NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS

2120 HIGHLAND AVE, KNOXVILLE, TN 37916 (865) 525-4131
For profit - Limited Liability company 160 Beds NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
53/100
#141 of 298 in TN
Last Inspection: February 2024

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

Overview

NHC Healthcare, Ft Sanders has a Trust Grade of C, which means it's considered average-neither great nor terrible compared to other facilities. It ranks #141 out of 298 in Tennessee, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 13 in Knox County, indicating there are only a few better options locally. The facility is showing improvement, as it reduced its issues from 11 in 2023 to just 2 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, with a turnover rate of 60%, which is higher than the state average, but it does maintain an average RN coverage level. There have been some serious incidents, such as a resident suffering a leg fracture due to inadequate supervision during a lift transfer, and concerns about expired medications and poor kitchen sanitation practices. Overall, while the facility has strengths, families should be aware of both the staffing challenges and past compliance issues.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In Tennessee
#141/298
Top 47%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$9,770 in fines. Lower than most Tennessee facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Tennessee. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 11 issues
2024: 2 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Tennessee average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 60%

14pts above Tennessee avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $9,770

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Tennessee average of 48%

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Feb 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication betwe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication between the facility and the offsite dialysis center had been completed for 1 resident (Resident #64) of 3 residents reviewed for dialysis. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dialysis Documentation - Steps for Observation/Communication with Dialysis Clinic dated 9/20/2019, showed .Prior to .Dialysis appointment .start new observation form .each dialysis appointment .Pre-Dialysis Report section .print form .send with patient to dialysis clinic .after return from dialysis clinic .there should be follow-up documentation of patient status before the Observation is completed . Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including Hypertensive Chronic Kidney Disease, Diabetes Mellitus and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. Review of the comprehensive care plan dated 11/7/2023, showed Resident #64 had .Dialysis schedule: Tuesdays and Thursdays . Review of physician's orders dated 1/1/2024, showed Dialysis on Tuesdays and Thursdays . Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #64 scored 14 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating the resident was cognitively intact and received dialysis. Review of Resident #64's Dialysis Communication Worksheet showed no documentation the communication form had been completed on 1/11/2024, 1/16/2024, 1/18/2024, 1/23/2024 and 1/30/2024. During an interview on 1/31/2024 at 1:55 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed the Dialysis Communication Worksheet had not been completed for Resident #64 for the dialysis treatment days of 1/11/2024, 1/16/2024, 1/18/2024, 1/23/2024 and 1/30/2024.
CONCERN (D)

