CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY

3511 CORINTH PARKWAY, CORINTH, TX 76208 (940) 270-3400
For profit - Corporation 134 Beds FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#441 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Corinth Rehabilitation Suites on the Parkway has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #441 out of 1168 facilities in Texas places them in the top half, while their county rank of #8 out of 18 suggests they have limited competition locally. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 15 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 54%, which is about average for Texas. They have incurred $215,964 in fines, which is concerning and suggests compliance issues. On a positive note, they have good RN coverage, ranking higher than 90% of Texas facilities, which is important for catching potential problems. However, inspector findings reveal serious lapses in care, such as failing to notify a resident's physician about significant health changes and not providing necessary diabetes medications, resulting in dangerously high blood sugar levels. These incidents highlight critical areas of neglect that families should carefully consider when evaluating this facility.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#441/1168
Top 37%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
7 → 15 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$215,964 in fines. Higher than 85% of Texas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Texas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
41 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 15 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Texas average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $215,964

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 41 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening
Sept 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to ensure they self-reported neglect for Resident #1. Resident #1 fell and had to call EMS to help him get off the floor on 08/10/25. This failure could place residents at risk for not having their allegations for neglect reported which could lead to additional neglect. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated 08/07/25, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His BIMS score was 15 indicating his cognitive ability was intact. His diagnoses included non-Alzheimer's disease and unsteadiness on feet. The resident required maximum assistance to transfer between surfaces. Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated 08/26/25, reflected: Resident is at risk for falling related immobility, muscle weakness, diabetes, and chronic pain.Facility interventions included:Keep call light in reach at all times. Record review of Resident #1's Incident Report, dated 08/10/25 at 3:00 AM, and signed by the DON reflected:Resident #1 was found on the bathroom floor with no injuries. The resident was alert and oriented and said he did not hit his head. Resident started on neurological checks. Findings included: Resident did not call for assist with transferring and resident was possibly drowsy due to pain management and narcotics. Resident required supervision.Follow-up steps taken: educate resident on calling for help especially when taking narcotics. Review of Resident #1's Falls Investigation Worksheet, dated 08/10/25, not signed, reflected:Resident was using his electric wheelchair, his call light was within reach, and he did not call for assistance to transfer. Resident #1 needed to be toileted. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Notes, dated 08/10/25, reflected:08/10/25 at 2:55 AMPatient had fall in bathroom while attempting to transfer from chair to toilet independently. Patient then called 911 for assistance instead of pulling the call light for assistance. Patient is alert and oriented x4 and able to make needs known. EMT s/Fire Department was able to transfer patient back to electrical wheelchair. Patient education on call light system and to use call light before attempting to transfer. Patient refused to go to emergency room for further evaluation. Neurological checks initiated. Vital signs assessed and stable at this time. No new acute complaints of pain voiced. - RN B An observation and interview on 09/11/25 at 10:45 am with Resident #1 revealed he was awake, alert, and oriented. He was seated in his electric wheelchair. The resident said on 08/10/25 on the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift he pressed his call light to go to the bathroom. The resident said he waited as long as he could and got up to go to the bathroom because staff did not come help him. He said he fell trying to get back in his wheelchair. Resident #1 said he yelled for help, and no one came to help him. He said he reached his phone and call 911. The resident said the fire department came to his room and helped him to get off the floor. The resident said he did not have any injuries. The resident said he was told that both the CNA (unknown) and nurse (unknown) for the hall were on break. An interview on 09/11/25 at 11:50 AM with the DON revealed she investigated the fall for Resident #1 on 08/10/25 but had not interviewed the resident. The DON said she did not always interview residents after falls but would speak to the staff and ADON. The DON said she did not need to speak to the resident because the incident did not need to be investigated further. The DON said she did not know the resident said he called for help, but no help came when he fell. The DON said failing to interview the resident could lead to missed information or a different perspective. An interview on an undisclosed date at an undisclosed time with an Anonymous Person revealed they arrived at the facility on 08/10/25 at 2:30 AM to help Resident #1 off the floor. The Anonymous Person said when they arrived the resident was alone in his room on the floor, and they assisted him off the floor. The Anonymous Person said they saw two staff members seated at the nurse's desk and was told the other staff were at lunch break. An interview was attempted with RN B on 09/11/25 at 2:50 PM. RN B did not return the call of the Surveyor. An interview on 09/11/25 at 3:20 PM with CNA C revealed she was working on the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift on 08/10/25. She said she was not assigned to Resident #1. CNA C said she was on a different hall, and she saw LVN D pacing in the Hall looking for CNA A and RN B. CNA C said CNA A and RN B were on break outside in their cars. CNA C said she saw the paramedics were in the facility and she did not know why. CNA C said CNA A told her that Resident #1 had fallen and called 911 for help. An interview on 09/11/25 at 3:45 PM with CNA A revealed she worked the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift on 08/10/25. CNA A said she was assigned to Resident #1. CNA A said she went to Resident #1's room (unknown time) and asked if he needed anything and he said no. CNA A said she told RN B she was going on lunch break, but did not realize that RN B was going to lunch break at the same time. She said another staff member (unknown) on a different hall came out to her car while she was on break. CNA A said the staff member wanted to know where she and RN B were. CNA A said she stopped her lunch break and went back into the facility. CNA A said the paramedics already had Resident #1 back in his electric wheelchair. CNA A said if both assigned staff members went to lunch break at the same time, residents were at risk for falls. A follow-up interview on 09/11/25 at 4:10 PM with the DON revealed she went and interviewed Resident #1. The DON said there was nothing that stood out with his fall on 08/10/25. The DON said she spoke to staff, but did not contact EMS about the incident. The DON said she spoke to staff but did not know both CNA A and RN B had gone on lunch break at the same time. The DON said the incident was not self-reported because she did not realize the staff assigned were not in the facility when he fell. The DON did say, there were other staff in the building when he fell. An interview on 09/11/25 at 4:20 PM with the Administrator revealed she spoke to Resident #1 about his fall (08/10/25) on 09/11/25. She said the resident told her call light response time was slow. The Administrator said she spoke to RN B who said on 08/10/25 she was out on break when he fell. The Administrator said she did not realize that both CNA A and RN B were on break at the same time. The Administrator said she did not speak to EMS, but Resident #1 told her he called EMS because staff did not respond when he fell. The Administrator said if she had known that both staff were on break when he fell; she would have self-reported the incident as neglect. Review of the facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment, not dated, reflected: Policy.2. The Facility shall report immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not result in serious bodily injury to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. See Also Reporting Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime Policy.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that in response to allegations of abuse, negl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility had evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to ensure they investigated an allegation of neglect for Resident #1. Resident #1 fell and had to call EMS to help him get off the floor on 08/10/25. This failure could place residents at risk for not having their allegations for neglect investigated which could lead to additional neglect. The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated 08/07/25, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His BIMS score was 15 indicating his cognitive ability was intact. His diagnoses included non-Alzheimer's disease and unsteadiness on feet. The resident required maximum assistance to transfer between surfaces.Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated 08/26/25, reflected:Resident was at risk for falling related immobility, muscle weakness, diabetes, and chronic pain.Facility interventions included:Keep call light in reach at all times.Record review of Resident #1's Incident Report, dated 08/10/25 at 3:00 AM, and signed by the DON reflected:Resident #1 was found on the bathroom floor with no injuries. The resident was alert and oriented and said he did not hit his head. Resident started on neurological checks.Findings included: Resident did not call for assist with transferring and resident was possibly drowsy due to pain management and narcotics. Resident required supervision.Follow-up steps taken: educate resident on calling for help especially when taking narcotics. Review of Resident #1's Falls Investigation Worksheet, dated 08/10/25, not signed, reflected:Resident was using his electric wheelchair, his call light was within reach, and he did not call for assistance to transfer. Resident #1 needed to be toileted.Review of Resident #1's Nurse Notes, dated 08/10/25, reflected:08/10/25 at 2:55 AMPatient had fall in bathroom while attempting to transfer from chair to toilet independently. Patient then called 911 for assistance instead of pulling the call light for assistance. Patient is alert and oriented x4 and able to make needs known. EMT s/Fire Department was able to transfer patient back to electrical wheelchair. Patient education on call light system and to use call light before attempting to transfer. Patient refused to go to emergency room for further evaluation. Neurological checks initiated. Vital signs assessed and stable at this time. No new acute complaints of pain voiced. - RN BAn observation and interview on 09/11/25 at 10:45 am with Resident #1 revealed he was awake, alert, and oriented. He was seated in his electric wheelchair. The resident said on 08/10/25 on the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift he pressed his call light to go to the bathroom. The resident said he waited as long as he could and got up to go to the bathroom because staff did not come help him. He said he fell trying to get back in his wheelchair. Resident #1 said he yelled for help, and no one came to help him. He said he reached his phone and call 911. The resident said the fire department came to his room and helped him to get off the floor. The resident said he did not have any injuries. The resident said he was told that both the CNA (unknown) and nurse (unknown) for the hall were on break. An interview on 09/11/25 at 11:50 AM with the DON revealed she investigated the fall for Resident #1 on 08/10/25 but had not interviewed the resident. The DON said she did not always interview residents after falls but would speak to the staff and ADON. The DON said she did not need to speak to the resident because the incident did not need to be investigated further. The DON said she did not know the resident said he called for help, but no help came when he fell. The DON said failing to interview the resident could lead to missed information or a different perspective.An interview on an undisclosed date at an undisclosed time with an Anonymous Person revealed they arrived at the facility on 08/10/25 at 2:30 AM to help Resident #1 off the floor. The Anonymous Person said when they arrived the resident was alone in his room on the floor, and they assisted him off the floor. The Anonymous Person said they saw two staff members seated at the nurse's desk and was told the other staff were at lunch break.An interview was attempted with RN B on 09/11/25 at 2:50 PM. RN B did not return the call of the Surveyor. An interview on 09/11/25 at 3:20 PM with CNA C revealed she was working on the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift on 08/10/25. She said she was not assigned to Resident #1. CNA C said she was on a different hall, and she saw LVN D pacing in the Hall looking for CNA A and RN B. CNA C said CNA A and RN B were on break outside in their cars. CNA C said she saw the paramedics were in the facility and she did not know why. CNA C said CNA A told her that Resident #1 had fallen and called 911 for help. An interview on 09/11/25 at 3:45 PM with CNA A revealed she worked the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift on 08/10/25. CNA A said she was assigned to Resident #1. CNA A said she went to Resident #1's room (unknown time) and asked if he needed anything and he said no. CNA A said she told RN B she was going on lunch break, but did not realize that RN B was going to lunch break at the same time. She said another staff member (unknown) on a different hall came out to her car while she was on break. CNA A said the staff member wanted to know where she and RN B were. CNA A said she stopped her lunch break and went back into the facility. CNA A said the paramedics already had Resident #1 back in his electric wheelchair. CNA A said if both assigned staff members went to lunch break at the same time, residents were at risk for falls.A follow-up interview on 09/11/25 at 4:10 PM with the DON revealed she went and interviewed Resident #1. The DON said there was nothing that stood out with his fall on 08/10/25. The DON said she spoke to staff, but did not contact EMS about the incident. The DON said she spoke to staff but did not know both CNA A and RN B had gone on lunch break at the same time. The DON said the incident was not self-reported because she did not realize the staff assigned were not in the facility when he fell. The DON did say there were other staff in the building when he fell.An interview on 09/11/25 at 4:20 PM with the Administrator revealed she spoke to Resident #1 about his fall (08/10/25) on 09/11/25. She said the resident told her call light response time was slow. The Administrator said she spoke to RN B who said on 08/10/25 she was out on break when he fell. The Administrator said she did not realize that both CNA A and RN B were on break at the same time. The Administrator said she did not speak to EMS, but Resident #1 told her he called EMS because staff did not respond when he fell. The Administrator said if she had known that both staff were on break when he fell; she would have self-reported the incident as neglect.Review of the facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment, not dated, reflected: Policy.3. The facility's Leadership will conduct a prompt investigation of any allegation received of suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation or mistreatment and will implement immediate action to safeguard resident.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accident hazards. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision for Resident #1. Resident #1 fell and had to call EMS to help him get off the floor on 08/10/25. This failure could place residents at risk for injury for not having adequate supervision. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated 08/07/25, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His BIMS score was 15 indicating his cognitive ability was intact. His diagnoses included non-Alzheimer's disease and unsteadiness on feet. The resident required maximum assistance to transfer between surfaces. Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated 08/26/25, reflected: Resident is at risk for falling related immobility, muscle weakness, diabetes, and chronic pain.Facility interventions included:Keep call light in reach at all times. Record review of Resident #1's Incident Report, dated 08/10/25 at 3:00 AM, and signed by the DON reflected:Resident #1 was found on the bathroom floor with no injuries. The resident was alert and oriented and said he did not hit his head. Resident started on neurological checks. Findings included: Resident did not call for assist with transferring and the resident was possibly drowsy due to pain management and narcotics. Resident required supervision.Follow-up steps taken: Educate resident on calling for help especially when taking narcotics. Review of Resident #1's Falls Investigation Worksheet, dated 08/10/25, not signed, reflected:Resident was using his electric wheelchair, his call light was within reach, and he did not call for assistance to transfer. Resident #1 needed to be toileted. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Notes, dated 08/10/25, reflected:08/10/25 and 2:55 AMPatient had fall in bathroom while attempting to transfer from chair to toilet independently. Patient then called 911 for assistance instead of pulling the call light for assistance. Patient is alert and oriented and able to make needs known. EMTs/Fire Department was able to transfer patient back to electrical wheelchair. Patient education on call light system and to use call light before attempting to transfer. Patient refused to go to emergency room for further evaluation. Neurological checks initiated. Vital signs assessed and stable at this time. No new acute complaints of pain voiced. - RN B An observation and interview on 09/11/25 at 10:45 am with Resident #1 revealed he was awake, alert, and oriented. He was seated in his electric wheelchair. The resident said on 08/10/25 on the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift he pressed his call light to go to the bathroom. The resident said he waited as long as he could and got up to go to the bathroom because staff did not come help him. He said he fell trying to get back in his wheelchair. Resident #1 said he yelled for help, and no one came to help him. He said he reached his phone and call 911. The resident said the fire department came to his room and helped him to get off the floor. The resident said he did not have any injuries. The resident said he was told that both the CNA (unknown) and nurse (unknown) for the hall were on break. An interview on 09/11/25 at 11:50 AM with the DON revealed she investigated the fall for Resident #1 on 08/10/25 but had not interviewed the resident. The DON said she did not always interview residents after falls but would speak to the staff and ADON. The DON said she did not need to speak to the resident because the incident did not need to be investigated further. The DON said she did not know the resident said he called for help, but no help came when he fell. The DON said failing to interview the resident could lead to missed information or a different perspective. An interview on an undisclosed date at an undisclosed time with an Anonymous Person revealed they arrived at the facility on 08/10/25 at 2:30 AM to help Resident #1 off the floor. The Anonymous Person said when they arrived the resident was alone in his room on the floor, and they assisted him off the floor. The Anonymous Person said they saw two staff members seated at the nurse's desk and was told the other staff were at lunch break. An interview was attempted with RN B on 09/11/25 at 2:50 PM. RN B did not return the call of the Surveyor. An interview on 09/11/25 at 3:20 PM with CNA C revealed she was working on the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift on 08/10/25. She said she was not assigned to Resident #1. CNA C said she was on a different hall, and she saw LVN D pacing in the Hall looking for CNA A and RN B. CNA C said CNA A and RN B were on break outside in their cars. CNA C said she saw the paramedics were in the facility and she did not know why. CNA C said CNA A told her that Resident #1 had fallen and called 911 for help. An interview on 09/11/25 at 3:45 PM with CNA A revealed she worked the 10:00 PM - 6:00 AM shift on 08/10/25. CNA A said she was assigned to Resident #1. CNA A said she went to Resident #1's room (unknown time) and asked if he needed anything and he said no. CNA A said she told RN B she was going on lunch break, but did not realize that RN B was going to lunch break at the same time. She said another staff member (unknown) on a different hall came out to her car while she was on break. CNA A said the staff member wanted to know where she and RN B were. CNA A said she stopped her lunch break and went back into the facility. CNA A said the paramedics already had Resident #1 back in his electric wheelchair. CNA A said if both assigned staff members went to lunch break at the same time, residents were at risk for falls. A follow-up interview on 09/11/25 at 4:10 PM with the DON revealed she went and interviewed Resident #1. The DON said there was nothing that stood out with his fall on 08/10/25. The DON said she spoke to staff, but did not contact EMS about the incident. The DON said she spoke to staff but did not know both CNA A and RN B had gone on lunch break at the same time. The DON said CNA A and RN B were not supposed to be at break at the same time. The DON said staff were supposed to communicate with each other regarding lunch breaks. An interview on 09/11/25 at 4:20 PM with the Administrator revealed she spoke to Resident #1 about his fall (08/10/25) on 09/11/25. She said the resident told her call light response time was slow. The Administrator said she spoke to RN B who said on 08/10/25 she was out on break when he fell. The Administrator said she did not realize that both CNA A and RN B were on break at the same time. The Administrator said she did not speak to EMS, but Resident #1 told her he called EMS because staff did not respond when he fell. Review of the only facility policy made available for falls reflected: Fall Management, revised May 2023: POLICY:1. The facility will identify each patient/resident who is at risk for falls and will plan care and implement interventions to manage falls.5. Qualified staff evaluates patient/resident for injury from a fall, identify and treat for pain related to fall, and determine contributing causes, including ascertaining what the resident was trying to do before he or she fell, addresses the risk factors for the fall such as the resident's medical conditions(s), facility environment issues, or staffing issue; and determines interventions to prevent future falls and completes a Fall Investigation Worksheet.7. Neurological evaluations will be performed for a resident who sustains an unwitnessed fall, regardless of the resident's cognitive status at the time of the incident.8. The physician and family are promptly notified, and an incident report is completed.9. Post fall nursing documentation for 72 hours, every shift will be completed to monitor the development of late effect or complications of the fall.
May 2025 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure completion of a discharge summary including a recapitulatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure completion of a discharge summary including a recapitulation of the resident's stay, and final status at discharge for two residents (Resident #69 and Resident #170) of five residents reviewed for discharge summary. The facility failed to complete a discharge summary for Resident #69 and Resident #170. This failure could place residents at risk of not having complete records after permanent discharge from the facility and disruption in the continuity of care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #69's face sheet dated 05/29/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged from the facility on 3/15/25 with diagnoses which included dementia (memory loss), encephalopathy (disease affecting the brain leading to impaired brain function), cerebral ischemia (inadequate oxygen supply to the brain), bradycardia (lower than normal heart rate), Unspecified protein calorie malnutrition (inadequate intake or absorption of protein and energy). It also revealed Resident #69 was respite resident and admitted under hospice status. Record review of Resident #69's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated discharge assessment-return not anticipated. Resident #69 was discharged to home/community. Record review of Resident #69's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) on 05/29/25 revealed Resident #69 did not have a discharge summary. Record review of Resident #69's EMR Progress notes section from 3/10/25 to 3/15/25 on 05/29/25 revealed there was no progress note indicating the resident discharged from the facility. Record Review of Resident #170's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 05/01/25. Resident #170 had a BIMS of 01 which indicated Resident #170 had severe cognitive impairment. His diagnoses included Diabetes Mellitus (high blood glucose), Hypertension (high blood pressure levels), unspecified Dementia (diseases that affect memory, thinking, and the ability to perform daily activities) without behavior, anxiety, restlessness, and agitation. Record review of nursing progress note dated 05/01/25 revealed Res has D/C from the facility with his family and hospice assistance. CCD and all meds include comfort kit given to the family. This nurse returned the call to the new facility for report. Further record review of Resident#170 e-chart revealed no discharge summary. In an interview on 5/29/25 at 12:07 PM with the facility Social Worker revealed she had recently started working at the facility on 5/20/25. She added she followed an IDT (inter disciplinary team) approach for discharges. She added a discharge summary should be a part of resident's EHR and should be provided to the resident's treating physician, home health or any other facility the resident was discharging to. She added failure to complete discharge summary for a resident could lead to lapses in continuity of care. She added she was not able to explain why a discharge summary for Resident #s 69, 170 were missing since she was very new to the facility. During an interview on 05/30/25 at 9:25 AM, the DON said each department was responsible for completing their section in the discharge summary. She added the social worker was responsible to open up the document and the facility followed the IDT (inter disciplinary team) to complete their sections. She also added that the facility did not have a full-time social worker for few months starting January 2025 until May 2025, when the new social worker started with the facility. The DON stated that Resident#69 was a respite resident and his discharged from the facility was anticipated. She further reviewed Resident #69's EMR and said there was not a discharge summary completed nor a progress note depicting the resident's discharge from the facility. The DON stated it was her expectation that a discharge summary be completed for all residents and a copy provided to the resident/family/home health or other entity where the resident was discharging. She said by not completing a discharge summary could place the resident at risk for missing follow up appointments and missed medications and delayed communication. During an interview on 05/30/25 at 1:51 PM, the Administrator said the discharge summary should be completed the day the resident discharged or the day after and should be a part of residents EHR (Electronic Health Record) . The Administrator said the discharge summary included the medications the resident was taking and the home health company as needed. The Administrator said the social worker typically initiated the summary and then each department had a section they were required to complete. The Administrator said failure to complete a discharge summary placed the resident at risk for not knowing what medications they were taking or miss follow up appointments. The facility was accountable to provide discharge summary for continuity of care. Record review of facility policy titled, Social Services Policies and Procedures, Subject: Discharge dated 6/9/2023 reflected, POLICY: The Social Services staff, as part of the Interdisciplinary Team, will participate in the development of a discharge summary when a patient or resident is discharged without anticipated return to a private residence, another nursing facility, or another type of residential facility according to the following time frames and Facility procedures. A discharge summary is also completed when a resident is fully discharged from the facility (such as to another nursing facility, to the community or death) . 2. The Discharge Summary is completed when the patient or resident is permanently discharged for any reason and return to the facility is not anticipated. The completed Interdisciplinary Discharge Summary is part of the patient/resident's closed medical record.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with profess...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of twenty-four residents (Resident #45) reviewed for falls. The facility failed to follow the facility policy and did not promptly notify Resident #45's physician about a fall incident that occurred on 05/12/25 at 8:32 am. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in treatment and diagnosis of new symptoms resulting in serious illness, hospitalization, and further decline in the resident's condition,. Findings included: Record review of Resident #45's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #45 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified open-angle glaucoma, muscle wasting and atrophy (the loss or thinning of muscle tissue), polyneuropathy (nervous system disorder), restless legs syndrome, functional dyspepsia (discomfort or pain in the upper abdomen), repeated falls, hypothyroidism (thyroid gland doesn't produce enough thyroid hormone), cognitive communication deficit, and unsteadiness on feet. Resident #25 had a BIMS of 10 indicating she was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #25 had extensive assistance with ADL's . Review of Resident# 45's care plans revised February 27, 2025 revealed Resident#45 was at was at risk for falls related to a history of falls, decreased mobility, legal blindness, incontinence and use of psychotropic medications. Record review of Resident #45's progress notes dated 5/16/25 at 19:14 pm (7:14 pm) as a late entry for 5/12/25 at 8:32 AM, authored by RN G, reflected [CNA H] was waiting for [Resident #45] at the door of the bathroom, when she looked to see what [Resident #45] was doing, she found [Resident #45] on the floor of the bathroom. When asked what happened, she said that she wanted to pull up her socks when she fell on the bathroom floor . BP (blood pressure ) 122/80, HR (heart rate) 80, T (temperature) 97.9 Pulse oximetry was 97% Resident with a tiny bump on the back of her. No blood noted. Review revealed the family member was notified about the fall. Observation of Resident #45 on 05/28/25 at 10:50am revealed she was sitting up in a wheelchair in her room. Interview revealed she was sitting on the toilet commode and tried to pull up her sock. Resident #45 stated she fell off the toilet commode and onto the floor. Resident #45 stated CNA H and another staff member helped her off the floor. Interview on 5/30/25 at 8:18 AM with RN G revealed she had not notified Resident #45's physician about the fall until the next day after the incident for x-rays. RN G stated it was her first fall and was unaware the physician was to be contacted. RN G stated she was instructed during the morning meeting the day after the incident to contact the physician. RN G stated she was unaware of the fall policy. An interview on 5/30/25 at 9:50 AM with the DON revealed the fall policy and protocol included ensuring the safety of the resident, an assessment, and contacting the physician and following their guidance. The DON stated it would have been RN G's responsibility, as the charge nurse during the incident, to contact the physician. Interview on 5/30/25 at 12:50 PM with ADON M revealed after Resident #45's fall, RN G was instructed to obtain vitals, conduct a full assessment, and was given a packet including fall protocol, which included notification of the physician. ADON M stated it was RN G's responsibility to notify the physician immediately after the incident. Review of facility's policy Fall Management Policy revised May 5, 2023, reflected the physician and family are promptly notified, and an incident report is completed .
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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 (Resident #221) residents reviewed for respiratory care, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #221's Oxygen humidification bottle and nasal cannula tubing was changed in a timely manner. This failure could place residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met. The findings were: Review of Resident # 221's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses include Stroke ( blood supply to the brain interrupted ), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Pneumonia (infection of the lungs ), and Diabetes mellitus (high blood glucose). Resident #221 was on continuous Oxygen therapy on admission to the facility. Resident #221 had BIMS of 15 which indicated intact cognition. Review of Resident #221's care plan updated 05/30/2025 reflected. Problem: [ Resident #221] requires oxygen therapy related to shortness of breath. Goal: [resident #221] Resident will not exhibit signs of hypoxia (cyanosis, tachypnea, dyspnea, confusion, restlessness, nasal flaring, elevated blood pressure, increased respirations, increased pulse). Approach: Administer oxygen at 3 liters via Nasal cannula continuously. Observe oxygen precautions. Review of Resident #221's Physician order dated 4/7/2025 Oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula every shift first, second, third. Review of Resident #221's Physician order dated 4/7/2025 reflected, Change oxygen tubing/ nasal cannula/ mask/ humidification system weekly , once a day on Sunday 10 PM - 6 AM shift. In an observation and interview on 05/28/25 at 11:12 AM, Resident #221 had oxygen at 3 liters via nasal cannula. She stated that she had been on oxygen since admission to the facility. The humidification canister and nasal cannula tubing was dated 05/12/25 and there was less than 1/4 water left in the humidification bottle. Resident #221 was unable to tell how often they changed the bottle and tubing. In an interview and observation on 5/28/25 at 3:17 PM, LVN G stated Resident #221 was on continuous oxygen. She stated that the nasal cannula tubing and humidification bottle should be changed every Sunday night at 10 p.m. on the night shift. She stated that nurses were responsible for changing and dating the humidifier bottle and nasal cannula. She stated if oxygen supplies were not dated , it could lead to a risk of infection to the residents. LVN G stated she will change the oxygen tubing and humidification bottle later. In an interview on 05/29/25 at 02:37 PM, ADON F stated that oxygen humidifier bottle and nasal cannula tubing should be changed every Sunday by the evening nurses. She added that weekly oxygen equipment changes should trigger on the nurse's treatment administration record for every Sunday. She added that risk of not changing respiratory equipment in a timely manner was lapses in infection control. In an interview on 05/30/25 at 09:14 AM, the DON said her expectation was that all oxygen equipment be dated and labeled. She stated that nighttime nursing staff was responsible for changing and dating oxygen supplies every Sunday every week. The DON stated risk to residents for not changing oxygen supplies was a lapses in infection control. She added, as a DON of the facility she or her designee conducted daily clinical rounds in the facility. Record review of Facility policy titled . Respiratory policies and procedures; Subject - Equipment change schedule dated 2/12/2024 reflected, The Facility shall have a schedule for changing disposable equipment at regular intervals as determined by manufacturer recommendations and local community policies .Nasal Cannula Change weekly, when soiled and on an as needed basis or per State regulations.
