 AM, the 2nd floor Registered Nurse (RN) J stated the respiratory therapy staff were responsible for cleaning oxygen resident-care equipment. The RN observed the blue 5-liter oxygen concentrator and confirmed the concentrator was soiled and available for Resident #23's use, and confirmed the black 10-liter oxygen concentrator was soiled and available for Resident #50's use. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 9:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated nursing staff were responsible for cleaning resident oxygen concentrators when visibly soiled. The DON confirmed Resident #23's and Resident #50's oxygen concentrators were not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 10:00 AM, the Respiratory Therapy Manager stated nursing staff were responsible for cleaning oxygen concentrators for residents on the 2nd floor (Resident #23's and Resident #50's floor).
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper administration of an oral inhaler for 1 resident (Resident #52) of 4 residents observed for medication administration. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration .Oral Inhalations, dated 1/2023, revealed .To allow for safe, accurate, and effective administration of medication using an oral inhaler .Equipment .prescribed inhaler device .cup of water for rinsing mouth after steroid medication .ask resident to breathe out (do not exhale into the inhaler) .press down of the inhaler once to release medication as resident starts to breathe in slowly .hold breath for 5-10 seconds or as long as possible to allow medication to reach deeply into lungs . Medical record review revealed Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis, Morbid Obesity, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #52 scored a 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review on 10/29/2024 of the current Physician Recapitulation Orders revealed, .[name brand of inhalation medication] start date 5/18/2024 inhalation [type of inhaler] .2 puffs inhale orally two times a day .Rinse mouth with water and spit back into cup after use . During an observation on 10/29/2024 at 7:00 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C administered the inhaler to Resident #52, and failed to give any instructions prior to use to the resident. Continued observation revealed LPN C also failed to have the resident rinse the mouth and spit back into cup after use. During an interview on 10/29/2024 at 2:05 PM, LPN C confirmed she failed to give any instruction for the prescribed inhaler prior to use and failed to have Resident #52 rinse the mouth and spit back into cup after use. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 6:04 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility policy for administration of oral inhalations for Resident #52 was not followed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly and securely stored in 1 of 3 medication storage rooms. The findings include: Revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly and securely stored in 1 of 3 medication storage rooms. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, revised 1/30/2024, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored .to ensure proper .security .Narcotics and Controlled Substances: Schedule II drugs .are stored under double-lock and key . During an observation of the 2nd floor medication room with Registered Nurse (RN) A on 10/29/2024 at 9:45 AM, revealed 27 [name brand pain medication] (Schedule II pain medication) oral tablets stored in the 2nd floor medication room in an unlocked refrigerator. During an interview on 10/29/2024 at 9:47 AM, RN A confirmed the Schedule II pain medication was not stored under 2 locks, 1 lock on medication room door and 1 lock in the medication room refrigerator, and confirmed the refrigerator storing the narcotic pain medication was unlocked. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 6:04 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed the facility policy for medication storage for Schedule II medications was not followed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a device containing electronic health records was secured and not visible to unauthorized persons for 1 medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a device containing electronic health records was secured and not visible to unauthorized persons for 1 medication cart of 6 medication carts observed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Electronic Protected Health Information (EPHI), revised 1/1/2022, revealed .ePHI is protected health information that is maintained in electronic media .Facility personnel shall ensure the confidentiality .availability of all ePHI that the facility creates .to protect .that data or information is not made available .to unauthorized persons .devices should always be locked when leaving the device so no unauthorized person can view .data . During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 10:55 AM, on the 100 Hallway, resident information was visible on the unattended and unlocked laptop screen attached to the 100 Hallway medication cart. During an interview on 10/28/2024 at 11:00 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) E confirmed resident information was visible to unathorized persons on the unattended and unlocked laptop screen attached to the 100 Hallway medication cart. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 9:26 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility's expectation was to lock laptop screens on unattended medication carts. The DON confirmed the facility failed to ensure residents' information was not visible to unauthorized persons when RN E left the unattended medication cart laptop screen unlocked.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 resident's (Resident #50) call ligh...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 resident's (Resident #50) call light was within reach out of 24 residents observed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response, revised 12/28/2023, revealed .Staff are educated in the proper use of the resident call system .ensuring resident access to the call light . Medical record review revealed resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Malignant Neoplasm of the Lung, Psychosis, and Diabetes. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #50 scored a 9 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed the resident was dependent with eating, toileting, and dressing. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 12:45 PM, Resident #50 was observed asking for her nurse, the call light was in the bedside drawer with the drawer partially closed, out of the resident's reach. During an observation and interview on 10/28/2024 at 12:55 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) L entered Resident #50's room and stated she was unsure why the soft call light was in the bedside drawer because it was laying on her belly when she left her bedside around 6:30 AM. During an interview on 10/28/2024 at 12:55 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) K confirmed Resident #50's soft call light was in the bedside drawer, with the drawer partially closed and not within the resident's reach.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility document review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Durable Power of Attorne...