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 review of the Tennessee Mock Skills Testing Booklet, facility policy review, medical record review, observation and int...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the Tennessee Mock Skills Testing Booklet, facility policy review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to follow appropriate hand hygiene and glove changing standards during a bed bath, dressing and oral care for 1 resident (Resident #107) of 1 resident observed. The findings include: Review of the Tennessee Mock Skills Testing Booklet dated 10/1/2023 for CNA training showed hand hygiene and glove changing protocols during dressing, perineal care, and oral care, .Gloves are to be donned after gathering oral care supplies and during perineal care. Review of the facility policy, Hand Hygiene updated October 2023, showed .Provide hand hygiene before and after contact .after removal of gloves . Resident #107 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia and Anxiety Disorder. Review of Resident #107's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #107's had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment and required touching to moderate assistance with bathing, dressing and oral care. During an observation on 1/30/2024 at 9:10 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5 entered Resident #107's room and collected supplies to bathe the resident. At 9:17 AM, CNA #5 donned gloves, removed Resident #107 clothing and soiled brief (CNA #5 did not doff gloves or perform hand hygiene). CNA #5 washed Resident #107's face. The CNA washed Resident #107's neck, underarms and perineal area. Without changing her gloves and washing hands, CNA #5 took a new washcloth out of the basin and rinsed the resident's trunk, underarms and perineal area. Without changing her gloves and washing hands, CNA #5 used a towel to dry the resident's face, trunk and perineal area. CNA #5 proceeded to have Resident #107 roll onto her left side and without changing gloves and washing hands, CNA #5 washed, rinsed, and dried Resident #107's neck, back and buttocks including the rectal area. Continued observation showed CNA #5, wearing the gloves, applied lotion to resident's entire body including hands and applied deodorant. Wearing the same gloves, CNA #5 raised the head of the bed and assisted Resident #107 to put on her clothes and shoes. Observation continued at 9:30 AM, CNA #5 removed her gloves (failed to wash the hands), assisted Resident #107 into a wheelchair, wheeled her into the bathroom and assisted Resident #107 to brush her teeth. CNA #5 prepared the resident's toothbrush (with unwashed and ungloved hands) and assisted the resident with brushing her teeth. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 9:45 AM, CNA #5 stated gloves are supposed to be changed 3 times during a partial bath. CNA #5 confirmed she didn't change her gloves or wash her hands during the time she assisted Resident #107. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 3:44 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the expectation was CNA #5 should have changed her gloves after washing the perineal area, after washing the buttocks and expected CNA #5 to wash her hands prior to assisting Resident #107 with brushing her teeth.
Nov 2023 11 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documents, interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for two of four residents (Resident (R)13 and R7) reviewed for accidents in a total sample of 41 residents. The facility's failure to utilize two staff, during the use of a mechanical lift, resulted in harm when R13 sustained a distal right femur (leg) fracture. Findings include: 1.Review of facility-reported incident, provided to the survey team by the Administrator, dated 7/5/2023, revealed the following: [Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)12] reported that on 6/26/2023, she was attempting to transfer [R13] from her bed to her wheelchair using the sit-to-stand lift when the patient became weak and slid back against the lift harness. After attempts to complete the transfer, [CNA12] slid the patient to a sitting position and went and got help to complete the transfer .The patient did not report pain nor obvious signs of a fracture and sat up in her wheelchair for a while before being placed back into her bed. Review of R13's Resident Face Sheet, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Resident tab, revealed an admission date of 12/21/2022 with diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis (partial paralysis and weakness on one side of the body), and osteoarthritis of the right knee. Review of R13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in the EMR under the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/19/2023, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating R13 was cognitively intact. This same MDS indicated R13's transfer ability was an extensive assistance, with support from two staff. Review of R13's Care Plan, dated 1/3/2023, located in the EMR revealed R13 was at a risk for falls due to hemiplegia and hemiparesis. Review of R13's Nurse Practitioner (NP) note, dated 6/28/2023, located in the EMR under the Resident tab, indicated, .seen today for follow-up after a fall. She tells me she slid down to the floor when they were trying to move her from the sit to stand to her chair. She denies any injuries. She says she landed on her bottom and did not hit her head. She has no other concerns today. Review of R13's NP note, dated 6/30/2023, located in the EMR under the Resident tab, indicated, .seen today for right knee pain. She tells me that she has had right knee pain for the past couple of days. She did have a fall earlier this week with no apparent injuries at the time of her fall. She is not sure if her knee pain is related to her fall or not. She denies hitting her knee when she fell. She does have rheumatoid arthritis. She also complains of poor appetite. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 9:45 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated on 6/29/2023, Family (F)13 reported to her that R13 reported she had a fall the other day. The ADON stated she assessed R13 and R13 was complaining of right knee pain and an x-ray was ordered. The ADON stated the facility initially thought the fall was unwitnessed due to having no reports of a fall. The ADON stated, through investigation, the facility discovered R13 had a witnessed fall from a sit-to-stand lift, while being transferred by CNA12. The ADON stated CNA12 did not report the fall to staff. Review of R13's X-ray results, located in the EMR under the Resident tab, dated 6/30/2023, indicated, Impression: Acute comminuted [splintered], mildly displaced fracture distal femoral metaphysis [area near knee]. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 11:45 AM, F13 stated R13 reported to her that she had a fall from a sit-to-stand lift when CNA12 attempted to transfer her. F13 stated she reported the incident to the nursing staff and requested an x-ray for R13. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 4:16 PM, CNA12 stated on 6/26/2023, she attempted to transfer R13 from her bed to her wheelchair by using the sit-to-stand lift and R13 slid out of the lift. CNA12 stated R13 did not hit the floor. CNA12 stated she asked another CNA to assist her in getting R13 up and she reported the incident to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)12. CNA12 stated R13 did not complain of pain at the time of the fall. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 4:49 PM, LPN12 stated CNA12 never reported R13 had fallen. LPN12 stated, although she was the nurse on shift at the time of the incident, she was unaware of the fall until she was interviewed a couple of days after it had happened. 2. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR under the Resident tab, revealed R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cancer of the colon, brain, ovaries, and lungs; weakness, and a history of falls. R7 passed away in the facility on 6/13/2023. Review of the significant change MDS with an ARD of 5/24/2023 in the EMR revealed R7 was severely impaired in cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15 (score of 0-7 indicates severe impairment). R7 required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, hygiene, and toilet use. R7 had 2 or more falls since the prior MDS assessment without injury. Review of the Incident Reports, provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced nine falls within a three-month period. The facility failed to implement new interventions after falls, implement existing interventions, analyze patterns, and determine the root cause of falls as follows: 1. Review of the Incident Report, dated 3/8/2023 provided by the facility, revealed on this date at 8:59 AM, R7 was standing to be weighed, she became weak, sat back on the bed and the weight technician lowered the resident to the floor. R7 was in her bare feet and an immediate intervention was to implement safe footwear. No injury was sustained. Staff were educated on safety with transfers. 2. Review of the Incident Report, dated 3/31/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 fell on this date (Friday) at 6:20 AM. The fall was unwitnessed and R7 was found on the floor in bare feet, laying between the air conditioning unit and the bed. The call light was in reach. R7 stated she slid out of bed and denied hitting her head; she stated she was experiencing mild pain. The immediate intervention was to apply nonskid socks. The prior fall that occurred on 3/8/2023 resulted in staff implementing safe footwear as the resident was in bare feet. This was not implemented as R7 was again found in bare feet when this fall occurred. Although the call light was within R7's reach, there was no documentation to show whether it had been activated. There was no assessment of what the root cause was, i.e., what was the resident trying to do at the time of the fall. 3. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/14/2023 (Friday) at 6:32 AM provided by the facility, revealed R7 was found on the floor in her room, having experienced an unwitnessed fall. She had been trying to get out of bed and was bare feet. R7 was laying on the floor between the air conditioning unit and the bed with her left arm supporting her head. R7 denied hitting her head. No injury was sustained. The call light was in reach. The immediate measure taken was implementation of a bed pressure alarm, and safety mats were applied to the floor. This was the third fall in which R7 did not have non-skid socks on that were identified as an intervention after the falls occurring on 3/8/2023 and 3/31/2023. There was no indication if the call light was sounding. There was no assessment of what the resident was trying to do at the time of the falls to determine the root cause. 4. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/14/2023 (Friday) at 3:20 PM and provided by the facility, revealed R7 was found on the floor in her room between the bed and the heating unit in bare feet. R7 denied hitting her head; however, she experienced an unwitnessed fall. Intervention included adaptive equipment (equipment not specified). The family and physician were notified. The resident was re-educated about use of her call button for assistance and a bed alarm was placed. This was the fourth fall in which R7 did not have non-skid socks on that were previously identified as an intervention. A bed alarm was listed as a new intervention; however, the Incident Report for the fall that occurred earlier this day at 6:32 AM indicated a bed alarm was an immediate measure taken at that time. 5. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/15/2023 (Saturday) at 2:00 AM and provided by the facility, revealed R7's alarm was sounding. She had experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor by the window on the floor mat in a sitting position. No injury was noted. R7 was put back to bed with the clip alarm in place. She was in bare feet. The call light was within reach and R7 was instructed to use it and the bed was in the low position. Mild pain was noted and the resident was lethargic/drowsy. Intervention included pain management and the bed pad/tab alarm. This was the fifth fall in which R7 was found in bare feet. There was no assessment of what the resident was trying to do at the time of the fall to determine the root cause. Review of a Nurse Practitioner (NP) Visit Form, dated 4/17/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 was evaluated on this date. The Visit Form read, .seen today for follow up after multiple falls over the weekend. Per nurse, her family was also concerned with altered mental status, so she was also sent to ER per on call provider for evaluation. She had pelvis x-ray that was negative for any fracture .Repeated falls - continue precautions, monitoring .Secondary malignant neoplasm - CT showed hemorrhagic intercranial metastases, no herniation. She is not on any anticoagulants, unclear if she hit head when she fell . 6. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/2023 (Saturday) at 5:30 AM, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor in her room sitting on the floor on the mat with her back against the bed. Her non-skid socks were on, she had removed the clip alarm, and it was not sounding. The resident stated she was trying to get to the cards. The immediate intervention taken was application of the bed alarm and R7 was moved to a room closer to the nursing station. There was no indication if the call light was sounding at the time of the fall. The bed alarm had already been implemented after a fall on 4/14/2023 and was not a new intervention. The resident had removed the alarm; there was no assessment of the effectiveness of this intervention or need for a different approach. 7. Review of the Incident Report, dated 5/7/2023 (Sunday) at 5:11 PM, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found lying on the floor on the mat by the bed with non-skid socks in place. The resident was noted to be lethargic and drowsy. Immediate measures taken included placing bed mats on the floor on both sides of the bed and a bed alarm. R7 stated she was trying to get to the ER [emergency room]. R7 experienced a skin tear to her left forearm. A bed alarm was listed as an immediate measure in response to the fall; however, a bed alarm was documented as being implemented following her third fall on 4/14/2023. 8. Review of the Incident Report, dated 5/14/2023 (Sunday) at 3:09 AM, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall. R7 was found on the floor, in bare feet on the safety mat on the floor with the alarm sounding. Non-skid socks were documented as being an immediate intervention implemented. In addition, the resident would be evaluated for a toileting schedule. Non-skid socks should have been in place. They were first identified as an intervention after her first fall on 3/8/2023. Review of a Wound Care note, dated 05/15/23 in the EMR under the Progress Notes tab, revealed Wound Care: Multiple skin tears noted to BUE [both upper extremities]. LUE [left upper extremity] from wrist to elbow; 3.5x1x0.1, 1.5x1.2x0.1, and 2.8x7x0.1. RUE [right upper extremity] from wrist to elbow 1x1.7x0.1, 1x3x0.1, 2.5x4x0.1, 1x1.5x0.1. Clean with normal saline, apply zinc oxide and non-adherent pad, dry gauze and kerlix, then apply Geri gloves. Bruising to BUE [both upper extremities] noted. Pt has very thin, fragile skin that tears easily .Pt did have fall last week resulting in few skin tears, however, also has new areas today. 9. Review of the Incident Report, dated 5/24/2023 at 7:59 AM, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall. She was found in the prone position on the right side of the bed on the floor. R7 was wearing nonskid socks. The immediate intervention was to move belongings closer to the resident. The Incident Report did not say whether the bed alarm was sounding or if the floor mat was in place. There was no assessment of what the resident was trying to do at the time of the fall to determine the root cause. There was no evidence the facility increased supervision for R7 who had a pattern of unwitnessed falls in the morning, especially on weekends, and with repeated attempts to get out of bed. There was a lack of assessment to determine why the resident was getting out of bed such as having to toilet, being in pain, anxious, etc. Review of the Care Plan History dated 2/22/2023-10/10/2023 provided by the facility revealed the problem of Fall risk: history of falling, weakness, difficulty in walking was initiated on 2/27/2023. The goal was, Will have risk of falls with injury addressed and minimized. Approaches with dates were as follows: Patient's belongings within reach (5/24/2023) Nonskid socks (5/14/2023) Bed alarm in place while in bed (4/22/2023) Safety mats (4/14/2023) Staff education (3/9/2023) Monitor pt's [patient's] safety during 1:1 [one to one] contact, intervening when needed Bed in lowest position (2/27/2023) Call light within reach (2/27/2023) Discontinue clip alarm in place at all times (4/24/2023) Nonskid slippers (4/15/2023 and discontinued on 5/16/2023) During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 3:00 PM, family member (F)7 stated R7 had brain cancer, radiation to her brain, became confused and anxious, and kept getting out of bed resulting in multiple falls. R7 stated the facility did not do enough to prevent R7 from falling. F7 stated R7 originally went to the facility for two weeks for therapy but R7 failed to improve and cancer was found on her spine. F7 stated after about three weeks R7 was moved from the rehab floor to the third floor and things went downhill. F7 stated R7 fell out of bed and sat on the floor for 20-30 minutes at a time before staff assisted her back to bed. F7 stated she asked for mats to be placed on the floor next to the bed and this was not done initially. F7 stated, eventually a mat was placed on the floor. F7 asked for bed rails and was told the facility could not implement these as they had to be signed off by a doctor. F7 stated she was desperate due to R7 experiencing so many falls. F7 stated most of the falls occurred on Fridays and Saturdays, or on the weekends and she wondered about that. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 8:34 AM, LPN9/300-Unit Manager stated R7 was transferred to the third floor after her therapy ended. LPN9 stated fall interventions included mats on the floor and a pressure alarm on the bed. LPN9 stated R7 had cancer, was on hospice, was full of anxiety and tried to get up repeatedly. LPN9 stated R7 thought she had to take care of the kids. LPN9 stated when a fall occurred, the nurse opened an event in the EMR; vitals were done, the resident's skin was assessed and nurses should document if interventions were in place at the time of the fall. Immediate interventions were new things added in response to the fall and would get added to the care plan. Bed mats would get updated right away or the next day. LPN9 stated she looked at patterns for falls but was not aware of R7's falls primarily occurring in the morning and on Friday, Saturdays, and Sundays. LPN9 stated normally when R7 was found on the floor, her incontinence brief was wet. LPN9 stated the facility had not increased supervision as an intervention for falls such as adding 15 minutes checks or one to one supervision, although increased supervision was listed as a care plan intervention for falls. LPN9 stated, We don't increase supervision. LPN9 stated R7 sustained bruises and skin tears to her arms from the falls. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 3:18 PM, the DON and ADON were interviewed. They stated the process for falls including the nurse opening the event in the EMR, making sure the resident was safe, determining what interventions were in place at the time of the fall, contacting the family and physician, initiating alert charting for a few days. They stated the Incident Report should include the interventions currently in place and whether they had been initiated and immediate interventions should be new interventions not previously in place. The DON and ADON stated they had not considered increased supervision for residents experiencing frequent falls such as sitters or 15-minute checks. They stated they had, however asked CNAs to be in the hallways more often to be closer to the residents. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 8:35 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)5 stated she remembered taking care of R7 when she transferred to the third floor. CNA5 stated R7 had bed and chair alarm and mats on the floor beside the bed. CNA5 stated R7 was confused and anxious at times and tried to get out of bed. CNA5 stated R7's CNA supervision was not increased and the facility did not implement the 15-minute checks or the increased supervision as indicated as a fall intervention in R7's care plan. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 9:13 AM, the NP stated she remembered R7 needed palliative care from the start. The NP stated R7's condition, including her mentation, declined around the time she was transferred from rehab to the third floor. The NP stated R7 had experienced falls but she did not follow her care once R7 transferred to the third floor. The NP stated when residents experienced falls, they should make sure there were no major injuries and that the resident was not in pain. Review of the Falls policy, dated 7/2/2017, provided by the facility, revealed Cause Identification: 1. For an individual who has fallen, staff will attempt to define possible causes within 24 hours of the fall. 2. If the cause of a fall is unclear, if the fall may have a significant medical cause such as a stroke or an adverse drug reaction (ADR), or if the individual continues to fall despite attempted interventions, a physician/NP [nurse practitioner] will review the situation and help identify contributing causes. 3. The staff and/or physician, NP will continue to collect and evaluate information until either the cause of the falling is identified, or it is determined that the cause cannot be found or that finding a cause would not change the outcome or the management of falling and fall risk. Treatment/Management 1. Based on the preceding assessment the staff and/or physician NP will identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent subsequent falls and to address the serious consequences of falling. 2. If underlying causes cannot be readily identified or corrected, staff will try various relevant interventions, based on assessment of the nature or category of falling, until falling reduces or stops or until a reason is identified for its continuation.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, interview and review of the facility's policies, the facility's nursing staff failed to notify t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, interview and review of the facility's policies, the facility's nursing staff failed to notify the resident's physician and family with a change in condition for 1 of 1 resident (Resident (R)1) reviewed for change of condition out of a total sample of 41 residents. Findings include: Review of R1's electronic medical record (EMR) Face Sheet, under the Resident tab, revealed that R1 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Anemia after an admission to the hospital from [DATE] to 7/05/2022. Review revealed the resident had a Do Not Resuscitate Code status. Review of R1's EMR under the Resident tab revealed Progress notes that indicated: 06/30/22 at 8:41AM, Resident labs were drawn this morning, labs were critical. NP [nurse practitioner] notified of labs and requested to send patient to [name of the hospital's emergency room (ER)] . 07/05/22 at 10:22 PM, Return admit to facility with DX [diagnosis] of anemia . 07/06/22 at 11:51 AM, Pt readmitted to [room number] following hospitalization 6/30 to 7/5 with diagnosis of anemia . 07/06/22 at 3:12 PM, Patient returned to the facility on [DATE] from a recent hospital stay with a dx of anemia. Patient is currently receiving skilled nursing and therapy services. BIMS [Brief Interview for Mental Status] interview completed with a score of 11/15, indicating moderately impaired cognition . 07/06/22 at 9:43 PM, Patient had an episode of vomiting. Patient denied any nausea and stated his stomach was not hurting at the time. House [supervisor on call nights and weekends] notified will continue to monitor. 07/07/22 at 1:00 AM, No bp [blood pressure], pulse, or respirations detected. Time of death announced at 1:03am on 07/07/22 .Family in room at present time . 07/07/22 at 1:19 AM, At approximately 2350 [11:50PM] 07/06/22, CNA brought patient's vital signs to this nurse: O2 [Oxygen] sat [saturation] 76% on room air, pulse 87, axillary temp 98.3. This nurse entered room and observed patient with Cheyne-Stokes breathing pattern and pale, warm skin. Patient unresponsive to tactile stimulation .Call placed (12:06 a.m.) to [R1's wife's name], message left. [R1's son's name] (12:09 a.m.), son, called with message left. Call placed to [R1's other son's name] at approx. 12:11 a.m. and informed of patient's change in status. This nurse returned to room at approx. 12:30 a.m. to check patient and was unable to obtain VS [vital signs], no pulse or respirations observed. All family here to visit at approx. 12:35 a.m . Review of the nursing Progress notes revealed the physician and family were not notified when the resident vomited at 9:43 PM on 7/6/2023. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Administrator on 10/10/2023 at 2:42 PM, the DON confirmed there was no evidence in the R1's progress notes R1's physician or family was notified of R1's change of condition. The DON confirmed the wife was called at 12:06 on 7/7/2023 and while driving to the facility, the resident passed away. The DON provided a policy regarding when a resident returns from the hospital there should be alert charting and confirmed the nursing staff failed to follow the facility's policy regarding notification of the physician and family when a resident experiences a change in condition. Review of the facility's policy titled, Patient Care Policies dated 2/2/2023 indicated, .4.1 policies and procedures regarding change in patient status .B. Notification of Patient Representative, The charge nurse on duty is notified immediately of any change in a patient's condition. The charge nurse will then assess the patient's condition and notify the physician .and the patient's representative .
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of facility documents, interview and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of facility documents, interview and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a resident for 1 of 3 residents (Resident (R)9) reviewed for abuse out of a total sample of 41 residents. On 1/28/2023, R11 took R9's call light/bed remote and repeatedly struck R9 on his left arm causing discolored areas. Findings include: Review of an undated investigation summary titled, [R11's name/R9's name] Investigation, provided by the Administrator, revealed Incident involves two roommates .At approximately 11:15 am on Saturday the 28th [1/28/2023], a C.N.A [Certified Nurse Aide] walked into their room and witnessed [R11's name] hitting [R9's name] on the left forearm with the electric bed control. The C.N.A immediately moved [R11's name] from the room. [R11's name] is wheelchair bound and [R9's name] is bed bound .The DON [Director of Nursing] interviewed [R9's name] who said that [R11's name] wheeled over to his bed and began hitting him on the forearm with the bed control. He said he was unaware what had provided [sic] [provoked] [R11's name]. Medical Director, [R9's name] was sent to the ER [emergency room] for evaluation and returned later in the day with no injuries other than bruising to his forearm. The DON interview [R11's name] who stated [R9's name] had kicked him in the head and that if [sic] reminded him of the miniseries Roots and began hitting [R9's name] with the bed control, 'like a whip.' Noted that [R9's name] is bed bound and requires assistance when moving and/or repositioning his lower extremities .Administrator interviewed [R11's name] on 01/30/23. [R11's name] said that [R9's name], who is bed bound, had been getting out of bed and stealing [R11's name] potato chips out of his drawer .[R11's name] then said that [R9's name] called him 'boy' and had kicked him and hit him across the back with his call light .unlikely [R9's name] could have made contact with [R11's name], especially because [R9's name] needs assistance with positioning of his lower extremities . 1. Review of R11's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's EMR under the Resident tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia, general anxiety disorder and mood disorder. Review of R11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/31/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15, which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS also revealed the facility assessed the resident without behaviors during the assessment period. Review of R11's Event Details, completed on 2/7/2023, located in the resident's EMR under the Resident tab revealed, When Occurred: 01/28/2023 at 02:25 PM [2:25 PM] .Event Category and description: Behavior And Mood Events-Significant Changes in Mood . Review of R11's nursing Progress Note, dated 1/28/2023 at 2:46 PM revealed, Patient conflict with roommate earlier in shift .patient removed from roommate immediately by nurse and cna. [sic] Patient was placed in day room with 1 on 1 care. Patient calm while 1 on 1 care provided. Will move roommate to another room and continue to observe patient. Consulted behavioral health waiting on response. All [sic] entities alerted of behavior . During an interview on 10/10/23 at 3:28 PM, R11 stated he remembered the incident between him and R9. R11 stated R9 got up out of his bed and came over to his bed and started hitting him with his call light for no reason. R11 also stated when he got in his wheelchair later that same day, he hit R9 with his call light just like [R9] had done to him. 2. Review of R9's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's EMR under the Resident tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (partial paralysis and weakness) affecting left non-dominant side, vascular dementia, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Review of R9's annual MDS, with an ARD of 07/13/23, located in the resident's EMR, under the RAI tab, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a BIMS Score of 14 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 9:57 AM, R9 stated he remembered the incident between him and R11. R9 stated he had no idea why R11 hit him. R9 further stated he thought it was because R11 had mentioned that [R11] wanted a room by himself and may have done it so he would get a room by himself. R9 stated there had not been any issues with R11 since and he felt safe. During an interview on 10/10/2023 at 3:46 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)10 stated R9 is not able to independently transfer himself out of the bed. The LPN also stated R9 had impairment to his lower extremities and could not have kicked R11. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 11:05 AM, the Administrator stated his investigation of the incident between R11 and R9 revealed R11 abused R9. The Administrator stated it was his expectation all residents would be free from abuse including resident to resident abuse. Review of the facility's policy titled, Patient Protection and Response Policy for Allegations/Incidents of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Property and Exploitation, revised 2/1/2023 revealed, .Abuse .will not be tolerated by anyone, including staff, patients, consultants, volunteers, family members or legal guardians, friends, visitor or any other individual in this center. The patient has the right to be from abuse .Definitions. Abuse: the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish .Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm .Physical Abuse: includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking .Procedure. All alleged violations and all substantiated incidents will be reported immediately to the Administrator or her/his designated representative and to other officials in accordance with State and Federal law (including to the State survey and certification agency). A. Internal Investigation Policy. 1. Policy. All events reported as possible abuse .will be investigated to determine whether the alleged abuse .did or did not take place. The Administrator or Director of Nurses will determine the direction of the investigation once notified of alleged incident .Procedure. a. The investigation is conducted immediately under the following circumstances .When it is identified that an alleged incident may have occurred .7. Protection Policy .Patients will be protected from harm during an investigation. Procedure. 1. Staff will respond immediately to protect the alleged victim and integrity of the investigation .4. Examining the alleged victim for any sign of injury Increased supervision of the alleged victim and patients .
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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan with interventions after a Gastrojejunostomy (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan with interventions after a Gastrojejunostomy (GJ) (gastrojejunostomy tube is a type of feeding tube used to administer nutrition, liquids, and medications and can also be used for venting, to let gas out of the stomach) had been dislodged seven times resulting in replacement of the tube in the emergency room (ER) for one resident (Resident (R) 3) of 41 resident care plans reviewed. Findings include: Review of R3's electronic medical record (EMR) Face Sheet indicated R3 was originally admitted on [DATE] with the latest admission on [DATE] with diagnoses of quadriplegia, traumatic brain injury (TBI), anoxic brain damage, arm contractures and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of R3's EMR Physician Orders, under the Resident tab, indicated an order dated 10/6/2023 to 10/12/2023 for Tube feeding-Jevity [nutritionally complete and balanced isotonic liquid feed enriched with fiber to help maintain normal bowel function] 1.5 @ 75 ml/hr [milliliters per hour] .start at 2PM and end at 10AM During an interview on 10/10/2023 at 10:10AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated he was aware of how often R3's GJ tube had become dislodged and R3 had to be transferred to the ER to have the GJ tube replaced. During the interview, the DON and surveyor reviewed R3's care plan. The DON confirmed even though the care plan identified R3 had a GJ tube, there was no mention of the problem R3 was experiencing of the GJ tube being dislodged seven times in 2023 or interventions for nursing staff to follow to protect the GJ tube from becoming dislodged when turning and positioning. Review of R3's EMR, Resident tab Nurses Progress Notes indicated since January 2023 to October 2023, R3's GJ tube dislodged with no specific details documented on how the tube was dislodged. The Nurse progress notes indicated: 01/25/23- GJ tube out 02/02/23- GJ tube out 02/20/23- GJ tube out 02/28/23- GJ tube out 03/13/23- GJ tube out 04/10/23- GJ tube out 05/18/23, GJ tube pulled out in hospital 07/03/23- GJ tube replaced due to leaking around tube 07/23/23- GJ tube out During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 9:00 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she was familiar with R3 and was aware of how many times R3's GJ tube has been dislodged. The NP stated she thought in her progress notes was documentation of interventions to prevent the GJ tube from coming out. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 10:35 AM, with the Medical Director (MD) the MD stated that she thought some time in 2023, they did an intervention to label the lumen (opening in tube) so that nurses were not trying to add fluid to the lumen for the bulb and deflate the bulb. The MD did not know if the label was still on the lumen. During an interview with the DON on 10/12/2023 at 10:46 AM, the DON stated he was unable to find any interventions in the NP or MD's progress notes to prevent the GJ tube from becoming dislodged. The DON stated he found only one intervention in R3's care plan history document for the use of an abdominal binder. The DON confirmed that the abdominal binder has not been used for some time and was not on the current care plan. Review of R3's Care Plan History a hardcopy document provided by the DON, dated 5/2/2023 indicated, Abdominal Binder as ordered. Review of R3's current care plan revealed it had been recently revised to reflect the use of the binder. Problem: G-tube/nutrition .Enteral Feeding .Last Reviewed/Revised 10/06/2023 01:48 PM, Approach: ABDOMINAL BINDER TO PROTECT GASTROSTOMY TUBE, Start Date 10/11/2023. During an interview on 10/12/23 at 11:12 AM, Registered Nurse (RN)1 stated that as of today, nursing staff started the use of R3's abdominal binder, after the care plan was revised.
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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