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** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 5 (Resident #20, Resident #59, Resident #51, Resident # , Resident #13 ) of 16 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure: 1- Resident #59 had her fingernails cleaned and trimmed on 5/28/25. 2- Resident #20 had her fingernails cleaned and trimmed on 5/28/25. 3- Resident #51 had his nails trimmed and cleaned on both hands on 05/28/25. 4- Resident #13 had her fingernails trimmed. 5- Staff provided consistent showers/baths for Resident #21. These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: 1-Record review of Resident #59's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #59 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), muscle wasting, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #59's BIMS score was a 05, which indicated Resident #59's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #59 required maximal assist with personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #59's Care Plan revised 05/30/25, reflected the following: Problem: [Resident #59] requires assist with ADLs related to diagnosis of dementia . Goal: [Resident #59] will maintain current level functioning in ADLs over the next 90 days. Approach: . Requires maximum assistance with . dressing and showers . In an observation on 05/28/25 at 11:25 AM revealed Resident #59 was lying in his bed. The nails on both hands were approximately 0.3cm in length extending from the tip of his fingers. The nails were discolored tan and had a dark brown colored residue on the underside and on the nail beds. Resident #59's answers to questions did not make sense. 2-Record review of Resident #20's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #20 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included cerebral infarction (a condition that occurs when blood flow to the brain is blocked. The blockage can lead to brain tissue death), muscle weakness, and lack of coordination. Resident #20's BIMS score was a 03, which indicated Resident #20's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #20 was dependent, she required 2 persons assist with personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #20's Care Plan dated 05/24/25, reflected the following: Problem: [Resident #20] has ADL self-care deficit. She requires assistance with ADL's . Goal: [Resident #20] will maintain current level of ADL functioning through next review date . Approach: . total assistance with bathing . In an observation on 05/28/25 at 11:37 AM revealed Resident #20 was lying in his bed. The nails on both hands were approximately 0.3cm in length extending from the tip of his fingers. The nails were discolored tan and had a dark brown colored residue underside and on the nail beds. Resident #20 was unable to answer questions. In an interview on 05/28/25 at 12:18 PM, CNA C stated CNAs were allowed to cut the residents' nails if they were not diabetic. CNA C stated did not see Resident #20 and Resident #59's nails when she did her rounds and provided care. She stated she was busy. She stated she would do it right then. She stated the risk would be infection control and injury. 3- Record Review of Resident #51's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected that Resident #51 was a [AGE] year-old female readmitted to facility on 05/18/2025 with BIMS Score of 7 that indicated Resident #51 had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #51 had diagnoses of Diabetes mellitus (high blood glucose), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Hyperlipidemia (high lipid levels) , Unspecified dementia with anxiety, Blindness right eye category 5, blindness left eye category (both eye blindness with irreversible blindness with no light perception), other abnormalities of gait and mobility. It also indicated Resident #51 needed assistance for personal hygiene. Record Review of Resident #51 Comprehensive care plan updated 05/30/25 revealed Problem: [Resident #51] requires assist with ADLs related to diagnosis of dementia. Goal: [Resident #51] will maintain current level of functioning in ADLs over the next 90 days. Approach: [Resident #51] Requires set up assist with personal hygiene. In an observation and interview on 05/28/25 11:31 AM with Resident #51 revealed the fingernails on both her hands were at least 0.75 inch - 1 inch long, and jagged. Resident #51 stated he would like staff to trim and clean her fingernails since she could not see very well to clip her own nails. In an interview on 05/29/25 09:30 PM CNA C stated that CNAs were responsible for trimming and cleaning fingernails on shower days and as needed. CNA C stated Resident #51 was a diabetic, hence CNAs did not trim fingernails for diabetic residents. CNA C stated that the resident was blind and could not trim her own fingernails. CNA C stated she did not see Resident # 51 fi ger nails when she provided care. She added the resident's family member visited s the facility and had seen her clean and trim the resident's fingernails. She stated untrimmed and dirty fingernails could cause skin irritation or infection. In an interview on 5/29/25 9:46 AM with RN E revealed Resident #51 was legally blind and needed staff assistance for all ADL care. She added Resident #51 was diabetic, and hence nurses were responsible for clipping fingernails. She added Resident #51 went out with family on pass, and sometimes the resident's family would clip her nails. She stated the risk of not cutting and cleaning nails was lapses in infection control and loss of quality of life. She added that if Resident #51 refused care, they would let the family know about refusals. In an interview on 05/29/25 at 02:38 PM with ADON F revealed nurses were responsible for nailcare for all residents if the resident was diabetic. She added the nailcare task should be triggered on nursing treatment record (TAR) each week, which indicated nurses to check the resident's fingernails and clean or trim them as needed. She added she observed Resident #51's nails were long and clipped her fingernails earlier in the day today. She added the risk of not cleaning or cutting fingernails was spread of infection. She added Resident #51 was legally blind and cannot assist with ADL task specifically for clipping fingernails. 4-Record review of Resident #13's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #13 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (a condition caused by brain damage or spinal cord injury that leads to paralysis on one side of the body), Stiffness of left hand, muscle weakness (generalized), and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #13's BIMS score of 06/15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #13 required maximal assistance with toileting and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #13's Care Plan dated 02/26/25, reflected the following: Problem: [Resident#13] has ADL Self Care Deficit. She requires assistance with ADL's. Goal Will maintain a sense of dignity by being clean, dry, odor free and well-groomed over next 90 days. Approach. BATHING: Extensive/Total with 1 person assist. In an observation on 05/28/25 at 10:53 AM revealed Resident #13 was lying in her bed. The nails on both hands were approximately 0.5 cm in length extending from the tip of her fingers. Resident #13 stated, she wanted her fingernails trimmed, and she could not do it herself. In an interview and observation on 05/29/25 at 11:23 AM, RN E looked at Resident#13 fingernails and stated, they look long, and Resident #13 liked her fingernail long. When asked, Resident#13 replied that she would like her fingernails trimmed. RN E stated, it was her responsibility and all the direct care staff to make sure residents' fingernails were trimmed, except if the resident was diabetic, it was the responsibility of the nurses to trim their fingernails. RN E stated she was not aware Resident #13's nails were long, and the resident would like them trimmed. She stated she would trim Resident #13's fingernails right then. RN E stated long fingernails could cause skin break down if the residents scratched themselves. In an interview on 05/30/25 at 09:41 AM, the DON stated nail care should be completed as needed and every time aides washed the residents' hands. The DON stated nails should be observed daily. The DON stated nurses were responsible for trimming the nails of residents who were diabetic, and CNAs could trim other residents' nails. The DON stated she expected CNAs to offer to cut and clean residents' nails if they were long and dirty. The DON stated residents having long fingernails could be a skin break down issue. The DON stated the ADONs, and the DON would do the routine rounds to monitor. 5-Record review of Resident #21's MDS assessment, dated 4/07/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMS of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. She was totally dependent for bathing with 1-person assistance and required maximum assistance of one for personal hygiene. Her active diagnoses included coronary artery disease (damage or disease in the heart's major blood vessels), heart failure, end stage renal insufficiency (the final stage of chronic kidney disease), and diabetes. Record review of Resident #21's care plan, reviewed on 5/30/25, reflected, .assistance with ADL's related to legal blindness, bilateral amputation (surgical removal of two limbs, either both arms or both legs), generalized weakness .Goal: will maintain a sense of dignity by being clean, dry, odor free and well groomed .Approach: assist of total one person. Record review of hall 300 shower schedule for May 2025 reflected Resident #21 was scheduled for a shower on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. An observation and interview with Resident #21 on 5/25/25 at 11:15 a.m. revealed Resident #21 lying in bed. Resident #21 stated she had not received showers in two weeks and wanted to be showered. Resident #21 stated she was showered on this day. Records review of Resident #21's shower sheets for May 2025 reflected no showers on scheduled days for 5/5/25, 5/12/25, 5/14/25, 5/19/25, 5/21/25, 5/23/25, 5/26/25, and 5/28/25. There were no refusal shower sheets for these dates. Interview with CNA H on 5/29/25 at 1:30 pm revealed showers and refusals were documented on the shower sheets. CNA H stated residents were showered when needed, requested, and on their shower days. CNA H stated refusals were reported to the charge nurse. Interview with CNA L on 5/29/25 at 1:45 pm revealed residents were showered on their assigned shower days unless they refused. CNA L stated residents were asked three times after refusals and are offered bed baths instead. CNA L stated the charge nurse was notified for residents continued refusals and the family notified. CNA L stated residents signed the shower sheet for confirmed refusal. An interview with the DON on 5/30/25 at 9:50 a.m. revealed the CNAs were supposed to inform the charge nurse anytime a resident refused a shower. She stated showers were to be done on the shower days, and if the resident refused, they were to notify the charge nurse as well and they were to document it in the shower sheets. She stated residents signed the showers sheets, if able, when refused. The DON stated charge nurses signed the shower sheets and were expected to ensure residents were showered. She stated lack of personnel hygiene could lead to skin problems and overall dignity. An interview with RN G on 5/30/25 at 2:30 p.m., revealed nurses were responsible for ensuring the residents' showers and ADL care were performed. She stated the CNAs were supposed to let them know if a resident refused ADL care or if they were unable to give the scheduled shower or bath. She stated she had not been notified by any of the CNAs that Resident #21 refused any of her showers and showers had been missed. An interview with LVN D on 5/30/25 at 2:40 p.m., revealed at the end of each month she checked the showers sheets and reported missed showers to the DON. Record review of facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living, Optimal Function, on May 5, 202 reflected, The Facility provides care and services to ensure that a resident's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual's clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable .Activities of daily living (ADLs), refer to tasks related to personal care including, grooming, dressing, oral hygiene, transfer, bed mobility, eating, bathing and communication system .The Facility provides necessary care to all residents that are unable to carry out activities of daily living on their own to ensure they maintain proper nutrition, grooming, and hygiene.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for one (Resident #31) of two residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility failed to ensure CNA C provided timely and appropriate perineal care for Resident #31. This failure could place residents at risk for the development and/or worsening of urinary tract infections and skin breakdown. Findings include: Record review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 05/13/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 12/07/21 with diagnoses included down syndrome (a genetic disorder causing developmental and intellectual delays), dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #31 had a BIMS score of 03 which indicated cognition was severely impaired. Resident #31 required moderate assistance of one-person physical assistance with toileting hygiene, and personal hygiene. The resident was always incontinent of urine and bowel. Review of Resident #31's care plan, initiated 12/15/21, reflected .Problem: [Resident #31] has urinary incontinence related to functional impairment (decreased mobility), urgency related to use of diuretic medications, not always aware of need to void. Goal: Resident will not develop skin breakdown related to incontinence through next review date. Approach: Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode. In an observation on 05/28/25 at 11:56 AM, CNA C entered Resident #31's room to provide incontinence care and change the resident's clothes. CNA C washed her hands and put on gloves and unfastened the brief to reveal the resident had been incontinent of urine. CNA C pushed the soiled brief down between the resident's legs, which were held tightly together, toward her buttocks and cleaned her peri area from front to back but did not separate the labia and clean down the middle. The odor was very strong and foul. CNA C rolled the resident onto her side revealing the resident had soaked through her brief and soaked through the bed sheet. It was noted the resident's skin was wet and red but intact. CNA C continued to provide incontinence care, wiping from front to back, reapplied a clean brief, and changed the resident's clothes. CNA C removed her gloves, and she washed her hands. An interview with CNA C on 05/28/25 at 12:18 PM, CNA C revealed she failed to separate the resident's labia and by missing this step could lead to an infection. She stated she had been in training and knew the importance of properly cleaning a resident in a timely manner. When asked when the last time she had performed incontinent care on Resident #31 she stated she started her shift at 6:00 AM and she did not provide any incontinent care to Resident #31 this morning. She stated she was busy during the shift. She stated she was supposed to do 2-hour checks for incontinent resident's but stated with the number of residents she had to get up she had not yet been to check on Resident #31. In an interview on 05/28/25 at 08:20 AM, the DON stated when providing incontinent care staff were to clean the peri area including labia for female residents then moving toward the buttocks. She stated by not providing accurate incontinent care it placed residents at risk for urinary tract infections, skin breakdown and overall poor hygiene. the DON stated it was her expectation the CNAs provide incontinence care in a timely manner at least every two hours. She stated the risk factor for not performing timely incontinence care was skin rash, infection, and skin breakdown. She stated she felt there was ample staff to care the current resident census. She stated it was the expectation for the CNAs to come and ask the nurse, medication aide, herself or the ADON if they needed assistance with a resident. According to the CDC Epidemiology and Prevention of UTI a component of preventing a Urinary Tract Infection is to provide good perineal hygiene. Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/training/2018/ltcf/epidemiology-prevention-uti-508.pdf accessed on 06/03/25 . Record review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal and Incontinence Care, revised 05/05/23, reflected, Staff will perform perineal/incontinent care with each bath and after each incontinent episode.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for 2 (Hall 200 and 300) of 4 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure: RN E responsible for Medication Cart Hall 200, counted controlled drugs every change of shift and singed the narcotic sheet form after the count. RN D responsible for Medication Cart Hall 300, counted controlled drugs every change of shift and singed the narcotic sheet form after the count. These failures could place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion. Findings Included: Record review of the Medication Cart Hall 200 narcotic count sheet on 05/28/25 at 10:16 AM of , revealed missing signatures for Off duty and On duty for 05/09/25, 05/15/25, 05/21/25, and 05/22/25. Record review of the Medication Cart Hall 300 narcotic count sheet, on 05/28/25 at 10:30 AM revealed missing signatures for Off duty and On duty for 05/12/25, 05/13/25, 05/16/25, 05/17/25, 05/18/25, 05/26/25, and 05/27/25. Interview on 05/30/25 at 12:22 PM, RN E stated she should have signed the narcotic sheet after counting the narcotics on 05/09/25, 05/15/25, 05/21/25, and 05/22/25 because it was the proof that she counted with the other nurse. She stated she might get busy after she counted with the other nurse, and she forgot to go back and sign the count sheet. She stated this failure could potentially cause a drug diversion. She stated she supposed to sign the sheet right after counting. Interview on 05/30/25 at 12:45 PM, RN D stated she should have signed the narcotic sheet before and after counting the narcotics on 05/12/25, 05/13/25, 05/16/25, 05/17/25, 05/18/25, 05/26/25, and 05/27/25. RN D stated, I counted the narcotics, but I assumed only one nurse could sign the narc sheet. RN D stated she was a new nurse and she started working at the facility since April 2025. She stated she received an in-service on signing narcotic sheets by incoming and off-going nurses, this week. RN D stated the risk of not signing the narcotic sheets would be a potential for drug diversion. Interview on 05/30/25 at 08:20 AM, the DON stated she expected nurses to sign the narcotic count sheet at the beginning and at the end of their shift after they completed count with the incoming and off-going nurse. The DON stated if the staff was not signing the narcotic count sheets, she was unable to prove they were counting. The DON stated it was important to ensure a drug diversion did not occur. The DON stated the ADON, and the DON were supposed to check the cart randomly for monitoring . She stated she expected the nurses to sign the narcotic count sheet immediately after counting. Record review of the facility's policy Controlled Substances revised 4/17/2024, reflected the following: . H. Both staff members (off-going and on-coming) sign the Controlled Substance Shift Change Sheet with the date and time of the shift change. By doing so, both are verifying that the medication counts for all Controlled Substances and that the counts of the number of Controlled Substance cards and /or packaged are accurate at the time of shift change .
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure food items in the facility reach in refrigerator were dated, labeled, and covered. These failures could affect residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen, by placing them at risk for food-borne illness, and food contamination. Findings included: Observations on 5/28/25 at 9:30AM in the facility walk-in freezer revealed: Frozen French fries were not dated. Frozen southern style biscuit dough was left uncovered in a plastic bag, that was in an open cardboard box. Observation on 5/28/25 at 9:33 AM in the facility dry storage revealed: 3 hamburger buns wrapped in a plastic bag not dated or labeled. In an interview on 5/29/25 at 12:30 PM, the Dietary Manager revealed she expected all food items in the kitchen should be dated, labeled, and covered and everyone including cooks and herself were responsible for covering, dating, and labeling all food items in the kitchen. She stated her expectation was the staff write open date on food items once opened and removed from original packaging and expiry date before storing the food item. She added that hamburger buns should had been dated and labeled and were tossed out on 5/28/25. She stated all foods should be appropriately covered and sealed, even if placed in a cardboard box. She stated the risk to residents of improper food storage that included dating, labeling, and covering food items was possibility of food borne illness. In an interview on 05/29/25 at 1:30 PM, [NAME] H revealed everyone in the kitchen including cooks, dietary aides, and the dietary manager was responsible for covering, labeling, and dating food items in the kitchen. She added that she was aware all food items needed to have open date and expiry date on them. She added the hamburger buns were initially frozen , and all frozen breads were good for 15 days after taken out of the freezer. She added that the hamburger buns in the dry storage were thrown out since they did not have an open date on it. She added she was not sure who kept the frozen French fries in the refrigerator without dating them. She added , as a cook, she ensured all food items was covered and sealed to prevent any cross contamination. She stated that risk of improper food storage was food spoilage and increased risk of residents being sick. In an interview on 05/29/25 at 01:17 PM, Dietary Aide I revealed all food items in the kitchen should be covered, labeled, and dated. She stated that all food items should had open date and expiry date on them. She stated that everyone in the kitchen including dietary aides, cooks and managers were responsible for appropriate food storage. She added that risk to residents of not appropriately covering, dating, or labeling food items was residents could get sick. Review of facility's policy titled Food Safety in Receiving and Storage revised 6/20/2023 reflected, .6. Check expiration dates and use-by dates to assure the dates are within acceptable parameters . Place food that is repackaged in a leak-proof, pest-proof, non-absorbent, sanitary container with a tight-fitting lid. Label both the container and its lid with the common name of the contents, the date it was transferred to the new container, and the discard date. Review of the Food and Drug Administration Food Code, dated 2022, reflected, .3-302.12 Food Storage Containers, Identified with Common Name of Food. Except for containers holding food that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding food or food ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the food establishment, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the food 3-305.11 Food Storage.(B) .refrigerated, ready-to eat time/temperature control for safety food prepared and packaged by a food processing plant shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a food establishment and if the food is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded, based on the temperature and time combinations specified in (A) of this section and: (1) The day the original container is opened in the food establishment shall be counted as Day 1; and (2) The day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on food safety
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for 3 resident (Resident #1 and Resident #11, and Resident #44) of 10 residents observed for infection control. 1-The facility failed to ensure MA A disinfected the blood pressure cuff in between blood pressure checks for Resident #1 and Resident #11 on 05/28/25. 2- The facility failed to ensure CNA J and CNA K performed proper hand hygiene when changing gloves during morning care for Resident #44 05/29/25. 3- The facility failed to ensure CNA J and agency CNA K wore appropriate PPE when providing morning care for Resident #44 who supposed to be on EBP on 05/29/25. The failures could place residents at-risk of cross contamination which could result in infections or illness. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 05/09/25, reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included elevated blood pressure, and hypercholesterolemia (a condition characterized by elevated levels of cholesterol in the blood). Resident #1 had a BIMS of 15 which indicated Resident #1's cognition was intact. 2.Record review of Resident #11's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/04/25, reflected Resident #11 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, elevated blood pressure and hyperlipidemia (abnormally high amount of lipids in the blood.) Resident #11 had a BIMS of 10 which indicated Resident #11's cognition was moderately impaired. Observation on 05/28/25 at 9:54 AM revealed MA A performing morning medication pass, during which time she checked the blood pressure on Resident #1. MA A did not sanitize the blood pressure cuff before and after using it on Resident #1 and continued to the next resident without sanitizing the blood pressure cuff. MA A then checked Resident #11's blood pressure. MA A did not sanitize the blood pressure cuff before using it on Resident #11. Interview on 05/28/25 at 10:25 AM, MA A stated reusable equipment, like blood pressure cuffs, should be sanitized before and after use on each resident to keep germs from spreading. She stated she forgot to sanitize the blood pressure cuff between resident use because she was nervous, and she was a new MA. In an interview with the DON on 05/30/25 at 08:20 AM, she stated staff had been trained on the expectation of sanitizing blood pressure cuff after each use. She stated to ensure staff were knowledgeable in the sanitation of blood pressure cuff the facility did skills competency checks and she stated she and the ADONs made daily rounds and watched care. 3.Review of Resident #44's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His BIMS score was 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. His diagnosis included quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs). Resident#44 was totally dependent on the staff for ADL's and had and indwelling foley catheter. Review of Resident #44's Care Plan, dated 03/18/25, revealed Problem: [Resident#44] remains on Enhanced Barrier Precautions related to medical device (Indwelling Catheter). Goal Resident will remain on Enhanced Barrier Precautions related to Indwelling Catheter. Approach: All staff and visitors will wash their hands prior to entering and prior to leaving resident room. New PPE will be placed outside of resident room including hand sanitizer, gowns, and gloves. PPE will be donned (put on) and doffed (removed) appropriately prior to entering and exiting room. PPE will also be disposed of properly in designated receptacles in the room prior to exiting resident's room. Observation on 05/29/25 at 09:30 AM revealed Resident #44 was on enhanced barriers precautions. There was signage on the left side of the door that informed visitors/staff he was on enhanced barriers precautions, to perform hand hygiene before and after leaving the room, necessary PPE (gown, gloves) to wear hanging at the door, and donning/doffing (put on/remove) information. CNA K got a mechanical lift (ML) to Resident#44's room, and helped the resident pick up his clothes for the day. She sanitized her hands , put on gloves, and she did not wear a gown . CNA K emptied the Foley catheter bag. CNA J came into the room, sanitized hand s, put on gloves but no gown. CNA K changed gloves without any form of hand hygiene and removed Resident #44 boots. Both CNAs put socks on the resident. CNA K put Resident #44's short on his legs. CNA K unfastened Resident #44's brief, got the resident a T-shirt and put it on him with the help of CNA J after removing his gown. CNA K took the dirty gown and put it in a plastic bag and put the plastic bag on the floor. CNA K got deodorant from the nightstand drawer and applied it on Resident #44, and she finished putting the T-shirt on Resident#44 with the help of CNA J. CNA K got the the sling for Mechanical lift , folded the dirty brief, and pushed the brief between Resident #44's legs. CNA K cleaned Resident #44 groin area using wipes. CNA K changed gloves without performing any form of hand hygiene. CNA K, using wipes, cleaned the foley catheter tubing going for insertion site outward. Both CNAs helped Resident #44 turn to his left side. CNA K folded the brief and put it in a plastic bag. CNA K cleaned Resident #44's buttocks using wipes. Resident #44 had a small bowel movement. CNA K changed gloves without performing any form of hand hygiene. CNA K put the sling under Resident #44, and a clean brief. Both CNAs turned Resident #44 to his back and to his right side. CNA J pulled the brief from her side, and both CNAs fastened the brief and finished putting Resident #44's short. Both CNAs turned him to the left, and to the right, finished putting the shorts on him, and pulled the sling under him. CNA J got the mechanical lift, and CNA K put shoes on Resident #44. CNA K changed gloves without performing any form of hand hygiene. Both CNAs hooked the sling to the mechanical lift. Both CNAs maneuvered the mechanical lift well keeping the Foley catheter bag below the Resident#44's bladder and lowered Resident #44 to his wheelchair. CNA J hanged the Foley catheter bag under the wheelchair, removed gloves , took the mechanical lift, and she left the room without completing any form of hands hygiene. CNA K adjusted Resident #44's wheelchair gears for him to use. Resident #44 was paralyzed neck down; he used his chin to maneuver the wheelchair. CNA K changed gloves without performing any form of hand hygiene. CNA K, per Resident#44's request, poured water for him to drink. CNA K removed gloves and did not performing any form of hand hygiene. She left the room and got a washcloth. CNA K put on gloves and wet the wash clothes. CNA K wiped Resident #44's face. CNA K made Resident#44's bed. CNA K took the dirty linens, and the trash bag, left the room, and disposed of them in the biohazard room. Interview with CNA K on 05/29/25 at 10:03 AM revealed she knew that she was supposed to wear a gown for the resident care, but she forgot. She stated she was nervous. She stated she was in-serviced regarding different types of infection. CNA K stated she supposed to perform hand sanitizing whenever she changed gloves. She said she was supposed to get a small hand sanitizer bottle with her, but she forgot. She stated she did not know where to put the plastic bag for the linens, and trash. She further stated she did not want to put them on the bed, so she put them on the floor. She stated the risk of not wearing proper PPE in enhanced barriers precautions residents' rooms was exposing herself and others to the development of infection and spreading germs from one resident to another resident. She further said following proper hands hygiene was important to prevent the spread of germs, and the development of infection. Interview with RN E on 05/29/25 at 10:30 AM, she stated all the staff were supposed to wear a gown for the care of residents on EBP, and for Resident #44 because of the Foley catheter. She stated the risk to residents was development of infection. She stated the CNAs were supposed to sanitize their hands before and after donning and doffing the gloves to prevent cross contamination. Interview with CNA J on 05/29/25 at 11:01 AM she stated, she was coming to help CNA K get Resident #44 up from the bed to the wheelchair. She stated, she did not know that she supposed to wear a gown for a resident on EBP, and she did not know that the resident with Foley catheter should be in EBP. She stated for the residents on any type of isolation she was supposed to wear a gown, and she was supposed to sanitize her hands when changing gloves. She stated the purpose was to keep down the germs and prevent cross contamination. Interview with the DON on 05/30/25 at 09:41 AM, she stated enhanced barriers precaution (EBP) was new last year. The DON stated for the EBP they had signage outside the resident's room, and for any high contact activity with the resident on EBP including transfers, peri care .staff should be gowning and gloving. She stated all the staff (CNAs, nurses .) were trained on infection control. The DON further stated training for EBP was done on hire, in monthly staff meetings, and as needed. The DON stated, she expected the staff to perform hand hygiene before donning and after doffing gloves. She further stated gloves were important, but proper hand hygiene was essential at all stages of glove use to ensure maximum protection and prevent cross contamination. The DON stated they used EBP to prevent infection to high-risk residents. The DON stated her expectation for the staff was to put the plastic trash and linen bags at the foot of the bed since they were new and clean; that way they were easily accessible, while avoiding the potential of contaminating other surfaces in the room. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning, Disinfecting and Sterilizing Patient/Resident Care Equipment revised May 15, 2023, reflected, . Non-critical items are those that come in contact with intact skin but not mucous membranes. Such items include . blood pressure cuffs . Routine cleaning and disinfection of resident care equipment that is shared among resident will be completed. Record review of facility policy titled, Infection prevention and control policies and procedures revised May 15, 2023, reflected, . Wearing gloves, Gowns, masks, and eye protection can significantly reduce health risks for workers exposed to blood and other potentially infectious materials .3. Hand hygiene, including hand washing and alcohol-based hand rub .6. Proper handling of linens, wastes, equipment and supplies . EBP: providers and staff must Wear gloves and a gown for the following high-Contact Resident Care Activities. Dressing. Bathing/Showering. Transferring. Changing linens. Providing Hygiene. Changing briefs .Device care or use: .urinary catheter .
