TWILIGHT HOME

3001 W FOURTH AVE, CORSICANA, TX 75110 (903) 872-2521
For profit - Corporation 102 Beds CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
66/100
#368 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Twilight Home in Corsicana, Texas has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating the facility is decent and slightly above average compared to others. It ranks #368 out of 1,168 nursing homes in Texas, placing it in the top half, and #4 out of 6 in Navarro County, which suggests that only one local option is superior. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a weak point, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 38%, which is better than the state average but still concerning. Notably, a critical incident involved a resident suffering a fatal fall, and there were also concerns regarding poor food storage practices and inadequate infection control measures, which could put residents at risk for health complications. While the facility has strengths in overall quality and health inspections, these weaknesses should be carefully considered.

Trust Score
C+
66/100
In Texas
#368/1168
Top 31%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
38% turnover. Near Texas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$16,229 in fines. Higher than 64% of Texas facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (38%)

    10 points below Texas average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 38%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $16,229

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
May 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screeni...

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 coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) and refer all level II residents and all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for two (Resident #11 and Resident #56) of fourteen residents reviewed for PASARR screenings. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 and Resident #56's PASARR Level One screenings accurately reflected their diagnoses of mental illness and submit a corrected PASARR level one screening. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving or benefiting from specialized therapies they may require. Findings included: Review of Resident #11's MDS Assessment, dated 10/02/2024, reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. Review of Resident #11's PASARR Level One Screening, dated 09/30/2024 and conducted by an acute care hospital, reflected Resident #11 was negative for mental illness, intellectual disability, and developmental disability. Review of Resident #11's physician's order report dated active orders as of 05/12/2025 reflected she was receiving Escitalopram Oxalate, one time a day, for major depressive disorder. Record review of Resident #56's quarterly MDS assessment, dated March 14, 2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included polyosteoarthritis (a form of arthritis that affects multiple joints), muscle weakness, hypertension (high blood pressure), stroke, non-Alzheimer's dementia (memory loss of thinking problem caused by changes in the brain that are not related to Alzheimer's Disease), anxiety disorder, psychotic disorder (other than schizophrenia; group of mental illnesses characterized by psychosis), delusional disorders, and auditory hallucinations. Her BIMS score was a 06, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #56's care plan dated 8/13/2024 reflected the resident was on an antipsychotic medication due to a personal history of auditory hallucinations. Record review of Resident #56's PASARR Level 1 screening, dated 8/13/2024, conducted by an acute care hospital, reflected Resident #56 was negative for mental illness, intellectual disability, and developmental disability. Observation on 5/12/2025 at 12:26 PM revealed Resident #56 sitting alone at a dining table eating lunch. The resident was content, with no distress noted. The resident was pleasant and smiling but spoke few words . In an interview on 05/14/25 at 11:58 AM with the RRN she stated that when the MDSC is reviewing a residents' record and comparing a PL1 with the diagnoses, and notices the PL1 is incorrect, they should do a 1012 (Mental Illness/Dementia Resident Review form) if it is determined that the resident has a new MI, ID, or MD, or complete a corrected version of the PL1 for upload into their portal. In an interview on 05/14/25 at 12:00 PM with the MDSC she stated that she was responsible for submitting all PASARR assessments at the time Resident #11's was submitted. She stated that the PASARR was submitted the way they received it so then it was uploaded as a negative PASARR. She stated what she should have done, was completed a corrected PL1. She stated that her process for rectifying discrepancies with PASARR's was researching where the resident's diagnosis came from, such as a doctor's progress note. She stated that if a resident with qualifying diagnoses does not get a PE by the local mental health authority the resident could miss out on certain psychiatric or psychological services. Interview on 5/14/2025 at 2:00 p.m. with MDSC revealed she had been the Minimum Data Set Coordinator for almost 16 years at this facility. She stated she was unsure why Resident #56's PASARR status indicated the resident did not have a PASARR II with a qualifying diagnosis. The resident's diagnoses were reviewed with MDSC and she believed the resident's diagnosis of psychotic disorder, delusional disorder, and auditory hallucinations were the qualifying diagnoses, but she would review the PL 1 and discuss the situation with corporate. If a resident has a qualifying diagnosis, MDSC stated that the facility should have reviewed the PL1 and compared it to Resident #56's diagnoses. She stated that a negative outcome for a negative PASARR Level 1 that should have been positive and required a Level 2 screening by the LIDDA could be that the residents' needs went unmet for not receiving needed services. MDSC stated Resident #56 did not suffer any negative impact from the lack of a Level 2 screening because there were no services the resident needed that she was not already receiving. MDSC stated that to ensure PASARR screenings are up to date, audits were done once monthly. She stated that there has been a lot of staff turnover and that the MDS coordinator was responsible for checking these. MDSC stated she was responsible for submitting PASARR information to the TMHP. MDSC said she has been trained on the PASSAR policy, and that she was trained prior to her employment at this facility. Interview on 5/14/2025 at 2:48 PM with DON revealed the MDS nurse is responsible for inputting the PASARR into the TMHP. DON said the typical submission process involves the MDS nurse receiving the completed PL1 form from the hospital and reviewing it for accuracy. If the PASARR is incorrect, it is DON's expectation that a new PL1 would be completed. DON stated the MDS nurse does review the progress notes and orders and then adds any mental health or intellectual developmental disorder(s) as they are identified. This would then trigger the MDS nurse to review the PASSAR. DON stated she is responsible for chart audits, and they were completed frequently, sometimes daily depending on resident needs and orders. DON said a possible negative outcome for a resident with an inaccurate PASSAR could be that a resident would not get their needs met. In an interview on 05/14/25 at 02:56 PM with the DON revealed that the MDSC was responsible for obtaining PASSAR assessments from the admitting facility and uploading them into the portal. The DON stated that she conducted chart audits monthly. She stated she would begin implementing PASARR audits more often. A negative outcome could be the residents not getting their needs met relating to services offered by the PASARR programs. She stated that if the MDSC were to notice that the referring entity incorrectly filled out a PL1, then the MDSC would complete a new PL1 and use that as the final version to be uploaded into the portal for the local authority to come out to the facility. Review of the facility's PASRR policy dated last revised 11/15/2023 revealed, The purpose of this policy is to ensure PASARRs are being obtained and completed timely and accurately. 1. PASARRs are obtained from referring entity by the admissions department. 2. PASARR Level 1's are put into Simple Long Term Care by the facility within 72 hours of resident admitting to facility. The completed PASARR Level 1 must also be uploaded into the resident's Electronic Medical Record. 3. Communicate with LIDDA/LMHA to ensure all active positive PASARR Level 1's have a completed PASARR Evaluation and upload the PASARR Evaluation into the resident's Electronic Medical Record. 4. Review recommended Specialized Services on the PASARR Evaluation once the PASARR Evaluation is submitted. 5. When discharging a resident to another Nursing Facility, the facility is responsible for completing a PASARR for the Nursing Facility. 6. Follow Texas PASARR Policy for all mandatory meetings and care coordination including any changes that may require a change in resident's PASARR status
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for proper food storage. 1. The facility failed to store foods in 1 of 1 walk-in freezer to allow for proper circulation. 2. The facility failed to ensure food in 1 of 1 walk-in freezer was properly sealed from air-borne contamination. This failure could place residents who were served food from the kitchen at risk for consuming contaminated, expired, and/or poor-quality food. Findings included: In an observation on 05/12/2025 at 9:20 AM of the facility's 1 of 1 walk-in freezer revealed 11 boxes unshelved, stacked on top of one another on the left side of the freezer, the boxes were caving into themselves and were compromising the integrity of the cardboard, the food inside the boxes appeared to still be frozen and without freezer burn. On the right side of the freezer there was a shelved box of okra that had caved into itself due to an unreadable vegetable box on top of it, that was also smashed, and a box of lima beans that was beginning to cave in on the top due to a box of peas on top of it (a total of 4 stacked boxes of vegetables with 3 of them caving into themselves). In an interview with the DM on 05/13/2025 at 11:15 am she stated that they had just started a new menu cycle and a lot of the boxes that were crushed in the freezer contained bread, because they get too much of it, so the overstock goes in the freezer. When asked if the residents had ever complained to her about the texture of the food (due to poor freezer rotation, ventilation, or issues related to the overstock of items in the freezer), she stated that the residents had complained that they could not chew the food, but she had tried it herself and it was not hard for her to chew. She had offered to change residents to a mechanical diet, but they refused that. She stated that the freezer had looked like that for a long time, and no one had brought it to her attention to make any changes. In an interview on 05/14/25 at 10:07 AM with the RD she stated that she visited the facility every 2 weeks on a Friday. When shown photos of the walk-in freezer she stated that it was not typical for that building to look like that. She questioned how they were rotating items properly. In an interview on 05/14/25 at 10:19 AM with the ADM she stated that the freezer does not usually look like that, and that it could have just been the weekend staff not putting items back where they needed to be, in addition to the start of the new menu cycle and new foods coming in. She stated that food stored like that could impact all residents in the facility as everyone eats food from the kitchen. The food that was in crushed boxes could end up having compromised packaging and become prone to air-borne contaminants. In an interview on 05/14/25 at 10:28 AM with the DC, when asked how he was able to find what he needed in the walk-in freezer, he stated that he would ask the DM where it was in the freezer. He stated that he knew how to rotate stock to ensure the earliest received foods were used first. He stated that he had asked the DM what he should do about the crushed boxes and she would tell him to take the bagged items out of the box and date them and set on a shelf. Review of the facility's 'Storage Refrigerators' policy dated 2012 reflected, All Storage Refrigerators shall be maintained clean and have a proper temperature for food storage and to ensure a proper environment and temperature for food storage. 1. Storage refrigerators shall be well lighted, ventilated, temperature controlled, and must have an internal thermometer. 4. Storage refrigerators shall be kept clean and organized.
Feb 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life threatening conditions or clinical complications) for one (Resident #1) of seven residents reviewed for changes in condition, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's NP or physician was notified on 1/17/2025 that he had developed a fever (elevated body temperature) after Resident #1 was tested on [DATE] for a urinary tract infection . The failure could place residents at risk of a delay in treatment uncontrolled pain, development of sepsis (systemic infection of the body) and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 1/24/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Spondylosis (degenerative condition of the spine), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (blood sugar regulation disorder), Fusion of the Spine - Cervical Region, Hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), Chronic Pain, muscle weakness, and lack of coordination, Review of Resident #1's unspecified MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS of 14 suggesting Resident #1 had no cognitive deficits. Review of section H - Bladder and Bowel reflected Resident #1 had an indwelling catheter (a flexible tube inserted in the body to collect and drain urine.) Review of Resident #1's care plan dated 12/23/2024 reflected the problem The resident has indwelling catheter due to Neurogenic bladder (condition that occurs when the nervous systems' connection to the balder is disrupted) & possible bladder neck obstruction; with interventions that included Monitor/record/report to MD for s/sx UTI: pain, burning, blood-tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increased pulse, increased temp, urinary frequency, foul smelling urine, fever, chills, altered mental status, change in behavior, change in eating patterns. Review of Resident #1's temperature log reflected the following: 1/17/2025, 8:14 [am], 101.7 [degrees] F, forehead, recorded by LVN #1. Review of Resident #1's orders indicated a UA was ordered on 1/16/2025 and collected on 1/16/2025 after 8am. [the exact time on the UA report is not legible.] Review of Resident #1's progress notes dated 1/17/2025 by LVN #1 at 12:37 pm, revealed Resident #1's UA results had been received and NP #2 had been notified. Progress note further indicated they were still waiting on C&S results. Review of Resident #1's progress notes dated 1/17/2025 by LVN #1 at 3:54 pm, revealed temperature reading of T-100.4 [degrees F]. Further review of Resident #1's progress notes from 1/16/2025 to 1/18/2025 reflected no entries from LVN #1 indicating she had notified NP #2 of Resident # 1's elevated temperature readings at two different times on 1/17/2025. During an interview on 2/10/2025 at 11:02 am with LVN #1, she stated she had assessed Resident #1's vital signs on 1/17/2025 at 8:14 am and he had a temperature of 101.7F. She stated she had also taken his vital signs on 1/17/2025 at 3:54 pm and he had a temperature of 100.4F. She stated both of those readings indicated Resident #1 had a fever and indicated a change in condition and NP #2 should have been notified. She stated she thought she had contacted NP #2 with that information but to my 100% knowledge, I don't know if I did. She stated if she had contacted NP #2, I would have documented this in a progress note. LVN #1 was informed there was no progress note in the EMR about her contacting and notifying [NP #2] of Resident #1's fever. She stated, This means [NP# 2 ] was not notified. She stated with Resident #1 running a fever she would have concerns about infection, or a UTI. Resident #1 could have developed a serious infection, possibly sepsis (systemic infection of the entire body), which could lead to death . During an interview with NP #2 on 2/10/2025 at 11:16 am, she stated she had ordered a UA for Resident #1 on 2/16/2025 because nursing staff had noticed he had dark colored urine draining into his indwelling catheter bag. She stated she was never contacted about Resident #1 having a fever on 1/17/2025. She stated if she had known that, per the facility policy she would have started a broad-spectrum antibiotic to start treating Resident #1's suspected UTI. She stated the antibiotic could have started to work on the infection while they were waiting for the lab results to come back and reduced Resident #1's discomfort. NP #2 stated Resident #1's UA came back positive on 2/17/2025 for bacteria present. A positive UA indicated he had an infection, so a Culture & Sensitivity (C&S) test was initiated. She stated a C&S is done to ensure the infection is treated with the appropriate antibiotic. She stated the facility received the results of the C&S back on 9/19/2025, and she gave orders to start antibiotics, but before they could initiate antibiotic therapy, Resident #'1's RP requested he be sent to the emergency room (ER), so the facility sent him out to the ER. During an interview with the MD on 2/10/2025 at 3:19 pm, he stated he was not aware that Resident #1 was febrile (had a fever) and met the criteria for initiation of antibiotic therapy per the facility antimicrobial stewardship policy . He stated if a resident showed clinical signs of a fever where a UTI was suspected, they would start a broad-spectrum antibiotic while they waited for additional testing results to come back from the lab. He stated, It would have been nice if they notified us. We could have started him on an antibiotic. The MD stated his expectations were that the nursing staff would notify either him or NP #2 when a resident had a fever with a suspected UTI so they could give orders to start antibiotics. During an interview on 2/10/2025 at 4:05 pm, the DON stated she was not aware Resident #1 had run a fever on 1/17/2025 and that NP #2 had not been contacted by LVN #1. She stated her expectation was that LVN #1 should have called the practitioner and made them aware of Resident #1 running a fever. She stated Resident #1's infection could have gotten worse, or the resident could have even developed sepsis. During an interview on 2/10/2025 at 4:15 pm, the ADM stated she was not aware that Resident #1 had developed a fever and her expectation was that the nurse would call the provider. She stated when Resident #1 ran a fever that indicated a change in condition and could have indicated his infection had been getting worse. She stated Resident #1 could have become septic. Review of undated facility policy Antimicrobial Stewardship reflected the following: Policy - Treatment with antibiotics is only appropriate when the practitioner determines, on the basis of an assessment, that the most likely cause of the patient's symptoms is a bacterial infection. Procedures - 1. When the facility staff suspects a resident has an infection, the nurse should perform and document a complete assessment of the resident using established and accepted assessment protocols to determine if the resident's status meets minimum criteria for initiating antibiotics. A. Suspected Urinary Tract Infection, with indwelling catheter; at least one of the following: Fever (>100 degrees F), New costovertebral tenderness [tenderness where the ribs meet the spine], Rigors [shivering with a rise in temperature] or New onset of delirium [altered mental status]. Review of facility policy Notifying the Physician of Change in Status dated Rev March 11, 2013, reflected the following: 1. The nurse will notify the physician immediately with significant change in status. The nurse will document signs and symptoms of significant change, time/date of call to physician, and interventions that were implemented in the resident's clinical record.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's ...