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility document review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Durable Power of Attorney (POA) documents were entered into the medical record for 2 residents (Residents #23 and #86) and failed to provide education regarding Advance Directives on admission for 6 residents (Residents #7, #8, #18, #37, #342 and #343). The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #23 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and was most recently readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Seizures, Dementia, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety, and Psychosis. Review of Resident #23's admission document dated 10/18/2018, titled, Advanced Directives and Other Legal Documents, revealed the resident had previously formulated a Durable Power of Attorney (POA) prior to admission to the facility and also revealed the POA signed legal documents on the behalf of the resident. Review of the resident's undated document titled admission RECORD revealed [POA name] .Contact Type .POA .Medical (Not activated) . Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed the durable POA documents had not been entered into the resident's medical record. Review of an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #23 scored a 7 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Medical review revealed Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including Stroke, Paralysis, Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Tracheostomy Care. Review of an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #86 scored a 9 on the BIMS assessment which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #86's admission document dated 9/18/2024, titled, Advanced Directives and Other Legal Documents, revealed the resident's family chose to execute advance directives. Review of Resident #86's medical record revealed advance directive documents had not been entered into the resident's medical record. Medical record review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Dementia, Bipolar Disorder, and Psychosis. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #7 scored a 9 on the BIMS assessment which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed no written information to the resident and/or resident representative concerning the right to formulate an advance directive. Medical record review revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes, and Unspecified Psychosis. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #8 scored a 9 on the BIMS assessment, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed no written information to the resident and/or resident representative concerning the right to formulate an advance directive. Medical record review revealed Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including Hemiplegia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Mood Disorder. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #18 scored a 15 on the BIMS assessment which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed no written information to the resident and/or resident representative concerning the right to formulate an advance directive. Medical record review revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Muscle Weakness, and Generalized Anxiety. Review of an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #37 scored a 4 on the BIMS assessment, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed no written information to the resident and/or resident representative concerning the right to formulate an advance directive. Medical record review revealed Resident #342 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Respiratory Failure, Mood Disorder, Critical Illness, Anxiety, and Myasthenia Gravis. Review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #342 scored a 15 on the BIMS assessment which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #342's undated admission document titled, Advanced Directives and Other Legal Documents, revealed the resident had not received education to formulate an advance directive at admission. Medical record review revealed Resident #343 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Stroke, Tracheostomy Status, Depression, Difficulty Speaking, and Anxiety. Review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #343 scored a 00 on the BIMS assessment, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #343's undated admission document titled, Advanced Directives and Other Legal Documents, revealed the resident and/or the resident's representative did not receive education to formulate an advance directive at admission. During a record review and interview on 10/30/2024 at 12:40 PM, the Social Services Director (SSD) reviewed the medical records for Resident #23 and Resident #86 and stated Resident #23 had not signed her own documents and stated Resident #86's family had requested to execute an advance directive on admission. The SSD stated she was not knowledgeable of when Resident #23's POA advance directive was activated, confirmed the durable POA document was not entered in the medical record for Resident #23, and confirmed the facility did not obtain or execute advance directives for Resident #86. During a record review and interview on 10/30/2024 at 2:55 PM, the Admissions Director reviewed admission documents for Resident's #7, #8, #18, #37, #342, and #343, and confirmed education to formulate an advance directive was not provided to these residents or their representatives at admission.
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse were properly contained in 3 of 3 dumpsters. The findings include: Review of the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse were properly contained in 3 of 3 dumpsters. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Environment, revised 9/2017, revealed .trash will be properly disposed of in external receptacles (dumpsters) and the surrounding area will be free of debris . During an observation and interview on 10/28/2024 at 12:00 PM, the CDM confirmed the outside dumpster area contained three dumpsters for waste disposal and was observed with scattered refuse including used gloves, plastic medicine cups, plastic drinking cups, used wipes, drinking straws, plastic spoons, clear plastic bag filled with trash and was not maintained in a clean sanitary condition.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on facility document review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to offer 8 residents (Residents #33, #8, #34, #1, #63, #70, #292, and #24) with hand hygiene assistance before a lu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility document review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to offer 8 residents (Residents #33, #8, #34, #1, #63, #70, #292, and #24) with hand hygiene assistance before a lunch and breakfast meal on 2 of 3 hallways observed for meal service. The findings include: Review of the facility's document titled, Validation Checklist Hand Hygiene, undated, revealed .Purpose .to validate staff and residents are following hand hygiene protocols .Residents are offered hand hygiene prior to meals . During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 12:40 PM, on the 300 Hallway, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) F delivered the lunch meal tray to Resident #33 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance to the resident, prior to setting up the meal tray. During an interview on 10/28/2024 at 12:44 PM, CNA F confirmed hand hygiene assistance was not offered to Resident #33, prior to setting up the lunch meal tray. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 12:52 PM, on the 200 Hallway, CNA G delivered the lunch meal tray to Resident #8 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance, prior to setting up the meal tray. During an interview on 10/28/2024 at 12:55 PM, CNA G confirmed hand hygiene assistance was not offered to Resident #8, prior to setting up the lunch meal tray. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 12:56 PM, on the 200 Hallway, CNA H delivered the lunch meal tray to Resident #34 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance, prior to setting up the meal tray. During an interview on 10/28/2024 at 12:58 PM, CNA H confirmed hand hygiene assistance was not offered to Resident #34, prior to setting up the lunch meal tray. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 12:59 PM, on the 200 Hallway, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D delivered the lunch meal tray to Resident #1 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance, prior to setting up the meal tray. During an interview on 10/28/2024 at 1:03 PM, LPN D confirmed hand hygiene assistance was not offered to Resident #1, prior to setting up the lunch meal tray. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 1:34 PM, on the 200 Hallway, CNA H delivered the lunch meal tray to Resident #63 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance, prior to setting up the meal tray. During an observation on 10/28/2024 at 1:38 PM, on the 200 Hallway, CNA H delivered the lunch meal tray to Resident #70 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance, prior to setting up the meal tray. During an interview on 10/28/2024 at 1:48 PM, CNA H confirmed hand hygiene assistance was not offered to Resident #63 and Resident #70 prior to setting up their lunch meal tray. During an observation on 10/29/2024 at 8:15 AM, on the 200 Hallway, CNA H delivered the breakfast meal tray to Resident #292 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance to the resident prior to setting up the breakfast meal tray. During an observation on 10/29/2024 at 8:18 AM, on the 200 Hallway, CNA H delivered the breakfast meal tray to Resident #24 and did not offer hand hygiene assistance to the resident, prior to setting up the breakfast meal tray. During an interview on 10/29/2024 at 8:27 AM, CNA H confirmed she did not offer hand hygiene assistance to Residents #292 and #24 prior to setting up their breakfast meal tray. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 9:26 AM, the Director of Nursing confirmed it was the facility's expectation residents were offered hand hygiene assistance prior to meals.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure daily staff posting information included the resident census, the facility name, and actual number of hours...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure daily staff posting information included the resident census, the facility name, and actual number of hours worked by Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) on 3 of 3 days reviewed for staff postings. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Facility Required Postings, revised on 1/1/2022, revealed .The facility will post required postings .staffing information . Review of the Daily Staffing Sheets dated 10/28/2024-10/30/2024 revealed the following: The resident census and facility name was not listed for 3 days on the Daily Posted Staffing Sheets from 10/28/2024-10/30/2024. The RN hours, LPN hours, and CNA hours were not documented on the Daily Posted Staffing Sheets for 3 days from 10/28/2024-10/30/2024. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 8:45 AM, the Staffing/Central Supply Coordinator confirmed the Daily Posted Staffing Sheets on 10/28/2024-10/30/2024 did not include the resident census, the facility name, or the actual hours worked by RNs, LPNs, and CNAs. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 9:26 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed the Daily Posted Staffing Sheets for 10/28/2024, 10/29/2024, and 10/30/2024. The DON confirmed the resident census, the facility name, and actual hours worked by RNs, LPNs, and CNAs were not included on the staffing sheets.
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 facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in a sanitary condition, ensure spices were properly sealed, and failed to discard expi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in a sanitary condition, ensure spices were properly sealed, and failed to discard expired food which had the potential to affect 92 of 95 residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Environment, revised 9/2017, revealed .Dining Services Director will ensure kitchen is maintained in a clean sanitary manner, including floors, walls . Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage: Dry Goods, revised 2/2023, revealed .packaged .foods items will be kept .properly sealed . During an observation of the food preparation area on 10/28/2024 at 10:15 AM, with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), revealed the following: 1. 12-ounce bottle of salt and pepper seasoning salt was not sealed and available for use. 2. An unopened container of mild wing sauce, with an expiration date of 12/13/2023, available for use. 3. The area behind the deep fryer contained a greasy film with food particles. 4. The pipe under the dirty sink area actively dripping significant amounts of water into a full bucket of cloudy water, and moist food particles on the wall. During an observation and interview on 10/28/2024 at 10:15 AM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) stated equipment and floors were cleaned daily and confirmed the area behind the deep fryer contained a greasy film with food particles and was not maintained in a clean sanitary condition. During an observation and interview on 10/28/2024 at 10:30 AM, the CDM stated the pipe under the dirty sink area had been leaking for a few days and confirmed a bucket of cloudy water and food particles on the wall. The CDM confirmed the kitchen areas had not been maintained in a clean sanitary manner. During an observation and interview on 10/28/2024 10:40 AM, the CDM confirmed the dry storage area contained an unopened container of mild wing sauce, expiration date 12/13/2023, had not been discarded, and was availabe for use. During an observation and interview on 10/29/2024 at 8:20 AM, the CDM confirmed a 12-ounce container of Salt and Pepper Seasoning Salt, ½ full, was left open to air and not properly sealed to prevent contamination.
Jul 2024 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, police report review, facility investigation review, and interview the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, police report review, facility investigation review, and interview the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from sexual abuse and physical abuse by another resident for 4 of 14 (Resident #11, #17, #18, and #5) sampled residents reviewed for abuse. On 6/25/2024, Resident #9 was observed with his hand on Resident #11's pelvic region and Resident #11 was observed shaking his head no. On 11/26/2023, Resident #18 grabbed Resident #17's arm resulting in a scratch to her finger and Resident #17 scratched Resident #18 on the face when Resident #18 entered Resident #17's room. On 3/15/2024, Resident #6 hit Resident #5 with a soda can in her chest area. The facility's failure to protect the residents' right to be free from abuse resulted in actual harm for Resident #11, #17, and #18. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, revised 1/10/2024, revealed .it is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by .implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse . 'Abuse' means the willful infliction .which can include .resident to resident altercations . 'Sexual Abuse' is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. 'Physical Abuse' includes, but is not limited to hitting . 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Respiratory Failure, Hemiplegia following a Cerebral Infarction, and Epilepsy. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #11 scored 00 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #11 was nonverbal and dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. Review of the comprehensive care plan revised on 2/19/2024, revealed Resident #11 required staff assistance with all activities of daily living. Resident #11 also had impaired ability to communicate due to inability to speak with an intervention to .Pay attention to resident's body language and facial expressions . Review of a Psychiatric Periodic Evaluation for Resident #11 dated 6/26/2024, revealed .patient was the victim of another resident's inappropriate behavior .There has been no indication of increased anxiety, agitation, mood swings. No .psychosocial harm noted . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, Chronic Kidney Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder. Review of a Psychiatric Periodic Evaluation for Resident #9 dated 4/4/2024, revealed the resident's medications were changed from Sertraline to Paroxetine (antidepressants) . to get better impulse control coverage . Review of a Psychiatric Periodic Evaluation for Resident #9 dated 5/16/2024, revealed .He [Resident #9] reports his [Sertraline] is effective at this time . Review of an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #9 scored 15 on the BIMS which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #9 was dependent on staff for transfers into and out of a wheelchair and was able to move around in the wheelchair without assistance. Review of the Nurse's Notes dated 6/25/2024 at 6:30 PM, revealed Resident #9 was observed with his hand on Resident #11's pelvic region. Review of a Psychiatric Periodic Evaluation for Resident #9 dated 6/26/2024, revealed .thought to be touching another patient inappropriately. He vehemently denies this, states he was only 'straightening his blankets' Patient is currently on 1:1 [1 on 1] supervision with no further reports . Review of the comprehensive care plan for Resident #9 revised 7/19/2024, revealed verbal aggression and sexually inappropriate behaviors towards residents. Review of a local police report dated 6/25/2024, revealed the .Deputy .spoke with the nurse [Registered Nurse (RN) C]. RN C advised she needed a report completed for two residents involved in a sexual assault .[Respiratory Therapist (RT) A] saw [Resident #9] grope [Resident #11] .RT A stated she saw [Resident #9] pulling the blanket over himself and [Resident #11] and grope [Resident #11's] genital area. [Resident #11] was shaking his head no during the assault . Review of the undated witness statement from Hospitality Aide (HA) B revealed .on 6/25/2024 at 4:30 PM [HA B] saw [Resident #9] pulling down his [Resident #11] cover prior to the incident where Resident #9 was touching [Resident #11's] arm. [Resident #9] had his hand under [Resident #11's] arm and forearm .6 PM 6/25/2024 .[HA B] pointed out to [RT A] .[Resident #9] been .moving/adjusting [Resident #11's] cover. [Resident #9] was sliding his hand under his blanket .[RT A] responded and [Resident #9] stopped immediately . Review of a undated witness statement from HA A revealed .on 6/25/2024 [RT A] was standing at the nurse's station .[HA B] tapped me on the shoulder .told me to look and pointed towards [Resident #11]. [Resident #11] was in his wheelchair facing the nurse's station and [Resident #9] was facing the main entrance with their chairs touching. [Resident #9] had [Resident #11's] blanket pulled down and [Resident #11] was shaking his head no, while [Resident #9] was touching his pubic area. RT A started saying .hey hey stop .but before [RT A] could reach them [Resident #9] had already stopped and pulled the blanket up and patted [Resident #11] on the shoulder . During an interview on 7/29/2024 at 9:50 AM, Resident #9 stated he had been in an altercation with Resident #11. Resident #9 stated Resident #11 looked scared, Resident #9 reached over to hold Resident #11's hand and noticed Resident #11 was unable to use his hand. Resident #9 then reached across Resident #11's lap to hold Resident #11's other hand. Resident #9 stated someone witnessed him holding Resident #11's hand and thought he was trying to touch Resident #11's crotch area. Resident #9 stated after the incident the facility had a staff person follow him around for a few weeks. Resident #9 stated he understood touching Resident #11 was wrong. During an interview on 7/30/2024 at 12:45 PM, HA B stated on 6/25/2024 at approximately 5:50 PM, Resident #11 was sitting across from the nurse's desk, Resident #9 rolled up to Resident #11, and Resident #9 had his hand under the blanket covering Resident #11. HA B stated she tapped RT A to get her attention and pointed out the two residents. HA B stated Resident #11 had his hands and arms on the armrests of his wheelchair and Resident #9 had his hand on Resident #11's pubic area then the RT intervened and separated the two residents immediately. During an interview on 7/30/2024 at 1:11 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) C stated on 6/25/2024 at 5:50 PM, she was alerted by RT A Resident #9 had touched Resident #11's pubic area. The RN stated Resident #9 and Resident #11 were separated immediately. RN C stated the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the incident. RN C stated when she interviewed Resident #9 the resident informed her he touched Resident #11's right arm, realized the resident could not move his right arm, and he reached for Resident #11's other arm. Resident #9 stated, he was trying to cover Resident #11 with the blanket. RN C stated she was unaware of any past incidents of sexually inappropriate behavior by Resident #9. During a telephone interview on 7/30/2024 at 1:18 PM, RT A stated HA B got her attention and pointed at Residents' #9 and #11. RT A was standing on the right side of the nurse's desk and noticed Resident #9 .caressing [Resident #11's] groin area . RT A stated she informed Resident #9 to stop (Resident #9 stopped), called for the nursing supervisor to come to the desk, and reported the incident between Resident #9 and #11. RT A stated she could clearly see Resident #11 had his arms on the armrests of his wheelchair, and Resident #9 was touching Resident #11's groin area. RT A stated Resident #9 was immediately placed on 1 to 1 supervision. During an interview on 7/30/2024 at 2:35 PM, the Administrator stated, the DON notified him of the incident which occurred between Resident #9 and Resident #11 which occurred on 6/25/2024. The Administrator stated RT A informed him she saw Resident #9 with his hand on Resident #11's pelvic area under the blanket. The Administrator stated Resident #9 was placed on 1 to 1 supervision immediately to protect the other residents. Review of facility documentation and interviews revealed Resident #11 was cognitively impaired and unable to speak. Resident #9 was cognitively intact, touched Resident #11's pubic area, and Resident #11 shook his head no wanting Resident #9 to stop. A reasonable person would not expect they would be harmed in a health care facility and would experience a negative psychosocial outcome to include fear, anxiety, anger, and/or humiliation. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Epilepsy, Chronic Kidney Disease, Hypertension, Chronic Pain Syndrome, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #17 scored a 15 on the BIMS which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the Skin Assessment for Resident #17 dated 11/24/2023, revealed the resident had no abnormal skin areas. Review of an Event Note for Resident #17 dated 11/26/2023, revealed .at [4:00 PM] resident [Resident #17] was noted with skin tear to right fourth finger. When asked what happened she stated, .