Feb 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to privacy during administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to privacy during administering medication for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #2) reviewed for privacy in that: The facility failed to ensure LVN A provided privacy by closing the door and privacy curtain for Resident #2 on 1/1/25. This failure could place residents at risk of diminished quality of life. The findings include: Record Review of Resident #2's MDS Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident had BIMS score of 6 which indicated Resident #2 had severe cognitive deficit. Her diagnoses included nontraumatic brain dysfunction, hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus (high blood glucose), Hyperlipidemia (high blood lipids), non-Alzheimer's dementia, Blindness right eye. Record Review of Resident #2's Physician orders dated 6/26/24 reflected, Lantus Solostar U-100 Insulin pen; 100 unit/ml (3mL), amount 15 units, subcutaneous once a day at [8 PM]. In a phone interview on 2/26/25 5:20 PM with Responsible Party (RP) for Resident #1 stated that Resident #1 had electronic recording during her stay in the facility via Ring camera that captured motion and sound. She added that Resident #2 was Resident #1's roommate. RP stated that Resident #2 and her RP were aware of the electronic monitoring in the room that would capture video evidence on her side of the room, and they did not have any concerns with it. In an observation on 2/27/25 8:55 AM with DON of video footage of the Ring camera in Resident #1's Room date and time stamped 1/1/25 at 8:13:55 PM revealed LVN A walked into Resident#1 and Resident #2's room. At this time, Resident #2 was sleeping in her bed with no blanket or covers on her. She had a brief on, was not wearing any other clothes waist down , with right leg bent at the knee with foot on the bed. The video evidence revealed date and time stamped 1/1/25 at 8:14:27 PM LVN A proceeded to administer insulin injection to Resident #2. LVN A did not pull the privacy curtain while administering the medication. In an interview 2/27/25 8:58 AM with the DON, she stated her expectation was that privacy must be provided during nursing care or medication administration for each resident at each time. She stated that LVN A should had drawn the privacy curtain completely before administering medication to Resident #2. She stated that as a DON, staff received training on residents' rights at least once a year. She added failure to provide privacy to Resident #2 could result in failure to privacy to preserve the dignity and rights of the resident. She also stated that she was a new DON in the facility and stated that she was not aware if there was Electronic Monitoring Consent for Resident #2 and will find out about it after the interview. An attempt was made to interview RP for Resident #2 on 02/27/25 at 9:38 AM; however, call was not returned until the date and time of exit. In an interview on 2/28/25 11:57 AM with the Administrator, she stated that her expectation was residents' right to privacy should always be respected by facility staff at all times but especially during providing care. She stated that she did not see the video footage for Resident #1 fall, however her expectation was privacy curtain during care should be drawn. She stated that failure to provide privacy can lead to lack of dignity and decreased quality of life. Record review of the facility's policy titled Social Services Policies and Procedure. Subject: Patient/Resident Rights revised 6/9/2023 reflected, .The Facility employs measures to ensure patient and resident personal dignity, well-being, and self-determination are maintained and will educate patients and residents regarding their rights and responsibilities.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and measures were taken to prevent further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency, and report the results within 5 working days of the incident, and if the alleged violation is verified appropriate, corrective action must have been taken for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for neglect. The facility failed to report findings to the state agency within five days for an allegation of neglect made on 1/2/25. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their allegations investigated or reviewed timely by the state survey agency. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #1's MDS Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 1/6/2025. Resident had BIMS of 9 which indicated Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included nontraumatic brain dysfunction, Hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus (high blood glucose), Hyperlipidemia (high lipid levels), non-Alzheimer's dementia, repeated falls, and unspecified Dementia. Record Review of the Texas form 3613- A Provider Investigation Report (PIR) completed on 2/27/25 reflected an allegation of neglect was made on 1/2/25 as a facility self-report for Resident #1. Resident #1 had staff member assigned for one-to-one observation ( one to one observation us used for keeping the resident in sight at all times of day and night. LVN A came to the room to assist Resident #1 to the bathroom and to disconnect her IV medication. Resident #1 had a witnessed fall on 1/1/25 on the 2-10 PM shift. The facility concluded that investigation findings were inconclusive. Physician was immediately called, and skull series x-ray ordered. Resident #1 did not sustain any injuries post fall. Inservice given on Fall prevention and Fall Precautions. In an interview 2/26/25 2:25 PM with the DON revealed that Resident #1 had a fall in the facility on 1/1/25. She stated that incident was reported to Texas Health and Human Services (TX HHS) on 1/2/25. She also stated that Resident #1's responsible party shared the video evidence of Resident #1's fall. She reported that Resident #1 did not have any injuries related to the fall. The DON added that allegation of neglect was inconclusive. The DON stated LVN A did not handle Resident #1 falls' appropriately per facility fall policy which required post fall assessment. She stated that LVN A was placed on suspension on 1/2/25. She stated that the facility conducted an investigation of the incident, but she was not sure if the findings were reported to the state within the stipulated time frame by the previous administrator. She stated that the facility had a new administrator in the building. In an interview on 2/27/25 8:51 AM with the current Administrator in the facility, revealed the incident (Resident #1's witnessed fall) took place on 1/1/25. The facility Administrator and the DON were made aware of the fall on 1/1/25 and it was reported to TX HHS on the next day. She added the previous facility administrator was placed on suspension on 1/6/25 and terminated by the Corporate Management team on 1/9/25. The Administrator added after the initial report was made, the facility had five days to complete an investigation and create a report to send to the state agency. She stated that she was not sure why Form 3613 A (Provider Investigation Report) was not created and sent to the State agency, however she stated that investigation was completed. An attempt was made to interview the former Administrator on 02/27/25 at 9:25 AM; however, the former Administrator was not employed at the facility and did not return call. Record Review of the facility's policy titled Leadership Policies and Procedures. Subject: Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Mistreatment undated reflected, .The facility conducts an internal investigation through the Legal Department, if applicable, and reports the results to enforcement agencies within five (5) working days or as prescribed by state law .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that based on the comprehensive assessment of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. LVN A failed to complete fall assessment after Resident #1 had a witnessed fall in the facility on 1/1/25. This failure could place residents at risk for injuries related to falls. The noncompliance was identified as Past Noncompliance (PNC). The noncompliance began on 01/1/25 at 8:13 PM and ended on 01/02/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the Incident investigation began. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #1's MDS Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 1/6/2025. Resident had BIMS of 9 which indicated Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included nontraumatic brain dysfunction, hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus (high blood glucose), Hyperlipidemia (high blood lipids), Repeated falls, Unsteadiness on feet, non-Alzheimer's dementia. Resident #1 was independent and did not need assistance from a helper to walk 150 feet. Review of Resident #1's care plan, updated 12/16/2024, reflected, Problem: [Resident #1] had an actual fall. 1/5/24 Resident found on floor next to bed. No apparent injuries. 1/19/24 Resident slid out of bed due to habit of sleeping with legs dangling over the edge of bed 4/21/24 - Resident status post actual fall after losing balance and ambulating to bathroom [ROOM NUMBER]/30/2024 - Resident found on the floor in her bathroom. No apparent injury observed.8/2/24 AM patient slipped on mat 8/2/24 at 11:30AM resident found on floor mat in room, no apparent injury. 11/22/2024 - Resident found on the floor next to her bed. No apparent injuries noted. Goal: [Resident #1] have 25% decrease in fall incidents through next review. Approach: Encourage use of call light to request assistance. Demonstrate proper use of call light and resident returned demonstration. Scoop Mattress to bed, interdisciplinary team approached family regarding removing wedge heels and other sandal like shoes and provide flat shoes with skid free soles to decrease risk of future falls from footwear that increases risk of trips and falls. Fall mat to bedside when resident in bed to reduce injuries from falls from bed. Ensure resident has on skid free footwear, frequent monitoring. Record review of physician order dated 6/14/2024 reflected scoop mattress to bed. Record review of physician order dated 7/14/2022 reflected fall risk. Record Review of LVN A Progress note in Resident #1 EHR dated 01/01/2025 23:42 reflected, While helping [Resident #1] to the bathroom resident stood up and suddenly fell could not catch her on time and she fell hitting her head on the IV pole, called [physician] and skull series ordered, family and the DON notified. Vital signs at the time 97.8 [ temperature], 18 [respiratory rate], 76 [pulse rate], 138/73 [Blood pressure], 97% [oxygen saturation] at room air. All safety measure in place. Record Review of X-ray report dated 1/2/2025 reflected, Examination: Skull Clinical Indication: Fall, initial encounter Impression: No definite acute displaced or depressed calvaria fracture by plain radiography. Record Review of the Witness statement in the 3613-A form dated 1/3/25 reflected, First interview with [LVN A] [LVN A] stated she went into room to change/dc IV and told [Dietary Aide B] to take her to the bathroom and change her. She went in to discontinue [Resident #1] IV and flushed it. And told [Resident #1] to get up. She sat her on the side of the bed and stood her up. [LVN A] had to move things out of the way. [LVN A] turned around and [Resident #1] had fallen. [LVN A] tried to roll her over and asked [Dietary Aide B] to get [CNA C]. Tried to roll her over again with [CNA C]. Resisting, [ CNA C] standing in front while [LVN A] was standing behind pushing and [CNA C] pulling stood her straight up and walked her to the bathroom and sat on the pot. [CNA C] held her hand while sitting and grabbed pants. [LVN A] holding back of pants walked her back to bed. Record Review of Witness Statement in the 3613-A form dated 1/3/25 reflected, Interview with [LVN A] #2 per phone call. The DON states to [LVN A] , We were able to meet with [Resident #1] family and they showed us the video of [Resident#1] 's fall. Can you walk me through that fall again. [LVN A] stated that she went to [Resident#1] room to disconnect her IV and to flush it and at the same time do the roommate, [Resident #2] last dose of Lantus. We were getting her to go back and [LVN A] told [Dietary Aide B], she would not be able to take her to the bathroom alone because she is resistant, so I told [Dietary Aide B] to go and help. The DON states, you know [Dietary Aide B] is a dietary aide she works in the kitchen she is not a CNA. [LVN A] stated I know that. That is why [LVN A] was surprised when she was here for one on one. [LVN A] only told her to give [Dietary Aide B] a brief to change into in the bathroom. [DON] stated, [Resident #1]'s family showed us the video of [Resident #1]'s fall can you walk me through that fall again. [LVN A] told [Resident #1] to get up from her laying position in the bed. [LVN A] took off her covers and [LVN a] sat [Resident #1] on the side of the bed, put on her slippers. [LVN A] said Mama we are going to banyo. She reached out her hand [LVN A] lifted her up. Stood her up. The space was small with the small tables, and I turned around to move table. [LVN D] was at the door trying to tell [LVN A] something. Then she fell. Laying face down and needed to turn her toward her back. Called to get [CNA C] to help. [CNA C] was in front and [LVN A] in back. Stood her straight up and took her to the bathroom.[LVN A] Didn't do any Range of Motion or vital signs. When asked by the DON, [LVN A] stated she did not change gloves between residents after giving insulin and changing IV. In a phone interview on 2/26/25 5:20 PM with Responsible Party [RP] of Resident #1 stated that Resident #1 had electronic recording during her stay in the facility via Ring camera that captured motion and sound. She stated that based on the video footage of the ring camera, she saw at approximately on 1/1/25 8:15 PM, a nurse removed the IV drip from resident #1's arm. She added Resident #1 was sleeping and was abruptly asked to stand and use the restroom. Resident #1 was sitting at the edge of the bed and appeared to become unconscious while collapsing and fell face-first on the floor. She added two staff members were present in Resident #1's room and neither turned her on her side to check vitals nor assessed her for injuries. Instead, LVN A continued to demand Resident #1 to stand. RP added Resident #1 remained on the floor until a third staff member arrived to help her stand. She stated that despite the fall; Resident #1 was taken to the bathroom without evaluation, increasing the risk of any further harm. In an observation on 2/27/25 8:55 AM with DON of video footage of the Ring camera in Resident #1's Room revealed the following. Date and time stamps as below: 1/1/25 8:13:56 PM LVN A walked into Resident# 1. Observed fall mat next to Resident #1 bed. 1/1/25 8:14:55 PM LVN A woke up Resident #1 by calling out her name. 1/1/25 8:15:10 PM LVN A takes out the IV tubing from the Resident#1's arm and flushes the IV Line. Resident #1 continues to be asleep with eyes closed. 1/1/25 8:15:41 PM Dietary Aide B walks into the room with her gloves on. 1/1/25 8:15:53 PM LVN A takes out the blanket from Resident #1's body and states common, get up, go pee .Get up right now Resident #1 opens her eyes. 1/1/25 8:16:10 PM LVN A bends down to get shoes for Resident #1. 1/1/25 8:16:22 PM Resident #1 gets up and wears shoes, while sitting at the edge of the bed. 1/1/25 8:16:35 PM LVN A is talking to someone at the door. 1/1/25 8:16:38 - 8:16:40 PM Resident #1 moved forward with her head slowly tilting to the ground and she fell face-first on the floor. Dietary Aide B who was standing close to Resident #1 bed, saw Resident #1 falling and rushed to help the Resident#1. However, she was not able to catch her on time. 1/1/25 8:16:45 PM LVN A still standing next to Resident #1, asked what happened. I told her to get up so she can go to the bathroom. LVN A asked Resident #1 to get up again. She sent Dietary aide out of the room to call CNA for help. 1/1/25 8:17:10 PM LVN A asked Resident #1 get up, turn around, and asked Resident #1, and stated how did you fall? 1/1/25 8:17:45 PM Resident #1 turned around with her face facing the bed , but still on the floor. 1/1/25 8:18:30 PM LVN A continued to ask Resident #1 to get up. CNA C walks into the room. 8:18:56 LVN A and CNA C help Resident #1 to sit up on the floor and then immediately make her stand up. 1/1/25 8:19:14 PM LVN A stated to Resident #1 let's go to the bathroom. It appeared Resident #1 was hesitant to walk to the bathroom and LVN A repeated three times, let's go to the bathroom. Dietary Aide B and LVN A assisted Resident #1 to the bathroom. 1/1/25 8:26:29 PM LVN A and Dietary Aide assist Resident #1 back to her bed from the bathroom. 1/1/25 8:27:15 PM LVN A walked out of Resident #1's room. 1/1/25 8:55:40 PM LVN A entered the room and told Resident #1 [RP] trying to talk to Resident #1, pointing to the ring camera. In an interview 2/27/25 8:58 AM with the DON, she stated LVN A reported Resident #1 fall to the DON on 1/2/25. She stated that Resident #1 had a witnessed fall in her room. LVN A and Dietary Aide B were in the Resident#1's room. She stated that Dietary Aide B was present in Resident #1's room because Resident #1 on one-to-one observation by a staff member related to previous elopement. She stated that Dietary Aide B was a non-clinical aide, and she was not expected to help with any resident care activities. She stated LVN A disconnected the IV medication and flushed the line. She then woke up Resident #1, told her to get up from her laying position in the bed. LVN A took off her covers and made her sit at the edge of the bed. LVN A then was talking to LVN C, who was at the Resident #1 door, talking to her about a phone call. Resident #1 had a fall with face down position and fell near the IV pole close to the fall mattress. She stated that once Resident #1 fell, she expected LVN A to check on her physically by bending down to assess for any injuries. She stated that LVN failed to assess vital signs, range of motion, and turn the resident on her back to check for any injuries immediately post fall. She stated that after Resident #1 was turned with the help of CNA C, she expected LVN A to make the resident sit on the bed to conduct neuro assessment before she could walk Resident #1 to the bathroom. The DON stated LVN A stood Resident #1 straight up and took her to the bathroom. She added LVN A called the physician and family and conducted skull X- ray that determined Resident #1 did not have any injuries post fall and there was no immediate or delayed harm to the resident. She stated that LVN was suspended on 1/2/25 and terminated there after the investigation was completed. She stated that LVN Progress note dated 1/1/25 and indicated that LVN A conducted post fall assessment that included vital signs, neuro checks and Range of motion, however per the electronic monitoring camera footage and LVN A witness statements, LVN A failed to conduct a thorough assessment immediately post fall. She stated that LVN A was referred to the Texas Board of Nursing for falsifying documents and customer service concern based on her prior witness statement before the DON reviewed camera footage of the fall. DON added that they conducted in services for falls after the incident for all direct care staff members. In an interview on 2/26/25 at 3:00 PM with Dietary Aide B stated that she was a Dietary Aide working in the kitchen, she stated that she wanted to make some extra income and took up the opportunity in the facility to provide one on one supervision to Resident #1. She stated that since she was nonclinical, her only work was one on one observation to watch Resident #1 and not perform any resident care activities. She stated that on 1/1/25 around 8:15 PM, LVN A came to the room to administer medications to Resident #1 and Resident #2. She stated that LVN A disconnected Resident #1's IV medication , took out the blanket from Resident #1's body and asked her to go to the bathroom. Resident #1 woke up, wore slippers and was sitting at the edge of the bed. In few moments, Resident #1 moved forward, while still sitting on the bed, with her head slowly tilting to the ground and she fell face-first on the floor. Dietary Aide B who was standing close to Resident #1 bed, saw Resident #1 falling, but before she could reach Resident #1, she fell and was not able to catch Resident #1 on time. She stated that LVN A was in the room at the time of the fall. LVN A then asked Resident#1 to get up and sent Dietary Aide B to find CNA for help. Dietary Aide B went out of the room to call CNA C who assisted Resident #1 to get up and then they walked Resident #1 to the bathroom. Dietary aide B stated that she had not been provided any in services on falls since she does not provide direct care to any resident. In an interview on 2/26/25 3:46 PM with CNA C, he stated that he was in the hallway rolling the dirty linen cart, when Dietary Aide B called him to Resident #1's room for assistance. When he entered the room, he saw Resident #1 lying sideways on the floormat on the floor facing the bed. LVN A and CNA C sat her on the floormat for a brief moment and got her up in the standing position. Resident#1 walked with LVN A to the bathroom and CNA C left the room. He stated he had been provided with fall in services in the past and was asked to call nurse on duty for any falls and assist as needed. He stated that Resident #1 did not need any assistance with walking, nor did she use wheelchair or walker for locomotion as far as he remembered. In an interview on 2/26/25 3:58 PM with LVN D, stated that she went to Resident #1's room to call LVN A since she had a phone call from a hospital regarding a different resident. She stated she saw Resident #1 sitting at the edge of the bed while she was talking to LVN A. She stated that she left the room soon after. She stated that fall in services was provided to her and expectation was to assess the residents for any injuries, vital signs, level of consciousness, and range of motion post fall. She also stated that Nurse will need to inform physician, DON, and family members. In a phone interview on 2/26/25 4:32 PM with LVN A stated that she went to Resident#1 room to disconnect her IV and to flush it and at the same time do the roommate Resident #2 last dose of insulin. She stated that there was Dietary Aide B who was providing one on one observation to Resident #1. She stated that Dietary Aide B did not have any patient care experience and she was aware that Dietary Aide B could not provide any patient care to Resident #1. LVN A stated that after disconnecting Resident #1's IV, she got Resident #1 up to the side of the bed. LVN A stated she made Resident #1 sit on the bed to make sure she was stable. She stated that Resident #1 was a fall risk, however Resident #1 did not need any assistance for walking. LVN A stated she turned around to make space and push the bedside table to ensure Resident #1 had adequate space to go to the bathroom. At the same time, LVN D was at Resident #1's door to tell her about a phone call for a different resident. Within few moments, she heard Dietary Aide B saying ah , ah, ah and looked back to see Resident #1 had a fall face down on the floor near the IV pole. She stated there was a fall mattress on the ground. She stated that Resident#1 was heavy, so she could not pick up Resident #1 by herself. She sent Dietary Aide B to call a CNA for help. Once CNA C arrived, they turned Resident #1 to the back and got her to sitting position and pulled her up to the standing position to take her to the bathroom immediately. LVN A added she glanced at Resident #1's face and did not observe any visible injuries. LVN A added, she failed to immediately conduct fall assessment on the resident that included checking vitals, and range of Motion before walking her to the bathroom. She stated that she could have made the Resident #1 sit on the bed or on the fall, checked her vitals, made sure there were no apparent injuries, performed range of motion before she walked Resident #1 to the bathroom. She stated that Resident #1 was able to walk to the bathroom by herself post fall. She stated she panicked and had multiple tasks to be completed. She stated she notified the MD who ordered Skull series and X rays and notified Resident #1's RP. She stated that she was aware there was electronic recording device in the room. She added she had been provided fall management in services in the facility. She stated that risk of not completing fall assessment accurately can lead to increased risk of delayed injuries, and decreased quality of care. Record review of in-services dated 10/16/24, reflected LVN A was provided fall prevention in-service. Review of the facility's titled Fall management revised May 5, 2023 , reflected, 1.The facility will identify each patient/resident who is at risk for falls and will plan care and implement interventions to manage falls. 2.Qualified staff will complete the Fall Risk Evaluation to determine if patient/resident is a fall risk. 3.The fall management program includes education for staff in creative, functional strategies while recognizing patients/resident's rights and highest practicable level of function 1.Qualified 1staff evaluates all patients/residents for fall risk at a minimum upon admission, quarterly, with a significant change, and post-fall.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (Residents #1 and Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for infection control. 1.LVN A failed to perform hand hygiene and changed gloves while administering medications to Resident #1 and Resident #2 on 1/1/2025. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for spread of infection through cross-contamination of pathogens and illness. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #1's MDS Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 1/6/2025. Resident had BIMS of 9 which indicated Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included nontraumatic brain dysfunction, hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus (high blood glucose), Hyperlipidemia (high lipid levels), non-Alzheimer's dementia, repeated falls, and unspecified Dementia. Record Review of Resident #1's Physician order dated 12/30/2024 reflected Resident #1 on Meropenem solution 1 gram intravenous three times a day 4:30, 12:30 and 20:30 with start date from 12/30/24 to 1/3/25. Record Review of Resident #1's Physician order dated 12/28/25 reflected, midline placement one time. Record review of Resident#1's Infectious disease Physician Progress note dated 1/5/25 reflected , At this point, patient is treated with Meropenem 1 gram IV q.8 [Every 8] hours daily for seven days. She is tolerating antibiotics okay. Record Review of Resident #2's MDS Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident had BIMS score of 6 which indicated Resident #2 had severe cognitive deficit. Her diagnoses included nontraumatic brain dysfunction, hypertension (High blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus (high blood glucose), Hyperlipidemia (high blood lipids), non-Alzheimer's dementia, Blindness right eye. Record Review of Resident #2's Physician orders dated 6/26/24 reflected , Lantus Solostar U-100 Insulin pen; 100 unit/mL(3mL), amount 15 units, subcutaneous once a day at [8 PM]. In a phone interview on 2/26/25 5:20 PM with Responsible Party [RP] for Resident #1 she stated that Resident #1 had electronic recording during her stay in the facility via Ring camera that captured motion and sound. She stated that she reviewed video footage in Resident#1's room and noted that on 1/1/25 between 8 - 9 pm, LVN A administered medication to Resident #2, who was Resident #1's roommate. LVN A then turned around and provided care that included discontinuing Resident #1's IV therapy and flushing the IV line. She stated that she had concerns regarding infection control for Resident #1 since LVN A did not change gloves. She added that privacy curtain was not drawn for either of the resident's (Resident # 1 and Resident #2) while administering medications. She added that Resident #1 was discharged to another facility on 1/6/25. She added that she notified the facility DON and provided video footage about concerns regarding Resident #1's care. She stated unedited video footage from 1/1/25 was still available with her and she will send the video footage to the surveyor to review after the phone interview. In an observation on 2/27/25 8:55 AM with the DON of video footage of the Ring camera in Resident #1's Room date and time stamped 1/1/25 at 8:13:56 PM revealed LVN A walked into Resident#1 and Resident #2's room. She had her gloves on when LVN A entered the room. She also had insulin injection in her hand. LVN A administered insulin injection to Resident #2. The privacy curtain was not drawn hence the electronic monitoring camera captured LVN A administering medication to Resident #2. Further observation of the video footage revealed on 1/1/25 timestamped 8:14:55 PM LVN A turned around from Resident #2's bed to Resident #1's bed. She woke up Resident #1 by calling out her name. Video date and time stamped 1/1/25 at 8:15:08 PM , LVN proceeded to disconnect Resident #1's IV medication and flushed the midline. LVN A did not perform hand hygiene or changed gloves when she administered medications or disconnect IV med between the two tasks. In an interview 2/27/25 8:58 AM with the DON, she stated LVN A was in Resident #1 and Resident #2's room to administer medications. LVN A failed to follow Infection control practices. She stated that LVN A used same PPE for both the residents and did not perform hand hygiene while administering medications to both Resident #1 and Resident #2. She stated it was her expectation that LVN A should had performed hand hygiene before and after administering medication or providing care to each resident and donned new pair of gloves each time. She also added that based on the observation of the video, LVN A walked into the room with donned gloves, so it was unclear how long she had those gloves on. She added new gloves were available inside every resident room and LVN A was expected to perform hand hygiene and wear new gloves once inside the Residents room to keep them sterile. She stated risk of not performing hand hygiene or donning new PPE was increased spread of infection. In a phone interview on 2/27/25 11:44 AM with LVN A revealed she no longer works in the facility. She stated that on 1/1/25, she administered insulin injection to Resident #2 and discontinued IV medication for Resident #1 while she was in the room. She added she failed to performed hand hygiene or donned new gloves while providing medications to the residents. She stated that she was aware that hand hygiene and separate PPE should be used each time when providing care or administering medication for each resident. She stated that she was in a hurry since it was almost the end of her 2-10 shift, and she wanted to complete her remaining work. She stated that performing adequate hand hygiene and donning appropriate PPE was a part of her nurse training. She stated that failure to perform hand hygiene or donning correct PPE can lead to spread of infections. Record review of facility policy titled, Infection prevention and control policies and procedures revised May 15, 2023 , reflected, . Wearing gloves, Gowns, masks, and eye protection can significantly reduce health risks for workers exposed to blood and other potentially infectious materials .
Apr 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violation of abuse and neglect were thoroughly i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violation of abuse and neglect were thoroughly investigated for 2 (Resident #370 and Resident # 270) of 17 residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property, in that; 1- The facility failed to conduct investigation following self-report of neglect allegation for unwitnessed fall for Resident #370. 2- The facility failed to conduct investigation following self-report of neglect allegation report to the administrator attention by Resident #270's family member. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for neglect by not having their incidents investigated. The findings were: 1- Resident #370 Review of Resident #370's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #370 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Diabetes (high blood glucose), cancer ( abnormal increase in number of cells), end stage renal disease, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). She had a BIMS of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. Resident #370 needed Supervision for transfers and set up help only for ADL support. Record review of Resident #370's Care Plan last updated 4/17/2024 reflected, Problem: Resident #370 is at risk for falling related to impaired mobility, unsteadiness on feet, blindness left eye. Goal: Resident will remain free from injury for 90days. Approach: Give resident verbal reminders not to ambulate/transfer without assistance; Keep call light in reach at all times; Keep personal items and frequently used items within reach; Observe frequently and place in supervised area when out of bed; Provide resident an environment free of clutter. Record review of Resident #370 's Nurses' Note, dated 10/7/2023 at 5:08 am reflected , Heard resident yelling in pain and went to room. Resident lying on floor half on left side with walker on right side of body. Assessment done with pain observed when palpating left hip. Unable to sit up or move leg. Record review of the facility's accident report , dated 10/7/2023, revealed Resident #370's fall to have occurred at 5:08 a.m. in the resident's room. Further review revealed. RN heard resident yelling and went to the room; found on the floor, lying partially on left side. [NAME] on right side of the resident. Finding and analysis: found on floor and complained of left hip pain. Follow-up steps: to emergency room for assessment. Record review of the hospital discharge report for Resident #370 dated 10/10/2023 reflected [AGE] year-old female with history of end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis admitted from nursing home after a fall. Imaging revealed fracture of the left pelvis. Patient was evaluated by orthopedics and recommended weightbearing as tolerated and nonoperative management PT OT and outpatient follow-up. Patient overall doing better today pain is controlled and is wanting to go back to nursing home. Patient blood pressure was found to be elevated patient was continued on hemodialysis while in the hospital. CT of the head no acute intracranial abnormality noticed. Record review in TULIP (an online system for submitting long-term care licensure applications) revealed a self-report was made regarding Resident #370's fall with allegation of neglect by the facility dated 10/7/2023. The narrative of the incident included, Heard resident yelling in pain and went to room. Resident lying on floor half on left side with walker on right side of body. Per family member resident reports 'she was getting ready for dialysis and tripped over something in her room. In an interview with Resident #370 on 4/17/2024 at 10:10 AM revealed that she had a fall in October 2023. She said it happened in the morning when she was getting ready for dialysis, and she tripped over a walker in the room. Resident stated she went to the hospital for a few days and recovered well after the incident. Resident #370 stated she had no concerns about her falls and staff checked on her often. In an interview with CNA A on 4/17/2024 at 12:04 PM regarding resident #370's fall revealed she has been working with the facility for the last 2 years. She stated Resident #370 had a history of falls and they had interventions for falls in place for the resident. CNA A stated that she was not questioned about Resident #370'falls and does not know whether an investigation was done. She stated she received multiple in-services on fall prevention and abuse/neglect. She stated she knew to contact the current facility administrator for any allegation of abuse and neglect immediately. In an interview with LVN B regarding Resident #370's fall in October 2023 stated that she was not working on the day of the fall; however Resident #370 had a history of falls. She also stated that Resident #370 had issues with left eye vision, ambulated by herself, and the facility had fall prevention intervention in place. LVN B stated she was not interviewed for the falls and did not know if an investigation was conducted. She stated she had received multiple in-services for fall prevention as well as abuse and neglect. She stated she would report any allegation of abuse and neglect to the current facility administrator immediately. 2- Resident#270 Review of Resident #270's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), peripheral vascular disease, renal failure, diabetes mellitus (High blood sugar). Resident #270 had a BIMS of 14 indicating he was cognitively intact. He required extensive assistance of one-person physical assist with ADLS of bed mobility, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. He required extensive assistance of two-person physical assist of ADL of transfers. Resident #270 is occasionally incontinent of bowel and had an indwelling foley catheter. Review of Resident #270's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 08/23/23 reflected Resident #270 required assistance with ADLs. Interventions included Bed mobility: limited to extensive x1. Dressing: assist of limited to extensive. Toileting: assist of extensive. Bathing: of extensive to total. Record review in TULIP revealed a self-report was made regarding Resident #270's allegation of neglect made by the resident's family member on 09/07/23. The narrative of the incident included, [Family member] presented in Administrator office asking for admission inventory sheet because they were moving [Resident #270] to new facility because of neglect and there is poop on his bed. The reporter stated resident did not have feces on his person at the time of the incident. The feces were on his bed sheets; there was no provider incident report, for the self-reported incident by the facility. In an interview with the DON on 4/17/2024 at 2:47 PM revealed that she was new to the facility and started working at the facility in December 2023. She stated she did not have any information regarding Resident #370's fall in October or if investigation for Resident #370 was carried out. She stated that her expectation was that any reportable incident should be reported to state and investigative findings completed within 5 working days of reporting. She stated based on the type of allegation, it was a joint responsibility of the DON and the Administrator to complete incident investigations. In an interview with the Facility Administrator on 4/18/2024 at 8:35 AM revealed that he started working at the facility in December 2023 and he was not aware that the reportable self- incident for Resident #370 submitted to Texas HHSC was not investigated. He stated the facility was not able to find any investigation report for Resident #370, and Resident#270. He stated his expectation was that all incidents should be investigated within 5 working days. He stated that the risk to the resident if it was not investigated was the potential for the incident to happen again and decreased quality of care. He stated that all staff members were aware that any allegation of abuse and neglect should be immediately reported to the Administrator, as abuse coordinator immediately. He also stated the DON and the Administrator were responsible for investigating the reportable incidents. In an interview with Corporate Executive Director on 4/18/2024 at 8:40 AM revealed she reached out to the previous Administrator who no longer worked for the facility. He told them the investigation report for Resident #370 would be on the O Drive on computer if the investigation report was completed. He told them he may or may not have completed these reportable incidents and could not recall any specific information about them. She and the Administrator had no specific information about these reportable incidents and could not find any documentation of the facility investigations. Record review of the facility's policy titled, ABUSE, NEGLECT, EXPLOITATION, OR MISTREATMENT, revised 10/23/2019, revealed, 3. The facility conducts an internal investigation through the Legal Department, if applicable, and reports the results to enforcement agencies within five (5) working days or as prescribed by state law. Enforcement agencies include but are not limited to the State's survey and certification agency. NOTE: Copies of internal Incident Reports should not be disclosed to any person or agency without prior approval from the Legal Department (see below). 4.Investigations are prompt, comprehensive and responsive to the situation and contain founded conclusions. Resident #270
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (Resident #370) of 4 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address Resident #370 keeping food in her room in unsanitary conditions. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs. Findings include: Review of Resident #370's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #370 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Diabetes (high blood glucose), cancer ( abnormal proliferation of cells), end stage renal disease (complete loss of kidney function), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). She had a BIMS of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. Resident #370 needed Supervision for transfers and set up help only for ADL support. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan last revised on 4/17/24 did not reflect Resident #370 keeping food in her room. Observation of Resident #370's room on 4/17/24 at 10:08 AM revealed that Resident #370 had a plastic container on her bed with 1/3rd box filled with shredded purple cabbage, 2 spring onion, 1 tomato and 3-4 medium size pieces of peeled ginger that was left unopened with fruit flies on the produce. Also observed, an avocado seed left on Resident #370's windowsill with fruit flies on it. Observed Resident #370 also had a table-mounted mini refrigerator in her room. Interview with Resident #370 on 4/17/24 at 10:10 AM revealed that her family likes to bring food that included fresh fruits and vegetables for her, and she disliked the facility's food at times. She stated that the fresh produce left uncovered in the container will be used for making salsa later. Resident #370 stated she had impaired vision and did not see the fruit flies on the produce until the time of the interview. She stated she used the facility microwave to cook her own meals at times. Resident #370 stated that she does not utilize her room refrigerator to store fresh produce because there is not enough space to hold all her produce at times. Resident #370 did not permit the writer to see what was in the refrigerator. In an interview with LVN B on 4/17/2024 at 10:59 AM revealed Resident #370's family brings in fresh produce very frequently such as ginger, carrot, and tomato in the room. LVN stated she had tried telling Resident #370 to keep fresh produce in a sanitary manner (covered, stored in refrigerator) multiple times. LVN B commented that Resident #370 has a mini refrigerator in the room, but she had not seen the resident use it often. LVN B stated Resident #370 will not allow facility staff to throw away spoiled foods and noncompliance to store food in sanitary conditions should be care planned. She stated the risk of not appropriately care planning can lead to increased infection risk to the resident. In an interview with CNA A on 4/17/2024 at 12:04 PM revealed Resident #370's family brings her food often, at least weekly, which includes onions, garlic, avocado, and other fruits and vegetables. CNA A stated she has seen fruit flies in the resident's room earlier, however Resident #370 is reluctant and does not allow to clean her room frequently. CNA A stated that the previous facility director and Nurses knew the resident stores fresh produce in her room. CNA A stated since Resident #370 has fresh produce in her room that is often stored in unsanitary condition, it should be care planned so staff was aware of it. In an interview with MA D on 4/17/2024 at 12:07 pm revealed that MA D had seen multiple instances of fresh produce left uncovered in Resident #370's room. She stated that Resident #37 had vision issues and was not sure if she could see the fruit flies in her room. As a medication aide, MA D bought a fresh cup of yogurt and Nepro drinks to Resident #370 each day. MA D stated Resident 370 storing fresh produce in her room should be care planned appropriately to improve quality of care for the resident. In an interview with MDS Coordinator LVN on 4/17/2024 at 12:21 pm stated she was aware Resident #370's family brought packaged snacks for the resident; however, she was not aware resident had fresh produce in her room. She stated Resident #370's care plan did not include her keeping food in her room. She stated that risk of not care planning was staff would not be aware of it and the risk of not appropriately care planning would be decreased quality of care for the resident. She stated that MDS Coordinator and the DON were responsible for care planning and care plans are revised every 92 days and on an as needed basis. In an interview with the DON on 4/17/2024 at 2:47 PM revealed Resident #370's care plan did not include her keeping food in her room and she was not aware that family was bringing in fresh produce for the resident. The DON stated that unsanitary storage of produce should be care planned and the risk of not care planning was that staff will not know about how to take care of the resident and possible risk of infection to the resident. She stated that comprehensive care planning was the responsibility of MDS Coordinator. Review of facility's policy Care Plan Process, Person-Centered Care revised 5/5/2023 reflected The facility will develop and implement a baseline and comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #59) of 8 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #59 had his fingernails cleaned and trimmed. This failure could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #59's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #59 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, muscle wasting and atrophy, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #59's BIMS score of 99 indicated Resident #59 was unable to complete the interview. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #59 required maximal assistance with toileting and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #59's Care Plan dated 02/19/24, reflected the following: Goal: current Resident #59 functional status will be identified . Approach: . personal hygiene and toileting: dependent - 2 persons assist . In an observation on 04/16/24 at 10:38 AM revealed Resident #59 was laying in his bed. The nails on both hands were approximately 0.4cm in length extending from the tip of his fingers. The nails were discolored tan and had dark brown colored residue on the underside and on the nails' bed. Resident #59 did not answer questions. In an interview on 04/16/24 at 10:50 AM, CNA A stated CNAs were allowed to cut the residents' nails if they were not diabetic. CNA A stated she did not see Resident #59's nails this morning. She stated she would clean and trim Resident #59's finger nails right then. In an Interview on 04/18/24 at 08:47 AM, the DON stated nail care should be completed as needed and every time aides wash the residents' hands. The DON stated nails should be observed daily. The DON stated nurses were responsible for trimming the nails of residents who were diabetic, and CNAs could trim other residents' nails. The DON stated she expected CNAs to offer to cut and clean nails if they were long and dirty. The DON stated the ADON and the DON would do the routine rounds to monitor. The DON stated residents having long and dirty could be an infection control issue. Record review of the facility's policy Activities of Daily Living, Optimal Function revised 05/05/23, reflected the following: . The Facility provides necessary care to all residents that are unable to carry out activities of daily living on their own to ensure they maintain proper nutrition, grooming, and hygiene .