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's nursing staff failed to implement interventions to anchor the Gastr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility's nursing staff failed to implement interventions to anchor the Gastrojejunostomy (GJ) (gastrojejunostomy tube is a type of feeding tube used to administer nutrition, liquids, and medications and can also be used for venting, to let gas out of the stomach) tube properly, in order to prevent repeated dislodgement of the GJ tube, which then required the resident to be transferred to the emergency room (ER) to have the GJ tube replaced for 1 of 1 resident (Resident (R)3) out of a total sample of 41 residents. Findings include: Review of R3's electronic medical record (EMR) Face Sheet indicated R3 was originally admitted on [DATE] and the most recent re-admission was 10/5/2023 with diagnoses which included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of R3's EMR Physician Orders, found under the Resident tab and dated 10/6/2023 to 10/12/2023 revealed an order for Tube feeding-Jevity 1.5 @ 75 ml/hr [milliliters per hour] .start at 2PM and end at 10AM During an interview on 10/10/2023 at 10:10 AM, the DON stated he was aware of R3's repeated return to the hospital to have his GJ tube replaced. The DON reviewed R3's EMR Care Plan and confirmed there was no indication on the care plan of the seven times R3's GJ tube had been dislodged in 2023 and there were no interventions on the care plan for the nursing staff to follow regarding anchoring the GJ tube to prevent dislodgement. Review of R3's EMR, Nurses Progress Notes indicated since January 2023 to October 2023, R3's GJ tube was documented that it was out. The Nurse Progress Notes indicated: 1/25/2023- GJ tube out 2/2/2023- GJ tube out 2/20/2023- GJ tube out 2/28/2023- GJ tube out 3/13/2023- GJ tube out 4/10/2023- GJ tube out 5/18/2023 - GJ tube pulled out in hospital 7/3/2023- GJ tube replaced due to leaking around tube 7/23/2023- GJ tube out During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN)1, the first floor House Supervisor, on 10/10/2023 at 12:15 PM, RN1 confirmed R3's progress notes had no documentation of the facility assessing what caused the GJ tube to come out each time and didn't assess which staff was providing care for the resident. RN1 stated the nursing staff were not using any interventions to anchor the GJ tube to prevent dislodgement. RN1 stated that she reminds staff to be sure when resident was turned or provided incontinence care, the GJ tube must be visible at all times to prevent the GJ tube from being dislodged. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 9:00 AM, Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she was familiar with R3 and was aware of how many times R3's GJ tube had come out. NP stated R3 used to have a Gastrostomy (G) tube and when it came out, she could replace it. Since it was changed to a G-J Tube, well over a year ago, when the GJ tube is dislodged, R3 has to go to the emergency room (ER) to have it replaced. The NP stated she thought in her progress notes was documentation of interventions to prevent the GJ tube from coming out. During an interview with the Medical Director (MD) on 10/12/2023 at 10:35 AM, the MD stated she thought some time in 2023, they did an intervention to label the lumen (opening in the tubing) so that nurses were not trying to add fluid to the lumen for the bulb and deflate the bulb. The MD stated she did not know if the label was still on the lumen. Interview with the DON on 10/12/2023 at 10:46 AM, revealed he could not find any documentation in the NP or MD's Progress Notes of interventions the NP or MD recommended to protect the GJ tube from being dislodged. The DON stated he found only 1 intervention in R3's Care Plan History document for the use of an abdominal binder, dated 5/2/2023. The DON confirmed that the abdominal binder had not been used for some time and was not on the current care plan. Review of R3's current care plan revealed it had been recently revised to reflect the use of the binder. Problem: G-tube/nutrition .Enteral Feeding .Last Reviewed/Revised 10/6/2023 1:48 PM, Approach: ABDOMINAL BINDER TO PROTECT GASTROSTOMY TUBE, Start Date 10/11/2023. Interview on 10/12/2023 at 11:12 AM, RN1 stated as of today the nursing staff started the use of R3's abdominal binder.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of R31's undated Resident Face Sheet, located in the resident's EMR under the Resident tab revealed the resident was a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of R31's undated Resident Face Sheet, located in the resident's EMR under the Resident tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R31's Event Report: [R31's name], completed date of 8/20/2023, provided by the facility revealed, Event Information. Event date 8/20/2023 .Description: medication error. Event Details .date and time of error 8/19/2023 at 9:10 PM .Medications involved in the event. Atorvastatin, Slow Mag [magnesium], Melatonin. Description of the event. Pt [patient] was give [sic] roommate's medicine. Type of Error. Incorrect Patient .Reason(s) for error. Failure to identify patient .Interventions. NP [Nurse Practitioner] notified what pt had taken and what her ordered medications were .Notes. 8/20/2023 12:57 AM Nurse notified me that she had given pt roommate's medication. The medication was atorvastatin 80 mg, Slow mag one tablet, and melatonin 9 mg. Pt notified. NP notified. New order to give HS [hour of sleep] meds [medications] except atorvastatin. And give trazadone 25 mg one time not the 50 mg .Evaluation Notes: patient had no adverse reaction to medication error. Patient denies any pain or discomfort at this time . During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 9:09 AM, R31 stated when the nurse brought her medications to her, she did not look at them and she just took them. R31 also stated she had no adverse effects from the wrong medications being administered. Review of R32's undated Resident Face Sheet, located in the resident's EMR under the Resident tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R32's Resident Orders, provided by the facility, revealed a Physician's Orders of Slow-Mag (magnesium chloride) tablet, delayed release .71.5 mg; amt [amount]: 1 tablet; oral twice a day, with an order date of 5/31/2023, Melatonin capsule; 3 mg; amt: 3 caps; oral at bedtime, with an order date of 5/26/2023 and atorvastatin tablet; 80 mg; amt: 1 tablet; oral at bedtime, with an order date of 3/3/2023. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 9:04 AM, R32 stated R31 was administered her (R32) medication in August. R32 stated the nurse presented her with R31's medications; however, she looked at the medications first and saw they were not her medications and told the nurse they were not hers. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 8:12 AM, the NP stated she was aware of the medication error of R31 being administered R32's medications; however, there was no concern for any negative outcome from the error. The NP stated it was her expectation R31 would have been administered the medications ordered for her. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 8:30 AM, the Contract Pharmacist (CP) stated the medication error of R31 being administered three medications not prescribed to her did not create a concern for adverse outcomes. The CP stated R31 was prescribed atorvastatin 40 and received 80 mg and the other two medications were supplements. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 10:30 AM, the Medical Director, who was also R31's attending physician, stated the 3 medications R31 received that were R32's medications were very low risk for any outcome. The Medical Director also stated the nurse should have followed her nursing standards of practice related to medication administration and this error could have been avoided. The Medical Director further stated it was her expectation R31 would have been administered the medications that she had ordered for her. During an interview on 10/12/23 at 10:45 AM, The Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was his expectation the nurse would have followed nursing practices and ensure she was administering the correct medications to the correct resident. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 11:05 AM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation the facility be free from medication errors. The Administrator stated it was his expectation R31 would have administered R31's medications as ordered by her physician. Review of the facility provided document titled, Lippincott .8 Rights of Medication Administration, dated May 2011, revealed, .Rights of Medication Administration. 1. Right patient. Check the name on the order and the patient. Use 2 identifiers. Ask Patient to identify himself/herself . Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Monitoring and Management, revised 01/01/19, revealed .C. Facility staff observe the resident for possible medication-related adverse consequences .when the following conditions occur: .6. Medication error .F. In the event of a significant medication-related error or adverse consequence, immediate action is taken, as necessary, to protect the resident's safety and welfare. Significant is defined as: .5. Life threatening .H. The physician's orders are implemented, and the resident is monitored closely for 24 to 72 hours or as directed . Based on observations, interview, and medical record review and review of facility documents, the facility failed to have pharmacy systems in place to ensure medications were administered accurately to two out four sampled residents (Resident (R)4, R31) out of a total sample of 41 residents. R4 was administered a pain medication in pill form that had been discontinued six days earlier due to the resident's decreased ability to swallow pills; consequently R4's sublingual (under the tongue) pain medication was not administered. R31 was administered her roommate's (R32's) medications. Findings include: 1. Review of the 12/15/2022 annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/22/2019 in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR under the Resident tab, revealed R4 had diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, failure to thrive and chronic kidney disease. The Face Sheet revealed R4 passed away on 8/9/2023, while in the facility, receiving hospice care. Review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 8/1/2023 revealed R4 was severely impaired in decision making and unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) test. R4 required limited assistance of 1 person for eating and extensive assistance of 1 person for toileting, hygiene and dressing. R4 held food in her mouth/cheeks or had residual food in her mouth after meals. Review of the Physician Order Report, dated 8/1/2023 through 8/9/2023 in the EMR under the Order tab, revealed R4 had an order for crushed medications if appropriate, dated 2/22/2023, an order for Tramadol (narcotic pain medication) tablet 50 mg (milligram), 1 tablet every eight hours at 6:30 AM, 3:30 PM and 10:30 PM, which was ordered on 2/22/2023 and discontinued on 8/1/2023. R4 had an order for morphine concentrate 100/5 ml (milliliter), 20 mg/ml, 0.25 sublingual every four hours for pain, air hunger and labored breathing at 10:00 AM, 2:00 PM, 6:00 PM, 10:00 PM, 2:00 AM, and 6:00 AM started on 8/1/2023. Review of the nursing Progress Note, dated 8/1/2023 in the EMR under the Progress Notes tab revealed, Resident is hospice patient who is alert to self only. She takes her medications SL [sublingually]. All other meds [medications] have been discontinued per hospice. Resident is in the actively dying stage. Resident has not eaten in the last two days . Review of the nursing Progress Note, dated 8/7/2023 at 10:10 PM in the EMR under the Progress Notes tab revealed, Cart [medication] nurse notified this writer that she gave Tramadol 50 mg which had been D/C'd [discontinued] instead of scheduled morphine 0.25 mg. On call NP [nurse practitioner] notified per cart nurse .Pt. [patient] resting quietly without any distress noted. Will continue to monitor. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), from 8/1/2023 through 8/9/2023 in the EMR under the Orders tab, revealed R4 was not administered the 10:00 PM dose of morphine on 8/7/2023 by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)7. The MAR did not show any doses of Tramadol had been administered in August 2023, prior to the resident's death on 8/9/2023. Review of the Medication Error report, dated 8/7/2023 at 10:23 PM, documented by LPN7, revealed R4 was given discontinued Tramadol 50 mg orally in pill form. The on-call Nurse Practitioner was notified. The majority of the Medication Error report was incomplete/blank including description, date and time of incident, who the error was found by, the type of error, the individual who made the error, the dosage form, the reason for the error, side effects, and immediate observations. R4's vital signs were taken and her blood pressure was decreased at 92/56 (a low blood pressure is below 90/60). During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 8:52 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)9/300 Unit Manager stated she was not working when the medication error occurred on 8/7/2023 for R4; however, she heard about it. LPN9 did not know who made the error. LPN9 stated the discontinued Tramadol should have been removed from the medication cart after it was discontinued. LPN9 stated R4 had been off the Tramadol and on morphine for a few days. LPN9 stated for the last week or two prior to R4's death, she received medications sublingually because she could not close her mouth and take pills. LPN9 stated she did not know how R4 could have swallowed a pill on 8/7/2023; however, she stated there was an order to crush her medications. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 1:17 PM, LPN7 stated she was the nurse who filled out the Medication Error report on 8/7/2023 regarding R4; however, she did not administer the Tramadol. LPN7 stated R4's medications had changed from Tramadol to morphine by hospice. LPN7 stated she discovered the error as it popped up on the MAR since she followed (next shift) the nurse who had made the error. LPN7 stated the house supervisor instructed her to hold R4's morphine at 10:00 PM due to the Tramadol having been administered. LPN7 stated the Tramadol was still on the medication cart when she found out about the error. LPN7 stated the staff monitored R4 for 72 hours after the error for any side effects. An attempt was made to interview the nurse (LPN5) who made the medication error on 10/11/2023 at 1:25 PM. There was no answer and a message to return the call was left. The call was not returned. LPN5 was no longer employed by the facility; she was a traveling nurse and her assignment was completed. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 4:02 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated R4's discontinued Tramadol should have been removed from the medication cart within 24-48 hours after the medication was discontinued. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 10:36 AM, the Medical Director stated R4's swallowing became impaired and that was why a decision was made to transition to sublingual morphine. The Medical Director stated she remembered hearing about R4 receiving Tramadol and stated it probably had not been removed from the medication cart. The Medical Director stated the nurse should have verified the medication before taking it out of the cart and before administration. During an interview on 10/12/23 at 10:54 AM, the DON stated he expected the nurses to follow the rights of medication administration which included administering the correct medication.
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review, review of facility documents and review of the facility's policy, the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review, review of facility documents and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident (R)31) was free from significant medication errors out of a total sample of 41 residents. On 8/19/2023, the facility administered R31 duplicate doses of her physician ordered insulin. This medication error had the potential to cause the resident to become hypoglycemic (low blood sugar). Findings include: Review of R31's undated Resident Face Sheet, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Resident tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 1 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (elevated blood sugar). Review of R31's Resident Orders, provided by the facility, revealed a Physician's order dated 7/24/2023 of Humalog U-100 Insulin (insulin lispor) solution .per sliding scale . Review of the facility provided Event Report: [R31's Name], with a completion date of 8/21/2023 revealed, .Event Date: 08/19/2023 09:55 AM .Description .Medication Error .Medications involved in the event 10 units of Humalog (x2) 20 units total .Description of the event. Duplication of patient's insulin dose. Type of error. Incorrect dose .Reason(s) for error. Other-Shift report not given to include that medications had been given .Describe immediate measures taken and patient response. Notified provider, BS [blood sugar] check Q [every] 1 hr [hour] .and pt [patient] was given juice and snacks .Notes .progress note 8/19/2023 10:07 AM .10 Unit [sic] given 2xs [2 times] to cover 211 bg [blood glucose] level. On call notified .advised to check bg levels @ [at] 10 am and 11 am watch for and report s/s of Hypoglycemia [when blood glucose level drops lower than normal range] .ER [emergency] contact is pt's cell phone. Pt alert and oriented. Snacks, OJ [orange juice] and breakfast given .Evaluation Notes: Patient was stable post repeated BS checks, no adverse advents noted . During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 4:45 PM, R31 stated on 8/19/2023 she remembered the incident in August where she received insulin twice. R31 stated when a different nurse came in the second time to administer the insulin, she thought her blood sugar must have been high for her to receive an additional dose. The resident further stated the nurses monitored her blood sugar levels and gave her snacks to keep her blood sugar levels from dropping. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 8:12 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she was aware of the medication error of R31 receiving her insulin dose twice. The NP stated there was a potential for R31 to become hypoglycemic because of receiving the second dose of insulin. The NP Further stated when the nurse notified the on-call provider, she was directed to monitor R31's blood glucose closely and if her blood glucose level dropped below 60, the facility would follow their hypoglycemia protocol which would include administering glucose gel. The NP also stated it was her expectation R31 would have received her insulin as ordered. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 8:30 AM, the Contract Pharmacist (CP) stated the nurse did not follow the facility's policy by immediately documenting after she administered R31 her insulin. The CP stated when the resident received a second dose soon after the first dose of insulin, there was a risk for hypoglycemia. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 10:30 AM, the Medical Director, who was also the resident's Attending Physician, stated R31 was a type 1 diabetic and had a high insulin requirement. The Medical Director stated there was a potential for the resident's blood glucose to drop and put her in hypoglycemia. The Medical Director further stated the nurse who administered the resident her first dose of insulin should have documented the dose on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) after she administered the insulin. Continued interview revealed it was the Medical Director's expectation R31 would have been administered insulin per her order. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 10:45 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)16 had to abruptly leave and she handed her cart over to LPN17 who was going to cover her; however, LPN16 did not give any report about her administering R31's insulin. When LPN17 reviewed the MAR, it showed the resident's blood glucose had been recorded but the insulin coverage had not been administered yet, so she administered the sliding scale insulin. The DON stated LPN16 ended up not having to leave and she took the medication cart back and received communication from LPN17 and realized R31 had been administered her insulin twice. The DON further stated it was his expectation LPN16 would have documented the administration of R31's insulin after she administered it. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 11:05 AM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation the facility would be free of medication administration errors. The Administrator stated it was also his expectation R31 would have been administered her insulin as it was ordered by her physician. Review of the facility's policy titled, Preparation and General Guidelines, revised 1/1/2019, revealed Medications are prepared only by licensed nursing .B. Administration .2. Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber .14. Documented administration should be after the administration due to attention required for immediate patient needs and/or customer service .D. Documentation. 1. The individual who administers the medication dose records the administration on the resident's MAR directly after the medication is given .In no case should the individual who administered the medications report off-duty without first recording the administration of any medications . Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Monitoring and Management, revised 01/01/19, revealed .C. Facility staff observe the resident for possible medication-related adverse consequences .when the following conditions occur: .6. Medication error .F. In the event of a significant medication-related error or adverse consequence, immediate action is taken, as necessary, to protect the resident's safety and welfare. Significant is defined as: .5. Life threatening .H. The physician's orders are implemented, and the resident is monitored closely for 24 to 72 hours or as directed .
