CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD

507 E W M WATSON BLVD, DAINGERFIELD, TX 75638 (903) 645-3915
For profit - Corporation 106 Beds CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#941 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Capstone Healthcare of Daingerfield has received an F grade, indicating significant concerns and overall poor care. Ranking #941 out of 1168 facilities in Texas places it in the bottom half, and it is the only nursing home in Morris County, meaning there are no local alternatives to compare it with. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 13 in 2024 to 28 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, scoring 3 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 44%, which is below the Texas average. However, the facility has alarming fines totaling $347,670, which is higher than 98% of Texas facilities, indicating serious compliance issues. Critical incidents include the failure to protect residents from abuse, as several residents reported harassment and intimidation by staff, which was not properly investigated. The facility also lacked sufficient RN coverage, being less than 92% of state facilities, which could lead to missed health issues that nursing assistants might overlook. Overall, while there is some stability in staffing, the serious allegations of abuse and increasing deficiencies raise significant red flags for potential residents and their families.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#941/1168
Bottom 20%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
13 → 28 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Texas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$347,670 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
58 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 13 issues
2025: 28 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Texas average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $347,670

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 58 deficiencies on record

5 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Apr 2025 25 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a dignified exist...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed ensure Resident #3's foley catheter drainage bag had a privacy cover on 04/21/25 and 04/22/25. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for loss of dignity. Findings included: Record review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 04/23/25 indicated an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #3 had diagnoses of diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), protein calorie malnutrition (inadequate intake of food), and urine retention. Record review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter. Record review of Resident #3's comprehensive care plan revised on 04/04/25, indicated Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter related to neurogenic bladder (lack of bladder control due to brain, spinal cord, or nerve problems). The care plan interventions included to secure catheter tubing to leg to minimize trauma to the insertion site, make sure tubing was free of kinks and urine was present in the tube. Record review of Resident #3's order summary report dated 04/23/25, indicated the following order: o Privacy bag for drainage bag at all times while in bed, while walking or in wheelchair making sure tubing is not on the floor at any time with a start date of 09/25/24. Record review of Resident #3's nursing MAR dated 04/01/25-04/30/25 did not reveal an order to ensure Resident #3's catheter bag always had a privacy bag. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 1:33 PM, Resident #3 was in her bed. Resident #3 had her catheter drainage bag uncovered hanging on the left side of her bed and could be seen by her roommate and staff. Dark yellow urine was observed in the drainage bag. During an observation and interview on 04/22/25 at 2:21 PM Resident #3 was in her bed. Her catheter bag was uncovered, was hanging on the left side of her bed, and was facing toward the door. There was clear yellow urine noted in the catheter bag. Resident #3's door was open, and her catheter bag could be seen from her door. Resident #3 was unable to answer appropriately if having the catheter bag uncovered bothered her. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 2:28 PM, CNA E said Resident #3's catheter bag should be covered for Resident #3's privacy and dignity. CNA E said failure to have the catheter bag covered placed Resident #3 at risk for her urine to be seen. CNA E said it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure the catheter bag had a privacy cover over it. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 2:58 PM, LVN C said not having Resident #3's catheter bag covered was a privacy and dignity issue. LVN C said the aides and nurses were responsible for ensuring the catheter bags had privacy covers. LVN C said if the aide noticed the privacy bag was not in place, then they should be reporting it to the nurse. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 9:03 AM, the DON said most of the catheter bags utilized in the facility had a privacy protective cover already attached. The DON said by not having the catheter bag covered could cause a dignity issue. The DON said the nurses were responsible of ensuring they were covered during their daily rounds. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 9:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected the catheter bags to have a privacy covering on them. The Administrator said they tried to notice those things during their daily operation, but things happen. The Administrator said by not having the catheter bag covered, depending on the resident, it could cause embarrassment to the resident. The Administrator said the members of the nursing team were responsible for ensuring the catheter bags had privacy covers. Record review of the facility's policy Catheter Care, Urinary revised August 2022, indicated . The purpose of this procedure is to prevent urinary catheter-associated complications, including urinary tract infections 4. Ensure that the catheter remains secure with a securement device to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site. The policy did not address the privacy of catheter drainage bag. Record review of the facility's policy Dignity revised February 2021, indicated . Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. 1. Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times . 12. Demeaning practices and standards of care that compromise dignity are prohibited. Staff are expected to promote dignity and assist residents; for example: a. helping the resident to keep urinary catheter bags covered .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and recei...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's call light was within reach while in bed on 04/21/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in assistance and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side (weakness and paralysis of left side of the body), type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy (insulin resistance, with or without insulin deficiency that induces organ dysfunction) progressive death of nerve fibers, which leads to loss of nerves, increased sensitivity, and the development of foot ulcers), and anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #2's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she understood others and was understood. Resident #2's BIMS score was a 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 was dependent on staff for showering/bathing, toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 had a functional limitation in range of motion of her upper and lower extremity on one side. Record review of Resident #2's care plan with a target date of 02/09/2025 indicated she had impaired physical mobility to assist resident in performing movements/tasks. During an observation and interview on 04/21/2025 starting at 9:20 AM, Resident #2 requested the state surveyor give her call light to her, so she could call for assistance with repositioning in the bed. Resident #2's call light was hung over the foot of the bed out of her reach. Resident #2 said she did not know who had placed it there, and it had been out of her reach for too long. During an interview on 04/22/2025 at 4:21 PM, LVN B said sometimes Resident #2 got mad and threw her call light at people. LVN B said she did not know why Resident #2's call light was not within reach. LVN B said any of the staff should be making sure the call light was within reach. LVN B said it was important for the residents' call lights to be within reach because if they needed something that is how they contacted the staff. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 4:11 PM, CNA H said she did not know why Resident #2's call light was not within reach. CNA H said she did not place it over the foot of the bed, but she should have made sure Resident #2 had it within reach. CNA H said it was important for the call lights to be within reach because if something happened, they would not be able to call for staff. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:31 AM, the DON said the staff were responsible for ensuring the call lights were within the resident's reach, and it should be monitored on rounds. The DON said the risk for Resident #2's call light not being in reach was that she would not be able to push the call light. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:02 AM, the Administrator said he expected for the call lights to be within the resident's reach. The Administrator said the CNAs and anybody who went into the room should know that the call lights needed to be withing reach. The Administrator said if the call light was not within reach the resident would not have the ability to use the call light as a communication device to let them know they needed assistance. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Call System, Resident, dated September 2022, indicated, Residents are provided with a means to call staff for assistance through a communication system that directly calls a staff member or a centralized work station. 1. Each resident is provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from his/her bed .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to make choices about aspects ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that were significant to the resident for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for self-determination. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 was provided showers instead of bed baths per her request. This failure could place residents at risk for being denied the opportunity to exercise his or her autonomy regarding things that were important in their life and decrease their quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #11's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), cerebral infarction (stroke), irritable bowel syndrome (an intestinal disorder causing pain in the belly, gas, diarrhea, and constipation), and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #11's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. Resident #11 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Resident #11 did not refuse care or had behaviors. Resident #11 required substantial/maximal assistance with showering/bathing and upper body dressing. Record review of Resident #11's comprehensive care plan 10/28/24, indicated Resident #11 was at risk for self-care deficit regarding bathing, dressing, and feeding. The care plan interventions indicated to maintain consistent schedule with daily routine and provide assistance with ADLs as needed. Record review of Resident #11's Skin Monitoring: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review for the following dates indicated: o On 03/06/25 it was handwritten on the shower sheet bed bath was given and was signed by CNA A. o On 04/03/25 it was handwritten on the shower sheet Dr. appt. CNAs had to bed bath her and was signed by CNA A. Record review of Resident #11's ADLs point of care report dated 04/09/25- 04/19/25, indicated no documentation was completed for Resident #11's showers. During an interview on 04/21/25 at 10:42 AM, Resident #11 said within the last 2 weeks she had missed 3 showers. She said when the shower aide was assigned to work as a CNA on the floor, she received a bed bath by her assigned aide. She said it made her feel not good when she did not receive a shower as preferred. Resident #11 said the facility staff knew she preferred to receive showers. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 2:05 PM, CNA E said if CNA A, the shower aide, was moved to the floor, she was responsible for providing the showers on her hall. CNA E said if there was only one aide assigned to the hall it was hard to provide all showers. CNA E said she had given Resident #11 bed baths on her shower days. CNA E said she was responsible for giving Resident #11 a shower if she wanted a shower. CNA E said Resident #11 had the right to receive a shower as per her preference. CNA E said Resident #11 did not refuse her showers. CNA E said it was Resident #11's right to have her requests met for a shower. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said when the shower aide was pulled from giving showers, the aide assigned to the hall was responsible for providing their own showers. The DON said if Resident #11 wanted a shower she should have received one. The DON said it was Resident #11's right to receive a shower if that was what she preferred. The DON said it was Resident #11's right to have her requests met for a shower. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected the showers to be provided as per their shower schedule. The Administrator said if the shower aide was assigned to a hall, then the aide assigned to the hall was responsible for ensuring the showers were being provided. The Administrator stated if the resident requested to receive a shower instead of a bed bath and the staff was able to safely provide one, then they should provide the resident with a shower. The Administrator said it was Resident #11's right to have her request met for a shower. Record review of the facility's policy Resident Rights revised February 2021, indicated . Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. 1. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to . a. dignified existence; b. be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity . e. self-determination .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' rights to formulate an advanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' rights to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 21 residents reviewed for advanced directives. (Resident #41) The facility did not ensure Resident #41's code status was updated when the OOHDNR was signed by the physician on [DATE]. These failures placed the residents at risk of not having their end of life wishes honored. Findings included: Record review of Resident #41's face sheet dated [DATE], indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy (a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture), epilepsy (seizures), hypertension (high blood pressure), and gastrostomy status (surgical opening in stomach to provide nutrition and medications). The face sheet indicated under the advance directive section **Code Status: FULL CODE**. Record review of Resident #41's comprehensive care plan dated [DATE], indicated Resident #41's guardian had requested and signed a DNR that was awaiting a doctor's signature. The care plan interventions included to complete and update the advance directives document. Record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #41 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #41 had a BIMS score of 2, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. Record review of Resident #41's OOHDNR order was signed on [DATE] by Resident #41's POA. The OOHDNR was signed by Resident #41's attending physician on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #41's order summary report dated [DATE], indicated she had an order for full code status with an order date of [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:02 AM, the Social Services Designee said she was responsible for getting the OOHDNRs signed. She said when she received a signed OOHDNR, she provided the nurses with a signed copy to let them know of the change in code status. She said she then uploaded the signed OOHDNR in the resident's EMR. She said Resident #41 had a signed OOHDNR. The Social Services Designee said the nurses were responsible for updating the resident's code status once the signed OOHDNR was received. She said Resident #41's code status should have been changed on [DATE] when it was signed by the physician. She said failure to update the resident's code status could place the resident at risk for receiving CPR. During an interview and observation on [DATE] at 11:07 AM, the ADON said the social services were responsible for the OOHDNRs. The ADON said Resident #41's signed OOHDNR was an order. The ADON reviewed Resident #41's orders and said Resident #41 had an order for full code. The ADON said in an emergency they would not just go by the physician's order. She said they would review all documents uploaded in the resident's EMR. The ADON said Resident #41's physician's orders should have been updated by the nurse who received the signed OOHDNR. The ADON said she could not speculate if there were any risks to Resident #41 because they would double and triple check on what they needed to do in an emergency. The ADON said Resident #41's name on her door would have a red heart, which indicated DNR, or a green heart, which indicated full code. The ADON walked to Resident #41's door and applied a red heart sticker over the green heart sticker that was currently next to Resident #41's name. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:17 PM, LVN D said in case of an emergency and because the resident had an order for full code, they would proceed with life saving measures. LVN D said she would look at the resident's dashboard because it was the quickest to see the resident's code status. LVN D said realistically she would not look at the resident's uploaded documents in a life-or-death situation. LVN D said whoever received the signed OOHDNR was responsible for ensuring the residents orders were updated . LVN D said providing life safe measures would be going against Resident #41's wishes. During an interview on [DATE] at 09:03 AM, the DON said she expected the residents code status to be updated immediately once the signed OOHDNR was received. The DON said the nurse or social services, whoever received the signed OOHDNR, was responsible for ensuring the resident's code status was updated. The DON said failure to update the resident's code status could lead to initiation of CPR in an emergency and going against the resident's wishes. The DON said Resident #41's code status should have been updated when the signed OOHDNR was uploaded in her EMR on [DATE]. The DON said the social services pulled a code list report weekly and unsure of how Resident #41's code status was missed. During an interview on [DATE] at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected if an OOHDNR was in place then the documentation should reflect the same. The Administrator said failure to update the residents code status placed the resident at risk for acting against her wishes. The Administrator said nurse leadership and social services were responsible for ensuring they were compliant with the resident's code status. Record review of the facility's policy Advance Directives revised [DATE], indicated . The resident has the right to formulate an advance directive, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment. Advance directives are honored in accordance with state law and facility policy . I. If the resident or the resident's representative has executed one or more advance directive(s), or executes one upon admission, copies of these documents are obtained and maintained in the same section of the resident's medical record and are readily retrievable by any facility staff. 2. The director of nursing services (DNS ) or designee notifies the attending physician of advance directives (or changes in advance directives) so that appropriate orders can be documented in the resident's medical record and plan of care .
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve grievanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve grievances for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #'s 8 and #26) reviewed for grievances. 1. The facility did not ensure a grievance was filed for Resident #8's missing black pants and green shirt. 2. The facility did not ensure a grievance was filed for Resident #26's missing black pants. These failures could place residents at risk for grievances not being addressed or resolved promptly. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #8's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), and heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should). Record review of Resident #8's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. Resident #8 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Resident #8 required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting, showering, lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #8's comprehensive care plan dated 11/12/24, indicated Resident #8 was a risk for self-care deficit for bathing, dressing, and feeding. The care plan intervention included to provide assistance with ADLs as needed. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 11:25 AM Resident #8 said she had been missing a pair of black pants when she admitted to the facility and a green sleeveless V-neck shirt which had been missing for a few months. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 2:10 PM, Resident #8 said the missing clothes had not been found or replaced. Resident #8 said her clothes had been missing a couple of months and she had reported this to a staff member but was unsure who the staff members was. 2. Record review of Resident #26's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #26 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #26's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #26 was understood and understood others. Resident #26 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Resident #26 did not have behaviors or reject care. Resident #26 required supervision or touching assistance with personal hygiene and showering/bathing. Record review of Resident #26's comprehensive care plan dated 11/12/24, indicated Resident #26 was a risk for self-care deficit related to bathing, dressing, and feeding. The care plan interventions indicated to maintain consistent schedule with daily routine and provide assistance with ADLs as needed. During an interview on 04/21/25 at 2:15 PM, Resident #26 said she had a pair of black pants that had been missing for a few months. Resident #26 said she brought it up in every resident council meeting and everyone knew about it. Resident #26 said her pants had not been replaced. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 2:05 PM, Resident #26 said it had made her feel bad having her pants missing but that her pants were found yesterday 04/22/25. Record review of the Resident Council Meeting from dated 01/30/25, indicated Resident #26 had reported she was missing black slacks. Record review of the Town Hall Meeting Notes dated 01/30/25 indicated Resident #26 had reported she was missing pants black slacks. Record review of the Resident Council Meeting from dated 03/07/25, indicated Resident #26 had reported she was missing black pants. Record review of the Resident Council Meeting Form dated 04/04/25, indicated Resident #8 had reported she was missing black pants and green sleeping shirt. Record review of the grievances from September 2024-April 2025 did not reveal any grievances filed for Resident #8's and Resident #26's missing clothing. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 10:51 AM, CNA A said Resident #26 had reported missing black pants a few months back. CNA A said she had reported it to laundry, and they had been looking for them. CNA A said Resident #8 had not reported any missing clothes to her. CNA A Resident #26 would have to purchase more clothing. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 1:58 PM, Laundry Aide Q said Resident #26 had reported she had been missing a pair of black pants. She said when a resident complained of missing clothes, she looked for them and if not found, she reported it to her supervisor. Laundry Aide Q said Resident #26's missing black pants were never found. Laundry Aide Q said Resident #8's clothes were always found. She said Resident #8's clothes would always be in the laundry and returned the next day. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 2:06 PM, CNA E said Resident #26 had reported missing a black pair of pants about two months ago. She said Resident #8 had not complained to her of any missing clothes. CNA E said when she received a complaint of missing clothes, she would check the laundry to see if she could locate them. During an interview on 04/23/24 at 2:33 PM, the Housekeeping/Laundry Supervisor said Resident #26's black pants were replaced a couple of weeks ago. She said she had no knowledge of Resident #26's missing clothes prior to that. She said Resident #8's missing a green shirt and black pants was brought to her attention on 04/22/24 and had no knowledge of them missing prior to yesterday. The Housekeeping/Laundry Supervisor said when she received a complaint of missing clothes, she instantly began to look for them. She said if the missing items could not be found she would then report it to the Administrator so the items could be replaced. She said it should not take months for clothing to be found or replaced. She said the resident could feel bad about their missing clothing. The Housekeeping/Laundry Supervisor said management staff was responsible for resolving the grievance. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 2:40 PM, the Social Services Designee said she was responsible for documenting the grievances. She said a grievance was written if it bothered the resident. She said residents complained of missing clothing and they liked the results, so the same complaint was brought up again. The Social Services Designee said a town hall meeting was led by staff and a resident council meeting was resident led. She said the complaints in those meetings were brought to her and she would go and speak to those residents. She said if residents told her it's not a bother a grievance was not filed. She said Resident #26's black pants have been replaced prior but was unable to provide documentation. She said Resident #8's missing green shirt and black pants came after Resident #26 received a new pair of pants. The Social Worker Designee said to her knowledge Resident #8's pants or green shirt have not been found or replaced. She said the Administrator had the final say for clothing to be replaced. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said social services were responsible for handling the grievances. The DON said missing clothes was a grievance. The DON said she was not aware of Resident #8's missing clothes. The DON said Resident #26 had accused staff of wearing her clothes. She said a grievance should not take a long time for it to be resolved. She said if a grievance could not be resolved it should be taken to the Administrator. The DON said Resident #8 could incur more clothing costs. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said missing clothes could be a grievance. He said if the resident formally reported missing clothes to a staff member, it needed to be documented and investigated by the leadership team. The Administrator said the grievance should be followed up on and clothes should be checked in all rooms and laundry. The Administrator said he followed up with housekeeping to see if missing clothes had been found and if they had not, he would replace them. The Administrator said he was responsible for ensuring grievances were ultimately resolved. Record review of the facility's policy Grievances/Complaints, Filing revised 2017, indicated . Residents and their representatives have the right to file grievances, either orally or in writing, to the facility staff or to the agency designated to hear grievances (e.g., the State Ombudsman). The administrator and staff will make prompt efforts to resolve grievances to the satisfaction of the resident and/or representative . 3. All grievances, complaints or recommendations stemming from resident or family groups concerning issues of resident care in the facility will be considered. Actions on such issues will be responded to in writing, including a rationale for the response . 8. Upon receipt of a grievance and/or complaint, the grievance officer will review and investigate the allegations and submit a written report of such findings to the administrator within five (5) working days of receiving the grievance and/or complaint .
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for ADLs. (Resident #11 and 26) The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 and #26 received their showers as scheduled. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving services/care, decreased quality of life, and decreased self-esteem. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #26's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #26 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #26's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #26 was understood and understood others. Resident #26 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Resident #26 did not have behaviors or rejected care. Resident #26 required supervision or touching assistance with personal hygiene and showering/bathing. Record review of Resident #26's comprehensive care plan dated 11/12/24, indicated Resident #26 was a risk for self-care deficit related to bathing, dressing, and feeding. The care plan interventions indicated to maintain consistent schedule with daily routine and provide assistance with ADLs as needed. Record review of Resident #26's Skin Monitoring: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review sheets for the following dates indicated Resident #26 had received a shower: 03/04/25, 03/06/25, 03/11/25, 03/13/25, 03/18/25, 03/20/25, 03/25/25, 04/08/25, 04/10/25. There were no shower sheets provided for the following dates: 03/08/25, 03/15/25, 03/22/25, 03/27/25, 03/29/25, 04/01/25, 04/03/25, 04/05/25, 04/12/25, 04/15/25, and 04/19/25. Record review of Resident #26's ADLs point of care report dated 04/09/25- 04/19/25, indicated Resident #26 had received a shower on 04/10/25 and 04/17/25. During an interview on 04/21/25 at 12:05 PM, Resident #26 said she had not received a shower since Tuesday of last week (04/15/25). Resident #26 said her shower days were on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Resident #26 said it made her feel dirty not getting one. Resident #26 said when the shower aide was pulled to the floor, they did not get a shower. 2. Record review of Resident #11's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), cerebral infarction (stroke), irritable bowel syndrome (an intestinal disorder causing pain in the belly, gas, diarrhea, and constipation), and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #11's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. Resident #11 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Resident #11 did not refuse care or had behaviors. Resident #11 required substantial/maximal assistance with showering/bathing and upper body dressing. Record review of Resident #11's comprehensive care plan 10/28/24, indicated Resident #11 was at risk for self-care deficient regarding bathing, dressing, and feeding. The care plan interventions indicated to maintain consistent schedule with daily routine and provide assistance with ADLs as needed. Record review of Resident #11's Skin Monitoring: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review sheets for the following dates indicated Resident #11 had received a shower or bed bath: 03/06/25, 03/13/25, 03/20/25, 04/03/25, 04/08/25, 04/10/25. There were no shower sheets provided for the following dates: 03/04/25, 03/08/25, 03/15/25, 03/18/25, 03/22/25, 03/25/25, 03/27/25, 03/29/25, 04/01/25, 04/05/25, 04/12/25, 04/15/25, and 04/19/25. Record review of Resident #11's ADLs point of care report dated 04/09/25- 04/19/25, indicated no documentation was completed for Resident #11's showers. During an interview on 04/21/25 at 10:42 AM, Resident #11 said within the last 2 weeks she had missed 3 showers. She said when the shower aide was assigned to work as a CNA on the floor, she received a bed bath by her assigned aide. She said it made her feel not good when she did not receive a shower. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 10:28 AM, CNA A said she was usually the shower aide unless she was assigned to a hall. CNA A said when she was working the floor the nurse aide assigned to each hall was responsible for providing their own showers. CNA A said she had residents complain to her that they did not receive their showers when she did not work as the shower aide . CNA A said by not proving showers as scheduled placed residents at risk for skin issues or infections. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 10:51 AM, CNA A said when she completed a shower, she filled out a shower sheet. CNA A said she did not chart in the point of care system and assumed the aide on the hall was charting when a shower was given. She said she knew now that was not being completed. She said if there were no shower sheets completed and there was no documentation indicating a shower was given, then the shower was not done. CNA A said failure to provide showers as scheduled placed residents at risk for skin issues. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said when the shower aide was pulled from giving showers then she expected the aide on the floor to provide the showers assigned. The DON said it was brought to her attention the shower task was not triggering in the point of care system. The DON said it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure the showers were being provided. The DON said by not receiving their showers routinely placed the residents at risk for infections. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said his expectations were to provide showers as per the shower schedule. He said if the shower aide was pulled to the floor, then it was the responsibility of the aide on the hall to provide the showers. The Administrator said if the resident refused their shower, it should be documented. He said the residents were at risk for issues concerning their health by not receiving their showers on a routine basis. The Administrator said it was the responsibility of the charge nurse to ensure the showers were being provided. Record review of the facility's policy Bath, Shower/Tub revised February 2018, indicated . The purpose of this procedure are to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion receive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion/and or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for range of motion. (Resident #10) The facility to ensure Resident #10's splint for his right-hand contracture (a permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes the joints to shorten and stiffen) was being applied as ordered. This failure could place residents who had limited range of motion at risk of not attaining/or maintaining their highest level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #10's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction (stroke), hypertension (high blood pressure), right upper arm muscle wasting and atrophy (loss of muscle mass and strength), and right-hand contracture. Record review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated he was sometimes understood and sometimes understood others. Resident #10 had short term/long term memory problems and his cognition was severely impaired. Resident #10 did not have behaviors or refused care. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #10 had an upper and lower extremity impairment on one side of his body that interfered with daily functions. Resident #10 required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting, showering, dressing, and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #10's comprehensive care plan initiated on 04/22/25, indicated Resident #10 required the use of a supportive device to promote independence. Resident #10 had a right palm guard splint to minimize contracture to right hand. The care plan interventions indicated for therapy to oversee splint and make adjustments as needed. The care plan did not indicate Resident #10 refused his splint to be applied. Record review of Resident #10's order summary report dated 04/23/25, indicated he had an order to clean right hand, apply splint daily and remove splint and clean hand at bedtime with an order date of 01/05/25. Record review of Resident #10's progress notes dated 03/24/25-04/24/25 did not reveal any documentation indicating Resident #10 had refused the application of the splint to his right hand. Record review of Resident #10's treatment administration record dated 04/01/25-04/30/25, indicated Resident #10 had an order to clean right hand splint daily and remove splint and clean hand at bedtime. The treatment administration record indicated this was being completed during the 6:00 AM - 6:00 PM and 6:00 PM- 6:00 AM shifts. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 09:47 AM, Resident #10 was sitting up in his wheelchair. Resident #10's right hand was contracted and in a fist position. There were no interventions in place to Resident #10's right hand. During an observation on 04/22/25 at 08:34 AM, Resident #10 was up in his wheelchair and was propelling himself in the hallway. There were no interventions in place to Resident #10's right hand. During an observation on 04/22/25 at 2:28 PM, Resident #10 was sitting in his recliner. His right-hand contracture continued with no interventions in place. Resident was unable to speak but was able to shake his head to yes and no questions. Resident #10 shook his head no when asked if he allowed the staff to apply the splint to his right hand. During an observation and interview on 04/23/25 at 11:15 AM, LVN D said she was Resident #10's nurse. LVN D said Resident #10 sometimes refused care. LVN D said the CNAs were able to apply the splint to Resident #10's right hand. LVN D went to Resident #10 and observed the splint was not in place to his right hand. LVN D said Resident #10 sometimes refused the splint to be applied because his right hand was tender. LVN D said the refusal should be documented in his progress notes and his care plan should be updated. LVN D said she had already clicked off on Resident #10's MAR that morning that the splint had been applied to his right hand. LVN D said she should have verified that was completed before signing off on it. LVN D said it was Resident #10's shower day and therefore was waiting until after his shower to apply the splint. LVN D said failure to apply the splint as ordered could cause Resident #10's contracture to worsen. LVN D said she was responsible for ensuring the splint was applied or the refusal was documented. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 11:24 AM, CNA E said Resident #10 refused at times for the splint to be applied because his right hand was tender. CNA E said the aides were able to apply the splint, but it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure it was in place. CNA E said failure to apply the splint could cause Resident #10's contracture to worsen. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said Resident #10 will refuse to have the splint applied and try to fight the staff . The DON said the nurse should not have checked the MAR as the splint being applied to Resident #10's right hand until it was applied. The DON said Resident #10's refusal should have been documented in the progress notes. The DON said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the splint was applied as ordered and failure to do so could place Resident #10's contracture to worsen. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 9:58 AM, the Administrator said if the nurse was having issues following the physician's orders, then there should be documentation as to why it was not completed. The Administrator said the nurse was responsible for applying the splint, for documenting the refusals and notifying nurse leadership. The Administrator said failure to apply the splint as ordered place the resident at risk for his condition to worsen. Record review of the facility's policy Resident Mobility and Range of Motion revised July 2017, indicated . 2. Residents with limited range of motion will receive treatment and services to increase and/or prevent a further decrease in ROM . 2. As part of the comprehensive assessment, the nurse will also identify conditions that place the resident at risk for complications related to ROM, including . e. contractures . 5. The care plan will include specific interventions, exercise, and therapies to maintain, prevent avoidable decline in, and/or improve mobility range of motion .