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for one (Resident #59) of two residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility failed to ensure CNA A provided appropriate perineal (genital and rectal areas) care for Resident #59 after an incontinent episode when she failed to clean from front to back. This failure could place residents at risk for the development and/or worsening of urinary tract infections and skin breakdown. Findings included: Record review of Resident #59's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #59 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, muscle wasting and atrophy, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #59's BIMS score of 99 indicated Resident #59 was unable to complete the interview. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #59 required maximal assistance with toileting and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #59's Care Plan dated 02/17/24, reflected the following: Problem: Resident #59 experiences bladder incontinence. Goal: Resident #59 will be kept clean, dry, and odor free . Approach: . Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode . Observation on 04/16/24 at 10:38 AM revealed CNA A entered Resident #59's room to provide incontinence care. CNA A had gloves in her hands. She unfastened Resident #59's brief and rolled him on his side. CNA A wiped the resident's buttock area with peri-wipes, back to front , removing a small amount of fecal material. CNA A then removed the soiled brief and with soiled gloves, and placed the clean brief under the resident. CNA A rolled the resident on his back onto the clean brief. CNA A then provided peri-care to the resident, wiping across the resident's pubis bone and then down each groin downward toward the clean brief. Once finished, she fastened the resident's brief. In an interview on 04/16/24 at 10:50 AM, CNA A stated she supposed to clean from front to back and acknowledged she did not do that. CNA A stated she should change her gloves and perform hand hygiene when she went from dirty to clean. CNA A stated failing to provide proper care exposed the resident to infections. In an interview on 04/18/24 at 08:47 AM, the DON stated when providing incontinent care staff were to clean from front to back, cleaning the peri area then moving toward the buttocks. She stated by not providing accurate incontinent care it placed residents at risk for urinary tract infections, skin breakdown and overall poor hygiene. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal and Incontinent Care, revised 05/05/23. The policy did not address the concern.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for 1 (Med Aide Cart hall 200) of 3 carts reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure MA C, responsible for Med Aide cart hall 200, removed medications in unsecure containers from the Med Aide Cart. This failure could place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion and at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medication. Findings Included: Record review and observation on 04/17/24 at 12:00 PM of Med Aide Cart Hall 200, with MA C revealed the blister pack for Resident #61's Hydroco/APAP 7.5 - 325 mg tablet (controlled medication used for pain) had 1 blister seal broken and the pill still inside the broken blister and taped over. Interview on 04/17/24 at 12:05 PM, MA C stated she was unaware when the blister pack seal was broken, and she was not aware of who might have damaged the blister. She stated the risk would be a potential for drug diversion. She stated the nurses and med aides were responsible to check the medication blister packs for broken seals during the count of narcotics during the change of the shift. She stated the count was done at shift change and the count was correct. She stated she did not see the broken blister during the count. She stated when a broken seal was observed, she would report it to the charge nurse. Interview on 04/18/24 at 8:47 AM, the DON stated she expected if a blister pack medication seal was broken the pill should be discarded. The DON stated it would not be acceptable to keep a pill in a blister pack that was opened. The DON stated the risk would be potential for drug diversion and infection control issue. She stated nurses were responsible for checking the medication blister packs for broken seals during the count on the change of shifts. The DON stated the ADON , and the DON were supposed to check the cart randomly. Record review of the facility's policy Medication Storage revised 04/01/22, reflected the following: . 12. Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication destruction, and reordered from the pharmacy if replacements are needed .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for 2 resident (Resident #59 and Resident #46) of 8 residents observed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure: 1- CNA A performed hand hygiene and changed gloves during incontinent care for Resident #59. 2- LVN B performed hand hygiene after performing FSBS (finger stick blood sugar) checks on Resident #46 and cleaning the glucometer, before re-entering the medication cart and drawing the Resident's Insulin. These failures could place residents at risk for infection and cross contamination of pathogens and illness. Findings include: 1- Record review of Resident #59's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #59 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, muscle wasting and atrophy, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #59's BIMS score of 99 indicated Resident #59 was unable to complete the interview. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #59 required maximal assistance with toileting and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #59's Care Plan dated 02/17/24, reflected the following: Problem: Resident #59 experiences bladder incontinence. Goal: Resident #59 will be kept clean, dry, and odor free . Approach: . Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode . Observation on 04/16/24 at 10:38 AM revealed CNA A entered Resident #59's room to provide incontinence care. CNA A had gloves in her hands. She unfastened Resident #59's brief and rolled him on his side. CNA A wiped the resident's buttock area with peri-wipes, front to back, removing a small amount of fecal material. CNA A then removed the soiled brief and with soiled gloves, placed the clean brief under the resident. CNA A rolled the resident on his back onto the clean brief. CNA A then provided peri-care to the resident, wiping across the resident's pubis bone and then down each groin downward toward the clean brief. Once finished, she fastened the resident's brief. In an interview on 04/16/24 at 10:50 AM, CNA A stated she supposed to clean from front to back and acknowledged she did not do that. CNA A stated she should change her gloves and perform hand hygiene when she went from dirty to clean. CNA A stated failing to provide proper care exposed the resident to infections. 2- Record review of Resident #46's Optional State Assessment MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #46 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, muscle wasting and atrophy, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #46's BIMS score of 15 indicated Resident #46 was cognitively intact. An observation of LVN B on 04/16/24 at 11:09 AM revealed LVN B gathered supplies from the medication cart, performing hand hygiene and putting on clean gloves. She entered Resident #46's room and pricked the resident's finger with a lancet needle. LVN B squeezed the pricked finger to collect blood for glucose testing, and then she wiped off blood from her finger using a small alcohol wipe. Once finished, she picked up the supplies she had brought into the room and returned to the medication cart, where she placed the dirty glucometer on a piece of wax paper. LVN B discarded the lancet and strip she used on Resident #46, removed her gloves, and then put on clean gloves without performing hand hygiene. LVN B then pulled out a Sani-cloth (germicidal disposable wipe) and wiped down the glucometer and returned it to the Medication cart. LVN B removed her gloves and put on clean gloves without performing hand hygiene and opened the Medication cart. She then pulled out the resident's insulin pen of Novolog. She cleaned the top of the pen with an alcohol wipe and re-entered the resident's room. Without changing her gloves or performing hand hygiene she wiped the resident's upper right abdomen with a small alcohol wipe and administered the insulin. LVN B returned to the medication cart, discarded the needle, removed her gloves and sanitized her hands. In an interview on 04/16/24 at 11:20 AM, LVN B stated she sanitized her hands before she performed the FSBS and after she gave the Insulin. She stated she realized she should have sanitized her hands after she had cleaned the glucometer. She stated the risk would be cross contamination and spread of infection. In an interview with on 04/18/24 at 8:47 AM, the DON stated she expected the staff to remove their gloves and sanitize their hands when going from dirty to clean. She stated the nurse should have sanitized her hands before giving any medication and should have sanitized her hands after cleaning the glucometer, since it was considered contaminated after use. Record review of the facility's policy, Hand Hygiene/Hand Washing, revised May 15, 2023, reflected, . Hand Hygiene/Hand Washing is done . Before taking part in a medical or surgical procedure . After contact with soiled or contaminated articles such as articles that are contaminated with body fluids . After removal of medical/surgical or utility gloves.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the residents' right to review survey results were readily accessible to residents, family members and legal repre...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the residents' right to review survey results were readily accessible to residents, family members and legal representatives of residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure survey results were located and placed in a readily accessible location where individuals wishing to examine survey results without having to ask to review them. The facility failed to ensure residents were informed of their right to view survey results. This failure could affect residents who reside in the facility and could result in a lack of awareness for visitors, family, and residents regarding the survey results and the plan of correction submitted by the facility. The findings were: The confidential group meeting at 11:00 a.m. on 4/17/24, revealed residents were not aware of the location of the results of Federal or State surveys nor were they aware of their right to review the results of these surveys. In an interview at 2:07 p.m. on 04/17/24, the Activities Director said he thought the results of the state surveys were located at the nurse's station, but he was not sure. He stated he was responsible for informing residents of their rights during resident council meetings. In an interview at 3:03 p.m., on 04/18/24, the Administrator said the notebook containing the state survey results were temporarily on his desk. The Administrator walked towards a drawer on a table in the lobby and pointed where the results of State surveys were located when not temporarily on his desk. Observation revealed the drawer was marked with a Facility Postings and Survey Results sticker. The Administrator stated he thought the Activities Director informed residents during Resident's Council of the location of the results of the state inspection. The Administrator stated he would inform residents going forward of the location. Record review of Social Services Policies and Procedures: Subject: Complaints/Grievances Process, Section: Postings and Notifications #4) The facility's leadership will furnish a written description of the patients/resident's legal rights which include: 1) state survey, licensure, and certification agency. Complete Revision: 6/9/2023, Policy Revision: 11/6/2023.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public for two of thirteen residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's room had a toilet that flushed and repaired walls. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident#2's room had a closet door that was functional and repaired flooring. These failures could place residents at risk for living in an unsafe, unsanitary, and uncomfortable environments. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), and high blood pressure. Record review of the Quarterly MDS , dated 08/24/23, for Resident #1 revealed a BIMS score of 99, which indicated the resident was unable to answer questions. Resident #1 needed extensive assistance with bed mobility. Observation on 08/30/23 at 12:58 p.m., Resident #1's room revealed the toilet would not flush. The handle was pushed multiple times, urine and stool stayed in the toilet. Inside the room, there were multiple scratches on the wall in two different areas. The first area had paint scratched off the wall in an area approximately 1 foot by 1 foot area. The second area had paint scratched off the wall in an area of approximately 2 feet by 2 feet area. Attempted Interview on 08/30/23 at 12:59 p.m., Resident #1 appeared to be confused and was unable to answer questions regarding maintenance of her room and bathroom. 2, Record review of Resident #2's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), recurrent depressive disorders (persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life), and high blood pressure. Record review of the Quarterly MDS , dated 08/04/23, for Resident #1 revealed a BIMS score of 13, which indicated resident is cognitively intact. Resident #1 to needed extensive assistance with bed mobility. Observation on 8/30/23 at 1:04 p.m., Resident #2's room revealed the closet door had multiple pieces of masking tape over the door latch to keep the door from latching. To the left of the closet close to the middle of the room, corner of floor tile sticking up off the ground. The State Surveyor was able to pick it up easily off the floor. Interview on 8/30/23 at 1:04 p.m., Resident #2 stated the closet door would not open. She stated it to several people because she could not get her things out of the closet, and it upset her. Recently a staff member placed tape on door, so it was easy to open and close. She was unable to recall names of staff she told or timeframes. Resident #2 pointed out the tile on floor that was sticking up. Resident #2 stated people kept tripping on the tile . Interview with the Administrator on 08/31/23 at 11:35 a.m., revealed he was currently the maintenance person due to maintenance being out for a few weeks. The expectation was staff would add maintenance issues to the facility maintenance log as found. The facility also had guardian angels (people assigned to look over the wellbeing of specific residents residing in the facility) for residents. The guardian angels were expected to place maintenance issues on their logs and turn in to the Administrator. The Administrator stated he randomly checked the maintenance logs for new requests. The Administrator stated the corporate staff were working on getting regional maintenance to come out and help him with maintenance repairs. The Administrator stated failing to keep up with maintenance requests does not promote a home like environment for residents. Record review of the maintenance log revealed: 8/02 - 210 - loose floorboards 8/24 - 210 - Closet keeps locking 8/24 - 210 - walls need repair 8//24 - 215 - toilet does not work Record review of grievances did not reveal a grievance for these two rooms in the last three months. Record review of the facility's policy Maintenance/Housekeeping Policies and Procedures dated 3/2006, reflected written criteria, which include utilities for life support, infection control, environmental support and equipment support .patient room inspections .monthly .resident room checklist .inspect and repair all walls in room and bath, including behind patient beds .flush toilet to ensure adequate flow .check for operation of doors for free movement .check flooring for cracks or gaps and repair as necessary
Jul 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 staff (CNA A) out of 3 staff observed for infection control. CNA A failed to remove dirty gloves and do hand hygiene during incontinent care for Resident #1. These failures placed residents at risk for spread of infection through cross-contamination. Findings included: Observation on 07/25/23 at 09:49 a.m. revealed CNA A and CNA B unclasped Resident #1 brief and pulled it back to allow for incontinent care. CNA A provided incontinent care to resident tucked the brief between Resident #1 legs. CNA A and CNA B turned Resident #1 to her side. CNA A continued to clean the resident and rolled the brief into itself and then removed the brief. CNA A did not remove gloves or do hand hygiene and grabbed clean brief. Placed brief under resident, clasped new brief, adjusted Resident #1's legs, and pulled sheet back over Resident #1 without changing gloves or doing hand hygiene. CNA A removed her gloves and continued adjusting bed and patient without doing hand hygiene. CNA A and CNA B completed hand hygiene in restroom before leaving the room. In an interview on 07/25/23 at 10:01 a.m. CNA A stated that she was supposed to wash her hands when she entered the resident's room and after they completed care for the resident. When CNA A was questioned about hand hygiene during incontinent care she stated, she did not understand the question. She stated that hand hygiene helps to prevent spread of bacteria. In an interview on 07/25/23 at 10:20 a.m. CNA B stated that she was supposed to wash her hands when she entered resident's room and after she completes care for the resident. CNA B stated to remove gloves and do hand hygiene after changing resident's brief. She stated that hand hygiene helps to avoid cross contamination. In an interview on 07/25/23 at 1:02 p.m. the DON stated she expected staff to perform hand hygiene when entering a resident's room, when they go from dirty to clean, and before they leave the resident's room. Review of the facility's policy titled Hand Hygiene/Handwashing, revised 9/2011, reflected, .To prevent the spread of infection .handwashing .Before and after direct contact with resident's .after removing gloves .after toileting and after personal grooming .after contact with an object or source where there is a concentration of microorganisms, such as .body fluids .
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, consistent with professi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for two (Residents #10 and #11) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Treatment Nurse failed to: Clear and sanitize Resident #10's bedside table prior to placing supplies that would be used for wound care. Perform hand hygiene after cleaning the wounds and prior to the application of the prescribed treatments for Resident #10 and Resident #11. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for contamination of their wounds and causing unnecessary infections. Findings include: Review of Resident #10's face sheet dated 5/16/2023 revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Heart failure (poor circulation), amputation of both legs above the knees resulting in the resident becoming bed bound. Stage 4 (involves muscle, tendons, ligaments and bone) pressure wound to the sacrum (lower region of the back above the gluteal crease). BIMS score of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #10's care plan dated 5/16/2023, reflected as of 4/6/2023 Resident #10 had a pressure ulcer to her sacrum with approaches including: wound care to be performed as ordered, weekly evaluation of the wound, treatments and healing. Review of Resident #10's physician's orders reflected: as of 5/12/2023, cleanse wound to sacrum with NS (neutral cleanser not irritating to the skin), pat dry with gauze, apply calcium alginate with silver (absorbent dressing material with antimicrobial properties) then cover with gauze island (multilayered dressing used to promote healing) border dressing daily. Observation on 5/16/2023 at 10:02 AM, upon entry into Resident #10's room WCN moved some personal items off Resident #10's bedside table. The following items were left on the table: 3 whole bananas and 1 partially eaten banana, 1 open carton of milk, 1 covered jug of water, 1 uncovered glass of orange juice, open package of cookies, used napkins, 1 open box of mini muffins and 2 - 3 drops of a clear liquid splattered on the table. The WCN placed a piece of parchment paper on the opposite end of the bedside table containing the items. Immediately 2 wet spots were noted on the parchment paper. The WCN placed treatment supplies on the parchment paper: the cover dressing, calcium alginate, two sterile gauze pads and one saline bullet. The WCN put on gloves, cleaned the wound using 1 of the sterile gauze pads and the saline bullet. The WCN patted the wound dry with a sterile gauze pad. The WCN was observed cutting the calcium alginate to the needed size and placed it on the wound bed and applied the cover dressing. The WCN removed her gloves and washed her hands. Review of Resident #11's face sheet dated 5/16/2023 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnosis included: Paraplegia (inability to feel of move the lower portion of the body), Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (bacterial infection resistant to certain antibiotics) in the right hip, stage 4 pressure injury to the left hip and stage 4 pressure injury to the right hip. BIMS of 15 indicative of no cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #11's care plan dated 5/16/2023, reflected as of 2/23/2023 Resident #11 had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to the left hip with approaches including: wound care to performed as ordered, weekly evaluation of the wound, treatments and healing. Resident #11 had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to the Right hip with approaches including: wound care to performed as ordered, weekly evaluation of the wound, treatments and healing. Review of Resident #11's physician's orders reflected: as of 3/23/2023, Stage 4 wound to R hip cleanse wound with NS, pat dry with gauze, apply collagen (protein used to promote healing) powder to wound bed then apply anasept (gel used to prevent infection), cover with gauze island dressing bordered dressing daily. Observation on 5/16/2023 at 2:00 PM, the WCN removed the old dressing from Resident #11's right hip. Moderate drainage was noted on the old dressing and on the wound bed. The WCN removed her gloves, washed her hands and applied new gloves. The WCN cleaned the wound using NS and several sterile gauze pads. Wound patted dry, using no touch technique applied collagen to the wound bed and applied the anasept gel. The WCN removed her gloves, washed her hands and applied clean gloves and then placed the cover dressing on the wound on the right hip. In an interview on 5/16/2023 at 2:00 PM, the WCN stated she is expected to sanitize the bed side table when using it for treatment supplies. She had no explanation of why she did not sanitize Resident #10's bedside table. She stated that creating a clean environment helps to prevent infection. As the WCN was talking through her process she acknowledged that she had failed to change her gloves between cleaning the wound and applying the prescribed treatment. In an interview on 5/16/2023 at 2:53 PM the DON stated that staff are expected to sanitize the surface where they plan to place the supplies needed for the treatment. When using a bedside table, the resident's personal items should be removed from the table and the table should be sanitized before and after the treatment. DON, stated staff were to wash their hands before starting a treatment and once they finish. During the treatment, glove changes should occur after removal of the old dressing, after cleaning the wound and after the application of the treatment and cover dressing. This is done to prevent contamination of the wound. Review of facility Wound Care Policies and Procedures revised 6/1/2015, titled Performing a Dressing Change . #2. Remove old dressing (change gloves) #3. Cleanse the wound of drainage, debris or dressing/filler residue (change gloves)
Mar 2023 11 deficiencies 4 IJ (4 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's physician when there was a sign...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the physical status, and when a decision for transfer of the resident from the facility was made for one (Resident #5) of 24 residents reviewed for notification of changes and transfer of the resident from facility to hospital. 1. The facility failed to have any physician orders for medications to control blood sugar for more than one month (1/27/23-2/28/23) for Resident #5 (diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2). 2. The facility failed to notify the physician of high blood sugar levels (greater than 300 mg/dL) on multiple occasions between 1/28/23-2/28/23 for Resident #5. 3. The facility failed to notify the physician when Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia. 4. The facility failed to notify the physician when Resident #5 was transferred to the hospital with a blood sugar of 537 mg/dL (normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). 5.The facility failed to follow their policy of physician notification of elevated blood sugars greater than 300 mg/dL. This failure resulted in Resident #5 having high blood sugars for one month (1/27/23-2/28/23), which were not treated by nursing staff, and not reported to Resident #5's physician. On 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (profuse sweating, flushed face, and clammy skin). Resident #5 was transferred to the hospital for elevated blood sugar of 537 mg/dL on 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. The ADM was notified, and a POR was requested. While the IJ was removed on 3/07/23 at 2:52 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern at the severity level of actual harm because the facility was still monitoring the effectiveness of their Plan of Removal (POR). This failure could place residents of the facility at risk for life-threatening medical conditions due to the facility's failure to notify the physician of a resident change in condition. The findings included: Observation of Resident #5 on 2/28/23 at 9:45 AM revealed that resident was lying in bed. Her husband was sitting in a chair next to her. Resident #5 had difficulty answering questions due to confusion. Resident #5's husband was trying to get the resident to eat breakfast, but Resident #5 refused to eat. Resident #5's husband expressed concern and said that this was not normal for the resident. Review of Resident #5's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of sepsis (blood infection), hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis (a degenerative neurological disease), and Kidney Failure . It reflected she did not recieve any insulin injections. Review revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 13 which meant the resident was cognitively intact. The resident required extensive assistance to total dependence with all ADLs except eating only needed supervison. Resident #5 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the care plan dated 2/20/23 revealed that there was a care plan for diabetes with the goal statement, Diabetic status will remain stable as evidenced by residents [blood sugar] staying within the resident's normal limits thru the next review date. Review of care plan revealed no statement as to the normal limits for Resident #5. Review of the hospital discharge orders dated 1/27/23 (resident was admitted [DATE]) indicated that Resident #5 had been discharged with an order for Insulin Lispro high dose sliding scale. A written note at the bottom of the orders read, New orders added by [MD T]: check blood sugar BID. There were no orders for oral medication for diabetes. Review of Resident #5's January and February physician orders dated 03/02/23 revealed there were no orders for the treatment of diabetes (insulin sliding scale or oral medication) from 01/27/23 to 02/28/23. Review of physician order dated 03/01/23 revealed an order for insulin sliding scale that read, [If] Blood Sugar [is] less than 70, call MD. [If] Blood Sugar is 70 to 150, give 0 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 151 to 200, give 2 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 201 to 250, give 4 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 251 to 300, give 6 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, give 8 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give 10 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is greater than 400, call MD. Review of the physician orders for Resident #5 revealed an order dated 2/03/23 that read, Check blood sugar BID. There was no order to notify the physician for high blood sugars. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 1/28/23 at 5:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 324 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 1/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 324 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/09/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 332 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/09/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 332 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/10/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 335 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/10/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 335 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/14/23 at 4:00 PM DON documented a blood sugar of 356 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/14/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 356 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/17/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/17/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/18/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 309 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/18/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 309 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/20/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 377 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/20/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 377 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/21/23 at 4:00 PM ADON documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/21/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/22/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 384 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/22/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 384 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/23/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/23/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 306 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/24/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 306 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 375 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/24/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 375 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 7:00 AM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 304 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/25/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 304 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 4:00 PM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 421 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/25/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 421 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/26/23 at 4:00 PM LVN N documented a blood sugar of 406 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/26/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 406 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/27/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 305mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/27/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 7:00 AM LVN P documented a blood sugar of 477 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 477mg/dL. Review of nursing progress notes for the period of 1/27/23 through 2/27/23 revealed that none of the seven facility nurses who documented Resident #5's high blood sugar had reported these high blood sugars to MD T. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 537 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed the physician was not notified of the elevated blood sugar of 537 mg/dL. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM by LVN P read in part, blood sugar check this morning 477 . NP[AA] informed of blood sugar with new order for Lispro on [sliding scale] . At about 1pm this nurse noted individual having [signs and symptoms] of hyperglycemia . shaky . clammy . checked blood sugar which was 481 . Review of progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 477, nor any documentation that the physician was notified that Resident #5 was showing signs of hyperglycemia. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM by LVN E read in part, Resident was sent to hospital as requested by both DON and [NP 5] . Review revealed the physician was not notified about the change in condition and transfer to the hospital. Interview with LVN R on 03/02/23 at 11:07 AM revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] because she had a really high blood sugar. LVN R stated the resident was not receiving insulin. LVN R stated that she did not notify MD T of Resident #5's high blood sugars. Interview revealed the facility just ordered insulin for Resident #5 on the morning of 02/28/23. LVN R stated, I don't know why she [Resident #5] wasn't on insulin. When asked if she knew what the facility policy was during the interview, LVN R stated No. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:10 PM MD T was unaware of the decline that led to Resident #5's hospitalization. MD T said, I think her sugars are usually well-controlled? I think she was on metformin or something I think that was discontinued in the hospital . I remember that her metformin was discontinued in the hospital due to kidney failure. I know that I gave the order for Metformin and for Novolog Lispro sliding scale as well as accu-checks AC and HS on February 3, 2023. The progress notes that I write are received by medical records . I was under the impression that the orders I gave were put into the chart. When asked about the high blood sugars that led to Resident #5's hospitalization, MD T said that she knew that Resident #5 had been having high blood sugars and did not know that Resident #5 had been sent to the hospital. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:31 PM with NP AA (MD T's nurse practitioner), NP AA denied knowledge of Resident #5's high blood sugars, The first I heard of [the high blood sugars] was the day [Resident #5] was admitted to the hospital. NP AA said that MD T usually reviewed the laboratory results and denied knowledge that Resident #5 had no orders in her chart for diabetic medication from 1/27/23 to 2/28/23. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:41 PM, LVN P said she first discovered Resident #5's high blood sugar on 2/28/23. I found that [on 2/28/23] the blood sugar was 477, I notified the doctor who ordered 10 units of insulin per sliding scale. I gave [Resident #5] 10 units before lunch. She looked flushed so I checked her sugar again . I checked it, and it was 397 . When I re-checked it and the machine just said 'high' . To me, she didn't have a sliding scale. I called the doctor because she was trending high. I was shocked that nobody else intervened when the blood sugar was high. I didn't see no sliding scale, so I reached out to the physician. When she looked flushed, cool and clammy, I stayed in contact with the doctors . the doctor was saying she's hospice and the hospice nurse was saying to contact the doctor . her blood sugars were fine until recently. LVN P stated she did not know the facility policy for notifying the doctor for high blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:01 PM LVN E denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to Resident #5's physician, MD 2. She stated, I didn't know I had to. I asked another nurse what I should do and she told me not to worry about it. Per nurse, she had graduated from nursing school 2 months ago. When asked if she learned how to monitor blood sugar in nursing school, nurse said yes. LVN E stated she did not know the facility policy for notifying the doctor for high blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:05 PM ADON denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to MD T, saying, .depends on who the doctor is, what the parameters are . Each doctor has parameters that they follow. The ADON was unable to identify what the blood sugar parameters were for Resident #5. The ADON stated she did not know the facility policy for notifying the doctor for high blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:11 PM LVN O (the nurse who admitted Resident #5 from the hospital on 1/27/23) said he did not frequently work at the facility. He stated, .I go once a month, once every 2 weeks. I haven't been there in three weeks. LVN O said he remembered admitting Resident #5, The DON asked me if I could do an admission and I said I would try . I tried to enter the order, but I was having trouble with the eMAR because I hadn't done an admission for a while. I passed on in report to [LVN BB] that I wasn't done with the admission yet and I needed help finishing the orders. I told [LVN BB] 'this is what I reviewed, and this is what I did. This is what needs to be done by the ADON and DON and can you please pass it on in the morning.' The patient came in at about 8pm. I stayed late to finish the admission to do as much as I could do. I passed it on in report assuming that the DON and ADON would finish the admission. They are supposed to review the chart to make sure everything is up to date and correct. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:22 PM the DON said, The nurses, the DON, and the ADON are responsible for ensuring orders on newly admitted residents are entered into the eMAR. The nurses, and ADON and the DON are supposed to review the discharge orders. Every morning, we review the charts to make sure everything is correct. The DON said that a blood sugar level of 200 would prompt her to contact the resident's physician but was unsure why she did not contact the physician, saying, I would have to check my notes. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 02:11 PM ADM said that the best practice when a resident is admitted is: Receiving nurse sees orders, clarifies orders with physician, and they go into effect. Best practice is during Interdisciplinary Team meeting and during care planning. The ADM said that the DON or ADON is responsible for making sure new orders are entered, and that nurses should contact the physician Upon recognizing that there has been a change of condition . When there is something that continues to be not normal, the nursing staff should report it to the physician . I recognize there are things that need to be addressed. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:14 PM with RN Q, the nurse said she had been working at the facility for 1 week. The nurse who was supposed to be training her (LVN N) just left me alone without any guidance. I'm supposed to be still on orientation training, and I don't know these people. RN Q was unable to recall what happened on 2/25/23, when she documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:46 PM LVN N said she was not sure when to notify the physician of a resident's high blood sugar: I wasn't educated on that. I don't know if there's a policy. LVN N went on to say, I know that [a blood sugar of] 500 is dangerous . I know that 400 is of some concern, but we would monitor for signs and symptoms. LVN N denied contacting the physician on 2/26/23 when she documented a blood sugar level of 406 for Resident #5.I monitored for signs and symptoms. LVN N confirmed that there was no sliding scale in place for Resident #5, There was only an order for blood sugar checks BID. LVN N also said that she did not see any orders for diabetes medication on Resident #5's chart. LVN N said that if a diabetic resident didn't receive any orders for diabetes medication I would think that it would be life-threatening. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 3:00 PM MD T said that if a resident had high blood sugar, I would expect [the facility] to inform me if anyone has a high blood sugar. MD T said she wanted to be notified of any resident who had a blood sugar over 400, according to the sliding scale orders. MD T said she first became aware of Resident #5's high blood sugars and subsequent hospital admission, When the surveyor called me [on 3/02/23]. MD T said that she saw Resident #5 on approximately February 3 or 4,, 2023, I gave an order for Metformin around February 4th, when I saw her after she got back from the hospital. Her creatinine was normal, so I wrote the order for Metformin . I thought she was on sliding scale, because I think that she came back from the hospital on sliding scale. MD T denied checking the chart to see if Resident #5 had orders for diabetes medication. MD T said her next visit to Resident #5 was on February 10 or 11, I gave orders for Metformin then as well because I saw it wasn't entered in Resident #5's chart. MD T said she gave verbal orders for Metformin but could not remember which nurse she gave them to. The second time I specifically talked to the nurse and told her I didn't see the order for Metformin in the computer, so I was going to give another order. In an interview on 3/04/23 at 03:18 PM with Interim DON, she explained how she would know when to report high blood sugar to the resident's physician: I look at the parameters. I look at the Resident's orders. If they don't have an order, I would call the physician if the blood sugar was over 110 or below 70. When a resident gets admitted from the hospital, I look at the hospital orders and I call the doctor and make sure that they want to continue the orders. The Interim DON was unable to describe facility protocol for making sure physician orders are entered into the e-chart, Well that's in development. Sometimes the doctor enters the orders in the computer. Sometimes they give us written orders. Sometimes they give a verbal order. If a diabetic resident doesn't receive any medication for diabetes, Interim DON said, There's a possibility they could go into diabetic ketoacidosis [a life-threatening condition]. The Interim DON also said that a resident could develop pressure ulcers (bed sores) if the resident's blood sugar was not being medically managed. In an interview on 3/06/23 at 4:51 PM LVN BB explained what resident blood sugar levels would prompt her to call the resident's physician: It's between 400 and 450, whichever the sliding scale is. If the resident didn't have a sliding scale, I'd have to call the physician and get a sliding scale if one wasn't ordered. LVN BB stated that when the resident is admitted to the facility, the resident's nurse is responsible for making sure orders get entered into the computer. If a resident on her hall gets admitted right before her shift, LVN BB said, If it's my resident I make sure the orders are entered, because I want to make sure their medication is on the way before I leave . First, I gotta call the doctor to get everything reconciled, and then I gotta put the orders in. If the admission happens late at night, I have to call [the physician] and wake them up. LVN BB said that she had experienced difficulty contacting MD T: Well, she's a doctor but she hates being woken up. She will snap at you but if you gotta call you gotta call. If a resident with diabetes didn't get diabetes medication, Well, eventually they would die. Review of personnel files for nurses who cared for Resident #5 revealed that most of the nurses who had documented high blood sugar for Resident #5 (LVN R, LVN O, LVN N, LVN P, LVN E, RN Q, DON, and ADON) had no documented training in either checking blood glucose or reporting change in condition. The personnel files of 2 nurses (Wound Care Nurse M and LVN BB) contained a skills check off form regarding checking blood glucose, but the form was not signed by either nurse. One nurse's personnel file (LVN CC) had skills check off forms for checking blood glucose and reporting a change in condition to the physician. Review of job descriptions for LVN, RN, DON, and ADON positions revealed that each required the nurse to report a resident's change in condition to the resident's physician. Review of facility policy (dated 10/16/17) titled Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition read in part, Glucose . Follow specific physician orders if present; or > 300mg/dL in diabetic patient not using sliding scale insulin; or >450 mg/dL (or machine registers high) in diabetic patient using sliding scale insulin . Review revealed the physician was to be notified of blood sugars greater than 300 mg/dL in a diabetic resident not using insulin sliding scale and 450 mg/dL ( or blood glucose monitoring registers high) in diabetic residents using an insulin sliding scale. Review of facility's policy Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition revised 10/16/17 reflected to improve communication between physicians and nursing staff to promote optimal patient/resident care, provide nursing staff with guidelines for making decisions regarding appropriate and timely notification of medical staff regarding patient's/resident's condition, and provide guidance for the notification of patients/residents and their responsible party regarding changes in condition .3. Notify the physician of the change in medical condition (The physician notification grid may be used as a reference tool regarding acceptable notification timeframes.) The nurse will document all assessments and changes in the patient's/resident's condition in the medical record. 4. If the physician does not respond within an acceptable time frame, the Medical Director and Director of Nursing will be notified. The Medical Director will provide medical orders as necessary to treat the resident's/patient's condition .6. Patient's/residents family member/legal representative will be notified of any change in condition required an emergent transfer to the hospital. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. The ADM was notified, and a POR was requested. The POR was accepted on 03/04/23 at 4pm. The accepted POR reflected the following: Resident #5 is not currently in the facility. Residents who are admitted or readmitted to the facility or have a change of condition or Diabetic have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. Director of Nursing resigned and notice accepted on 3/3/23. Interim Director of Nursing in place and Mobile Director of Nursing will start 3/6/23. Agency checklist will be reviewed and revised to include the admission process, order entry, change in condition and monitoring of blood sugars and notification of physician when out of parameters or above 300. This will be completed by clinical consultants by 3/7/23 A house wide audit of admission or readmission orders on current residents admitted or readmitted [DATE] to 3/2/23 will be conducted by Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders were transcribed /entered into matrix as ordered from the discharge summary or hospital discharge orders. Residents with diagnosis of diabetes will be audited by the Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders for sliding scale, diabetic medications have been transcribed/entered into matrix and implemented accurately per physician orders. Any resident with a diagnosis of diabetes will be reviewed to validate that appropriate monitoring of blood sugars and oral diabetic medications or insulin have been ordered. If no orders noted, the physician will be notified for further direction. Any concern identified will be addressed at the time of discovery including notification of physician for further direction. This will be completed by 3/7/23. A house wide audit will be completed of sliding scale results and lab tests for blood glucose to validate that any result out of range has been reported to the physician for further direction. This will be completed by the Interim Director of Nursing or Mobile Director of Nursing/ designee by 3/7/23 The facility activity report and the 24-hour report for the past 72 hours will be audited by the Director of Nursing/ designee to identify any documentation that indicates a change of condition and validate that the physician has been contacted for further direction and the responsible party has been notified. This will be completed by 3/7/23 The administrator and members of nursing management, the Mobile Director of Nursing and the consulting Director of Nursing will be re-educated as a train the trainer by the clinical consultant regarding the following expectations: This will be completed on 3/3/23 The admission policy including the requirement that orders are to be entered into matrix completely and accurately Abuse and Neglect admission and readmission orders are to be transcribed/entered into Matrix from the discharge summary or hospital admission orders and verified by the physician Matrix physician order entry training will be done for accurate and complete order entry. admission and readmission orders are to be validated by members of nursing management as part of the clinical meeting process and by charge nurse on the weekends including validation of accurate and complete entry into matrix When admitting a resident without nursing management or supervisor in the facility a second nurse will validate that orders on discharge summary/hospital admission / readmission orders have been entered into matrix completely and accurately and verified by a physician. If any concern the Mobile Director of Nursing or Interim Director of Nursing is to be notified for further direction. Licensed nurses, including agency nurses and new hires should appropriately identify, assess and document acute change in condition and notify the physician for further direction. Licensed nurses, including agency nurses and new hires should identify the signs and symptoms of hyper and hypoglycemia and blood sugars out of the range of ordered parameters or above 300 per policy and notify the physician for further direction Notification of responsible party for acute change in condition and significant order change When a change of condition is identified the medical record will be reviewed by the clinical management team for any opportunities for training and education. Mobile Director of Nursing and Interim Director of Nursing and Nursing Managers will be individually trained as train the trainer on Matrix order entry in order to complete training going forward on licensed nurses including prn and agency nurses. This will be completed on 3/3/23 by the Clinical Consultant. Licensed nurses including agency Nurses and new hires will be re-educated by the Interim Director of Nursing/Designee on the following: admission policy including the requirement that orders are to be entered into matrix completely and accurately admission and readmission orders are to be transcribed/entered into Matrix from the discharge summary or hospital admission orders that have been verified by the physician Matrix physician order entry training will be completed on each licensed nurse including agency nurses and new hires for proficiency on physician order entry. No nurse shall admit a resident or receive a new order from a physician without completing this training. When admitting a resident without nursing management or supervisor in facility a second nurse is to validate that orders on discharge summary/hospital admission orders have been entered into matrix completely and accurately and if any concern the Mobile Director of Nursing or Interim Director of Nursing is to be notified for further direction Residents showing signs of a change of condition should be assessed to appropriately identify and document the acute change