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR, under the Resident tab, revealed R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR, under the Resident tab, revealed R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 4/22/2023. Diagnoses included hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following a cerebral infarction (stroke), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), multiple rib fractures, and neuromuscular [a nervous system related] dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date of 4/6/2023 in the EMR under the RAI tab revealed R6 was unimpaired in cognition with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 (score of 13-15 indicates intact cognition). R6 had no mood or behavioral indicators. R6 was dependent on 1 person for toileting and bathing. R6 required extensive assistance for dressing and hygiene. R6 was impaired in upper and lower range of motion (ROM) on one side of his body. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 2:24 PM, R6 and the friend of R6 were interviewed together. R6 stated the staff did not help him with activities of daily living, such as changing his incontinence brief in a timely manner, adding once he laid in his waste for 24 hours. R6 stated he was told he would have to wait for help after putting his call light on and usually waited 30 minutes to an hour. R6 stated he had pain due to rib fractures and a bed bath was less painful than a shower, but he did not always get bed baths when showers were not provided. R6 stated he was not always cleaned up and when he was discharged from the facility, he had not been bathed in quite a while. Review of the undated NHC Fort [NAME] Shower Schedule, provided by the facility, revealed in full, Even rooms shower on Tuesday and Friday. Odd rooms shower on Monday and Thursday. Isolation rooms shower on Wednesday. All showers subject to patient/resident preference on any day of the week. Review of the Point of Care bath records, dated 2/1/2023-4/21/2023, provided by the facility, showed R6 did not receive two showers per week and did not consistently receive bed baths on the days when he was not showered: a. In February 2023, R6 received zero showers. He did not receive a bed bath on nine days (2/13/2023-2/20/2023) and none on 2/26/2023. b. In March 2023, R6 received three showers on 3/20/2023, 3/27/2023, and on 3/29/2023. He did not receive a shower or bed bath on 11 of his scheduled bath days (3/2/2023, 3/3/2023, 3/8/2023, 3/9/2023, 3/11/2023, 3/12/2023, 3/14/2023, 3/18/2023, 3/23/2023, 3/25/2023 and 3/26/2023). c. In April 2023 from 4/1/2023 through his discharge on [DATE], R6 received one shower on 4/17/2023. He did not receive a shower or bed bath on 11 scheduled bath days (4/2/2023, 4/4/2023, 4/7/2023-4/10/2023, 4/18/2023-4/22/2023). Review of Progress Notes, in the EMR from 1/6/2023 through 4/2023 under the Resident tab, revealed no documentation of refusals to be showered or given a bed bath. Review of the Care Plan, dated 1/10/2023 in the EMR under the RAI tab, revealed a problem of Activities of daily living (ADLs): Limited ability to perform self-care related to: left side hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, multiple left side rib fractures, history of falling. The goal was, Will have clean, neat appearance daily for 120 days . Interventions in pertinent part included, Anticipate ADL needs . Assist with bath, shower as needed .Assist with toileting as needed . Call light within reach when in room . During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 8:19 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)9/300 Unit Manager stated R6 had a catheter upon admission. LPN9 stated R6 was alert and oriented and able to express his needs. LPN9 stated she did not remember R6 not getting his light answered or getting bathed; however, there were a lot of agency staff being used when he resided on the 300 hall. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 8:24 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)5 stated she remembered R6 and had provided care to him, adding R6 was alert, oriented and he was not difficult to provide care. CNA5 stated she did not remember if R6 had refused showers. CNA5 stated there was no way for the CNAs to capture refusals in the EMR system so they had to notify the nurse on duty if a resident refused. CNA5 stated the nurse documented the refusals. CNA5 stated she tried to check all her assigned residents every two hours for toileting or to see if they needed to be changed. CNA5 stated R6 had a catheter and wore incontinence briefs. CNA5 verified showers were to be provided twice a week according to the resident's room number and on days in between, bed baths should be given. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 3:18 PM, the DON and RN1 stated residents should be showered or bathed daily or per preference. RN1 stated residents should be showered twice a week according to the shower schedule. RN1 stated there was no tub for bathing so residents were either showered or provided bed baths. On the days showers were not given, bed baths should be provided or per the resident's preference. RN1 stated, There should be daily entry for a shower or bed bath in the CNA charting system. RN1 stated refusals were not documented. Review of the undated NHC Fort [NAME] - Personal Hygiene/Bathing policy provided by the facility revealed, Individual personal care decisions are encouraged, supported, and accommodated through patient directed hygiene preferences . ln the event that an individual patient is unable to participate in his or her own care, center care partners will assure that the patient's hygiene and comfort needs are met. Patients are provided personal hygiene daily based on individual needs. Bath/shower is scheduled twice per week unless there are requests otherwise. If the patient refuses shower, repeated attempts are made, and bed bath is given. Based on observation, interview, medical record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received assistance with their Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for bathing/showers, fingernail trimming and cleaning under the fingernails and grooming of facial hair. This deficient practice affected four residents (Resident (R )27, R21, R23 and R6) in the sample of 41 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation of R27 on 10/9/2023 at 12:13 PM revealed he had long fingernails with a dark substance underneath each fingernail. During the interview he stated that he gets showers, but his nails have not been trimmed or cleaned. Review of R27's electronic medical record (EMR) RAI tab revealed R27's admission date was 9/21/2023 and his admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 9/28/23 and Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. 2. Observation of R21 on 10/9/2023 at 12:29 PM revealed long, jagged fingernails. R21 stated that she would like them trimmed. R21 showed the surveyor the jagged fingernails. R21's hair appeared oily and was not combed. Review of R21's EMR revealed under the Resident tab the Face Sheet R21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of surgical aftercare on the digestive system, nausea and altered mental status. Review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 09/29/23 revealed a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, which indicated R21's cognition was intact. Review of the Point of Care History hardcopy document, dated 9/22/2023 to 10/10/2023 provided by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed R21 had a partial bed bath on 9/27/2023, a shower on 9/28/2023 and partial bed bath on 10/3/2023, 10/4/2023, 10/5/2023 and 10/8/2023. R21 received a shower on 10/10/2023, after Registered Nurse (RN)1 and the surveyor observed R21 on 10/10/2023 at 12:00 PM with oily hair that had not been combed and long, jagged fingernails. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 9:58 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)6 stated she usually takes care of R21 and R21 likes to shower. 3. Observation on 10/09/2023 at 2:59 PM revealed R23's hair was oily and not combed. R23 stated he was admitted last Friday (10/6/2023) and had not had a bath or shower. R23's fingernails were long with a dirty substance underneath each nail. R23's beard was long. R23 stated that he likes a beard, but his beard is too long and out of control. Review of R23's Care Plan History hardcopy document, dated 10/6/2023 to 10/10/2023 provided by the DON, revealed admission date of 10/6/2023 with diagnoses of multiple fractures of ribs, laceration of left arm with graft, fracture of the scapula and fracture of the shoulder. Review of R23's EMR Resident tab revealed Progress Notes, dated 10/10/2023 at 2:42 PM which indicated, .hair washed in bed, fingernails and toes nails trimmed . Review of the Point of Care History hardcopy document, dated 10/4/2023 to 10/10/2023 provided by the DON, revealed R23 received a partial bed bath on 10/10/2023 at 10:07 AM, and then a complete bed bath the same day on 10/10/2023 at 1:49 PM, after the Registered Nurse (RN)1, House Supervisor for first floor, observed R23 at 12:00 PM and confirmed R23 needed a bed bath and to have his hair washed and fingernails trimmed and cleaned. RN1 confirmed R23 did need his beard shaped up. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 8:40 AM, CNA5 stated there was a shower schedule for the 1st floor. CNA5 stated the bed next to the door has their shower on Monday and Thursday, the bed next to the window has their shower on Tuesday and Friday, Wednesday was for residents who were in isolation. CNA5 stated the weekends were for anyone that wanted another shower, or for residents who need another shower. CNA5 stated the nurse aides have assignment sheets which indicate when residents are to get their showers.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR under the Resident tab, revealed R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR under the Resident tab, revealed R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cancer of the colon, brain, ovaries, and lungs; weakness, and a history of falls. Review revealed R7 passed away in the facility on 6/13/2023. Review of the significant change MDS with an ARD of 5/24/2023, in the EMR under the RAI [Resident Assessment Instrument] tab, revealed R7 was severely impaired in cognition with a BIMS score of two out of 15 (score of 0-7 indicates severe impairment). R7 required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, hygiene, and toilet use. R7 had 2 or more falls since the prior MDS assessment without injury. Review of the Incident Reports, provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced nine falls within a three-month period. Of the nine falls, only one was witnessed. The facility failed to complete neurological checks for eight unwitnessed falls when the resident was found on the floor in her room and it was unknown with certainty whether she hit her head: 1. Review of the Incident Report, dated 3/31/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 fell and the fall was unwitnessed. R7 was found on the floor lying between the air conditioning unit and the bed. R7 denied hitting her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. 2. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/14/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 was found on the floor in her room, having experienced an unwitnessed fall. R7 was laying on the floor between the air conditioning unit and the bed with her left arm supporting her head. R7 denied hitting her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. 3. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/14/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor in her room between the bed and the heating unit. R7 denied hitting her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. 4. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/15/2023 (Saturday) at 2:00 AM and provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor by the window on the floor mat in a sitting position. There was no documentation of the resident being asked if she hit her head or of a determination by staff she did or did not hit her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. Review of a Nurse Practitioner (NP) Visit Form, dated 4/17/2023 and provided by the facility, R7 was evaluated on this date. The Visit Form read, .seen today for follow up after multiple falls over the weekend. Per nurse, her family was also concerned with altered mental status, so she was also sent to ER per on call provider for evaluation . CT showed hemorrhagic Intracranial metastases, no herniation. She is not on any anticoagulants, unclear if she hit head when she fell . 5. Review of the Incident Report, dated 4/22/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor in her room sitting on the floor on the mat with her back against the bed. R7 denied hitting her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. 6. Review of the Incident Report, dated 5/7/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall and was found lying on the floor on the mat by the bed. The resident was noted to be lethargic and drowsy. There was no documentation of the resident being asked if she hit her head or of a determination by staff that she did or did not hit her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. 7. Review of the Incident Report, dated 5/14/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall. R7 was found on the floor on the safety mat on the floor. There was no documentation of the resident being asked if she hit her head or of a determination by staff that she did or did not hit her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. 8. Review of the Incident Report, dated 5/24/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed R7 experienced an unwitnessed fall. She was found in the prone position on the right side of the bed on the floor. There was no documentation of the resident being asked if she hit her head or of a determination by staff that she did or did not hit her head. Initial neurochecks were obtained. Review of the Care Plan History, dated 2/22/2023 through 10/10/2023 and provided by the facility, revealed the problem of Fall risk: history of falling, weakness, difficulty in walking was initiated on 2/27/2023. The goal was, Will have risk of falls with injury addressed and minimized. Approaches with dates were as follows: Patient's belongings within reach (5/24/2023) Nonskid socks (5/14/2023) Bed alarm in place while in bed (4/22/2023) Safety mats (4/14/2023) Staff education (3/9/2023) Monitor pt's [patient's] safety during 1:1 [one to one] contact, intervening when needed Bed in lowest position (2/27/2023) Call light within reach (2/27/2023) Discontinue clip alarm in place at all times (4/24/2023) Nonskid slippers (4/15/2023 and discontinued on 5/16/2023) The Care Plan History failed to identify conducting ongoing neurochecks for falls in which R7 may have hit her head. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 3:00 PM, family member (F)7 stated R7 had brain cancer, radiation to her brain, became confused and anxious, and kept getting out of bed resulting in multiple falls. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 8:34 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)9/300-Unit Manager stated R7 was transferred to the third floor after her therapy ended. LPN9 stated neurochecks were done if a resident hit his/her head and verified neurochecks were important to rule out closed head injuries. LPN9 stated if a fall was unwitnessed, the nurses looked for abrasions, bruises, or hematomas to know if a resident hit their head. LPN9 stated the nurses only did neurochecks if trauma to head was observed or if they were ordered by Nurse Practitioner or Physician. LPN9 stated sometimes injuries might not be visible at the time of the fall or a resident could experience trauma due to a closed head injury that would not be evident when looking for physical injury at the time of the fall. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 11:15 AM, the MDS Coordinator (MDSC)1, MDSC2, and the Quality and Educational Nurse Registered Nurse (RN) verified a person could hit their head, experience a closed head injury, and have no obvious physical injuries to the head. They verified their current protocol of completing neurochecks for instances of physical injuries only could miss closed head injuries when there was no physical injury observed. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 3:18 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) were interviewed. They stated neurochecks were completed if the staff believed the resident hit his or her head or if it was obvious, they hit their head, or if it may have been possible such as the resident was found lying on the floor. They stated the Physician/NP was notified of all falls and the Physician/NP could order neurochecks to be completed. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 9:02 AM, the DON verified no ongoing neurochecks had been completed for any of R7's falls. During an interview on 10/12/23 at 9:13 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated there was no protocol for ongoing neurochecks to be completed but nursing staff did notify either the NP or Physician of falls. The NP stated the nursing staff informed her if there was an injury to the head and if so, neurochecks were ordered. The NP stated, if a resident was on an anticoagulant medication and they had an unwitnessed fall and were not aware enough to report accurately if they hit their head, this warranted neurochecks to be completed. The NP stated the nurses did not ask her with each fall if neurochecks should be ongoing. Review of the Physician's Order Report revealed R7 had been prescribed an anticoagulant medication, Eliquis 5 mg, one tab twice daily, from 2/22/2023 through 4/5/2023. R7 was taking Eliquis on 3/31/2023 when she fell. Review of the undated Neurological Checks policy, provided by the facility, revealed Purpose: To do neurological checks when a patent reports that they have struck their head or when there is evidence of a patient striking their head, or specific order from provider. Procedure: 1. Assess patient's level of consciousness compared to patient's normal level. 