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #2) reviewed for accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 did not keep a vape (electronic cigarette) on her over bed table. The facility failed to have documentation that Resident #2 was evaluated for use of electronic cigarette use. This failure could place residents at an increased risk for injury. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side (weakness and paralysis of left side of the body), type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy (insulin resistance, with or without insulin deficiency that induces organ dysfunction) progressive death of nerve fibers, which leads to loss of nerves, increased sensitivity, and the development of foot ulcers), and anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #2's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she understood others and was understood. Resident #2's BIMS was a 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 was dependent on staff for showering/bathing, toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 used tobacco. Record review of Resident #2's care plan with a target date of 02/09/2025 did not indicate she used a vape or smoked. During an observation and interview on 04/21/2025 starting at 9:20 AM, Resident #2 had a vape on her over bed table. Resident #2 said she used the vape. During an observation on 04/21/2025 at 2:02 PM, Resident #2 had a vape device on her overbed table. During an interview on 04/22/2025 at 4:12 PM, LVN B said when Resident #2 got out of bed she went to smoke sometimes. LVN B said Resident #2 used a vape device. LVN B said she did not know if the residents could keep their vape devices in their rooms. LVN B said smoking assessments were completed by the MDS nurse on admission. LVN B said the risks associated with Resident #2 having a vape in her room could be that the device could leak, and it could explode. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 4:00 PM, LVN L said Resident #2 smoked when she was up in her wheelchair. LVN L said she was aware Resident #2 had a vape, but she had not seen her use it in her room. LVN L said most of the time they kept cigarettes and lighters at the desk. LVN L said that she was aware Resident #2 was the only one with a vape. LVN L said the smoking assessments were completed quarterly by the charge nurses, but she did not know when Resident #2's smoking assessment was last completed. LVN L said the only risk she could think of with a vape would be that it could cause a burn. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:17 AM, the DON said she was aware Resident #2 smoked and used a vape. The DON said she did not know if the residents could keep vapes in their rooms, and she did not know of any ill effects associated with the residents having one in their room. The DON said the nurses were supposed to be completing the smoking assessments quarterly. The DON said she did not know why Resident #2's smoking assessment was not completed. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:20 AM, the ADON said if a resident had a vape, they were able to keep them in their rooms, but they were not supposed to smoke them inside the building. The ADON said she did not know Resident #2 still had a vape. The ADON said she did not know if Resident #2 could have her vape in her room, but she was presuming she was not supposed to have it. The ADON said the smoking assessment did not apply to the vape. The ADON said she did not know of any risks associated with the residents keeping their vapes. The ADON said Resident #2 was the only one that she was aware of that used a vape. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:52 AM, the Administrator said vapes should not be kept at the bedside. The Administrator said he was aware Resident #2 kept a vape at her bedside. The Administrator said if someone was an unsafe smoker with the electronic cigarette there was a potential for Resident #2 to intake more nicotine than was healthy for her. The Administrator said it was his responsibility for ensuring Resident #2 did not keep a vape at bedside. Record review of the facility's incidents and accidents from 10/01/2024-04/21/2025 did not indicate any burns or incidents related to smoking/vape. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy-Residents, revised August 2022, indicated, The facility has established and maintains safe resident smoking practices 1. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are not considered smoking devices with respect to the risk of ignition, but they are considered a risk for residents related to: a. potential health effects for the smoker, such as respiratory illness or lung injury which may present with symptoms of breathing difficulty, shortness of breath, chest pain, mild to moderate gastrointestinal illness, fever or fatigue; b. second-hand aerosol exposure; c. nicotine overdose by ingestion or contact with the skin; and d. explosion or fire caused by the battery. 2. To prevent accidents associated with e-cigarettes and to respect the rights of resident who do not want to be exposed to second-hand aerosol, residents are permitted to use e-cigarettes with supervision and in designated smoking areas only. 3. Residents who wish to use e-cigarettes are assessed for their ability to safely handle the devices (including batteries and refill cartridges) on an individual basis. 4. Residents who wish to use e-cigarettes are instructed on battery safety and tips to avoid battery explosions per FDA recommendations. Instruction specific to e-cigarette safety is documented in the resident care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for treatment and services related to indwelling catheters. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's foley catheter was secured on 04/22/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections, catheter dislodgement and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 04/23/25 indicated an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #3 had diagnoses of diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), protein calorie malnutrition (inadequate intake of food), and urine retention. Record review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter. Record review of Resident #3's comprehensive care plan revised on 04/04/25, indicated Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter related to neurogenic bladder (lack of bladder control due to brain, spinal cord or nerve problems). The care plan interventions included to secure catheter tubing to leg to minimize trauma to the insertion site, make sure tubing was free of kinks and urine was present in the tube. Record review of Resident #3's order summary report dated 04/23/25, indicated the following orders: o Check foley catheter stabilizer to make sure it is in place every shift with an order start date of 09/25/24. Record review of Resident #3's nursing MAR dated 04/01/25-04/30/25 indicated Resident #3's foley catheter stabilizer was being checked every shift. During an observation and interview on 04/22/25 at 2:28 PM, Resident #3 was in bed. CNA E entered Resident #3's room and checked Resident #3's catheter. Resident #3's foley catheter was not secured to her leg. CNA E said Resident #3 should have had a leg strap to secure the catheter to her leg to prevent pulling of the catheter. CNA E said failure to properly secure Resident #3's catheter could cause injury. CNA E said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the foley catheters were properly secured. During an observation and interview on 04/22/25 at 2:58 PM, LVN C entered Resident #3's room to check her foley catheter. Resident #3's foley catheter was not secured to her leg. LVN C said Resident #3 usually tore the adhesive part of the statlock (foley securement device) and left the clamp on. LVN C said Resident #3's foley catheter should be properly secured to prevent pulling of the catheter. LVN C said failure to properly secure the foley catheter could cause trauma or bleeding to the insertion site. LVN C said the nurses and the aides were responsible for ensuring the foley catheters were properly secured. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said she expected the resident's catheters to be properly secured. The DON said the nurses were responsible for ensuring the stat lock or leg strap were in place but there were residents that removed them and Resident #3 was one of them. The DON said failure to properly secure the catheter could place the resident at risk for dislodgement. During an interview on 09:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected for the foley catheters to be secured. The Administrator said it was the nursing team responsibility to ensure this occurred. The Administrator said if the catheter was not secured it could potentially be pulled. Record review of the facility's policy Catheter Care, Urinary revised August 2022, indicated . The purpose of this procedure is to prevent urinary catheter-associated complications, including urinary tract infections 4. Ensure that the catheter remains secure with a securement device to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site. The policy did not address the privacy of catheter drainage bag.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #23 was an [AGE] year-old female initially admitted to the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #23 was an [AGE] year-old female initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), heart failure (chronic, progressive condition in which the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs for blood and oxygen) and essential primary hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #23 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #23 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #23 was dependent for toileting and showering/bathing self, independent for eating, and required partial to moderate assistance with ADLs. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #23 required oxygen therapy while a resident at the facility. Record review of Resident #23's Order Summary Report dated 04/23/2025 indicated an order for check oxygen saturation every shift and apply oxygen at 2-4 liters per minute via nasal cannula as needed to maintain oxygen saturation more than 92% every shift with a start date of 10/23/2024. Record review of Resident #23's care plan with a target date of 11/17/2024 indicated she had impaired gas exchange and to administer oxygen as prescribed or per the standing order. During an observation and interview on 04/21/2025 at 9:36 AM, Resident #23's nasal canula was hanging from the rail on her bed, not stored in a bag. Resident #23 said she used her oxygen at night and as needed. Resident #23 said the nasal cannula was always kept unbagged that the staff did not place it in a bag. During an observation on 04/22/2025 at 1:07 PM, Resident #23's nasal cannula was on top of her oxygen concentrator, unbagged. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 3:56 PM, LVN L said Resident #23 used her oxygen as needed. LVN L said they nasal cannulas for the oxygen should be stored in a bag to keep them clean. LVN L said the CNAs and the nurses were supposed to place the nasal cannulas in a bag if they saw it was not bagged. LVN L said the nasal cannulas should be stored in a bag because bacteria could get on them and cause an infection. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:25 AM, the ADON said the nasal cannulas should be stored in a bag. The ADON said she rounded weekly to ensure the nasal cannulas were kept in a bag when not in use. The ADON said she rounded Monday (04/21/2025) and placed a bag on Resident #23's oxygen concentrator for the staff to place her nasal cannula in. The ADON said Resident #23 did not keep her nasal cannula in the bag. The ADON said all the staff were responsible for ensuring the nasal cannulas were stored in a bag. The ADON said when the staff went in the resident's room they should be placing the nasal cannulas in the bag. The ADON said it was important to keep the nasal cannulas stored in a bag for infection control. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:30 AM, the DON said the nasal cannulas should be stored in bags. The DON said the nursing staff and anybody walking by the room should ensure the nasal cannulas were placed in a bag when not in use. The DON said this should be monitored by everybody when they rounded every 2 hours. The DON said the nasal cannula not being in a bag was a risk for infection. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:00 AM, the Administrator said he expected for the nasal cannulas to be stored properly, and the CNAs and charge nurses were responsible for ensuring this happened. The Administrator said nurse management was responsible for ensuring the charge nurses were storing the nasal cannulas properly and remained in compliance. The Administrator said the nasal cannulas should be kept in a bag for infection control and overall cleanliness. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, revised October 2010, indicated, Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration . l. Oxygen therapy is administered by way of an oxygen mask, nasal cannula, and/or nasal catheter . The nasal cannula is a tube that is placed approximately one-half inch into the resident's nose . Adjust the oxygen delivery device so that it is comfortable for the resident and the proper flow of oxygen is being administered . The policy did not address the storage of the nasal cannula. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #43 and Resident #23) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43's oxygen was administered between 2-3 liters per minute via nasal cannula as prescribed by the physician. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #23's nasal cannula was stored properly. This failure could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk for developing respiratory complications. Findings included: 1. Record review of the face sheet, dated 04/23/25, revealed Resident #43 was a [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses dementia without behavioral disturbance (loss of memory, language, problem solving and other thinking abilities that were severe enough to interfere with daily life), Hyperlipidemia (blood has too many lipids (or fats), bradycardia (slow heart beat) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of the MDS assessment, dated 02/14/25, revealed Resident #43 had clear speech, was sometimes understood and sometimes made herself understood. The MDS revealed Resident #43 BIMS was not coded on the MDS assessment. Record review of the comprehensive care plan, revised on 12/04/24, revealed Resident #43 was using oxygen prn as needed. The care plan goal was, Resident #43 will follow all safety guidelines; will have no episodes of respiratory distress. The interventions included: Administer breathing treatments in apartment as ordered; Monitor for increasing difficulty breathing and report to nurse/MD and use Oxygen. Directions (specify storage, maintenance and provider). Record Review of Physician orders for oxygen concentrator dated on 9/29/2024 at 6:15 p.m., indicated, May use Oxygen 2-3L/NC as needed for Shortness of breath. During observation on 4/21/25 at 09:51 a.m., Resident # 43 was sitting in her wheelchair next to foot of bed. Resident #43 was wearing oxygen nose cannula. Resident #43 oxygen concentrator was set at 4 1/2 liters per minute. During an attempted phone call interview on 4/23/25 at 2:06 p.m., LVN B was unavailable to be reached by phone. Surveyor was unable to leave a voice message for a return phone call due to voicemail being full. During an attempted phone call interview on 4/23/25 at 2:28 p.m., LVN B was unavailable to be reached by phone. Surveyor was unable to leave a voice message for a return phone call due to voicemail being full. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 8:28 a.m., the DON stated she had been employed at the facility since 10/1/24. The DON stated she oversaw the nurses at the facility. The DON stated the oxygen concentrator should have been set between 2-3 liters per minute. The DON stated Resident #43 fiddled with the oxygen setting. When asked did the facility document that the resident fiddled with the oxygen concentrator the DON stated, Well it was not documented because I did not ever witness the resident fiddling with the oxygen concentrator. The DON stated she did not know when in-services on the oxygen concentrators were last completed at the facility. The DON stated her process for monitoring the oxygen concentrator was to go in each room and check the oxygen concentrators on every shift. The DON stated the charge nurses was responsible for ensuring the oxygen concentrators were set at the correct liters per minute as prescribed by the physician. The DON stated it was important to ensure staff were following the physician orders for oxygen concentrators to make sure the patient was getting the optimal benefit from the oxygen. When asked what harm could be potentially caused to the resident if the oxygen concentrator setting was not set at the correct liters per minute as prescribed by the physician the DON stated, I can't speculate if this could cause any harm to the resident if the oxygen concentrator were not set at the correct liters per minute. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 8:36 a.m., the Administrator stated he had been employed at the facility since 8/1/22. The Administrator stated he oversaw the nursing department at the facility. The Administrator stated he did not know what Resident #43's oxygen concentrator should be set on. The Administrator stated he did not think Resident #43 had the capabilities to change the settings on the oxygen concentrator herself. The Administrator stated it was possible that the oxygen concentrator got accidently bumped into. The Administrator stated he was not made aware of Resident #43's oxygen concentrator was not set to the right liters per minute as prescribed by the physician. The Administrator stated he oversaw the DON. The Administrator stated he did not know when staff last completed in-services on the oxygen concentrators. When asked what his process was for monitoring the oxygen concentrator, the Administrator stated, It would be a charge nurse task when he or she was making their rounds and if leadership identified an issue with the charge nurses not making sure the liters per minute was set that the facility would set a system to start monitoring the oxygen concentrators. When asked why it was important to ensure staff was following the physician order for oxygen concentrators, The Administrator stated, As a nursing facility, we operate by following the physician's orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for 1 of 1 resident's (Resident #'s 50) reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility did not ensure Resident #50 had a trauma screening that identified possible triggers when Resident #50 had a history of trauma. These failures could put residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization. The findings included: Record review of the face sheet, dated 04/23/2025, indicated Resident #50 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Wernicke's encephalopathy (a serious neurological condition caused by a deficiency of thiamine (vitamin B1), often due to chronic alcohol use or malnutrition), post-traumatic stress disorder ( a mental health condition that can develop in people who experience or witness a traumatic event), anxiety disorder ( condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness). Record review of the MDS assessment, dated 01/23/2025, revealed Resident #50 had a BIMS score of 03, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed Resident #50 had no behaviors or refusal of care. Record review of the comprehensive care plan, revised on 10/30/2024, revealed Resident #50 did not address post-traumatic stress disorder. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 3:53 p.m., the Social Worker stated she was responsible for ensuring trauma assessments were done on admission. The Social Worker stated she did not have a trauma assessment on Resident # 50. The Social Worker stated the trauma assessment was important, so the staff was aware of Resident #50's history. The Social Worker stated the failure was the staff may not be able to assess Resident # 50 needs and Resident# 50 may become upset or refuse care. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:00 a.m., the DON stated she expected trauma assessments to be done on admission. The DON stated the trauma assessment was the social services responsibility. The DON stated the trauma assessment was important because if the resident has PTSD it could play into his problems. The DON stated the failure of not having a trauma assessment was the resident could harm self or others. The DON stated she would monitor on admission and weekly with the social worker. During an interview on 05/24/2025 at 10:46 a.m., the Administrator stated he excepted the trauma assessment to be done on admission. The Administrator stated it was social services responsibility to complete the trauma assessment. The Administrator stated the failure was the staff would not know the triggers and would not be able to provide the best care. The Administrator stated he would monitor during morning meetings. Record review of facility policy, Trauma-Informed and Culturally Competent Care revised August 2022, to guide staff in providing care that is culturally competent and trauma- Informed in accordance with professional standards of practice To address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing and/or re-traumatization.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of receipt and disposition of all 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 establish a system of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable accurate reconciliation and determine that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs were maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure MA F accurately reconciled Resident #8's narcotic medication log when she administered Resident #8's acetaminophen-codeine (controlled medication used for pain) tablet on 04/22/25. This failure could place residents at risk for loss of prescribed medications, resident's safety, and drug diversion. Findings included: Record review of Resident #8's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), and heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should). Record review of Resident #8's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. Resident #8 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Resident #8 occasionally had pain and received scheduled pain medication. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #8 was taking an opioid (a class of drug used to reduce pain) medication. Record review of Resident #8's comprehensive care plan dated 11/12/24, indicated Resident #8 had acute pain with interventions to administer medications and evaluate pain. Record review of Resident #8's order summary report dated 04/23/25, indicated Resident #8 had an order for acetaminophen-codeine 300mg-60mg tablet give one tablet by mouth four times a day for pain with an order date of 10/02/24. Record review of Resident #8's medication administration record dated 04/01/25-04/30/25, indicated she had received one tablet of acetaminophen-codeine 300mg-60mg four times a day . The MAR indicated Resident #8 received one tablet of acetaminophen-codeine 300mg-60mg at 09:00 AM on 04/22/25. During an observation and interview on 04/22/25 at 09:21 AM, MA F prepared Resident #8's morning medication. MA F opened the narcotic box located on the medication cart and removed one tablet of acetaminophen-codeine 300mg-60mg tablet from the medication cart and added it to the medicine cup. MA F proceeded to administer Resident #8's medications. MA F failed to document the administration of the acetaminophen-codeine 300mg-60mg tablet on Resident #8's narcotic record. MA F said the correct process when administering a narcotic medication was to sign the narcotic record when the medication was administered. MA F said she was nervous because she was being observed by the surveyor, so she forgot to sign the narcotic record. MA F said a miscount could occur for not signing the narcotic record when the medication was given. MA F said she was responsible for ensuring the narcotic medications were reconciled. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said she expected the narcotic record to be signed off as soon as a narcotic medication was administered. The DON said failure to document the narcotic medication could cause a discrepancy. The DON said the person administering the medications was responsible for documenting when a narcotic medication was administered and removed from the narcotic card. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected the narcotic record to be signed after the resident took the medication. He said by not signing off the narcotic record when the medication was administered could cause the count to be off. The Administrator said the person administering the medications was responsible for documenting when a narcotic medication was administered. Record review of the facility's policy Documentation of Medication administration revised November 2022, indicated . A medication administration record is used to document all medications administered . 2. Administration of medication is documented immediately after it is given . Record review of the facility's policy Controlled Substances revised April 2019, indicated . The facility complies with all laws, regulations, and other requirements related to handling, storage, disposal, and documentation of controlled medications . 8. Controlled substances are reconciled upon receipt, administration, disposition, and at the end of each shift . 10. Upon Administration: a. The nurse administering the medication is responsible for recording: (1) Name of the resident receiving the medication; (2) Name, strength and dose of the medication; (3) Time of administration; (4) Method of administration; (5) Quantity of the medication remaining; and (6) Signature of nurse administering medication .
CONCERN (D)

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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to follow their own established smoking policy for the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to follow their own established smoking policy for the 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for smoking policies. The facility failed to follow the smoking policy and ensure Resident #2 had a safe smoking evaluation completed. This failure could place residents at risk of an unsafe smoking environment and an increased risk of injury related to smoking. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side (blood flow to the brain affected with weakness and paralysis of left side of the body), type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy (insulin resistance, with or without insulin deficiency that induces organ dysfunction) progressive death of nerve fibers, which leads to loss of nerves, increased sensitivity, and the development of foot ulcers), and anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #2's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she understood others and was understood. Resident #2's BIMS was a 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 was dependent on staff for showering/bathing, toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 used tobacco. During an observation and interview on 04/21/2025 starting at 9:20 AM, Resident #2 had a vape on her over bed table. Resident #2 said she used the vape. During an observation on 04/21/2025 at 2:02 PM, Resident #2 had a vape device on her overbed table. Record review of Resident #2's care plan with a target date of 02/09/2025 did not indicate she used a vape or smoked. Record review of Resident #2's electronic health record on 04/24/2025 did not indicate any safe smoking evaluations had been completed. During an interview on 04/22/2025 at 4:12 PM, LVN B said when Resident #2 got out of bed she went to smoke sometimes. LVN B said Resident #2 used a vape device. LVN B said smoking assessments were completed by the MDS nurse on admission. LVN B said it was important for smoking assessments to be completed to ensure the residents were safe to smoke and so they could be assessed for safety. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 1:18 PM, the MDS Coordinator said she did not complete the smoking assessments. The MDS Coordinator said she knew they were done on admission, but she was not sure the frequency at which the smoking assessments should be completed. The MDS Coordinator said she was pretty sure social services completed the smoking assessments. The MDS Coordinator said smoking assessments should be completed to determine whether the residents could safely smoke on their own or not. The MDS Coordinator said if a smoking assessment was not completed this could place the residents at risk for burning themselves or starting a fire or they could get stuck if they went out and could not get back inside the building. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 4:00 PM, LVN L said Resident #2 smoked when she was up in her wheelchair. LVN L said she was aware Resident #2 had a vape, but she had not seen her use it in her room. LVN L said the smoking assessments were completed quarterly by the charge nurses, but she did not know when Resident #2's smoking assessment was last completed. LVN L said it was important for the smoking assessments to be completed for the resident's safety. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:17 AM, the DON said the nurses were supposed to be completing the smoking assessments quarterly. The DON said she did not know why Resident #2's smoking assessment was not completed. The DON said the ADON had started monitoring the smoking assessments to ensure they were completed earlier in the month of April 2025. The DON said she was aware Resident #2 smoked and used a vape. The DON said the smoking assessments needed to be completed to determine if the resident was safe to smoke. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:20 AM, the ADON said she started monitoring earlier this month (April 2025) to ensure all the quarterly assessments were completed. The ADON said Resident #2 had not been getting up to smoke, so it did not trigger the nurses to complete a smoking assessment. The ADON said she knew Resident #2 had a smoking assessment completed on admission (the initial smoking assessment for Resident #2 was not provided upon exit of the facility). The ADON said it was important for the smoking assessments to be completed because there was a possible risk of the residents burning themselves, the residents not properly disposing of the cigarettes, or if they were unable to light up the cigarette burn themselves or their hair. The ADON said she did not know Resident #2 still had a vape. The ADON said the smoking assessment did not apply to the vape. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:52 AM, the Administrator said Resident #2 smoked and she needed to have a smoking assessment. The Administrator said he expected for the staff to follow the smoking policy. The Administrator said smoking assessments were completed on admission and if a resident had a change in condition. The Administrator said it was important for the residents to have a smoking assessment because it let them know if the resident was a safe smoker or non-safe smoker and based on the outcome, they would determine what the resident needed. The Administrator said if the smoking assessment was not in place there was a potential for that resident to not have the proper processes in place to ensure they were being safe. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy-Residents, revised August 2022, indicated, 6. Resident smoking status is evaluated upon admission. If a smoker, the evaluation includes: a. current level of tobacco consumption; b. method of tobacco consumption (traditional cigarettes; electronic cigarettes; pipe, etc.); c. desire to quit smoking; and d. ability to smoke safely with or without supervision (per a completed Safe Smoking Evaluation) .8. A resident's ability to smoke safely is re-evaluated quarterly, upon a significant change (physical or cognitive) and as determined by the staff .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review of Resident #11's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review of Resident #11's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), cerebral infarction (stroke), irritable bowel syndrome (an intestinal disorder causing pain in the belly, gas, diarrhea, and constipation), and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #11's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. Resident #11 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Resident #11 was dependent on staff with toileting, lower body dressing, and putting on/taking off footwear. Resident #11 received scheduled pain medication. Record review of Resident #11's comprehensive care plan dated 10/28/24, indicated she had acute pain. The care plan interventions indicated to administer pain medications as ordered. Record review of Resident #11's order summary report dated 04/23/25, indicated she had an order for acetaminophen-codeine (narcotic pain medication) 300mg-60mg tablet give one tablet by mouth three times a day for pain with an order start date of 01/14/25. Record review of Resident #11's medication administration record dated 04/01/25-04/30/25, indicated she had received an acetaminophen-codeine 300mg-60mg tablet three times a day. During an observation and interview on 04/21/25 at 10:08 AM the 200-hall medication cart was on the 200 hall and had a laptop on top with the screen open to Resident #11's information. Staff and residents were noted to be walking next to the medication cart. MA G exited Resident #11's room and said she should not have left screen up because someone could come by and take all of Resident #11's information. MA G said she forgot to lock the screen because she was in a hurry to administer Resident #11 her medication. MA G said it was her responsibility in ensuring the screen was locked when leaving it unattended. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said it was a HIPPA violation leaving the screen up with resident information. The DON said she expected the screen to be locked or pulled down when leaving it unattended. The DON said it was the responsibility of the person on the cart to ensure the resident's information was kept confidential. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected resident information to me kept confidential and not visible to unauthorized persons. He said there was a potential for the resident's information to be seen by leaving the screen up. The Administrator said it was the responsibility of the person on the cart to ensure the resident information was kept confidential. Record review of the facility's policy Resident Rights revised February 2021, indicated . Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. 1. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to . t. privacy and confidentiality . Record review of the facility's policy Confidentiality of Information and Personal Privacy revised October 2017, indicated . Our facility will protect and safeguard resident confidentiality and personal privacy. 1. The facility will safeguard the personal privacy and confidentiality of all resident personal and medical records . Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of medical records for 4 of 21 residents (Resident #8, Resident #9, Resident #51, and Resident #11) reviewed for privacy and confidentiality. 1.LVN C failed to ensure she closed the EMR of Resident #8, Resident #9, and Resident #51 before entering residents' room to obtain a blood sugar check and administer medications on 04/21/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure MA G closed Resident #11's EMR before entering her room to administer her pain medication on 04/21/25. These failures could place residents at risk for low self-esteem, loss of dignity, and decreased quality of life due to medication administration record being accessible to others. Findings included: 1.Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025, revealed Resident # 8 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation (sudden worsening of respiratory symptoms in individuals with COPD, typically involving increased shortness of breath, cough, and/or sputum production), type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia ( person diagnosed with type 2 diabetes has persistently high blood sugar levels), and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia ( a condition where the body's tissues don't receive enough oxygen due to a chronic inability of the lungs to adequately exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide), Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #8 understood and could make herself understood by others. Resident #8 had a BIMS score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated he received insulin injections 7 out of the 7 days of the look back period. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025, revealed Resident # 9 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of vascular dementia (a form of dementia caused by reduced blood flow to the brain, leading to cognitive decline), bipolar disorder (a mental illness characterized by extreme shifts in mood, energy, and activity levels, including both manic (elevated mood) and depressive (low mood) periods), and mild cognitive impairment of uncertain or unknown etiology(memory and thinking problems that are more pronounced than normal aging but don't meet the criteria for dementia). Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 understood and could make herself understood by others. Resident #9 had a BIMS score of 09 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated he received insulin injections 7 out of the 7 days of the look back period. 3. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025, revealed Resident # 51 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia ( a person diagnosed with type 2 diabetes has persistently high blood sugar levels), chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia ( a condition where the body's tissues don't receive enough oxygen due to a chronic inability of the lungs to adequately exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide), and essential (primary) hypertension ( the most common type of high blood pressure). Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #51 understood and could make herself understood by others. Resident #51 had a BIMS score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated he received insulin injections 7 out of the 7 days of the look back period. During an observation and interview on 04/21/2025 at 11:45 a.m., LVN C was observed going into Resident #51's room to check a blood sugar and left the EMR open with Resident #51, Resident #8, and Resident # 9's information visible. LVN C stated it was her responsibility to close the EMR before going into a room. LVN C stated it was important to ensure the residents medical information was confidential. LVN C stated the failure was a HIPPA violation.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centere...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to 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, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 21 (Resident #2, Resident #6, and Resident #9) residents reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to develop a plan of care for Resident #2's smoking and use of a vape (an electronic cigarette). 2. The facility failed to develop a plan of care specific to Resident #6's use of clozapine (antipsychotic medication used to treat mental/mood disorders) The facility failed to develop a plan of care to indicate Resident #6 was considered by the PASRR process to have serious mental illness and an intellectual disability. 3. The facility failed to care plan Resident #9 was in the memory care unit. These failures could place the residents at increased risk of not having their individual needs met and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side (blood flow to the brain affected with weakness and paralysis of left side of the body), type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy (insulin resistance, with or without insulin deficiency that induces organ dysfunction) progressive death of nerve fibers, which leads to loss of nerves, increased sensitivity, and the development of foot ulcers), and anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #2's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she understood others and was understood. Resident #2's BIMS score was a 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 was dependent on staff for showering/bathing, toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #2 used tobacco. Record review of Resident #2's care plan with a target date of 02/09/2025 did not indicate she used a vape or smoked. During an observation and interview on 04/21/2025 starting at 9:20 AM, Resident #2 had a vape on her over bed table. Resident #2 said she used the vape. During an interview on 04/22/2025 at 4:12 PM, LVN B said when Resident #2 got out of bed she went to smoke sometimes. LVN B said Resident #2 used a vape device. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 1:20 PM, the MDS Coordinator said the care plans were completed by therapy, dietary activities, the DON, and social services. The MDS Coordinator said the care plan was initiated on admission. The MDS Coordinator said she was responsible for care planning Resident #2's use of a vape and that she smoked. The MDS Coordinator said she was aware Resident #2 smoked, and she used a vape. The MDS Coordinator said she did not know why it was not included in her care plan. The MDS Coordinator said it should have been care planned because Resident #2 required someone with her when she smoked. The MDS Coordinator said it was important for smoking and the use of a vape to be included in the residents' care plans so people could look at the care plan and see how to manage the residents' care. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2024 indicated Resident #6 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder (mood disorder that can include depression, delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thoughts, speech and behavior) and mild intellectual disabilities (a condition that limits intelligence and disrupts abilities necessary for living independently). Record review of Resident #6's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was considered by the PASRR process to have serious mental illness and an intellectual disability. Record review of Resident #6's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was understood, and she understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #6 received an antipsychotic. Record review of Resident #6's Order Summary Report dated 04/23/2025 indicated clozapine 100 mg give 3.5 tablets orally two times a day with a start date of 09/19/2024. Record review of Resident #6's care plan with a target date of 12/01/2024 indicated, Focus The resident uses psychotropic medications (SPECIFY medications) r/t. There were no interventions. The care plan did not include Resident #6's use of clozapine and interventions related to the use of clozapine. The care plan did not address that Resident #6 was considered by the PASRR process to have serious mental illness and an intellectual disability. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:11 AM, the DON said the responsibilities of the care plans were shared between the DON, social worker, and the MDS Coordinator. The DON said any of them could have care planned Resident #2's smoking and vape use. The DON said Resident #6's positive PASRR status and services should have been care planned by the IDT. The DON said Resident #2's use of a vape and smoking and Resident #6's PASRR positive status and services were not care planned due to the change in ownership that occurred October 2024. The DON said it was important for the residents' care plans to include all their needs and services to ensure they knew how to take care of the resident. 3.Record review of Resident #9's face sheet dated 04/23/2025, revealed Resident # 9 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of vascular dementia (a form of dementia caused by reduced blood flow to the brain, leading to cognitive decline), bipolar disorder (a mental illness characterized by extreme shifts in mood, energy, and activity levels, including both manic (elevated mood) and depressive (low mood) periods), and mild cognitive impairment of uncertain or unknown etiology(memory and thinking problems that are more pronounced than normal aging but don't meet the criteria for dementia). Record review of Resident #9's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 understood and could make herself understood by others. Resident #9 had a BIMS score of 09 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed Resident #9 had no behaviors or refusal of care. Record review of Resident #9's comprehensive care plan, dated 11/01/2024, indicated a risk for wondering and elopement. Goals: the resident will not leave the facility unattended. Interventions: clearly identify resident's room and bathroom. Identify if there was a certain time of day the resident's wandering and elopement attempts. The care plan did not address the memory care unit. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 9:09 a.m., the MDS Coordinator stated she was the one responsible for completing the residents' care plans. The MDS Coordinator stated the care plan should be done on admission, quarterly, and with a change in condition. The MDS Coordinator said Resident #9 residing on the memory care unit should have been included in her care plan. The MDS Coordinator said Resident #6's use of clozapine should have been included in her care plan. The MDS Coordinator said Resident #6's PASRR positive status should have been in her care plan. The MDS Coordinator stated because of the changeover things had been missed. The MDS Coordinator stated if the residents do not have a care plan, there would be a possibility of confusion about the care to be provided or the care would be not provided at all. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:44 AM, the Administrator said his expectations for the residents' care plans were for the care plans to reflect the services the residents were receiving. The Administrator said the IDT was responsible for ensuring the residents' care plans included all the services they received. The Administrator said there was a potential, if the residents care plan did not reflect everything, that they may miss out on services or orders they needed. Record review of the facility's policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised March 2022 indicated, Policy Statement A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident. 2. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan is developed within seven (7) days of the completion of the required MDS assessment (Admission, Annual or Significant Change in Status), and no more than 21 days after admission. 3. The care plan interventions arc derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment . 11. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change .
CONCERN (E)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents fed by enteral means received the ap...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for 1 of 3 resident (Resident #41) reviewed for enteral nutrition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #41's physician's order for her enteral feedings (a form of nutrition that is delivered into the digestive system as a liquid form via the feeding tube) indicated the type of feeding she was supposed to have been receiving. This failure could affect residents receiving enteral nutrition and hydration by placing them at risk of health complications. Findings included: Record review of Resident #41's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy (a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture), epilepsy (seizures), hypertension (high blood pressure), and gastrostomy status (surgical opening in stomach to provide nutrition and medications). Record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #41 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #41 had a BIMS score of 2, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. Resident #41 was dependent on staff with toileting, showering, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident #41 had a feeding tube and had not had any weight loss/gain of 5% or more in the last month or 10% or more in the last 6 months. Record review of Resident #41's comprehensive care plan dated 04/04/25, indicated Resident #41 required a feeding tube related to dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), medical condition of cerebral palsy, swallowing problem, and required gastrostomy tube to aide in her nutritional needs. The care plan interventions indicated to assist with administration of tube feeding and water flushes per MD order. The care plan did not specify the type of feeding Resident #41 required. Record review of Resident #41's order dated 01/01/25, indicated to give one can (237ml) bolus feeding via gastrostomy tube 5 times a day for supplement. The order did not indicate the type of feeding Resident #41 required. Record review of Resident #41's nursing MAR dated 04/01/25-04/30/25, indicated Resident #41 received one can of bolus feeding via her gastrostomy tube 5 times a day at 2:00 AM, 07:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 9:00 PM. The MAR did not indicate the type of feeding Resident #41 was supposed to receive. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 10:45 AM, Resident #41 had an 8-ounce carton of Jevity 1.5 cal sitting on her nightstand. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 2:22 PM, Resident #41 continued to have the 8-ounce carton of Jevity 1.5 cal sitting on her nightstand. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 2:48 PM, LVN C said Resident #41 received Jevity 1.5 cal five times a day. LVN C said since Resident #41's enteral feeding order did not specify the type of feeding she could receive any type of formula. She said this could cause Resident #41 to have an adverse reaction. LVN C said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the order was accurate with the specific enteral feeding to be administered. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:03 AM, the DON said the specific enteral feeding to be used should be on the order. The DON said failure to specify the feeding to be administered could place the resident at risk to receive the wrong feeding. The DON said it was the ADON's and her responsibility to ensure the orders were accurately transcribed. The DON said she reviewed orders daily during morning meeting. The DON said she was unsure of how the order was missed. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected Resident #41's order to specify the enteral feeding she required. The Administrator said it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure the correct feeding was being administered to Resident #41. He said by not specifying the feeding required placed Resident #41 at risk for receiving the wrong feeding. Record review of the facility's policy Enteral Nutrition revised February 2018, indicated . Adequate nutritional support through enteral nutrition is provided to residents as ordered . 11. The Nurse confirms that orders for enteral nutrition are complete. Complete orders include: a. the enteral nutrition product .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that licensed staff were able to demonstrate 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 ensure that licensed staff were able to demonstrate the specific competencies and skill sets necessary to care for resident's needs for 3 of 3 staff (MA G, MA F, and LVN C) reviewed for competencies. The facility failed to ensure MA G, MA F, and LVN C were competent in medication administration. This failure could potentially affect residents by placing them at an increased and unnecessary risk of exposure to staff who lack the appropriate skills and competencies to provide safe care and minimize infections. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #41's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy (a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture), epilepsy (seizures), hypertension (high blood pressure), and gastrostomy status (surgical opening in stomach to provide nutrition and medications). Record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #41 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #41 had a BIMS score of 2, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #41 had an active diagnosis of hypertension. Record review of Resident #41's comprehensive care plan dated 01/13/25, indicated Resident #41 had hypertension. The care plan interventions indicated to give antihypertensive medications as ordered. Record review of Resident #41's order summary report dated 04/24/25, indicated she had an order for metoprolol tartrate 100mg give one tablet enterally one time a day related to hypertension with a start date of 01/01/25. The order indicated to hold if SBP less than 110 or DBP is less than 65. Record review of Resident #41's Nursing MAR dated 04/01/25-04/30/25, indicated Resident #41 had an order for metoprolol 100mg tablet give one tablet in the morning with instructions to hold for SBP less than 110 or DBP less than 65. On 04/13/25 at 08:00 AM, Resident #41's blood pressure was 104/72. The MAR had a check mark which indicated Resident #41 was administered a metoprolol 100 mg tablet outside the parameters by LVN C. On 04/16/25 at 08:00 AM, Resident #41's blood pressure was 97/59. The MAR had a check mark which indicated Resident #41 was administered a metoprolol 100 mg tablet outside the parameters by LVN C. On 04/21/25 at 08:00 AM, Resident #41's blood pressure was 106/81. The MAR had a check mark which indicated Resident #41 was administered a metoprolol 100 mg tablet outside the parameters by LVN C. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 3:41 PM, LVN C said a check mark on the medication administration record indicated the medication was administered. LVN C reviewed Resident #41's MAR and said Resident #41's received the metoprolol tablet on 04/13/25, 04/16/25, and 04/21/25 when her blood pressure was outside of the ordered parameters. LVN C said according to Resident #41's parameters the metoprolol should have been held. LVN C said it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure medications were being administered as per the physician's orders. LVN C said she had been checked off on medication administration competency. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #23 was an [AGE] year-old female initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), heart failure (chronic, progressive condition in which the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs for blood and oxygen), and essential primary hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #23 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #23 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #23 was dependent for toileting and showering/bathing self, independent for eating, and required partial to moderate assistance with ADLs. Record review of Resident #23's care plan with a target date of 11/17/2024 indicated she had hypertension, and the goal was for her blood pressure to be within normal limits with an intervention to evaluate blood pressure. Record review of Resident #23's Order Summary Report dated 04/23/2025 indicated, she had an order for metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60 with a start date of 10/26/2024. Record review of Resident #23's April 2025 MAR indicated metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60. o On 04/07/2025 Resident #23's blood pressure was 104/59 the MAR indicated Resident #23's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA G. o On 04/20/2025 Resident #23's blood pressure was 106/74 the MAR indicated Resident #23's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. 3. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #31 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage heart failure (heart's ability to pump blood effectively is severely impaired, leading to progressive symptoms and a reduced quality of life) and essential primary hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated, he was understood by others and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #31 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #31 required substantial/maximal with toileting, showering/bathing, and set-up or cleanup assistance with personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #31's care plan revised 04/11/2025, indicated he was at risk for decreased cardiac output related to a diagnosis of hypertension with a goal for his blood pressure would be within normal limits and an intervention to evaluate his blood pressure. Record review of Resident #31's Order Summary Report dated 04/23/2025 indicated, he had an order for metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60 with a start date of 10/17/2024. Record review of Resident #31's April 2025 MAR indicated metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60. o On 04/02/2025 Resident #31's blood pressure was 109/62 the MAR indicated Resident #31's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. o On 04/08/2025 Resident #31's blood pressure was 101/63 the MAR indicated Resident #31's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. o On 04/20/2025 Resident #31's blood pressure was 104/64 the MAR indicated Resident #31's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. During an interview on 04/22/2025 at 1:34 PM, MA F said blood pressure medication should be held for blood pressure less than 100/60. MA F said she was not sure if she had administered Resident #23's and Resident #31's blood pressure medications when their blood pressure was out of parameters, but she thought she had not. MA F said when a medication was documented as administered on the MAR it indicated it was administered. MA F said if the medication was held the medication would not be documented as administered. MA F said giving a blood pressure medication when the blood pressure was not within parameters could result in heart failure and death. During an attempted phone interview on 04/22/2025 at 2:00 PM, MA G did not answer the phone. During an attempted phone interview on 04/23/2025 at 3:28 PM, MA G did not answer the phone. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:11 AM, the ADON said she was still looking for the nurse competencies because they were under the previous facility. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:14 AM, the DON said the nurse or medication aide should be checking the parameters of blood pressure medications when they administered them. The DON said correct administration of medications was being monitored by competency check offs and if they were notified of an issue, they conducted another check off. The DON said the ADON and herself reviewed the MARs and they had not noticed any discrepancies. The DON said it was hard for them to review the MARs, when they had to work the floor. The DON said if blood pressure medication was administered with the blood pressure being too low it could lower the blood pressure, but she could not speculate on what could happen to the residents. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:20 AM, the ADON said when she reviewed the MARs, she had noticed some medications not documented as administered, but as far as the medications being administered with the blood pressure out of parameters, she had not noticed any issues. The ADON said if a resident received blood pressure medication when their blood pressure was low, their blood pressure could be lowered more, and they could pass out from the low blood pressure or fall. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:44 AM, the Administrator said if a resident's blood pressure was out of parameters, he expected the staff to re-check the residents blood pressure. The Administrator said the nurses and medication aides were responsible for ensuring the residents' blood pressures were within parameters before administering blood pressure medications to them. The Administrator said if they noticed there was an issue with medication administrator nursing and himself were responsible for ensuring the medication aides and nurses were doing their job appropriately. The Administrator said to his knowledge there was not an accountability system in place for monitoring that the residents were receiving medications appropriately. The Administrator said if you were giving medications that were designed for a specific purpose and it was outside of the parameters it could have a negative impact on a person's health. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 12:32 PM, the Administrator said they did not have any competency checks for the nurses and medication aides, so they would not be able to produce them. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 12:39 PM, the Administrator said they had not completed any competency checks for the nurses and medication aides through their current company, and he did not have a file with them from the previous company. The Administrator said he took responsibility for not having the competency checks. The Administrator said the competency checks were necessary to ensure the staff was competent. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 1:00 PM, the DON said nursing administration was responsible for ensuring the competency checks for the nurses and medication aides were completed. The DON said competency checks were completed with the previous company, but they did not have them. The DON said the medication pass audit completed by the pharmacist was the facility's competency check for the medication aides because who better to do it than the pharmacist. The DON said if the competency checks were not completed, they could not say the staff performed skills correctly. The DON said competency checks were supposed to be completed as needed and upon hire. Record review of a Medication Pass Audit for MA F, completed by the pharmacist, dated 01/23/2024 indicated, she did not administer medications in accordance with current physician orders, did not check each medication package against the MAR before administering medications to the resident, and did not ensure the medication cart was locked while she was in the room. She did check blood pressure prior to medication administration when appropriate, and she charted administration of medications or charted held or refused meds immediately after medication administration. Record review of a Medication Pass Audit for MA G, completed by the pharmacist, dated 03/22/2024 indicated, she administered medications in accordance with current physician orders, blood pressure was taken prior to medication administration when appropriate, the medication cart was locked at all times, and she charted administration of medications or charted held or refused meds immediately after medication administration. Record review of the facility's policy, Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing, revised August 2022, indicated, Our facility provides sufficient numbers of nursing staff with the appropriate skills and competency necessary to provide nursing and related care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment .1. Competency is a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully. 2. All nursing staff must meet the specific competency requirements of their respective licensure and certification requirements defined by state law. 3. Staff must demonstrate the skills and techniques necessary to care for resident needs including (but not limited to) the following areas . j. Medication management . Competency requirements and training for nursing staff are established and monitored by nursing leadership. Record review of the Facility Assessment, dated 01/15/2025, indicated, .Staff Competency . competency demonstrations, certifications, educational and training requirements, etc., are reviewed/verified, as appropriate, at the time of hire, before position changes, annually, and/or as needed. We measure staff competence through knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that staff need to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully as determined by the care needs of our resident population. Documentation of these reviews are maintained as part of our facility's employment history records .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors for...