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 assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 6 residents (Resident # 54) reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #54's bedrail assessment reflected Resident #54 had a diagnosis of seizures. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: A record review of Resident #54's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #54's diagnosis included other seizures (uncontrolled burst of electrical activity between brain cells that cause temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements), hypertensive heart disease without heart failure (heart problems that occur because of high blood pressure that is present over a long time), and bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee (a degenerative joint disease that affects both knees). A record review of Resident #54's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 02/19/2024, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 13, which indicated cognition was intact. Resident #54's Quarterly MDS reflected seizure disorder or epilepsy. A record review of Resident #54's care plan, dated 01/08/2024, reflected Resident #54 was care planned for seizure disorder. A record review of Resident #54's bed rail assessment, dated 01/22/2024, reflected Resident #54 did not have a diagnosis of seizures or involuntary movements. Interview with Resident #54 on 03/28/24 at 10:40am, Resident #54 stated she had a diagnosis of seizures and received medications for her seizure diagnosis. Observation of Resident #54 on 03/28/24 at 10:40am, revealed Resident #54 had bed rails on her bed. Interview with Resident #54 on 03/28/24 at 10:40am, Resident #54 stated she had a diagnosis of seizures and received medications for her seizure diagnosis. Resident #54 stated she used the bed rails for mobility. Interview with LVN A on 03/28/24 at 10:45am, LVN A stated she has not witnessed Resident #54 having a seizure but is aware of her diagnosis of seizures. LVN A stated that Resident #54 took seizure medications. Interview with the DON on 03/28/24 at 1:25pm, the DON stated that she was aware of Resident #54's diagnosis of seizure. The DON stated that she was responsible for completing the bed rail assessment. The DON stated that the question on the bed rail assessment that regarded the diagnosis of seizures was incorrectly answered due to a human error. Interview with the ADM on 03/28/24 at 12:30pm, the ADM stated all resident assessments should be completed accurately so the residents would receive the appropriate care. The ADM stated that the bed rail assessment would be correct but the question that regarded the diagnosis of seizure would be incorrect. The ADM stated the DON is responsible for completing the bed rail assessment. The ADM stated if a resident had a seizure with bed rail the resident could possibly bump their upper body on the bed rails. A record review of the facility's Bed Rails Assessment, dated 09/08/2016, reflected This facility will utilize bed rails for those residents that use them for bed mobility. The facility will attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail. If a bed or side rail is used, the facility must ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails, including but not limited to the following elements: Asses the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation. Review the risk and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation. Ensure that the bed's dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size and weight. A. Follow the manufactures' recommendations and specifications for installing and maintaining bed rails. Assessment: Prior to use of a bed rail the resident will be assessed to ensure the proper rail is utilized for the resident's need. The facility will re-evaluate the use of the rail on a periodic basis. Based on the resident assessment, the interdisciplinary team will make the determination for a plan of care as it relates to bed rails.
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 a comprehensive person-centered c...