2. Check hand grasps for strength and quality. 3. Assess pupils. Close both eyelids. Open and inspect pupils for shape, size, and equal size. 4. Hold each eyelid open and shine light directly into the eye. Observe pupil response. 5. Take pulse, respiration, and blood pressure. 6. Chart all pertinent information on appropriate nursing record. 7. Notify the physician of any abnormalities. Based on interview, medical record review, facility documents, facility policies and protocols review, the nursing staff failed to complete ongoing nursing assessments for vomiting, bowel movements, or falls for 3 of 3 residents (Resident (R)1, R21, and R7, respectively) in a total sample of 41 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R1's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed under the Resident tab, revealed the Face Sheet indicated that R1 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] after an admission to the hospital from [DATE] to 7/05/2022. Review of R1's EMR under the Resident tab revealed Progress notes indicated: 06/30/22 at 8:41AM, Resident labs were drawn this morning, labs were critical. NP [nurse practitioner] notified of labs and requested to send patient to [name of the hospital's emergency room (ER)] . 07/05/22 at 10:22PM, Return admit to facility with DX [diagnosis] of anemia . 07/06/22 at 11:51 AM, Pt readmitted to [room number] following hospitalization 6/30 to 7/5 with diagnosis of anemia . 07/06/22 at 3:12 PM, Patient returned to the facility on [DATE] from a recent hospital stay with a dx [diagnosis] of anemia [a condition marked by a deficiency of red blood cells or of hemoglobin in the blood, resulting in pallor and weariness]. Patient is currently receiving skilled nursing and therapy services. BIMS [Brief Interview for Mental Status] interview completed with a score of 11/15 indicating moderately impaired cognition . 07/06/22 at 9:43 PM, Patient had an episode of vomiting. Patient denied any nausea and stated his stomach was not hurting at the time. House [supervisor on nights and weekends] notified will continue to monitor. 07/07/22 at 1:19 AM, At approximately 2350 [11:50PM] 07/06/22, CNA [Certified Nurse Aide] brought patient's vital signs to this nurse: O2 [Oxygen] sat [saturation] 76% on room air, pulse 87, axillary [under arm] temp [temperature] 98.3. This nurse entered room and observed patient with Cheyne-Stokes breathing pattern [often includes periods of stopped breathing] and pale, warm skin. Patient unresponsive to tactile [touch] stimulation . 07/07/22 at 1:00 AM, No bp [blood pressure], pulse, or respirations detected. Time of death announced at 1:03am on 07/07/22 .Family in room at present time . During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Administrator on 10/10/2023 at 2:42 PM, the DON provided a policy regarding when a resident returns from the hospital there should be Alert charting and confirmed the nursing staff failed to follow the facility's policy regarding documenting every shift for 72 hours after a resident had been readmitted from the hospital. The DON confirmed the nurse who documented the resident vomited, should have documented a description of what the vomit looked like, approximate amount, or was there blood in the vomitus so the physician would have the information to make medical decisions for the resident. Further interview confirmed the physician was not contacted when the resident vomited at 9:43 PM on 7/6/2023. Review of the facility's undated policy titled Alert Charting indicated, .The process of every shift monitoring and documentation following an event, change in condition institution of a new treatment or medication. The time frame for alert charting is at least once per shift for a minimum of 72 hours .Events for which alert charting should be initiate include .admission, readmission, and return from transfer .change in conditions such a significant variances in vital signs . 2. On 10/9/2023 at 12:29 PM, R21 stated it had been awhile since she had a bowel movement. Review of R21's EMR revealed under the Resident tab the Face Sheet indicated R21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of surgical aftercare on the digestive system, nausea and altered mental status. Review of the admission MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/29/2023 revealed a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, which indicated R21's cognition was intact. The MDS further indicated R21 was continent of bowel. Review of R21's EMR under the Resident tab, revealed a Vitals Report which indicated R21 had bowel movements on 9/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, a large bowel movement; 9/24/2023 at 10:46 PM, a medium size bowel movement; 10/4/2023 at 12:50 PM, a large bowel movement; and 10/8/2023 at 3:19 PM, a large bowel movement. Review of the Occupational Therapy Treatment Encounter notes dated 10/3/2023, indicated R21 had a bowel movement. Review of R21's EMR under the Resident tab Progress Notes, dated 9/27/2023 to 10/2/2023, revealed no documentation of assessment of bowel movements, assessment of bowel sounds, or implementation of bowel protocol as outlined in the Medication Administration Record (MAR). During the interview on 10/11/2023 at 9:28 AM, RN1, the first floor's House Supervisor, was asked if a resident has not had a bowel movement from 9/27/2023 to 10/2/2023 was there a bowel protocol to follow? RN1 stated if a resident had not had a bowel movement in three days, the EMR alerts the nursing staff on the Home page of the nurses' computer that a resident needs to have the bowel protocol implemented. RN1 reviewed R21's September and October 2023 MARs. RN1 indicated the facility's bowel protocol consisted of the first step administering Miralax, then administering Senna, then a rectal suppository and then an enema. RN1 confirmed after reviewing R21's MAR, R21 had not received any intervention from 09/27/2023 (which would be the third day after not having a bowel movement) to 10/2/2023. RN1 confirmed that R21 had a bowel movement on 10/3/2023. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 9:58 AM, CNA6 revealed she usually cared for R21 and R21 usually had a bowel movement every other day. CNA6 stated she was supposed to chart whenever a resident had a bowel movement. CNA6 had no response as to why she had not charted R21's bowel movements. Review of the facility's undated Bowel Protocol provided by the DON revealed the same three steps as indicated on the MAR with an additional fourth step if no bowel movement greater than 3 days and no response to Miralax, Senna, Magnesium Citrate, then notify provider of need for further treatment.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, facility record review, and tasting of food served on a requested test tray due to eight reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, facility record review, and tasting of food served on a requested test tray due to eight resident and/or family complaints (F13, R33, R2, R34, F5, R24, R26, and R27) out of a total sample of 41 residents, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and hot. Findings include: Review of the Week at a Glance Week 3 Menu, provided by the facility, revealed the lunch meal on 10/10/2023 consisted of pulled pork with barbeque sauce, barbequed beans, creamy coleslaw, grilled Texas toast, and chocolate fudge pie. Observations were made in the kitchen on 10/10/2023 from 10:43 AM through 11:20 AM with the Dietary Manager (DM). The DM stated meal service for lunch began around 11:00 AM. Temperatures of foods on the tray line were taken by the DM prior to meal service at 11:03 AM and were as follows: French fries 178 degrees Fahrenheit (F), barbequed pork 140 F, grilled cheese sandwiches 140 F, cole slaw 50 F, pureed meat 160 F, mashed potatoes 140 F, hot dogs 140 F, hamburgers 120 F (the DM removed the pan and gave the hamburgers to the cook to reheat them), chicken tenders 140 F, and green beans 150 F. The DM verified minimum tray line temperatures for hot foods were 135 F and cold foods 41 or below. Texas toast (thick slice bread) was on the tray line. The DM stated the cole slaw had just been made, explaining that was why it was not cold enough. A request for a test tray to be added for the 300 hall was made; the DM and Registered Dietitian stated they would be available to evaluate the test tray. In response to resident complaints about food, a test tray was requested to be sent to the facility's 300 hall for the lunch meal on 10/10/2023. The meal cart with the test tray was observed to arrive at the 300 hall at 12:11 PM, accompanied by the DM and the regional RD. Staff were observed to complete the resident meal pass for the 300 hall at 12:12 PM. The resident meal pass was completed at 12:24 PM. At this time, the DM removed the lid from the test tray. The test tray contained baked beans, pulled pork and a piece of toast. The baked beans and pulled pork were mashed together and did not appear appetizing. There were also two separate bowls, one containing coleslaw and the other with fudge pie. Additionally, there was a container of milk on the tray. The DM took the temperatures of the food on the test tray. The pulled pork was 120 degrees F; the baked beans were 100 degrees F; coleslaw was 70 degrees F; milk was 55 degrees F. At 12:28 PM, the meal was sampled by the surveyor, the DM and the RD. The DM stated the baked beans and the pulled pork needed to be heated and was slightly warm to taste. The DM stated that he would not eat the meal at the current temperature. Both the DM and the RD stated the coleslaw, which should have been served cold, was warm. Both the DM and the RD confirmed the meal did not appear appetizing. The DM stated maybe the baked beans and pulled pork should have been in bowls or something. 1. During an interview on 10/08/23 at 1:02 PM, R34 stated that overall, she did not like the food. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Resident tab, revealed R34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Congestive Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Diabetes Type 2, Lymphedema (localized swelling of the body caused by an abnormal accumulation of lymph fluid) and venous insufficiency. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/31/2023 in the EMR under the Resident tab, revealed R34 was unimpaired in cognition with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. 2. During an interview on 10/8/2023 at 2:02 PM, Family Member (F)5 stated R5 was served food for breakfast that she could not recognize. F5 stated the food was cold. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR under the Resident tab, revealed R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged on 11/23/2022. R5 had diagnoses including lung cancer with metastasis to other locations, COPD, and protein calorie malnutrition. Review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 11/07/2022 revealed R5 was moderately impaired in cognition with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. 3. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 11:25 AM, R33 stated she ate in her room. R33 stated the food was not good and it was not hot. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR under the Resident tab, revealed R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (DM), end stage renal disease (ESRD), dependence on dialysis, and hypertensive heart disease. Review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 9/20/2023 revealed R33 was moderately impaired in cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score (BIMS) of 12 out of 15 (score of 8-12 indicates moderate impairment). 4. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 11:34 PM, R2 stated the food was not hot when she received it and stated she could not eat it if it was served cold. Review of the undated Face Sheet, in the EMR under the Resident Tab, revealed R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), paraplegia (paralysis of the legs and lower body), and hypertensive heart disease. Review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 8/08/2023 in the EMR under the Resident tab revealed R2's was unimpaired in cognition with a BIMS of 15 out of 15 (score of 13-15 indicates intact cognition). 5. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 11:41AM, R24 stated the food tasted bland, was unrecognizable, and the hot foods were barely warm. R24 stated she puts her hot coffee in her cold oatmeal to heat it up. Review of R24's EMR RAI tab revealed an admission MDS with an ARD of 9/28/2023 indicated an admission date of 9/21/2023 and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 14 of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. 6. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 12:06 PM, R26 stated the food was horrible. He stated the food was not seasoned and the hot foods were not hot. During a follow up interview on 10/10/2023 at 12:32 PM, R26 stated the barbeque pork and baked beans tasted good, but it did not taste hot. Review of R26's EMR revealed an admission MDS with an ARD date of 9/29/2023 indicated an admission date of 9/22/2023 and a BIMS score of 7 of 15, which indicated R26's cognition was severely impaired. 7. During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 12:13 PM, R27 stated he was not happy with the meals. He stated the hot foods tasted cold, and the food was unrecognizable. Review of R27's EMR revealed an admission date of 9/21/2023 with the admission MDS with an ARD of 9/28/2023 and BIMS score of 14 of 15, which indicated R27's cognition was intact. 8. During an interview on 10/10/2023 at 12:53 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 10 stated, It has been a month to a month and a half since had complaints started about food not being warm enough. The residents mostly complain about the way the food looks. 9. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 11:45 AM, Family (F)13 stated, The food's always cold. They bring it in a tray and I don't think it keeps it warm or either it sits in the hallway too long.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, facility documentation review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ma...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, facility documentation review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control system to ensure the residents' environment was free of pests. This failure had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 10/9/2023 at 3:42 PM. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)4 stated she had seen cockroaches in the housekeeping supply room where they put trash bags from resident rooms. CNA4 also stated in the supply room, there is a sign posted where housekeeping can document if they see roaches and other bugs. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 8:08 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)9 stated she has seen cockroaches in resident rooms and in the common areas. LPN9 stated she has verbally reported this to the maintenance department. LPN8 also she has seen the cockroaches most often in Resident (R)42's and R43's room. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 9:15 AM, R43 stated he sees cockroaches at least once a week in his room. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 9:46 AM, CNA3 stated she works on the second floor and had seen cockroaches in resident rooms. CNA3 stated she would kill them when she sees them and reports it to the nurses. Observations and interview on 10/11/2023 at 11:00 AM with Environmental Services (EVS)1 revealed in R42's nightstand there were three dead insects of which the EVS identified as cockroaches. Continued observations revealed an insect trap in the corner of R43's side of the room with four dead insects of which EVS1 identified as cockroaches. EVS1 stated she has verbally reported seeing cockroaches to the maintenance department and completed a log in the housekeeping closet maintenance accesses. Further observation revealed in room [ROOM NUMBER] there were six dead insects behind the resident's bed, five dead insects under the resident's bed, and two dead insects at the end of the resident bed by the window. EVS identified all the insects as cockroaches. Review of an undated document titled, Service Request Log 2nd Floor, located in the second-floor housekeeping supply room and a copy provided by the facility, revealed five handwritten entries under the request/problem column of Roaches. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 11:25 AM, the Environmental Services Director (EVSD) stated environmental service staff and nursing staff report when they see cockroaches. The EVSD stated if the contracted pest control provider was in the facility and sprayed within the previous 2 weeks, the cockroaches are dead and it means they are dying as intended; however, if it had been over two weeks when the contracted pest control provider had been at the facility, then she would call and have them come spray. When reviewing the Service Request Log with the EVSD, she stated they were getting away with using this log because the pest control provider does not have easy access to the locked supply room. The EVSD stated the most recent reporting of cockroaches had been from the third floor. Continued interview revealed cockroaches had been an off and on concern for the last year. During an interview on 10/11/2023 at 12:21 PM, Pest Control (PC) stated the facility's cockroach problem had been an issue prior to him taking over the contract in September of 2022 and it was still a problem as reported by the facility. The PC stated food, carboard boxes and plants in resident rooms contributed to the facility's cockroach problem. Continued interview revealed a lot of the treatments they complete at the facility are not effective because they are limited to what pesticides they can use in the nursing home. The PC stated he had not seen any live cockroaches in the facility because he is not permitted to move residents' belongings and open their drawers to look for them. The PC further stated to complete an effective pest control inspection, he would have to move residents' personal belongings. The PC stated to do an effective job to eradicate the cockroaches, they would need to complete fogging and flushing, but cannot because the residents could not be in the room/area during these processes. Further interview revealed the gel traps sets and the spray are for keeping the cockroach issue at bay, meaning it should keep the facility from becoming overrun with cockroaches, but not eradicate them. During an interview on 10/12/2023 at 11:05 AM, the Administrator stated the pest concern had been going on for some time now. The Administrator stated they were not completely free of cockroaches due to families bringing in personal items to residents and the age of the building and it was easy for the roaches to find their way into the facility. The Administrator stated it was important the facility would be free from pest to ensure a homelike environment. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safety and Sanitation Best Practice Guidelines, revised 11/2017 revealed, .The Center will implement preventive measures which focus on denying pests access to the building, eliminating sources of food and shelter, and by working with a pest control operator .1. The presence of insects, rodents, and other pests shall be controlled to eliminate their presence on the premises by routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies. 2. Premises should be routinely inspected for evidence of pests and finding reported to appropriate personnel .5. Center should work with a pest control operator (PCO) in using preventive and control measures to eliminate pests and keep them from infesting the building . Review of the facility's pest control contract titled, Pest Elimination Agreement, dated 1/1/2001 revealed the service frequency was once per month and as needed.
Mar 2020 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