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 residents were free of significant medication errors for 3 of 10 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident #'s 23, 31 and 41) 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #41's metoprolol (blood pressure medication) was not administered when her blood pressure was outside of the ordered parameters on 04/13/2025, 04/16/2025, and 04/21/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure MA G and MA F did not administer Resident #23's metoprolol (blood pressure medication) on 04/07/2025 and 04/20/2025, when her blood pressure was not within the required parameters per the physician's order. 3. The facility failed to ensure MA F did not administer Resident #31's metoprolol (blood pressure medication) on 04/02/2025, 04/08/2025, and 04/20/2025, when his blood pressure was not within the required parameters per the physician's order. These failures could place the resident at risk of medical complications and not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #41's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy (a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture), epilepsy (seizures), hypertension (high blood pressure), and gastrostomy status (surgical opening in stomach to provide nutrition and medications). Record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #41 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #41 had a BIMS score of 2, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #41 had an active diagnosis of hypertension. Record review of Resident #41's comprehensive care plan dated 01/13/25, indicated Resident #41 had hypertension. The care plan interventions indicated to give antihypertensive medications as ordered. Record review of Resident #41's order summary report dated 04/24/25, indicated she had an order for metoprolol tartrate 100mg give one tablet enterally one time a day related to hypertension with a start date of 01/01/25. The order indicated to hold if SBP was less than 110 or DBP was less than 65. Record review of Resident #41's Nursing MAR dated 04/01/25-04/30/25, indicated Resident #41 had an order for metoprolol 100mg tablet give one tablet in the morning with instructions to hold for SBP less than 110 or DBP less than 65. o On 04/13/25 at 08:00 AM, Resident #41's blood pressure was 104/72. The MAR had a check mark which indicated Resident #41 was administered a metoprolol 100 mg tablet outside the parameters by LVN C. o On 04/16/25 at 08:00 AM, Resident #41's blood pressure was 97/59. The MAR had a check mark which indicated Resident #41 was administered a metoprolol 100 mg tablet outside the parameters by LVN C. o On 04/21/25 at 08:00 AM, Resident #41's blood pressure was 106/81. The MAR had a check mark which indicated Resident #41 was administered a metoprolol 100 mg tablet outside the parameters by LVN C. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 3:41 PM, LVN C said a check mark on the medication administration record indicated the medication was administered. LVN C reviewed Resident #41's MAR and said Resident #41's received the metoprolol tablet on 04/13/25, 04/16/25, and 04/21/25 when her blood pressure was outside of the ordered parameters. LVN C said failure to hold her blood pressure medication placed Resident #41 at risk for her blood pressure dropping. LVN C said according to Resident #41's parameters the metoprolol should have been held. LVN C said it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure medications were being administered as per the physician's orders. LVN C said she had been checked off on medication administration competency. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #23 was an [AGE] year-old female initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), heart failure (chronic, progressive condition in which the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs for blood and oxygen), and essential primary hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #23 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #23 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Record review of Resident #23's care plan with a target date of 11/17/2024 indicated she had hypertension, and the goal was for her blood pressure to be within normal limits with an intervention to evaluate blood pressure. Record review of Resident #23's Order Summary Report dated 04/23/2025 indicated, she had an order for metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60 with a start date of 10/26/2024. Record review of Resident #23's April 2025 MAR indicated metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60. On 04/07/2025 Resident #23's blood pressure was 104/59, the MAR indicated Resident #23's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA G. On 04/20/2025 Resident #23's blood pressure was 106/74, the MAR indicated Resident #23's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. 3. Record review of a face sheet dated 04/23/2025 indicated Resident #31 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage heart failure (heart's ability to pump blood effectively is severely impaired, leading to progressive symptoms and a reduced quality of life) and essential primary hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated, he was understood by others and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #31 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. Record review of Resident #31's care plan revised 04/11/2025, indicated he was at risk for decreased cardiac output related to a diagnosis of hypertension with a goal for his blood pressure would be within normal limits and an intervention to evaluate his blood pressure. Record review of Resident #31's Order Summary Report dated 04/23/2025 indicated, he had an order for metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60 with a start date of 10/17/2024. Record review of Resident #31's April 2025 MAR indicated metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth hold for systolic blood pressure less than 110 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60. On 04/02/2025 Resident #31's blood pressure was 109/62, the MAR indicated Resident #31's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. On 04/08/2025 Resident #31's blood pressure was 101/63, the MAR indicated Resident #31's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. On 04/20/2025 Resident #31's blood pressure was 104/64, the MAR indicated Resident #31's metoprolol was documented as administered by MA F. During an interview on 04/22/2025 at 1:34 PM, MA F said blood pressure medication should be held for blood pressure less than 100/60. MA F said she was not sure if she had administered Resident #23's and Resident #31's blood pressure medications when their blood pressure was out of parameters, but she thought she had not. MA F said when a medication was documented as administered on the MAR it indicated it was administered. MA F said if the medication was held the medication would not be documented as administered. MA F said giving a blood pressure medication when the blood pressure was not within parameters could result in heart failure and death. During an attempted phone interview on 04/22/2025 at 2:00 PM, MA G did not answer the phone. During an attempted phone interview on 04/23/2025 at 3:28 PM, MA G did not answer the phone. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:14 AM, the DON said the nurse or medication aide should be checking the parameters of blood pressure medications when they administered them. The DON said correct administration of medications was being monitored by competency check offs and if they were notified of an issue, they conducted another check off. The DON said the ADON and herself reviewed the MARs and they had not noticed any discrepancies. The DON said it was hard for them to review the MARs, when they had to work the floor. The DON said if blood pressure medication was administered with the blood pressure being too low it could lower the blood pressure, but she could not speculate on what could happen to the residents. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:20 AM, the ADON said when she reviewed the MARs, she had noticed some medications not documented as administered, but as far as the medications being administered with the blood pressure out of parameters, she had not noticed any issues. The ADON said if a resident received blood pressure medication when their blood pressure was low, their blood pressure could be lowered more, and they could pass out from the low blood pressure or fall. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:44 AM, the Administrator said if a resident's blood pressure was out of parameters, he expected the staff to re-check the residents blood pressure. The Administrator said the nurses and medication aides were responsible for ensuring the residents' blood pressures were within parameters before administering blood pressure medications to them. The Administrator said if they noticed there was an issue with medication administrator nursing and himself were responsible for ensuring the medication aides and nurses were doing their job appropriately. The Administrator said to his knowledge there was not an accountability system in place for monitoring that the residents were receiving medications appropriately. The Administrator said if you were giving medications that were designed for a specific purpose and it was outside of the parameters it could have a negative impact on a person's health. Record review of a Medication Pass Audit for MA F, completed by the pharmacist, dated 01/23/2024 indicated, she did not administer medications in accordance with current physician orders and did not check each medication package against the MAR before administering medications to the resident. She did check blood pressure prior to medication administration when appropriate, and she charted administration of medications or charted held or refused meds immediately after medication administration. Record review of a Medication Pass Audit for MA G, completed by the pharmacist, dated 03/22/2024 indicated, she administered medications in accordance with current physician orders, blood pressure was taken prior to medication administration when appropriate, and she charted administration of medications or charted held or refused meds immediately after medication administration. Record review of the facility's policy Medication and Treatment Orders revised July 2016, indicated . Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principles of safe and effective order writing.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Record review of Resident #10's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [D...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Record review of Resident #10's face sheet dated 04/23/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction (stroke), hypertension (high blood pressure), right upper arm muscle wasting and atrophy (loss of muscle mass and strength), and right-hand contracture. Record review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated he was sometimes understood and sometimes understood others. Resident #10 had short term/long term memory problems and his cognition was severely impaired. Record review of Resident #10's comprehensive care plan dated 11/11/24, indicated Resident #10 was at risk for impaired skin integrity. The care plan interventions included to evaluate skin areas for blanching or redness and provide skin care per facility guidelines. Record review of Resident #10's order summary report dated 04/23/25, indicated he had an order for clobetasol cream 0.05% apply to dry patchy areas of skin topically as needed with a start date of 09/18/24. Record review of Resident #10's treatment administration record dated 04/01/25-04/30/25, indicated Resident #10 had an order for clobetasol cream 0.5% apply to dry, patchy areas of skin topically as needed. The treatment administration record indicated Resident #10 had only received the clobetasol cream on 04/09/25. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 09:47 AM, revealed Resident #10 had a Clobetasol propionate cream on his nightstand. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 1:42 PM, revealed Resident #10 continued to have the Clobetasol propionate cream on his nightstand. During an observation on 04/22/25 at 08:34 AM, revealed Resident #10 continued to have the Clobetasol propionate cream on his nightstand. During an observation on 04/22/25 at 2:20 PM, revealed Resident #10 continued to have the Clobetasol propionate cream on his nightstand. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 2:48 PM, LVN C said Resident #10 should not have medications at bedside because the resident or another resident could get ahold of it. LVN C said anyone who cared for the resident was responsible for ensuring the medications were properly secured. 4. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 10:08 AM revealed the 200-hall medication cart was unattended and unlocked. Staff and residents were noted to be walking next to the unlocked medication cart. MA G exited a resident's room and said she should not have left the medication cart unlocked. MA G said she forgot to lock the medication cart because she was in a hurry to administer the resident her medication. MA G said someone could get medication out of the unlocked medication cart. MA G said it was her responsibility in ensuring the medication carts were locked when leaving them unattended. 5. During an observation interview on 04/22/25 at 09:21 AM, revealed MA F went into a resident's room to administer her routine medications. MA F left the 200-hall medication cart unlocked with the keys attached to the narcotic drawer. MA F turned her back to the cart. MA F said she thought it was okay to leave the cart unlocked if it was facing the room. MA F said she should not have left the keys attached to cart because someone could get into it. MA F said it was her responsibility to ensure the cart was locked when turning her back to it and keeping the keys in her possession. During an interview on 4/23/25 at 2:17 PM, LVN D said the keys should not be left on the cart or the cart unlocked when going in a resident's room because it not was not within the view of the person responsible for the medication carts. LVN D said anyone passing by could get into the cart and obtain medication. LVN D said the person administering the medications was responsible for ensuring the cart was kept locked and the keys in their possession. During an interview on 04/24/24 at 09:03 AM, the DON said she expected medication carts to be to be locked when stepping away and medications to be properly secured. The DON said there was a potential for a drug diversion or someone getting in the medication cart by not locking the medication cart. The DON said there should not have been medications at bedside unless the residents were able to safely administer their medications. She said she currently did not have any residents at the facility that were deemed safe to administer their own medications. The DON said by not properly securing medications placed the residents at risk for potentially taking the medication. The DON said it was the medication aide and nurse's responsibility in ensuring the carts were locked and medications were properly stored. During an interview on 04/24/25 at 09:58 AM, the Administrator said he expected medication carts to be to be locked when stepping away and for medications to be properly secured. He said failure to lock the medication carts was a potential for someone to get into the cart and obtain something that did not belong to them. He said by not properly securing medications could place the residents at risk for potentially taking the medication without appropriate orders. The Administrator said it was the medication aide and nurses' responsibility in ensuring the carts were locked and medications were properly stored. Record review of the facility's policy Storage of Medications revised November 2020, indicated . The facility stores all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner . 1. Drugs and biologicals used in the facility are stored in locked compartments under proper temperature, light and humidity controls. Only persons authorized to prepare and administer medications have access to locked medications . 6. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals are locked when not in use. Unlocked medication carts are not left unattended . Record review of the facility's policy titled, Controlled Substance, revised 11/2022 indicated Controlled Substance are separately locked in a permanently affixed compartment Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #'s 55 and 10), 1 of 5 medication carts (200 hall medication cart), and 1 of 1 medication storage rooms reviewed for drugs and biologicals. 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #55's Rexall (pain/ fever relief), Purzee (sleep supplement), and Melatonin (sleep aid) were properly safe and secured on 04/23/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure a lock box in the Medication Room refrigerator with 2 bottles of Lorazepam (controlled medication for anxiety) was permanently affixed. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's clobetasol cream (used to reduce swelling, redness, itching, and rashes caused by skin conditions) was properly secured and not left on his nightstand on 04/21/25 and 04/22/25. 4. The facility failed to ensure MA G secured the 200 hall Medication Cart when she left it unattended on 04/21/25. 5. The facility failed to ensure MA F secured the 200 hall Medication Cart when she turned away from it on 04/22/25. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving drugs and biologicals as needed, medication errors, medication misuse, and drug diversion. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #55's face sheet dated 04/23/2025, revealed Resident # 55 was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy ( a brain dysfunction caused by underlying metabolic disorders or conditions that disrupt the brain's energy supply or chemical balance), type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia ( a person diagnosed with type 2 diabetes has persistently high blood sugar levels), essential (primary) hypertension ( the most common type of high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #55's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #55 understood and could make herself understood by others. Resident #55 had a BIMS of 13 which indicated cognitive function intact. Record review of Resident #55's care plan dated 03/25/2025 indicated Resident #55's Goal: would be free of pain and discomfort. Interventions: elevate pain, utilize non-medication intervention for pain relief. Focus: risk for insomnia. Goal: resident will achieve and maintain a consistent sleep pattern. Interventions: establish bedtime routine with resident, evaluate for history of sleep-disordered breathing (periods of apnea, prior Use of CPAP/BiPAP), evaluate for respiratory distress when lying flat or while sleeping, evaluate medication schedule and possible pharmacologic causes of insomnia. During an observation and interview on 04/23/2025 at 9:34 a.m., revealed a bottle of Rexall, Purzee and Melatonin were on Resident #55's bedside table. Resident #55 stated a family member brought him the medication to take when he needed help sleeping. Record review of the order summary report dated 04/23/2025 did not address the use of Rexall (pain/ fever relief), Purzee (sleep supplement), and Melatonin. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 11:40 a.m., MA F stated she saw the medication on the bedside table on 04/22/2025 and told LVN C. MA F stated the resident should not have medication at the bedside. MA F stated it was important for the resident to not have the medication because he could take too much or take it at any time. MA F stated the failure was the resident could take too much medication or another resident could take the medication. During an attempted interview on 04/23/2025 at 2:15 p.m., the surveyor attempted to contact LVN C by phone. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 4:16 p.m., LVN D stated she did not know Resident #55 had medication on his bedside table. LVN D went into Resident #55's room and removed the medication. LVND stated it was important to know what the resident was taking so he did not overdose or have a adverse reaction. LVN D stated the failure was his roommate could have taken the medication. 2.During an observation of the Medication Room and interview with the DON on 04/23/2025 at 3:53 p.m., revealed a lock box was in the medication refrigerator. The DON took the clear plastic lock box out of the refrigerator, and there were 2 bottles of Lorazepam inside the lock box. The lock box was not affixed to the refrigerator. The DON stated she thought they had it locked correctly. The DON stated it was her and the charge nurse's responsibility to make sure the narcotic was locked. The DON stated it was important to make sure the narcotics were lock because they were controlled substance and did not want a drug diversion. The DON stated the failure was the narcotics could be taken just like any other medication could be. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:00 a.m., the DON stated she did not know the narcotic lock box had to be affixed to the refrigerator. The DON stated it was her and responsibility to ensure the lock box was affixed to the refrigerator. The DON stated the failure was a possible drug diversion. During an interview on 05/24/2025 at 10:46 a.m., the Administrator stated lock boxes containing controlled medications should be affixed. The Administrator stated the DON was responsible for ensuring the lock boxes were affixed. The Administrator stated it was important for the lock boxes with controlled medications to be affixed so they were not removed easily from the facility or that room because they were a controlled substance.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 3 meals reviewed for palatab...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 3 meals reviewed for palatability, attractiveness, and appetizing. The dietary staff failed to provide food that was palatable for 1 of 3 meals observed on 4/22/2025 (lunch) meal. The failure could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hunger, and unwanted weight loss. The findings included: Record review of the menu indicated the lunch meal items on 4/22/2025 included chicken enchiladas, Spanish rice, refried beans, and churro bites. During an interview on 04/21/2025 beginning at 09:39 a.m., Resident # 29 stated sometimes the food was good and sometimes the food was bad. Resident #29 stated the food was a hit and miss. During an interview on 04/21/25 at 12:05 p.m., Resident #26 stated the food was not good. Resident #26 stated the food was not good because of the taste and sometimes she received the food cold. During an interview on 04/21/25 at 09:46 a.m., Resident #56 stated his eggs were cold most of the time. During a confidential group meeting on 04/22/2025 beginning at 10:30 AM, the resident group said the food had a lot of herbs and the food was cold. During an observation and tasting of the lunch meal on 4/22/2025 at 12:20 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated the chicken enchiladas were good in flavor; the Spanish rice was bland and not hot, but lukewarm; the refried beans had a good temp; and the churros were bland tasting. The Dietary Manager stated she was not sure how the churros were supposed to taste. During observation and tasting of lunch meal on 4/22/25 at 12:20 p.m., five Surveyors stated the chicken enchiladas were good in flavor; the Spanish rice was bland and not hot; the refried beans had a good temp; the churros were bland tasting and did not have the cinnamon sugar taste. During an interview on 4/23/25 at 2:22 p.m., the dietary manager stated she had been the dietary manager for 2 years. The Dietary Manager stated she oversaw the dietary staff at the facility. The Dietary Manager stated the Administrator was her manager. The Dietary Manager stated she tasted the foods in the kitchen once a week. The Dietary Manager stated she made sure staff were following the recipe book by making sure staff looked at the recipe book so that staff knew what ingredients to use. The Dietary Manager stated staff was last in-service on the recipe book on 3/10/25. The Dietary Manager stated she handled food complaints from the residents by talking to the residents that complained about the food and addressing the food complaints while also letting the residents know that it would not happen again. The Dietary Manager stated it was important that food was palatable, attractive, and appetizing to the residents for the residents health. Record review of the Dietary staff in-services indicated following the recipe in-service was last completed on 3/10/25. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 8:44 a.m., the Administrator stated he had been employed at the facility since 8/1/22. The Administrator stated he oversaw the Dietary Manager. The Administrator stated yes, he tried to order test trays a few times a month but would love to order a test tray a few times a week, but he got busy. The Administrator stated the residents did complain about the food at the facility. The Administrator stated food complaints were handled as such by offering alternative meals to the residents. The Administrator stated, I got as many food complaints as I got for raises at the facility. The Administrator stated, You can never please everyone when it comes to food; the facility has the best food. The Administrator stated he did not know when the in-services on the following the recipe book had been last completed. The Administrator stated the Dietary Manager conducted rounds every month and she did the in-services monthly with the dietary staff. A policy on following the recipes was not received prior to exit on 4/24/25 at 8:44 a.m.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in (1 of 1) kitch...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in (1 of 1) kitchen and 1 of 4 halls (Hall 400) reviewed for dietary services, in that: 1) The dietary staff failed to label and date all food items. 2) The dietary staff failed to discard expired food items. 3)CNA A did not sanitize her hands in between passing meal trays on the 400 hall. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings included: During an observation of Freezer #1 with the Dietary Manager on 4/21/25 at 9:02 a.m., the following was observed: -(1) container of cranberry juice had no prep date and had a use by date of 4/20/25. -(1) 5-pound container of sour cream had an open date of 4/11/25 and expiration date of 4/18/25. - (1) 1/2-quart container of orange juice was not labeled and had no preparation date or expiration date. - (1) container of Kool aide had a no preparation date and had an expiration date of 4/20/25. - (1) container of unsweet tea had no preparation date and had an expiration date of 4/20/25. -(1) package of salami lunch meat had an open date of 4/12/25 and an expiration date of 4/19/25. During an observation of the dry storage area with the Dietary Manager on 4/21/25 at 9:17 a.m., the following was observed: -(1) 5 liters of rotini pasta was not labeled and had no open date and no expiration date. During an observation of the kitchen area with the Dietary Manager on 4/21/25 at 9:21 a.m., the following was observed: -(1) 4.25 ounce of cilantro had an open date of 10/24/24 and an expiration date of 12/01/24. During an interview on 4/23/25 at 2:34 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated she had been the Dietary Manager for 2 years. The Dietary Manager stated she oversaw the dietary staff at the facility. The Dietary Manager stated the Administrator oversaw her at the facility. The Dietary Manager stated all food items in the refrigerator were to be labeled, dated with the receive date, open date and expiration date. The Dietary Manager stated staff completed in-services on labeling and dating all food items on 4/21/25. The Administrator stated she conducted a daily walk through in the kitchen. The Dietary Manager stated the Administrator conducted weekly walk throughs in the kitchen. The Dietary Manager stated it was important to ensure staff were labeling, dating and discarding expired refrigerator and kitchen food items to make sure food was within reasonable date so that the food would not cause any danger to the residents like salmonella. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 8:48 a.m., the Administrator stated he had been employed at the facility since 8/1/2022. The Administrator stated he oversaw the Dietary Manager. The Administrator stated all food items in the refrigerator were to be labeled, dated with receive date, open date and expiration date. The Administrator stated in-services on labeling, dating, and discarding expired food items was last completed this week. The Administrator stated he conducted walk throughs in the kitchen once a week at least and most of the week was more than one time a week. The Administrator stated he was made aware of expired food item food in the kitchen from the Dietary Manager this week. The Administrator stated he did expect the Dietary Manager to report issues found in the kitchen to him. The Administrator stated, It was important to ensure staff were labeling, dating and discarding expired refrigerator and frozen food items because we can't give expired food products in our recipe and cannot give expired food to the residents. Record Review of the Dietary staff in-services indicated following the food labeling and dating in-service was last completed on 4/21/25. 2)During an interview and observation on 4/22/25 at 12:15 p.m., revealed CNA A did not sanitize between passing meal trays on the 400 hall. CNA A stated she had the hand sanitizer in her pocket and had forgot to sanitize her hands in between passing the meal trays on the 400 hall. During a phone interview on 4/22/25 at 2:15p.m., CNA A stated she had been employed at the facility for 22 years. CNA A stated her job title was CNA. CNA A stated she worked the 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. shift at the facility. CNA A stated she completed hand washing in-services a few weeks ago, maybe a month ago. CNA A stated the facility went over hand washing very frequently. CNA A stated she was supposed to sanitize her hands in between passing out the meal trays. CNA A stated her nerves was the reason she did not hand sanitize her hands in between passing meal trays. CNA A stated she kept a bottle of hand sanitizer in her pockets. CNA A stated the charge nurse oversaw her. CNA A stated it was important to ensure she was sanitizing her hands in between passing meal trays for infection control. During an interview on 4/22/25 at 2:38 p.m. LVN B stated she oversaw CNA A when she worked the floor. LVN B stated she worked the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift. LVN B stated she had been employed at the facility for 2 years. LVN B stated she was not made aware of CNA A not sanitizing her hands in between passing the meal trays. LVN B stated staff were to sanitize their hands in between passing meal trays. LVN B stated she did not remember when the last in-service was last completed on hand hygiene. LVN B stated the DON oversaw her. LVN B stated she ensured staff sanitized their hands by making sure hand sanitation was available and by reminding staff to use the hand sanitation. LVN B stated it was important to ensure staff was sanitizing their hands in between passing meal trays because of infection control and to prevent cross contamination. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 8:34 a.m., the DON stated she oversaw the nurses at the facility. The DON stated she had been employed at the facility since 10/1/24. The DON stated she was made aware of CNA A not sanitizing her hands in between passing meals on the 400 hall until the surveyor had told her. The DON stated staff were to sanitize their hands in between passing meal trays. The DON stated she did not know when the last in-service on hand sanitation was last completed by all staff at the facility. The DON stated CNA A was in-serviced on hand sanitation on the same day she was made aware of this incident. The DON stated the Administrator oversaw her at the facility. The DON stated she ensured staff were sanitizing their hands in between passing meal trays by completing in-services and monitoring the dining room. The DON stated it was important to ensure staff were sanitizing their hands in between passing meal trays for safety of the resident. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 8:41 a.m., the Administrator stated he oversaw the DON. The Administrator stated he had been employed at the facility since 8/1/22. The Administrator stated he was made aware by the DON of CNA A not sanitizing her hands in between passing meals on the 400 hall on 4/22/25. The Administrator stated staff were to sanitize their hands in between passing meal trays. The Administrator stated he did not know when the last in-service on hand sanitation was completed. The Administrator stated, He ensured staff were sanitizing their hands in between passing meal trays because that's our protocol; I expect them to follow protocol. The Administrator stated it was important to ensure staff were sanitizing their hands in between passing meal trays to prevent cross contamination and infection control. Record review of hand hygiene policy dated August 2019 indicated, Policy Statement: I. All personnel shall be trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections; 2. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors; 3. Hand hygiene products and supplies (sinks, soap, towels, alcohol-based hand rub, etc.) shall be readily accessible and convenient for staff use to encourage compliance with hand hygiene policies. Record review of food receiving, and storage policy revised dated on 11/2022 indicated, (1) All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer are covered, labeled and dated (use by date). Record Review of food policy dated 12/01/11 indicated, Refrigerators: (a). All refrigerated foods are stored per state and federal guidelines; (e) All refrigerated foods are dated, labeled and tightly sealed, including leftovers, using clean, nonabsorbent, covered containers that are approved for food storage. All leftovers are used within 48 hours. Items that are over 48 hours old are discarded.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0940 (Tag F0940)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for existing staff, consistent with their expected roles for 5 of 21 employe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for existing staff, consistent with their expected roles for 5 of 21 employees (Administrator, DON, ADON, LVN D, and LVN O) reviewed for required trainings. The facility failed to ensure the Administrator, DON, ADON, LVN D, and LVN O received HIV training upon hire on 10/01/2024. The facility failed to ensure the Administrator, DON, ADON, LVN D, and LVN O received Restraint training upon hire on 10/01/2024. These failures could place residents at risk for the inappropriate use of restraints and exposure to HIV. Findings included: Record review of the employee files revealed there was no HIV training completed upon hire for the following staff: *Administrator (hire date 10/01/2024), *DON (hire date 10/01/2024), *ADON (hire date 10/01/2024), *LVN D (hire date 10/01/2024), *LVN O (hire date 10/01/2024), Record review of the employee files revealed there was no resistant training completed upon hire for the following staff: *Administrator (hire date 10/01/2024), *DON (hire date 10/01/2024), *ADON (hire date 10/01/2024), *LVN D (hire date 10/01/2024), *LVN O (hire date 10/01/2024), Record review on 04/24/2025 of the employee files did not indicate the Administrator, DON, ADON, LVN D, and LVN O hire dates. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 10:53 a.m., the HR/BOM Director said not all employees had the HIV and Restraint training completed. She said since the change of ownership in October of last year (2024), a lot of the trainings did not get sent out to all employees to get completed. She said corporate was responsible of assigning the required trainings to all employees. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:56 a.m., the corporate HR coordinator stated HIV and restraints training should be completed initially and the month of hire for annual checks. The corporate HR coordinator stated the supervisor, HR manage and herself was responsible to making sure staff completed HIV and restraints upon hire and annually. The corporator HR coordinator stated it was important to the resident for staff to complete HIV and restraints training annually an upon hire to make sure staff was educated. The corporate HR coordinator stated this should be monitored during morning meetings. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 12:15 p.m., the Administrator stated he expected the annual trainings to be completed. The Administrator stated corporate was responsible for making sure the facility received the information on staff that required annual training, and the HR coordinator was responsible for making sure staff completed the trainings. The Administrator stated the failure must have occurred when the facility changed ownership. The Administrator stated he understood the education dates where wrong, however, if he was going to get a tag then he would not fix them. The Administrator stated the importance of training was for resident and staff safety. The policy on required trainings was requested on 04/24/2025 at 1:00 p.m. and not received.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to post the daily nurse staffing information with the current date, resident census, and numbers of staff actual hours worked at ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to post the daily nurse staffing information with the current date, resident census, and numbers of staff actual hours worked at the beginning of each shift for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for nurse staffing. The facility failed to update and post the daily nurse staffing information from 04/20/2025-04/24/2025. This failure could affect residents, their families, and facility visitors by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding the numbers of staff caring for the residents each shift and the facility census. The findings included: During an observation and interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:32 AM, the daily staffing posting was hanging at the nurse's station, and it was dated 04/19/2025. LVN D said the daily staffing was completed by the night shift nurse. LVN D said the daily staffing posting should be completed daily so that everyone knew how much staff was supposed to be in the facility to care for the residents. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:42 AM, the DON said the night shift nurses completed the daily staffing posting. The DON said the ADON usually checked to ensure the daily staffing was posted. The DON said the daily staffing should be posted to keep up with the number of staff in the building. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:44 AM, the ADON said the night shift nurse was responsible for completing the daily staffing posting. The ADON said she presumed it was not completed since 04/19/2025 because they had a temporary nurse working at night. The ADON said she normally checked it. The ADON said the daily staffing should be posted so anybody that went to the facility, including the nurses and visitors, knew the census and the staffing hours. During an attempted interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:55 AM, LVN M, night shift nurse, did not answer the phone. During an attempted interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:57 AM, LVN N, night shift nurse, did not answer the phone. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing, revised August 2022, indicated, .Direct care daily staffing numbers (the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents) are posted in the facility for every shift .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for facility assessment. The facility failed to ensure the daily staffing needs were followed according to the facility assessment. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate care or treatment and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: During a confidential group meeting on 04/22/2025 at 10:30 AM, the group reported getting bed baths instead of showers, call lights not being answered timely, and the CNAs telling them they were short staffed so if they did not respond to a call light timely or were taking too long to assist them that was the reason why they were taking so long. The group reported it made them feel like they should not request assistance from the CNAs. During an interview Anonymous Staff Member #1 said the CNAs often did not show up to work, and the on-call nurse and head CNA tried to fill in. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said when the CNAs did not show up to work, they were not always replaced. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said they worked shorthanded frequently. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said for sure on Sunday, 04/20/2025, they were short CNAs on the 2 PM- 10 PM shift. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said they had been at the facility until 6 PM and nobody from management showed up to assist due to the staffing shortage. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said the DON and RN K were notified of the CNA shortage on 04/20/2025. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said management was aware they had been having to work short. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said management rarely helped to cover the CNAs, if management worked, they were covering a nurse position so they could not do the CNAs job. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said lately they had been working short a lot. Anonymous Staff Member #1 said not having enough staff to provide care to the residents could affect their care because they would not get toileted on tie or they would have to wait long periods of times to be changes, and this could result in an increased risk for skin breakdown. During an interview Anonymous Staff Member #2 said they were short CNAs almost every day. Anonymous Staff Member #2 said nurse management did not help to cover the CNAs when a CNA did not show up to work. Anonymous Staff Member #2 said when a CNA that was scheduled to work did not show up, management told them they had to work with what they had. Anonymous Staff Member #2 said not having enough staff could affect the residents because they would not get the care they deserved. During an interview, Anonymous Staff Member #3 said they had been short CNAs and management told them they were trying to get help, but they never did. Anonymous Staff Member #3 said when they were short CNAs, they were not able to provide all the showers, and they had to clean the residents with towels instead. Anonymous Staff Member #3 said management did not help when they were short staffed. Anonymous Staff Member #3 said the weekend RN supervisor did not help the CNAs when they were short. Anonymous Staff Member #3 said the nurses and the medication aides did not help the CNAs when they were short. Anonymous Staff Member #3 said not having enough staff could affect the residents because they would not receive the care they needed. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 3:33 PM, RN K said she was the weekend RN supervisor. RN K said if the CNAs did not show up to work or called off, they tried to find someone to fill the position and she notified the ADON or the DON. RN K said they were not always able to fill the position and they try to pitch in together and take care of the residents. RN K said on 04/20/2025 she was told as she was going out of the door that one of the CNAs had called off. RN K said she was told that it had been covered, but she did not remember who told her. RN K said if there was not enough staff the residents would not receive the proper care that they should be getting. During an interview on 04/23/2025 at 3:57 PM, LVN L said sometimes they were short, and they tried to call in other staff members, notified the ADON and DON, and if it was the weekend they notified the weekend RN. LVN L said sometimes they were told to do the best they could. LVN L said recently they had started using agency staff to fill in. LVN L said if they did not have enough staff, it could affect the residents because they would not receive proper/timely care. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 10:34 AM, the DON said if the staff called off nurse management worked or got somebody to work. The DON said they all together worked to take care of the residents. The DON said there were a lot of times that they had not been able to fill the gaps. The DON said the staff had told her that they were unable to complete all their daily tasks. The DON said on 04/17/2025 they started using a staffing agency to help with the staffing shortage. The DON said she could not replace somebody when they called off last minute. The DON said not having enough staff placed the residents at risk of their care not being provided efficiently. During an interview on 04/24/2025 at 11:06 AM, the Administrator said they tried to hire PRN staff to cover when staff did not show up to work, and the DON or ADON and the CNAs also helped to cover the shifts. The Administrator said they also started using a staffing agency to help with the staffing issues. The Administrator said a lot of times he did not know until the middle of the night and then the ball gets dropped, but they tried to do their best to get more people to the facility. The Administrator said typically the charge nurses reported to him that they were short, and it was also reported to him that the CNAs were not able to get to all the showers. The Administrator said he was aware that they had been staffing less than the requirements per the facility assessment. The Administrator said the staff were not supposed to tell the residents they were short staffed. The Administrator said there could be a negative effect on the quality of care the residents received if the facility was not adequately staffed. Record review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE] indicated, Facility-Wide Daily Staffing Needs Including Evening, Nights, Weekends, and Holidays: DON RN- 1 full time, 1st shift Staff Registered Nurses- 2 Part Time, 1st shift LVNs- 2 full time, 1st and 2nd shift CNAs- 7 full time 1st shift, 6 full time 2nd shift, 3 full time 3rd shift MAs- 1 full time 1st shift, 1 part time 2nd shift MDS/RAI Coordinator (RN)- 1 full time 1st shift Record review of time sheets dated 04/01/2025 indicated only 2 CNAs worked the entire 8 hour second (2:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) shift. Record review of time sheets dated 04/05/2025 indicated only 2 CNAs worked the entire 8 hour second (2:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) shift. Record review of time sheets dated 04/07/2025 indicated only 1 CNA worked the entire 8 hour second (2:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) shift. Record review of time sheets dated 04/15/2025 indicated only 1 CNA worked the entire 8 hour third (10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.) shift. Record review of time sheets dated 04/16/2025 indicated only 2 CNAs worked the entire 8 hour second (2:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) shift and only 2 CNAs worked the entire 8 hour third (10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.) shift. Record review of time sheets dated 04/17/2025 indicated only 1 CNA worked the entire 8 hour second (2:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) shift and only 2 CNAs worked the entire 8 hour third (10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.) shift. Record review of time sheets dated 04/20/2025 indicated only 4 CNAs worked the entire 8 hour first (6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.) shift, 2 CNAs worked the entire 8 hour second (2:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) shift and no CNAs worked the entire 8 hour third (10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.) shift. Record review of the facility's policy, Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing, revised August 2022, indicated, Our facility provides sufficient numbers of nursing staff with the appropriate skills and competency necessary to provide nursing and related care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment. 1. Licensed nurses and certified nursing assistants are available 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week to provide competent resident care services including: a. assuring resident safety; b. attaining or maintaining the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident; c. assessing, evaluating, planning and implementing resident care plans; and d. responding to resident needs . Staffing numbers and the skill requirements of direct care staff are determined by the needs of the residents based on each resident's plan of care, the resident assessments and the facility assessment .