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 a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, 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 1 of 6 residents (Resident #35) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #35's comprehensive care plan addressed Resident #35's use of oxygen therapy. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for not receiving proper care and services due to inaccurate care plans. Findings include: A record review of Resident #35's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #35's diagnoses included polyosteoarthritis (joint pain and stiffness), hypertensive heart disease without heart failure (heart problems that occur because of high blood pressure that is present over a long time), anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), cerebrovascular disease (a condition that affect blood flow to your brain), insomnia (trouble falling asleep or getting good quality sleep), and idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy (damage to the nerves that control automatic body functions). A record review of Resident #35's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/09/2024, reflected Resident #35 had a BIMS score of 00, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The Quarterly MDS also reflected continuous, intermittent, and high concentration oxygen therapy. A record review of Resident #35's Care plan, dated 03/25/2024, did not reflect any oxygen therapy use. A record review of Resident #35's Physician Orders, dated 03/27/2024, reflected Resident #35 had an active order for O2 at 4 liters continuous, and may use oxygen @ 2-4 l/m via nasal cannula PRN SOB. A record review of Resident #35's O2 Stats, dated 03/27/2024, reflected Resident #35 received oxygen via nasal cannula daily from 09/2023 - 03/28/2024. An observation of Resident #35 on 03/26/24 at 10:40am, reflected Resident #35 used oxygen. In an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 03/28/24 at 12:25 PM, the MDS Coordinator stated if a resident was receiving oxygen therapy, then it should be care planned. The MDS nurse she was responsible for completing care plans. The MDS Coordinator stated staff would not know the residents' oxygen therapy intervention if the resident was not care planned for oxygen therapy. In an interview with the ADM on 03/28/24 at 12:25 PM, the ADM stated if a resident was receiving oxygen therapy it should be care planned so the resident can receive the appropriate care. The ADM stated that the MDS coordinator was responsible for completing care plans. The ADM stated that if the resident had an order for oxygen use, then there would not be any negative outcome from the care plan not reflecting oxygen therapy. A record review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Planning policy, not dated, reflected the facility will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan will describe the following - The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Oct 2023 3 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physici...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify the resident representative(s) when there was an accident that caused a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed for notification of changes. The facility nurses failed to immediately consult and notify the Physician when resident #1 sustained a fall with head injury on [DATE] at approximately 6:19 am and had subsequent altered mental status that required additional treatment in the form of neurological checks; the resident was pronounced deceased [DATE] at 11:59 am . The facility nurses further failed to notify Resident #1's emergency contact, RP #1, that Resident #1 suffered a fall and hit his head, per self-report, on [DATE] at approximately 6:19 am with documented lethargy; RP #1 was notified at 10:48 am that Resident #1 was being transported to the hospital by EMS. The resident was pronounced deceased [DATE] at 11:59 am. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on [DATE]. While the IJ was removed on [DATE] at 4:00 pm, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated with actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving interventions, treatments, and care by recognizing and addressing the physical, mental, and neurological dysfunctions such as altered state of consciousness, nausea, vomiting, cognitive decline, confusion, memory loss, and changes in behavior in an effective and timely manner to prevent residents from further harm, injury, or death. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's undated face sheet, printed on [DATE], revealed that he was a [AGE] year-old male first admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type II diabetes, heart failure, and COPD (lung disease that makes it difficult to get oxygen to the body), and acquired absence of the left leg below the knee (amputation that was diagnosed [DATE]). It further revealed that his emergency contact was RP #1; FAM was listed on the face sheet but not with any designation (i.e. RP, emergency contact etc) Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 8, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, he was marked as requiring one person to assist with bed mobility, 2+ persons to assist with transfers and toilet use. It further revealed that Resident #1 required a wheelchair for mobility. It further revealed that he was always incontinent of bowel and frequently incontinent of bladder. The question that asked the primary medical condition category that was the cause of admission did not mark amputation, but entered other orthopedic condition, then gave the billing code encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation. Further review revealed that Resident #1 was marked as not having any falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment. The question about if Resident #1 had a fall any time in the last month prior to admission/entry or reentry was left blank, as was the question for 2-6 months. Record review of Resident #1's active orders revealed he was on two blood thinners, aspirin and Plavix . Resident #1 had an order that started [DATE] for 81 mg aspirin once daily and an order for Plavix (clopidogrel bisulfate) 75 mg once daily that started [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's undated care plan revealed that Resident #1 was visually impaired due to glaucoma with an intervention encouraging use of glasses. It further revealed that Resident #1 was at risk of falls and was initiated [DATE] with interventions of call light use, anticipate resident needs, ensure proper footwear and keep furniture locked. Another concern addressed in the Care Plan was blood thinner use with the intervention of increased monitor/document/report to MD signs of anticoagulant (blood thinner) complications to include lethargy, change in appetite, and change in mental status which was initiated on [DATE]. Record review of the facility incident report dated [DATE] at 6:19 am revealed that LVN A entered that Resident #1 slid out of wheelchair next to bed, and he was unable to give a description of the incident. It further revealed the resident was assessed, had no injuries and was assisted to bed. The resident was not taken to the hospital at this time. Resident #1's level of consciousness was documented as lethargic (drowsy). Record review of Resident #1's follow-up question report printed [DATE] revealed that Resident #1 refused his breakfast on [DATE] at 9:25 am and that he refused a supplement or substitute as well. In an interview with FAM on [DATE] at 11:00 am he stated that his father had been eating everything in sight for the last few months. He said it was unusual for Resident #1 to refuse any meals, especially recently. In an interview with CNA E on [DATE] at 2:57 pm he stated he worked the overnight shift on the night of [DATE] - [DATE] and got Resident #1 out of bed before he finished his shift at 6:00 am, probably between 5:30 am and 5:45 am. He said that Resident #1 was able to assist CNA E with getting out of bed, dressed and into his wheelchair. He stated Resident #1 was his normal self at this time. In an interview with CNA C on [DATE] at 7:51 p.m., she stated on [DATE] she started checking the 100 hall (where Resident #1 resided) around 5:50 a.m. and she went to do some charting. She was the first care giver to find Resident #1 and he was not responding to questions, so she called for help and LVN A and LVN B arrived, and HK was already on the hall and joined in the room. She said as the nurses evaluated Resident#1, he became more responsive and he was assisted to bed using the mechanical lift. He was put in bed before 6:30 a.m. (using the lift after his fall). In an interview with LVN A on [DATE] at 8:24 p.m., she stated on [DATE] around 6:30 a.m. she checked Resident #1's blood sugar and it was normal. Resident #1 was putting his prosthetic leg on, so she went to Resident #2 and checked his blood sugar, she went to the med cart in the doorway to get insulin sliding scale to administer and while her back was turned she heard Resident #1 fall. He had no signs of injury or impaired thinking., She got LVN B and CNA C to assist with mechanical lift use to get Resident #1 back in bed. She said she was the first to find him. LVN B checked Resident #1's vitals while LVN A messaged NP that Resident #1 had fall with no injuries around 6:30 am. She stated she notified DON and ADM. She stated she called FAM and asked that FAM give LVN A 15 minutes before FAM notified RP #1 because she would call and ask questions. LVN A said she needed 15 minutes to finish charting, complete the fall report, check vitals, and start neuro checks before RP #1 was informed. In an interview with LVN D on [DATE] at 8:48 p.m., he stated that on [DATE] he came on shift at 7:00 a.m. and was informed of Resident #1's q 15 minute neuro checks and he was performing the checks and entering them in the medical record. He stated he set a phone alarm to ensure this was done timely until sometime between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. when the resident was not responsive when he attempted to get vitals,. LVN D said Resident #1 was tensed up and may have choked (aspirated). He called for assistance then dialed 911 for EMS. Record review of Resident #1's [DATE] neuro checks revealed that all 7 neuro checks documented by LVN D that started at 7:05 a.m. and ended at 9:20 a.m., were all entered into the medical record after 3:00 p.m. (3 hours after Resident #1 was pronounced deceased ). The 9:55 a.m. neuro check was entered at 9:56 a.m. and had a systolic bp of 130 and no diastolic bp recorded; the 10:10 a.m. neuro check was entered at 10:13 am and his blood pressure was 105/59; and his 10:25 a.m. neuro check was entered at 11:49 a.m., had a bp of 90/54 and Resident #1 was not responding to verbal stimuli (noise). During an interview with HK 1 on [DATE] at 11:53 a.m., she stated she was on the same hall as Resident #1 and had passed his room sometime after 5:00 am on [DATE]. She said she went to the linen closet, and Resident #1 was in his wheelchair. She heard a commotion and went to Resident #1's room and he was not responding to staff, and he was rigid as he was being lifted from the floor to the bed with a mechanical lift. She stated Resident #2 was watching the whole time. She stated that as CNA C, LVN A and LVN B were turning Resident #1 using the mechanical lift to get his head to the head of the bed that she heard gurgling from Resident #1. She stated when Resident #1 was in the bed she heard a gurgling/snore noise from Resident #1 and placed a basin within reach for him to vomit in; she said Resident #2 then stated that Resident #1 had a seizure 2 weeks ago. She (HK 1) was upset because this was not normal for Resident #1 and she was concerned. Record review of Resident #1's assessment titled Event Nurses Note 8 hr fall with an effective date of [DATE] at 6:32 a.m. revealed LVN A documented that Resident #1 was unable to give a statement about the fall, FAM was notified at 6:30 a.m., not RP #1, he does not walk and required 1 staff to assist with toileting, transferring, and bed mobility. It further noted he had no problem with cognition but was put on monitoring (neuro checks). Record review of Resident #1's Incident audit report dated [DATE] at 6:19 a.m. documented by LVN A revealed in the section labeled: injuries observed at the time of the incident, indicated Resident #1's level of consciousness was lethargic (drowsy) and this was documented on [DATE] at 6:29 a.m Record review of Resident #1's Fall Risk Assessment effective [DATE] at 6:47 a.m., revealed LVN A documented that Resident #1 had adequate vision, was able to stand, had balance problems when standing, had balance problems when walking, Record review of Resident #1's progress notes with an effective date of [DATE] at 10:00 am written by the DON on [DATE] at 4:19 p.m. it indicated Resident #2 (roommate) stated Resident #1 transferred from the bed to the wheelchair then was putting on his prosthetic leg and fell. Nurse assessed and found no injuries. Anti-tippers (device to prevent wheelchair from tipping) were to be placed on the wheelchair. No progress notes were found documenting the fall nor the consultation with Resident #1's physician; this was the first progress note dated [DATE]. Record review of the ambulance patient care report revealed that 911 was contacted on [DATE] at 10:44 am and the ambulance arrived at the facility at 10:48 am. Further review revealed 911 was contacted for a cardiac event related to a fall with head injury around 6:00 am. During an interview with EMS on [DATE] at 8:00 am he stated that 911 was notified [DATE] at 10:44 am to respond to the facility for a resident who had a fall that morning and hit his head. They arrived at 10:48 am and staff handed them papers but did not inform them of the OOH-DNR among the papers, so when Resident #1 was in the ambulance in the parking lot and his heart stopped they initiated CPR, and it was continued at the ER until the paperwork was found and CPR was stopped. Resident #1 was pronounced deceased on [DATE] at 11:59 am. In an interview with FAM on [DATE] at 11:00 am he stated he was called on [DATE] between 6:20 am and 6:30 am about Resident #1, which had never happened because he travels extensively for work. Staff stated Resident #1 had a fall and please wait for a while to notify RP #1 so staff had time to finish documenting. FAM stated due to his work situation he did not call RP #1 because he forgot. He received a call from RP #1 that DON called RP #1 on [DATE] at 10:46 am to inform her that Resident #1 was being taken to the hospital. In an interview and record review with RP #1 on [DATE] at 11:30 am she stated the facility usually called her about Resident #1 so she could go to medical appointments and such, but she was not called on [DATE] until after 10:30 am when Resident #1 was being sent to the hospital Record review of her phone log revealed no missed calls on [DATE] prior to 10:30 am. She stated she asked the ADM why she was not notified and the ADM stated that Resident #1 was his own responsible party and the facility cannot call every time a medication or order was changed or every time someone had a fall unless they went through a legal process. She stated had she been notified she would have been at the facility to check on Resident #1 earlier. Record review of the eTransfer form with effective date [DATE] at 11:02 am revealed Resident #1 was transferred to hospital because he had a fall that morning and was displaying a change in mental status; his gaze was fixed with pupils non-restrictive, unable to verbalize anything, hypotensive at 90/54, pulse 79, bs 119, possible aspiration (choking) with vomiting. Transfer time was 11:02 am and it was an emergency transfer, meaning it was done prior to notification of NP or MD. Resident level on consciousness was stuporous (slow to react), he was not oriented to person, place, time or situation, he had unclear or no speech, was incontinent of bowel and bladder. Record review of the eTransfer audit report revealed the following vitals were the most recent on [DATE] at 11:02 am: BP [DATE] 1:09 am 134/66 Pulse [DATE] 1:09 am 74 Respiration [DATE] 8:02 am 16 Blood sugar [DATE] 6:01 am 118 Updated on [DATE] at 11:09 am by LVN D: BP [DATE] 11:06 am 90/54 Pulse [DATE] 11:06 am 79 Respirations [DATE] 11:06 am 20 Blood sugar [DATE] 11:06 am 119 Record review of the SBAR effective [DATE] at 11:24 am for Resident #1 revealed at [DATE] at 11:06 am Resident #1's bp was 90/54, his pulse was 79, and his respiration was 20 at the same time and his glucose was 119. Resident #1 had a decrease in level of consciousness and seizure, his pupils were non-restrictive, he was non-verbal, and he was vomiting. He was being transferred to the hospital