[Resident #18] came into my room [Resident #17's] and grabbed my hand and I wasn't putting up with it . Continued review revealed Resident #18 stated, .I don't know [when asked about the incident] .[Resident #18] placed on 1:1 observation with CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] .The facility notified state[State Survey Agency] .residents families .MD [Medical Doctor] .and Psych NP [Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner] . Review of the Skin Assessment for Resident #17 dated 11/26/2023, revealed a skin tear on the right-hand 4th finger. Review of a NP's Progress Note for Resident #17 dated 11/28/2023, revealed .skin tear to right fourth finger .Steri-Strips [wound closure tape] .No signs of infection noted .calm .No pain . Review of a Psychiatric Evaluation for Resident #17 dated 11/28/2023, revealed .evaluation of mood and behaviors .resident recently involved in resident to resident altercation .another resident approached [Resident #17] .other resident [Resident #18] grabbed [Resident #17's] arm .[Resident #17] hit [Resident #18] and scratched her face .[Resident #17] stated the other resident [Resident #18] came into her room .[Resident #17] wanted her [Resident #18] to leave .[Resident #18] grabbed her [Resident #17] arm . Review of a Psychiatric Evaluation for Resident #17 dated 12/5/2023, revealed .no other behaviors reported .no other altercations reported . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, Hypertension, Dementia, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Review of a comprehensive care plan dated 10/3/2023, revealed Resident #18 had .behaviors related to psychotic disorder .anxiety .delusions .thinking that she works here [at the facility] . Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #18 scored 00 on the BIMS which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of a Skin Assessment for Resident #18 dated 11/20/2023, revealed the resident had no abnormal skin areas. Review of a Skin Assessment for Resident #18 dated 11/26/2023, revealed .left side of face scratch . Review of a NP Progress Note for Resident #18 dated 11/26/2023, revealed .[Resident#18] has an abrasion to the left side of her face .caused from an altercation with another resident [Resident #17] .does not appear to have any pain .confused .Apply [topical ointment] daily until healed . Review of a Psychiatric Evaluation for Resident #18 dated 11/28/2023, revealed .[Resident #18] was .involved in a resident-to-resident altercation .[Resident #18] grabbed another resident [Resident #17's] arm .[Resident #17] hit her [Resident #18] and scratched her [Resident #18] face .[Resident #18] has no recollection of this occurring .[Resident #18] was placed one-on-one sitter . Review of CNA I's Witness Statement dated 11/26/2023, revealed .found [Resident #18] standing in front of [Resident #17's] room .noticed large scratch on [Resident #18's] face .notified nurse . Review of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J's Witness Statement dated 11/26/2023, revealed .CNA I brought [Resident #18] and [Resident #17] to desk .[Resident #18] had a scratch on right cheek .[Resident #17] had an open area on right fourth finger .[Resident #17] stated [Resident #18] came into her [Resident #17] room .when she [Resident #17] told her [Resident #18] to get out [Resident #18] grabbed her hand [Resident #17] and twisted it .[Resident #18] wouldn't let go .so she [Resident #17] scratched her [Resident #18] on left cheek .[Resident #18] was placed behind desk with staff .[Resident #17] was on the other side of desk . Review of the DON's Written Statement dated 11/27/2023, revealed .interviewed [Resident #17] at [8:20 AM] .what happened to your finger .[Resident #17] stated [Resident #18] came into my room .grabbed my [Resident #17] hand and twisted it .I wasn't putting up with it .so I [Resident #17] scratched her [Resident #18] face .asked if she [Resident #17] was afraid and [Resident #17] stated no .asked if she [Resident #17] felt safe .[Resident #17] stated yes . During an interview and observation on 7/29/2024 at 10:35 AM, Resident #17 stated she had been in an altercation with Resident #18. Resident #18 wandered into Resident #17's room and grabbed her arm. Resident #17 told Resident #18 to get out of her room, scratched Resident #18 across the cheek, and Resident #18 left the room. Resident #17 stated Resident #18 cut her right finger. Resident #17 stated the nurse applied treatment to her finger. Resident #17 stated staff offered to relocate her to the 1st floor, but the resident refused because she wanted to stay in her room. Resident #17 stated that she felt safe in the facility, was not afraid, and the facility placed a stop sign across her doorway to keep Resident #18 out of her room. During an interview on 7/30/2024 at 8:35 AM, LPN J stated she worked on 11/26/2023 when the incident between Resident #17 and #18 occurred. CNA I brought the residents to the nurses desk, Resident #17 had small skin tear on her right finger, and Resident #18 had a scratch to her right cheek. LPN J stated Resident #17 informed the LPN Resident #18 walked into her room and grabbed her [Resident #17] arm resulting in a skin tear to her finger and Resident #17 scratched Resident #18's face after Resident #18 grabbed her finger. LPN J stated the residents were immediately separated and a head-to-toe assessment was completed on both residents. Resident #18 was placed on 1:1 supervision, Resident #17 was offered to move to another location in the facility, the resident declined and wanted to stay in her room. During an interview on 7/30/2024 at 2:00 PM, the DON stated Resident #17 and Resident #18 had an altercation on 11/26/2023. Resident #18 entered Resident #17's room, Resident #17 told Resident #18 to leave, and Resident #18 grabbed Resident #17's arm causing a skin tear to the resident's right finger. Resident #17 stated when Resident #18 grabbed her arm the resident scratched Resident 18's face. The facility offered to move Resident #17 to another area of the facility but Resident #17 declined. The facility placed a STOP sign on Resident #17's door to prevent other residents from entering her room. The DON stated Residents #17 and #18 did not have any behavioral changes after the altercation. The DON confirmed that the facility substantiated the resident-to-resident altercation between Resident #17 and Resident #18 and both residents were harmed. 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Disorder, and Intellectual Disabilities. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #5 scored a 13 on the BIMS which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Need for Assistance with Personal Care, Anxiety Disorder, and Depressive Disorder. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #6 scored a 15 on the BIMS which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the facility's investigation revealed on 3/15/2024 at 1:15 PM, the Activities Director witnessed Resident #6 hit Resident #5 with a soda can in Resident #5's upper chest. Resident #6 was upset because Resident #5 touched her drink. Assessment and interview with Resident #5 revealed the resident was not injured and was not upset by the incident. During an interview on 7/29/2024 at 10:00 AM, Resident #6 stated, .I told her [Resident #5] not to put her hands on my food. I hit her cause [because] I told her not to do it she put her hands on my drink .I just reached up and hit her . During an interview on 7/30/2024 at 8:00 AM, Resident #5 stated, .I picked up a soda can and [Resident #6] don't like her stuff touched .she [Resident #6] hit me [Resident #5] on the chest with it [soda can] it was empty it didn't hurt me or nothing .no [it didn't leave a mark or nothing] .oh yes [feels safe at the facility] . During an interview on 7/30/2024 at 1:45 PM, the Administrator confirmed Resident #6 hit Resident #5 on the chest with a soda can.