Feb 2025 3 deficiencies 2 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right of the residents to be free from abuse for 2 of 4...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right of the residents to be free from abuse for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #2, Resident #3) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect other residents from being kicked by Resident #1, when Resident #1 kicked Resident #3's feet when he walked by him on 1/12/25 at 5:20 am. The facility failed to recognize and put measures in place for Resident #1's increased behaviors from 01/09/2025 through 01/12/2025, which resulted in Resident #1 choking Resident #2. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 02/27/2025 at 1:40 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 1:06 p.m. While the IJ was removed on 02/28/2025, the facility remained out of compliance at no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy with a scope identified as isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These failures could place residents at risk of abuse, physical harm, mental anguish, and emotional distress. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including depression, hypercholesterolemia (high blood cholesterol that limits blood flow), hypertension (high blood pressure), delusional disorders (mental illness that causes people to have false beliefs), and dementia (degenerative brain disease - loss of memory, language). Record review of the comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 0 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #1's MDS indicated wandering behavior was exhibited, and physical and verbal behaviors towards others. Resident #1 was not assessed due to medical condition or safety concerns for eating, toileting, showering, dressing and personal hygiene, ambulation, or transfers. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #1 had an order for behavior monitoring for Diazepam,(medication used to treat anxiety, muscle spasms, and seizures) Seroquel (medication used to treat schizophrenia (disorder that affects a person's ability to think clearly), bipolar disorder (mood swings) and depression), Trazodone (medication used to treat depression) , and Wellbutrin (medication used to treat depression). Document number of times the resident has exhibited the above behavior during shift. Document the intervention and document the outcome with a start date of 09/25/2024. Record review of the care plan with a revision date of 01/15/2024 indicated Resident #1 had the potential to be physically aggressive related to dementia with the following interventions Administer medications as ordered after attempting non-medical approaches, analyze times of day, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates behavior, anticipate needs such as food, water, toileting, if behavior is threat to self or others immediately call for assistance. If signs of agitation shown - intervene before it escalates: remain calm, stand out of reach, listen and respond with empathy, engage in conversation. If response is aggressive, team member to calmly walk away, ask others to leave, ensure everyone is safe, immediately report this to nurse. Record review of the facilities Incident and Accidents Report dated 10/01/2024 - 01/26/2025 indicated no reported incidents involving Resident #1 and Resident #3. Record review of a progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 2:07 PM by LVN A, indicated Resident #1 had behaviors with 2 other residents without physical contact. Record review of a progress noted dated 01/09/2025 at 08:38 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 snatched a cover off another resident in the commons area of the secured unit. Resident #1 swung at staff when approached. Record review of progress noted dated 01/09/2025 at 08:40 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was going into other resident's rooms. Resident #1 raised his hand to the nurse and then walked out of the room. Record review of progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 09:09 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was bent down and kneeled on the floor then laid down on the floor. Resident #1 was given a pillow and covered with a blanket. Record review of progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 09:19 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was bent down and kneeled on the floor then laid down on the floor then got up and started pacing from door to door, shaking the doors. The ADON and the DON were notified of the behaviors. Record review of progress noted dated 01/12/2025 at 01:42 AM by LVN F, indicated Resident #1 was exit seeking, restless, and in and out of other resident's rooms. Resident #1 removed his pants in the commons area in the secured unit. Record review of progress note dated 01/12/2025 at 05:20 AM by LVN F, indicated Resident #1 (as he walked by) kicked Resident #3's feet while he was sitting in his wheelchair. Resident #1 was going in other resident rooms and pacing the secured unit. Record review of progress noted dated 01/12/2025 at 07:00 AM by LVN C, indicated Resident #1 was up and pacing. Resident #1 was grabbing other resident's wheelchairs and attempting to move them. Resident #1 was crawling in hallway. Resident #1 continued to disturb other residents. Record review of progress noted dated 01/12/2025 at 08:40 AM by LVN C, indicated Resident #1 was entering rooms, busting in doors, combative with staff, required assistance by two staff members to remove from room. Resident #1 continued to push and pulled on other resident's wheelchairs. Resident was unable to be redirected. The MA reported Resident #1 continued to refuse his medications with multiple approaches. Resident #1 shoved LVN C in the chest then knocked the medication cup from LVN C. LVN C notified the Administrator, the DON, and the ADON of unable to control/redirect Resident #1, and the escalating behaviors. LVN C then notified Resident #1's family. Record review of progress note dated 01/12/2025 at 08:50 AM by LVN C indicated CNA D summoned for nurse and reported Resident #1 had entered Resident #2's room and physically attacked Resident #2. CNA D reported she observed Resident #2 lying in her bed with Resident #1 leaned over Resident 2 with his hands wrapped around her neck attempting to choke Resident #2. CNA D stated she had to physically pry Resident #1's hands/fingers off Resident #2's neck and restrain him to the floor. When LVN C entered Resident #2's room, Resident #1 was restrained by CNA D. Immediate notification made for 911 services. The family was notified of escalating behaviors and transfer and agreed to the transfer. Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #2 was a 75 -year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including neuralgia (pain associated with nerves), weakness, age related physical debility, dementia (degenerative brain disease - loss of memory, language), and anxiety (intense, excessive worry). Record review of the comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 3 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #2's MDS indicated she required set up assistance with eating, partial assistance with personal hygiene, and substantial assistance with toileting, dressing, and showering. Resident #2's MDS indicated she was independent with ambulation. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident 2 had an order to monitor for pain every shift. During an interview with the DON on 2/27/2025 at 10:10 AM , a copy of the Resident's #2 care plan was requested and not received prior to exiting the facility. Record review of progress note dated 01/12/2025 at 08:50 AM by LVN A indicated CNA D summoned for nurse and reported Resident #1 had entered Resident #2's room and physically attacked Resident #2. CNA D reported she observed Resident #2 lying in her bed with Resident #1 leaned over Resident 2 with his hands wrapped around her neck attempting to choke Resident #2. CNA D stated she had to physically pry Resident #1's hands/fingers off Resident #2's neck and restrain him to the floor. When LVN C entered Resident #2's room, Resident #1 was restrained by CNA D. CNA E was summoned to Resident #2's room and escorted Resident #2 from the room. Resident #2 was taken to a chair in the commons area of the memory care unit. Resident #2 was upset and crying. Assessment completed with vital signs within normal limits, oxygen saturation at 97%, no redness or bruising noted, and no petechia observed to bilateral eyes. Police officer and EMT arrived at the facility. The EMT completed a full assessment of Resident #2 until Resident #2 stopped the EMT and stated' I am fine. Resident #2 assured the EMT she was safe and could return to her room. Resident #2's family member arrived at the facility and took Resident #2 via private care to the hospital emergency room for evaluation. The Administrator and the DON were made aware of reportable to state. Record review of hospital discharge paperwork dated 01/12/2025 indicated Resident #2 was discharged with unremarkable findings. Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #3 was an [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic disease when the body does not make insulin properly) mixed hyperlipidemia (causes high levels of cholesterol in the blood), hypertension (high blood pressure), and Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other mental functions). Record review of the discharge MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 0 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #3's MDS indicated wandering behavior was exhibited, physical and verbal behaviors towards others. The MDS indicated Resident #3 required set up assistance for eating. The MDS indicated Resident #3 required partial/moderate assistance for oral and toileting hygiene, partial assistance for shower, dressing, personal hygiene, ambulation, and transfers. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #3 had an order for behavior monitoring for Seroquel (medication used to treat schizophrenia (disorder that affects a person's ability to think clearly) Document number of times resident has exhibited the above behavior during shift. Document the intervention and document the outcome with a start date of 01/06/2025. During an interview with the DON on 2/27/25 at 10:10 AM, a copy of the Resident #3's care plan was requested and not received prior to exiting the facility. Record Review of Resident #3's progress notes dated 01/12/2025 indicated no incidents or assessments completed. Attempted interview on 02/25/2025 at 11:32 AM with Resident #2, she was not interview able. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 09:30 AM, LVN C stated she had worked at the facility for approximately 2 years. LVN C stated Resident #1 was an elopement risk from another facility and required the secured unit. LVN C stated on 01/12/25 at 08:50 AM she received a telephone call from CNA E, to come to the secured unit to Resident #2's room. LVN C stated upon arrival CNA D had restrained Resident #1 on the floor. CNA E had removed Resident #2 to the commons area of the secured unit. LVN C stated she notified 911 for assistance. LVN C stated upon arrival of the police and the EMT, Resident #1 was transferred out of the facility. LVN C stated she completed an assessment on Resident #2. LVN C stated Resident #2 was upset and crying but then stated she was fine and declined any further care. LVN C stated Resident #2's family arrived and transported her to the emergency room via a private car. LVN C stated Resident #1's behaviors had escalated from the start of her shift at 06:00 AM. LVN C stated Resident #1 disturbed other residents by pulling on wheelchairs, walked with a rapid pace, crawled on the floors. LVN C stated she had not notified the physician of the increase of behaviors. LVN C stated she had contacted Resident #1's family at 08:40 AM. LVN C stated she contacted the ADON and the DON regarding Resident #1's escalated behaviors at 08:40 AM. LVN C stated, I guessed the ADON and DON were working to have the resident transferred out. LVN C stated she was not sure who was making the transfer arrangements at that time. LVN C stated she had reached out to the ADON and the DON via text message and neither were in the facility at that time. LVN C stated she could not recall what exactly she had been told by the ADON and the DON other than redirect Resident #1, but she would have charted the instructions received if she had received any. LVN C stated everything was happening very quickly and she had not delegated any 1 to 1 intervention because the facility did not have the staff. LVN C stated Resident #1 should have been transferred out to a behavioral unit due to escalating behaviors. LVN C stated 1 to 1 intervention could have prevented the choking incident between Resident #1 and Resident #2 but there was not enough staff. LVN C stated Resident #1 was not adequately monitored during the escalated behaviors that resulted in Resident #2 being choked while she was asleep in her bed. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 10:21 AM, CNA E said Resident #1 had escalated behaviors on 1/12/2025 and was more difficult to redirect and was disturbing the other residents. CNA E said she had reported to LVN C several behaviors since the start of her shift at 6:00 AM. CNA E said Resident #1 was sitting at the table with her and CNA D and appeared settled at that moment. CNA E said she left the secured unit to retrieve the breakfast trays while CNA D was providing care with another resident. Upon returning to the secured unit, she heard CNA D hollering to get help. CNA E said upon entering resident #2's room, CNA D was attempting to restrain Resident #1 from going at Resident #2. CNA E said she removed Resident #2 to the commons area at the front of the secured unit. CNA E said she alerted LVN C by the phone located in the commons area of the secured unit to come and assist CNA D. CNA E said they continued to keep Resident #1 from other residents until the EMT arrived to transport Resident #1. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 01:15 PM, CNA D said during her shift on 1/12/2025. she noticed Resident #1 was not in the commons area or his room after she finished providing care to another resident. CNA D stated while she looked for Resident #1, she faintly heard Resident #2 call for help. CNA D said when she entered Resident #2's room, Resident #1 was leaning over Resident #2 with both hands around her neck. CNA D said she had to pry Resident #1's hands and fingers from Resident #1's neck. CNA D said she got him down in a sitting position on the floor and placed his hands behind his back as Resident #1 continued to try to go at Resident #2. CNA D stated CNA E arrived back on the secured unit, and she yelled for her. CNA E removed Resident #2 from the room and notified LVN C by the phone located in the commons area of the secured unit. CNA D stated she continued to restrain Resident #1 until the police arrived. LVN C entered the room and then contacted 911. CNA D said the EMTs, and police assisted to transport Resident #1 out of the building to the hospital. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 03:41 PM, the social worker stated she had not worked on a transfer for Resident #1 until 01/15/2025 after Resident #1 had transferred from the facility. The social worker stated she could not recall any conversation or text messages regarding Resident #1 until after he had left from the facility. The social worker stated escalated behaviors were addressed by putting the care plan interventions in place. When those interventions failed, the facility would transfer the resident with escalating behaviors out of the facility to a behavior unit. The social worker defined escalated behaviors as a change from the resident's baseline behavior such as increased agitation, crawling on floors, no longer able to distract the resident. The social worker said these failures could resulted in harm to residents such as death. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 07:11 PM, LVN F said Resident #1's behavior had changed. LVN F stated Resident #1 could usually be redirected. LVN F stated that she reported to the ADON and the DON on 01/11/2025 that Resident #1 was more difficult to redirect. LVN F stated she was instructed to continue to redirect the resident and give medications as ordered. LVN F stated Resident #1 took off his pants in the commons area which he had never done anything like that before. LVN F stated the CNA reported to her that Resident #1 kicked Resident #3. LVN F stated she failed to complete the incident report and report the incident to the ADON, the DON, or the Administrator. LVN F stated the incident should have been investigated due to being a resident-to-resident altercation. LVN F stated it was at change of shift and although she had reported the incident to the oncoming shift, an incident report should have been completed by her at the time the incident had occurred. LVN F stated the physician should have been notified as well as the families of the residents involved. LVN F stated reporting should be completed for investigation and to protect the residents from abuse. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 07:59 PM, LVN G stated Resident #1 experienced escalated behaviors on 01/09/2025. LVN G reported to the ADON and the DON that Resident #1 was crawling around and laying on the floor with his eyes closed. LVN G stated she was instructed by the ADON to give a pillow and blanket and ensure Resident #1 was warm and leave on the floor to sleep. LVN G stated she did not contact the physician for a change of condition related to increased behaviors. LVN G stated Resident #1 was pacing more often and faster. Resident #1 was blocking the doors and shaking the door handles to the secured unit which made it difficult for staff to get through. LVN G recalled Resident #1 took a swing at one of the CNAs. Resident #1 was entering in another resident's rooms and the staff had to coax Resident #1 out and attempted to detour him from going into another resident's rooms. LVN G stated Resident #1 raised his hand at her when she attempted to redirect Resident #1 from another resident's rooms. LVN G stated the CNA reported Resident #1 had jerked covers off of another resident in the commons area of the secured unit. LVN G said when the previous interventions were not effective, she should have also contacted the physician for orders. LVN G said as the charge nurse she was responsible for reporting the change of condition. LVN G said the residents were in harms way such as the choking or death. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:10 AM, the DON identified escalating behaviors as increased agitation, loudness/screaming, and showing signs of aggression. The DON stated Resident #1 was at his baseline and was not showing signs of escalating behaviors. The DON did not respond to the state surveyor when asked if the charted behaviors reported to her through 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025 describe the definitions as she had identified above as escalated behaviors of Resident #1. The DON said the behaviors exhibited by Resident #1 were typical behaviors of a resident with dementia. The DON said when the staff notified her of the incident with Resident #1 choking Resident #2, she told the staff (CNA E and LVN C) via text message that Resident #1 needed to be sent out because the facility did not provide 1 to 1 care. The DON stated the physician was notified as well as the families after the incident occurred. The DON said there was no way to know the choking incident was going to happen prior to the incident taking place. The DON said the incident with Resident #1 kicking Resident #3 could have been an accident while Resident #1 walked by Resident #3. The DON stated, we don't care what the residents do to the staff - residents hit staff all the time and it did not mean the behaviors were escalated. The DON said they educated the staff on better resident approaching strategies to prevent residents hitting staff. The DON later said when Resident #1 kicked Resident #3 feet, it was considered a resident-to-resident altercation and should have been reported as an incident and investigated to rule out abuse. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:30 AM, the ADON stated Resident #1 exhibited behaviors of a dementia patient and she had not considered the behaviors to be escalated between the dates of 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025. The ADON described an escalated behavior as something different from their typical baseline behavior and that varied between each individual resident. The ADON stated staff had reported Resident #1 jerking the blanket off another Resident but Resident #1 could have thought that was his blanket. The ADON stated she had told the staff to give Resident #1 the pillow and blanket and ensure resident was warm because he was sleeping and settled/safe on the floor. The ADON said it had not been reported except during the time of 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025 of Resident #1 pulling/jerking covers from other residents or crawling/laying/sleeping in the floors. The ADON said it was not unusual for dementia residents to wander in and out of room rooms. The ADON stated that was why Resident #1 was in the secured unit due to wandering. The ADON said the incident when Resident #1 hit Resident #3 should have been reported as an incident and the physician, family, the abuse coordinator should have been notified for further investigation. The ADON said abuse allegations should be investigated to protect all residents from abuse. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:50 AM, the Administrator stated behaviors were often unpredictable and predictable to a point. The Administrator said the facility and staff do their best to minimize behaviors and keep all residents safe. The Administrator said, it was not the best ideal to take eyes off of Resident #1 during the 10-minute time frame that the incident occurred within. The Administrator stated he expected staff to report incidents of suspected abuse including suspected resident to resident altercations so that the incident was then followed up on by him with a thorough investigation. The Administrator stated all staff were responsible for ensuring that no resident was subject to any type of abuse. The Administrator said the choking incident and failure of reporting incidents appropriately placed residents at a potential risk of abuse by physical or emotional trauma. The facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect Exploitation, & Misappropriation Policy dated 09/2024 indicated: .The resident has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property and other reportable incidents that affect the Health and Safety of the resident .Physical Abuse includes slapping, biting .5. Abuse toward a resident can occur as: a. resident to resident abuse; . The Administrator was notified on 02/27/2025 at 01:04 PM that an Immediate Jeopardy situation was identified due to the above failure. The Administrator was provided the Immediate Jeopardy template on 02/27/2025 at 1:06 PM. The facility's Plan of Removal was accepted on 02/27/2025 at 06:30 PM. and included: Tag F-600: Systemic Approach 1. Resident 1 was transferred to The Local Hospital's Emergency Department where he was admitted to the Behavioral Health hospital on 1/12/2025. As indicated on SRI #556297, the resident is not to return to the facility to eliminate the risk of behavior happening again. 2. The Medical Director was immediately notified by the Director of Nurses on 2/27/2025 at 2:11pm and the Chief Operating Officer at 1:07pm of the Immediate Jeopardy. 3. Administrator review of the following facility policy on 2.27.2025: a. Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, & Misappropriation Policy b. Resident to Resident Altercations 4. An immediate in-service to be provided by Regional Nurse Consultant to Administrator, DON and staff at facility with the subject of Recognizing Escalating Behaviors and Effective Measures to Put in Place to Protect Residents on 2/27/2025 at 2:20pm. a. Main takeaways from training include: the use of interventions which include 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, social services department visits and using calming music. 5. An Immediate in-service of the facility's Abuse policy to be conducted for all staff. Employees not present at building will be called via phone and provided in-service information. Inservice of staff will be completed by 2/28/2025 by 5:00pm. Other staff will be in-serviced before their next shift. A questionnaire will be created from the abuse policy. Questionnaires will be provided at random to employees to ensure retention of policy. Employees answering wrongly on questionnaires will receive more training. Admin/DON/ADON are responsible for conducting the training. 6. An immediate QAPI meeting to be held by IDT on 2.27.2025 a. Review of incident b. Establish areas of improvement c. Create plan to monitor and manage areas of improvement 7. Safe Surveys were conducted at the time of the incident. Results from the survey can be found with supportive documents provided to State surveyor and in SRI folder administrator keeps on hand. Safe survey results indicated no other residents were in need of additional supervision. 8. Monitoring: a. Admin or DON will conduct weekly random questionnaires of the abuse policy for a period of 4 weeks to ensure staff retain knowledge from the Abuse Policy. 9. Root Cause Analysis was conducted on 2/27/2024 identifying issues related to incidents on 1/12/2025. It was established that employees need more education of the abuse policy and aware of effective ways to de-escalate resident behaviors. This education was immediately provided on 2/27/2025. 10. Quality Assurance a. An ad hoc Quality Assurance Meeting will be conducted with IDT, including medical director via phone call on 2/27/2025. b. The IJs for F689 and F600 were noted and steps for removal were discussed. c. Incidents have been reviewed with plans to improve. i. Improvement plans include Notifying physician immediately, placing interventions in place immediately such as 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, separating residents, and removing residents from environment. Deescalating behaviors and recognizing signs of escalating behaviors. d. Plan on Removal being conducted. e. The Medical Director made no relevant comments at the time of meeting. He agreed that discussions related to the incident during the meeting are thorough and will be effective. O2/28/2025, the state surveyor confirmed the facility implemented their plan of removal sufficiently to remove the immediate jeopardy by: Record Review of in-service dated 02/27/2025 provided by the Regional Nurse to the Administrator, the DON, and the ADON with the following topics: A. Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, & Misappropriation Policy B. Resident to Resident Altercations Record Review of the in-service dated 02/27/2025 at 2:20 PM provided by the Regional Nurse Consult to the Administrator, the DON, and the staff at the facility with the subject topic of: Recognizing Escalating Behaviors and effective measure to put in place to protect the residents such as intervention of 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, social services departments visit, and using calming music. Record review of in-service dated 02/27/2025 of the facility's Abuse policy conducted for all staff. (Employees not present at the building will be called via phone and provided in-service information. In-service of staff will be completed by 2/28/2025 by 5:00pm. Other staff will be in-serviced before their next shift. ) Record review of a questionnaire created from the abuse policy with 25 employee/staff correctly completed on 02/28/2025. (Questionnaires will be provided at random to employees to ensure retention of policy. Employees answering wrongly on questionnaires will receive more training. Admin/DON/ADON were responsible for conducting the training) Record review of signed QAPI Committee Meeting completed on 2/27/2025 at 2:20 PM addressed the following: a. An ad hoc Quality Assurance Meeting will be conducted with IDT, including medical director via phone call on 2/27/2025. b. The IJs for F689 and F600 were noted and steps for removal were discussed. c. Incidents have been reviewed with plans to improve. i. Improvement plans include Notifying physician immediately, placing interventions in place immediately such as 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, separating residents, and removing residents from environment. Deescalating behaviors and recognizing signs of escalating behaviors. d. Plan on Removal being conducted. e. The Medical Director made no relevant comments at the time of meeting. He agreed that discussions related to the incident during the meeting are thorough and will be effective. Interviews of nursing staff on 2/28/2025 from 09:49 AM - 11:55 AM (6 AM - 6 PM Shift) DON, ADON, MDS Nurse, LVN C, CNA D, CNA E, CNA L, MA P, LVN Q, LVN W, LVN A, CNA AA, (6PM - 6AM) MA X, LVN Y, LVN Z, CNA BB, CNA CC, CNA DD, CNA EE, Administrator, Dietary Manager, Assistant Dietary Manager, Housekeeping Supervisor, Social Worker, Maintenance Supervisor, Director Business Development, Medical Records, Dietary Aide H, Housekeeper K, Housekeeper M, Housekeeper N, Director of Rehabilitation, PTA U, OT V, Activities Assistant. During these interviews staff were able to correctly identify types of abuse such as physical, sexual, verbal and resident to resident altercations; who to notify if abuse was suspected - such as the abuse coordinator, physician, families; proper documentation in resident charts, incident reports and care plans; recognizing escalated behaviors such as increased screaming and agitation and notifying the physician immediately of escalating behaviors; ways to de-escalate behaviors 1 to 1 monitoring, redirecting, separating residents, removing residents from the environment, calming music, and social services. On 02/28/2025 at 12:00 PM, the Administrator was informed the IJ was removed; however, the facility remained out of compliance at no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy with a scope identified as isolated due to the facilities need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #3) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to increase supervision and implement interventions when Resident #1 displayed increased behaviors beginning on 1/9/25 to prevent resident to resident altercations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received adequate supervision to prevent escalating behaviors towards other residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received adequate supervision after displaying increased behaviors beginning on 1/9/25 which resulted in Resident #1 choking Resident #2. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at 1:40 PM on 02/27/2025. While the IJ was removed on 02/28/2025, the facility remained out of compliance at no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy with a scope identified as isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These failures could place residents at risk of accidents, injury, or death. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including depression, hypercholesterolemia (high blood cholesterol that limits blood flow), hypertension (high blood pressure), delusional disorders (mental illness that causes people to have false beliefs), and dementia (degenerative brain disease - loss of memory, language). Record review of the comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 0 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #1's MDS indicated wandering behavior was exhibited, and physical and verbal behaviors towards others. Resident #1 was not assessed due to medical condition or safety concerns for eating, toileting, showering, dressing and personal hygiene, ambulation, or transfers. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #1 had an order for behavior monitoring for Diazepam,(medication used to treat anxiety, muscle spasms, and seizures) Seroquel (medication used to treat schizophrenia (disorder that affects a person's ability to think clearly), bipolar disorder (mood swings) and depression), Trazodone (medication used to treat depression) , and Wellbutrin (medication used to treat depression). Document number of times the resident has exhibited the above behavior during shift. Document the intervention and document the outcome with a start date of 09/25/2024. Record review of the care plan with a revision date of 01/15/2024 indicated Resident #1 had the potential to be physically aggressive related to dementia with the following interventions Administer medications as ordered after attempting non-medical approaches, analyze times of day, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates behavior, anticipate needs such as food, water, toileting, if behavior is threat to self or others immediately call for assistance. If signs of agitation shown - intervene before it escalates: remain calm, stand out of reach, listen and respond with empathy, engage in conversation. If response is aggressive, team member to calmly walk away, ask others to leave, ensure everyone is safe, immediately report this to nurse. Record review of the facilities Incident and Accidents Report dated 10/01/2024 - 01/26/2025 indicated no reported incidents involving Resident #1 and Resident #3. Record review of a progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 2:07 PM by LVN A, indicated Resident #1 had behaviors with 2 other residents without physical contact. Record review of a progress noted dated 01/09/2025 at 08:38 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 snatched a cover off another resident in the commons area of the secured unit. Resident #1 swung at staff when approached. Record review of progress noted dated 01/09/2025 at 08:40 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was going into other resident's rooms. Resident #1 raised his hand to the nurse and then walked out of the room. Record review of progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 09:09 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was bent down and kneeled on the floor then laid down on the floor. Resident #1 was given a pillow and covered with a blanket. Record review of progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 09:19 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was bent down and kneeled on the floor then laid down on the floor then got up and started pacing from door to door, shaking the doors. The ADON and the DON were notified of the behaviors. Record review of progress noted dated 01/12/2025 at 01:42 AM by LVN F, indicated Resident #1 was exit seeking, restless, and in and out of other resident's rooms. Resident #1 removed his pants in the commons area in the secured unit. Record review of progress note dated 01/12/2025 at 05:20 AM by LVN F, indicated Resident #1 (as he walked by) kicked Resident #3's feet while he was sitting in his wheelchair. Resident #1 was going in other resident rooms and pacing the secured unit. Record review of progress noted dated 01/12/2025 at 07:00 AM by LVN C, indicated Resident #1 was up and pacing. Resident #1 was grabbing other resident's wheelchairs and attempting to move them. Resident #1 was crawling in hallway. Resident #1 continued to disturb other residents. Record review of progress noted dated 01/12/2025 at 08:40 AM by LVN C, indicated Resident #1 was entering rooms, busting in doors, combative with staff, required assistance by two staff members to remove from room. Resident #1 continued to push and pulled on other resident's wheelchairs. Resident was unable to be redirected. The MA reported Resident #1 continued to refuse his medications with multiple approaches. Resident #1 shoved LVN C in the chest then knocked the medication cup from LVN C. LVN C notified the Administrator, the DON, and the ADON of unable to control/redirect Resident #1, and the escalating behaviors. LVN C then notified Resident #1's family. Record review of progress note dated 01/12/2025 at 08:50 AM by LVN C indicated CNA D summoned for nurse and reported Resident #1 had entered Resident #2's room and physically attacked Resident #2. CNA D reported she observed Resident #2 lying in her bed with Resident #1 leaned over Resident 2 with his hands wrapped around her neck attempting to choke Resident #2. CNA D stated she had to physically pry Resident #1's hands/fingers off Resident #2's neck and restrain him to the floor. When LVN C entered Resident #2's room, Resident #1 was restrained by CNA D. Immediate notification made for 911 services. The family was notified of escalating behaviors and transfer and agreed to the transfer. Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #2 was a 75 -year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including neuralgia (pain associated with nerves), weakness, age related physical debility, dementia (degenerative brain disease - loss of memory, language), and anxiety (intense, excessive worry). Record review of the comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 3 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #2's MDS indicated she required set up assistance with eating, partial assistance with personal hygiene, and substantial assistance with toileting, dressing, and showering. Resident #2's MDS indicated she was independent with ambulation. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident 2 had an order to monitor for pain every shift. During an interview with the DON on 2/27/2025 at 10:10 AM , a copy of the Resident's #2 care plan was requested and not received prior to exiting the facility. Record review of progress note dated 01/12/2025 at 08:50 AM by LVN A indicated CNA D summoned for nurse and reported Resident #1 had entered Resident #2's room and physically attacked Resident #2. CNA D reported she observed Resident #2 lying in her bed with Resident #1 leaned over Resident 2 with his hands wrapped around her neck attempting to choke Resident #2. CNA D stated she had to physically pry Resident #1's hands/fingers off Resident #2's neck and restrain him to the floor. When LVN C entered Resident #2's room, Resident #1 was restrained by CNA D. CNA E was summoned to Resident #2's room and escorted Resident #2 from the room. Resident #2 was taken to a chair in the commons area of the memory care unit. Resident #2 was upset and crying. Assessment completed with vital signs within normal limits, oxygen saturation at 97%, no redness or bruising noted, and no petechia observed to bilateral eyes. Police officer and EMT arrived at the facility. The EMT completed a full assessment of Resident #2 until Resident #2 stopped the EMT and stated' I am fine. Resident #2 assured the EMT she was safe and could return to her room. Resident #2's family member arrived at the facility and took Resident #2 via private care to the hospital emergency room for evaluation. The Administrator and the DON were made aware of reportable to state. Record review of hospital discharge paperwork dated 01/12/2025 indicated Resident #2 was discharged with unremarkable findings. Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #3 was an [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic disease when the body does not make insulin properly) mixed hyperlipidemia (causes high levels of cholesterol in the blood), hypertension (high blood pressure), and Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other mental functions). Record review of the discharge MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 0 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #3's MDS indicated wandering behavior was exhibited, physical and verbal behaviors towards others. The MDS indicated Resident #3 required set up assistance for eating. The MDS indicated Resident #3 required partial/moderate assistance for oral and toileting hygiene, partial assistance for shower, dressing, personal hygiene, ambulation, and transfers. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #3 had an order for behavior monitoring for Seroquel (medication used to treat schizophrenia (disorder that affects a person's ability to think clearly) . Document number of times resident has exhibited the above behavior during shift. Document the intervention and document the outcome with a start date of 01/06/2025. During an interview with the DON at 2/27/25 at 10:10 AM, a copy of the Resident #3's care plan was requested and not received prior to exiting the facility. Record Review of Resident #3's progress notes dated 01/12/2025 indicated no incidents or assessments completed. Attempted interview on 02/25/2025 at 11:32 AM with Resident #2, she was not interview able. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 09:30 AM, LVN C stated she had worked at the facility for approximately 2 years. LVN C stated Resident #1 was an elopement risk from another facility and required the secured unit. LVN C stated on 01/12/25 at 08:50 AM she received a telephone call from CNA E, to come to the secured unit to Resident #2's room. LVN C stated upon arrival CNA D had restrained Resident #1 on the floor. CNA E had removed Resident #2 to the commons area of the secured unit. LVN C stated she notified 911 for assistance. LVN C stated upon arrival of the police and the EMT, Resident #1 was transferred out of the facility. LVN C stated she completed an assessment on Resident #2. LVN C stated Resident #2 was upset and crying but then stated she was fine and declined any further care. LVN C stated Resident #2's family arrived and transported her to the emergency room via a private car. LVN C stated Resident #1's behaviors had escalated from the start of her shift at 06:00 AM. LVN C stated Resident #1 disturbed other residents by pulling on wheelchairs, walked with a rapid paced crawled on the floors. LVN C stated she had not notified the physician of the increase of behaviors. LVN C stated she had contacted Resident #1's family at 08:40 AM. LVN C stated she contacted the ADON and the DON regarding Resident #1's escalated behaviors at 08:40 AM. LVN C stated, I guessed the ADON and the DON were working to have the resident transferred out. LVN C stated she was not sure who was making the transfer arrangements at that time. LVN C stated she had reached out to the ADON and the DON via text message and neither were in the facility at that time. LVN C stated she could not recall what exactly she had been told by the ADON and DON other than redirect Resident #1, but she would have charted the instructions received if she had received any. LVN C stated everything was happening very quickly and she had not delegated any 1 to 1 intervention because the facility did not have the staff. LVN C stated there was not enough staff to do 1 to 1 supervision with Resident #1. LVN C stated lack of staff for the 1 to 1 supervision of Resident #1 resulted in another resident being harmed. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 10:21 AM, CNA E said Resident #1 had escalated behaviors on 1/12/2025 and was more difficult to redirect and was disturbing the other residents. CNA E said she had reported to LVN C several behaviors since the start of her shift at 6:00 AM. CNA E said Resident #1 was sitting at the table with her and CNA D and appeared settled at that moment. CNA E said she left the secured unit to retrieve the breakfast trays while CNA D was providing care with another resident. Upon returning to the secured unit, she heard CNA D hollering to get help. CNA E said upon entering resident #2's room, CNA D was attempting to restrain Resident #1 from going at Resident #2. CNA E said she removed Resident #2 to the commons area at the front of the secured unit. CNA E said she alerted LVN C by the phone located in the commons area of the secured unit to come and assist CNA D. CNA E said she should have stayed on the unit and prevented the incident, but she had left the unit to get the trays for the other residents because there was no other staff to do so at that time. CNE E said she had notified the charge nurse and she thought she had sent a text message to the DON and ADON about Resident #1 behaviors and was told to continue to monitor and distract Resident #1. CNA E said the lack of supervision during Resident #1's escalating behaviors resulted in Resident #2 being choked in her room. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 01:15 PM, CNA D said during her shift on 1/12/2025. she noticed Resident #1 was not in the commons area or his room after she finished providing care to another resident. CNA D stated while she looked for Resident #1, she faintly heard Resident #2 call for help. CNA D said when she entered Resident #2's room, Resident #1 was leaning over Resident #2 with both hands around her neck. CNA D said she had to pry Resident #1's hands and fingers from Resident #1's neck. CNA D said she got him down in a sitting position on the floor and placed his hands behind his back as Resident #1 continued to try to go at Resident #2. CNA D stated CNA E arrived back on the secured unit, and she yelled for her. CNA E removed Resident #2 from the room and notified LVN C by the phone located in the commons area of the secured unit. CNA D stated she continued to restrain Resident #1 until the police arrived. LVN C entered the room and then contacted 911. CNA D said the EMTs, and police assisted to transport Resident #1 out of the building to the hospital. CNA D said Resident #1 should not have been left alone. CNA D said Resident #1 was out of control. CNA D said the charge nurse had been notified previously through out the morning. CNA D said lack of supervision resulted in Resident #2 being choked. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 03:41 PM, the social worker stated she had not worked on a transfer for Resident #1 until 01/15/2025 after Resident #1 had transferred from the facility. The social worker stated she could not recall any conversation or text messages regarding resident #1 until after he had left from the facility. The social worker stated when the care plan interventions failed, Resident #1 should have been placed on 1 to 1 supervision for all resident safety including the safety of Resident #1 and transferred from the facility. The social worker stated the physician should have been notified by the clinical staff and new orders should have been received. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 07:11 PM, LVN F said Resident #1's behavior had changed LVN F stated Resident #1 could usually be redirected. LVN F stated that she reported to the ADON andthe the DON on 01/11/2025 that Resident #1 was more difficult to redirect. LVN F stated she was instructed to continue to redirect the resident and give medications as ordered. LVN F stated Resident #1 took off his pants in the commons area which he had never done anything like that before. LVN F stated the CNA reported to her that Resident #1 kicked Resident #3. LVN F stated she failed to complete the incident report and report the incident to the ADON, the DON or the Administrator. LVN F stated the incident should have been investigated due to being a resident-to-resident altercation. LVN F stated it was at change of shift and although she had reported the incident to the oncoming shift, an incident report should have been completed by her at the time the incident had occurred. LVN F stated the physician should have been notified as well as the families of the residents involved. LVN F stated reporting should be completed for investigation and to protect the residents from abuse. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 07:59 PM, LVN G stated Resident #1 experienced escalated behaviors on 01/09/2025. LVN G reported to the ADON and the DON that Resident #1 was crawling around and laying on the floor with his eyes closed. LVN G stated she was instructed by the ADON to give a pillow and blanket and ensure Resident #1 was warm and leave on the floor to sleep. LVN G stated she did not contact the physician for a change of condition related to increased behaviors. LVN G stated Resident #1 was pacing more often and faster. Resident #1 was blocking the doors and shaking the door handles to the secured unit which made it difficult for staff to get through. LVN G recalled Resident #1 took a swing at one of the CNAs. Resident #1 was entering in another resident's rooms and the staff had to coax Resident #1 out and attempted to detour him from going into another resident's rooms. LVN G stated Resident #1 raised his hand at her when she attempted to redirect Resident #1 from another resident's rooms. LVN G stated the CNA reported Resident #1 had jerked covers off of another resident in the commons area of the secured unit. LVN G stated she should have contacted the physician and received new orders regarding Resident #1's change in escalating behaviors to ensure the other residents were not placed in harm or danger of Resident #1. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:10 AM, the DON identified escalating behaviors as increased agitation, loudness/screaming, and showing signs of aggression. The DON stated Resident #1 was at his baseline and was not showing signs of escalating behaviors. The DON did not respond to the state surveyor when asked if the charted behaviors reported to her through 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025 describe the definitions as she had identified above as escalated behaviors of Resident #1. The DON said the behaviors exhibited by Resident #1 were typical behaviors of a resident with dementia. The DON said when the staff notified her of the incident with Resident #1 choking Resident #2, she told the staff (CNA E and LVN C) via text message that Resident #1 needed to be sent out because the facility did not provide 1 to 1 care. The DON stated the physician was notified as well as the families after the incident occurred. The DON said there was no way to know the choking incident was going to happen prior to the incident taking place. The DON said the incident with Resident #1 kicking Resident #3 could have been an accident while Resident #1 walked by Resident #3. The DON stated, we don't care what the residents do to the staff - residents hit staff all the time and it did not mean the behaviors were escalated. The DON said they educated the staff on better resident approaching strategies to prevent residents hitting staff. The DON later said when Resident #1 kicked Resident #3 feet, it was considered a resident-to-resident altercation and should have been reported as an incident and investigated to rule out abuse. The DON said there was no just no way to know that Resident #1 was going to harm another resident prior to the incident occurring. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:30 AM, the ADON stated Resident #1 exhibited behaviors of a dementia patient and she had not considered the behaviors to be escalated between the dates of 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025. The ADON described an escalated behavior as something different from their typical baseline behavior and that varied between each individual resident. The ADON stated staff had reported Resident #1 jerking the blanket off another Resident but Resident #1 could have thought that was his blanket. The ADON stated she had told the staff to give Resident #1 the pillow and blanket and ensure resident was warm because he was sleeping and settled/safe on the floor. The ADON said it had not been reported except during the time of 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025 of Resident #1 pulling/jerking covers from other residents or crawling/laying/sleeping in the floors. The ADON said it was not unusual for dementia residents to wander in and out of room rooms. The ADON stated that was why Resident #1 was in the secured unit due to wandering. The ADON said the incident when Resident #1 hit Resident #3 should have been reported as an incident and the physician, family, the abuse coordinator should have been notified for further investigation. The ADON said abuse allegations should be investigated to protect all residents from abuse. The ADON said when escalated behavior begin, the charge nurse should notify the physician for new orders and interventions. If those intervention and new orders are not effective, the charge nurse should be communicated to the physician to transfer the resident out of the facility to protect other residents as well as the resident with the behavioral changes. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:50 AM, the Administrator stated behaviors were often unpredictable and predictable to a point. The Administrator said the facility and staff do their best to minimize behaviors and keep all residents safe. The Administrator said, it was not the best ideal to take eyes off of Resident #1 during the 10-minute time frame that the incident occurred within. The Administrator stated he expected staff to report incidents of suspected abuse including suspected resident to resident altercations so that the incident was then followed up on by him with a thorough investigation. The Administrator stated all staff were responsible for ensuring that no resident was subject to any type of abuse. The Administrator said the choking incident and failure of reporting incidents appropriately placed residents at a potential risk of abuse by physical or emotional trauma. The Administrator said the clinical staff was responsible for reporting and notifying the physician for changes of condition such as escalating behaviors to protect all the residents from any type of potential harm. The facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect Exploitation, & Misappropriation Policy dated 09/2024 indicated: .The resident has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property and other reportable incidents that affect the Health and Safety of the resident .Physical Abuse includes slapping, biting .5. Abuse toward a resident can occur as: a. resident to resident abuse; . The Administrator was notified on 02/27/2025 at 01:04 PM that an Immediate Jeopardy situation was identified due to the above failure. The Administrator was provided the Immediate Jeopardy template on 02/27/2025 at 1:06 PM. The facility's Plan of Removal was accepted on 02/27/2025 at 06:30 PM. and included: Tag F-689: Systemic Approach 1. Resident 1 was transferred to The Local Hospital's Emergency Department where he was admitted to the Behavioral Health hospital on 1/12/2025. As indicated on SRI #556297, the resident is not to return to the facility to eliminate the risk of behavior happening again. 2. The Medical Director was immediately notified by the Director of Nurses on 2/27/2025 at 2:11pm and the Chief Operating Officer at 1:07pm of the Immediate Jeopardy. 3. Administrator review of the following facility policy on 2.27.2025: a. Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, & Misappropriation Policy b. Resident to Resident Altercations 4. An immediate in-service to be provided by Regional Nurse Consultant to Administrator, DON and staff at facility with the subject of Recognizing Escalating Behaviors and Effective Measures to Put in Place to Protect Residents on 2/27/2025 at 2:20pm. a. Main takeaways from training include: the use of interventions which include 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, social services department visits and using calming music. 5. An Immediate in-service of the facility's Abuse policy to be conducted for all staff. Employees not present at building will be called via phone and provided in-service information. Inservice of staff will be completed by 2/28/2025 by 5:00pm. Other staff will be in-serviced before their next shift. A questionnaire will be created from the abuse policy. Questionnaires will be provided at random to employees to ensure retention of policy. Employees answering wrongly on questionnaires will receive more training. Admin/DON/ADON are responsible for conducting the training. 6. An immediate QAPI meeting to be held by IDT on 2.27.2025 a. Review of incident b. Establish areas of improvement c. Create plan to monitor and manage areas of improvement 7. Safe Surveys were conducted at the time of the incident. Results from the survey can be found with supportive documents provided to State surveyor and in SRI folder administrator keeps on hand. Safe survey results indicated no other residents were in need of additional supervision. 8. Monitoring: a. Admin or DON will conduct weekly random questionnaires of the abuse policy for a period of 4 weeks to ensure staff retain knowledge from the Abuse Policy. 9. Root Cause Analysis was conducted on 2/27/2024 identifying issues related to incidents on 1/12/2025. It was established that employees need more education of the abuse policy and aware of effective ways to de-escalate resident behaviors. This education was immediately provided on 2/27/2025. 10. Quality Assurance a. An ad hoc Quality Assurance Meeting will be conducted with IDT, including medical director via phone call on 2/27/2025. b. The IJs for F689 and F600 were noted and steps for removal were discussed. c. Incidents have been reviewed with plans to improve. i. Improvement plans include Notifying physician immediately, placing interventions in place immediately such as 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, separating residents, and removing residents from environment. Deescalating behaviors and recognizing signs of escalating behaviors. d. Plan on Removal being conducted. e. The Medical Director made no relevant comments at the time of meeting. He agreed that discussions related to the incident during the meeting are thorough and will be effective. O2/28/2025, the state surveyor confirmed the facility implemented their plan of removal sufficiently to remove the immediate jeopard by: Record Review of in-service dated 02/27/2025 provided by the Regional Nurse to the Administrator, the DON and the ADON with the following topics: A. Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, & Misappropriation Policy B. Resident to Resident Altercations Record Review of the in service dated 02/27/2025 at 2:20 PM provided by the Regional Nurse Consult to Administrator,the DON and the staff at the facility with the subject topic of: Recognizing Escalating Behaviors and effective measure to put in place to protect the residents such as intervention of 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, social services departments visit and using calming music. Record review of in-service dated 02/27/2025 of the facility's Abuse policy conducted for all staff. (Employees not present at the building will be called via phone and provided in-service information. Inservice of staff will be completed by 2/28/2025 by 5:00pm. Other staff will be in-serviced before their next shift. ) Record review of a questionnaire created from the abuse policy with 25 employee/staff correctly completed on 02/28/2025. (Questionnaires will be provided at random to employees to ensure retention of policy. Employees answering wrongly on questionnaires will receive more training. Admin/DON/ADON were responsible for conducting the training) Record review of signed QAPI Committee Meeting completed on 2/27/2025 at 2:20 PM addressed the following: a. An ad hoc Quality Assurance Meeting will be conducted with IDT, including medical director via phone call on 2/27/2025. b. The IJs for F689 and F600 were noted and steps for removal were discussed. c. Incidents have been reviewed with plans to improve. i. Improvement plans include Notifying physician immediately, placing interventions in place immediately such as 1:1 monitoring, redirecting, separating residents, and removing residents from environment. Deescalating behaviors and recognizing signs of escalating behaviors. d. Plan on Removal being conducted. e. The Medical Director made no relevant comments at the time of meeting. He agreed that discussions related to the incident during the meeting are thorough and will be effective'. Interviews of nursing staff: on 2/28/2025 from 09:49 AM - 11:55 AM for( 6 AM - 6 PM shift) - DON, ADON, MDS Nurse, LVN C, CNA D, CNA E, CNA L, MA P, LVN Q, LVN W, LVN A, CNA AA (6PM - 6AM shift) - MA X, LVN Y, LVN Z, CNA BB, CNA CC, CNA DD, CNA EE Administrator, Dietary Manager, Assistant Dietary Manager, Housekeeping Supervisor, Social Worker, Maintenance Supervisor, Director Business Development, Medical Records, Dietary Aide H, Housekeeper K, Housekeeper M, Housekeeper N, Director of Rehabilitation, PTA U, OT V, Activities Assistant During these interviews staff were able to correctly identify types of abuse such as physical, sexual, verbal [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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immedia...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, to the administrator of the facility and toother officials for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the administrator and HHSC when Resident #1 kicked Resident #3's feet when he walked by him on 1/12/25 at 5:20 am. These failures could place residents at risk of abuse, physical harm, mental anguish, and emotional distress. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including depression, hypercholesterolemia (high blood cholesterol that limits blood flow), hypertension (high blood pressure), delusional disorders (mental illness that causes people to have false beliefs), and dementia (degenerative brain disease - loss of memory, language). Record review of the comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 0 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #1's MDS indicated wandering behavior was exhibited, and physical and verbal behaviors towards others. Resident #1 was not assessed due to medical condition or safety concerns for eating, toileting, showering, dressing and personal hygiene, ambulation, or transfers. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #1 had an order for behavior monitoring for Diazepam,(medication used to treat anxiety, muscle spasms, and seizures) Seroquel (medication used to treat schizophrenia (disorder that affects a person's ability to think clearly), bipolar disorder (mood swings) and depression), Trazodone (medication used to treat depression) , and Wellbutrin (medication used to treat depression). Document number of times the resident has exhibited the above behavior during shift. Document the intervention and document the outcome with a start date of 09/25/2024. Record review of the care plan with a revision date of 01/15/2024 indicated Resident #1 had the potential to be physically aggressive related to dementia with the following interventions Administer medications as ordered after attempting non-medical approaches, analyze times of day, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates behavior, anticipate needs such as food, water, toileting, if behavior is threat to self or others immediately call for assistance. If signs of agitation shown - intervene before it escalates: remain calm, stand out of reach, listen and respond with empathy, engage in conversation. If response is aggressive, team member to calmly walk away, ask others to leave, ensure everyone is safe, immediately report this to nurse. Record review of the facilities Incident and Accidents Report dated 10/01/2024 - 01/26/2025 indicated no reported incidents involving Resident #1 and Resident #3. Record review of a progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 2:07 PM by LVN A, indicated Resident #1 had behaviors with 2 other residents without physical contact. Record review of a progress noted dated 01/09/2025 at 08:38 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 snatched a cover off another resident in the commons area of the secured unit. Resident #1 swung at staff when approached. Record review of progress noted dated 01/09/2025 at 08:40 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was going into other resident's rooms. Resident #1 raised his hand to the nurse and then walked out of the room. Record review of progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 09:09 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was bent down and kneeled on the floor then laid down on the floor. Resident #1 was given a pillow and covered with a blanket. Record review of progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 09:19 PM by LVN B, indicated Resident #1 was bent down and kneeled on the floor then laid down on the floor then got up and started pacing from door to door, shaking the doors. The ADON and the DON were notified of the behaviors. Record review of progress noted dated 01/12/2025 at 01:42 AM by LVN F, indicated Resident #1 was exit seeking, restless, and in and out of other resident's rooms. Resident #1 removed his pants in the commons area in the secured unit. Record review of progress note dated 01/12/2025 at 05:20 AM by LVN F, indicated Resident #1 (as he walked by) kicked Resident #3's feet while he was sitting in his wheelchair. Resident #1 was going in other resident rooms and pacing the secured unit. Record review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #3 was an [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic disease when the body does not make insulin properly) mixed hyperlipidemia (causes high levels of cholesterol in the blood), hypertension (high blood pressure), and Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other mental functions). Record review of the discharge MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 0 and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #3's MDS indicated wandering behavior was exhibited, physical and verbal behaviors towards others. The MDS indicated Resident #3 required set up assistance for eating. The MDS indicated Resident #3 required partial/moderate assistance for oral and toileting hygiene, partial assistance for shower, dressing, personal hygiene, ambulation, and transfers. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 02/27/2025 indicated Resident #3 had an order for behavior monitoring for Seroquel (medication used to treat schizophrenia (disorder that affects a person's ability to think clearly) Document number of times resident has exhibited the above behavior during shift. Document the intervention and document the outcome with a start date of 01/06/2025. During an interview with the DON on 2/27/25 at 10:10 AM, a copy of the Resident #3's care plan was requested and not received prior to exiting the facility. Record Review of Resident #3's progress notes dated 01/12/2025 indicated no incidents or assessments completed. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 07:11 PM, LVN F said Resident #1's behavior had changed. LVN F stated Resident #1 could usually be redirected. LVN F stated that she reported to the ADON and the DON on 01/11/2025 that Resident #1 was more difficult to redirect. LVN F stated she was instructed to continue to redirect the resident and give medications as ordered. LVN F stated Resident #1 took off his pants in the commons area which he had never done anything like that before. LVN F stated the CNA reported to her that Resident #1 kicked Resident #3. LVN F stated she failed to complete the incident report and report the incident to the ADON, the DON, or the Administrator. LVN F stated the incident should have been investigated due to being a resident-to-resident altercation. LVN F stated it was at change of shift and although she had reported the incident to the oncoming shift, an incident report should have been completed by her at the time the incident had occurred. LVN F stated the physician should have been notified as well as the families of the residents involved. LVN F stated reporting should be completed for investigation and to protect the residents from abuse. During an interview on 02/26/2025 at 07:59 PM, LVN G stated Resident #1 experienced escalated behaviors on 01/09/2025. LVN G reported to the ADON and the DON that Resident #1 was crawling around and laying on the floor with his eyes closed. LVN G stated she was instructed by the ADON to give a pillow and blanket and ensure Resident #1 was warm and leave on the floor to sleep. LVN G stated she did not contact the physician for a change of condition related to increased behaviors. LVN G stated Resident #1 was pacing more often and faster. Resident #1 was blocking the doors and shaking the door handles to the secured unit which made it difficult for staff to get through. LVN G recalled Resident #1 took a swing at one of the CNAs. Resident #1 was entering in another resident's rooms and the staff had to coax Resident #1 out and attempted to detour him from going into another resident's rooms. LVN G stated Resident #1 raised his hand at her when she attempted to redirect Resident #1 from another resident's rooms. LVN G stated the CNA reported Resident #1 had jerked covers off of another resident in the commons area of the secured unit. LVN G said when the previous interventions were not effective, she should have also contacted the physician for orders. LVN G said as the charge nurse she was responsible for reporting the change of condition. LVN G said the residents were in harms way such as the choking or death. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:10 AM, the DON identified escalating behaviors as increased agitation, loudness/screaming, and showing signs of aggression. The DON stated Resident #1 was at his baseline and was not showing signs of escalating behaviors. The DON did not respond to the state surveyor when asked if the charted behaviors reported to her through 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025 describe the definitions as she had identified above as escalated behaviors of Resident #1. The DON said the behaviors exhibited by Resident #1 were typical behaviors of a resident with dementia. The DON said the incident with Resident #1 kicking Resident #3 could have been an accident while Resident #1 walked by Resident #3. The DON stated, we don't care what the residents do to the staff - residents hit staff all the time and it did not mean the behaviors were escalated. The DON said they educated the staff on better resident approaching strategies to prevent residents hitting staff. The DON later said when Resident #1 kicked Resident #3 feet, it was considered a resident-to-resident altercation and should have been reported as an incident and investigated to rule out abuse. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:30 AM, the ADON stated Resident #1 exhibited behaviors of a dementia patient and she had not considered the behaviors to be escalated between the dates of 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025. The ADON described an escalated behavior as something different from their typical baseline behavior and that varied between each individual resident. The ADON stated staff had reported Resident #1 jerking the blanket off another resident but Resident #1 could have thought that was his blanket. The ADON stated she had told the staff to give Resident #1 the pillow and blanket and ensure resident was warm because he was sleeping and settled/safe on the floor. The ADON said it had not been reported except during the time of 01/09/2025 - 01/12/2025 of Resident #1 pulling/jerking covers from other residents or crawling/laying/sleeping in the floors. The ADON said it was not unusual for dementia residents to wander in and out of room rooms. The ADON stated that was why Resident #1 was in the secured unit due to wandering. The ADON said the incident when Resident #1 hit Resident #3 should have been reported as an incident and the physician, family, the abuse coordinator should have been notified for further investigation. The ADON said abuse allegations should be investigated to protect all residents from abuse. During an interview on 02/27/2025 at 10:50 AM, the Administrator stated behaviors were often unpredictable and predictable to a point. The Administrator said the facility and staff do their best to minimize behaviors and keep all residents safe. The Administrator stated he expected staff to report incidents of suspected abuse including suspected resident to resident altercations so that the incident was then followed up on by him with a thorough investigation. The Administrator stated all staff were responsible for ensuring that no resident was subject to any type of abuse. The Administrator said failure of reporting incidents appropriately placed residents at a potential risk of abuse by physical or emotional trauma. Record review of the facility's resident-to-resident altercations policy dated September 2022 indicated .all altercations, including those that may represent resident-to-resident abuse, are investigated and reported to the nursing supervisor, the director of nursing services and to the administrator .The administrator will report the incident in accordance with the criteria established under Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation -Reporting and Investigating . The facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect Exploitation, & Misappropriation Policy dated 09/2024 indicated: .The resident has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property and other reportable incidents that affect the Health and Safety of the resident .Physical Abuse includes slapping, biting .5. Abuse toward a resident can occur as: a. resident to resident abuse; .If resident abuse .is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and other officials according to state law .Immediately is defined as: within two hours of an allegation involving abuse or result in bodily injury .
Feb 2024 13 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services, based on...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services, based on the comprehensive assessment and consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote the healing of pressure ulcers for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident # 37) The facility did not follow wound care ordered by the wound care specialist (NP) from 01/08/2024 to 02/20/2024 by dressing the wound with medical honey instead of the calcium alginate ordered by the wound care nurse practioner. The facility did not ensure Resident #37's alternating pressure mattress (LAL) was working properly to promote healing to her Stage III pressure ulcer and prevent the worsening of the wound. Resident #37 did not have the MD ordered alternating pressure mattress on the bed for 2 of 3 days observed. The facility failed to ensure off loading of the pressure ulcer occured by failing to ensure medical equipment of alternating pressure mattress (LAL) was plugged in, resulting in Resident #37 observed lying on a deflated mattress through which the metal bed frame could be felt. The facility failed to ensure a system was in place to have staff designated to track weekly wound care reports, order changes, and weekly wound measurments by the wound care specialist. These failures could place residents at risk for new development or worsening of existing pressure ulcers, pain, infection, decreased quality of life, and hospitalization. Findings included: 1.Review of a face sheet dated 02/27/2024 indicated Resident #37 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), contractures (occurs when muscles, tendons, joints, or other tissue tighten/ shorten causing deformity), and hypothyroidism (when thyroid gland does not make enough thyroid-hormones to meet the body's needs). Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #37 had no BIMS completed. Resident #37 was rarely/never understood. Resident #37 required dependent assistance with ADLs. Resident #37 had (1) Stage II pressure ulcer and (1) unstageable pressure ulcer. Resident #37 had daily treatments, pressure relieving device to chair and pressure reduction mattress noted on the MDS. Review of Resident #37's care plan last updated 11/23/2023 indicated Resident #37 had an open area to left buttock. The wound care orders were to cleanse area with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply collagen and cover with calcium alginate, apply dry dressing, and change daily. The intervention included providing treatment as ordered. Review of wound care specialist's progress notes included the following: 09/11/2023- Resident #37 again referred to wound management services for pressure ulcer to sacrum measuring 0.6 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.1 (Stage III). The wound had eschar and dry skin of peri wound (area surrounding wound). The wound was free of signs and symptoms of infection. No odor. Cleansed with (cleaning) solution, collagen applied to wound and secured with border foam dressing. 10/23/2023- Wound improved measuring 0.4cm x 0.6 cm x 0.3 cm. Peri wound area pink. Wound scrubbed vigorously with moist 4x4 (gauze). Collagen applied to wound base. Covered with calcium alginate and secured with border foam dressing. 11/13/2023- Wound has improved measuring 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.1 cm. Collagen placed to wound. Covered with calcium alginate and secured with foam border dressing. 12/04/2023-Wound appeared better, peri wound area had improved, however, due to satellite lesions wound is much larger. Wound cleansed, collagen applied to wound base, covered with calcium alginate, and secured with border foam gauze. 12/18/2023- No notable change to wound. Peri wound pink and fragile, instructed (RN U) for barrier cream to be applied to peri wound. Wound to be cleansed with wound cleanser, collagen applied to wound base. Covered with calcium alginate and secured with border foam dressing. Resident is bed/chair bound and unable to turn self. Educate staff to keep resident on a regular turning schedule. Verbalized understanding. 01/08/2024- Resident (#37) lying in bed on arrival, wound deteriorated measuring 1.8cm x 1.3cm x 0.1 cm. Wound now with centrally located slough. Wound debrided with minimal bleeding controlled with light pressure. Discussed resident offloading with RN and protein intake. Discussed the need for use of overlay or air mattress for offloading and prevention of further skin breakdown. Wound cleansed and dressed per orders, calcium alginate with foam dressing to cover. 01/22/2024- Wound deteriorating measures 2.0cm x 1.6 cm x 0.1 cm. Wound with deep purple/ dark red peri wound. Scrubbed with moist gauze to remove nonviable tissue. Collagen applied to wound bed, covered with calcium alginate, and secured with border foam dressing. 02/05/2024- Resident (#37) was not offloaded at this time. Wound with deterioration measuring 1.8 cm x 1.1 cm x 0.1 cm. Peri wound area very red and fragile with skin breakdown noted. No sign of infection. Wound scrubbed vigorously with moist gauze to remove nonviable tissue. Collagen applied to wound, covered with calcium alginate, and secured with bordered foam dressing. 02/12/2024- No off loading at this time. Encouraged staff to turn regularly with staff verbalizing understanding. Wound 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 0.1cm. Wound developed adjacent, connecting sacral and coccyx wound. Peri wound fragile. Erythema noted. No signs of infection. Wound scrubbed with moist gauze to remove nonviable tissue. Collagen applied to wound. Covered with calcium alginate and secured with bordered foam dressing. 02/19/2024- Offloaded in right lateral recumbent position with wedge. Wound with severe deterioration. 6.5cm x 4.9 cm x 0.3 cm. Peri wound area deep purple and dark red with linear area of black tissue. Wound debrided with use of curette to remove nonviable tissue. Medical honey had been used to wound. Encouraged staff to not use medical honey due to moisture and it not being the correct order. Understanding verbalized. Wound cleansed with wound cleanser, collagen applied to wound base. Covered with calcium alginate, secured with border foam dressing. Resident (#37) was not on an alternating pressure air mattress as previously discussed. It is reported the previous mattress kept going flat and that may have contributed to deterioration of wound. Review of wound care specialist progress notes dated 01/08/2024 to 02/19/2024 indicate the orders for the treatment of the stage III coccyx wound were to cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply collagen, cover with calcium alginate, cover with foam border dressing, and change daily and prn. Review of Resident #37's consolidated orders for 01/10/2024 to 02/20/2024 indicated the orders for the treatment of the stage III coccyx wound were to cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry. Apply medical honey to slough adhered to wound bed and cover with foam dressing. Change daily and as needed. Review of Resident #37's consolidated orders for 02/20/2024 to present were to cleanse open area to coccyx with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply barrier cream to periwound area. Apply activated moisten collagen sheet or poweder to wound bed. Cover with calcium alginate dressing, then cover with foam dressing. Change daily and as needed. Review of the TARs dated January and February of 2024, indicated Resident #37's coccyx ulcer was treated daily. The treatment was for the wound to be cleansed with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply medical honey to slough adhered to wound bed, cover with foam dressing, and change daily and as needed. During an interview and /observation on 02/25/2024 at 3:00 p.m., RN U revealed Resident #37's coccyx wound had declined over the past 2-4 weeks. RN U stated the nurse assigned to the 200 hall was responsible for all treatments assigned to 200 hall residents. She stated there was not a designated treatment nurse for the facility. RN U performed wound care for Resident #37 following MD orders and failed to follow aseptic technique. RN U failed to wash her hands prior to beginning the treatment and between cleaning the wound and applying the clean dressing. RN U stated there was a wound care doctor that visited the facility on Mondays. RN U stated she spoke with him a few weeks ago and he was concerned he had not ordered medical honey for Resident #37's wound because she had moist skin from incontinence and overall skin condition, but he continued to find medical honey in her wound each Monday. RN U stated Resident #37 was not on a low air loss mattress at the time, because it kept going flat which may have contributed to the worsening of her wound. RN U stated Resident #37's ulcer started on her left sacral area and grew to include her coccyx. RN U stated proper treatment, offloading with a low air loss mattress, and proper nutrition were important to heal a wound. RN U stated not having all of those items could halt healing and lead to infection and death. During a phone interview on 02/26/2024 at 4:00 p.m., the wound care NP stated Resident #37 had the potential to have healed wounds if the facility would keep Resident #37 off loaded, dry, and do the treatments that had been ordered by him. He stated he did rounds every Monday morning and often Resident #37's skin was macerated from being overly moist from incontinence. He stated he had found medical honey in the wound of Resident #37 for the last 3- 4 weeks each week and he had talked to staff (RN U) about his concerns. The wound care specialist stated he never ordered medical honey for Resident #37 because it added moisture to wounds. He explained Resident #37's skin was already moist because she was incontinent at all times, and she had clammy skin. He stated he requested Resident #37 get a new LAL mattress over a week prior when he was told by RN U, Resident #37's LAL mattress was going flat, and she was still on a standard mattress. The wound care NP stated her measurements on 02/25/2024 had improved very little since the previous week because she had been left wet over the weekend when he came in on Monday to measure her wounds. He stated the new measurements were 6.1 cm x 4.5 cm x 0.3 cm, as of 02/25/2024. During an observation on 02/27/2024 at 4:30 a.m., Resident #37 was in bed asleep. Resident #37 was clean and dry with no odor, laying on her right side on an unplugged deflated LAL mattress. The cord for the LAL mattress was wrapped with a zip tie in plastic around it lying on the floor at the foot of the bed. The LAL mattress was completely flat, and the metal frame of the bed was felt under Resident #37's right hip. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 7:00 a.m., LVN E came into Resident #37's room and stated she was unaware the LAL mattress for Resident #37 was unplugged. LVN E stated she felt it must have come unplugged when the night shift preformed incontinent care last, but there was no way to know for sure. LVN E stated Resident #37 laying directly on the frame could have worsen her wound and would not promote wound healing. LVN E plugged the bed in at this time. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 11:20 a.m., the DON stated she was made aware the LAL mattress for Resident #37 was unplugged this morning on rounds. The DON stated she plugged the LAL mattress into the wall the prior night around 6 p.m., prior to leaving the facility for the day. The DON stated the facility did not have a weekly wound care report and no one was designated to do weekly measurements of pressure ulcers. The DON stated the facility used the measurements from the wound care specialist (NP) that visited each week. The DON stated she did not agree with the wound care NP's progress notes because she felt that his communication was poor and she was certain he had not talked to her staff about the treatment or Resident #37's care. The DON stated it was her responsibility to read the progress notes the wound care specialist emailed to her each Tuesday after his Monday visit. The DON admitted that she did not always read his progress notes. And was not sure why she had not been reading them other than she had been busy. The DON stated she was unaware the treatment of medical honey from 01/10/2024 to 02/20/2024 was not what the wound care specialist (NP) wanted to use. The DON stated RN U had not communicated the wound care specialist's concerns to her. The DON stated it was her expectation that the floor nurses follow the orders of the wound care specialist and report to her any concerns the wound care specialist had during rounds. The DON stated not following the Medical Director's orders, not having the resident on LAL mattress, and not keeping the resident off loaded could lead to worsening of the wound, development of new wounds, infection, and even death. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 11:45 a.m., the Administrator stated he wanted the DON to monitor all of the systems she was responsible for and report any concerns she had to him. The Administrator stated he wanted the nurses to do skin assessments, wound care as ordered, and make sure the resident's had all they needed to maintain a healthy life. Review of a policy titled Wound Care Protocol, purpose: 1. To ensure optimal healing of wounds. 2. To identify type of wound in order to provide proper wound care. Expectations: 1. Wounds are to be measured each week and should be measured by the same Registered Nurse / NP clinician for consistency. Measure the wound weekly and provide oversite and direction for the LPN/LVN. Re-evaluate wounds with changes in condition and report to the physician wound status. Revise plan of care with treating physician.
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview , the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview , the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #45) The facility failed to ensure Resident #45 was served lunch on 02/25/24 at the same time as others at his table. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, decreased self-esteem and increase anxiety. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 02/26/24 indicated Resident #45 was [AGE] years old and was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease (a disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement, often including tremors), vitamin deficiency, and pain in left shoulder. Record review of the MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #45 was sometimes understood and sometimes understood others. The MDS indicated a BIMS score of 7 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #45 was dependent for most ADLs. Resident #45 required setup assistance for eating. Record review of a care plan revised on 01/31/24 indicated Resident #45 was at risk for nutritional problems. There was an intervention to bring the resident to the dining room for meals and to provide supervision/assistance as needed. During an observation on 02/25/24 at 12:02 p.m., Resident #45 was sitting at a table with 2 other residents. The other two residents were served their lunch tray at this time. During an observation and interview 02/25/24 at 12:15 p.m., Resident #45 had still not been served. The two other residents at the table were eating. Resident #45 said he was hungry and would like to eat. Resident #45 put his hat on and was looking down. Resident #45 said, I guess they want me to miss this meal. Staff were present. No staff acknowledged him. CNA B was noticeably irritated and asked the kitchen about his tray. During an observation on 2/25/24 at 12:20 p.m., CNA R told Resident #45 that she did not know he was eating in the dining area and his tray was sent to his room. CNA R left the dining room to retrieve meal. The other residents at Resident #45's table were finished eating at this time. During an interview on 02/26/24 at 12:31 p.m., CNA R said she was in the dining room during the noon meal on 2/25/24. She said Resident #45 was in the dining room. She said he did not get his tray when the others at his table did because it had been sent down the hall on the cart. She said she was the staff member that went to get the tray off the cart. She said it could not have been too long because all the trays on the cart had not been passed. She said the resident did not seem upset. During an interview 02/26/24 at 1:40 p.m., Resident #45 said at lunch on 2/25/24 the other residents at his table were served and he did not have a tray. He said by the time he got his tray the other residents at his table they had finished eating. He said he was upset about not having a tray. During an interview on 02/26/24 at 1:54 p.m., CNA B said Resident #45 ate lunch in his room at times. She said she had brought him to the dining room and failed to let kitchen staff know he was there. She said it was less than 20 minutes that Resident #45 went without his tray. She said she did get irritated. She said she was irritated because the other staff passing the trays in the dining room had not bothered to go get his tray from the cart on the hall. She said the irritation was not towards the resident. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:50 a.m., the DON said she would have expected staff to have gone to get Resident #45's tray from the hall or at least had kitchen staff make him a new tray. She said staff should have made sure the entire table was served before moving on to the next table. She said a resident not being served at the same time as others at the same table could make them feel left out. If you are hungry, you are hungry. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:42 a.m., the Administrator said he would expect staff to know where the resident was going to be during dining services, so that trays could be passed in a timely fashion. He said he would have expected staff to have fixed the issue with Resident #45's tray. He said a resident not being served while others at the table were served meals could make them feel there was a break in communication. Review of an undated Resident Rights facility policy indicated, .Employees shall treat all resident with kindness, respect, and dignity .Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic right to all resident in this facility. These rights include the resident's right to .a dignified existence .be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the notice to residents when changes in coverage are made to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the notice to residents when changes in coverage are made to items and services covered by Medicare as soon as is reasonably possible provided to 2 of 3 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #42) reviewed for skilled Medicare services in that: Resident #3 and Resident #42 was not given a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) when discharged from skilled services prior to covered days being exhausted. This failure could place residents at risk of not being aware of changes to provided services not covered by Medicare and their financial responsibilities. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #3's face sheet, dated 09/19/2023, revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Anxiety (Intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations. Fast heart rate, rapid breathing, sweating, and feeling tired may occur), Anemia (a problem of not having enough healthy red blood cells or hemoglobin to carry oxygen to the body's tissues), and Dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities). Record review of Resident #3's MDS dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #3 was sometimes understood and sometimes understands. Resident #3 had a BIMS of 03 which indicated severely impaired cognition. Resident #3 required extensive assistance with ADLs. 2. Record review of Resident #42's face sheet, dated 01/28/2024, revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Hyperkalemia (a serum or plasma potassium level above the upper limits of normal), Constipation (which you may have fewer than three bowel movements a week), and Depression (lowering of a person's mood, such as depression or bipolar disorder). Record review of Resident #42's MDS dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #42 was sometimes understood and sometimes understands. Resident #42 had a BIMS of 03 which indicated severely impaired cognition. Resident #42 required extensive assistance with ADLs. During an interview on 2/26/2024 at 4:50 p.m., the Administrator said the ABN letter was not given to Residents #3 and # 42 as he did not have a system in place to ensure that residents were notified. He said MDS Coordinator typically is responsible for this task. He said he did not know he was supposed to send this notification to residents that stay in the facility. He said Resident #3 admitted on [DATE] and remained in the facility on 11/29/2023 as she went to Medicaid status on 11/29/2023 which means she had 28 days of service remaining. He said Resident #42 went to private pay hospice and she had 78 days remaining. He said that the ABN notice was not given to either resident as he did not know that he was required to do so, and he had not delegated this responsibility to his staff. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 8:50 a.m., the DON she said MDS Coordinator A was responsible for completing the ABN notices for residents. She said she had nothing to do with ABN until yesterday when it was brought to their attention that they were not being completed. She said it was the Administrator that brought the ABN letters to her attention. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 8:55 a.m., MDS Coordinator A said she had been the MDS Nurse at this facility since July of 2023. She said the Administrator spoke to her about the issue with ABN letters yesterday, 02/26/2024. She said they were not completing the ABN until yesterday, 02/26/2024. She said the Administrator assigned responsibility to her yesterday to complete ABN. She said she had been completing the NOMNC notifications. She said ABN letters were never issued prior to yesterday, 02/26/24. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 9:07 a.m., the Administrator said that there was no policy regarding ABN letters. He said that a policy would need to be created to ensure that this mistake does not happen in the future. Record review of CMS guidelines Beneficiary Notice Guidelines, approved by CMS-10124-DENC December 31, 2011, revealed Scenario Part A stay will end because: SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) determines the beneficiary no longer requires daily skilled services. Resident has days remaining in the benefit period. Resident will remain in the facility (custodial care) Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) CMS-10055 (2018) and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) CMS-10123 (12/31/11)) to be completed.