and NP was notified at 11:00 am per the SBAR. Record review of the SBAR audit report (a report in EHR that shows date and time report was created, auto-captured date and time) revealed the SBAR was created by LVN D on [DATE] at 1:30 pm. In an interview with NP on [DATE] at 10:00 am she stated if a resident on blood thinners had an unwitnessed fall with altered thoughts that the resident should be sent to the hospital (blood thinners increase the risk of internal injury) . In an interview with the ADM on [DATE] at 7:27 pm via telephone she stated that she saw Resident #1 shortly after arriving to work on [DATE], which would be after 8:00 am. She stated that Resident #2 told her how Resident #1 fell, that he had self-transferred from the bed to the wheelchair and was pulling on his prosthetic leg and the wheelchair went one way and Resident #1 went another. The ADM originally denied telling RP #1 and FAM that the facility cannot notify someone every time a resident has a fall or needs a medication change, but then corrected herself upon learning of a recording of the conversation. She said she expected if a resident had a fall and potential head injury that the physician should be contacted, neuro checks started and the resident should be sent to the hospital after the physician was contacted. In an interview with the DON on [DATE] at 8:40 pm she stated the potential harm of the nurse using clinical judgement and possibly missing a serious injury could lead to worsening symptoms and death of the resident. She stated NP was easier to reach and that was why staff contacted the NP and not the physician. In an interview on [DATE] at 10:18 am with NP via telephone she stated, when asked about when she was notified of Resident #1's fall, it was absolutely not by text message and it was definitely by phone call; she stated her cell phone call log did not go back that far ([DATE]) but that she got a call in the morning and knew the resident was on blood thinners and even if she was told he had altered mental status because it was this resident she would not have recommended sending him to the hospital for evaluation (repeated several times Resident #1 was not compliant with diet or fluid restrictions); she stated even if he had been unconscious and regained consciousness she would not send this resident to the hospital. She stated she was uncertain if Resident #1's physician was informed of the fall because she does not work for him; she stated she speaks to him on average once per month. She stated she did not order neuro checks after the fall, but it was done per facility protocol. She confirmed when prompted that she spoke to a nurse at the time of the fall but was informed via text message later that morning that Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. In an email interview with ADM on [DATE] at 10:07 am, she responded to request for screenshot of notification from LVN A to NP by stating that it was documented in Resident #1's record; after being asked if she was refusing to provide the requested documentation she replied on [DATE] at 10:56 am with the requested screenshot. Record review of a screenshot photo revealed a text message from LVN A to NP on [DATE] at 6:31 am revealed notification via text from LVN A resident 1 slid out of wheelchair this am no injuries noted at this time and the response from NP thx (thanks). After the following attempts to reach the physician, leaving messages for a return call, Medical Director, who was Resident #1's physician has not returned any calls: [DATE] 3:00 pm [DATE] 10:15 am [DATE] 9:45 am Record review of facility self-report in TULIP, incident 445046 dated [DATE] stated Resident #1 fell in room after transferring himself into wheelchair and attempting to put prosthetic leg on and hit head. Resident was assessed and put on neuro check precautions. Physician and resident representative were notified at time of fall. Intervention at time of fall put in place was antitippers to resident wheelchair to prevent resident from flipping over. Several requests were made from ADM and DON for documentation on [DATE] by LVN A of notification to physician and physician response to notification related to Resident #1's fall around 6:19 am, but facility failed to provide documentation. ADM stated in an email that the notification was documented in the resident's record; record review revealed no progress notes that documented notification of the fall to the physician. Further record review revealed an assessment titled Event Nurses-Note 8 hr Fall - V2, entered by LVN A, which stated that Resident #1 was unable to give a statement . under name of physician notified it showed the name of NP and for date and time of physician notification it stated [DATE] 6:30 am. No documentation was found in the EHR to indicate the physician was notified and nor did the facility provide that requested documentation. Record review of the facility policy for notifying the Physician of Change in Status, revised [DATE], revealed the nurse should not hesitate to contact the physician at any time when an assessment [NAME] their professional judgement deem it necessary for immediate medical attention. This facility utilizes the INERACT INTERACT tool, Change in Condition-When to Notify the MD/NP/PA to review resident condition and guide the nurse when to notify the physician. This tool informs the nurse if the resident condition requires immediate notification of the physician or non-immediate/Report on Next Work day notification of the physician. 1. The nurse will notify the physician immediately with significant change in status. The nurse will document signs and symptoms of significant change, time/date of call to physician, and interventions that were implemented in the resident's clinical record. 2. Before the physician is contacted, the nurse will gather and organize resident information. Applicable information will include current medications, vital signs, signs and symptoms initiating call, current laboratory information, and interventions that have currently been implemented. 3. The nurse may collect several non-emergent items and place one telephone call during the shift in order to avoid multiple calls to a physician with non-emergent questions. The nurse is responsible, however, for responding to a change of condition in a timely and effective manner. The nurse will document the time of the call to the physician in the clinical record. 4. If the physician does not return the call within a reasonable amount of time, the nurse will attempt to contact the physician a second time. If the situation is an emergency, and the physician does not call back within a reasonable amount of time, the nurse will contact the Medical Director or the nearest ambulance service for assistance. The nurse will document all attempts to contact the physician in the resident's clinical record. 5. The resident's family member or legal guardian should be notified of significant change in resident's status unless the resident as has specified otherwise. 6. The nurse will monitor and reassess the resident's status and response to intervention. Physicians should develop a working diagnosis and guide nursing staff in what to monitor, and when to notify the physician if the resident's condition does not improve. 7. The nurse will document all attempts to contact the physician, all attempts to notify the family and/or legal representative, the physician's response, the physician's orders and the resident's status and respond to interventions. 8. If the resident remains in the facility and a significant change has occurred, update the care plan accordingly. 9. Faxes should be following up by the end of the business day. 10. If a resident is transferred to the hospital, complete a transfer form. Send a copy of the most recent history and physical, progress note, advance directives, MAR, diagnosis list, and pertinent lab and x-ray reports to the hospital. Document actions in the resident's clinical records. 11. Abnormal lab, x-ray and other diagnostic reports require physician notification. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on [DATE] at 12:26 PM. The ADM and DON were notified. The ADM and DON were provided with the IJ template on [DATE] at 12:46 PM. The following plan of Removal submitted by the facility was accepted on [DATE] at 10:51 am: PLAN OF REMOVAL [DATE] Plan of Removal Problem: F580 F580 -The facility failed to immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there is a need to alter treatment. Interventions: o As of [DATE] Resident #1 no longer resides in the facility (died [DATE]) o Regional nurses, DON, and ADON will review any resident with change of condition in the last 7 days for proper notification to MD on [DATE]. o DON/ADON/Regional Nurse in-serviced LVN A individually r 1:1 regarding proper notification of Physician on [DATE]. In-services: All staff not in-serviced on [DATE] including agency staff, new hires and PRN staff will not be allowed to work their assigned schedule until the completion of these in-services. o All charge nurses were in-serviced on [DATE] by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON regarding proper notification of physician. Do not text a physician for resident change notification, the physician must be notified by phone and the notifying nurse must receive a responsive directive from the physician, i.e., receipt of new treatments or medication orders, transfer to the hospital, no new orders, etc. The Administrator, Compliance Nurse, DON, and ADON were in-serviced by the VP of Clinical Services on [DATE]. o All charge nurses were in-serviced on [DATE] by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON to enter completed assessments into EHR by the end of shift for the change of condition. The Administrator, Compliance Nurse, DON, and ADON were in-serviced by the VP of Clinical Services on [DATE]. o All charge nurses were in-serviced on [DATE] by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON that if a resident has a significant decline, i.e., the resident is no longer responding to stimuli, pupils are not reactive to light and/or are fixed, etc., it is considered an emergency and EMS must be notified by 911. Notify the physician of the transfer prior to end of the shift after the resident has left the facility. The Administrator, Compliance Nurse, DON, and ADON were in-serviced by the VP of Clinical Services on [DATE]. Medical Director was notified by the DON on [DATE] at 2:03 pm about the Immediate Jeopardies. An AD HOC QAPI meeting will be held on [DATE] by the Interdisciplinary Team to discuss the Immediate Jeopardies and review the Plan of Removal. The Director of Nursing or designee will implement this written Plan of Removal and will continue to monitor completion and compliance of this written Plan of Removal. Monitoring: o The DON and/or designee will monitor Real Time clinical software and the EHR Dashboard for clinical alerts for any resident change of condition with documentation of physician notification, starting [DATE]. This will be done 7 days per week and will continue x 6 weeks. o DON/ADON will monitor completed assessments entered in EHR to ensure they were entered into EHR prior to end of shift. Monitoring will take place 7 days per week and will continue x 6 weeks. MONITORING THE POR : Record review on [DATE] 11:20 AM of the Plan of Removal (POR) binder revealed: the ADM, DON, ADON, and Regional Compliance Nurse were all in-serviced by VP of Clinical Services on [DATE] on the below in-services: Proper Notification of Physician with directives to not text a physician for resident change notification, the physician must be notified by phone and the notifying nurse must receive a responsive directive from the physician, i.e., receipt of new treatments or medication orders, transfer to the hospital, no new orders, etc. If a Resident has a Significant Decline with directives if a resident has a significant decline, i.e., the resident is no longer responding to stimuli, pupils are not reactive to light and/or are fixed, etc., it is considered an emergency and EMS must be notified by 911. Notify the physician of the transfer prior to end of the shift after the resident has left the facility. Completed Assessments with a directive to enter completed assessments into EHR by the end of shift for the Change of Condition. Charge nurses were then in-serviced on the same information on [DATE] by the DON and the ADON with assistance by the Regional Compliance Nurse. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:45 am with LVN F and she said she has worked at the facility for 14 years. She was in-serviced on Contacting Doctors, Neuro Checks, Fall Assessments, and Timely Assessments in general. She provided the below information: Anytime there is a change in condition on your resident, you must call the doctor. They are no longer allowed to text the doctor for a change-in-condition. Neuros must be completed timely when they are due and documented into EHR. Assessments must also be completed timely and entered into the system when they are due. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:05 pm with LVN D he said he has worked at the facility for 3 years. He provided the below information: He is PRN but came to the facility today to complete the in-services. He was in-serviced on Proper notification on change of conditions, including do not text the doctor. You must call for all emergencies. It cannot be a texted and you must provide the doctor with a Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations (SBAR). Neuro Evaluations and Proper documentation in EHR: timely documentations, when you complete a Fall Assessment or Neuro check, you must enter it in the system at that time, or no later than the end of your shift. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:20 pm with LVN G she said she has worked at the facility for 1.5 years. She provided the below information: Notifying the Doctor Contacting doctors in a timely fashion depending on the situation . She was provided a copy of the documentation and it was also placed in their 24-hour nurse's report. If it is an immediate situation, you must call and not text. When they have an incident that requires contacting the doctor, they must complete an SBAR and depending on the situation, the SBAR will tell them if it is immediate, or if they can wait. Neuro Checks They need to be done in a specific format and timed intervals. A copy of the scheduled Neuro Checks was placed in the 24-hour report book. It is very important to do it promptly even if EHR does not prompt you to do it, they know the schedule and should be completing them throughout their shift. They also have to notify the doctor for any change in condition. Fall Assessments If it is an unwitnessed fall, or they see them hit their head, they have to initiate Neuro Checks as well. The Neuro Checks need to be completed and the doctor need to be called and not texted. You also must notify the responsible party. The resident has to be followed-up for 3 days and documented in EHR. They also have to notify the doctor for any change in condition. When she was educated about the SBAR, it was explained when you complete it, it will inform you if it is an emergency or not. She did not know the SBAR determined for you because she would always call the doctor regardless. In an interview on [DATE] at 01:40 pm with LVN A and she said she has worked at the facility for less than one year. She provided the below information: She was in-serviced on Who to Call (if the Responsible Person does not answer, chart it, and then call the next person). If there is a Change in Condition, call the MD or the on-call doctor and not the NP, Neuro Checks are to be done timely even if you are administering medications, all documentation need to be entered at that time, or no later than the end of her shift. It was re-education as she had already been doing these things. What she knows now is not to call the Nurse Practitioner. She thought the NP was going to call the doctor. She also learned to make sure you always chart and document everything regardless of how minimal. As far as her job, she was already completing these tasks so her biggest take away is to call the MD and not the NP and to always call regarding any Change of Conditions and do not send a text. Also, to make sure all documentation is entered as soon as possible and no later than the end of her shift. In an interview on [DATE] at 02:00 pm with ADON andshe said she has worked here for 9 years. She was in-serviced on anytime there is a change in condition for the resident to notify the doctor immediately via phone call. They have an InterAct Tool that they can look at to see if they need to contact the doctor immediately or send the resident out[TRUNCATED]
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