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician orders ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for 1 resident (Resident #26) of 15 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, .Medication Errors ., revised 1/24/2024, revealed .facility shall ensure medications will be administered .according to physician's orders . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Acute Respiratory Failure, COPD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Dysphagia. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #26 scored a 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of a physician's order for Resident #26 dated 6/28/2024, revealed an order for Lorazepam (Ativan- an antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg (milligrams) by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety/seizure precaution for 14 days. The end date for the medication was 7/12/2024. Review of the Narcotic Log for Resident #26 revealed Lorazepam 0.5 mg was removed from the medication cart on 7/23/2024 at 12:00 AM. During an interview on 7/31/2024 at 12:05 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) K confirmed Resident #26 physician's order for Lorazepam 0.5mg by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety had been discontinued on 7/12/2024. During an interview on 7/31/2024 at 1:19 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) L confirmed Resident #26 had received Lorazepam 0.5mg on 7/23/2024 at 12:00 AM. During an interview on 7/31/2024 at 1:25 PM, RN K confirmed that Resident #26 had been given Lorazepam 0.5mg on 7/23/2024 at 12:00 AM, without a physician's order.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent abuse for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse. Resident #1 was sitting in the doorway of her room when Resident #2 wandered to the doorway, placed his right hand on the left side of Resident #1's neck, and grabbed the front of her shirt causing Resident #1 psychosocial distress and harm. The findings included: Review of the facility's abuse policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation last reviewed 10/24/2022 showed .It is the policy of this facility to provide protections .that prohibit and prevent abuse .'Abuse' means the willful infliction of injury .with resulting .mental anguish, which can include .resident to resident altercations .'willful' means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm . Review of the medical record showed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Heart Failure, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed Resident #1's Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score was 9 indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The resident required assistance of one person with activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the facility's investigation showed on 12/30/2022 at 6:10 PM, Resident #2 was witnessed inside the doorway of Resident #1's room by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 with his right hand on the left side of Resident #1's neck, and grabbing the front of Resident #1's shirt. Review of Progress notes for Resident #1 showed .12/30/2022 .At 18:30 [6:30 PM] this nurse started sitting and talking with Resident [Resident #1] upon noticing that she was crying and very anxious .attempted to redirect her with conversation .after several unsuccessful attempts to calm Resident and redirect her after an hour of one on one engagement .Resident physician was notified and new orders was [were] received for Ativan [antianxiety medication] 1 mg [milligram] .Q [every] 12 HRS [hours] PRN [as needed] x [times] 14 days .License Practical Nurse [LPN #2] . Review of a PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION dated 1/3/2022 for Resident #1 showed .Resident recently involved in resident to resident [altercation] with other resident being aggressive toward this patient on 12/30/2022 this provider was notified due to resident's increased anxiety, tearfulness, crying Ativan 1 mg po [by mouth] every 12 hours as needed x 14 days was ordered . Review of the medical record showed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and Unspecified Psychosis. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed Resident #2's BIMS score was 0 indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The resident had behavior of wandering and physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others 1 to 3 days per week. The resident required assistance of one or more persons with ADLs. Review of a current care plan for Resident #2 showed .the resident is at risk for wander [wandering] r/t [related to] Resident wanders aimlessly. Date Initiated 06/06/2022 .Revision on 11/20/2022 .Distract resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions. Structured activities, food .Identify pattern of wandering .intervene as appropriate .The resident has potential to be physically aggressive or agitated r/t [related to] Dementia Date Initiated 12/30/2022 . Review of facility behavior monitoring documentation from 11/2022 through 12/29/2022 for Resident #2 showed no prior incidences of physical aggression and multiple behaviors of wandering. Review of facility Progress notes for Resident #2 showed .Event Date: 12/30/2022 .Behavior Displayed: Resident was trying to enter another resident's room and became aggressive and put his hand around the female resident's neck when she tried to stop him . Review of a PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION note dated 1/3/2022 for Resident #2 showed .reports of physical aggression. Patient had recent episode of increased anxiety, aggression toward another resident .Depakote [seizure/bipolar medication] increased on 12/31/2022 to 250 mg 3 times a day for mood stabilization . Review of facility's 1 on 1 documentation for Resident #2 showed documentation resident had one on one supervision from 12/30/2022 at 6:00 PM to 1/4/2023 at 6:00 PM. Review of facility's Monitoring Worksheet for Resident #2 showed from 1/4/2023 through 1/11/2023 the resident was on 10-15 minute checks. During an interview with Resident #1 on 1/17/2023 at 9:10 AM, in the resident's room, the resident stated . he [Resident #2] grabbed me by my shirt collar and pulled on my neck .it scared me . During observation and attempted interview with Resident #2 on 1/17/2023 at 9:25 AM, on the 200-hall, Resident #2 was unable to answer questions appropriately when asked. Observation showed Resident #2 was calm and walked up and down the hallway. During a telephone interview on 1/17/2023 at 10:10 AM, CNA #1 stated .we [staff] was passing dinner trays and I heard one of the residents screaming. She [Resident #1] was saying 'get out, get out' .I was standing in the hallway and I went down the hall and I went to the doorway. [Resident #1] was sitting in the door way [Resident #1's doorway] in a wheelchair. She was just inside the doorway. [Resident #2] wasn't actually in her room. He was trying to go in .he had a hold of her neck and I ran over there real quick and got it off and after that he reached and grabbed at her shirt and pulled. It was the front of her shirt at the top near her chest .he had ahold of her neck pretty tight .when it happened she just kind of hollered. When he had a hold of her she screamed .she acted scared. Just the expression on her face. She had a shocked look on her face .she was pretty shaken up . During an interview on 1/17/2023 at 10:25 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated .they [staff] called me after it happened and I ordered a Ativan because she [Resident #1] was anxious and tearful. This was right after the incident .she [LPN #2] called and said that [Resident #1] was upset .I would think that at the time the incident would have caused her to be upset . During a telephone interview on 1/18/2022 at 10:25 AM, LPN #2 stated .I worked that night [12/30/2022] .it happened just before I got there. I got there about 6:00 [6:00 PM] .I seen [Resident #1] sitting outside of her door in her wheelchair .I went down there where she was at and she was at that time crying .she said .'is he [Resident #2] gonna get away with that?' .she put her hands on the front of her shirt and she said 'he [Resident #2] grabbed me, he grabbed my shirt' .she had been doing fine and we had not had to use her prn order for Ativan and it had dropped off past the 14 days .the call was made to the doctor because she made two references to [Resident #2] .she still was crying .I called to get an order to give her the dose of 1 milligram Ativan. I explained that we were just trying to get her settled down . During an interview on 1/18/2023 at 1:45 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated .I got a call that evening [12/30/2022] and they [staff] told me what had happened .apparently when she [Resident #1] was yelling 'get, get, get' he [Resident #2] had grabbed her collar and the CNA [CNA #1] said his hand was around her neck .
Oct 2021 1 deficiency
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** Medical record review showed Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction, H...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Medical record review showed Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction, Dysphagia, Chronic Viral Hepatitis C, Major Depressive Disorder, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Delusional Disorders, and Anxiety Disorder. Medical record review of the Tennessee Physicians Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form for Resident #68 dated [DATE] showed .Section A Check One Box Only .Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) . Continued review of Section A revealed the form did not indicate the resident's resuscitation choice. Medical record review of the Clinical Physician Orders, revised [DATE], for Resident #68 showed .Full Resuscitate . During an interview on [DATE], at 1:10 PM, the DON confirmed the POST form was incomplete and did not indicate the resident's resuscitation status. Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for 2 residents (#45 and #68) of 25 residents reviewed for medical records. The findings include: Medical record review showed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction, Vascular Dementia, Coronary Artery Disease, Generalized Idiopathic Epilepticus, Dysphasia, Aphasia, Anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder. Medical record review of Resident #45's Physician's orders, dated [DATE], showed: Full Code, Full Treatment. Medical record review showed Resident #45 had an Advance Directive for Health Care with the resident's name, full code choices, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) signature, and no resident/resident representative signature or Physician's signature. Further review showed no Tennessee Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form was included in the medical record. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE], at 11:26 AM, the DON confirmed Resident #45 did not have the required POST in his medical record and the resident's advance directive was incomplete.
Oct 2019 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 make a referral to the state-designated authority for a Lev...

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 make a referral to the state-designated authority for a Level II Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) after newly identified serious mental disorders were diagnosed for 2 residents (#13, #32) of 11 residents reviewed for PASARR. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and Hallucinations. Continued review revealed diagnosis of Psychosis was added on 2/22/19 and a diagnosis of Schizophrenia was added on 2/26/19. Medical record review of the most recent PASARR Level I Assessment was completed on 9/5/18. Continued review revealed a PASARR Level 2 Assessment was not completed for Resident #13 after the new diagnoses of Psychosis and Schizophrenia were added. Medical record review of a Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 had diagnoses including Anxiety, Depression, Psychotic Disorder, and Schizophrenia. Medical record review revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Dementia, Psychosis, Anxiety Disorder, and Paranoid Personality Disorder. Continued review revealed Schizophrenia Disorder was added on 1/22/18 and Major Depressive Disorder was added on 4/16/19. Medical record review of the most recent PASARR Level I Assessment was completed on 9/13/17. Continued review revealed a PASARR Level 2 Assessment was not completed for Resident #32 after the new diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder and Schizophrenia were added. Medical record review of a Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 had diagnoses of Anxiety, Depression, Psychotic Disorder, and Schizophrenia. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 10/7/19 at 3:10 PM, in the family room, confirmed Residents #13 and #32 were not referred to the state-designated authority for a PASARR Level 2 screen after the residents were diagnosed with new serious mental health disorders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to accurately screen and refer to the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to accurately screen and refer to the state-designated authority 1 resident (#72) of 11 residents reviewed with a serious mental disorder for a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy PASRR (PASARR), dated 8/2014, revealed .A nursing facility must not admit, on or after January 1, 1989 any new residents with .mental disorder .schizophrenic .mood .severe anxiety disorder .psychotic disorder . Medical record review revealed Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Schizoaffective Status, Psychosis, General Anxiety Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. Medical record review of a PASARR Level I Screen Outcome, dated 8/11/19, revealed .mental health conditions .No mental health diagnosis is known or suspected . Medical record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 9/20/19 revealed the resident, .Resident has mood problem r/t [related to] Diagnosis of MDD [Major Depressive Disorder], Anxiety, Bipolar, Psychosis, and Schizoaffective .At risk for return to hospital r/t multiple psychiatric diagnosis (bi polar, schizoaffective, psychosis) . Medical record review of Resident #72's admission packet, dated 9/20/19, revealed .Problem List/Past Medical History .Psychosis, Schizoaffective disorder . Medical record review of a Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 9/24/19, revealed .Diagnosis .Major depressive disorder .GAD (generalized anxiety disorder), Schizoaffective disorder .Bipolar disorder .Psychosis . Medical record review of the 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident had diagnoses to include Psychiatric/Mood Disorder, Anxiety, Depression, Manic Depression (Bipolar Disease), Psychotic Disorder, and Schizophrenia. Interview with the MDS Coordinator on 10/7/19 at 3:38 PM, in the family room, confirmed the PASARR Level I screen completed on 8/11/19 had not included Resident #72's mental diagnoses. Interview and medical record review with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/8/19 at 7:23 AM, in the DON's office, confirmed Resident #72's admission record packet dated 9/20/19 included diagnoses of Psychosis and Schizoaffective disorder.