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 care plan to me...

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 care plan to meet the medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 20 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #37, Resident #66). 1. The facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #37's wound care orders. 2.The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #66's right upper elbow contracture. These failures could place residents in the facility at an increased risk of a decline in physical or functional well-being, of not receiving necessary care or services, and having personalized plans developed to address their needs. Findings included: 1. Review of a face sheet dated 2/27/2024 indicated Resident #37 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), contractures (occurs when muscles, tendons, joints, or other tissue tighten/ shorten causing deformity), and hypothyroidism (when thyroid gland does not make enough thyroid-hormones to meet the body's needs). Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #37 had no BIMS completed. Resident #37 was rarely/never understood. Resident #37 required dependent assistance with ADLs. Resident #37 had (1) Stage II pressure ulcer and (1) unstageable pressure ulcer. Resident #37 had daily treatments, pressure relieving device to chair and pressure reduction mattress noted on the MDS. Review of Resident #37's care plan last updated 11/23/2023 indicated Resident #37 had an open area to left buttock with wound care orders to cleanse area with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply collagen and cover with calcium alginate, apply dry dressing, and change daily. The intervention included providing treatment as ordered. Review of wound care specialist progress notes dated 1/08/2024 to 2/19/2024 indicated the order for the treatment of the stage III coccyx order were to cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply collagen, cover with calcium alginate, cover with foam border dressing, and change daily and prn. Review of the TARs dated January and February of 2024, indicated Resident #37's coccyx ulcer was treated daily. The treatment was for the wound to be cleansed with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply manuka honey to slough adhered to wound bed, cover with foam dressing, and change daily and as needed. Interview on 2/26/2024 at 11:00 AM, the MDS Coordinator revealed she generated and oversaw the care plans are completed correctly by all departments. The MDS Coordinator stated she was new to the facility and did not know why the care plan was not updated. The MDS Coordinator stated a care plan was so the nursing staff knew how to care for the residents. The MDS Coordinator stated if any resident had wound care orders care planned, they should be their current orders and that is what the nurses should follow. 2. Record review of Resident #66's face sheet dated 2/25/24 indicated Resident #66 was a [AGE] year-old male and admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including anoxic brain damage (process that begins with the cessation of cerebral blood flow to brain tissue), traumatic brain injury, contracture to right elbow, urinary tract infection, retention of urine, urinary catheter (tube placed in bladder to drain urine), and seizures. Record review of Resident #66's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #66 was usually able to make himself understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #66 did not speak. The MDS indicated Resident #66 was unable to complete the BIMS. Resident #66 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Resident #66 had impairment to both sides of upper and lower extremities. Resident #66 was dependent on assistance with all ADLs. Resident #66 had a diagnosis of contracture to right elbow. Record review of Resident #66's undated care plan indicated Resident #66 had the potential for skin breakdown/pressure injury related to dependance on others for mobility and ADLs. Resident #66 had a potential for decline in function related to anoxic brain injury, personal history of traumatic brain injury. There was no problem area or interventions on Resident #66's comprehensive care plan related to the care of his contracture to right elbow. Record review of Resident #66's orders revealed there were no orders related to the care of his right elbow contracture. During an observation on 2/25/24 at 10:31 AM, Resident #66 was sitting up in a reclined wheelchair and was noted to have a contracture to right elbow with a stuffed animal placed within the contracted area . During an interview on 2/27/24 at 9:51 AM, RN A said she was the MDS Coordinator. RN A said she had worked at the facility for 2.5 years, but RN A said she had only been the MDS Coordinator for about 6 months. RN A said she used the resident's Care Area Assessment summary, diagnoses, admission nurse assessment, and their MDS software triggers certain things for her to put on the comprehensive care plan. RN A said she felt a resident having contractures should be on the comprehensive care plan, but she did not think there was triggers to prompt her to put it in the care plan. RN A said not having the contracture care planned could potentially result in not having the care needed or provided and staff that did not know him would not have a guide for his care. RN A said the comprehensive care plan's purpose was to guide the care of the resident and to indicate what care was needed to meet the resident's needs. RN A said the resident could have skin breakdown and pain related to contractures and should have interventions in place to care for a resident with contractures. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:25 AM, LVN E said she had worked at the facility since 2012, and she became a LVN in 2021. LVN E said she normally worked PRN. LVN E said she was not sure who was responsible for developing the comprehensive care plan. LVN E said the care plan was a guide to the resident's care needs and they followed the care plan until the care area was resolved. LVN E said contractures or behaviors were care areas that should be included in the care plan, to show what care was needed for the resident to meet the resident's care needs. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:39 AM, the DON said the MDS coordinator was responsible for developing the comprehensive care plans. The DON said the purpose of the care was to ensure the care needs of the resident were being met. The DON said contractures should be included on the care plan with interventions for monitoring the contracture, skin assessments, monitoring splints if indicated, and therapy services if indicated. The DON said the resident could have deterioration or worsening of the contracture if the contracture was not care planned. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:51 AM, the ADM said the care plan was a tool to best take care of the resident, so everyone was on the same page of the resident's needed care. The ADM said the Interdisciplinary team worked together to develop the comprehensive care plans. The ADM said he would expect a resident with contractures to have a care plan for contractures, unless there was something told prior that resident did not want contracture management, but typically there should be something in place in the comprehensive care plan. The ADM said he was not a nurse, but he would guess the contracture could get worse if it was not included in the comprehensive care plan. Record review of the facility's undated policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revealed . a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs were developed and implemented for each resident . each resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan would be consistent with the resident's rights to participate in the development and implementation of the plan of care, including the right to . comprehensive, person-centered care plan would . describe the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . describe service that would otherwise be provided for the above, but were not provided due to the resident exercising his or her rights, including the right to refuse treatment . receive the services and/or items included in the plan of care . describe the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . aid in preventing or reducing decline in the resident's functional status and/or functional levels . care plan interventions were chosen only after careful data gathering, proper sequencing of events, careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes, and relevant clinical decision making .
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain good nurtr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain good nurtrition, grooming, and personal and hygiene to residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living for 1 of 18 resident (Resident #16) reviewed for quality of life. The facility failed to removal facial hair from Resident #16 on his request 02/26/2024. This failure could result in a decrease in resident self-esteem, decrease social interaction and cause depression. Findings included: Record review of Resident #16's face sheet dated 02/26/2024 indicated Resident #16 was an 61- year- old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses of multiple sclerosis (a disease in which the immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves) [Primary, Admission], Moderate intellectual disabilities, Unspecified osteoarthritis (a progressive, degenerative joint disease), unspecified site, Essential [primary] hypertension, Other recurrent depressive disorders [History of]. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #16 was understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #16 had a BIMS score of 7, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #16 required partial/moderate assistance with personal hygiene. The MDS did not indicate the number of staff required to assist with personal hygiene. Record review of the care plan dated 01/10/2024 indicated Resident #16 needed partial/moderate assistance with ADLs. Resident #16 had Multiple sclerosis and was weak and had debility. Resident #16 voiced needs and wanted and called for assistance. Resident #16 needed bath assistance x 1 person if weak for transfer. Resident #16 needed assistance to wash and dry body. Record review of an order Summary Report on 02/26/2024 at 10:12 AM indicated Resident #16 may participate in social/creative activities as tolerated with an order started in 09/24/2015. During an interview on 02/25/24 at 09:37 AM Resident #16 said he would like his face shaved. Resident #16 said he preferred a shaved face. During an observation 02/26/24 at 10:04 AM Resident #16 was sitting up in his wheelchair in the dining area getting ready to play bingo. Resident #16's face was not shaved. During an interview on 02/26/24 at 11:14 AM Resident #16 said he told staff yesterday (02/25/2024) he wanted his face shaved. Resident #16 said he had forgotten who he told. Resident #16 said he wanted all the hair on his face shaved off except for his mustache. Resident #16 said he did not tell the nurse, just the aide. During an interview on 02/26/24 11:21 at AM CNA R said she was the CNA on Resident #16 hall. CNA R said Resident #16 had not informed her that he wanted to be shaved. CNA R said she would see if she could get Resident #16 shaved before lunch. CNA R said she asked Resident #16 if he wanted to be shaved and Resident #16 agreed but went to therapy. During an observation and interview on 02/26/24 at 3:44 PM Resident #16 was sitting up in his wheelchair in his bedroom and had not been shaved. Resident #16 was asked if he wanted to be shaved and he said yes. During an observation on 02/27/24 at 07:25 AM Resident #16 sitting in the hallway in his wheelchair and had not been shaved. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 09:22 AM CNA R said she had everything ready to shave Resident #16 yesterday then therapy took Resident #16. CNA R said Resident #16 was done with therapy about 10 minutes prior to Lunch so there was not enough time to shave Resident #16 prior to Lunch. CNA R said she reported to CNA C and CNA B that Resident #16 requested to be shaved. CNA R said CNA B assured her they would shave Resident #16. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 9:52 AM CNA C said CNA R told her before she left that Resident #16 wanted to be shaved but by the time, she finished evening rounds, it slipped her mind, and she went home. CNA C said Resident #16 had never complained to her about not being shaved, but she never asked him if he wanted to be shaved. CNA C said Resident #16 has been shaved. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:03 PM CNA B said CNA R told her Resident #16 needed to be shaved. CNA B said CNA R left yesterday about 1:00 PM. CNA B said CNA R came to get the clippers to shave Resident #16, then CNA R brought the clippers back and told me she did not get to shave him, because therapy came and got him. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:12 AM the DON said CNAs were responsible for shaving residents in the mornings before 10:00 AM. DON said the facility tried to offer Resident #16 an shave yesterday and he told them to wait because it was in the middle of activities and therapy. The DON said the facility also offered to shave Resident #16 during his shower yesterday but he refused. She said the facility did not document the refusal. The DON said the negative effect of Resident #16 not being shaved could cause body image disturbance. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 12:22 PM the Administrator said he thought if a resident had facial hair and wanted it shaved, the facility should provide that help.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine dental servic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine dental services and assist the resident with making appointment for 1 of 61 (Resident #13) residents reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to assist in providing routine dental services for Residents #13. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of oral complications with their gums and teeth, causing pain, infections, and weight loss, resulting in a decreased physical and psycho-social well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #13's face sheet dated 2/25/2024 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction (occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with blood vessels that supply it ) , Cerebrovascular disease (a group of conditions that affect blood flow and the blood vessels in the brain) , Rheumatoid arthritis (a chronic inflammatory disorder usually affecting small joints in the hands and feet), Diabetes (a condition that happens when your blood sugar is too high) , Bipolar disorder, current episode manic severe with psychotic features (a health condition that causes extreme mood swings that includes emotional highs (mania or hypomania)and lows (depression), and recurrent depressive disorder (common mental disorder which involves depressed mood or loss of pleasure or interest in activities for long periods of time). Record review of Resident #13's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she has a BIMs score of 9 which indicated Resident #13 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #13's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she required supervision with most ADLs. The MDS indicated Resident #13 had obvious or cavity or broken natural teeth with no eating and/or swallowing issues in the look back period of 7 days. Record review of Resident #13's Care Plan revised on 11/29/2023, indicated she required assistance with oral hygiene and had broken and missing teeth. The plan of care indicated interventions as follows: 1. Encourage Resident #13 to consume enough fluids to keep mouth moist. Created on 5/6/2019. 2. Monitor condition of oral cavity, teeth, tongue, and lips. Created on 5/6/2019. 3. Obtain dental consult as needed. Created on 12/8/2021. 4. Set-up tooth brushing supplies and provide hand over hand assistance. Remind Resident #13 to brush her gumline and brush teeth in the morning and in the evening. Created on 5/6/2019. During an observation on 2/25/2024 at 10:37 AM, Resident #13 was observed to have poor oral hygiene with missing teeth to upper part of mouth, swollen gums, and black discolored teeth with plaque buildup on the lower part of the mouth. During an attempted interview on 2/25/2024 at 2:25 PM, contacted RP and she said Nope, have a good day and hung up. During interview and observation on 2/26/2024 at 2:37 PM, Resident #13 said she had mouth pain. Resident #13 said she had a couple of teeth pulled prior to her admission to the facility. Resident #13 said it was hard to eat a regular diet. She said she had reported to the staff that her teeth hurt, and it wakes her up in the middle of the night. Resident #13 denied taking any medication for pain and it had been a long time since she had seen a dentist. Resident #13 said she does not brush her teeth and did not provide a reason. During interview on 2/26/2024 at 2:55 PM, CNA M who had been at the facility for 8 years said Resident #13 does complain of pain with her teeth. CNA M said Resident #13 will go to bed and then get back up due to pain with her teeth. CNA M said she will call down to the nurse's station to see if there is something the nurse can administer Resident #13 for her pain and the nurse will bring down pain medication if she is allowed to have it. CNA M said she had not seen a mobile dentist on the secure unit. CNA M said Resident #13 had a couple of teeth extracted approximately 6 months to a year ago. CNA M said Resident #13 is on a mechanical soft diet and the pain does affect the amount of food Resident #13 eats. CNA M said Resident #13 is independent with personal care needs and has access to a toothbrush for oral care. CNA M said she will assist Resident #13 at night if she needs her teeth brushed. During interview on 2/26/2024 at 3:25 PM, MA N said Resident #13 had not complained of pain in her teeth and said a couple of years ago she complained of pain but Resident #13 went to the dentist. MA N said the facility does not offer a mobile dentistry. MA N said she was unaware of Resident #13's complaints or pain or difficulties chewing food. MA N said the CNAs on the unit are responsible for ensuring residents teeth are cleaned and the charge nurse makes sure the CNAs complete the task. MA N said the CNAs would let her or the charge nurse know if a resident was experiencing pain. During interview on 2/27/2024 at 11:32 AM, LVN E said it has been a while since Resident #13 has complained of tooth pain. LVN E reviewed MAR and said the last time Tylenol was administered was on 2/9/2024 at 4:51 AM. LVN E said if a resident is complaining of pain with teeth, they let the Social Worker and MD know to schedule a dental appointment. LVN E said the Social Worker arranges all the transportation. LVN E was not aware of Resident #13 being seen by a dentist. LVN E said the CNAs are responsible for brushing the resident's teeth. LVN E said signs of pain was grimacing or moaning and she has not observed any non-verbal signs of pain from Resident #13. LVN E said poor dental care can cause Resident #13 to have poor appetite, bacterial infection, and mouth odor. LVN E said she had not observed Resident #13 decline in her consumption of food. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 11:52 AM, the social worker who had been at facility since June 2021 said it had been a couple of years since Resident #13 was seen by a Dentist. The Social Worker said her current Medicaid did not cover and the resident had no money. The Social Worker said a letter was sent to the RP and the family refused. The Social Worker said no one had reported to her that Resident #13 was having pain. The Social Worker said the family was responsible for ensuring the residents have proper dental care. The Social Worker said the ADM has a copy of the dental contracts but admitted it had not been updated since 2021. The Social Worker said the ADM is responsible for ensuring contracts are updated. The Social Worker said the previous mobile dental company is no longer answering calls. The Social Worker provided a copy of documents with last dental visit. Record review on 2/27/2024 at 11:52 AM, the Social Worker provided a letter dated 2/21/2022 to RP regarding Resident #13. The letter provided indicated on 2/16/2022, Resident #13 had a dental exam at facility with recommended treatment plan as follows: 1. Fluoride Varnish Application for a fee of $48.00 2. Periodic Oral Exam for a fee of $63.00 3. Cleaning of teeth every 6 months for a fee of $105.00 The Social Worker said this letter was sent to the RP and they refused. The letter of care plan was not signed, and no documentation of letter sent from facility to RP. During interview on 2/27/2024 at 12:04 PM, the ADON said the residents are responsible for paying for dental care. She said Medicaid does not cover everything. The ADON reviewed resident's MAR and confirmed the last time Resident #13 took on 2/9/2024 for toothache. The ADON said there was a process to obtain dental care and the social worker oversees it. The ADON said she is not sure if the facility has responsibility. The ADON said if the resident does not have insurance, she was aware the facility has helped residents in the past obtain oral care. The ADON said signs of tooth pain was the resident stop eating, loss of weight, body image disturbance, depression, and pain. The ADON said she expects the CNAs to report resident's tooth pain, decline in food consumption to charge nurse and then the charge nurse notified MD. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 12:04 PM, the DON said she was not aware of Resident #13 having any pain. The DON said she is not sure how some residents get dental care, and some do not. The DON said the facility is not contracted with a mobile dentist and the facility will take them to own dentist. The DON said if there was a dental emergency, the facility could send them out to the ER. The DON said the CNAs perform the oral care and the nurses are checking the charts to ensure the care was documented. The DON said she would know if a resident had oral care if she observed resident has food in teeth or bad breath. During interview on 2/27/2024 at 12:38 PM, the ADM said the facility did not have a dental service. The ADM said the facility would pay for emergency services and try to get the State to reimburse. The ADM said he was not sure if Resident #13 had dental work. The ADM said the psychiatric service note indicated Resident #13 made false allegations due to her disease process and any pain would have the potential for Resident #13 to have increased agitation. The ADM was unable to present a Policy and Procedure on Dental Care for facility residents. Record review of Certification of No Medical Contraindications-Dental Form H1263-B listed Resident #13 name and facility address. Record listed dental services for routine dental exam, prophylaxis, x-rays, fluoride, and other treatment (denture (s), restoratives, extractions, periodontal therapies.) as indicated in the resident's treatment plan and signed by Medical Director on 10/7/2021.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

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 have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brou...

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 have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption for 1 of 12 resident personal refrigerators reviewed for food safety. (Resident #4). The facility failed to have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents. Resident #4's personal refrigerator contained decomposing orange and apple slices. This failure could place residents at risk for not understanding safe food storage practices related to food borne illnesses. Findings include: Record review of a face sheet dated 01/23/2024 indicated Resident #4 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Interstitial pulmonary disease (group of diseases that cause scarring (fibrosis) of the lungs), Heart failure (occurs when the heart muscle does not pump blood as well as it should), and Sequelae of cerebral infarction (occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it). Record review of the MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 understood others and made herself understood. The MDS indicated Resident #4 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. The MDS indicated Resident #4 did not reject evaluation or care. Record review of a care plan for Resident #4 dated 02/15/2024 revealed Resident #4 required assistance with feeding if needed. Provide supplements as needed. During an observation and interview on 02/25/2024 at 10:24 a.m., Resident #4 said she ate lemons, apples, and oranges from her refrigerator. She said she ate the fruit in her refrigerator almost daily. She said she did not know if anyone cleaned out her refrigerator. It was observed inside Resident #4's refrigerator 3 closed plastic bags. One bag had oranges that were approximately 90% covered in a white furry substance. One bag had apples that had large black spots. One bag of oranges appeared as if they had been freshly peeled. All three bags were placed next to each other. Resident #4 said she would reach into the refrigerator, grab a bag of fruit, and eat whatever was in it. During an observation on 02/26/2024 at 11:18 a.m., it was observed that the moldy fruit had not been thrown away. During an interview on 02/26/2024 at 11:20 a.m., Housekeeper S stated that it is the responsibility of herself and all other housekeepers to ensure that residents personal refrigerators were kept clean of expired, moldy, or decomposing food. She said she would usually check the refrigerators once a week. She said she will tell Resident #4 she will throw away the moldy fruits. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 9:16 a.m., with the Administrator he said it is the responsibility of housekeepers to ensure that personal refrigerators are clean of expired foods. He said that residents could get sick if they eat fruit that is decomposing or moldy. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 10:27 a.m., the DON said that housekeeping was responsible to clean out the personal refrigerators for residents. She said that residents could be placed at risk for foodborne illness, an upset stomach or intestinal tract if they ate expired or moldy food. She said she expects housekeeping to clean out the personal refrigerators of all residents. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 11:10 a.m., with the Administrator he said that the facility does not have a policy regarding personal refrigerators.
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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each Minimum Data Set was electronically completed and trans...

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 each Minimum Data Set was electronically completed and transmitted to the CMS System within 14 days after completion for 4 of 18 (Resident #59, #62, #63, and #61) residents reviewed for MDS transmittal in that: Resident #59's, discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. Resident # 62's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. Resident # 63's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. Resident # 61's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their assessments transmitted timely. The findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #59's face sheet dated 02/27/2024 indicated Resident #59 was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/11/2023. Resident #59 had diagnoses including acute embolism of right femoral vein (presence of a blood clot in the femoral vein of the leg), diabetes type II, and hypertension. Record review of Resident #59's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #59 had a BIMS of 15. Resident #59 required supervision for ADLs. Resident #59 had plans to discharge to community. 2.Record review of Resident # 62's face sheet dated 02/27/2024 indicted Resident # 62 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/22/2023. Resident #62 had diagnoses including sleep apnea (disorder that causes people to stop breathing for short periods during sleep), atrial fibrillation (quivering or irregular heartbeat), and diabetes type II. Record review of Resident #62's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #62 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Resident #62 required limited assistance with ADLs. Resident #62 had planned to discharge to the community. 3.Record review of Resident # 63's face sheet dated 02/27/2024 indicated Resident #63 was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/18/2023. Resident #63 had diagnoses including sepsis (infection of the blood stream resulting in a cluster of symptoms such as drop in a blood pressure, increase in heart rate and fever), diabetes type II, and sleep apnea (disorder that causes people to stop breathing for short periods during sleep). Record review of Resident #63's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #63 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Resident #63 required supervision assistance with ADL's. Resident #63 had a discharge to the community planned. 4.Record review of Resident #61's face sheet dated 02/27/2024 indicated Resident #61 was an- [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/22/2023. Resident #61 had diagnoses including Benign prostatic hypertrophy (noncancerous enlargement of the prostate gland that can cause urinary symptoms), prostate cancer, and an inguinal hernia (hernia that occurs in the abdomen near your groin area). Record review of Resident # 61's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #61 had a BIMS of 11, which indicated mild cognitive impairment. Resident #61 required limited assistance with ADLs. Resident #61 had a discharge to the community planned. During an interview on 02/26/2024 at 10:00 a.m., the MDS Coordinator stated she was responsible for creating, completing, and transmitting all MDSs in the facility. The MDS Coordinator stated that all entry and discharge assessments are required to be transmitted to CMS in a timely manner. The MDS Coordinator stated she was new when Residents # 59, #62, #63, and #61 were discharged and she accidentally checked the section not to transmit the discharge assessments. Review of the facility policy, MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes, revised July 2017, revealed, Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with federal and state submission timeframes and 1. The Assessment Coordinator or designee is responsible for ensuring that resident assessments are submitted to CMS' QIES (internet-based system that includes and survey and certification functions) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system in accordance with current federal and state guidelines.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities in accordanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities in accordance with the comprehensive assessment to meet the interests and the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for activities. (Residents #27) The facility failed to provide Residents #27 with consistent, scheduled activities. This failure could place residents at risk for not having activities to meet their interests or needs and a decline in their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Record review of the face sheet dated 02/26/24 revealed Resident #27 was [AGE] years old and was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, dementia, and aphasia (a disorder that affects how you communicate). Record review of a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #27 was rarely/never understood and sometimes understood others. The MDS revealed a BIMS had not been conducted due to the resident being rarely/never understood. The MDS indicated the resident was not interviewed for activity preferences due to the resident being rarely/never understood. Record review of a care plan dated 02/07/24 indicated Resident #27 did not like to participate in group activities routinely. She enjoyed those that involve music but most of the time would rather stay in her room watching TV or wandering up and down the halls in her wheelchair people watching. There were interventions to acknowledge and all Resident #27's preferences in a daily routine and to inform Resident #27 of upcoming activities by providing an activity calendar, verbal reminders, escort and encouragement. Record review of activity progress notes for Resident #27 from 2/17/23 - 02/07/24 indicated, there were no notes for the months of 03/2023, 04/2023, 06/2023, 07/2023, 09/2023, 10/2023, 12/2023 and 1/2024. A note dated 02/07/24 indicated, (Resident #27) would attend on occasion but would sit back and watch. She did not want to participate in any type of 1:1 activity, usually becoming very agitated and rolling away. Lately, (Resident #27) has not been getting out of bed. She turns her head away when we speak to her. We will respect her desire to be left alone. If she starts to feel better, is able to get up and start roaming the halls again, we will encourage her to participate in activities. Record review of In Room Activities documentation dated 2/12/2024 - 2/25/2024 did indicate any in-room activities for Resident #27. During an observation on 02/25/24 at 9:32 a.m., Resident #27 was in bed. Her eyes were open. She did make eye contact. She did not answer questions. The resident did not have a television. There was no music playing. During an observation and interview on 02/26/24 at 3:11 p.m., Resident #27 was resting in bed awake with no music and there was no television. Resident #27's roommate said Resident #27 was not provided activities any longer. She said staff used to get her up out of bed to attend activities but not anymore. She said it had been months since Resident #27 had been gotten up for activities. The roommate said she tried to keep her own television on as a form of entertainment for her. She said the Resident #27's television was in her closet. She said Resident #27 loved to watch games shows but her own television did not pick up game shows. She said staff never played music for the Resident #27. The roommate said she was Resident #27's only source of entertainment. She said Resident #27 did talk to her a little and the resident was very smart. She said the resident never left the room anymore. The roommate said she hung a new decoration on Resident #27's wall so she would have something new to look at. An attempt was made to interview the resident at this time. The resident made eye contact, but her speech was garbled and could not be understood. During an observation on 02/27/24 at 8:27 a.m., Resident #27 was resting in bed. There was no music playing. The resident did not have a television. There were no activities in progress. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 9:06 a.m., the Activity Director said staff had conducted one-on-one activities with Resident #27. She said in the past they had done aroma therapy and hand massages, but the resident became aggressive. The Activity Director said Resident #27 used to come out of her room for activities, but she would just sit and watch. She said she did not know why the resident no longer was brought out of her room for activities. She said the Resident #27 was brought of her room for activities until recently. She said in the past they had not found music the resident liked. She said last fall the resident attended live music out of her room and she did attend a band concert at Christmas. She said the resident did not have a television and the family would not provide one for the resident. She said the resident never liked watching television in the past. She said the Resident #27's roommate was mistaken about the television being in the closet. She said the resident had no activities provided to her for at least the last two weeks. During an observation and interview on 02/27/24 at 9:12 a.m., Resident #27's roommate said a television was in the closet. A television was observed inside a closet in the room of Resident #27. The roommate said the television had been in the closet for over a year. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 9:13 a.m., CNA B said there was a television and a mount inside the closet in the room of Resident #27. She said she had no idea the television had been in the closet. She said she would have maintenance install the television for Resident #27. During an observation on 02/27/24 at 9:43 a.m., an overhead announcement was made about an exercise activity in the dining room and for staff to assist all residents that wished to attend. The activity was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. During an observation on 02/27/24 at 10:10 a.m., an activity was in progress in the dining room. Resident #27 was not present. During an observation on 02/27/24 at 10:13 a.m., Resident #27 was in her bed . The resident was awake. She did not have a television. There was no music playing. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 10:15 a.m., CNA B said she had not recently seen Resident #27 at any activities lately. She did not know why Resident #27 was not brought out to activities any longer. She said she had not witnessed anyone providing one in-room activities for Resident #27. She said Resident just stayed in the bed. She said, we try to go in and play with her. She said she had never heard music playing in her room. She said it had been several weeks since she had seen her attend an activity. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 10:18 a.m., LVN Q said Resident #27 did not like to get up out of bed to do things. She said she did know that Resident #27 liked to listen to music. She said she had not witnessed any one-on-one in room activities taking place with Resident #27. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:50 a.m., the DON said Resident #27 did get up out of bed and went around the facility in her wheelchair. She said when she was brought to activities, she became agitated and ran into things. She said if Resident #27 was not gotten out of bed for activities, she would expect one-on-one in-room activities to have done. She said if a resident did not have activities, it could cause depression. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:20 a.m., the Activity Director said she had never seen a policy concerning activities or one-on-one activities. During an observation on 02/27/24 at 11:26 a.m., there was a Resident Rights posting displayed in the hallway near the entrance of the facility. The Resident Rights posting said, You have the right to .Participate in activities inside and outside the facility . During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:42 a.m., the Administrator said months ago Resident #27 was up and active she did attend activities but did not participate in them. He said now that the resident was in bed more, he would have at least expected one-on-one activities or at least try. He said any attempts at one-on-one activities should be documented. He said a resident not having activities could cause their overall health to decline. An activities facility policy was requested at this time and was not received prior to exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies, skills set and accreditations to carry out the functions of the foo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies, skills set and accreditations to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service department for 3 of 4 reviewed for qualified dietary staff. The facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager H, Assistant Dietary Supervisor J and Dietary Aid K met the requirements for a food handling This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met and placing them at risk for food born illnesses. Findings: During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:27 AM, Dietary Aid K said she had been employed as the dishwasher and dessert preparer for 3 years. She said that she was currently in the process of obtaining her food handler certification. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:41 AM, Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said his Food Handler Certification was not current and could not say when it expired. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:50 AM, Dietary Manager H said she had been employed at the facility for over 1 year. She said her Food Handler Certification was expired and did not say when it expired. During interview on 2/27/2024 at 12:38 PM, the ADM said the Dietary Manager H was responsible for the kitchen and he was responsible for the Policy and Procedures. The ADM said the facility was not corporate and he does not have any policies and procedures on food handing. During record review and request on 2/27/2024 at 11:10 a.m., the ADM said he does not have a policy on hair nets, safe food handling, safe, prepare, or serve handling. During record review on 2/28/2024, Dietary Manager H, Assistant Dietary Supervisor J, and Dietary Aide K did not hold a current certification for food handling. Record review titled Continuing Education Certification of Completion for Diabetic Food Service indicated Dietary Manager H completed 100 classroom hours. Record review titled Workforce Development Continuing Education indicated Assistant Dietary Supervisor J successfully completed 12 hours Diabetic Food Service Management on 7/29/2021.
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 ensure an infection prevention and control program des...