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 adequate suppl...

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 adequate supply of medications were available for 1 resident (Resident #285) of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration, resulting in staff borrowing pain medication from Resident #59 to administer to Resident #285. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Preparation And General Guidelines, revised 1/1/2019, showed .Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices .Medications supplied for one resident should not be administered to another resident . Review of the facility policy titled, Controlled Substances (Narcotic) Administration Procedure Medication Exchange Procedure (Borrowing Medications), revised 7/15/2019, showed .If necessary, to borrow a narcotic medication, you are to utilize the medication exchange sheet .When completed, fax the completed form to Pharmacy before the end of your shift . Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, and Chronic Pain Syndrome. Review of Resident #59's Physician Order Report showed an order dated 1/29/2019 for Percocet (also known as Oxycodone, a narcotic pain medication) 10-325 mg (milligrams). Resident #285 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hypertension, Chronic Pain Syndrome, and Insomnia. Review of Resident #285's Physician Order Report showed an order dated 2/27/2020 (the order had been received prior to the admission) for Oxycodone 10-325 mg. The medication was to be administered every 6 hours as needed. Review of Resident #285's Narcotic Count Sheet showed the resident had a supply of 8 tablets of Percocet 10-325 mg. The resident had received a total of 8 tablets from 2/28/2020 - 3/1/2020. The Narcotic Count Sheet showed 0 tablets remained in the resident's supply on 3/1/2020 at 4:57 PM. Review of Resident #285's Medication Administration History dated 3/1/2020-3/3/2020 showed Resident #285 had received Oxycodone 10-325 mg on 3/1/2020 at 10:58 PM, on 3/2/2020 at 6:53 AM, on 3/2/2020 at 1:14 PM, on 3/2/2020 at 7:25 PM, on 3/3/2020 at 1:59 AM, and on 3/3/2020 at 9:16 AM. (a total of 6 doses after the original supply of 8) Observation on 3/3/2020 at 9:08 AM showed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 approached LPN #2 at a medication cart and asked to borrow an Oxycodone from Resident #59's medication supply to administer to Resident #285. LPN #2 obtained the medication from Resident #59's supply and gave the medication to LPN #1. During an interview on 3/3/2020 at 9:11 AM, LPN #1 confirmed the medication was not available in the facility's emergency narcotic box. LPN #1 stated she had worked on 3/2/2020 and Resident #285 did not have a supply of Oxycodone on that day. She had borrowed the medication from Resident #59 on 3/2/2020 to administer to Resident #285. She had faxed the order to the pharmacy to refill on 3/2/2020. Observation on 3/3/2020 at 9:15 AM, showed LPN #1 administered the medication she had obtained from Resident #59's medication supply to Resident #285. During an interview on 3/3/2020 at 9:18 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 confirmed she was made aware Resident #285 did not have a supply of the physician ordered Oxycodone on 3/2/2020. She had faxed the refill request to the pharmacy on 3/2/2020 but had not called the pharmacy to ensure the medication would be filled. RN #1 stated when a resident does not have an ordered medication the facility will first check the emergency medication box. If the medication is not available in the emergency medication box then they check to see if another resident in the building has the medication and the medication is then borrowed from the other resident. During an interview on 3/3/2020 at 3:14 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Percocet\Oxycodone 10-325 mg was not available in the facility's emergency narcotic box. During a phone interview on 3/3/2020 at 3:46 PM, the Pharmacy Director confirmed the facility borrowed medications from other residents if it's an emergency situation. The Pharmacy Director stated Resident #285 had been admitted on [DATE]. The pharmacy had received the admission orders on 2/27/2020 with an order for the resident to receive a supply of 8 tablets of the Oxycodone 10-325 mg. The Pharmacy Director had sent a spreadsheet by e-mail to the facility on 2/28/2020 at 9:34 AM which indicated the facility would need to obtain a physician signed prescription for the medication to be refilled. The pharmacy had not received the physician signed prescription until 3/3/2020. The Pharmacy Director stated if a medication is not available in the facility's emergency medication supply the facility could obtain an emergency refill if the pharmacy spoke directly with the physician or the facility could contact the physician and request an order for a medication that is available in the facility's emergency medication box. During an interview on 3/3/2020 at 4:04 PM, the Consultant Pharmacist confirmed the consulting pharmacy had reviewed the facility's medical records for the borrowing of medications and had sent the facility a report each month stating how many times medications had been borrowed from one resident to administer to another resident. The Consultant Pharmacist confirmed borrowing medications from other residents was not the standard of practice and increased the risk for medication errors. The Consultant Pharmacist also confirmed the facility can contact the Physician if the medication was unavailable and request the medication order to be changed to another medication that was available in the facility's emergency box. During an interview on 3/3/2020 at 5:01 PM, the DON confirmed the facility had received the e-mail from the pharmacy on 2/28/2020 which notified the facility Resident #285 required a signed prescription for the refill of the Oxycodone 10-325 mg. The DON also confirmed the facility's Nurse Practitioner (NP) was available at the facility Monday-Friday but the facility had not obtained a signed prescription from the NP to refill the Oxycodone 10-325mg on 2/28/2020 after they had received the e-mail from the pharmacy. During an interview on 3/4/2020 at 12:52 PM, Resident #285's Attending Physician confirmed the facility made her aware Resident #285's physician ordered pain medication had not been available. The Attending Physician stated if the medication was not available in the facility's emergency medication box then they could borrow it from another resident. During an interview on 3/4/2020 at 1:44 PM, the Medical Director confirmed he was aware of the facility's practice of borrowing medications from one resident to administer to another resident if the medication was not available. During an interview on 3/4/2020 at 2:47 PM, the DON confirmed the facility had borrowed a total of 6 tablets of Oxycodone from Resident #59 to administer to Resident #285. The DON confirmed the facility had not maintained an adequate supply of medications for Resident #285. In summary: The facility had conflicting policy's regarding the borrowing of medications and the facility had not obtained a signed prescription to refill a narcotic pain medication timely for Resident #285. The medication had been borrowed from another resident which increased the risk for medication errors.
CONCERN (D)