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation , interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was free from neglect when the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation , interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was free from neglect when the facility failed to provide care and services for treatment of diabetes for one resident (Resident #5) of 24 residents reviewed for neglect. Resident # 5 did not receive oral medications and insulin for treatment of diabetes from 01/27/23 to 02/28/23. The facility failed to have a system in place to ensure: 1) Physician orders were in place for medications to control blood sugar for more than one month (1/27/23 2/28/23) for Resident #5 (diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2). 2) Treatment was provided for elevated blood sugars equal to or greater than 300 mg/dL on multiple occasions for Resident #5. 3) Their policy of notifying the physician for elevated blood sugars equal to or greater than 300 mg/dL for Resident #5. 4) Treatment was provided when Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia. This failure resulted in Resident #5 having high blood sugars for one month (1/27/23-2/28/23), which were not treated by nursing staff, and not reported to Resident #5's physician. On 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (profuse sweating, flushed face, and clammy skin). Resident #5 was transferred to the hospital for elevated blood sugar on 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM. This failure could place residents of the facility at risk for neglect and could lead to serious injury, serious impairment, pain, mental anguish and death. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. The ADM was notified, and a POR was requested. While the IJ was removed on 3/07/23 at 2:52 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern at the severity level of actual harm because the facility was still monitoring the effectiveness of their Plan of Removal (POR). The findings included: Observation of Resident #5 on 2/28/23 at 9:45 AM revealed that resident was lying in bed. Her husband was sitting in a chair next to her. Resident #5 had difficulty answering questions due to confusion. Resident #5's husband was trying to get the resident to eat breakfast, but Resident #5 refused to eat. Resident #5's husband expressed concern and said that this was not normal for the resident. According to the National Library of Medicine (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482142/), Hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome (HHS) is a clinical condition that arises from a complication of diabetes mellitus. This problem is most commonly seen in type 2 diabetes. HHS is a serious and potentially fatal complication of type 2 diabetes . The mortality rate in HHS can be as high as 20%, which is about 10 times higher than the mortality seen in diabetic ketoacidosis. Review of Resident #5's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of sepsis (blood infection), hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis (a degenerative neurological disease), and Kidney Failure . It reflected she did not recieve any insulin injections. Review revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 13 which meant the resident was cognitively intact. The resident required extensive assistance to total dependence with all ADLs except eating only needed supervison. Resident #5 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the care plan dated 2/20/23 revealed the following goal statement, Diabetic status will remain stable as evidenced by residents [blood sugar] staying within the resident's normal limits thru the next review date. Review of care plan revealed no statement as to the normal limits for Resident #5. Review of hospital discharge orders dated 1/27/23 indicated that Resident #5 had been discharged with an order for Insulin Lispro high dose sliding scale. A written note at the bottom of the orders read, New orders added by [MD T]: check blood sugar BID. There were no orders for oral medication for diabetes. Review of Resident #5's January and February physician orders dated 03/02/23 revealed there were no orders for the treatment of diabetes (insulin sliding scale or oral medication) from 01/27/23 to 02/28/23. Review of physician order dated 03/01/23 revealed an order for insulin sliding scale that read, [If] Blood Sugar [is] less than 70, call MD. [If] Blood Sugar is 70 to 150, give 0 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 151 to 200, give 2 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 201 to 250, give 4 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 251 to 300, give 6 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, give 8 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give 10 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is greater than 400, call MD. Review of the physician orders for Resident #5 revealed an order dated 2/03/23 that read, Check blood sugar BID. There was no order to notify the physician for high blood sugars. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 1/28/23 at 5:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 324 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 1/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 324 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/09/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 332 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/09/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 332 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/10/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 335 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/10/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 335 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/14/23 at 4:00 PM DON documented a blood sugar of 356 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/14/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 356 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/17/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/17/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/18/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 309 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/18/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 309 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/20/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 377 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/20/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 377 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/21/23 at 4:00 PM ADON documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/21/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/22/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 384 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/22/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 384 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/23/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/23/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 306 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/24/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 306 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 375 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/24/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 375 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 7:00 AM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 304 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/25/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 304 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 4:00 PM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 421 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/25/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 421 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/26/23 at 4:00 PM LVN N documented a blood sugar of 406 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/26/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 406 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/27/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 305mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/27/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 7:00 AM LVN P documented a blood sugar of 477 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 477mg/dL. Review of nursing progress notes for the period of 1/27/23 through 2/27/23 revealed that none of the seven facility nurses who documented Resident #5's high blood sugar had reported these high blood sugars to MD T. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 537 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed the physician was not notified of the elevated blood sugar of 537 mg/dL. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM by LVN P read in part, blood sugar check this morning 477 . NP[AA] informed of blood sugar with new order for Lispro on [sliding scale] . At about 1pm this nurse noted individual having [signs and symptoms] of hyperglycemia . shaky . clammy . checked blood sugar which was 481 . Review of progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 477, nor any documentation that the physician was notified that Resident #5 was showing signs of hyperglycemia. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM by LVN E read in part, Resident was sent to hospital as requested by both DON and [NP 5] . Review revealed the physician was not notified about the change in condition and transfer to the hospital. Interview with LVN R on 03/02/23 at 11:07 AM revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the hospital because she had a really high blood sugar. LVN R stated the resident was not receiving insulin. Interview revealed the facility just ordered insulin for Resident #5 on the morning of 02/28/23. LVN R stated she did not know why the resident wasn't on insulin. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:10 PM with MD T , the doctor said, I remember that [Resident #5's] Metformin (a diabetes pill) was discontinued in the hospital due to kidney failure. I know that I gave the order for Metformin and for Novolog Lispro sliding scale as well as accu-checks AC and HS on February 3, 2023 . I was under the impression that the orders I gave were put into the chart. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:31 PM with NP AA (MD T's nurse practitioner), NP AA denied knowledge of Resident #5's high blood sugars, The first I heard of [the high blood sugars] was the day [Resident #5] was admitted to the hospital. NP AA said that MD T usually reviewed the laboratory results and denied knowledge that Resident #5 had no orders in her chart for diabetic medication from 1/27/23 to 2/28/23. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:41 PM, LVN P said she first discovered Resident #5's high blood sugar: I found that [on 2/28/23] the blood sugar was 477, I notified the doctor who ordered 10 units of insulin per sliding scale. I gave [Resident #5] 10 units before lunch. She looked flushed so I checked her sugar again . I checked it, 397 . When I re-checked it and the machine just said 'high' . To me, she didn't have a sliding scale. I called the doctor because she was trending high. I was shocked that nobody else intervened when the blood sugar was high. I didn't see no sliding scale, so I reached out to the physician. When she looked flushed, cool and clammy, I stayed in contact with the doctors . the doctor was saying she's hospice and the hospice nurse was saying to contact the doctor . her blood sugars were fine until recently. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:01 PM LVN E denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to Resident #5's physician, MD T. I didn't know I had to. I asked another nurse what I should do and she told me not to worry about it. Per nurse, she had graduated from nursing school 2 months ago. When asked if she learned how to monitor blood sugar in nursing school, nurse said yes. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:05 PM ADON denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to MD 2, saying, .depends on who the doctor is, what the parameters are . Each doctor has parameters that they follow. The ADON was unable to identify what the blood sugar parameters were for Resident #5. The ADON said that the staff had been trained on neglect but was unable to say when the last training was. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:11 PM LVN O (the nurse who admitted Resident #5 from the hospital on 1/27/23) said he did not frequently work at the facility.I go once a month, once every 2 weeks. I haven't been there in three weeks. LVN O said he remembered admitting Resident #5, The DON asked me if I could do an admission and I said I would try . I tried to enter the order, but I was having trouble with the eMAR because I hadn't done an admission for a while. I passed on in report to [LVN BB] that I wasn't done with the admission yet and I needed help finishing the orders. I told [LVN BB] 'this is what I reviewed, and this is what I did. This is what needs to be done by the ADON and DON and can you please pass it on in the morning.' The patient came in at about 8pm. I stayed late to finish the admission to do as much as I could do. I passed it on in report assuming that the DON and ADON would finish the admission. They are supposed to review the chart to make sure everything is up to date and correct. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:22 PM the DON said, The nurses, the DON, and the ADON are responsible for ensuring orders on newly admitted residents are entered into the eMAR. The nurses, and ADON and the DON are supposed to review the discharge orders. Every morning, we review the charts to make sure everything is correct. The DON said that a blood sugar level of 200 would prompt her to contact the resident's physician but was unsure why she did not contact the physician, saying, I would have to check my notes. The DON said that the staff had been trained on neglect but was unable to say when the last training was. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 02:11 PM ADM said that the best practice when a resident is admitted is: Receiving nurse sees orders, clarifies orders with physician, and they go into effect. Best practice is during Interdisciplinary Team meeting and during care planning. The ADM said that the DON or ADON is responsible for making sure new orders are entered, and that nurses should contact the physician Upon recognizing that there has been a change of condition . When there is something that continues to be not normal, the nursing staff should report it to the physician . I recognize there are things that need to be addressed. The administrator said he was not sure when the staff had last been trained on neglect. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:14 PM with RN Q, the nurse said she had been working at the facility for 1 week. The nurse who was supposed to be training her (LVN N) just left me alone without any guidance. I'm supposed to be still on orientation training, and I don't know these people. RN Q was unable to recall what happened on 2/25/23, when she documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:46 PM LVN N said she wasn't sure when to notify the physician of a resident's high blood sugar: I wasn't educated on that. I don't know if there's a policy. LVN N went on to say, I know that [a blood sugar of] 500 is dangerous . I know that 400 is of some concern, but we would monitor for signs and symptoms. LVN N denied contacting the physician on 2/26/23 when she documented a blood sugar level of 406 for Resident #5.I monitored for signs and symptoms. LVN N confirmed that there was no sliding scale in place for Resident #5, There was only an order for blood sugar checks BID. LVN N also said that she did not see any orders for diabetes medication on Resident #5's chart. LVN N said that if a diabetic resident didn't receive any orders for diabetes medication I would think that it would be life-threatening. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 3:00 PM MD T said that if a resident had high blood sugar, I would expect [the facility] to inform me if anyone has a high blood sugar. MD T said she wanted to be notified of any resident who had a blood sugar over 400, according to the sliding scale orders. MD T said she first became aware of Resident #5's high blood sugars and subsequent hospital admission, When the surveyor called me [on 3/02/23]. MD T said that she saw Resident #5 on approximately February 3 or 4,, 2023, I gave an order for Metformin around February 4th, when I saw her after she got back from the hospital. Her creatinine was normal, so I wrote the order for Metformin . I thought she was on sliding scale, because I think that she came back from the hospital on sliding scale. MD T denied checking the chart to see if Resident #5 had orders for diabetes medication. MD T said her next visit to Resident #5 was on February 10 or 11, I gave orders for Metformin then as well because I saw it wasn't entered in Resident #5's chart. MD T said she gave verbal orders for Metformin but couldn't remember which nurse she gave them to. The second time I specifically talked to the nurse and told her I didn't see the order for Metformin in the computer, so I was going to give another order. In an interview on 3/04/23 at 03:18 PM with Interim DON , she explained how she would know when to report high blood sugar to the resident's physician: I look at the parameters. I look at the Resident's orders. If they don't have an order, I would call the physician if the blood sugar was over 110 or below 70. When a resident gets admitted from the hospital, I look at the hospital orders and I call the doctor and make sure that they want to continue the orders. The Interim DON was unable to describe facility protocol for making sure physician orders are entered into the e-chart, Well that's in development. Sometimes the doctor enters the orders in the computer. Sometimes they give us written orders. Sometimes they give a verbal order. If a diabetic resident doesn't receive any medication for diabetes, There's a possibility they could go into diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition. The Interim DON also said that a resident could develop pressure ulcers (bed sores) if the resident's blood sugar was not being medically managed. The Interim DON was able to explain what neglect was but was unsure when the nursing staff had last been trained on neglect. In an interview on 3/06/23 at 4:51 PM LVN BB explained what resident blood sugar levels would prompt her to call the resident's physician: It's between 400 and 450, whichever the sliding scale is. If the resident didn't have a sliding scale, I'd have to call the physician and get a sliding scale if one wasn't ordered. LVN BB stated that when the resident is admitted to the facility, the resident's nurse is responsible for making sure orders get entered into the computer. If a resident on her hall gets admitted right before her shift, LVN BB said, If it's my resident I make sure the orders are entered, because I want to make sure their medication is on the way before I leave . First, I gotta call the doctor to get everything reconciled, and then I gotta put the orders in. If the admission happens late at night, I have to call [the physician] and wake them up. LVN BB said that she had experienced difficulty contacting MD T: Well, she's a doctor but she hates being woken up. She will snap at you but if you gotta call you gotta call. If a resident with diabetes didn't get diabetes medication, Well, eventually they would die. Review of job descriptions for LVN, RN, DON, and ADON positions revealed that each required the nurse to report neglect to the appropriate authorities. Review of facility policy (dated 10/16/17) titled Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition read in part, Glucose . Follow specific physician orders if present; or > 300mg/dL in diabetic patient not using sliding scale insulin; or >450 mg/dL (or machine registers high) in diabetic patient using sliding scale insulin . Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Mistreatment (dated 10/01/2020) revealed the following statement, Neglect is the failure to provide goods and services or treatment and care necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness. Review of facility's In-service Abuse and Neglect/Falls dated 01/31/23 by DON reflected staff were in-serviced on abuse and neglect. It reflected that LVN E, LVN I, LVN O, LVN P, LVN S, ADON, Wound Care Nurse M and RN U were all in-serviced on abuse/neglect policy. Review of facility policy (dated 10/16/17) titled Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition read in part, Glucose . Follow specific physician orders if present; or > 300mg/dL in diabetic patient not using sliding scale insulin; or >450 mg/dL (or machine registers high) in diabetic patient using sliding scale insulin . Review revealed the physician was to be notified of blood sugars greater than 300 mg/dL in a diabetic resident not using insulin sliding scale and 450 mg/dL ( or blood glucose monitoring registers high) in diabetic residents using an insulin sliding scale. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. The ADM was notified, and a POR was requested. The POR was accepted on 03/04/23 at 4pm. The accepted POR reflected the following : Resident #5 is not currently in the facility. The allegation of neglect has been reported to the state agency and is being thoroughly investigated. Appropriate actions will be taken as the investigation is conducted. The results of the investigation will be submitted to the state agency in 5 days. The administrator will be re-educated by the Regional [NAME] President of Operations or the Clinical Consultant on timely reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse and neglect. This will be completed on 3/4/23. Residents who are admitted or readmitted to the facility or have a change of condition or Diabetic have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. Director of Nursing resigned and notice accepted on 3/3/23. Interim Director of Nursing in place and Mobile Director of Nursing will start 3/6/23. Agency checklist will be reviewed and revised to include the admission process, order entry, change in condition and monitoring of blood sugars and notification of physician when out of parameters or above 300. This will be completed by clinical consultants by 3/7/23 A house wide audit of admission or readmission orders on current residents admitted or readmitted [DATE], to 3/2/23 will be conducted by Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders were transcribed /entered into matrix as ordered from the discharge summary or hospital discharge orders. Residents with diagnosis of diabetes will be audited by the Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders for sliding scale, diabetic medications have been transcribed/entered into matrix and implemented accurately per physician orders. Any resident with a diagnosis of diabetes will be reviewed to validate that appropriate monitoring of blood sugars and oral diabetic medications or insulin have been ordered. If no orders noted, the physician will be notified for further direction. Any concern identified will be addressed at the time of discovery including notification of physician for further direction. This will be completed by 3/7/23. A house wide audit will be completed of sliding scale results and lab tests for blood glucose to validate that any result out of range has been reported to the physician for further direction. This will be completed by the Interim Director of Nursing or Mobile Director of Nursing/ designee by 3/7/23 The facility activity report and the 24-hour report for the past 72 hours will be audited by the Director of Nursing/ designee to identify any documentation that indicates a change of condition and validate that the physician has been contacted for further direction and the responsible party has been notified. This will be completed by 3/7/23 The administrator and members of nursing management, the Mobile Director of Nursing and the consulting Director of Nursing will be re-educated as a train the trainer by the clinical consultant regarding the following expectations: This will be completed on 3/3/23 The admission policy including the requirement that orders are to be entered into matrix completely and accurately Abuse and Neglect admission and readmission orders are to be transcribed/entered into Matrix from the discharge summary or hospital admission orders and verified by the physician Matrix physician order entry training will be done for accurate and complete order entry. admission and readmission orders are to be validated by members of nursing management as part of the clinical meeting process and by charge nurse on the weekends including validation of accurate and complete entry into matrix When admitting a resident without nursing management or supervisor in the facility a second nurse will validate that orders on discharge summary/hospital admission / readmission orders have been entered into matrix completely and accurately and verified by a physician. If any concern the Mobile Director of Nursing or Interim Director of Nursing is to be notified for further direction. Licensed nurses, including agency nurses and new hires should appropriately identify, assess and document acute change in condition and notify the physician for further direction. Licensed nurses, including agency nurses and new hires should identify the signs and symptoms of hyper and hypoglycemia and blood sugars out of the range of ordered parameters or above 300 per policy and notify the physician for further direction Notification of responsible party for acute change in condition and significant order change When a change of condition is identified the medical record will be reviewed by the clinical management team for any opportunities for training and education. Mobile Director of Nursing and Interim Director of Nursing and Nursing Managers will be individually trained as train the trainer on Matrix order entry in order to complete training going forward on licensed nurses including prn and agency nurses. This will be completed on 3/3/23 by the Clinical Consultant. Licensed nurses including agency Nurses and new hires will be re-educated by the Interim Director of Nursing/Designee on the following: admission policy including the requirement that orders are to be entered into matrix completely and accurately. admission and readmission orders are to be transcribed/entered into Matrix from the discharge summary or hospital admission orders that have been verified by the physician Matrix physician order entry training will be completed on each licensed nurse including agency nurses and new hires for proficiency on physician order entry. No nurse shall admit a resident or receive a new order from a physician without completing this training. When admitting a resident without nursing management or supervisor in facility a second nurse is to validate that orders on discharge summary/hospital admission orders have been entered into matrix completely and accurately and if any concern the Mobile Director of Nursing or Interim Director of Nursing is to be notified for further direction. Residents showing signs of a change of condition should be assessed to appropriately identify and document the acute change in condition and notify the physician for further direction Residents displaying a change of condition should be assessed to identify the signs and symptoms of hyper and hypoglycemia and notify the physician for further direction The physician should be notified of blood sugars out of the range of ordered parameters or above 300 per policy. Any blood glucose monitoring when nursing management not in facility will be reviewed by 2nd nurse and signed as validated that it is within range or out of ordered parameters or above 300 and that physician is
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0635 (Tag F0635)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had admission physician orders for th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had admission physician orders for their immediate care for two residents (Resident #5 and Resident #173) of 24 residents reviewed for admitting physician orders. 1. The facility failed to reconcile hospital discharge orders for diabetes medication (insulin sliding scale) upon Resident #5's readmission to the facility from the hospital on 1/27/23. 2. The facility failed to have any physician orders for medications to control blood sugar for more than one month (1/27/23-2/28/23) for Resident #5 (diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2). 3. The facility failed to have physician orders for treatment of high blood sugar levels (greater than 300 mg/dL) on multiple occasions between 1/28/23-2/28/23 for Resident #5. 4. The facility failed to physician orders when Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia. This failure resulted in Resident #5 having no orders for diabetes medication, and no orders for the physician notification in the case of very high blood sugar for one month (1/27/23-2/28/23). This failure resulted in Resident #5 having frequent high blood sugars, which were not treated by staff and not reported to Resident #5's physician. On 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (profuse sweating, flushed face, and clammy skin). Resident #5 was transferred to the hospital for elevated blood sugar on 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. While the IJ was removed on 3/07/23 at 2:52 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern at the severity level of actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy because the facility was still monitoring the effectiveness of their Plan of Removal (POR). 5. The facility failed to ensure Resident #173 had admitting physician orders for wound care for her pressure ulcer when she was admitted on [DATE] from the hospital. These failures could place all residents of the facility at risk for life-threatening medical conditions due to the facility's failure to notify the physician of a resident change in condition. The findings included: 1. Review of Resident #5's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of sepsis (blood infection), hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis (a degenerative neurological disease), and Kidney Failure . It reflected she did not receive any insulin injections. Review revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 13 which meant the resident was cognitively intact. The resident required extensive assistance to total dependence with all ADLs except eating only needed supervision. Resident #5 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the care plan dated 2/20/23 revealed that there was a care plan for diabetes with the goal statement, Diabetic status will remain stable as evidenced by residents [blood sugar] staying within the residents normal limits thru the next review date. Review of care plan revealed no statement as to the normal limits for Resident #5. Review of hospital discharge orders dated 1/27/23 indicated that Resident #5 had been discharged with an order for Insulin Lisper high dose sliding scale. A written note at the bottom of the orders read, New orders added by [MD T]: check blood sugar BID. There were no orders for oral medication for diabetes. Review of the January and February physician orders dated 03/02/23 revealed there were no orders for the treatment of diabetes (insulin sliding scale or oral medication) from 01/27/23 to 02/28/23. Review of physician order dated 03/01/23 revealed an order for insulin sliding scale that read, Blood Sugar less than 70, call MD. Blood Sugar is 70 to 150, give 0 Units. Blood Sugar is 151 to 200, give 2 Units. Blood Sugar is 201 to 250, give 4 Units. Blood Sugar is 251 to 300, give 6 Units. Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, give 8 Units. Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give 10 Units. Blood Sugar is greater than 400, call MD. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated 2/03/23 that read, Check blood sugar BID. There was no order to notify the physician for high blood sugars. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 1/28/23 at 5:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 324 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL) Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/09/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 332 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/10/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 335 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/14/23 at 4:00 PM DON documented a blood sugar of 356 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/17/23 at 4:00 PM documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/18/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 309 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/20/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 377 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/21/23 at 4:00 PM ADON documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/22/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 384 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/23/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 306 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 375 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 7:00 AM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 304 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 4:00 PM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 421 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/26/23 at 4:00 PM LVN N documented a blood sugar of 406 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 7:00 AM LVN P documented a blood sugar of 477 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 537 mg/dL. (Normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). Review of nursing progress notes for the period of 1/27/23 through 2/27/23 revealed that none of the seven facility nurses, who documented Resident #5's high blood sugar, reported these high blood sugars to MD T. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM by LVN P read in part, blood sugar check this morning 477 . [NP AA] informed of blood sugar with new order for Lispro on [sliding scale] . At about 1pm this nurse noted individual having [signs and symptoms] of hyperglycemia . shaky . clammy . checked blood sugar which was 481 . Review revealed the physician was not notified of the elevated blood sugar of 477. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM by LVN E read in part, Resident was sent to hospital as requested by both DON and [NP 5] . Review revealed the physician was not notified about the change in condition. Interview with LVN R on 03/02/23 at 11:07 AM revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the hospital because she had a really high blood sugar. LVN R stated the resident was not receiving insulin. Interview revealed the facility just ordered insulin for Resident #5 on the morning of 02/28/23. LVN R stated she did not know why the resident was not on insulin. LVN R was unsure of the facility policy for admission orders and was not sure if she had been trained by administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:11 PM LVN O (the nurse who admitted Resident #5 from the hospital on 1/27/23) said he did not frequently work at the facility.I go once a month, once every 2 weeks. I haven't been there in three weeks. LVN O said he remembered admitting Resident #5, The DON asked me if I could do an admission and I said I would try . I tried to enter the order, but I was having trouble with the eMAR because I hadn't done an admission for a while. I passed on in report to [LVN BB] that I wasn't done with the admission yet and I needed help finishing the orders. I told [LVN BB] 'this is what I reviewed, and this is what I did. This is what needs to be done by the ADON and DON and can you please pass it on in the morning.' The patient came in at about 8pm. I stayed late to finish the admission to do as much as I could do. I passed it on in report assuming that the DON and ADON would finish the admission. They are supposed to review the chart to make sure everything is up to date and correct. LVN O said he hadn't received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:10 PM with MD T, the doctor said, I remember that [Resident #5's] Metformin (a diabetes pill) was discontinued in the hospital due to kidney failure. I know that I gave the order for Metformin and for Novolog Lispro sliding scale as well as accu-checks AC and HS on February 3, 2023 . I was under the impression that the orders I gave were put into the chart. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:31 PM with NP AA (MD T's nurse practitioner), NP AA denied knowledge of Resident #5's high blood sugars, The first I heard of [the high blood sugars] was the day [Resident #5] was admitted to the hospital. NP AA said that MD 2 usually reviewed the laboratory results and denied knowledge that Resident #5 had no orders in her chart for diabetic medication from 1/27/23 to 2/28/23. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:41 PM, LVN P said she first discovered Resident #5's high blood sugar: I found that [on 2/28/23] the blood sugar was 477, I notified the doctor who ordered 10 units of insulin per sliding scale. I gave [Resident #5] 10 units before lunch. She looked flushed so I checked her sugar again . I checked it, 397 . When I re-checked it and the machine just said 'high' . To me, she didn't have a sliding scale. I called the doctor because she was trending high. I was shocked that nobody else intervened when the blood sugar was high. I didn't see no sliding scale, so I reached out to the physician. When she looked flushed, cool and clammy, I stayed in contact with the doctors . the doctor was saying she's hospice and the hospice nurse was saying to contact the doctor . her blood sugars were fine until recently. LVN P said she had not received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:01 PM, LVN E denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to Resident #5's physician, MD 2. I didn't know I had to. I asked another nurse [LVN R] what I should do and she told me not to worry about it. Per nurse, she had graduated from nursing school 2 months ago. When asked if she learned how to monitor blood sugar in nursing school, nurse said yes. LVN E said she had not received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:05 PM, the ADON denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to MD T, saying, .depends on who the doctor is, what the parameters are . Each doctor has parameters that they follow . The ADON said she was not sure if staff had received training from administration on physician order entry. The ADON was unable to state what MD T's parameters were. The ADON chose not to answer the question, What would you consider a high blood sugar level? In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:22 PM the DON said, The nurses, the DON, and the ADON are responsible for ensuring orders on newly admitted residents are entered into the eMAR. The nurses, and ADON and the DON are supposed to review the discharge orders. Every morning, we review the charts to make sure everything is correct. The DON said that a blood sugar level of 200 would prompt her to contact the resident's physician but was unsure why she did not contact the physician, saying, I would have to check my notes. The DON said she was not sure if staff had received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 02:11 PM, the ADM said, Best practice? Receiving nurse sees orders, clarifies orders with physician, and they go into effect. Best practice is during Interdisciplinary Team meeting and during care planning. The ADM said that the DON or ADON is responsible for making sure new orders are entered, and that nurses should contact the physician upon recognizing that there has been a change of condition . When there is something that continues to be not normal, the nursing staff should report it to the physician . I recognize there are things that need to be addressed. ADM said he was not sure if staff had received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:14 PM with RN Q, the nurse said she had been working at the facility for 1 week. The nurse who was supposed to be training her (LVN N) just left me alone without any guidance. I'm supposed to be still on orientation training, and I don't know these people. RN Q was unable to recall what happened on 2/25/23, when she documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. RN Q said she had not received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:46 PM, LVN N said she was not sure when to notify the physician of a resident's high blood sugar: I wasn't educated on that. I don't know if there's a policy. LVN N went on to say, I know that [a blood sugar of] 500 is dangerous . I know that 400 is of some concern, but we would monitor for signs and symptoms. LVN N denied contacting the physician on 2/26/23 when she documented a blood sugar level of 406 for Resident #5.I monitored for signs and symptoms. LVN N confirmed that there was no sliding scale in place for Resident #5, There was only an order for blood sugar checks BID. LVN N also said that she did not see any orders for diabetes medication on Resident #5's chart. LVN N said that if a diabetic resident did not receive any orders for diabetes medication I would think that it would be life-threatening. LVN N said she had not received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 3:00 PM, MD T said that if a resident had high blood sugar, I would expect [the facility] to inform me if anyone has a high blood sugar. MD T said she wanted to be notified of any resident who had a blood sugar over 400, according to the sliding scale orders. MD T said she first became aware of Resident #5's high blood sugars and subsequent hospital admission, When the surveyor called me [on 3/02/23]. MD T said that she saw Resident #5 on approximately February 3 or 4,, 2023, I gave an order for Metformin around February 4th, when I saw her after she got back from the hospital. Her creatinine was normal, so I wrote the order for Metformin . I thought she was on sliding scale, because I think that she came back from the hospital on sliding scale. MD T denied checking the chart to see if Resident #5 had orders for diabetes medication. MD T said her next visit to Resident #5 was on February 10 or 11, I gave orders for Metformin then as well because I saw it wasn't entered in Resident #5's chart. MD T said she gave verbal orders for Metformin but couldn't remember which nurse she gave them to. The second time I specifically talked to the nurse and told her I didn't see the order for Metformin in the computer, so I was going to give another order. In an interview on 3/04/23 at 03:18 PM with the Interim DON, she explained how she would know when to report high blood sugar to the resident's physician: I look at the parameters. I look at the Resident's orders. If they don't have an order, I would call the physician if the blood sugar was over 110 or below 70. When a resident gets admitted from the hospital, I look at the hospital orders and I call the doctor and make sure that they want to continue the orders. The Interim DON was unable to describe facility protocol for making sure physician orders are entered into the e-chart, Well that's in development. Sometimes the doctor enters the orders in the computer. Sometimes they give us written orders. Sometimes they give a verbal order. If a diabetic resident does not receive any medication for diabetes, There's a possibility they could go into diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition. The Interim DON also said that a resident could develop pressure ulcers (bed sores) if the resident's blood sugar was not being medically managed. Interim DON said she was not sure if staff had received training from administration on physician order entry. In an interview on 3/06/23 at 4:51 PM, LVN BB explained what resident blood sugar levels would prompt her to call the resident's physician: It's between 400 and 450, whichever the sliding scale is. If the resident didn't have a sliding scale, I'd have to call the physician and get a sliding scale if one wasn't ordered. LVN BB stated that when a resident is admitted to the facility, the resident's nurse is responsible for making sure orders get entered into the computer. If a resident on her hall got admitted right before her shift, LVN BB said, If it's my resident I make sure the orders are entered, because I want to make sure their medication is on the way before I leave . First, I gotta call the doctor to get everything reconciled, and then I gotta put the orders in. If the admission happened late at night, I have to call [the physician] and wake them up. LVN BB said that she had experienced difficulty contacting MD T: Well, she's a doctor but she hates being woken up. She will snap at you but if you gotta call you gotta call. If a resident with diabetes did not get diabetes medication, Well, eventually they would die. LVN BB said she hadn't received training from administration on physician order entry. Review of personnel files for nurses who cared for Resident #5 revealed that most of the nurses who had documented high blood sugar for Resident #5 (LVN R, LVN O, LVN N, LVN P, LVN E, RN Q, DON, and ADON) had no documented training in order reconciliation or entry of physician orders. Review of job descriptions for LVN, RN, DON, and ADON positions revealed that each required the nurse to enter physician orders. Review of facility In-service admission Compliance dated 12/09/22 reflected LVN I, LVN P, LVN S, Wound Care Nurse M were in-serviced with a total of seven nurses that received this facility in-service. The in-service reflected under Admissions Instructions about a new resident to Alert the DON and physician that a pt [patient] is here and send med list to the physician. Physician may have changes to the med orders, or additional labs they want ordered, so be ready to make notes. 