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 an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #56) reviewed for foley catheters and for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for wound care (Resident #8 and Resident #37). 1 .The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 and Resident #56's foley catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) tubing and drainage bag/privacy bags were not dragging/touching the floor under their wheelchairs. 2.The facility failed to perform appropriate hand washing while wound care was performed for Resident #8 and Resident #37. These failures could place residents at risk for cross-contamination, increased risk of infection and the spread of infection. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 2/25/24 indicated Resident #3 was an [AGE] year-old male and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning with impairment or memory and thinking and often with personality changes), history of fall, history of hip fracture, weakness, unsteadiness on feet, history of urinary tract infection, and retention of urine. Record review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated a BIMS score of 3 which indicated Resident #3 had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #3 required substantial to dependent on assistance for most ADLs. Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). Record review of Resident #3's undated care plan indicated she had an indwelling urinary catheter and had the potential for decline in ADL function. During an observation on 2/25/24 at 11:09 AM. Resident #3 was observed sitting up in her wheelchair with her foley catheter bag in a privacy bag hooked to the underside of her wheelchair and the bag was dragging on the floor. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 11:20 AM, Resident #3 was observed sitting up in her wheelchair self-propelling herself down the hallway in front of the dining room with her foley catheter bag in a privacy bag and her catheter tubing dragging the floor under her wheelchair. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 3:35 PM, Resident #3 was observed in front of nurse's station sitting up in her wheelchair with her foley catheter bag in a privacy bag and catheter tubing touching the floor under her wheelchair. During an observation on 2/27/24 at 8:28 AM, Resident #3 was observed sitting at dining room table eating breakfast with her foley catheter bag in privacy bag and catheter tubing touching the floor. 2. Record review of Resident #56's face sheet dated 10/23/23 indicated Resident #56 was a [AGE] year-old female and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Multiple sclerosis (the immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves, resulting in nerve damage that disrupts communication between the brain and the body), history of urinary tract infection, pneumonia (lung infection), and kidney failure. Record review of Resident #56's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #56 was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated a BIMS score of 13 which indicated Resident #56 was cognitively intact. Resident #56 was dependent on assistance for most ADLs. Record review of Resident #56's undated care plan indicated Resident #56 had an indwelling urinary catheter, she was at risk for urinary tract infections, and had the potential for decline in ADL function. During an observation on 2/25/24 at 10:58 AM, Resident #56 was observed self-propelling herself down hallway to the common area and her foley catheter bag in a privacy and her catheter tubing dragging on the floor under her wheelchair. During an observation on 2/25/24 at 11:40 AM, Resident #56 was observed sitting in her wheelchair being pushed down the hallway by a family member and her foley catheter bag in privacy bag and catheter tubing dragging the floor under her wheelchair. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 08:22 AM, Resident #56 was observed self-propelling herself from the dining room down the hallway with her foley catheter bag in a privacy bag and catheter tubing dragging the floor under her wheelchair. During an observation on 2/26/24 at 3:40 PM, Resident #56 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in her room and her foley catheter bag was in a privacy bag and the privacy bag and tubing was sitting on the floor under the resident's wheelchair. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 8:40 AM, CNA B said she was the Lead CNA and had worked at the facility for 28 years. CNA B said when getting a resident up to a wheelchair who had a foley catheter, the foley catheter drainage bag should be placed in a privacy bag or some of foley catheter bags had a privacy cover on them already. CNA B said staff should curl the foley catheter tubing up and secure it with the clip to ensure that it was flowing. CNA B said the foley catheter bag and/or tubing should not touch or drag floor because the privacy bag could be adjusted to not drag the floor. CNA B said the foley catheter bag and/or tubing should not touch floor due to cross-contamination and it could cause the resident to develop an infection. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:06 AM, CNA C said she had worked at the facility for almost a year. CNA C said she would empty the foley catheter drainage bag and place the foley catheter bag in a catheter protector bag. CNA C said if the foley catheter tubing was long, she would curl the tubing up and use clamp to secure it, so the tubing did not touch the floor. CNA C said if the foley catheter bag and/or tubing was dragging on floor under a resident's wheelchair, it could get caught on something and pull the foley out. CNA C said it could cause the resident to get an infection from dragging on the dirty floor. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:16 AM, CNA D said she had worked at the facility for approximately two and half years and normally worked the day shift on the 200 hall. CNA D said when she got residents up into wheelchairs who had foley catheters, she placed the foley catheter bag in a privacy bag and made sure it was not dragging the floor, so it doesn't get caught on something and pull it out. CNA D said she make sure the foley catheter bag and/or tubing was not dragging the floor, because it could cause the resident to get an infection. CNA D said she got Resident #3 up into her wheelchair on 2/27/24 and she probably did not get the privacy bag tight enough if it was dragging the floor. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:25 AM, LVN E said a resident's foley catheter bag should have a protective bag and make sure the bag and/or tubing was not dragging the floor. LVN E said the foley catheter bag and/or tubing should not be dragging the floor under the resident's wheelchair because there was bacteria and germs on the floor. LVN E said the resident could get an infection, the foley catheter bag and/or tubing could hang on something, or even get pulled out. LVN E said if she saw the foley catheter bag and/or tubing dragging the floor under a resident's wheelchair, she would stop and fix it to the best of her ability. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:40 AM, ADON F said she had recently become the Infection Preventionist. ADON F said the resident's foley catheter drainage bag and tubing should be placed in a privacy bag, and it should be secured off the floor. ADON F said some residents can move their legs and pull the tubing out of the privacy bag, and staff should keep a close eye on it and resecure it. ADON F said if the resident's foley catheter bag and/or tubing drug the floor under their wheelchair, it could get all kinds of bacteria up that tube, get clamped off, run over, or pulled out. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:39 AM, the DON said she would expect staff to place the resident's foley catheter tubing and drainage in a privacy bag and secure it to the wheelchair, so it does not drag the floor. The DON said it was an infection control issue to allow the foley catheter tubing and catheter bag to drag the floor under the wheelchair. The DON said it could increase the risk of infection for the resident and/or could potentially get caught on something and pull the foley catheter out. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 10:51 AM, the ADM said allowing the foley catheter tubing and bag to drag the floor under a resident's wheelchair was an infection control issue and nothing should be dragging the floor, because the floor was not clean. The ADM said he would expect the foley catheter tubing and bag to be positioned to not allow it to drag the floor under the wheelchair. 3. Record review of face sheet date 02/26/2024 at 10:04 AM indicated Resident #8 was a [AGE] year old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, unspecified[Primary, Admission](a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), Diarrhea, unspecified, (loose, watery stools that occur more frequently than usual), Unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition (a nutritional status in which reduced availability of nutritional status in which reduced availability of nutrients leads to changes in body composition and function), Anemia, unspecified (a condition in which the blood doesn't have enough healthy red blood cells and hemoglobin, a protein found in red blood cells, to carry oxygen all through the body), Deficiency of other vitamins, Need for assistance with personal care, Pain in left hand, Weakness, Other symptoms and signs concerning food and fluid intake, Acute pulmonary edema(a condition caused by too much fluid in the lungs), Other abnormalities of gait and mobility, Other lack of coordination, Cognitive communication deficit, Unspecified macular degeneration, Essential (primary)hypertension, Nonrheumatic aortic [valve] stenosis(a thickening and narrowing of the valve between the heart's main pumping chamber and the body's main artery, called the aorta), Unspecified systolic [congestive] heart failure, Syncope and collapse. Record review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident # 8 was understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #8 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated his cognition was intact. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #8 required partial to moderate assistance with ADL's. Record review of Resident #8 care plan dated 12/20/2023 indicated Resident #8 had potential for skin breakdown related to extremely fragile skin. Interventions were listed as weekly skin assessment, assist to bathroom and aid toileting as needed, every 2hrs, keep clean and dry, encourage movement/mobility, keep bed linens smooth and wrinkle free, encourage fluid intake, turn q2hrs and PRN when in bed and apply lotion to skin as needed for dry skin. Record review of Summary Report dated 02/26/2024 at 10:45 AM indicated Resident #8 had an order to cleanse wound to left buttocks with normal saline or wound cleanser, pat dry, apply collagen powder to wound bed and cover with dry dressing. Change daily and prn soiled/dislodged. During observation of wound care performed 02/26/24 at 4:11 PM by RN U on Resident #8. RN U did not wash her hands prior to performed wound care on Resident #8 left buttocks. RN U did not change gloves after Resident #8 buttocks area was cleaned and applied new dressing. 4.Record review of face sheet date 02/26/2024 at 8:43 AM indicated Resident #37 was a [AGE] year old female initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses which included unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety[Primary]Pressure ulcer of left heel, stage 2 (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough or bruising of the heel), Pressure ulcer of sacral region, stage 2 (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough or bruising of the sacral), Valgus deformity, not elsewhere classified (a lower leg deformity that exists when the bone at the knee joint is angled out and away from the body's mid-line), left knee, Polyarthritis, unspecified(a term used when at least five joints are effected with arthritis), Deficiency of other specified B group vitamins, Vitamin D deficiency, unspecified, Vitamin deficiency, unspecified Record review of a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 was rarely/never understood and rarely/never understood others. The MDS revealed a BIMS had not been conducted due to the resident being rarely/never understood. The MDS indicated the resident has 2 Stage II partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough. May also present as an intact or open/rupture blister. Record review of Resident #37 care plan dated 02/21/2024 indicated Resident #37 was potential for skin breakdown related to incontinent and decreased mobility. Interventions Treatments per orders, administer vitamins and proteins as ordered, assist with shifting of weight when up in wheelchair, and monitor prealbumin (protein) levels as ordered. Record review of Summary Report dated 02/26/2024 at 10:30 AM indicated Resident #37 had an order for cleanse open area to coccyx with wound cleanser, pat dry apply barrier cream to peri wound area. Apply activate/moisten collagen sheet or powder with normal saline to wound bed. Cover with calcium alginate dressing. Then cover with foam dressing. Change daily and prn dislodged or soiled. During observation of wound care performed 02/26/24 at 3:20 PM by RN U on Resident #37. RN U did not wash her hands prior to performing wound care to Resident #37's Stage 3 pressure ulcer to coccyx. While wound care provided for Resident #37, RN U did not change gloves after removal of soiled dressing from wound area. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 10:00 AM RN U stated, hands should be washed prior to wound care and if hands become soiled in the process of wound care. RN U said, hands should be washed after wound care performed. RN U said, she chose to use hand sanitizer prior to the performed wound care. RN U said she was taught you could use hand sanitizer prior to wound care. RN U stated, the importance of washed hands, was not to expose the resident to infection. RN U said, the negative effect of not having washed her hands prior to wound care would cause resident wound to be contaminated her gloves. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 11:12 AM the DON stated, the nurse should have washed her hands prior to wound care. Hand sanitizer should be used between glove changes. The DON said, they wash their hands prior to entrance of the resident's room prior to wound care, then use hand sanitizer while wound care performed. The DON said, the negative effect of not washing your hands can cause infection and cross contamination. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 12:22 PM the ADM stated, he expected the nurses to address the wounds, not ignore the wounds and heal the wounds. The ADM said, he expected the nurses to follow wound care orders and perform them correct. Record review of the facility's policy titled Communicable Diseases dated January 2023 revealed . it was the policy of the facility that all infections, contagious or communicable would be followed according to the Center for Disease Control guidelines to prevent the spread of diseases within their community . Record review of the facility's policy on Hand Washing on 02/27/2024 at 1:30 PM indicated . Some situations require hand washing in areas where sinks are not readily available. In these limited circumstances, waterless hand washing products may be used (e.g. feeding residents in the dining room, administrating medications in the dining room). These products are not a substitute for good hand washing. Hand washing with soap and water should be done as soon as possible. Waterless hand washing products are not used for skin care treatment or administration of eye drops .
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accorda...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review, 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 kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Dietary Aide L was not wearing appropriate facial covering restraint while preparing and serving lunch. 2. Hamburger meat was thawing improperly in the dish room sink without running water. 3. Ice maker buildup with brown residue on interior panel. 4. Grease buildup on the vent hood switch in the kitchen area. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings were: 1. During an observation on 2/25/2024 between 9:00 a.m. and 9:20 a.m., Dietary Aide L was not wearing a facial hair restraint for his goatee and had hair protruding from hair restraint while cleaning the kitchen surfaces. During an observation on 2/25/2024 at 11:52 a.m., Dietary Aide L was serving trays wearing a hair restraint, but no facial hair restraint. During observation on 2/26/2024 at 11:54 a.m., Dietary Aide L came into the kitchen wearing a hair net and no facial hair restraint covering 2-inch hair on chin and hair on sides of face. Dietary Aide L washed hands, placed gloves and apron on and tied the strings behind his back. Dietary Aide L then went to the cooler, read the menu, and pulled out his personal phone from his pant pocket from under apron then placed back in his pocket. Dietary Aide L went to the dry goods pantry and picked up two large cans of green peas and placed on the counter in kitchen and then placed his gloved hands-on top of food prep counter. At 11:59 a.m. he washed his hands, changed his gloves, and continued kitchen duties such as washing dishes, putting up clean dishes, placed a metal lid under the serving steam table while lunch was being served. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:27 AM, Dietary Aide K said staff must keep hair in a hairnet and wash their hands upon entering the kitchen. Dietary Aide K said mustaches and beards must be covered up to keep hair out of food. Dietary Aide K said she was not aware of any facial restraint supplies. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:41 a.m., Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said kitchen staff are supposed to wear hair nets and hair should not be sticking out of restraint to prevent cross contamination. Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said kitchen currently does not have beard guards available in the kitchen. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:50 a.m., Dietary Manager H said kitchen staff must wear hair nets upon entering the kitchen. She said male kitchen staff with facial hair are to have it covered. Dietary Manager H said she currently does not have facial coverings due to first time working with male employee with facial hair. The Dietary Manager H said she does not have policies and procedures on food handling. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 10:46 a.m., Dietary Aide L said he had only been employed for 1 week. He said kitchen staff are supposed to be wearing hair nets, but he was not instructed on wearing a facial covering while in the kitchen and one had not been provided to him. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 12:04 p.m., the DON said the dietary manager is responsible for policies. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 12:39 p.m., the ADM said the dietary manager is responsible for the kitchen. The ADM said he is responsible for the policy and procedures and does not have a policy on food handling. 2. During an observation on 2/25/2024 at 9:02 a.m., hamburger meat was thawing without cold running water in the third sink located in the dishwasher area. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:27 AM, Dietary Aide K said hamburger meat was to be taken out of the freezer the night before and placed in a bin in the refrigerator. She said if the meat was not taken out the night before, the kitchen staff would boil it in a pot to thaw. Dietary Aide K said she thaws chicken and olives by running cold water over them. Dietary Aide K said meats thawed out improperly could cause food poisoning. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:41 a.m., Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said if meat is frozen, the staff was to run cold water over meat. Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said meats are usually pulled out of freezer and placed in a bin in refrigerator 2 days prior to preparation. Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said meats could go bad if not used in proper time. During interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:50 a.m., the Dietary Manager H said if meats are still frozen, they could run cold water over it. The Dietary Manager H said meat should be thawed out for 72 hours in the refrigerator and the cook is responsible for pulling meat out to thaw. The Dietary Manager H said if meats are not thawed out properly, it could cause illness. 3. During an observation on 2/25/2024 at 9:02 a.m., ice machine had brown and black residue located on interior panel. During an interview on 2/7/2024 at 9:27 a.m., Dietary Aide K said it was the responsibility of dietary staff to clean areas of the kitchen. Dietary Aide K provided dietary cleaning schedule. During a record review of the dietary cleaning schedule dated February 2024 indicated following each shift: Day shift duties: 1. Mondays: De-lime and use brush on dish machine. 2. Tuesday: Clean and steel [NAME] outside of refrigerator. 3. Wednesday: Clean coffee machine. 4. Thursday: Clean ice carts and wash ice chest. 5. Friday: Clean ice machine and scoops. 6. Saturday: Clean floor beside freezers, large appliances, and drains. 7. Sunday: Wash condiment holders and replace trays in refrigerator. During record review of cleaning schedule dated February 2024, Assistant Dietary Supervisor J initialed checklist on 2/2/2024, 2/16/2024, that the cleaning was completed on the ice machine and scoops. Dietary Aide L initialed checklist on 2/23/2024 that the cleaning was complete on the ice machine and scoops. 4.During an observation on 2/26/2024 at 8:05 a.m., grease buildup on the vent hood switch located to the top left of stove in kitchen area. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:41 a.m., Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said everyone is responsible for cleaning. Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said he had never cleaned the switch located on the vent hood. Assistant Dietary Supervisor J said the company listed on the back of the oven comes out and cleans it. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:50 a.m., the Dietary Manager H said everyone in the kitchen are responsible for cleaning. She said there was a contract company who is contracted to clean oven and the company has been backed up for 2 weeks. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 12:38 p.m., the ADM said the Dietary Manager H is responsible for the kitchen and it is his responsibility for the policy and procedures. The ADM said the facility is not corporate and he does not have any policies and procedures on kitchen or food-handling. Review of FDA 2022 regulations for hair restraints 1-402.11 indicated (A) except as provided in (B) of this section, Food Employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair covering or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep hair .
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow guidelines for mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format. Long-term care facilities mus...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow guidelines for mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format. Long-term care facilities must electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS for 1 of 4 quarters reviewed for payroll data information. (Quarter 4 2023). The facility failed to submit staffing information to CMS for the 4th quarter of the fiscal year 2023. This failure could place residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met, decreased quality of care, decline in health status, and decreased feeling of well-being within their living environment. Findings included: Record review of the facility's Civil Rights form (3761) dated 02/26/24 indicated the following: 5 RNs 8 LVNs 33 Direct Care Staff 8 Dietary 7 Housekeeping and Laundry 5 All Others During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 09:10 a.m., the Administrator said it was the responsibility of the HR Coordinator T to submit PBJ reports. He said HR Coordinator T did not complete it in a timely fashion. He stated that he did not know if there was a sufficient staffing policy or a policy regarding the PBJ reports. He stated that he is unsure if the PBJ report was not reported in time or if it was just never reported at all. He said the surveyor would need to speak to the HR Coordinator T to understand why it was not reported. During an interview on 02/27/24 at 09:38 a.m., HR Coordinator T said there was no excuse for the PBJ report to not have been made. He said he uses the time sheets that are submitted to him to track staffing. He said if he is not given time sheets for a period he cannot submit the PBJ report. He said he is not very familiar with the time clock system and depends on others to send him the time sheets. He said if staff fail to send him the time sheets, then he does not send the PBJ data. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 11:10 a.m., the Administrator he said that the facility does not have a PBJ reporting policy.
Dec 2023 3 deficiencies 3 IJ (3 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse or neglect for 3 of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident #1, Resident #3, and Resident #4) The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was not verbally abused mentally abused, and harassed for the remainder of the night on 5/28/23 by LVN D The facility failed to educate staff on the de-escalation of an agitated or aggressive resident. The facility failed to identify harassment and intimidation as abuse for Resident #1 and Resident #3 when they complained about the care CNA A was providing. The facility failed to identify abuse when Resident #3 said CNA A intentionally caused her pain. CNA A was allowed to continue to intimidate and harass Resident #1 by going into her room and the shower room when she was receiving a shower. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. while the IJ was removed on 12/28/23 at 8:18 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a potential for actual harm with a scope of pattern with a potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of physical harm and or emotional abuse. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet with no date indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharge 6/2/23. Resident #4 was a [AGE] year-old male with admitting diagnoses of need for assistance with personal care, history of falling, colostomy status, mood disturbance, anxiety, and lack of coordination. Record review of Resident #4's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. His functional status indicated he required extensive assist of one person with transfers, toilet use and dressing. The resident was unable to stand and stabilize himself. He did not walk. He was unable to move himself off the toilet, and he was not steady with transfers from surface to surface. Review of Resident #4's baseline care plan dated 5/28/23 indicated his cognition was alert and cognitively intact and required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers walking in toileting . The care plan indicated the resident had a club foot, a new colostomy, and an abdominal incision. He had a new colostomy with interventions to teach the resident proper changing techniques and monitor site of colostomy. Record review of a Provider Investigation Report dated 5/28/23 at 9:59 p.m., indicated on the morning of 5/28/23 around 1:30 a.m. to 3:30 a.m. Resident #4 alleged LVN D verbally abused him. The report contained a letter from the Administrator that stated he first heard of the incident on Sunday, 5/28/23 at 7:30 p.m. Resident #4 said LVN D verbally abused him. The LVN continued to agitate and provoke Resident #4 to the end of his shift at 6:00 a.m. He said they flagged LVN D (an agency nurse) to no longer work for the facility. The investigation indicated Resident #4 was interviewed on 5/30/23 and said LVN D came to his room to help change his colostomy bag and did not bring the appropriate tools. Resident #4 said he felt LVN D did not want to help him. Resident #4 said he told LVN D to get his A out of his room. The Resident said LVN D responded with, I will mop you with the floor. Resident #4 responded. I'll beat your A. Resident #4 said he did not feel safe with LVN D in the building as his nurse. When asked Resident #4 said he did not have a knife. He said he felt he needed to bluff LVN D to ensure his safety. The resident's room was searched and there was no knife found. Interview with LVN D indicated Resident #4 had asked him to help him change his colostomy, in his room and then came to the nurse's station to ask again. LVN D said he told Resident #4 he would assist him when he finished his rounds. LVN D said when he went to the room Resident #4 was rude and talked harshly to him. LVN D said Resident #4 told him, To get his A out of his room. He said the resident continued to give him attitude the rest to the night. The resident told one of the aides he had a knife. The LVN D denied he had harassed the resident. The report indicated a statement from one of the aides indicated LVN D did try and provoke Resident #4 during the night. Record review of a statement that accompanied the Provider Investigation Report for Resident # 4 indicated on 5/28/23 [They (CNA C and CNA E) heard LVN D arguing loudly with Resident # 4. Resident #4 was saying if you are going to hit me then hit me. We (CNA C and CNA E) walked down the hall and LVN D was coming out the room. LVN D said if he was not a professional, he would have whopped Resident #4's A. After that, every time LVN D walked by Resident #4 he would giggle at him and smacked the wall like he was trying to intimidate Resident #4. LVN D really upset Resident #4 to the point he did not feel safe and wanted to leave. LVN D did tell us he told the resident if he was not a professional, he would whip his A.] the statement was signed by CNA C. Record review of the Provider Report Post Action Investigation indicated [ LVN D should have never allowed the situation to get out of hand. He should have been more patient with Resident #4 and never made Resident #4 feel he needed to protect himself. Resident #4 should have shown LVN D more patience as he was seeing other residents during his rounds. Both individuals should have conducted themselves more professionally to ensure a healthy exchange of information and services to be achieved. I feel both men were at fault and this situation could have easily ben avoided. I am finding this inconclusive because both men conducted themselves inappropriately. Neither one were at risk of injury or injured. They obviously do not get along with each other. I do not agree how LVN D conducted himself at the facility and we have taken measures for him not to return to the facility as he is not employee. He is an agency employee and will not be allowed to work another shift at this facility.] The form was signed by the Administrator on 5/31/23. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:20 p.m. CNA C said she and CNA E were working in another resident room and came into the hallway and heard loud voices coming from Resident #4's room on morning of 5/28/23. She said the LVN D came out of the room and was hollering back, I would whip your A if you were not a resident. She said Resident # 4 was very upset and wanted to leave the facility. He tried to exit through several of the doors. She said she spent the night trying to keep him from leaving and watching LVN D try and aggravate the resident. She said every time LVN D would pass by the Resident #4. He would giggle and hit on the wall or the side rails as if he was hitting someone. She said the nurse's behavior was not professional at all, in fact he acted like a child. She said she did not remember if she called anyone to report the incident or not. She spent the night trying to keep the peace and trying to keep Resident#4 from leaving. She said at one point they were outside in the smoking area, and Resident#4 said he would throw himself on the ground, throw his wheelchair down the steps, crawl down the steps and get back in his wheelchair and leave. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:25 p.m., the Administrator said he did not remember who notified him about the incident that happened on 5/28/23. He said he was told it happened on that morning around 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. he said it was not reported to him until 5/28/23 at 7:30 p.m. and he called it into the state around 9:00 p.m. He said in the defense of the resident he was very independent. He said the resident told the nurse he had a knife because he tried to intimidate him when he walked by. The Administrator said the resident did not have a knife and he could not find one. He said the resident admitted he just felt he needed some type of protection from the LVN D. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 3:30 p.m., CNA E said when they rounded the corner on the night of 5/28/23, LVN D and Resident #4 were arguing. The nurse was LVN D was hollering at the Resident #4. We (CNA C and CNA E) tried to deescalate the situation. CNA E said Resident #4 tried to leave through two different doors. She said the nurses' behavior was not professional, he was hollering and talking smart. Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's face sheet indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were Alzheimer's, disease, anxiety disorder, and history of falling. Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had no cognitive impairment. The resident used mobility devices of a walker and a wheelchair. She required partial assistance with hygiene, and partial assistance with chair to bed transfer, and partial assist with toilet transfer. Record review of Resident #1's care. Plan indicated she had a problem of ADL function. She required two people assist with bathing, two people assist with toileting, and two people assist with bed mobility. Record review of a Complaint/Concern form dated 7/3/23 indicated Resident #1 was filing a complaint against CNA A. Resident #1 said CNA A was rough in the way that she handled her care, causing her pain and discomfort when she was turning her, placing her in the chair and any other physical contact. Resident #1 said CNA A spoke to her in a rude and hurtful manner. Resident #1 said she refused to put up with it any longer. CNA A said Resident # 1, was always complaining about something and making notes to tell on me. Resident #1 disagreed with that statement. Resident #1 said that she refused to be spoken to or treated to rudely any longer. The resident said she asked CNA A to stop on several occasions, but it continued. Resident #1 said it had become harassment. The resident did not want CNA A to be associated with her care any longer. Resident #3 Record review of a face sheet for Resident #3 with no date indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were stroke, removal of the right breast, acute kidney failure, stiffness in the right knee, need for assistance with personal care, abnormal posture Disorder of the bone upper arm, and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had no cognitive impairment. Her functional status was she used a wheelchair for mobility. She had impairment on her upper extremity shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand, and she had impairment on her lower extremity hip knee, ankle, and foot. Record review of Resident #3's care plan dated 11/15/23 indicated a problem of limited range of motion to the right upper and lower extremities. Resident # 3 required assistance with active and passive range of motion in a splint applied to the right hand. Resident # 3 had problems of ADL function and required a lift for transfers. The resident required one or two people to aid turn and reposition in bed frequently to prevent skin breakdown. The resident required one person assist for dressing, and two people for a transfer by Hoyer lift. Record review of a Complaint/Concern Form dated 7/3/23 indicated Resident# 3 filed a complaint against CNA A. The Complaint indicated the aide was rough in the way she handled Resident #3's care, causing her pain and discomfort when she was turning Resident #3, placing her in the chair and other physical contact. Resident #3 said the way CNA A spoke to her was rude, hurtful, and she refused to put up with it any longer. The resident said CNA A told her that turning her hurt her because she was a big woman, and she was doing it by herself. Resident # 3 said she told CNA A she should ask for help. Resident # 3 said CNA A told her she stunk after Resident # 3 had breast surgery. The Resident # 3 said the CNA told her the smell coming from her breast stinking up the room. The form indicated CNA A said she and Resident #3 were friends and that was just the way they talked to each other. Resident #3 disagreed with that statement, and she said she did comment back to the aide but in self-defense. Resident #3 said they were not friends and she refused to be spoken to or treated rudely any longer. Resident # 3 said asked CNA A to stop on multiple occasions, but her attitude continued. Resident #3 said it had become harassment. The resident did not want CNA A to be associated with her care any longer. When talking to CNA A about the event, she said that she and the resident joked all the time, and she was unaware that it bothered the resident. CNA A stated, verbally that she would not joke like that again, and would have a more professional manner when interacting with residents. The investigation finding indicated, Resident # 3 said she did not have an issue with CNA A but was embarrassed by the event. The steps taken to correct the action was a counseling form on how to keep a professional manner. The steps taken to correct the issue was CNA A was removed from her care and could only provide care when assisting other staff. A counseling will be provided to CNA A on treating residents in a professional manner. Record review of a Counseling/Disciplinary note for CNA A dated 7/18/23 (15 days later) indicated the reason for the counseling was multiple complaints on CNA A for being verbally, aggressive, and short with Residents. The corrective actions were to speak with the aid about how to approach residents in a more professional manner and it was signed by the DON and CNA A on 7/19/23. There was no Inservice attached. Record review of a Complaint/Concern form dated 9/5/23 indicated Resident #1 reported that she continued to have problems with CNA A. She stated that on 8/30/23 CNA A continuously interrupted her shower to talk to the shower aid, making her uncomfortable. The resident stated CNA A's language was profane. Resident #1 said on the following day, 8/31/23 CNA A and another aide came into the room going through her roommates closet and cursing very loudly. Resident #1 said they were gossiping about other employees and used an extreme amount of profanity. Resident #1 said that she was very offended. Resident #1 said on the following morning she was sleeping when CNA A came into her room, and said loudly, Your breakfast is served. Wake up and eat it. Resident #1 said it was very rude, so she refused acknowledge her. Resident #1 said, I feel targeted . Resident #1 said she spoke to the nurse on the weekend about her concerns ( no statement from the nurse) Resident #1 said she felt CNA A used the excuse of taking care of her roommate, as an opportunity to antagonize an aggravate her . The allegation was investigated, and the IDT meeting was held. The findings were CNA A was guilty of the events, and will be given the option of quitting or resigning from her position. Signed by the Administrator Record review of a Counseling/Disciplinary note for CNA A dated 9/8/23 indicated CNA A was discharged and her last day at work was 9/8/23. The form indicated this would serve as termination. Corrective actions had already been taken and misconduct continued. The employee comments were, Do not understand what the reason. Signed by CNA A. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 11:00 a.m., the DON said she had determined Resident #1's allegations were true. She did not have statements from the shower aide, nurse, or CNA A. She said they had gotten multiple complaints regarding the aide and felt it was time to let her go. When asked about the statement on the grievance dated 9/5/23 that said CNA A was guilty of the allegations made by Resident #1. The DON said she did not remember how she verified the events that occurred were true regarding Resident #1's allegations. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 11:50 p.m., the DON and the Administrator said because of her previous behaviors with residents, CNA A was terminated, on 9/8/23. The DON said there was another resident on the same hall as Resident #1 who did not want CNA A in her room. That resident changed her details of the occurrence several times so they could not validate her allegations. However, the resident said she did not like CNA A and did not want her back in her room. The DON and Administrator said Resident #1 and Resident #3's issues bordered on abuse but neither resident said they were abused. The Administrator and the DON said they did not know that CNA A continued to go into Resident #1's room. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 11:58 a.m., the Administrator said CNA A worked at a fast pace and the former DON loved her (the former DON left 6/30/23). He said he tried to work with CNA A. He felt her actions would get right up to the line of abuse and then she would pull back. The Administrator said he did not think CNA A was a nice person. The Administrator said one issue with CNA A was that she had a foul mouth. The Administrator said he had tried to encourage her not to use foul language around residents. He said CNA A did not have much respect for authority, and she did what she wanted to do. The Administrator said they had to let her go because warnings did not help, and she had gone past the point respecting the residents. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 12:50 p.m., Resident #3 said the things CNA A did to her could have been abuse. Resident # 3 stated it started out as joking, and she would never have called CNA A her friend. Resident # 3 said CNA A took the snide comments to a whole different level. Resident #3 said CNA A was rough when she provided care to her. Resident#3 said would tell CNA A she was rough and hurting her. She said CNA A knew she was hurting her and did not care. Resident# 3 said on one occasion when she complained to aide about her being rough, CNA A told her, Well you are not light. Resident # 3 asked her to get some help if she was too heavy and the aide refused. Resident #3 said she had a stroke on her right side, and it hurt when she was moved around roughly. Resident#3 said some of the things the aide said were hurtful and hurt her feelings. cane said when CNA A provided care to her, the aide knew she was rough, and hurt her but did not care. Resident#3 said complained after she could not take anymore. Resident #3 said CNA A was not allowed back in her room and did not speak to her in the hallway. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 12:55 p. m. Resident #2 said CNA A had been unkind to her on several occasions. When she finally told the staff, she felt threatened when the aide came in the room. She said she might have confused the events some, but the aide was mean, and she did not want her in her room. She said she heard they terminated her because she was mistreated another resident. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:10 p.m., Resident #1 said she remembered CNA A quite well. She had been rude and mean to her. She had requested she not be allowed in her room. She said on several occasions when she was in the shower room getting assistance with a shower. She said CNA A would come in and take a seat and try to intimidate her. She said CNA A would talk, and all kinds of filthy language would come out of her mouth. She asked her to leave the shower room on at least two occasions because she did not feel comfortable with her there. She said on several occasions she would come into her room and move her walker around in the room or come in to care for the roommate and use filthy language. She had complained back in September, and she was finally let go. Resident #1 said she felt the aide was trying to intimidate her because she had complained of her attitude and treatment towards her in the past. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:25 p.m., the Administrator he was not aware of any furniture being moved in Resident #1's room. He said there was a dresser she complained had been moved and he moved it back. It was only moved a few inches. He was not aware of any allegation that CNA A had been in Resident #1's room. He said he thought he had statements from staff regarding the issues with CNA A but could not find any. He said he did conduct in services after each episode of possible abuse. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 3:00 p.m., the DON said she did not remember Resident #1 saying anything about her things being moved around in her room. During a telephone interview on 12/18/23 at 3:38 p, CNA B (former shower aide) said CNA A did come in a few times when she was giving Resident #1 a shower. She said she had only come in to get a basin of warm water or something like that. She did not remember her cursing but she did remember Resident #1 asking CNA A to leave the shower room and she left. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 11:20 a.m. , the Administrator said they had a QA meeting scheduled for tomorrow, 12/28/23. He said they had not QA the event between Resident #4 and LVN D after reviewing his QA book. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 12:30 p.m. the Administrator said he said something about Abuse and Neglect during every in service. He did not have any additional content for the for the 6/9/23 after the incident with Resident #4. The administrator there was no in-service regarding Resident Behaviors or deescalating agitation or aggressive situations. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 1:55 p.m. Administrator said CNA A was guilty of using foul language in the shower room. He said CNA A admitted to using foul language in the shower room. The Administrator said CNA A never admitted to giving care to Resident #1 or doing anything with #1. He said CNA A was not allowed to give care to Resident #1. He said they had written on the grievance form she was guilty but not of all of the allegations made. He said they did not interview other staff or get statements about the incident, so they could not verify that Resident #1's allegations were true or not. They were aware CNA A continued to receive complaints about her behaviors and they could not allow her to continue to work for the facility. He said they had not taken statements from the aide or the aides that may have witnesses the behaviors. The Administrator said what was he supposed to do with the LVN D. He said if he sent the nurse home, they would have only had one nurse in the building that night. The Administrator said at that time if they called the former DON, she would not have answered the phone and she sure would not have come to the facility to fill for the LVN. He said he was between a rock and a hard place. If he sent the nurse home, he would not have had sufficient nursing coverage for the facility, what was he supposed to do? During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:07 p.m., CNA A said Resident #1 asked her to leave the shower room a couple of times when she was getting a shower. CNA A said she had gone to the shower room to get hot water. CNA A said she may have said a curse word or two while in the shower, she was not sure. She said she may have delivered a breakfast tray to Resident #1 if she was passing trays and had one for her roommate. She said she was not told to not go in Resident #1's Room, she was told not to provide care to Resident #1. She said Resident #1 had a roommate and she provided care to her. CNA A said Resident #1 may have heard her cursing. CNA A said the Kiosk that they used to input resident care information was right outside of Resident #1's room and she often cursed while using it. CNA A said she was told not to go into Resident #3's room, and she had not been back in her room. She said Resident #3 was upset and it could have been something that she said. CNA said Resident #3 took what she said out of context. The aide said when she provided care to Resident #3 who was a two person assist, there was always at least one other person in the room with her. CNA A said she never provided care to Resident #3 without assistance. She said she told Resident #3 told her there was something wrong with her breast, it smelled. She said she even went to get the nurse ( can not remember who) to look at it. She said the nurse came in and told Resident #3 something was wrong or needed to take the bra off and it had a smell to it. CNA A said CNA O was the aide that was with her that day. CNA A said she may let a [NAME] word slip sometimes when she walked out of a room. She said the Administrator told her was not obligated to tell her why they terminated her. She said she had in services on abuse and knew what abuse was. CNA A said if cursing close to a resident was abuse, then Yes she did abuse residents. CNA A said she knew they wrote several things up on her about residents complaining. She said the Administrator told her that if he turned the write ups into the state his job would be on the line. CNA A said she had about 3 residents that complained about her on that hall and did not want her providing care to them but the facility never moved me from that hall. CNA A said when complaints started coming in the Administrator and DON brought her in to talk about the same things that happen back in July. She said she no longer worked at the facility and these things all happened a long time ago. CNA A wanted to know why the incidents with Resident #1 and Resident # 3 were being questioned about today. She said the Administrator told her they were not called into the State. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:12 p.m., Administrator said told CNA A on the incident in July if they continued to get complaints on her she would be terminated. The Administrator said CNA A had a very foul mouth he said he had heard her curing and had reprimanded her on several occasions to stop curing in the facility. He said Resident #1 was very dedicated to her religion and CNA A cursing would have been very offensive to Resident #1. He said CNA A knew that and that is probably why she cursed outside the resident's door or whenever Resident #1 could hear her. He said CNA B and CNA O were CNA A's friends and they would not say anything bad about CNA A. He said CNA O was terminated and she and CNA A work at the same place. The Administrator said when they worked at this facility they would team up and work with new aides, most of which would quit. He said it was not good for the business at all. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:31 p.m., the ADON said she had worked at the facility for 15 years. She said she took the position of ADON about June 2023. She said CNA A seemed to be very kind and caring to the residents in front of administrative staff. However, CNA A came across rough and plan speaking. The ADON said sometimes it appeared that CNA A was playing or joking. The ADON said CNA A told her Resident #3's breast smelled told to come down and because the breast smelled like death. She said Resident #3 did not want to get people in trouble and was kind of laughing at the time. The ADON said Resident #3's breast did smell and had dried blood and the nurses should have been washing a surgical wound. She said she knew they called CNA A in to talk to her after the two complaints were voiced by Resident #1 and Resident #3. She said she did not know where it went from there. The ADON said with the complaint on 9/5/23 they pulled CNA A in the office and told her had too many complaints on her and we needed to let her go. The ADON said she had heard CNA A curse on the hallway. The ADON said after reviewing the schedule and the time sheets. The only thing she could tell was the incidents with Residents #1 and #3 did not happen on 7/3/23. She said she did not work that day and neither did CNA A. she said she could not figure out when the incident happened, but it was before 7/3/23. Record review of the facilities, abuse and neglect protocol with no date indicated abuse is defined as the willful inflection of injury, unreasonable, confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain of mental anguish. Abuse also included the derivation by an individual, included caregiver, goods and services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The policy statement, a resident, have a right to be free from abuse, neglect. This includes but not limited to freedom from corporal, punishment, involuntary, seclusion, verbal, mental, physical abuse, the development, an implementation, and policy development, and implement policies and procedures in preventing abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of resident to identifying all possible incidence of abuse to protect resident during abuse investigations. Establish and implement a QAIP review and analysis abuse and implement changes to prevent future currencies of abuse . Each interview will be conducted separately in a private location. Witness reports will be obtained in writing either witness will write his or her statement, sign, and date. Or the investigator may obtain a statement read it back to the member and have him sign and date it. Reporting an alleged violation of abuse or neglect will be reported immediately, but not later than: Two hours if the alleged volition involves abuse or has resulted in serious bodily injury or 24 hours if the alleged violations involved abuse and had not resulted in serious bodily injury. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. The facility Administrator, and ADON were notified. The Administrator was provided with the IJ template on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. Plan of Removal for [Tag F-600: The employee responsible for abuse to Resident 1 and 3 has been terminated on 9/8/2023. The shift key employee responsible for abuse on resident 4 has been red flagged and is no longer able to pick up shifts or return to this facility effective 5/28/2023. Administrator and DON followed up with residents after incidents to ensure no psychological impact was made. An immediate in-service has been started for all staff with the subject of De-escalating Resident Behaviors. Conduct a safe survey with all current interviewable residents. (See attachment 1 below). This will establish residents, individuals, or clients are no longer at a high risk of serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. o Surveys will be completed by 12:00pm 12/28/2023. o Surveys will be completed by the following department heads: Social Services BOM Dietary Supervisor MDS Coordinator Director of Rehabilitation ADON o Non-interviewable residents will have skin assessment completed once a week, for 3 months to be reviewed monthly in QA. Documented daily rounds to determine if non-interviewable residents are free from abuse to be completely 3 times a week for 3 months and reviewed in monthly QA. Create a new policy for Abuse which will include the following: o Definitions o Screening o Training o Prevention o Identification o Investigation o Protection o Reporting The new Policy was completed by Administrator. Policy[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure they implemented their abuse policy to ensure r...