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 in accordance with accepted professional standards and ...

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 in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the medical records on each resident are accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medical records accuracy. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's condition was documented in the medical record accurately and that neuro checks were documented accurately in the medical record. The facility failed to ensure Dietician appropriately reviewed Resident #1's chart thoroughly as evidenced by Dietician entering a progress note on [DATE] at 3:06 pm that recommended protein for deep tissue healing 4 days after Resident #1 passed away. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's fall on [DATE] was documented accurately in the progress notes, assessments, and vital sign sections of his medical record; she documented that Resident #1 was lethargic on the facility incident report, but in Resident #1's 2 fall assessments LVN A documented no neurological impairment. LVN A further documented in his fall assessment that he was able to stand and walk, but was unsteady after his fall, but he was unable to stand and walk as his prosthetic was not on and per her own statement Resident #1 required a mechanical lift after his fall to return him to his bed. The facility failed to ensure that LVN A accurately documented the times and events of Resident #1's fall, listed as having occurred on [DATE] at 6:19 am; she stated that she was checking his blood sugar, then his roommate Resident #2's blood sugar and had not given Rsdient #2 his insulin before Resident #1's fall, but Resident #1's blood sugar was documented [DATE] at 6:02 am, and Resident #2's blood sugar was done at 6:04 am and insulin was given at 6:04 am; she then documented that she checked Resident #3's glucose and gave insulin on [DATE] at 6:24 am; she notified FAM, DON and NP of fall at 6:31 am. The facility failed to ensure that DON accurately documented in a progress note dated [DATE] effective at 10:00 am that Resident #1 transferred from his bed to his wheelchair, per Resident #2, then fell while putting on his prosthetic leg, but CNA E stated he got Resident #1 out of bed and dressed on [DATE] between 5:30 am and 5:45 am. Furthermore, Resident #2 has documented impaired cognition that was care planned because he could not recall what medications he had taken nor why he took the medication. These failures could affect all residents by placing them at risk for inaccurate medical documentation and diagnoses and treatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's undated face sheet, printed on [DATE], revealed that he was a [AGE] year-old male first admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type II diabetes, heart failure, and COPD (lung disease that makes it difficult to get oxygen to the body), and acquired absence of the left leg below the knee (amputation that was diagnosed [DATE]). Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 8, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, he was marked as requiring one person to assist with bed mobility, 2+ persons to assist with transfers and toilet use. It further revealed that Resident #1 required a wheelchair for mobility. It further revealed that he was always incontinent of bowel and frequently incontinent of bladder. The question that asked the primary medical condition category that was the cause of admission did not mark amputation, but entered other orthopedic condition, then gave the billing code encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation). Further review revealed that Resident #1 was marked as not having any falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment. The question about if Resident #1 had a fall any time in the last month prior to admission/entry or reentry was left blank, as was the question for 2-6 months. Record review of the facility incident report #3644 dated [DATE] at 7:45 am revealed Resident #1 had a witnessed fall out of a low bed onto the floor with no injuries observed. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes revealed a progress note dated [DATE] at 8:55 am that stated the nurse saw the resident sitting on the side of the bed and immediately fell to the floor on his knees and Resident #1 was assisted up with a mechanical list and multiple staff members. Record review of Resident #1's undated care plan revealed that Resident #1 was visually impaired due to glaucoma with an intervention encouraging use of glasses. It further revealed that Resident #1 was at risk of falls and was initiated [DATE] with interventions of call light use, anticipate resident needs, ensure proper footwear and keep furniture locked. Another concern addressed in the Care Plan was blood thinner use with the intervention of increased monitoring to include lethargy, change in appetite, and change in mental status which was initiated on [DATE]. Record review of the facility incident report #3685 dated [DATE] at 6:19 am revealed that LVN A entered that Resident #1 slid out of wheelchair next to bed, and he was unable to give a description of the incident. It further revealed the resident was assessed, had no injuries and was assisted to bed. The resident was not taken to the hospital at this time. Resident #1's level of consciousness was documented as lethargic (drowsy). Record review of Resident #1's follow up question report printed [DATE] revealed that Resident #1 refused his breakfast on [DATE] at 9:25 am and that he refused a supplement or substitute as well. In an interview with LVN A on [DATE] at 8:24 p.m., she stated on [DATE] around 6:30 a.m. she checked Resident #1's blood sugar and it was normal. and Resident #1 was putting his prosthetic leg on., so she went to Resident #2 and checked his blood sugar, she went to the med cart in the doorway to get insulin sliding scale to administer and while her back was turned she heard Resident #1 fall. He had no signs of injury or impaired thinking, she got LVN B and CNA C to assist with mechanical lift use to get Resident #1 back in bed. She said she was the first to find him, LVN B checked Resident #1's vitals while LVN A messaged NP that Resident #1 had fall with no injuries around 6:30 am. She stated she notified DON and ADM. She stated she called FAM and asked that FAM give LVN A 15 minutes before FAM notified RP #1 because she would call and ask questions, she needed 15 minutes to finish charting, fall report, vitals, neuro checks before RP #1 was informed. Record review of Resident #1's Medication admin audit report printed on [DATE] revealed that LVN A took Resident #1's blood sugar at 6:02 a.m. on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #2's medication admin audit report printed [DATE] revealed that LVN A took Resident #2's blood sugar at 6:04 a.m. on [DATE]. It further revealed that on [DATE] at 6:16 a.m., she documented in the medical record that she administered Resident #2's insulin at 6:04 a.m. Record review of Resident #3's medication admin audit report printed [DATE] revealed that LVN A documented on [DATE] at 6:24 am that she administered insulin to Resident #3 on [DATE] at 6:00 am. Record review of Resident #3's blood sugars in her vital section of the EMR revealed her blood sugar was checked on [DATE] at 6:24 am and was 88 and entered by LVN A In an interview with CNA C on [DATE] at 7:51 p.m., she stated on [DATE] and she started checking the 100 hall around 5:50 a.m. and she went to do some charting. She was the first care giver to find Resident #1 and he was not responding to questions, so she called for help and LVN A and LVN B arrived, and HK was already on the hall and joined in the room. She said as the nurses evaluated Resident #1 he became more responsive and he was assisted to bed using the mechanical lift. He was put in bed before 6:30 a.m. . In an interview with LVN D on [DATE] at 8:48 p.m., he stated that on [DATE] he came on shift at 7:00 a.m. and was informed of the Resident #1's q 15 minute neuro checks and he was performing the checks and entering itthem in the medical record. He stated he set a phone alarm to ensure this was done timely until sometime between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. when the resident was not responsive when he attempted to get vitals,. LVN D said heResident #1 was tensed up and may have choked (aspirated). He called for assistance then dialed 911 for EMS. Record review of Resident #1's neuro checks revealed that all 7 neuro checks documented by LVN D, started at 7:05 a.m. and ended at 9:20 a.m., the neuro checks were all entered into the medical record after 3:00 p.m. (3 hours after Resident #1 was pronounced deceased ). The 9:55 a.m. neuro check was entered at 9:56 a.m. and had a systolic bp of 130 and no diastolic bp recorded; the 10:10 a.m. neuro check was entered at 10:13 am and his blood pressure was 105/59; and his 10:25 a.m. neuro check was entered at 11:49 a.m., had a bp of 90/54 and Resident #1 was not responding to verbal stimuli (noise). During an interview with HK 1 on [DATE] at 11:53 a.m., she stated she was on the same hall as Resident #1 and had passed his room sometime after 5:00 am on [DATE]. She said she went to the linen closet, and Resident #1 was in his wheelchair. She heard a commotion and went to Resident #1's room and he was not responding to staff, and he was rigid as he was being lifted from the floor to the bed with a mechanical lift. She stated Resident #2 was watching the whole time. She stated that as CNA C, LVN A and LVN B were turning Resident #1 using the mechanical lift to get his head to the head of the bed that she heard gurgling from Resident #1. She stated when Resident #1 was in the bed she heard a gurgling/snore noise from Resident #1 and placed a basin within reach for him to vomit in; she said Resident #2 then stated that Resident #1 had a seizure 2 weeks ago. She (HK 1) was upset because this was not normal for Resident #1 and she was concerned. Record review of Resident #1's Event Nurses Note 8 hr fall with an effective date of [DATE] at 6:32 a.m. revealed LVN A documented that Resident #1 was unable to give a statement about the fall, FAM was notified at 6:30 a.m., not RP #1, he does not walk and required 1 staff to assist with toileting, transferring, and bed mobility. It further noted he had no problem with cognition but was put on monitoring (neuro checks). Record review of Resident #1's Fall Risk Assessment effective [DATE] at 6:47 a.m., revealed LVN A documented that Resident #1 had adequate vision, was able to stand, had balance problems when standing, had balance problems when walking, Record review of Resident #1's Incident audit report dated [DATE] at 6:19 a.m. documented by LVN A revealed in the section labeled: injuries observed at the time of the incident, indicated Resident #1's level of consciousness was lethargic (drowsy) and this was documented on [DATE] at 6:29 a.m Record review of Resident #1's progress notes with an effective date of [DATE] at 10:00 am written by the DON on [DATE] at 4:19 p.m. it indicated Resident #2 (roommate) stated Resident #1 transferred from the bed to the wheelchair then was putting on his prosthetic leg and fell. Nurse assessed and found no injuries. Anti-tippers were to be placed on the wheelchair. Further review revealed no prior progress notes related to the fall on [DATE]. In an interview with CNA E on [DATE] at 2:57 pm he stated he worked the overnight shift on the night of [DATE] - [DATE] and got Resident #1 out of bed before he finished his shift at 6:00 am. He said that Resident #1 was able to assist CNA E with getting out of bed, dressed and into his wheelchair. He stated Resident #1 was his normal self at this time. During an interview with EMS on [DATE] at 8:00 am he stated that 911 was notified [DATE] at 10:44 am to respond to the facility for a resident who had a fall that morning and hit his head. They arrived at 10:48 am and staff handed them papers but did not inform them of the OOH-DNR among the papers, so when Resident #1 was in the ambulance in the parking lot and his heart stopped, they initiated CPR and it was continued at the ER until the paperwork was found and CPR was stopped. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes with an effective date of [DATE] at 3:06 pm revealed Dietitian stated continue order for liquid protein due to deep tissue wounds, continue plan (Resident #1 declared deceased [DATE] at 11:59 am). In an interview on [DATE] at 10:18 am with NP she stated that Resident #1 had drastic weight loss because he refused dialysis and she stated she used medications for diuresis of Resident #1; she stated his diuresis could include metolazone, hydrochlorothiazide, and Lasix. When prompted she stated she knew he had C. diff in June and ordered isolation. Then after being informed there were no orders for isolation in June she stated that is what she would have done if she knew he had C. diff and she was answering on the fly and could not recall whether she was aware that Resident #1 had a positive result for C. diff. When asked about when she was notified of Resident #1's fall it was absolutely not by text message and it was definitely by phone call; she stated her cell phone call log did not go back that far ([DATE]) but that she got a call in the morning and knew the resident was on blood thinners and even if she was told he had altered mental status because it was this resident she would not have recommended sending him to the hospital for evaluation; she stated even if he had been unconscious and regained consciousness she would not send this resident to the hospital. She stated she was uncertain if Resident #1's physician was informed of the fall because she does not work for him; she stated she speaks to him on average once per month. She stated she did not order neuro checks after the fall, but it was done per facility protocol. She confirmed when prompted that she spoke to a nurse at the time of the fall, but was informed via text message later that morning that Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. Record review of Resident #1's orders from [DATE] - [DATE] revealed no order, active or discontinued, for metolazone, hydrochlorothiazide, nor Lasix. Record review of a screenshot photo revealed a text message from LVN B to NP on [DATE] at 6:31 am revealed notification via text from LVN B resident 1 slid out of wheelchair this am no injuries noted at this time and the response from NP thx (thanks). Further record review revealed an assessment titled Event Nurses-Note 8 hr Fall - V2, entered by LVN A, which stated that Resident #1 was unable to give a statement . under name of physician notified it showed the name of NP and for date and time of physician notification it stated [DATE] 6:30 am. Record review of facility self-report in TULIP, incident 445046 on [DATE] stated Resident #1 fell and hit his head, but fall reports state Resident #1 did not hit his head. In an interview with ADM on [DATE] at 5:00 pm she stated that she saw Resident #1 shortly after arriving to work on [DATE], which would be after 8:00 am. She stated that Resident #2 told her how Resident #1 fell, that he had self-transferred from the bed to the wheelchair and was pulling on his prosthetic leg and the wheelchair went one way and Resident #1 went another.
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 establish and maintain an Infection Prevention and Con...