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 facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to administer oxygen the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to administer oxygen therapy in accordance with Physician's Orders for 1 resident (#69) of 35 residents sampled. The findings include: Review of the facility policy Oxygen Administration, revised 7/2013, revealed .Verify that there is a physician's order .Review the physician's orders .for oxygen administration . Medical record review revealed Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Respiratory Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma, Atrial Fibrillation, Sleep Apnea, and Muscle Weakness. Medical record review of an Order Summary Report, dated 9/20/19, revealed .Oxygen: RUN @ [at] (2) L/MIN [liters per minute] VIA .N/C [nasal cannula] .CONTINUOUS . Medical record review of Resident #69's 5 day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Medical record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/2/19, revealed .The resident has oxygen therapy r/t [related to] COPD [Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease] /Asthma .OXYGEN SETTINGS: as ordered . Observation of Resident #69 on 10/6/19 at 12:04 PM, in the resident's room, revealed the resident lying in bed with oxygen administered via nasal cannula. Continued observation revealed an oxygen concentrator set at 5 liters/minute. Observation of Resident #69 on 10/6/19 at 3:53 PM, in the resident's room, revealed the resident lying in bed with oxygen administered via nasal cannula. Continued observation revealed an oxygen concentrator set at 5 liters/minute. Observation and interview with Assistant Director of Nursing on 10/6/19 at 4:11 PM, in the resident's room, revealed Resident #69 lying in bed with oxygen at 5 liters/minute via nasal cannula. Continued interview confirmed the resident was to receive oxygen at 2 liters/minute via nasal cannula continuously per physician orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

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 evaluation and rationale for continued use of an as ...

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 evaluation and rationale for continued use of an as needed (PRN) antianxiety drug beyond 14 days for 1 Resident (#19) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, Insomnia, and Anxiety. Medical record review of an Order Summary Report dated 10/8/19 revealed .Ativan [an anti-anxiety drug] 0.5 mg [milligram] .every 12 hours as needed for agitation .Order Date .04/20/2019 .Start Date .4/21/2019 .End Date .04/21/2020 . Medical record review of a Medication Administration Record dated 10/1/19 - 10/31/19 revealed Ativan 0.5 mg was administered to Resident #19 on 10/1/19 and 10/3/19. Medical record review of the physician's notes, pharmacy recommendations, and psychiatric notes revealed no documented rationale for the continued use of Ativan PRN antianxiety beyond the 14 days. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/8/19 at 9:57 AM, in the conference room, confirmed the physician did not document a rationale specific to the continued use of Ativan PRN beyond 14 days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff disinfected the hands after medication administration for 1 of 3 nurses observed during medication admi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff disinfected the hands after medication administration for 1 of 3 nurses observed during medication administration. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, revised date 2/2018, revealed .5. Employees must wash their hands .using antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial soap and water under the following conditions: a. Before and after direct contact with residents . Observation on 10/6/19 at 10:15 AM, in the 200 hallway, of medication administration with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed after administering the medications to a resident, the LPN returned to the medication cart, opened the cart and retrieved medication without disinfecting the hands. Interview with LPN #1 on 10/6/19, at 10:35 AM, in the hallway, confirmed she had not disinfected her hands after administering the medication and prior to retrieving medication from the cart. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/8/19 7:34 AM, in the DON's office, confirmed staff are to disinfect hands after each patient medication administration and prior to going to the medication cart to retrieve more medication.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 43% turnover. Below Tennessee's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 26 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $30,631 in fines. Higher than 94% of Tennessee facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 25/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Greystone Health's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER 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 Greystone Health Staffed?

CMS rates GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Tennessee average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Greystone Health?

State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 24 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Greystone Health?

GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 160 certified beds and approximately 107 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BLOUNTVILLE, Tennessee.

How Does Greystone Health Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Greystone Health?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Greystone Health Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Greystone Health Stick Around?

GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Tennessee nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Greystone Health Ever Fined?

GREYSTONE HEALTH CARE CENTER has been fined $30,631 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Tennessee average of $33,385. 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 Greystone Health on Any Federal Watch List?

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