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 review of the facility policy, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow infecti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines for 1 resident (Resident #89) of 3 residents reviewed for isolation precautions. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled, Contact Precautions', revised 11/2019, showed .use Contact Precautions for patients to prevent transmission of infectious agents .which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the patient or the patient's environment. Infectious agents for which Contact Precautions are indicated include Multi-resistant organisms .such as .ESBL's [extended spectrum beta-lactamase/enzyme produced by some bacteria that can't be killed by antibiotics] .Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] .Healthcare personnel caring for patients should wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may involve contact with the patient or potentially contaminated areas in the patient's environment . Resident #89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes, Chronic Kidney Disease, Dementia, and Psychotic Disorder. Review of a Physician's Order dated 6/11/19 showed .Contact Isolation for ESBL IN URINE. Special Instructions .Use precautions when entering room . Observation of Resident #89's room on 3/4/2020 at 8:05 AM, showed a sign on the resident's door to go to the nurses station before entering. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 was in the resident's room assisting the resident with the breakfast tray without a gown or gloves on. During an interview with CNA #1 on 3/4/2020 at 9:00 AM, the CNA stated Resident #89 was in isolation but was unsure what PPE should be worn when entering the resident's room. CNA #1 confirmed she had not donned a gown or gloves prior to entering Resident #89's room. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 3/4/2020 at 9:30 AM, the ADON stated Resident #89 is on Contact Precautions and it was her expectation that all staff wear a gown and gloves prior to entering the resident's room.
Feb 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on Resident Assessment Instrument Manual (RAI), facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on Resident Assessment Instrument Manual (RAI), facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to identify falls and complete a fall investigation for 1 resident (#118) of 5 residents reviewed for falls of 33 sampled residents. The findings include: Review of the RAI manual (3.0 version) dated 10/2018, (J1700: Fall) revealed .Fall unintentional change in position coming to rest on the ground, floor or onto the next lower surface (e.g., onto a bed mat, chair, or bedside mat) .identified when a resident is found on the floor or ground . Review of the facility policy Falls revised 7/14/2017, .Cause Identification 1. For an individual who has fallen, staff will attempt to define possible causes within 24 hours of the fall .3. The staff and /or physician will continue to collect and evaluate information until either the cause of the falling is identified . Medical record review revealed Resident #118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Atrial Fibrillation, Diabetes, Dementia, Depression, and Hypertension. Medical record review revealed the resident was at high risk for falls. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, which indicated severly impaired cognitive skills; required extensive assist of 2 persons for bed mobility and transfers; and extensive assist of 1 person for dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Medical record review of the nurses notes for the following dates revealed: 8/8/18-fell from bed, no apparent injuries. 11/11/18-found with bottom on fall mat and upper body/head on bed, no injuries. 11/24/18-found kneeling next to bed holding onto bed rail, no injuries. 2/10/19-fall on 2/9/19 found on mat, no injuries. Continued medical record review revealed there was no documentation of a facility fall assessment or fall investigation for the falls on 11/11/18 and 2/9/19; and no fall investigation for the 11/24/18 (there was a fall assessment completed). Interview with the Risk Manager on 2/11/19, 2:40 PM in the day room revealed when the resident was found to be on the fall mats, it was not considered to be a fall. Continued interview with the Risk Manager revealed the Resident had not sustained any injuries. Further interview with the Risk Manager in the day room, confirmed fall investigations had not been completed on 11/11/18, 11/24/18 and 2/9/19 on 3 of the 4 falls listed. Observation on 2/12/19, at 8:35 AM and 9:40 AM, revealed Resident #118 was lying in bed. Continued observation revealed the bed was in low position and floor mats in place. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/12/19 at 9:25 AM, in the 2nd floor day room confirmed all falls are to be assessed and investigated with new interventions put in place to prevent further occurrences.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to remove a pressure dressing per the Physician'...