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 establish and 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 disease and infections for 27 residents (Residents #4 - #30). The facility failed to: 1. ensure LVN K doffed PPE inside rooms for residents on transmission-based precautions. 2. ensure LVN K and CNA L performed proper hand hygiene 3. isolate Resident #1 for C. difficile (a contagious bacteria that causes diarrhea and cramping, weight loss) positive collected 06/11/23 These failures could affect residents by placing them at risk for communicable diseases that could lead to infection and hospitalization . Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart attack, diabetes, and high cholesterol. Record review of Resident #5's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Repeated falls, need for assistance with personal care, and dementia. Record review of Resident #6's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Heart attack, kidney failure, and history of falling. Record review of Resident #7's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Insomnia, heart failure, and high blood pressure. Record review of Resident #8's undated face sheet revealed resident is aan [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #9's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Need for assistance with personal care, high cholesterol and kidney failure. Record review of Resident #10's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Record review of Resident #11's undated face sheet revealed resident is aan [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Need for assistance with personal care, high cholesterol and heart failure. Record review of Resident #12's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Need for assistance with personal care, history of falling, and dementia. Record review of Resident #13's undated face sheet revealed resident is aan [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Low blood pressure, high cholesterol, and kidney failure. Record review of Resident #14's undated face sheet revealed resident is aan [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stroke, cardiac arrest (heart stopped), diabetes, and dementia. Record review of Resident #15's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Heart attack, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. Record review of Resident #16's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, history of falling, and depression. Record review of Resident #17's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stroke, high cholesterol, and depression. Record review of Resident #18's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hip fracture, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure. Record review of Resident #19's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Lung cancer, need for assistance with personal care, and diabetes. Record review of Resident #20's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes, need for assistance with personal care, and high cholesterol. Record review of Resident #21's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stroke, diabetes, and high cholesterol. Record review of Resident #22's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Broken leg, diabetes, and high cholesterol. Record review of Resident #23's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety, low back pain, and depression. Record review of Resident #24's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stroke, heart disease, and skin cancer. Record review of Resident #25's undated face sheet revealed resident is aan [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stroke, need for assistance with personal care, and heart failure. Record review of Resident #26's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety, heart failure, and dementia. Record review of Resident #27's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, high cholesterol, and anxiety. Record review of Resident #28's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stroke, need for assistance with personal care, and dementia. Record review of Resident #29's undated face sheet revealed resident is aan [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, high cholesterol, and depression. Record review of Resident #30's undated face sheet revealed resident is a [AGE] year-old Female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Repeated falls, need for assistance with personal care, and heart disease. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #4 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #5 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #6 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #7 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #8 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #9 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #10 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #11 tested positive for COVID on 09/07/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #12 tested positive for COVID on 09/08/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #13 tested positive for COVID on 09/08/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #14 tested positive for COVID on 09/08/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #15 tested positive for COVID on 09/08/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #16 tested positive for COVID on 09/09/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #17 tested positive for COVID on 09/10/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #18 tested positive for COVID on 09/11/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #19 tested positive for COVID on 09/11/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #20 tested positive for COVID on 09/11/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #21 tested positive for COVID on 09/11/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #22 tested positive for COVID on 09/11/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #23 tested positive for COVID on 09/12/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #24 tested positive for COVID on 09/12/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #25 tested positive for COVID on 09/08/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #26 tested positive for COVID on 09/14/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #27 tested positive for COVID on 09/15/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #28 tested positive for COVID on 09/15/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #29 tested positive for COVID on 09/15/23. Record review of the facility list of COVID positive residents revealed that Resident #30 tested positive for COVID on 09/15/23. In an interview with DON on 09/13/23 at 10:30 a.m., she stated that the 200 hall was for COVID positive residents and the outbreak started on 09/07/23. At this time, 12 staff had tested positive and 25 residents have tested positive (at exit on 09/15/23 14 staff and 28 residents with 2 hospitalized ). She stated the positive residents are on the 200 hall and their roommates who were negative were considered warm residents and were quarantined in their room. She further stated that Resident #4 and Resident #22 were hospitalized due to COVID. Record review of Resident #4's progress notes revealed a note on 09/11/23 at 8:45 pm that stated the resident was transferred to the hospital due to low oxygen, hypotension (low bp), and covid positive. Record review of Resident #22's hospital records revealed on 09/09/23 at 11:02 am Resident #22 was admitted due to acute COVID, hypoxia (low oxygen) and lethargy (tired). During an interview on 09/14/23 at 11:43 am with DON she stated the outbreak started on 09/07/23; the DON (also infection preventionist) stated that first resident (Resident #6) was positive 09/07/23, and he had frequent visitors who may have brought covid and one family member told facility she was sick the week prior to 090/7/23,so she is likely source of his covid and he was active in therapy and ate with others in dining who were also subsequently positive), so they tested residents who had been in close contact, found more positives, tested staff that worked with patient 0, found positives (sent staff home), expanded testing facility wide - staff who were positive were asymptomatic. In observations on 09/14/23 between 3:30 pm and 4:30 pm, isolation signage on all doors for both hot and warm rooms and appropriateness of PPE carts were observed and were in compliance. In an interview with HK on 09/14/23 at 2:28 p.m., she stated that she wore an N-95 mask and gloves when she goes in a room with a resident on transmission-based precautions, she stated if she did not touch anything other than putting clothing in the closet on a hanger. She stated she was told that was all of the PPE she had to wear. In an observation on 09/14/23 at 4:00 p.m., LVN K did not tie her gown at the waist and did not perform hand hygiene before donning PPE. She came out of the room with full PPE still on and doffed her PPE in the hallway outside of the room. She did not perform hand hygiene. She opened a door and stuck her head in and was talking to a resident only wearing an N-95 mask, she stepped in the room and then back out of the room without donning or doffing PPE. In a further observation, CNA L donned PPE without performing hand hygiene prior to entering a room of a resident on transmission-based precautions. He exited the room and did not perform hand hygiene after doffing his PPE. Two rooms with isolated residents had the door open from 4:00 pm until the end of observation at 4:15 pm. In an interview on 09/14/23 at 4:15 pm, with LVN K and CNA L they stated they were in-serviced last week when they got paid and they should wear full PPE into the room and doff the PPE while in the room, exit room and perform hand hygiene. LVN K stated she was just talking to the resident and did not enter the room, so she did not need to wear full PPE which would be face shield or goggles, N-95 mask, gown and gloves. In an interview on 10/05/23 at 8:40 am with DON she stated both residents whom had been hospitalized for COVID discharged already, and also, all residents recovered and were off of isolation. After multiple attempts to reach the Medical Director, leaving messages for a return call, Medical Director has not returned any calls. In an interview 09/15/23 at 8:40 p.m., with the DON she stated the expectation of staff was that they follow directions on the sign on the door that refers the staff to check with the nurse; she expected that for COVID they don PPE (mask, face shield or goggles, gown, and gloves) prior to entering a room with a resident on transmission-based precautions and that they should doff all PPE inside of the resident room (including changing into a new N-95 mask). Hand hygiene should be performed upon exit from the room. She stated that failure to follow proper transmission-based precautions can lead to spread of infection, hospitalization and death. Record review of the undated policy on hand hygiene revealed hand hygiene was the primary means of preventing transmission of infection . should be done after contact with resident, assisting resident . Record review of the undated policy on infection prevention and covid-19 revealed source control (such as N-95 mask) should be used when contact with person with COVID . after close contact with person with COVID (for 10 days) empiric transmission-based precautions for any resident with covid for 10 days . patient in single-person room or with another person with the same condition and the door should remain closed .PPE should include n-95, gown, gloves, eye protection (goggles or face shield that covers the front and sides of the face) .
Jun 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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 provide pharmaceutical services, including accurate acquiring, and ...