2. Input the med orders - if not done by 8 pm that day, meds will not arrive at midnight, and will be delayed until the next day . [patients] generally aren't too pleased about missed meds either Under medication orders it reflected about re-admitted patients that prior physician orders have to be discontinued and would have medication list in admittance/hospital pack that needed to be confirmed with the attending physician. It reflected all medications must be entered into electronic record and included instructions on how to input orders into the electronic record. Review of facility in-service Train the trainer dated 12/12/22 by Regional Nurse reflected 2. All nurses must complete training prior to next scheduled shift including agency. 3. Instructed on Audit tools and admission process and follow up. 4. ADONs will audit new admits within 24 hours Monday through Friday. Weekend Supervisor/Designees will audit Sat/Sunday. Management and Weekend will address concerns and provide education redirection of clinical if necessary. 5. ADON will validate using clinical meeting from M - F. Weekend Supervisor or Designee will validate using clinical meeting form assigned by DON. It reflected Staffing Coordinator (Previous ADON) and DON were in-serviced on 12/13/22. Review of facility In-service Admissions dated 12/12/22 by DON reflected Please follow the attached guidelines when new admission arrives. Assessment completed immediately All medication should be put in system before end of shift. Licensed Nurse will be re-educated on the admission process including the expectation that orders are to be transcribed and implemented as ordered. Licensed Nurse will utilize admission check list for guidance on completion and will have admission orders verified and validated by another nurse on the shift. This in-service reflected a sign-in sheet which included ADON, Wound Care Nurse M, LVN I, LVN P and LVN S. Review of facility's policy Physician Orders last revised 10/27/17 reflected The qualified licensed nurse will obtain and transcribe orders according to Facility Practice Guidelines .admission: 1. The qualified licensed nurse reviews orders from the transfer record from an acute care hospital or other entity. 2. A call is placed to the physician to confirm the orders and request any additional orders as needed .3. Upon admission, the Facility has physician orders for the resident's immediate care to include but not limited to: A. Dietary orders B. Medications, if necessary C. Routine care orders to maintain or improve the resident's functional abilities until staff can conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop an appropriate care plan. Under Telephone and Verbal section it reflected 2. Record the actual order received from the physician. Review of facility policy (dated 10/16/17) titled Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition read in part, Glucose . Follow specific physician orders if present; or > 300mg/dL in diabetic patient not using sliding scale insulin; or >450 mg/dL (or machine registers high) in diabetic patient using sliding scale insulin . Review revealed the physician was to be notified of blood sugars greater than 300 mg/dL in a diabetic resident not using insulin sliding scale and 450 mg/dL ( or blood glucose monitoring registers high) in diabetic residents using an insulin sliding scale. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. The ADM was notified, and a POR was requested . The POR was accepted on 03/04/23 at 4pm. The accepted POR for admission physician orders reflected the following: Resident #5 is not currently in the facility. Residents who are admitted or readmitted to the facility or have a change of condition or Diabetic have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. Director of Nursing resigned and notice accepted on 3/3/23. Interim Director of Nursing in place and Mobile Director of Nursing will start 3/6/23. Agency checklist will be reviewed and revised to include the admission process, order entry, change in condition and monitoring of blood sugars and notification of physician when out of parameters or above 300. This will be completed by clinical consultants by 3/7/23 A house wide audit of admission or readmission orders on current residents admitted or readmitted [DATE] to 3/2/23 will be conducted by Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders were transcribed /entered into matrix as ordered from the discharge summary or hospital discharge orders. Residents with diagnosis of diabetes will be audited by the Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders for sliding scale, diabetic medications have been transcribed/entered into matrix and implemented accurately per physician orders. Any resident with a diagnosis of diabetes will be reviewed to validate that appropriate monitoring of blood sugars and oral diabetic medications or insulin have been ordered. If no orders noted, the physician will be notified for further direction. Any concern identified will be addressed at the time of discovery including notification of physician for further direction. This will be completed by 3/7/23. A house wide audit will be completed of sliding scale results and lab tests for blood glucose to validate that any result out of range has been reported to the physician for further direction. This will be completed by the Interim Director of Nursing or Mobile Director of Nursing/ designee by 3/7/23 The facility activity report and the 24-hour report for the past 72 hours will be audited by the Director of Nursing/ designee to identify any documentation that indicates a change of condition and validate that the physician has been contacted for further direction and the responsible party has been notified. This will be completed by 3/7/23 The administrator and members of nursing management, the Mobile Director of Nursing and the consulting Director of Nursing will be re-educated as a train the trainer by the clinical consultant regarding the following expectations: This will be completed on 3/3/23 The admission policy including the requirement that orders are to be entered into matrix completely and accurately Abuse and Neglect admission and readmission orders are to be transcribed/entered into Matrix from the discharge summary or hospital admission orders and verified by the physician Matrix physician order entry training will be done for accurate and complete order entry. admission and readmission orders are to be validated by members of nursing management as part of the clinical meeting process and by charge nurse on the weekends including validation of accurate and complete entry into matrix When admitting a resident without nursing management or supervisor in the facility a second nurse will validate that orders on discharge summary/hospital admission / readmission orders have been entered into matrix completely and accurately and verified by a physician. If any concern the Mobile Director of Nursing or Interim Director of Nursing is to be notified for further direction. Licensed nurses, including agency nurses and new hires should appropriately identify, assess and document acute change in condition and notify the physician for further direction. Licensed nurses, including agency nurses and new hires should identify the signs and symptoms of hyper and hypoglycemia and blood sugars out of the range of ordered parameters or above 300 per policy and notify the physician for further direction Notification of responsible party for acute change in condition and significant order change When a change of condition is identified the medical record will be reviewed by the clinical management team for any opportunities for training and education. Mobile Director of Nursing and Interim Director of Nursing and Nursing Managers will be individually trained as train the trainer on Matrix order entry in order to complete training going forward on licensed nurses including prn and agency nurses. This will be completed on 3/3/23 by the Clinical Consultant. Licensed nurses including agency Nurses and new hires will be re-educated by the Interim Director of Nursing/Designee on the following: admission policy including the requirement that orders are to be entered into matrix completely and accurately admission and readmission orders are to be transcribed/entered into Matrix from the discharge summary or hospital admission orders that have been verified by the physician Matrix physician order entry training will be completed on each licensed nurse including agency nurses and new hires for proficiency on physician order entry. No nurse shall admit a resident or receive a new order from a physician without completing this training. When admitting a resident without nursing management or supervisor in facility a second nurse is to validate that orders on discharge summary/hospital admission orders have been entered into matrix completely and accurately and if any concern the Mobile Director of Nursing or Interim Director of Nursing is to be notified for further direction Residents showing signs of a change of condition should be assessed to appropriately identify and document the acute change in condition and notify the physician for further direction Residents displaying a change of condition should be assessed to identify the signs and symptoms of hyper and hypoglycemia and notify the physician for further direction The physician should be notified of blood sugars out of the range of ordered parameters or above 300 per policy Any blood glucose monitoring when nursing management not in facility will be reviewed by 2nd nurse and signed as validated that it is within range or out of ordered parameters or above 300 and that physician is notified. Notification of responsible party for acute change in condition Abuse Neglect and Misappropriation training This re-education will be initiated on 3/3/23 by the Interim Director of Nursing/designee. Any licensed nurse including Agency Nurses not receiving this education by the end 3/7/23 will receive prior to next scheduled shift. An employee roster will be utilized to track education compliance. Scheduled agency personnel will receive this re-education prior to working scheduled shift. This will also be presented in new hire orientation. Licensed Nurses including agency Nurses will not work until training completed. Agency nurse training will be tracked by the Mobile Director of Nursing or Interim Director of Nursing to valid[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #5) of 24 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to have any physician orders for medications to control blood sugar for more than one month (1/27/23-2/28/23) for Resident #5 (diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2). 2. The facility failed to notify the physician of high blood sugar levels (greater than 300 mg/dL) on multiple occasions between 1/28/23-2/28/23 for Resident #5. 3. The facility failed to notify the physician when Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia. 4. The facility failed to notify the physician when Resident #5 was transferred to the hospital with a blood sugar of 537 mg/dL (normal range is 70-110 mg/dL). 5. The facility failed to follow their policy of physician notification of elevated blood sugars great than 300 mg/dL. This failure resulted in Resident #5 having high blood sugars for one month (1/27/23-2/28/23), which were not treated by nursing staff, and not reported to Resident #5's physician. On 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM Resident #5 showed signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (profuse sweating, flushed face, and clammy skin). Resident #5 was transferred to the hospital for elevated blood sugar on 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. The ADM was notified, and a POR was requested. While the IJ was removed on 3/07/23 at 2:52 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern at the severity level of actual harm because the facility was still monitoring the effectiveness of their Plan of Removal (POR). This failure could place all residents of the facility at risk for life-threatening medical conditions due to the facility's failure to notify the physician of a resident change in condition. The findings included: Observation of Resident #5 on 2/28/23 at 9:45 AM revealed that resident was lying in bed. Her husband was sitting in a chair next to her. Resident #5 had difficulty answering questions due to confusion. Resident #5's husband was trying to get the resident to eat breakfast, but Resident #5 refused to eat. Resident #5's husband expressed concern and said that this was not normal for the resident. Review of Resident #5's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of sepsis (blood infection), hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis (a degenerative neurological disease), and Kidney Failure . It reflected she did not receive any insulin injections. Review revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 13 which meant the resident was cognitively intact. The resident required extensive assistance to total dependence with all ADLs except eating only needed supervision. Resident #5 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the care plan dated 2/20/23 revealed that there was a care plan for diabetes with the goal statement, Diabetic status will remain stable as evidenced by residents [blood sugar] staying within the residents normal limits thru the next review date. Review of care plan revealed no statement as to the normal limits for Resident #5. Review of hospital discharge orders dated 1/27/23 indicated that Resident #5 had been discharged with an order for Insulin Lispro high dose sliding scale. A written note at the bottom of the orders read, New orders added by [MD T]: check blood sugar BID. There were no orders for oral medication for diabetes. Review of the January and February physician orders dated 03/02/23 revealed there were no orders for the treatment of diabetes (insulin sliding scale or oral medication) from 01/27/23 to 02/28/23. Review of physician order dated 03/01/23 revealed an order for insulin sliding scale that read, Blood Sugar less than 70, call MD. Blood Sugar is 70 to 150, give 0 Units. Blood Sugar is 151 to 200, give 2 Units. Blood Sugar is 201 to 250, give 4 Units. Blood Sugar is 251 to 300, give 6 Units. Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, give 8 Units. Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give 10 Units. Blood Sugar is greater than 400, call MD. Review of the hospital discharge orders dated 1/27/23 (resident was admitted [DATE]) indicated that Resident #5 had been discharged with an order for Insulin Lispro high dose sliding scale. A written note at the bottom of the orders read, New orders added by [MD T]: check blood sugar BID. There were no orders for oral medication for diabetes. Review of Resident #5's January and February physician orders dated 03/02/23 revealed there were no orders for the treatment of diabetes (insulin sliding scale or oral medication) from 01/27/23 to 02/28/23. Review of physician order dated 03/01/23 revealed an order for insulin sliding scale that read, [If] Blood Sugar [is] less than 70, call MD. [If] Blood Sugar is 70 to 150, give 0 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 151 to 200, give 2 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 201 to 250, give 4 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 251 to 300, give 6 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, give 8 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give 10 Units. [If] Blood Sugar is greater than 400, call MD. Review of the physician orders for Resident #5 revealed an order dated 2/03/23 that read, Check blood sugar BID. There was no order to notify the physician for high blood sugars. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 1/28/23 at 5:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 324 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 1/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 324 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/09/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 332 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/09/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 332 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/10/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 335 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/10/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 335 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/14/23 at 4:00 PM DON documented a blood sugar of 356 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/14/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 356 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/17/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/17/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/18/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 309 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/18/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 309 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/20/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 377 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/20/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 377 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/21/23 at 4:00 PM ADON documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/21/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/22/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 384 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/22/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 384 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/23/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/23/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 400 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 306 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/24/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 306 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/24/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 375 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/24/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 375 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 7:00 AM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 304 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/25/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 304 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/25/23 at 4:00 PM RN Q documented a blood sugar of 421 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/25/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 421 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/26/23 at 4:00 PM LVN N documented a blood sugar of 406 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/26/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 406 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 7:00 AM LVN R documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/27/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/27/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/27/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 397 mg/dL. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 7:00 AM LVN P documented a blood sugar of 477 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of the progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 477 mg/dL. Review of nursing progress notes for the period of 1/27/23 through 2/27/23 revealed that none of the seven facility nurses who documented Resident #5's high blood sugar had reported these high blood sugars to MD T. Review of TAR for Resident #5 indicated that on 2/28/23 at 4:00 PM LVN E documented a blood sugar of 537 mg/dL. No medication was given for this high blood sugar. Review of progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed the physician was not notified of the elevated blood sugar of 537 mg/dL. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 4:23 PM by LVN P read in part, blood sugar check this morning 477 . NP[AA] informed of blood sugar with new order for Lispro on [sliding scale] . At about 1pm this nurse noted individual having [signs and symptoms] of hyperglycemia . shaky . clammy . checked blood sugar which was 481 . Review of progress notes dated 2/28/23 revealed no documentation that the physician was notified of the elevated blood sugar of 477, nor any documentation that the physician was notified that Resident #5 was showing signs of hyperglycemia. Review of nursing progress note for Resident #5 dated 2/28/23 at 6:14 PM by LVN E read in part, Resident was sent to hospital as requested by both DON and [NP AA] . Review revealed the physician was not notified about the change in condition and transfer to the hospital. Interview with LVN R on 03/02/23 at 11:07 AM revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the hospital because she had a really high blood sugar. LVN R stated the resident was not receiving insulin. Interview revealed the facility just ordered insulin for Resident #5 on the morning of 02/28/23. LVN R stated she did not know why the resident wasn't on insulin. LVN R stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:10 PM with MD T, the doctor said, I remember that [Resident #5's] Metformin (a diabetes pill) was discontinued in the hospital due to kidney failure. I know that I gave the order for Metformin and for Novolog Lispro sliding scale as well as accu-checks AC and HS on February 3, 2023 . I was under the impression that the orders I gave were put into the chart. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:31 PM with NP AA (MD T's nurse practitioner), NP AA denied knowledge of Resident #5's high blood sugars, The first I heard of [the high blood sugars] was the day [Resident #5] was admitted to the hospital. NP AA said that MD T usually reviewed the laboratory results and denied knowledge that Resident #5 had no orders in her chart for diabetic medication from 1/27/23 to 2/28/23. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 12:41 PM, LVN P said she first discovered Resident #5's high blood sugar: I found that [on 2/28/23] the blood sugar was 477, I notified the doctor who ordered 10 units of insulin per sliding scale. I gave [Resident #5] 10 units before lunch. She looked flushed so I checked her sugar again . I checked it, 397 . When I re-checked it and the machine just said 'high' . To me, she didn't have a sliding scale. I called the doctor because she was trending high. I was shocked that nobody else intervened when the blood sugar was high. I didn't see no sliding scale, so I reached out to the physician. When she looked flushed, cool and clammy, I stayed in contact with the doctors . the doctor was saying she's hospice and the hospice nurse was saying to contact the doctor . her blood sugars were fine until recently. LVN P stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:01 PM LVN E denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to Resident #5's physician, MD T. I didn't know I had to. I asked another nurse what I should do and she told me not to worry about it. Per nurse, she had graduated from nursing school 2 months ago. When asked if she learned how to monitor blood sugar in nursing school, nurse said yes. LVN E stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:05 PM ADON denied reporting Resident #5's high blood sugars to MD 2, saying, .depends on who the doctor is, what the parameters are . Each doctor has parameters that they follow. The ADON was unable to identify what the blood sugar parameters were for Resident #5. The ADON stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:11 PM LVN O (the nurse who admitted Resident #5 from the hospital on 1/27/23) said he did not frequently work at the facility.I go once a month, once every 2 weeks. I haven't been there in three weeks. LVN O said he remembered admitting Resident #5, The DON asked me if I could do an admission and I said I would try . I tried to enter the order, but I was having trouble with the eMAR because I hadn't done an admission for a while. I passed on in report to [LVN 7] that I wasn't done with the admission yet and I needed help finishing the orders. I told [LVN 7] 'this is what I reviewed, and this is what I did. This is what needs to be done by the ADON and DON and can you please pass it on in the morning.' The patient came in at about 8pm. I stayed late to finish the admission to do as much as I could do. I passed it on in report assuming that the DON and ADON would finish the admission. They are supposed to review the chart to make sure everything is up to date and correct. LVN O stated he didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 01:22 PM the DON said, The nurses, the DON, and the ADON are responsible for ensuring orders on newly admitted residents are entered into the eMAR. The nurses, and ADON and the DON are supposed to review the discharge orders. Every morning, we review the charts to make sure everything is correct. The DON said that a blood sugar level of 200 would prompt her to contact the resident's physician but was unsure why she did not contact the physician, saying, I would have to check my notes. DON stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/02/23 at 02:11 PM ADM said that the best practice when a resident is admitted is: Receiving nurse sees orders, clarifies orders with physician, and they go into effect. Best practice is during Interdisciplinary Team meeting and during care planning. The ADM said that the DON or ADON is responsible for making sure new orders are entered, and that nurses should contact the physician Upon recognizing that there has been a change of condition . When there is something that continues to be not normal, the nursing staff should report it to the physician . I recognize there are things that need to be addressed. ADM stated he didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:14 PM with RN Q, the nurse said she had been working at the facility for 1 week. The nurse who was supposed to be training her (LVN N) just left me alone without any guidance. I'm supposed to be still on orientation training, and I don't know these people. RN Q was unable to recall what happened on 2/25/23, when she documented a blood sugar of 305 mg/dL. RN Q stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 02:46 PM LVN N said she wasn't sure when to notify the physician of a resident's high blood sugar: I wasn't educated on that. I don't know if there's a policy. LVN N went on to say, I know that [a blood sugar of] 500 is dangerous . I know that 400 is of some concern, but we would monitor for signs and symptoms. LVN N denied contacting the physician on 2/26/23 when she documented a blood sugar level of 406 for Resident #5.I monitored for signs and symptoms. LVN N confirmed that there was no sliding scale in place for Resident #5, There was only an order for blood sugar checks BID. LVN N also said that she did not see any orders for diabetes medication on Resident #5's chart. LVN N said that if a diabetic resident didn't receive any orders for diabetes medication I would think that it would be life-threatening. LVN N stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 03/04/23 at 3:00 PM MD T said that if a resident had high blood sugar, I would expect [the facility] to inform me if anyone has a high blood sugar. MD T said she wanted to be notified of any resident who had a blood sugar over 400, according to the sliding scale orders. MD T said she first became aware of Resident #5's high blood sugars and subsequent hospital admission, When the surveyor called me [on 3/02/23]. MD T said that she saw Resident #5 on approximately February 3 or 4,, 2023, I gave an order for Metformin around February 4th, when I saw her after she got back from the hospital. Her creatinine was normal, so I wrote the order for Metformin . I thought she was on sliding scale, because I think that she came back from the hospital on sliding scale. MD T denied checking the chart to see if Resident #5 had orders for diabetes medication. MD T said her next visit to Resident #5 was on February 10 or 11, I gave orders for Metformin then as well because I saw it wasn't entered in Resident #5's chart. MD T said she gave verbal orders for Metformin but couldn't remember which nurse she gave them to. The second time I specifically talked to the nurse and told her I didn't see the order for Metformin in the computer, so I was going to give another order. In an interview on 3/04/23 at 03:18 PM with Interim DON, she explained how she would know when to report high blood sugar to the resident's physician: I look at the parameters. I look at the Resident's orders. If they don't have an order, I would call the physician if the blood sugar was over 110 or below 70. When a resident gets admitted from the hospital, I look at the hospital orders and I call the doctor and make sure that they want to continue the orders. The Interim DON was unable to describe facility protocol for making sure physician orders are entered into the e-chart, Well that's in development. Sometimes the doctor enters the orders in the computer. Sometimes they give us written orders. Sometimes they give a verbal order. If a diabetic resident doesn't receive any medication for diabetes, There's a possibility they could go into diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition. The Interim DON also said that a resident could develop pressure ulcers (bed sores) if the resident's blood sugar was not being medically managed. Interim DON stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. In an interview on 3/06/23 at 4:51 PM LVN BB explained what resident blood sugar levels would prompt her to call the resident's physician: It's between 400 and 450, whichever the sliding scale is. If the resident didn't have a sliding scale, I'd have to call the physician and get a sliding scale if one wasn't ordered. LVN BB stated that when the resident is admitted to the facility, the resident's nurse is responsible for making sure orders get entered into the computer. If a resident on her hall gets admitted right before her shift, LVN BB said, If it's my resident I make sure the orders are entered, because I want to make sure their medication is on the way before I leave . First, I gotta call the doctor to get everything reconciled, and then I gotta put the orders in. If the admission happens late at night, I have to call [the physician] and wake them up. LVN BB said that she had experienced difficulty contacting MD T: Well, she's a doctor but she hates being woken up. She will snap at you but if you gotta call you gotta call. If a resident with diabetes didn't get diabetes medication, Well, eventually they would die. LVN BB stated she didn't know the facility policy on notifying the MD for elevated blood sugars. Review of personnel files for nurses who cared for Resident #5 revealed that most of the nurses who had documented high blood sugar for Resident #5 (LVN R, LVN O, LVN N, LVN P, LVN E, RN Q, DON, and ADON) had no documented training in either checking blood glucose or reporting change in condition to the physician. The personnel files of 2 nurses (Wound Care Nurse M and LVN BB) contained a skills check off form regarding checking blood glucose, but the form was not signed by either nurse. One nurse's personnel file (LVN CC) had skills check off forms for checking blood glucose and reporting a change in condition to the physician. Review of job descriptions for LVN, RN, DON, and ADON positions revealed that each required the nurse to report a resident's change in condition to the resident's physician. Review of facility In-service admission Compliance dated 12/09/22 reflected LVN I, LVN P, LVN S, Wound Care Nurse M were in-serviced with a total of seven nurses that received this facility in-service. The in-service reflected under Admissions Instructions about a new resident to Alert the DON and physician that a pt [patient] is here and send med list to the physician. Physician may have changes to the med orders, or additional labs they want ordered, so be ready to make notes. 2. Input the med orders - if not done by 8 pm that day, meds will not arrive at midnight, and will be delayed until the next day . [patients] generally aren't too pleased about missed meds either Under medication orders it reflected about re-admitted patients that prior physician orders have to be discontinued and would have medication list in admittance/hospital pack that needed to be confirmed with the attending physician. It reflected all medications must be entered into electronic record and included instructions on how to input orders into the electronic record. Review of facility in-service Train the trainer dated 12/12/22 by Regional Nurse reflected 2. All nurses must complete training prior to next scheduled shift including agency. 3. Instructed on Audit tools and admission process and follow up. 4. ADONs will audit new admits within 24 hours Monday through Friday. Weekend Supervisor/Designees will audit Sat/Sunday. Management and Weekend will address concerns and provide education redirection of clinical if necessary. 5. ADON will validate using clinical meeting from M - F. Weekend Supervisor or Designee will validate using clinical meeting form assigned by DON. It reflected Staffing Coordinator (Previous ADON) and DON were in-serviced on 12/13/22. Review of facility In-service Admissions dated 12/12/22 by DON reflected Please follow the attached guidelines when new admission arrives. Assessment completed immediately All medication should be put in system before end of shift. Licensed Nurse will be re-educated on the admission process including the expectation that orders are to be transcribed and implemented as ordered. Licensed Nurse will utilize admission check list for guidance on completion and will have admission orders verified and validated by another nurse on the shift. This in-service reflected a sign-in sheet which included ADON, Wound Care Nurse M, LVN I, LVN P and LVN S. Review of facility policy (dated 10/16/17) titled Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition read in part, Glucose . Follow specific physician orders if present; or > 300mg/dL in diabetic patient not using sliding scale insulin; or >450 mg/dL (or machine registers high) in diabetic patient using sliding scale insulin . Review revealed the physician was to be notified of blood sugars greater than 300 mg/dL in a diabetic resident not using insulin sliding scale and 450 mg/dL ( or blood glucose monitoring registers high) in diabetic residents using an insulin sliding scale. Review of facility's policy Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition revised 10/16/17 reflected to improve communication between physicians and nursing staff to promote optimal patient/resident care, provide nursing staff with guidelines for making decisions regarding appropriate and timely notification of medical staff regarding patient's/resident's condition, and provide guidance for the notification of patients/residents and their responsible party regarding changes in condition .3. Notify the physician of the change in medical condition (The physician notification grid may be used as a reference tool regarding acceptable notification timeframes.) The nurse will document all assessments and changes in the patient's/resident's condition in the medical record. 4. If the physician does not respond within an acceptable time frame, the Medical Director and Director of Nursing will be notified. The Medical Director will provide medical orders as necessary to treat the resident's/patient's condition .6. Patient's/residents family member/legal representative will be notified of any change in condition required an emergent transfer to the hospital. Review of facility's policy Physician Orders last revised 10/27/17 reflected The qualified licensed nurse will obtain and transcribe orders according to Facility Practice Guidelines .admission: 1. The qualified licensed nurse reviews orders from the transfer record from an acute care hospital or other entity. 2. A call is placed to the physician to confirm the orders and request any additional orders as needed .3. Upon admission, the Facility has physician orders for the resident's immediate care to include but not limited to: A. Dietary orders B. Medications, if necessary C. Routine care orders to maintain or improve the resident's functional abilities until staff can conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop an appropriate care plan. Under Telephone and Verbal section it reflected 2. Record the actual order received from the physician. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 03/02/23 at 4:15 PM. The ADM was notified, and a POR was requested. The POR was accepted on 03/04/23 at 4pm. The accepted POR for quality of care reflected the following: Resident #5 is not currently in the facility. Residents who are admitted or readmitted to the facility or have a change of condition or Diabetic have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. Director of Nursing resigned and notice accepted on 3/3/23. Interim Director of Nursing in place and Mobile Director of Nursing will start 3/6/23. Agency checklist will be reviewed and revised to include the admission process, order entry, change in condition and monitoring of blood sugars and notification of physician when out of parameters or above 300. This will be completed by clinical consultants by 3/7/23 A house wide audit of admission or readmission orders on current residents admitted or readmitted [DATE] to 3/2/23 will be conducted by Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders were transcribed /entered into matrix as ordered from the discharge summary or hospital discharge orders. Residents with diagnosis of diabetes will be audited by the Director of Nursing / designee to validate that orders for sliding scale, diabetic medications have been transcribed/entered into matrix and implemented accurately per physician orders. Any resident with a diagnosis of diabetes will be reviewed to validate that appropriate monitoring of blood sugars and oral diabetic medications or insulin have been ordered. If no orders noted, the physician will be notified for further direction. Any concern identified will be addressed at the time of discovery including notification of physician for further direction. This will be completed by 3/7/23. A house wide audit will be completed of sliding scale results and lab tests for blood glucose to validate that any result out of range has been reported to the physician for further direction. This will be completed by the Interim Director of Nursing or Mobile Director of Nursing/ designee by 3/7/23 The facility activity report and the 24-hour report for the past 72 hours
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan described the serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for two (Residents #31 and Resident # 52) of eighteen residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to care plan Resident #31's contractures to her right and left shoulders with interventions required to prevent further decline. 2. The facility failed to care plan Resident #52's contractures to his right hand with interventions required to prevent further decline. These failures could place residents at risk for possible adverse side effects, adverse consequences, and decreased quality of life and care and worsening of contractures. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 04/29/16. Resident #31 was severely cognitively impaired and unable to complete the interview for mental status. Resident #31 had functional limitation in Range of Motion on both sides in her upper and lower extremities. She was totally dependent of one-to-two-person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Her diagnoses included aphasia (disorder that affects communication), Tourette's syndrome (a nervous system disorder) and Down syndrome (a genetic disorder). Record review of Resident #31's care plan revised on 02/28/23 did not address the residents' contractures or any interventions to help prevent further decline. Record review of Occupational Therapy Evaluation and Plan of treatment dated 02/27/23 reflected, .Reason for Skilled Services: Patient required skilled OT services to facilitate tone in upper extremity in order to enhance patients' quality of life .Upper extremity muscle tone- Rigid .Fine Motor Coordination -impaired .Gross Motor Coordination- Impaired . Start of care 02/27/23. An observation on 03/01/23 at 10:00 a.m. revealed CNA B and NA C providing incontinence care to Resident #31. Resident was observed with a pillow under her left arm, and her right hand was observed to be drawn up in a fist. During care, the staff were unable to raise the resident's right arm and she had limited ROM on her left side. In an interview with Resident #31's responsible party on 02/28/23 at 11:25 a.m. she stated they had a care conference last week and had requested therapy due to the residents declining range of motion. She stated she had requested they keep a pillow under her left arm so she can maintain some mobility in that shoulder. She stated Resident #31 kept her right hand clutched but could still open it. She stated the Resident had never had a splint for her right hand but thought that was a good idea. She stated she had to post signs above the Resident's bed to make sure they kept a pillow under her arm but stated that still did not always help. In an interview with CNA B on 03/01/23 at 10:05 a.m. she stated Resident #31's responsible party requested they always kept a pillow under her left arm. She stated the resident was very stiff and unable to move her right shoulder. She stated she was not aware of any thing they were supposed to be doing for her right hand. In an interview on 03/01/23 at 1:35 p.m. with OT K, she stated she picked up Resident #31 on services 02/27/23. She stated the resident did not have a contracture to her right shoulder and very limited ROM to her left shoulder. She stated the Responsible party requested they keep a pillow under her left arm. She stated the resident was able to extend her right hand, but stated they needed to educate the staff to lay her hand flat on her stomach to keep her from drawing it up in a fist. She stated she would evaluate her for a resting splint but stated she would be concerned with skin breakdown. In an interview with the DOR on 03/01/23 at 1:40 p.m., she stated they met with nursing and updated them on any residents they placed on therapy. She stated interventions for the staff to follow to prevent further contractures or improve mobility, should have been placed on the care plan to be able to maintain what progress is made with therapy. She stated they needed to do a better job in communicating those interventions with the staff. 2. Record review of Resident #52's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 02/23/21. Resident #52 was severely cognitively impaired and unable to complete the interview for mental status. Resident #52 had functional limitation in Range of Motion on both sides in his upper and lower extremities. He was totally dependent of one-to-two-person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. His diagnoses included aphasia (disorder that affects communication), cerebral vascular accident (stroke) hemiparesis (paralysis of one side), seizure disorder and schizoaffective disorders (mood disorder). Resident had not received any Range of motion, passive or active, or splint or brace in the last 7 days of the look back period. Record review of Resident #52's care plan revised on 01/13/23 did not address the residents' contractures to his right hand or any interventions that had been put into place to help prevent further decline. Record review of the OT Discharge summary dated [DATE] reflected, Patient will safely wear a resting hand splint on right hand for up to > 8 hours with minimal s/s of redness, swelling, discomfort or pain An observation and interview on 03/01/23 at 9:15 a.m. revealed Hospice Aide L providing ADL care and dressing Resident #52 for the day. Resident's Responsible Party was present in the room. Observed Resident #52's right hand was contracted. Resident's Responsible Party stated he used to wear a hand splint but stated he had not been able to wear if for some time due to his decline and increased behaviors. She stated his hand often smells and stated she wished they would try and keep in clean. Hospice aide L attempted to place a washcloth in his hand, but resident resisted. In an interview with LVN I on 03/01/23 at 1:15 p.m., she stated they attempted to do exercise on Resident #52's hand but stated his behaviors limited their ability to do very much. She stated the staff should be trying to place a washcloth in his hand to help keep it dry and prevent skin breakdown. She stated they were not doing any type of exercises with Resident #31 that she was aware of. She stated contractures were supposed to be care planned and any interventions the staff were to provide. She stated she was not aware of interventions, other than placing a pillow under Resident #31'a left arm. In an interview with MDS D on 03/01/23 at 1:15 p.m., she stated she was responsible for updating the comprehensive care plan. She stated she and the Director of Rehab did quality of life rounds every quarter. She stated the contracture on Resident #31 and Resident #52 should have been care planned and they should document what prevention had been put into place. She stated the care plan should reflect when a resident's intervention were no longer effective or if they had refused. She stated the care plan was supposed to be a comprehensive approach to what the needs of the resident were or what their wished were. An interview with the DON on 03/01/23 at 2:00 p.m. revealed the MDS Coordinator was responsible for updating the care plan. She stated all contractures should have been care planned with interventions in place. She stated if a resident had splinting ordered, it should be placed on the physician's orders. The DON stated if a resident refused the required splint, then it should be documented on the care plan. She stated failing to have interventions in place, put residents at risk of further decline and decreased range of motion and by not updating the care plan, they had no evidence of what attempts had been made to prevent a resident's decline. Review of the facility's policy titled Person Centered Care Plan Process, dated October 2017, reflected, The facility will develop and implement a baseline and comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality of care .develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's [NAME], nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment .The Interdisciplinary Team will review for effectiveness and revise the care plan after each assessment .Thru ongoing assessment, the facility will initiate care plans when the resident's clinical status or change of condition dictates the need .The person centered care plan will include .Problem .Interventions, discipline specific services, and frequency .Refusal of services and/pr treatments .Attempts to find alternative means to address the identified risk/need .