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 remove a pressure dressing per the Physician's Order for 1 (#68) of 2 residents reviewed of 3 residents receiving dialysis of 33 residents sampled. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease, Type 2 Diabetes, Dependence on Renal Dialysis, and Muscle Weakness. Medical record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental status score of 13, indicating he was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the resident received dialysis treatments (process of removing excess water and toxins from the blood in people whose kidneys can no longer perform this function) on a routine basis. Medical record review of the Complete Patient Care Plan updated 1/8/19 revealed .I receive Hemodialysis [form of dialysis] .remove pressure dressing [dressing applied over the dialysis access site] post [after] dialysis days per md [physician] orders . Medical record review of the Physician's Orders dated 2/1/19-4/30/19 revealed .DIALYSIS .REMOVE PRESSURE DRESSING POST DIALYSIS DAYS 4-6 [hours] AFTER RETURNING FROM DIALYSIS. MONDAY WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY . Observation and interview with Resident #68 on 2/12/19 at 8:03 AM, in the resident's room revealed the resident lying on the bed with the pressure dressing in place over the access site on the right upper arm. Further interview with the resident revealed the pressure dressing had not been removed after he returned from the dialysis clinic on the previous day (2/11/19). Observation and interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Supervisor on 2/12/19 at 8:07 AM, in the resident's room confirmed the pressure dressing was in place to the right upper arm dialysis access site. Further interview confirmed the dressing should have been removed on 2/11/19 after the resident returned from the dialysis clinic. Interview with the LPN Supervisor on 2/12/19 at 2:43 PM, at the 2nd floor nurse's station confirmed Resident #68 had returned to the facility from the dialysis clinic on 2/11/19 at 6:56 PM. Further interview confirmed the pressure dressing should have been removed by 11:00 PM on 2/11/19 per the Physician's Order. Interview with the Risk Manager on 2/12/19 at 2:59 PM, in the Risk Manager's office confirmed the facility failed to remove Resident #68's pressure dressing per Physician's Order.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to dispose of expired medications and supplies available for resident use in 2 of 3 medication storage rooms. The find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to dispose of expired medications and supplies available for resident use in 2 of 3 medication storage rooms. The findings include: Review of the facility policy MEDICATION STORAGE IN THE FACILITY effective date 6/2016 revealed .Outdated medications .are immediately removed from inventory, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal . Observation of the 2nd floor medication storage room and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 2/12/19 at 12:18 PM revealed (1) 20 milliliter bottle of injectable Lidocaine (medication used for numbing) with an expiration date of August 1, 2018 and (1) 1000 milliliter bag of D5 IV fluid (dextrose 5% in water intravenous fluid) with an expiration date of November 2017. Further observation revealed (in the supply cabinet) (2) red topped lab tubes with an expiration date of 9/30/18, (1) red topped lab tube with an expiration date of 7/31/18, and (1) insulin syringe with an expiration date of 10/2018. Further interview with LPN #1 revealed all above items were expired and had remained available for resident use. Observation of the 3rd floor medication storage room and interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 revealed (in the supply cabinet) (2) red topped lab tubes with an expiration date of 12/31/18, (1) 22 gauge (size of the needle) Intravenous cannula (device used to obtain access to a vein to administer intravenous fluids or medications) with an expiration date of 6/2018, (2) 20 gauge intravenous cannulas with an expiration date of 10/2018, and (2) chlora prep one step applicators (used to clean the skin to prevent infection) with expiration date of 10/2014 and 3/2015. Further interview with RN #1 confirmed all above listed supplies were expired and available for resident use.
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, observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen as evidenced by undated, unlabeled and open to air food items in 1 of 1 freezers and 1 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen as evidenced by undated, unlabeled and open to air food items in 1 of 1 freezers and 1 of 1 dry storage rooms observed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Safety & Sanitation Best Practice Guidelines-Dry Storage, revised 11/2017, revealed .Foods will be stored in their original packages, if possible. If opened, packages should be closed securely to protect product. Products that are not easily identified such as flour, sugar, salt, etc. should be clearly labeled with the common name of the food when removed from the original packages . Review of the facility policy, REFRIGERATOR AND FREEZER STORAGE revealed .Foods will be stored in their original container or a NSF [National Sanitation Foundation] approved container or wrapped tightly in moisture-proof film, foil, etc. Clearly labeled with contents and the use by date . Observation of the kitchen on 2/10/19 at 9:45 AM, with the Assistant Dietary Manager revealed the following in the dry storage area: (1) 2 pound (lb) package of brown sugar open to air and undated. (1) 24 ounce (oz) package of unsweetened shredded coconut, 1/4 package remaining, open to air and undated. (1) 5 lb package of bacon muffin mix,1/2 package remaining, open to air and undated. (2) 9.7 oz packages of sugar substitute open to air and undated. (1) 32 oz package of powdered sugar, 3/4 full, open to air and undated. (1) large square clear bin with a white powdered substance, not labeled and undated. Assistant Manager stated .It smells like flour . He did not know what the white powdered substance was. (1) 50 lb bag of rice with use by date 2/16/19, 1/4 of the bag remaining, open to air. (1) 24 oz package of crispy fried onions undated and open to air. (1) 5 lb package of egg noodles, 1/4 of the package remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag of bran cereal with raisins, 1/8 of the bag remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag of bran cereal with raisins,1/2 of the bag remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag of toasted oats cereal,1/2 of the bag remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag of sugar frosted flakes,1/2 of the bag remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag of crisp rice cereal,1/2 of the bag remaining, undated. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag of crisp rice cereal,1/2 of the bag remaining, undated and open to air. (2) 2 lb 3 oz bags of corn flakes cereal,1/8 of the bags remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag fruit whirls cereal,1/4 of the bag remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 2 lb 3 oz bag fruit whirls cereal, full bag remaining, undated and open to air. Observation of the walk in freezer with the Assistant Dietary Manager on 2/10/19 at 10:00 AM, revealed the following: (1) 120 count box of croissant roll dough, 3/4 of the box remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 10 lb box of pork sausage patties with 36 sausage patties remaining, undated and open to air. (1) box of frozen biscuit dough with 216 biscuits per box, 22 biscuits remaining, undated and open to air. Interview with the Dietary Manager on 2/10/19 at 10:10 AM, in the kitchen confirmed all dry foods should be dated and sealed after opening .There is no excuse for it . Observation of the walk in freezer in the kitchen with the Dietary Manager, on 2/12/19 at 9:35 AM revealed the following: (1) 120 count box of croissant roll dough, 3/4 of the box remaining, undated and open to air. (1) 7.62 kilogram (kg) box of frozen hash brown patties, 1 of 4 bags undated and open to air. Interview with the Dietary Manager on 2/12/19 at 10:05 AM, in the kitchen confirmed the facility failed to discard undated and food items left open to air.
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

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Tennessee, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders Staffed?

CMS rates NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 18 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders?

NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS 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 NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 160 certified beds and approximately 120 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in KNOXVILLE, Tennessee.

How Does Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders Stick Around?

Staff turnover at NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders Ever Fined?

NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS has been fined $9,770 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Tennessee average of $33,177. 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 Nhc Healthcare, Ft Sanders on Any Federal Watch List?

NHC HEALTHCARE, FT SANDERS 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.