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 accurate acquiring, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs for 1 (Resident#1) of 3 resident reviewed for pharmaceutical services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's medications were acquired, and her medications were administered, this resulted in Resident #1 missing one dosage of her medication as ordered. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the desired therapy. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 06/20/2023, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged from the facility on 06/09/2023 with diagnoses of a fracture of upper and lower end of right fibula, unspecified fall, muscle wasting, and lack of coordination. Review of Resident #1's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS of 12 indicating a moderate impairment. Review of Resident #1's care plan, undated, revealed a focus of Resident #1 on pain medication therapy right fracture-chronic dependence, a goal of Resident #1 will be free of any discomfort or adverse side effects from pain medication through the review date, and a goal to administer medication as ordered. Review of Resident #1's orders, dated 06/20/2023, revealed an order summary of fentanyl patch 72-hour 50 MCG/HR (micrograms/hours), apply one patch trans-dermally every 72 hours for pain and remove per schedule. Review of Resident #1's MAR, dated 06/20/2023, revealed May 2023 Resident #1 received her fentanyl patch on 05/20/2023, 05/23/2023, 05/26/2023, and 05/29/2023. Further review of Resident #1's MAR, dated 06/20/2023, revealed she received her fentanyl patch on 06/01/2023 and 06/04/2023, Resident #1 did not receive her scheduled fentanyl patch on 06/07/2023. Review of Resident #1's skilled nurses notes, dated 06/07/23, revealed at 15:05 (03:05 p.m.) no chest pain noted, no complaint of pain when swallowing noted, and no pain or hurting at any time in the last 5 days noted. Skilled nurses notes, dated 06/07/23, revealed at 16:29 (04:29 p.m.) no chest pain noted, no complaint of pain when swallowing noted, and no pain or hurting at any time in the last 5 days noted. Skilled nurses notes, dated 06/07/23, revealed at 15:05 (03:05 p.m.) no chest pain noted, no complaint of pain when swallowing noted, and no pain or hurting at any time in the last 5 days noted. Skilled nurses notes, dated 06/08/23, revealed at 09:08 (09:08 a.m.) no chest pain noted, no complaint of pain when swallowing noted, and no pain or hurting at any time in the last 5 days noted. Skilled nurses notes, dated 06/09/23, revealed at 08:44 (08:44 a.m.) no chest pain noted, no complaint of pain when swallowing noted, and no pain or hurting at any time in the last 5 days noted. Interview on 06/20/2023 at 10:52 a.m., ADM revealed when Resident #1 admitted to the facility, family was asked to bring Resident#1's patches from home, 5 patches were brought to the facility. Further into the interview, ADM revealed the time of Resident #1's discharge, her fentanyl patches were not received, she communicated with the MD for orders to fill Resident#1's orders for fentanyl, ADM confirmed orders were made, although since Resident #1 had already discharged from the facility, orders that are sent to the pharmacy will cease and the pharmacy can no longer fulfill the order. ADM stated she could have been clearer with the pharmacy and inform of Resident #1's plan to go home, ADM stated that there was a break in communication. Interview on 06/20/2023 at 12:59 p.m., MD revealed that orders for Resident #'s fentanyl patches were started on 05/19/2023, Resident #1 was to receive 10 patches equaling a month supply for Resident #1. MD revealed he monitored Resident #1's orders and found out only one patch was delivered. MD revealed that there was more than likely chance the pharmacy did not fulfill the order as Resident #1's PCP wrote an order on 04/25/2023 and was filled on 04/29/2023 for 10 patches, this should have lasted Resident #1 until 05/29/2023. MD revealed that the pharmacy was more than likely monitoring the Texas PMP (prescription monitoring program) as they track controlled medications. MD confirmed Resident #1 has orders for hydrocodone oral tablet 5-325 MG give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours for pain should alleviate pain. MD revealed that when he assessed Resident #1 on 06/01/20233 and 06/08/2023, no complaints of pain were noted, and there were no objective indications of pain. MD revealed the hydrocodone could alleviate pain. Interview on 06/20/2023 at 01:58 p.m., DON stated when Resident #1 admitted , family was asked to bring in the remaining amount of fentanyl patches filled by Resident #1's Primary Care Provider. DON confirmed that Resident #1 did not receive her scheduled fentanyl patch on 06/07/2023 as they were out of patches. DON revealed that Resident #1 did receive all orders including the hydrocodone, having supplemented for her fentanyl patches. Interview on 06/20/2023 at 02:05 p.m., the pharmacy representative confirmed Resident #1's did not send her complete order of fentanyl patches as it was filled on 04/31/2023 by the community PCP. An order was received for Resident #1 while she admitted to the facility on [DATE], the order was not fulfilled due to the Texas PMP (prescription monitoring program), as they track controlled medications, the pharmacy representative revealed that they sent one patch for Resident #1.The pharmacy representative stated that the day Resident #1 discharged ADM called to refill the order, the reorder process started, although by the end of the day Resident #1 discharged . The pharmacy representative stated, in their system utilized when a resident has discharged , all orders cease. The pharmacy representative stated in most cases a facility could use its electronic medical records to submit orders, the pharmacy representative also stated that if the orders were received in a timely manner, they would have fulfilled the remaining order initiated on 05/19/2023 and sent the 9 remaining patches as the first fentanyl patch had been filled. Review of the facility's policy ordering medication, no date, revealed medications and related product are received from pharmacy supplier on a timely basis. Medications orders are phoned or faxed to the pharmacy, reorder medication three to four days in advance of need to assure an adequate supply is on hand.
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