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for one (Resident #31) of two residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility failed to ensure NA C provided appropriate perineal care for Resident #31 after an incontinent episode when she failed to separate the residents' labia and clean down the middle. This failure placed residents at risk for the development and/or worsening of urinary tract infections and skin breakdown. Findings include: Review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 04/29/16. Resident #31 was severely cognitively impaired and unable to complete the interview for mental status. She was totally dependent of one-to-two-person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Her diagnoses included aphasia (disorder that affects communication), Tourette's syndrome (a nervous system disorder) and Down syndrome (a genetic disorder). Review of Resident #31's care plan revised on 02/28/23 reflected, . [Resident #31] experiences bladder incontinence r/t cognition resident is unaware of the need to void .Goal .Resident will not develop skin breakdown related to incontinence .Approach .check for incontinent episodes at least every 2 hours .Apply moisture barrier to skin .Ensure adequate bowel elimination .Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode . An observation on 03/01/23 at 10:00 a.m. revealed CNA B and NA C entered Resident #31's room to provide incontinence care. Both staff washed their hands and put on gloves. NA C unfastened Resident #31's brief to reveal the resident had been incontinent of urine and bowel. Fecal matter was observed in the Resident's perineal area and the groin area. NA C pushed the soiled brief down between the Resident's legs, which were held tightly together, toward her buttocks and cleaned her peri area from front to back but did not separate the labia and clean down the middle. With the assistance of CNA B, they rolled the resident onto her side and continued to provide incontinence care, wiping from front to back and reapplied a clean brief. An interview with NA C on 03/01/23 at 10:15 a.m. revealed she failed to separate the resident's labia and by missing this step could lead to an infection. She stated she was going to go back and re-clean the resident. She stated she had been in training and knew the importance of hand hygiene and properly cleaning a resident. In an interview with DON A on 03/01/23 at 02:00 p.m., she stated staff were to separate the labia on female residents during incontinence care and wipe downward. She stated by not following proper peri care it placed residents at risk of urinary tract infections, especially if they did not remove the fecal matter. In an interview with the ADON on 03/02/23 at 09:45 a.m. stated she had not completed skills check off on NA C because she was still in training and had not taken her CNA certification yet. She stated she completed the training on incontinence care and hand hygiene and could perform these tasks if she were with a CNA with the assumption the CNA would ensure the proper steps were followed. She stated they should had placed her with a more tenured CNA, since CNA B was also a recent graduate. Review of CNA B's competency check completed on 08/17//22 reflected she met criteria for hand hygiene and on 08/08/22 she had met criteria for Peri-care. Review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal care/incontinent care, revised July 2016, reflected, .Wash hands .Don glove .Position patient/resident with legs flexed at knees and spread apart .For female patient/resident .Wash labia majora .Separate labia to expose urethra meatus and vaginal orifice. Apply cleanser as directed. Wash downward from pubic area toward rectum in one smooth stroke. Use separate section of cloth for each stroke. Retract labia from thigh, washing carefully in skin folds from perineum to rectum. Repeat on opposite side using separate section of washcloth .Lower legs and assist or have patient/resident assume side lying position .Clean anal area by first wiping off excessive fecal material with toilet paper or disposable wipes (for female, wash by wiping from vagina toward anus with one stroke). Discard soiled wipes. Wash hands, don gloves. Apply moisture barrier if needed. Reapply appropriate incontinent brief/undergarment .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain from hospice the hospice plan of care, hospice election form ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain from hospice the hospice plan of care, hospice election form and the physician certification of the terminal illness for two (Resident #21 and #4) of two residents reviewed for hospice records. 1.The facility failed to obtain the hospice election form and a physician certification of terminal illness for Resident #21. 2.The facility failed to obtain the hospice a physician certification of terminal illness for Resident #4. These failures could place residents at risk for services and treatments not being coordinated. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #21's electronic face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #21 had diagnoses which included Rhabdomyolysis, pain, psychosis, cirrhosis of liver. Record review of Resident #21's March 2023 electronic physician's orders reflected on 10/25/22 she was admitted to hospice. Record review of Resident #21's electronic clinical record and hospice documentation reflected no hospice election form or physician certification of terminal illness from Hospice A. 2. Record review of Resident #4's electronic face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #4 had diagnoses which included heart failure, dementia, and insomnia. Record review of Resident #4's March 2023 electronic physician's orders reflected on 01/23/23 she was admitted to hospice. Record review of Resident #4's electronic clinical record and hospice documentation reflected no physician certification of terminal illness from Hospice A. Interview on 03/01/23 at 10:15 AM the DON stated it was the Social Worker's responsibility to ensure that the appropriate hospice documentation was in the resident's record. The DON stated the importance of the paperwork was to ensure accurate care was provided to the resident. Interview on 03/01/23 at 10:27 AM the Social Worker stated she did not see the hospice election form and physician certification of terminal illness form from Hospice A in Resident #21's hospice binder or electronic clinical record. The Social Worker stated she did not see the physician certification of terminal illness form from Hospice A in Resident #4's hospice binder or electronic clinical record. The Social Worker stated she would call Hospice A to obtain the missing information for Resident #21 and #4. Interview on 03/01/23 at 11:42 AM the Social Worker stated she had been working at the facility for approximately four months and to the best of her knowledge she was not aware she was responsible to ensure the appropriate hospice documentation was in the resident's record. The Social Worker provided the hospice election form and physician certification of terminal illness form for Resident #21 and the physician certification of terminal illness form for Resident #4 from Hospice A which was send over electronically since it was not available on site. Interview on 03/01/23 at 1:09 PM with the ADM revealed he was aware of the regulation for the hospice plan of care, hospice election form, physician certification of terminal illness and hospice medication information form to be onsite, he continued by stating he was new to the facility. He stated it would confirm that it was the responsibility of the Social Worker to ensure the appropriate hospice documentation was on site and moving forward the ADM would ensure there is an appropriate process in place. The ADM stated the importance of the paperwork was to ensure accurate care was provided to the resident. Interview on 03/01/23 at 1:22 PM with the ADON revealed she was not familiar with the appropriate hospice documentation that was required in a resident's clinical record. Record review of the facility policy titled, Hospice Care, dated 2017, reflected .Policy:1.The facility has established procedures for ongoing assessment, communication, and care collaboration between hospice care providers, physicians, and facility staff to clarify goals and preferences regarding treatment including pain management and symptom control, treatment of acute illness, and choices regarding hospitalizations .
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living, received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for two (Residents #64, and #65,) of ten residents reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure staff provided consistent showers/baths and shaving to Residents #64 and #65 This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed hygiene care which could cause skin breakdown, a loss of dignity and self-worth. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #64's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 0/27/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a BIMS score of 14 which indicated he was cognitively intact. His active diagnoses included quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs). He was totally dependent for bathing and required extensive two-person assistance of personal hygiene, dressing, toilet use and transfers. He was always incontinent of bowel and had a foley catheter. Resident #64 did not have a history of refusal of care. Review of Resident #64's care plan revised on 03/01/23 reflected, [Resident #64] has an ADL Self Care Deficit R/T DX of quadriplegia, contractures .Goal .Will maintain a sense of dignity by being clean, dry, odor free and well groomed .Approach .Bathing: Assist of total one person . Record review of the undated shower schedule for hall 200, reflected Resident #64 was scheduled for a shower on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays on the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift. Record review of Resident #64's Point of Care history report for February 2023 reflected he had not received a shower on his scheduled days for 02/02/23, 02/04/23, 02/09/23, 02/11/23, 02/18/23, 02/21/23, 02/23/23, 02/25/23, and 02/27/23. Review of Resident #64's CNA Shower Review sheet reflected Resident #65 was provided a shower on 02/07/22, a bed bath on 02/12/23, shower on 02/16/23 and 02/20/23, 02/22/23. There were no shower sheets 02/02/23, 02/04/23, 02/09/23, 02/11/23, 02/18/23, 02/21/22, 02/23/22,02/25/23 and 02/27/23 which indicated why the shower was not provided. Review of the Grievance reports dated 09/28/23 filed by Resident #64, reflected, I have been her a month and 4 days and have not gotten a shower. I have received bed baths but would like a shower, In an interview with Resident #64 on 03/01/23 at 11:25 a.m., he stated he did not get his showers as scheduled. He stated he had only been offered a shower on Tuesday and Thursdays and had never been offered a shower on Saturdays. He stated the only reason he got shaved today (03/01/23) was because State was in the building. He stated he had made complaints to management about the inconsistency in getting his showers. In a follow up interview with Resident #64 on 03/02/23 at 8:30 a.m., he stated it had been an ongoing issue with him getting his showers. He stated he would occasionally get a bed bath, but stated he wanted to go to the shower. He stated they used to have a shower aide, but since the first of the year they had done away with the shower aide. He stated they usually have a lot of agency staff on the weekend. He stated he was not even aware he was supposed to be getting a shower on Saturdays. 2. Record review of Resident #65's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 01/17/23, reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a BIMSs of 8 which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. His active diagnoses included cerebrovascular accident (stroke) hemiplegia right side (paralysis on one side) and dementia. He was totally dependent for bathing and required extensive one person assistance of personal hygiene, dressing, toilet use and transfers. He was frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. Resident #65 did not have a history of refusal of care. Record review of Resident #65's care plan, with a revision date of 01/18/23 , reflected, . [Resident #65] is at risk for pressure ulcers R/T decreased mobility, wakens, incontinence .Goal .Resident's skin will remain intact .Approach .Keep clean and dry as possible. Minimize skin exposure to moisture .Keep linens clean, dry and wrinkle free . Record review of the undated shower schedule for hall 200 reflected Resident #65 was scheduled for a shower on Mondays, Wednesday's, and Fridays on the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift. Record review of Resident #65's Point of Care history report for February 2023 reflected no showers on scheduled days for 02/01/23, 02/08/23, and 02/15/23. Review of Resident #65's CNA Shower Review sheet reflected Resident #65 was provided a shower on 02/03/22, 02/10/23, 02/13/23, 02/17/23, 02/20/23, 02/22/23 and 02/24/23. There were no shower sheets for 02/01/23, 02/08/23, 02/15/23, and 02/27/23 which indicated why the shower was not provided. An observation of Resident #65 on 03/01/23 at 11:25 a.m. resident appeared clean shaven with no apparent body odor. In an interview with Resident #65 on 03/01/23 at 11:30 a.m., he stated he was only getting a shower once a week. In a follow up interview with Resident #65 on 03/02/23 at 08:35 a.m., he stated he had been shaved yesterday (03/01/23) but had not received a shower at all this week. Resident #65 stated he wanted his showers and to be shaved on his shower days. In an interview with CNA G on 03/02/23 at 8:45 a.m., she stated she had been working at the facility for about a month. She stated the showers were divided between the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift and the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift. She stated there is a scheduled posted in front of the shower book. She stated they were supposed to complete a shower sheet on all their scheduled showers and turn it into the charge nurse. She stated if they missed giving a shower, they were supposed to report it to the charge nurse. She stated there had been a problem with the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift giving their showers and stated the DON was aware of the problem. In an interview with CNA H on 03/01/23 at 9:00 a.m. she stated Resident #64 and Resident #65 were on the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shower schedule. She stated they used to have a shower aide, but they changed that a month or so ago. She stated they were supposed to turn in a shower sheet on every shower or bed bath they gave. In an interview with CNA F on 03/02/23 at 9:00 a.m., she stated she worked 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. shift. She stated Residents #65 and #64 were a 2-10 p.m. shift shower She stated she shaved both Resident #65 and Resident #64 on 03/01/23 because no one had shaved them or given them a shower. She stated she did not give them a shower. She stated she used to be the shower aide but asked to step down from the position because she could not get anyone to assist her with the residents who were 2-person transfers, or help dressing and grooming the residents. She stated there was still a problem with all the residents getting their showers. She stated the biggest problem had been on the to 2:00 to 10:00 p.m. shift. She stated she had reported the concern to the DON over a month ago. Attempted to reach weekend Agency CNA J on 03/02/23 at 9:20 a.m. In an interview with the Staffing Coordinator on 03/02/23 at 9:37 a.m., she stated the CNAs were supposed to complete a shower sheet on every shower they gave and turn it into the Charge Nurse. She stated the Charge Nurses were supposed to review it for skin issues and sign off they had reviewed it and then turn the shower sheets into her. She stated she had noticed there were still issues with the CNAs not completing shower sheets on all the residents. She stated there had been issues with residents not getting showers, so they had started the shower sheets with the nurse's checking off the showers. She stated she reported to the ADON and the DON there were still some missing showers on some of the residents, and they said they would take care of it. In an interview with the ADON on 03/02/23 at 9:40 a.m., she stated she had only been in this position for a short time. She stated she was aware there had been issues with resident's getting their showers on the 2:00 to 10:00 p.m. shift. She stated they had in serviced the staff on the use of the shower sheets and the expectation of the Charge Nurses to review those shower sheets. She stated the biggest challenge they had were getting the Charge Nurses to act like Charge Nurses. She stated the Charge Nurse for the 200 hall on 2:00 to 10:00 p.m. was a brand new nurse and stated she was not sure if she was holding the CNAs accountable. She stated she had not been able to follow up with the residents to see if things had improved, because she was working as a floor nurse frequently. In an interview with the DON on 03/02/23 at 10:00 a.m., she stated there had been an issue with residents not getting their showers, so they implemented the shower sheets. She stated the Charge Nurses were supposed to check the shower sheets and make sure all the residents had received their showers if they wanted one. She stated the nurses were supposed to text her at the end of their shifts that all showers had been completed. She stated she was not aware Resident #65 and Resident #64 were still not receiving their showers as scheduled. She stated it was her expectation that all residents received their showers as scheduled or when they preferred them. She stated it was not acceptable for residents to go without their showers and this could cause a loss of dignity and overall cleanliness. In an interview with LVN E on 03/02/23 at 10:13 p.m., she stated she worked at the facility since January 2023. She stated she was the Charge Nurse for the 200 hall on the 2:00 to 10:00 p.m. shift Monday through Friday. She stated the CNAs brought her their shower sheets at the end of the shift. When asked how she ensured all the scheduled showers were provided, she stated she trusted her CNAs to give their scheduled showers. She stated she had not asked the residents if they had gotten their showers or not. She stated she was surprised Resident #64 had not told her he was not getting his shower. She stated she had no idea he was not being showered. She stated she had been texting the DON at the end of shift that all the showers had been completed. In an interview with Agency CNA J on 03/06/23 at 12:27 p.m. she stated she had worked at the facility on the weekend of 02/25/23 and 02/26/23. She stated she did not provide any showers on either of those days. She stated she had not seen a shower schedule. She stated she did not ask the Charge nurse about a shower schedule and stated she did not complete any shower sheets. She stated she did provide a few bed baths to some of the residents but stated she could not recall who they were. Record review of the Inservice titled Shower schedules, dated 01/04/23, reflected, .Shower sheets need to be turned in. No shower sheet means no shower and will result in disciplinary action .NO bed baths unless the nurse say resident is an unsafe transfer : Review of the facility's policy titled, Activities of Daily Living , Optimal Function, dated August 2017, reflected, .The Facility provides necessary care to all residents that are unable to carry out activities of daily living on their own to ensure they maintain proper nutrition, grooming and hygiene .Facility staff develop and implement interventions in accordance with the resident's assess needs, goals for care, preferences and recognized standards of practice that address the identified limitations in ability to perform ADLs .Facility staff monitors and evaluates the resident's response to care plan interventions and treatments .
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards in one of one kitchen reviewed for kitche...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards in one of one kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. 1. Facility failed to ensure fryer was cleaned after use and grease was changed. 2. Dietary [NAME] Z failed to wash hands during lunch meal preparation on 02/28/23. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and food-borne illness. Findings included: 1. Observation in facility's kitchen on 02/28/23 at 9:43 AM revealed grease in fryer was dark brown with couple fries floating on top of grease with food particles and crumbs on fryer. Interview on 02/28/23 at 9:45 AM revealed Dietary Manager stated the fryer was last used for dinner yesterday evening. She stated she expected the fryer should have been cleaned off after use. Dietary Manager stated the grease in the fryer had not been changed due to grease container was full. She stated the company had not come out to dispose of the used grease in 4 months. She stated she had called them several times. She stated the grease was last changed last week. Observations on 02/28/23 at 9:50 AM and 03/01/23 at 12:54 PM revealed grease disposal trash container to the side of the facility's dumpster revealed it was closed but full to the top with pieces of fries on top. Observation on 03/01/23 at 12:54 PM revealed barrel from company was empty and Regional Director of Operations stated they could put the grease in this barrel. Interview on 03/01/23 at 12:58 PM with Regional Director of Plant Operations revealed he had not been notified of any issues with company not picking up grease disposal for facility. He stated the used grease container being full and not being disposed of could attract flies. He would follow-up with Dietary Manager to see about her contact with the company and let Dietary Manager know they can use the barrel to put used grease in for disposal. 2. Observation on 02/28/23 at 12:24 PM Dietary [NAME] Z took her surgical mask off and drank water. She did not wash her hands. She scooped food on plates for resident meals and touched her hands on top of the inner part of the plates. At 12:28 PM Dietary [NAME] Z went to sink and ran hot water on cloth. Dietary [NAME] Z did not wash her hands. She went back to plating food on lunch plates. She wiped her hands with wash cloth. Dietary [NAME] Z went back to plating food on lunch plates. Interview on 02/28/23 at 12:35 PM with Dietary [NAME] Z revealed she washed her hands one time but should have washed her hands more. Interview on 02/28/23 at 12:40 PM and 1:30 PM with Dietary Manager revealed Dietary [NAME] Z was usually the relief cook and this was the first time she was observed by the state. She should have washed her hands when she took her mask off and drank water. She stated Dietary [NAME] Z was nervous and usually did wash her hands appropriately. She stated she should not have used a wash cloth to wash her hands and should have stopped to wash her hands before going back to plating food. Review of facility's policy Hand hygiene/Hand Washing revised 08/01/2020 reflected Hand hygiene is the most important component for preventing the spread of infection .Employees will keep their hands and exposed portions of arms clean .1. Clean hands in a hand washing sink. Hands may not be cleaned in a sink used for food preparation or ware washing or in a service sink used for disposal of mop water. 2. Wash hands: A. When hands are visibly soiled .D. Before handling or eating food .J After contact with soiled or contaminated articles .
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Resident #31) of five residents observed for infection control. CNA B and NA C failed to perform hand hygiene during incontinent care for Resident #31 and CNA B failed to perform hand hygiene before leaving Resident #31's room. Theses failure could place residents at risk for infection and cross contamination. Findings included: Review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 04/29/16. Resident #31 was severely cognitively impaired and unable to complete the interview for mental status. She was totally dependent of one-to-two-person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Her diagnoses included aphasia (disorder that affects communication), Tourette's syndrome (a nervous system disorder) and Down syndrome (a genetic disorder). Review of Resident #31's care plan revised on 02/28/23 reflected, . [Resident #31] experiences bladder incontinence r/t cognition resident is unaware of the need to void .Goal .Resident will not develop skin breakdown related to incontinence .Approach .check for incontinent episodes at least every 2 hours .Apply moisture barrier to skin .Ensure adequate bowel elimination .Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode . An observation on 03/01/23 at 10:00 a.m. revealed CNA B and NA C entered Resident #31's room to provide incontinence care. Both staff washed their hands and put on gloves. NA C unfastened Resident #31's brief to reveal the resident had been incontinent of urine and bowel. Fecal matter was observed in the perineal area and the groin area. NA C pushed the soiled brief down between the resident's legs toward her buttocks and cleaned her peri area from front to back but did not separate the labia and clean down the middle. With the assistance of CNA B, they rolled the resident onto her side and removed the soiled brief revealing the draw sheet was also soiled with fecal matter. CNA B continued to provide incontinence care, wiping from front to back, and then applied barrier cream while wearing soiled gloves. CNA B, without changing her gloves pushed the soiled draw sheet under the resident and placed the clean draw sheet and brief under the resident and rolled her onto her back and then on her opposite side, while NA C, wearing the same soiled gloves, pulled out the soiled draw sheet and pulled the clean draw sheet and brief under the resident. Both staff then rolled the resident onto her back, straightened her bed linens, and placed a pillow under her left arm. CNA B removed her gloves and without performing hand hygiene, sacked up the dirty linen and trash and left the room, walked across the hall, and entered the soiled linen room to deposit the linen and trash. NA C removed gloves and washed hands before leaving the resident's room In an interview with NA C on 03/01/23 at 10:15 a.m. revealed they were supposed to perform hand hygiene when they enter a resident's room, any time they change their gloves and before they leave a resident's room. NA B stated she knew she missed a step and forgot to perform hand hygiene when she went from dirty to clean. She stated she also failed to separate the resident's labia and by missing this step could lead to an infection. She stated she was going to go back and re-clean the resident. She stated she had been in training and knew the importance of hand hygiene and properly cleaning a resident. In an interview with CNA B on 03/01/23 at 10:25 a.m. revealed they were supposed to perform hand hygiene when they enter a resident's room, any time they change their gloves and before they leave a resident's room. CNA B stated she was a new CNA. She stated she should have changed her gloves perform hand hygiene after she cleaned up the resident, and before putting the barrier cream on the resident. She stated by not doing this, it could cause an infection. CNA B stated she should have performed hand hygiene after she took off her gloves and before leaving the room to dispose of the dirty linen. She stated by not doing this she could spread infection. Review of CNA B's competency check completed on 08/17//22 reflected she met criteria for hand hygiene and on 08/08/22 she had met criteria for Peri-care. In an interview with DON A on 03/01/23 at 02:00 p.m. she stated staff were to perform hand hygiene when they entered a resident's room, after contact with any bodily fluid, and they were to change their gloves and perform hand hygiene during incontinent care when they went from dirty to clean and before leaving a resident's room. She stated by not following standard precautions with hand hygiene it placed residents at risk of infections and cross contamination. In an interview with the ADON on 03/02/23 at 09:45 a.m. stated she had not completed skills check off on NA C because she was still in training and had not taken her CNA certification yet. She stated she had completed the training on incontinence care and hand hygiene and could perform these tasks if she were with a CNA with the assumption the CNA would ensure the proper steps were followed. She stated they should had placed her with a more tenured CNA, since CNA B was also a recent graduate. Review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal care/incontinent care, revised July 2016, reflected, .Wash hands .Don glove .Position patient/resident with legs flexed at knees and spread apart .For female patient/resident .Wash labia majora .Separate labia to expose urethra meatus and vaginal orifice. Apply cleanser as directed. Wash downward from pubic area toward rectum in one smooth stroke. Use separate section of cloth for each stroke. Retract labia from thigh, washing carefully in skin folds from perineum to rectum. Repeat on opposite side using separate section of washcloth .Lower legs and assist or have patient/resident assume side lying position .Clean anal area by first wiping off excessive fecal material with toilet paper or disposable wipes (for female, wash by wiping from vagina toward ansu with one stroke). Discard soiled wipes. Wash hands, don gloves. Apply moisture barrier if needed. Reapply appropriate incontinent brief/undergarment . Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand hygiene/hand washing, dated August 2020, reflected, .Hand hygiene is the most important component for preventing the spread of infection .Wash hands . When hands are visibly soiled .before putting on gloves, when changing into a fresh pair of gloves, and immediately after removing gloves .before and after patient/resident contact . After contact with an object or source where there is a concentration of microorganisms, such as, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, body fluids or wounds .
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for facility's one dumpster and used grease disposal container for garbage disposal, in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for facility's one dumpster and used grease disposal container for garbage disposal, in that: 1. Facility failed to ensure used grease disposal container was disposed of by contract company. 2. Facility failed to ensure dumpster did not have items of recliner, wheelchairs, mattress and used PPE gloves on the ground behind dumpster. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for exposure to germs and diseases carried by vermin and rodents. Findings included: Observations on 02/28/23 at 9:50 AM and 03/01/23 at 12:54 PM revealed grease disposal trash container to the side of the facility's dumpster revealed it was closed but full to the top with pieces of fries on top. Observation on 02/28/23 at 9:50 AM of behind exterior dumpster revealed a recliner, four wheelchairs and mattress behind it with used gloves and trash debris on ground. There was a sticky substance on ground behind dumpster. Dumpster was open. Observation on 03/01/23 at 12:57 PM of behind exterior dumpster revealed a mattress and three wheelchairs with trash debris. There was a sticky substance on ground behind the dumpster. Observation on 03/01/23 at 12:54 PM revealed barrel from Company was empty. Interview with Regional Director of Operations revealed dietary staff could put the used grease in this barrel for disposal. Interview on 03/01/23 at 12:58 PM with Regional Director of Plant Operations revealed he had not been notified of any issues with company not picking up grease disposal for facility. He stated the used grease container being full and not being disposed of could attract flies and other bugs. He stated to be careful not to step in the substance behind the dumpster. He stated he was covering for the facility's Maintenance Director today. He stated there should not be items behind the dumpster and he would have to clean up the substance on the ground. He stated the items should go in the dumpster so they can be disposed of. Follow-up interview on 03/02/23 at 11:03 AM with Regional Director of Plant Operations revealed he followed up with Dietary Manager and found out she had contacted the disposal company 4 times since January 2023 to get them to dispose of the used grease. He stated last time the disposal company had come out was in October 2022. Interview on 03/02/23 at 11:14 AM with Representative from Disposal Company revealed the facility had contacted them four times starting in January 2023. He stated when facility first called it was not scheduled due to service hold due to lack of payment for October 2022 service call and could not be scheduled until payment was received. He stated the facility should call them when they need disposal containers to be picked up. He stated the facility had paid the outstanding balance and was currently on the list to come out. He stated the facility did not have a regular scheduled pickup time. Interview on 03/03/23 at 5:15 PM with ADM revealed there was not a facility policy for dumpster or used grease disposal.