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 develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admiss...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 2 (Resident #172 & Resident #3) of 5 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for Resident #172 & Resident #3 within the required 48-hour timeframe. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services or having important care needs identified and met. Findings included: Review of Resident #172's face sheet dated 02/09/23 revealed Resident #172 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation (sudden worsening airway function and respiratory symptoms in patients with COPD), sepsis (the body's extreme response to an infection), acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (impairment of gas exchange between the lungs and the blood causing hypoxia with or without hypercapnia and essential (primary) hypertension (abnormally high blood pressure that's not the result of a medical condition). Review of the most recent MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #172 had a BIMS score of 8 indicting resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #172's clinical record revealed a baseline care plan was not completed/documented. Review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 02/09/23 revealed Resident #3 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (chronic disease that causes a person's blood glucose levels to rise too high), and hypertensive heart disease without heart failure (heart problems that occur because of high blood pressure that is present over a long time). Review of the most recent MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #3 did not have a BIMS score available. Review of Resident #3's clinical record revealed a baseline care plan was not completed/documented. During an interview on 02/09/23 at 1:51PM the CN stated she doesn't remember what happened with Resident's 172's base care plan but stated she knows the baseline care plan has to be completed within 48 hours. The CN stated she was responsible for completing Resident 172's baseline care plan. The CN stated that staff would not know what the resident treatment or plan was so they could provide the satisfactory or quality care. During an interview on 02/09/23 at 3:13PM the DON stated that baseline care plan should be completed within 48 hours of admission. The DON stated the charge nurses, DON, or ADON are responsible for completing the baseline care plan within 48 hours. The DON stated she was not aware that resident #172 or resident #3 did not have a completed baseline care plan. The DON stated that the risk would be other nurses would be informed of the continues care for the resident. During an interview on 02/09/23 at 3:37PM the ADM stated that baseline care plans should be completed within 48 hours of the resident being admitted to the facility. The ADM stated that the baseline line care plan is completed by the nurse and signed off on by the DON. The ADM stated that if the baseline care plan was not completed within 48 hours, then staff would not know how to provide the appropriate care for the resident. A record of review of the facility's Baseline Care Plan dated 03/19 stated Completion and implementation of the baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission is intended to promote continuity of care and communication among nursing home staff, increase resident safety, and safeguard against adverse events that are most likely to occur right after admission; and to ensure the resident and representative, if applicable, are informed of the initial plan of delivery of care and services by receiving a written summary of the baseline care plan. The facility will develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meets professional standards of quality of care. The baseline care plan will - Be developed within 48 hours of the resident's admission. Include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for a resident including, but not limited to - initial goals based on admission orders o Physician orders o Dietary orders o Therapy services o Social services
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #8 and Resident #28) reviewed for infection control in that: CNA A while providing incontinent care for Resident # 8 and CNA C for Resident # 28, contaminated the whole packet of wet wipes by pulling out individual wipes from the packet with unclean gloves. This failure could place the residents at the facility at risk of transmission of diseases and infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #8's face sheet, dated 01/08/23, reflected Resident #8 initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She was a [AGE] year-old female diagnosed with Arthritis, Syncope (loss of consciousness for a short period of time) and collapse, Overactive bladder, Glaucoma (loss and blindness by damaging optic nerve), Anxiety disorder, Low back pain, , Blindness, one eye, Major depressive disorder, Dysarthria (difficulty speaking), Arthropathies (a joint disease), During an observation on 02/08/23 at 12:00 pm, CNA A and CN A B provided incontinent care to Resident #8. CNA A and CNA B entered Resident #8's room and donned gloves (putting on disposable gloves) after washing their hands. CNA B was holding and maneuvering the resident so that CNA A could do the incontinent care effectively. CNA A did the cleaning at the perineal area with wipes pulled out directly from the whole packet without changing the gloves and in that process, she touched the packet with soiled gloves. CNA A placed the contaminated packet of wipes in a drawer where Resident#8's cloths were stored. CNA A contaminated a whole packet of clean wet wipes by pulling out wipes directly from the whole packet wearing soiled gloves. During an interview on 02/08/2023 at 3:30 pm, CNA A said she thought she was doing the incontinent care correctly. When the HHSC investigator walked through the process of incontinence care, CNA A stated she was contaminating the packet by touching and holding it while pulling out wipes with soiled gloves. When asked about the training and in- services that she had received for incontinent care and infection control process and procedures, CNA A stated the facility provided infection control related training like hand hygiene, appropriate use of PPEs and sanitization of surfaces and equipment every now and then. She stated she could not remember any specific training she had received for incontinent care recently. When asked how her action could affect the resident, CNA A replied that there was a danger of spreading diseases through contamination. Record review of Resident #28's face sheet, dated 02/08/23, reflected Resident #28 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was an [AGE] year-old female diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy( brain dysfunction caused by toxic exposure), Protein-calorie malnutrition, Muscle wasting and atrophy ( tissue waste), Lack of coordination, Muscle weakness, Mood disorder due to known physiological condition, Bipolar disorder, Transient ischemic attack (temporary blockage of blood flow to the brain), Hypothyroidism(low thyroid hormone), Diabetes mellitus, Hyperlipidemia (excess fat in blood) and Gout (a kind of inflammatory arthritis). During an observation on 02/08/23 at 2:00 pm, CNA C and CNA D provided incontinent care to Resident #28. CNA C and CNA D entered Resident #28's room and donned gloves (putting on disposable gloves) after washing their hands. CNA D helped CNA C by holding the resident in position while CNA C cleaning the perineal area. Initially CNA C used her right hand for cleaning while pulling out wipes from the packet with her left hand. She then changed her gloves and helped CNA D to turn the resident to her left side. CNA C then wiped Resident #28's buttocks area with both the hands. She contaminated the whole packet by touching it with soiled gloves while pulling out individual wipes. After the completion of cleaning, they left the contaminated packet on the table besides resident #28 for future use and left the room. CNA A contaminated a whole packet of wipes by touching it with dirty gloves while pulling out wipes from it. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 2:30 pm, CNA C stated she followed the correct procedure. When the HHSC investigator walked through the process of incontinence care, CNA C stated she was contaminating the packet by touching it while pulling out wipes directly from it with dirty gloves. When asked about the training and in services that she had received for incontinent care and infection control process and procedures, CNA C stated the facility provided all kind of in-services including infection control related trainings. When asked how her action could affect the residence CNA C replied that the contaminated packet stored at the bedside for future use could be a source for contagious diseases. During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 3:30 pm the DON said the packets were contaminated if they touched the packets with soiled gloves. When asked about the risk of staff not following proper infection control protocols during incontinent care, the DON stated there was a risk of the transmission of communicable diseases through contamination. The DON stated in-service already completed on perineal care for all the staff in all the shifts. When asked about how the facility identified deficient practices by nursing staff, she stated the DON and ADON observe and/or participate in nursing care with the nurses and CNAs. During an interview on 02/09/23 at 4:00pm the ADM stated the CNAs contaminated the packets if they touched them with dirty gloves. The ADM stated it was possible for the CNAs to pull out the wipes by holding at the tip of the wipes carefully without touching the packet. She stated she was aware of the risk of transmission of communicable diseases through contamination. The ADM said the facility already completed in- service on incontinent care to re-educate the nurses and CNAs. Record review on 02/09/23 revealed that an in-service on perineal care was conducted on 02/08/23 CNA A, B, C and D and 02/09/23 for the staff members on various shifts. CNA A, B, C and D attended the in-service on 02/08/23Review of facility's policy Personal Care: Perineal Care dated 05/11/2022 reflected: . 16)Wipe across the pubis area 17)Gently perform perineal care, wiping from clean, urethral area, to dirty, rectal area, to avoid contaminating the urethral area - CLEAN to DIRTY . . 26)Provide resident comfort and safety by re-clothing (if applicable - incontinence pad(s) and briefs), straightening bedding, adjusting the bed and/or side rails, and placing call light within resident's reach 27)Clean and store reusable items 28)If visibly soiled or contaminated during the procedure, disinfect, or discard the barrier towel on the table 29)Return resident items on the table 30)Tie off the disposable plastic bag of trash and/or linen 31)Perform hand hygiene . According to the website https://apps.hhs.texas.gov/providers/NF/credentialing/cna/infection-control/module3/Module_3_PPE_122021_print.html dated 12/20/21 the Health and Human Service, Texas, accessed on 02/11/23, recommended the following for gloves use. Gloves are designed to protect your hands from pathogens and to prevent the spread of pathogens. Unintentionally transferring a pathogen to your bare hands is an easy way to spread a contagion through your facility . DOs: Perform hand hygiene before and after resident contact, even when gloves are worn. Work from clean to dirty. Perform hand hygiene after glove removal. Change gloves as needed during resident care activities. DON'Ts: Touch yourself while wearing contaminated gloves. Handle clean materials, equipment, or surfaces while wearing contaminated gloves. Wear the same pair of gloves for the care of more than one resident. Wash disposable gloves. It is important to note that gloves can spread illnesses just like bare hands. Wearing gloves does not stop the transfer of pathogens. It is very easy for cross-contamination to occur even when wearing gloves. Be mindful of the order in which you touch things (remember clean to dirty) and when you may need to change gloves mid-procedure
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
  • • 38% turnover. Below Texas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $16,229 in fines. Above average for Texas. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 66/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Twilight Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns TWILIGHT HOME an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Texas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Twilight Home Staffed?

CMS rates TWILIGHT HOME's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Twilight Home?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at TWILIGHT HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 10 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 Twilight Home?

TWILIGHT HOME 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 CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 102 certified beds and approximately 68 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CORSICANA, Texas.

How Does Twilight Home Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, TWILIGHT HOME's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Twilight Home?

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

Is Twilight Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, TWILIGHT HOME has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-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 Twilight Home Stick Around?

TWILIGHT HOME has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Texas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Twilight Home Ever Fined?

TWILIGHT HOME has been fined $16,229 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Texas average of $33,241. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Twilight Home on Any Federal Watch List?

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