Dec 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0635 (Tag F0635)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the resident's immediate care for one (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the resident's immediate care for one (Residents #1) of five residents reviewed for admission physician orders. The facility failed to obtain physician orders for the immediate care of Resident #1's upon her admission to the facility on [DATE]. These failures could affect residents who were admitted or readmitted to the facility by placing them at risk for not receiving the appropriate care, medication, and treatment services. Findings included: Review of Resident#1's undated face sheet, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] 1:30 am and discharged AMA (against medical advice) on 11/20/22 at 02:52 pm. Her diagnosis consisted of Bipolar disorder, current episode hypomania (revved up energy or activity level, mood or behavior), hypertension (high blood pressure), Raynaud's syndrome without gangrene (causes some areas of the body, such as fingers and toes, to feel numb and cold in response to cold temperatures or stress), Gout, muscle weakness, nausea, diarrhea, herpes viral infection of urogenital system, thyrotoxicosis too much thyroid hormone in your body), and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). Review of Resident #1's hospital discharge record dated 11/18/22, reflected the resident was hospitalized from [DATE] to 11/18/22. discharged medications included Tramadol (pain) 50 mg tab every six hours as needed, Clonazepam (seizures, anxiety, panic disorders) 0.5 mg. at bedtime, Amphetamine/Dextroamphetamine salts (Adderall-ADHD) 20 mg. twice daily, Levothyroxine (underactive thyroid gland) 100 mcg daily, Valacyclovir (herpes) 500 mg daily, Allopurinol (Gout)100 mg daily, Amlodipine (high blood pressure) 10 mg daily, Atorvastatin (Cholesterol) 10 mg bedtime, Potassium Chloride (hypokalemia-low potassium) 10 meq daily, Montelukast (asthma)10 mg daily, Metformin (diabetes) 500 mg daily, Cyclobenzaprine (muscle spasms) 5 mg daily as needed for pinched nerve, Gabapentin (neuropathic pain) 400 mg three times daily, Citalopram(antidepressant) 40 mg daily, Aripiprazole (antipsychotic) 15 mg bedtime, and Pantoprazole (reduces acid in the stomach) 40 mg daily. Review of Resident #1's clinical record reflected no physician orders for Resident #1. In an interview with Resident #1's Responsible Party on 12/12/22 at 12:54 pm, revealed the resident told her while at the facility she never saw a nurse or an aide and the only care she received was a peanut butter sandwich that she requested around 4:30 am the morning she arrived and a breakfast tray the same morning. The Responsible Party stated Resident #1 complained there was no towel paper or paper towels in the room, and she never received any of her prescribed medications. The Responsible party revealed Resident #1 takes medication for pain, diabetes, and mental health, twice a day and the resident went without medication all day on 11/19/22 and on the morning of 11/20/22 before discharging AMA. In an interview with the DON on 12/12/22 at 1:53 pm, revealed she worked a double shift (2:00 pm to 6:00 am) on 11/19/22 leading into the morning of 11/20/22 on the floor after she had a nurse call in. The DON stated she worked the 100 and 400 halls. The DON stated she came in the evening of 11/19/22 around 5 pm and left on 11/20/22 around 9:00 am. The DON stated Resident #1 was assigned to the 100 hall and the only encounter she had with the resident was when the resident walked to the nurse's station and told her she had been an activity director at a nursing home. The DON stated she never administered medication to the resident, nor did she conduct any assessments on the resident or document progress notes during the two shifts she was the resident's charge nurse. The DON stated she was told by a medication aide, who's name she could not remember on 11/20/22 that the resident had medications at the bedside and would not give them up. The DON confirmed it was against the facility's policy for the resident to have medication at the bedside. The DON also confirmed she did not address the issue with the resident, she did not know what medications were at the bedside, nor if the resident had self-administered the medication. The DON was unable to provide a reason as to why she did not assess the resident after what the medication aide told her. The DON stated after working two shifts she was exhausted. The DON stated not administering a resident's medication as ordered could result in a medication error. The DON stated with Resident #1's known diagnosis, if she did not receive her medications it could result in hallucinations, stroke, heart attack, and ultimately death. The DON revealed once orders are put into the system, the medications trigger an email to the pharmacy to fill the medication(s) but stated because Resident #1's orders were never put in the system, her medications were never ordered. The DON also stated the resident's doctor was never notified that she had admitted into the facility and only became aware of her existence when staff called her to inform the resident had discharged AMA. In an interview with Resident #1 attending Physician on 12/12/22 at 4:00 pm received she did not recall if the facility called to informed her of Resident #1 admitting into the facility. The Physician stated she never met Resident #1 and the only thing she can remember is the facility calling her to tell her two residents discharged AMA on the same day which is unusual. The Physician confirmed she did not write orders for Resident #1. The Physician stated it was her expectation when there was a new admit she is contacted, and the medications should be discussed. The Physician stated the possible consequences Resident #1 could have experienced by not being administered medication could be an increase in blood pressure and psych symptoms. In an interview with a Pharmacy representative from the facility's contracted pharmacy on 12/12/22 at 4:21 pm revealed no medication orders were received for Resident #1. Review of the facility's Physician Order policy revised 07/01/2016 reflected, The qualified licensed nurse will obtain and transcribe orders according to the Facility Proactive Guidelines. 1. The qualified licensed nurse reviews orders from the transfer record from an acute care hospital or other entity. 2. A call is placed to the physician to confirm the orders and request any additional orders as needed. In the event the physician writing the transfer orders is not credentialed by the facility, the designated attending physician is contacted to confirm the transfer orders and request any additional orders. 3. Upon admission, the facility has physician orders for the resident's immediate care to include but not limited to: a. dietary orders b. medications, if necessary. C. routine care orders to maintain or improve the resident's functional abilities until staff can conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop an appropriate care plan.
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 F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a physician was notified and provided orders for a resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a physician was notified and provided orders for a resident's immediate care and needs for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for physician orders. The facility failed to ensure the Physician was notified of Resident #1 admission and failed to obtain orders for Resident #1's immediate care upon admission. This failure could affect the residents in the facility by placing them at risk for not receiving physician care for their immediate needs. Findings included: Review of Resident#1's undated face sheet, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 1:30 am and discharged AMA on 11/20/22 at 2:52 pm. Her diagnosis consisted of Bipolar disorder, current episode hypomania (revved up energy or activity level, mood or behavior), hypertension (high blood pressure), Raynaud's syndrome without gangrene (causes some areas of the body, such as fingers and toes, to feel numb and cold in response to cold temperatures or stress), gout ( a form of inflammatory arthritis) , muscle weakness, nausea, diarrhea, herpes viral infection of urogenital system, thyrotoxicosis ( too much thyroid hormone in your body), and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). Review of Resident's clinical record on 12/12/12 at 11:00 am reflected the admission assessment had not been documented, vital signs had not been taken, physician orders and medication orders were not in the system, and one progress note dated 11/20/22 at the time of Resident#1's discharge. In an interview with the DON on 12/12/22 at 1:53 pm, revealed the resident's doctor was never notified Resident #1 had admitted into the facility and the Physician only became aware of Resident #1's admission when staff called the doctor to inform her the resident had discharged AMA (against medical advice). In an interview with Resident #1's attending Physician on 12/12/22 at 4:00 pm revealed she could not recall if the facility called to informed her of Resident #1 admitting into the facility. The Physician stated she never met Resident #1 and the only thing she could remember was the facility calling her to tell her two residents discharged AMA on the same day which is unusual. The Physician confirmed she did not write orders for Resident #1. The Physician stated it was her expectation that when there was a new admit she was contacted and she would review medications and provide orders for care. The Physician stated the possible consequences Resident #1 could have experienced by not being administered medication could be an increase in blood pressure and psych symptoms. On 12/15/22 at the time of exit the facility staff did not provide additional clinical records for Resident #1. No physician orders received prior to exit. The facility was unable to provide a policy on notifying physician of a new admission at the date and time of exit.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to keep residents free from neglect for one (Resident #1) of five resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to keep residents free from neglect for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for neglect. 1. The nursing staff failed to assess, intervene, and properly care for the Resident #1 for four shifts. 2. The facility failed to ensure a physician provided orders for Resident #1's immediate care and needs. 3. Nursing staff failed to obtain physician orders for the resident's immediate care. 4. The facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals. 5. The facility failed to ensure the nurses had the appropriate competencies and skill set to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychological well-being. These failures could place residents at a risk for delays in treatment and care which could result in serious injury, harm and/or death. Findings included: Review of Resident#1's undated face sheet, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 1:30 am and discharged (the resident signed out against medical advice) on 11/20/22 at 2:52 pm. Resident #1 was assigned to the 100 hall and resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]B. Her diagnosis included bipolar disorder, current episode hypomania (revved up energy or activity level, mood or behavior), hypertension (high blood pressure), Raynaud's syndrome without gangrene (causes some areas of the body, such as fingers and toes, to feel numb and cold in response to cold temperatures or stress), gout (a form of inflammatory arthritis), muscle weakness, nausea, diarrhea, herpes viral infection of urogenital system, thyrotoxicosis (too much thyroid hormone in your body), and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). Review of the Resident #1s hospital discharge records dated 11/18/22 reflected, .a significant past medical history of Peptic ulcer disease, Raynaud's disease, Diabetes, Hypertension, Hashimoto's thyroiditis (inflammation of the thyroid), Bipolar I and Gout .she is medically stable for dc to SNF today .PT, OT as tolerated . Review of Resident #1's clinical record reflected no documentation of nursing admission assessment, nursing admission notes, vital signs, medication administration record, treatment record, physician orders or that the attending physician had been notified or the new admission. Review of one progress note dated 11/20/22 at 2:49 pm entered by LVN A, reflected, pt admitted on 11/19 at 1 am no orders, in the computer pt. was upset because no one was checking on her I tried to resolve the issue and she was set on leaving signed AMA paper left with mother dr. was notified and admin. Review of the nursing assignment sheet dated 11/18/22 reflected LVN B was assigned to the 100 hall from 10 pm to 6 am. Review of the nursing assignment sheet dated 11/19/22 reflected. LVN C was assigned to the 100-hall from 6:00 am to 2:00 pm LVN E was assigned to the 100 hall from 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm The DON was assigned to the 100 hall from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am. Review of the nursing assignment sheet dated 11/20/22 reflected. LVN F was assigned to the 100-hall from 6:00 am to 2:00 pm. LVN G was assigned to the 100 hall from 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Attempts to interview Resident #1 were made on 12/12/22 at 12:52 pm and 12/15/22 at 10:00. Voicemail messages and text messages were left each time. No return call received. In an interview with Resident #1's responsible party on 12/12/22 at 12:54 pm, revealed Resident #1 told her while at the facility she never saw a nurse or an aide and the only care she received was a peanut butter sandwich that she requested around 4:30 am on 11/19/20 and a breakfast tray later that morning. The Responsible Party stated Resident #1 complained there were no toilet paper or paper towels in the room, she was in pain, and she never received any of her prescribed medications. The Responsible party revealed Resident #1 takes medications twice a day for pain, diabetes, and mental health and the resident went without medication all day on 11/19/22 and on the morning of 11/20/22 before discharging AMA ( Against Medical Advice). In an interview with the admission Coordinator on 12/15/22 at 9:06 am revealed she was responsible for communicating with the company's corporate office, facility management, and clinical staff when new admissions were expected. The admission Coordinator stated once approval was given to admit a resident, she would create a resident profile in the electronic system and when the resident arrived at the facility, the clinical staff would take over from there. The admission Coordinator stated on 11/18/22 she had a discussion with the facility's community liaison about the numerous admission that were expected over the weekend and was informed by the community liaison she had received permission from the Administrator and DON to proceed with the new admissions. The admission Coordinator stated between 11:30 am and 12:00 pm on 11/18/22, she personally walked over all new admission packets, which included Resident #1, for the weekend to the nurse's station and placed the packets next to the computer. The admission Coordinator stated she sent out an email on 11/18/22 at 6:09 pm notifying the Administrator, DON, Social Worker, Staffing Coordinator, ADON B, and other staff of eight new admissions expected between 11/18/22 and 11/21/22 with four of the eight admissions expected to arrive the evening of 11/18/22. The admission Coordinator also stated she informed the staff transportation was backed up therefore it was unknown what time the residents would arrive at the facility In an interview with LVN A on 12/12/22 beginning at 12:03 pm revealed she was normally assigned to the 200 hall, but on the morning (first shift) of 11/20/22 between 8:00 am and 8:30 am she was asked to relieve the DON, who had worked a double shift on the 100 and 400 halls. LVN A stated within about 30 minutes of assuming responsibility of the 100 hall, Resident #1's responsible party approached her, asked if she had spoken to the resident, and was informed there was an issue with medication. LVN A stated she proceeded to access Resident #1 clinical record and saw there were no orders in the system for the resident. LVN A stated while reviewing the resident's discharge papers from the hospital, Resident #1 walked up and was adamant about leaving the facility because she had not gotten her pain medication, and no one had checked on her since admission. LVN A stated she contacted the Staffing Coordinator and they both informed the Administrator and DON there were no orders for the resident, and she wanted to leave AMA. They were informed they could not make the resident stay; therefore, ensure the Resident sign the AMA paperwork. LVN A stated Resident #1 was at the facility for four shifts before she discharged AMA and did not understand why there were no orders, observations, assessments, or medications administered for the resident. LVN A stated lack of care could result in adverse effects for the resident which could leave to harm and death. LVN A stated in the almost year she had worked at the facility, she had not been trained on how to admit residents, but stated she knows how to conduct assessments and what to do when a new resident admits. In an interview with the Staffing Coordinator on 12/12/22 at 12:37 pm revealed she was working as an aide at the facility on the day LVN A came to her and asked her what she needed to do if a resident wanted to leave AMA. The Staffing Coordinator stated she instructed LVN A to attempt to resolve the resident's complaints. The Staffing Coordinator stated LVN A attempted to resolve the issues presented by Resident #1, but stated the resident wanted to leave, said no one came to check on her and she should not be at the facility. The Staffing Coordinator stated she advised LVN A to have Resident #1 sign the AMA paper. The Staffing Coordinator stated she had a conversation with the Administrator and DON about Resident #1 not having orders in the system, and the DON denied that was the case because she (DON) had done them herself, the Administrator told her if Resident #1 wanted to leave they could not stop her, advised to her to have the resident sign the AMA paperwork, and they would figure it out later. The Staffing Coordinator stated the DON worked a double shift starting on 11/19/22 on the 100 and 400 hall on the second shift (2 pm to 10 pm) and then the third shift (10 pm to 6 am). In an interview with the DON on 12/12/22 beginning at 1:53 pm, she revealed she worked a double shift (second and third shift) on 11/19/22 leading into the morning of 11/20/22 after a nurse call in. The DON stated she worked the 100 and 400 halls. She stated she came in the evening of 11/19/22 around 5:00 pm and left the morning of 11/20/22 around 9:00 am. The DON stated Resident #1 was assigned to the 100 hall and the only encounter she had with the resident was when the resident walked to the nurse's station and told her she had been an activity director at a nursing home. The DON stated she never administered medication to the resident, nor did she conduct any assessments on the resident or document progress notes during the two shifts she was the resident's charge nurse. The DON stated she was told by a medication aide, who's name she could not remember on 11/20/22 that the resident had medications at the bedside and would not give them up. The DON confirmed it was against the facility's policy for the resident to have medication at the bedside. The DON also confirmed she did not address the issue with the resident, she did not know what medications were at the bedside, nor if the resident had self-administered the medication. The DON was unable to provide a reason as to why she did not assess the resident after what the medication aide told her. The DON stated after working two shifts she was exhausted. The DON stated not administering a resident's medication as ordered could result in a medication error. The DON stated with Resident #1's known diagnosis, if she did not receive her medication it could result in a change of condition such as confusion, mental breakdown, headache, blurred vision, heart problems, stoke, damage to the brain, spike in blood sugar, hallucinations, and coma which could lead to death. The DON revealed once orders are put into the system, the medications trigger an email to the pharmacy to fill the medication(s) but stated because Resident #1s orders were never put in the system, her medications were never ordered. The DON also stated the resident's doctor was never notified she had admitted into the facility and only became aware of her existence when staff called the doctor to inform her the resident had discharged AMA. In an interview with Resident #1's Attending Physician on 12/12/22 at 4:00 pm revealed she could not recall if the facility called to inform her of Resident #1 admitting into the facility. The Physician stated she never met Resident #1 and the only thing she could remember was the facility calling to inform of two residents who had discharged AMA on the same day. The Attending Physician stated she remembered this because it was unusually to have two AMA discharges in a day. The Physician stated it is her expectation that when there was a new admit that she be contacted so that she and the nurse could review the resident's medications and assessments done by the nurse. The Attending Physician stated Resident #1 could have experienced side effect by not receiving medication which could include an increase in blood pressure and psych symptoms. In an interview with a Pharmacy representative from the facility's contracted pharmacy on 12/12/22 at 4:21 pm revealed no medication orders were received for Resident #1. In an interview with the Administrator on 12/12/22 at 4:41 pm, revealed the only concern that was brought to his attention was Resident #1 discharged AMA after complaining about not getting her medications, but stated he was told she had medications at the bedside. The Administrator stated today was his first-time learning there were more issues with the Resident #1 admission to the facility. The Administrator stated he was not aware Resident #1 had not been assessed, the attending physician had not been contacted, orders were not in the system, medication had not been administered, or that the DON worked as Resident #1's charge nurse for two shifts. In an interview with LVN B on 12/14/22 at 10:03 am revealed she had worked at the facility since October of 2022 and confirmed she worked the third shift on 11/18/22 leading into the morning of 11/19/22. LVN B stated she would have been the charge nurse on the 100 and 400 halls. LVN B stated she could not recall receiving a new admission the early hours of 11/19/22. LVN B could not recall conducting an assessment, calling the attending physician, putting in orders, administrating medication, or documenting progress notes for Resident #1. LVN B stated if residents were not administered medication(s) as prescribed it was not good, stated it could lead to the resident going to the hospital or death. She stated it would constitute negligence and would need to be reported to the administrator. In an interview with LVN C on 12/14/22 at 11:03 am revealed she was agency staff and had only worked at the facility once on 11/19/22 on the 6:00 am to 2:00 pm shift on the 100 and 400 halls. LVN C stated she received report (from an unknown nurse) that a resident (unknown name) came in the middle of the night. LVN C stated she remembered they did not have anything for the resident when I got there at 6:00 am. LVN C stated she could not remember if she had contact with Resident #1, but remembers the facility being short staffed that day and she had to help the aides. LVN C also stated she remembered there being four new admission packets that needed to be put in the system and stated if she did any documentation or assessments on Resident #1, she might have put the written documentation in the resident's packet. LVN C stated that it was hard to recall what occurred that day, as it had been over a month since she had been at the facility and did not plan on going back because it was a hot mess, she stated the facility was short staffed and the off going nurse did not appear to know how to work the electronic system. On 12/14/22 at 11:39 an interview was attempted with LVN E. Phone not accepting calls. A text message was sent. On 12/14/22 at 12:07 pm an interview was attempted with LVN F. Received an automated message that the number had been changed, disconnected or no longer in service. In an interview with LVN G on 12/14/22 at 12:53 pm revealed she did not work at the facility on 11/20/22. In an interview with DON on 12/14/22 at 1:56 pm revealed the two ADONs are responsible for checking the 24-hour report book for their respective halls and ensuring new admissions have been done correctly. New admission conducted over the weekend would be checked on Monday. The DON stated Resident #1 left the facility before Monday and it appears no one followed up on her clinical chart until 12/12/22. The DON stated at minimum the facility failed to administer medication per doctor's order to Resident #1, but stated they put a system in place on Monday after the start of this investigation. The DON stated this failure was neglectful and stated neither she nor the Administrator have called the state but stated she would make a report today. In an interview with ADON H on 12/12/22 at 3:00 pm revealed she was responsible for reviewing the new admission paperwork to ensure correctness but stated she would not have checked the weekend admissions until Monday 11/21/22. She stated Resident #1 had already left AMA. In an interview with Administrator on 12/14/22 at 3:07 pm, he revealed after Resident #1 left AMA he never audited her chart, nor did he reach out to the resident. The Administrator stated he had consulted with the Medical Director in the past about residents leaving AMA and it is their thought that if a resident leaves AMA, they are not opened to listening to what the facility says, therefore they don't follow up with the resident but stated he did create an internal grievance and the Social Worker should have the documentation. The Administrator stated the purpose of ensuring a resident is in their electronic system is to keep a tally of who is in the building, what we are doing for that person, who their contact people are. In the event this information is missing, the Administrator stated staff would not know what the resident needs which could result in big problems. The Administrator stated he had not reviewed Resident #1 diagnosis therefore he did not know what consequence she could have suffered. The Administrator stated he did not feel the resident missing her medication was a reportable offense therefore it was not self-reported. He stated the incident didn't rise to the level of neglect because as far as he knows the resident was never harmed nor had a change of condition. The Administrator stated he was the Abuse Coordinator. The administrator stated he saw this incident as more of a system failure versus negligence. In an interview with the Social Worker on 12/14/22 at 4:44 pm, she revealed she could not put her hands on any documentation, that an internal grievance was conducted. On 12/15/22, at the time of exit the facility did not produce additional clinical information, progress notes, physician orders, medication administration record or treatment administration record for Resident #1 prior to exit. Review of the facility's abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment undated policy defined neglect as the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. The policy further reflected all alleged violations concerning abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of property are reported verbally immediately to the Facility Abuse Coordinator, the Administrator and to other officials in accordance with state law including the State Survey and Certification Agency (nurse aide registry or licensing authorities).
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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the three nurses (LVN A, LVN B and LVN D ) of four who work...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the three nurses (LVN A, LVN B and LVN D ) of four who worked at the facility had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care for 1 (Resident #1) of five resident reviewed for assessments. The facility failed to ensure LVN A, LVN B and LVN D who were assigned to Resident #1 were competent in the use of the electronic record keeping system to ensure necessary assessments, medication orders and physician orders were in place for the immediate care for Resident #1. This failure could affect the residents in the facility by placing them at risk for not receiving appropriate medical attention care and treatment. Findings include: Review of Resident#1's undated face sheet, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 1:30 am and discharged AMA on 11/20/22 at 2:52 pm. Her diagnosis consisted of Bipolar disorder, current episode hypomania (revved up energy or activity level, mood or behavior), hypertension (high blood pressure), Raynaud's syndrome without gangrene (causes some areas of the body, such as fingers and toes, to feel numb and cold in response to cold temperatures or stress), Gout, muscle weakness, nausea, diarrhea, herpes viral infection of urogenital system, thyrotoxicosis too much thyroid hormone in your body), and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). Review of Resident's clinical record on 12/12/12 at 11:00 am reflected the admission assessment had not been documented, vital signs had not been taken, physician orders had not been obtained, medication and treatment orders were not in the system, and there was only progress note dated 11/20/22 at 2:49 pm documented by LVN A which reflected pt. admitted 11/19 at 1 am no orders in the computer pt. was upset because no one was checking on her I tried to resolve the issue and she was set on leaving signed AMA paper left with her mother dr. was notified and admin. In an interview with LVN D on 12/12/22 at 10:59 am revealed she was agency staff and today (12/12/22) was her fourth shift at the facility. LVN D revealed since working at the facility she has had one new admission. LVN D revealed since working at the facility she felt that she had to fend for herself, and the facility did not do a good job with training on their policies, procedures, or systems. LVN D stated she had no received training on how to process a new admission. In an interview with LVN A on 12/12/22 at 12:03 pm revealed in the year she had worked at the facility, she had not been trained on all the steps of admitting residents into the electronic record, but stated she knew how to conduct and complete assessments and what to do when a new resident admits. In an interview with the DON on 12/12/22 at 1:53 pm, revealed she did not know Resident #1 was not admitted into the electronic record system and had not been assessed or had physician orders obtained until 11/22/22. She stated at that time she thought the issue was residents discharge AMA and staff not knowing how to admit new residents therefore she conducted an in-service on how to do admissions. The DON was not able to provide the in-service she stated she conducted in November and stated she would start one today. In an interview with ADON on 12/12/22 at 3:03 pm revealed she nor her staff were in-serviced in November on how to complete admissions after the incident with Resident #1, but stated the DON provide her with an in-service sheet today on how to admit a new resident into the electronic system (12/12/22). In an interview with LVN B on 12/14/22 at 10:03 am revealed she had worked at the facility since October of 2022. LVN B stated after Thanksgiving, LVN B went on PRN status with the facility because she felt she was not getting the support needed to effectively do her job. LVN B stated she had told the DON in the past that she needed to be trained because she did not know how to work the electronic system used by the facility, she did not know how to admit a resident, nor did she know how to put in orders and stated the DON told her to log in at home and maneuver through the system to get acquainted with it. LVN B stated in the past when a new admission would come in during her shift, either a coworker would put in the orders and medications or someone else had already put them in the in the system therefore all she had to do were her assessments. LVN B stated she last worked at the facility on 12/13/22 and stated there was an admission checklist sheet located at the nurse's station that had not been there in the past. LVN B stated she had not been in-serviced on how to process a new admission until 12/13/22. Review of an in-service training dated 12/12/2022 reflected an in-service Titled Admissions was facilitated by the DON and ADON. The objectives of the in-service were 1. follow admission/re-admission checklist when new admission arrives. 2. assessment completed immediately; all medications should be put in system before end of shift. 3. licensed nurses will be re-educated on admission process including the expectation that orders are to be transcribed and implemented as ordered. Licensed nurse will utilize admission check list for guidance on completion and will have admission orders verified and validated by another nurse on shift and 4. Admitting nurse will validate admission documentation started and report off to oncoming anything not completed. admission documentation will be completed within 24 hours of admission. Medication will be initiated as ordered.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to obtain orders for Resident #1 medications after her admission on [DATE] and failed to provide any medications to the residents. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving necessary medications, not receiving the intended therapeutic benefits of their medications and a decline in health. Findings included: Review of Resident#1's undated face sheet, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 1:30 am and discharged AMA on 11/20/22 at 2:52 pm. Her diagnosis consisted of Bipolar disorder, current episode hypomania (revved up energy or activity level, mood or behavior), hypertension (high blood pressure), Raynaud's syndrome without gangrene (causes some areas of the body, such as fingers and toes, to feel numb and cold in response to cold temperatures or stress), gout ( a form of inflammatory arthritis) , muscle weakness, nausea, diarrhea, herpes viral infection of urogenital system, thyrotoxicosis ( too much thyroid hormone in your body), and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). Review of Resident #1's hospital discharge record dated 11/18/22, reflected the resident was hospitalized from [DATE] to 11/18/22. discharged medications included Tramadol (pain) 50 mg tab every six hours as needed, Clonazepam (seizures, anxiety, panic disorders) 0.5 mg. at bedtime, Amphetamine/Dextroamphetamine salts (Adderall-ADHD) 20 mg. twice daily, Levothyroxine (underactive thyroid gland) 100 mcg daily, Valacyclovir (herpes) 500 mg daily, Allopurinol (Gout)100 mg daily, Amlodipine (high blood pressure) 10 mg daily, Atorvastatin (Cholesterol) 10 mg bedtime, Potassium Chloride (hypokalemia-low potassium) 10 meq daily, Montelukast (asthma)10 mg daily, Metformin (diabetes) 500 mg daily, Cyclobenzaprine (muscle spasms) 5 mg daily as needed for pinched nerve, Gabapentin (neuropathic pain) 400 mg three times daily, Citalopram(antidepressant) 40 mg daily, Aripiprazole (antipsychotic) 15 mg bedtime, and Pantoprazole (reduces acid in the stomach) 40 mg daily. Review of Resident #1's clinical record reflected no physician orders or treatment and medication administration records. Review revealed the resident would have missed two (Adderall and Levothyroxine) medications of 14 regularly scheduled medication. In an interview with Resident #1's Responsible Party on 12/12/22 at 12:54 pm, revealed the resident told her while at the facility she never received any of her prescribed medications. The Responsible party revealed Resident #1 takes medication for pain, diabetes, and mental health, twice a day and the resident went without medication all day on 11/19/22 and on the morning of 11/20/22 before discharging AMA (Against Medical Advice). In an interview with the DON on 12/12/22 at 1:53 pm, she stated she worked a double shift (second and third shift) on 11/19/22 leading into the morning of 11/20/22 on the floor after she had a nurse call in. The DON stated she worked the 100 and 400 halls. She stated she came in the evening of 11/19/22 around 5 pm and left on 11/20/22 around 9:00 am. The DON stated Resident #1 was assigned to the 100 hall and the only encounter she had with the resident was when the resident walked to the nurse's station and told her she had been an activity director at a nursing home. The DON stated she never administered medication to the resident, nor did she conduct any assessments on the resident or document progress notes during the two shifts she was the resident's charge nurse. The DON stated she was told by a medication aide, who's name she could not remember on 11/20/22 that the resident had medications at the bedside and would not give them up. The DON confirmed it was against the facility's policy for the resident to have medication at the bedside. The DON also confirmed she did not address the issue with the resident, she did not know what medications were at the bedside, nor if the resident had self-administered the medication. The DON was unable to provide a reason as to why she did not assess the resident after what the medication aide told her. The DON stated after working two shifts she was exhausted. The DON stated not administering a resident's medication as ordered could result in a medication error. The DON stated with Resident #1's known diagnosis, if she did not receive her medications it could result in hallucinations, stroke, heart attack, and ultimately death. The DON revealed once orders are put into the system, the medications trigger an email to the pharmacy to fill the medication(s) but stated because Resident #1's orders were never put in the system, her medications were never ordered. The DON also stated the resident's doctor was never notified that she had admitted into the facility and only became aware of her existence when staff called her to inform the resident had discharged AMA. In an interview with Resident #1 attending Physician on 12/12/22 at 4:00 pm received she did not recall if the facility called to informed her of Resident #1 admitting into the facility. The Physician stated she never met Resident #1 and the only thing she can remember is facility calling her to tell her two residents discharged AMA on the same day which is unusual. The Physician confirmed she did not write orders for Resident #1. The Physician stated it is her expectation that when there is a new admit that she is contacted and medications by discharging source should be discussed. The Physician stated the possible consequences Resident #1 could have experienced by not being administered medication could be an increase in blood pressure and psych symptoms. In an interview with a Pharmacy representative from the facility's contracted pharmacy on 12/12/22 at 4:21 pm revealed no medication orders were received for Resident #1. Review of the facility's Medication Management Program revised 07/13/2021 reflected: Policy: The facility implements a Medication Management program to meet he pharmaceutical needs of patients and residents, according to established standards of practice and regulatory requirements. Scope and Rules: 1. The facility's Medical Director will have an active role in the oversight of medication management, achieved in a variety of ways including medical record reviews, consultation, recommendations from pharmacy consultants and/or recommendations through the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement process. 2. Licensed Independent Practitioners, licensed nurses, consulting pharmacists, and pharmacy service providers collaborate and review medication orders to ensure medical and clinical necessity and appropriateness. The primary mechanism for this validation is an initial and ongoing medication reconciliation process. 3. Licensed nurses will evaluate, assess, monitor, document and report the effectiveness of the medication regimen that includes all medications and supplements prescribed to treat illness, disease process, or enhance the patient's/resident's quality of life. 4. Prescribed medications and supplements are only administered by qualified, certified, or licensed personnel according to Federal and State regulation and policy. 5. The facility will collaborate with the medical Director and the attending physician on the application of the drug formulary and therapeutic interchange.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s), $215,964 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 41 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $215,964 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Texas, 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 Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway Staffed?

CMS rates CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway?

State health inspectors documented 41 deficiencies at CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY during 2022 to 2025. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 37 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway?

CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY 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 FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 134 certified beds and approximately 67 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CORINTH, Texas.

How Does Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway Stick Around?

CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway Ever Fined?

CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY has been fined $215,964 across 1 penalty action. This is 6.1x the Texas average of $35,239. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Corinth Rehabilitation Suites On The Parkway on Any Federal Watch List?

CORINTH REHABILITATION SUITES ON THE PARKWAY 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.