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 they implemented their abuse policy to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse or neglect for 4 of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4) The facility failed to follow their policy and ensure Resident #4 was not verbally abuse by LVN D and mental abused and harassed for the remainder of the night on 5/28/23. The facility failed to follow their policy and identify harassment, and intimidation for Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3 when they reported CNA A had intentionally tried to intimidate them. The facility failed to follow their policy when Resident #3 said CNA A intentionally caused her pain. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. while the IJ was removed on 12/28/23 at 8:18 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a potential for actual harm with a scope of pattern with a potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of physical harm and or emotional abuse. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet with no date indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharge 6/2/23. Resident #4 was a [AGE] year-old male with admitting diagnoses of need for assistance with personal care, history of falling, colostomy status, mood disturbance, anxiety, and lack of coordination. Record review of Resident #4's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. His functional status indicated he required extensive assist of one person with transfers, toilet use and dressing. The resident was unable to stand and stabilize himself. He did not walk. He was unable to move himself off the toilet, and he was not steady with transfers from surface to surface. Review of Resident #4's baseline care plan dated 5/28/23 indicated his cognition was alert and cognitively intact and required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers walking in toileting . The care plan indicated the resident had a club foot, a new colostomy, and an abdominal incision. He had a new colostomy with interventions to teach the resident proper changing techniques and monitor site of colostomy. Record review of a Provider Investigation Report dated 5/28/23 at 9:59 p.m., indicated on the morning of 5/28/23 around 1:30 a.m. to 3:30 a.m. Resident #4 alleged LVN D verbally abused him. The report contained a letter from the Administrator that stated he first heard of the incident on Sunday, 5/28/23 at 7:30 p.m. Resident #4 said LVN D verbally abused him. The LVN continued to agitate and provoke Resident #4 to the end of his shift at 6:00 a.m. He said they flagged LVN D (an agency nurse) to no longer work for the facility. The investigation indicated Resident #4 was interviewed on 5/30/23 and said LVN D came to his room to help change his colostomy bag and did not bring the appropriate tools. Resident #4 said he felt LVN D did not want to help him. Resident #4 said he told LVN D to get his A out of his room. The Resident said LVN D responded with, I will mop you with the floor. Resident #4 responded. I'll beat your A. Resident #4 said he did not feel safe with LVN D in the building as his nurse. When asked Resident #4 said he did not have a knife. He said he felt he needed to bluff LVN D to ensure his safety. The resident's room was searched and there was no knife found. Interview with LVN D indicated Resident #4 had asked him to help him change his colostomy, in his room and then came to the nurse's station to ask again. LVN D said he told Resident #4 he would assist him when he finished his rounds. LVN D said when he went to the room Resident #4 was rude and talked harshly to him. LVN D said Resident #4 told him, To get his A out of his room. He said the resident continued to give him attitude the rest to the night. The resident told one of the aides he had a knife. The LVN D denied he had harassed the resident. The report indicated a statement from one of the aides indicated LVN D did try and provoke Resident #4 during the night. Record review of a statement that accompanied the Provider Investigation Report for Resident # 4 indicated on 5/28/23 [They (CNA C and CNA E) heard LVN D arguing loudly with Resident # 4. Resident #4 was saying if you are going to hit me then hit me. We (CNA C and CNA E) walked down the hall and LVN D was coming out the room. LVN D said if he was not a professional, he would have whopped Resident #4's A. After that, every time LVN D walked by Resident #4 he would giggle at him and smacked the wall like he was trying to intimidate Resident #4. LVN D really upset Resident #4 to the point he did not feel safe and wanted to leave. LVN D did tell us he told the resident if he was not a professional, he would whip his A.] the statement was signed by CNA C. Record review of the Provider Report Post Action Investigation indicated [ LVN D should have never allowed the situation to get out of hand. He should have been more patient with Resident #4 and never made Resident #4 feel he needed to protect himself. Resident #4 should have shown LVN D more patience as he was seeing other residents during his rounds. Both individuals should have conducted themselves more professionally to ensure a healthy exchange of information and services to be achieved. I feel both men were at fault and this situation could have easily ben avoided. I am finding this inconclusive because both men conducted themselves inappropriately. Neither one were at risk of injury or injured. They obviously do not get along with each other. I do not agree how LVN D conducted himself at the facility and we have taken measures for him not to return to the facility as he is not employee. He is an agency employee and will not be allowed to work another shift at this facility.] The form was signed by the Administrator on 5/31/23. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:20 p.m. CNA C said she and CNA E were working in another resident room and came into the hallway and heard loud voices coming from Resident #4's room on morning of 5/28/23. She said the LVN D came out of the room and was hollering back, I would whip your A if you were not a resident. She said Resident # 4 was very upset and wanted to leave the facility. He tried to exit through several of the doors. She said she spent the night trying to keep him from leaving and watching LVN D try and aggravate the resident. She said every time LVN D would pass by the Resident #4. He would giggle and hit on the wall or the side rails as if he was hitting someone. She said the nurse's behavior was not professional at all, in fact he acted like a child. She said she did not remember if she called anyone to report the incident or not. She spent the night trying to keep the peace and trying to keep Resident#4 from leaving. She said at one point they were outside in the smoking area, and Resident#4 said he would throw himself on the ground, throw his wheelchair down the steps, crawl down the steps and get back in his wheelchair and leave. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:25 p.m., the Administrator said he did not remember who notified him about the incident that happened on 5/28/23. He said he was told it happened on that morning around 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. he said it was not reported to him until 5/28/23 at 7:30 p.m. and he called it into the state around 9:00 p.m. He said in the defense of the resident he was very independent. He said the resident told the nurse he had a knife because he tried to intimidate him when he walked by. The Administrator said the resident did not have a knife and he could not find one. He said the resident admitted he just felt he needed some type of protection from the LVN D. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 3:30 p.m., CNA E said when they rounded the corner on the night of 5/28/23, LVN D and Resident #4 were arguing. The nurse was LVN D was hollering at the Resident #4. We (CNA C and CNA E) tried to deescalate the situation. CNA E said Resident #4 tried to leave through two different doors. She said the nurses' behavior was not professional, he was hollering and talking smart. Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's face sheet indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were Alzheimer's, disease, anxiety disorder, and history of falling. Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had no cognitive impairment. The resident used mobility devices of a walker and a wheelchair. She required partial assistance with hygiene, and partial assistance with chair to bed transfer, and partial assist with toilet transfer. Record review of Resident #1's care. Plan indicated she had a problem of ADL function. She required two people assist with bathing, two people assist with toileting, and two people assist with bed mobility. Record review of a Complaint/Concern form dated 7/3/23 indicated Resident #1 was filing a complaint against CNA A. Resident #1 said CNA A was rough in the way that she handled her care, causing her pain and discomfort when she was turning her, placing her in the chair and any other physical contact. Resident #1 said CNA A spoke to her in a rude and hurtful manner. Resident #1 said she refused to put up with it any longer. CNA A said Resident # 1, was always complaining about something and making notes to tell on me. Resident #1 disagreed with that statement. Resident #1 said that she refused to be spoken to or treated to rudely any longer. The resident said she asked CNA A to stop on several occasions, but it continued. Resident #1 said it had become harassment. The resident did not want CNA A to be associated with her care any longer. Resident #3 Record review of a face sheet for Resident #3 with no date indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were stroke, removal of the right breast, acute kidney failure, stiffness in the right knee, need for assistance with personal care, abnormal posture Disorder of the bone upper arm, and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had no cognitive impairment. Her functional status was she used a wheelchair for mobility. She had impairment on her upper extremity shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand, and she had impairment on her lower extremity hip knee, ankle, and foot. Record review of Resident #3's care plan dated 11/15/23 indicated a problem of limited range of motion to the right upper and lower extremities. Resident # 3 required assistance with active and passive range of motion in a splint applied to the right hand. Resident # 3 had problems of ADL function and required a lift for transfers. The resident required one or two people to aid turn and reposition in bed frequently to prevent skin breakdown. The resident required one person assist for dressing, and two people for a transfer by Hoyer lift. Record review of a Complaint/Concern Form dated 7/3/23 indicated Resident# 3 filed a complaint against CNA A. The Complaint indicated the aide was rough in the way she handled Resident #3's care, causing her pain and discomfort when she was turning Resident #3, placing her in the chair and other physical contact. Resident #3 said the way CNA A spoke to her was rude, hurtful, and she refused to put up with it any longer. The resident said CNA A told her that turning her hurt her because she was a big woman, and she was doing it by herself. Resident # 3 said she told CNA A she should ask for help. Resident # 3 said CNA A told her she stunk after Resident # 3 had breast surgery. The Resident # 3 said the CNA told her the smell coming from her breast stinking up the room. The form indicated CNA A said she and Resident #3 were friends and that was just the way they talked to each other. Resident #3 disagreed with that statement, and she said she did comment back to the aide but in self-defense. Resident #3 said they were not friends and she refused to be spoken to or treated rudely any longer. Resident # 3 said asked CNA A to stop on multiple occasions, but her attitude continued. Resident #3 said it had become harassment. The resident did not want CNA A to be associated with her care any longer. When talking to CNA A about the event, she said that she and the resident joked all the time, and she was unaware that it bothered the resident. CNA A stated, verbally that she would not joke like that again, and would have a more professional manner when interacting with residents. The investigation finding indicated, Resident # 3 said she did not have an issue with CNA A but was embarrassed by the event. The steps taken to correct the action was a counseling form on how to keep a professional manner. The steps taken to correct the issue was CNA A was removed from her care and could only provide care when assisting other staff. A counseling will be provided to CNA A on treating residents in a professional manner. Record review of a Counseling/Disciplinary note for CNA A dated 7/18/23 (15 days later) indicated the reason for the counseling was multiple complaints on CNA A for being verbally, aggressive, and short with Residents. The corrective actions were to speak with the aid about how to approach residents in a more professional manner and it was signed by the DON and CNA A on 7/19/23. There was no Inservice attached. Record review of a Complaint/Concern form dated 9/5/23 indicated Resident #1 reported that she continued to have problems with CNA A. She stated that on 8/30/23 CNA A continuously interrupted her shower to talk to the shower aid, making her uncomfortable. The resident stated CNA A's language was profane. Resident #1 said on the following day, 8/31/23 CNA A and another aide came into the room going through her roommates closet and cursing very loudly. Resident #1 said they were gossiping about other employees and used an extreme amount of profanity. Resident #1 said that she was very offended. Resident #1 said on the following morning she was sleeping when CNA A came into her room, and said loudly, Your breakfast is served. Wake up and eat it. Resident #1 said it was very rude, so she refused acknowledge her. Resident #1 said, I feel targeted . Resident #1 said she spoke to the nurse on the weekend about her concerns ( no statement from the nurse) Resident #1 said she felt CNA A used the excuse of taking care of her roommate, as an opportunity to antagonize an aggravate her . The allegation was investigated, and the IDT meeting was held. The findings were CNA A was guilty of the events, and will be given the option of quitting or resigning from her position. Signed by the Administrator Record review of a Counseling/Disciplinary note for CNA A dated 9/8/23 indicated CNA A was discharged and her last day at work was 9/8/23. The form indicated this would serve as termination. Corrective actions had already been taken and misconduct continued. The employee comments were, Do not understand what the reason. Signed by CNA A. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 11:00 a.m., the DON said she had determined Resident #1's allegations were true. She did not have statements from the shower aide, nurse, or CNA A. She said they had gotten multiple complaints regarding the aide and felt it was time to let her go. When asked about the statement on the grievance dated 9/5/23 that said CNA A was guilty of the allegations made by Resident #1. The DON said she did not remember how she verified the events that occurred were true regarding Resident #1's allegations. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 11:50 p.m., the DON and the Administrator said because of her previous behaviors with residents, CNA A was terminated, on 9/8/23. The DON said there was another resident on the same hall as Resident #1 who did not want CNA A in her room. That resident changed her details of the occurrence several times so they could not validate her allegations. However, the resident said she did not like CNA A and did not want her back in her room. The DON and Administrator said Resident #1 and Resident #3's issues bordered on abuse but neither resident said they were abused. The Administrator and the DON said they did not know that CNA A continued to go into Resident #1's room. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 11:58 a.m., the Administrator said CNA A worked at a fast pace and the former DON loved her (the former DON left 6/30/23). He said he tried to work with CNA A. He felt her actions would get right up to the line of abuse and then she would pull back. The Administrator said he did not think CNA A was a nice person. The Administrator said one issue with CNA A was that she had a foul mouth. The Administrator said he had tried to encourage her not to use foul language around residents. He said CNA A did not have much respect for authority, and she did what she wanted to do. The Administrator said they had to let her go because warnings did not help, and she had gone past the point respecting the residents. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 12:50 p.m., Resident #3 said the things CNA A did to her could have been abuse. Resident # 3 stated it started out as joking, and she would never have called CNA A her friend. Resident # 3 said CNA A took the snide comments to a whole different level. Resident #3 said CNA A was rough when she provided care to her. Resident#3 said would tell CNA A she was rough and hurting her. She said CNA A knew she was hurting her and did not care. Resident# 3 said on one occasion when she complained to aide about her being rough, CNA A told her, Well you are not light. Resident # 3 asked her to get some help if she was too heavy and the aide refused. Resident #3 said she had a stroke on her right side, and it hurt when she was moved around roughly. Resident#3 said some of the things the aide said were hurtful and hurt her feelings. cane said when CNA A provided care to her, the aide knew she was rough, and hurt her but did not care. Resident#3 said complained after she could not take anymore. Resident #3 said CNA A was not allowed back in her room and did not speak to her in the hallway. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 12:55 p. m. Resident #2 said CNA A had been unkind to her on several occasions. When she finally told the staff, she felt threatened when the aide came in the room. She said she might have confused the events some, but the aide was mean, and she did not want her in her room. She said she heard they terminated her because she was mistreated another resident. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:10 p.m., Resident #1 said she remembered CNA A quite well. She had been rude and mean to her. She had requested she not be allowed in her room. She said on several occasions when she was in the shower room getting assistance with a shower. She said CNA A would come in and take a seat and try to intimidate her. She said CNA A would talk, and all kinds of filthy language would come out of her mouth. She asked her to leave the shower room on at least two occasions because she did not feel comfortable with her there. She said on several occasions she would come into her room and move her walker around in the room or come in to care for the roommate and use filthy language. She had complained back in September, and she was finally let go. Resident #1 said she felt the aide was trying to intimidate her because she had complained of her attitude and treatment towards her in the past. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:25 p.m., the Administrator he was not aware of any furniture being moved in Resident #1's room. He said there was a dresser she complained had been moved and he moved it back. It was only moved a few inches. He was not aware of any allegation that CNA A had been in Resident #1's room. He said he thought he had statements from staff regarding the issues with CNA A but could not find any. He said he did conduct in services after each episode of possible abuse. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 3:00 p.m., the DON said she did not remember Resident #1 saying anything about her things being moved around in her room. During a telephone interview on 12/18/23 at 3:38 p, CNA B (former shower aide) said CNA A did come in a few times when she was giving Resident #1 a shower. She said she had only come in to get a basin of warm water or something like that. She did not remember her cursing but she did remember Resident #1 asking CNA A to leave the shower room and she left. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 11:20 a.m. , the Administrator said they had a QA meeting scheduled for tomorrow, 12/28/23. He said they had not QA the event between Resident #4 and LVN D after reviewing his QA book. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 12:30 p.m. the Administrator said he said something about Abuse and Neglect during every in service. He did not have any additional content for the for the 6/9/23 after the incident with Resident #4. The administrator there was no in-service regarding Resident Behaviors or deescalating agitation or aggressive situations. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 1:55 p.m. Administrator said CNA A was guilty of using foul language in the shower room. He said CNA A admitted to using foul language in the shower room. The Administrator said CNA A never admitted to giving care to Resident #1 or doing anything with #1. He said CNA A was not allowed to give care to Resident #1. He said they had written on the grievance form she was guilty but not of all of the allegations made. He said they did not interview other staff or get statements about the incident, so they could not verify that Resident #1's allegations were true or not. They were aware CNA A continued to receive complaints about her behaviors and they could not allow her to continue to work for the facility. He said they had not taken statements from the aide or the aides that may have witnesses the behaviors. The Administrator said what was he supposed to do with the LVN D. He said if he sent the nurse home, they would have only had one nurse in the building that night. The Administrator said at that time if they called the former DON, she would not have answered the phone and she sure would not have come to the facility to fill for the LVN. He said he was between a rock and a hard place. If he sent the nurse home, he would not have had sufficient nursing coverage for the facility, what was he supposed to do? During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:07 p.m., CNA A said Resident #1 asked her to leave the shower room a couple of times when she was getting a shower. CNA A said she had gone to the shower room to get hot water. CNA A said she may have said a curse word or two while in the shower, she was not sure. She said she may have delivered a breakfast tray to Resident #1 if she was passing trays and had one for her roommate. She said she was not told to not go in Resident #1's Room, she was told not to provide care to Resident #1. She said Resident #1 had a roommate and she provided care to her. CNA A said Resident #1 may have heard her cursing. CNA A said the Kiosk that they used to input resident care information was right outside of Resident #1's room and she often cursed while using it. CNA A said she was told not to go into Resident #3's room, and she had not been back in her room. She said Resident #3 was upset and it could have been something that she said. CNA said Resident #3 took what she said out of context. The aide said when she provided care to Resident #3 who was a two person assist, there was always at least one other person in the room with her. CNA A said she never provided care to Resident #3 without assistance. She said she told Resident #3 told her there was something wrong with her breast, it smelled. She said she even went to get the nurse ( can not remember who) to look at it. She said the nurse came in and told Resident #3 something was wrong or needed to take the bra off and it had a smell to it. CNA A said CNA O was the aide that was with her that day. CNA A said she may let a [NAME] word slip sometimes when she walked out of a room. She said the Administrator told her was not obligated to tell her why they terminated her. She said she had in services on abuse and knew what abuse was. CNA A said if cursing close to a resident was abuse, then Yes she did abuse residents. CNA A said she knew they wrote several things up on her about residents complaining. She said the Administrator told her that if he turned the write ups into the state his job would be on the line. CNA A said she had about 3 residents that complained about her on that hall and did not want her providing care to them but the facility never moved me from that hall. CNA A said when complaints started coming in the Administrator and DON brought her in to talk about the same things that happen back in July. She said she no longer worked at the facility and these things all happened a long time ago. CNA A wanted to know why the incidents with Resident #1 and Resident # 3 were being questioned about today. She said the Administrator told her they were not called into the State. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:12 p.m., Administrator said told CNA A on the incident in July if they continued to get complaints on her she would be terminated. The Administrator said CNA A had a very foul mouth he said he had heard her curing and had reprimanded her on several occasions to stop curing in the facility. He said Resident #1 was very dedicated to her religion and CNA A cursing would have been very offensive to Resident #1. He said CNA A knew that and that is probably why she cursed outside the resident's door or whenever Resident #1 could hear her. He said CNA B and CNA O were CNA A's friends and they would not say anything bad about CNA A. He said CNA O was terminated and she and CNA A work at the same place. The Administrator said when they worked at this facility they would team up and work with new aides, most of which would quit. He said it was not good for the business at all. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:31 p.m., the ADON said she had worked at the facility for 15 years. She said she took the position of ADON about June 2023. She said CNA A seemed to be very kind and caring to the residents in front of administrative staff. However, CNA A came across rough and plan speaking. The ADON said sometimes it appeared that CNA A was playing or joking. The ADON said CNA A told her Resident #3's breast smelled told to come down and because the breast smelled like death. She said Resident #3 did not want to get people in trouble and was kind of laughing at the time. The ADON said Resident #3's breast did smell and had dried blood and the nurses should have been washing a surgical wound. She said she knew they called CNA A in to talk to her after the two complaints were voiced by Resident #1 and Resident #3. She said she did not know where it went from there. The ADON said with the complaint on 9/5/23 they pulled CNA A in the office and told her had too many complaints on her and we needed to let her go. The ADON said she had heard CNA A curse on the hallway. The ADON said after reviewing the schedule and the time sheets. The only thing she could tell was the incidents with Residents #1 and #3 did not happen on 7/3/23. She said she did not work that day and neither did CNA A. she said she could not figure out when the incident happened, but it was before 7/3/23. Record review of the facilities, abuse and neglect protocol with no date indicated abuse is defined as the willful inflection of injury, unreasonable, confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain of mental anguish. Abuse also included the derivation by an individual, included caregiver, goods and services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The policy statement, a resident, have a right to be free from abuse, neglect. This includes but not limited to freedom from corporal, punishment, involuntary, seclusion, verbal, mental, physical abuse, the development, an implementation, and policy development, and implement policies and procedures in preventing abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of resident to identifying all possible incidence of abuse to protect resident during abuse investigations. Establish and implement a QAIP review and analysis abuse and implement changes to prevent future currencies of abuse . Each interview will be conducted separately in a private location. Witness reports will be obtained in writing either witness will write his or her statement, sign, and date. Or the investigator may obtain a statement read it back to the member and have him sign and date it. Reporting an alleged violation of abuse or neglect will be reported immediately, but not later than: Two hours if the alleged volition involves abuse or has resulted in serious bodily injury or 24 hours if the alleged violations involved abuse and had not resulted in serious bodily injury. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. The facility Administrator, and ADON were notified. The Administrator was provided with the IJ template on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. The Plan of Removal for: [Tag F-607: The employee responsible for abuse to Resident 1 and 3 has been terminated on 9/8/2023. The shift key employee responsible for abuse on resident 4 has been red flagged and is no longer able to pick up shifts or return to this facility effective 5/28/2023. Administrator and DON followed up with residents after incidents to ensure no psychological impact was made. An immediate in-service has been started for all staff with the subject of De-escalating Resident Behaviors. Conduct a safe survey with all current interviewable residents. (See attachment 1 below). This will establish residents, individuals, or clients are no longer at a high risk of serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. o Surveys will be completed by 12:00pm 12/28/2023. o Surveys will be completed by the following department heads: Social Services BOM Dietary Supervisor MDS Coordinator Director of Rehabilitation LVN, ADON If concerns arise from safe survey, statements will be taken from residents. If an allegation of abuse is noted, statements will be taken from all possible sources. In-service has already been provided targeting the importance of reporting as soon as possible and NOT allowing the abuse to continue. An in-service will be provided on behavior training for staff on how to deescalate resident behaviors. This in-service will be completed by DON/Admin by the end of 12/29/2023. An in-service will be provided for treating residents with dignity and respect. To be completed by DON/Admin by the end of 12/29/2023. Create a new policy for Abuse which will include the following: o Definitions o Screening o Training o Prevention o [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

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 have evidence violations were thoroughly investigated to prevent further abuse for 4 of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4) The facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation when Resident #4 was not verbally abuse by LVN D and mental abused and harassed for the remainder of the night on 5/28/23. The facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted when residents complained of harassment, and intimidation for Resident #1, and Resident #3 when they reported CNA A had intentionally tried to intimidate them. The facility failed to complete a thorough investigation on abuse when Resident #3 said CNA A intentionally caused her pain. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. while the IJ was removed on 12/28/23 at 8:18 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a potential for actual harm with a scope of pattern with a potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure placed residents at risk of physical harm and or emotional abuse. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet with no date indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharge 6/2/23. Resident #4 was a [AGE] year-old male with admitting diagnoses of need for assistance with personal care, history of falling, colostomy status, mood disturbance, anxiety, and lack of coordination. Record review of Resident #4's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. His functional status indicated he required extensive assist of one person with transfers, toilet use and dressing. The resident was unable to stand and stabilize himself. He did not walk. He was unable to move himself off the toilet, and he was not steady with transfers from surface to surface. Review of Resident #4's baseline care plan dated 5/28/23 indicated his cognition was alert and cognitively intact and required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers walking in toileting . The care plan indicated the resident had a club foot, a new colostomy, and an abdominal incision. He had a new colostomy with interventions to teach the resident proper changing techniques and monitor site of colostomy. Record review of a Provider Investigation Report dated 5/28/23 at 9:59 p.m., indicated on the morning of 5/28/23 around 1:30 a.m. to 3:30 a.m. Resident #4 alleged LVN D verbally abused him. The report contained a letter from the Administrator that stated he first heard of the incident on Sunday, 5/28/23 at 7:30 p.m. Resident #4 said LVN D verbally abused him. The LVN continued to agitate and provoke Resident #4 to the end of his shift at 6:00 a.m. He said they flagged LVN D (an agency nurse) to no longer work for the facility. The investigation indicated Resident #4 was interviewed on 5/30/23 and said LVN D came to his room to help change his colostomy bag and did not bring the appropriate tools. Resident #4 said he felt LVN D did not want to help him. Resident #4 said he told LVN D to get his A out of his room. The Resident said LVN D responded with, I will mop you with the floor. Resident #4 responded. I'll beat your A. Resident #4 said he did not feel safe with LVN D in the building as his nurse. When asked Resident #4 said he did not have a knife. He said he felt he needed to bluff LVN D to ensure his safety. The resident's room was searched and there was no knife found. Interview with LVN D indicated Resident #4 had asked him to help him change his colostomy, in his room and then came to the nurse's station to ask again. LVN D said he told Resident #4 he would assist him when he finished his rounds. LVN D said when he went to the room Resident #4 was rude and talked harshly to him. LVN D said Resident #4 told him, To get his A out of his room. He said the resident continued to give him attitude the rest to the night. The resident told one of the aides he had a knife. The LVN D denied he had harassed the resident. The report indicated a statement from one of the aides indicated LVN D did try and provoke Resident #4 during the night. Record review of a statement that accompanied the Provider Investigation Report for Resident # 4 indicated on 5/28/23 [They (CNA C and CNA E) heard LVN D arguing loudly with Resident # 4. Resident #4 was saying if you are going to hit me then hit me. We (CNA C and CNA E) walked down the hall and LVN D was coming out the room. LVN D said if he was not a professional, he would have whopped Resident #4's A. After that, every time LVN D walked by Resident #4 he would giggle at him and smacked the wall like he was trying to intimidate Resident #4. LVN D really upset Resident #4 to the point he did not feel safe and wanted to leave. LVN D did tell us he told the resident if he was not a professional, he would whip his A.] the statement was signed by CNA C. Record review of the Provider Report Post Action Investigation indicated [ LVN D should have never allowed the situation to get out of hand. He should have been more patient with Resident #4 and never made Resident #4 feel he needed to protect himself. Resident #4 should have shown LVN D more patience as he was seeing other residents during his rounds. Both individuals should have conducted themselves more professionally to ensure a healthy exchange of information and services to be achieved. I feel both men were at fault and this situation could have easily ben avoided. I am finding this inconclusive because both men conducted themselves inappropriately. Neither one were at risk of injury or injured. They obviously do not get along with each other. I do not agree how LVN D conducted himself at the facility and we have taken measures for him not to return to the facility as he is not employee. He is an agency employee and will not be allowed to work another shift at this facility.] The form was signed by the Administrator on 5/31/23. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:20 p.m. CNA C said she and CNA E were working in another resident room and came into the hallway and heard loud voices coming from Resident #4's room on morning of 5/28/23. She said the LVN D came out of the room and was hollering back, I would whip your A if you were not a resident. She said Resident # 4 was very upset and wanted to leave the facility. He tried to exit through several of the doors. She said she spent the night trying to keep him from leaving and watching LVN D try and aggravate the resident. She said every time LVN D would pass by the Resident #4. He would giggle and hit on the wall or the side rails as if he was hitting someone. She said the nurse's behavior was not professional at all, in fact he acted like a child. She said she did not remember if she called anyone to report the incident or not. She spent the night trying to keep the peace and trying to keep Resident#4 from leaving. She said at one point they were outside in the smoking area, and Resident#4 said he would throw himself on the ground, throw his wheelchair down the steps, crawl down the steps and get back in his wheelchair and leave. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:25 p.m., the Administrator said he did not remember who notified him about the incident that happened on 5/28/23. He said he was told it happened on that morning around 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. he said it was not reported to him until 5/28/23 at 7:30 p.m. and he called it into the state around 9:00 p.m. He said in the defense of the resident he was very independent. He said the resident told the nurse he had a knife because he tried to intimidate him when he walked by. The Administrator said the resident did not have a knife and he could not find one. He said the resident admitted he just felt he needed some type of protection from the LVN D. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 3:30 p.m., CNA E said when they rounded the corner on the night of 5/28/23, LVN D and Resident #4 were arguing. The nurse was LVN D was hollering at the Resident #4. We (CNA C and CNA E) tried to deescalate the situation. CNA E said Resident #4 tried to leave through two different doors. She said the nurses' behavior was not professional, he was hollering and talking smart. Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's face sheet indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were Alzheimer's, disease, anxiety disorder, and history of falling. Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had no cognitive impairment. The resident used mobility devices of a walker and a wheelchair. She required partial assistance with hygiene, and partial assistance with chair to bed transfer, and partial assist with toilet transfer. Record review of Resident #1's care. Plan indicated she had a problem of ADL function. She required two people assist with bathing, two people assist with toileting, and two people assist with bed mobility. Record review of a Complaint/Concern form dated 7/3/23 indicated Resident #1 was filing a complaint against CNA A. Resident #1 said CNA A was rough in the way that she handled her care, causing her pain and discomfort when she was turning her, placing her in the chair and any other physical contact. Resident #1 said CNA A spoke to her in a rude and hurtful manner. Resident #1 said she refused to put up with it any longer. CNA A said Resident # 1, was always complaining about something and making notes to tell on me. Resident #1 disagreed with that statement. Resident #1 said that she refused to be spoken to or treated to rudely any longer. The resident said she asked CNA A to stop on several occasions, but it continued. Resident #1 said it had become harassment. The resident did not want CNA A to be associated with her care any longer. Resident #3 Record review of a face sheet for Resident #3 with no date indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were stroke, removal of the right breast, acute kidney failure, stiffness in the right knee, need for assistance with personal care, abnormal posture Disorder of the bone upper arm, and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had no cognitive impairment. Her functional status was she used a wheelchair for mobility. She had impairment on her upper extremity shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand, and she had impairment on her lower extremity hip knee, ankle, and foot. Record review of Resident #3's care plan dated 11/15/23 indicated a problem of limited range of motion to the right upper and lower extremities. Resident # 3 required assistance with active and passive range of motion in a splint applied to the right hand. Resident # 3 had problems of ADL function and required a lift for transfers. The resident required one or two people to aid turn and reposition in bed frequently to prevent skin breakdown. The resident required one person assist for dressing, and two people for a transfer by Hoyer lift. Record review of a Complaint/Concern Form dated 7/3/23 indicated Resident# 3 filed a complaint against CNA A. The Complaint indicated the aide was rough in the way she handled Resident #3's care, causing her pain and discomfort when she was turning Resident #3, placing her in the chair and other physical contact. Resident #3 said the way CNA A spoke to her was rude, hurtful, and she refused to put up with it any longer. The resident said CNA A told her that turning her hurt her because she was a big woman, and she was doing it by herself. Resident # 3 said she told CNA A she should ask for help. Resident # 3 said CNA A told her she stunk after Resident # 3 had breast surgery. The Resident # 3 said the CNA told her the smell coming from her breast stinking up the room. The form indicated CNA A said she and Resident #3 were friends and that was just the way they talked to each other. Resident #3 disagreed with that statement, and she said she did comment back to the aide but in self-defense. Resident #3 said they were not friends and she refused to be spoken to or treated rudely any longer. Resident # 3 said asked CNA A to stop on multiple occasions, but her attitude continued. Resident #3 said it had become harassment. The resident did not want CNA A to be associated with her care any longer. When talking to CNA A about the event, she said that she and the resident joked all the time, and she was unaware that it bothered the resident. CNA A stated, verbally that she would not joke like that again, and would have a more professional manner when interacting with residents. The investigation finding indicated, Resident # 3 said she did not have an issue with CNA A but was embarrassed by the event. The steps taken to correct the action was a counseling form on how to keep a professional manner. The steps taken to correct the issue was CNA A was removed from her care and could only provide care when assisting other staff. A counseling will be provided to CNA A on treating residents in a professional manner. Record review of a Counseling/Disciplinary note for CNA A dated 7/18/23 (15 days later) indicated the reason for the counseling was multiple complaints on CNA A for being verbally, aggressive, and short with Residents. The corrective actions were to speak with the aid about how to approach residents in a more professional manner and it was signed by the DON and CNA A on 7/19/23. There was no Inservice attached. Record review of a Complaint/Concern form dated 9/5/23 indicated Resident #1 reported that she continued to have problems with CNA A. She stated that on 8/30/23 CNA A continuously interrupted her shower to talk to the shower aid, making her uncomfortable. The resident stated CNA A's language was profane. Resident #1 said on the following day, 8/31/23 CNA A and another aide came into the room going through her roommates closet and cursing very loudly. Resident #1 said they were gossiping about other employees and used an extreme amount of profanity. Resident #1 said that she was very offended. Resident #1 said on the following morning she was sleeping when CNA A came into her room, and said loudly, Your breakfast is served. Wake up and eat it. Resident #1 said it was very rude, so she refused acknowledge her. Resident #1 said, I feel targeted . Resident #1 said she spoke to the nurse on the weekend about her concerns ( no statement from the nurse) Resident #1 said she felt CNA A used the excuse of taking care of her roommate, as an opportunity to antagonize an aggravate her . The allegation was investigated, and the IDT meeting was held. The findings were CNA A was guilty of the events, and will be given the option of quitting or resigning from her position. Signed by the Administrator Record review of a Counseling/Disciplinary note for CNA A dated 9/8/23 indicated CNA A was discharged and her last day at work was 9/8/23. The form indicated this would serve as termination. Corrective actions had already been taken and misconduct continued. The employee comments were, Do not understand what the reason. Signed by CNA A. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 11:00 a.m., the DON said she had determined Resident #1's allegations were true. She did not have statements from the shower aide, nurse, or CNA A. She said they had gotten multiple complaints regarding the aide and felt it was time to let her go. When asked about the statement on the grievance dated 9/5/23 that said CNA A was guilty of the allegations made by Resident #1. The DON said she did not remember how she verified the events that occurred were true regarding Resident #1's allegations. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 11:50 p.m., the DON and the Administrator said because of her previous behaviors with residents, CNA A was terminated, on 9/8/23. The DON said there was another resident on the same hall as Resident #1 who did not want CNA A in her room. That resident changed her details of the occurrence several times so they could not validate her allegations. However, the resident said she did not like CNA A and did not want her back in her room. The DON and Administrator said Resident #1 and Resident #3's issues bordered on abuse but neither resident said they were abused. The Administrator and the DON said they did not know that CNA A continued to go into Resident #1's room. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 11:58 a.m., the Administrator said CNA A worked at a fast pace and the former DON loved her (the former DON left 6/30/23). He said he tried to work with CNA A. He felt her actions would get right up to the line of abuse and then she would pull back. The Administrator said he did not think CNA A was a nice person. The Administrator said one issue with CNA A was that she had a foul mouth. The Administrator said he had tried to encourage her not to use foul language around residents. He said CNA A did not have much respect for authority, and she did what she wanted to do. The Administrator said they had to let her go because warnings did not help, and she had gone past the point respecting the residents. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 12:50 p.m., Resident #3 said the things CNA A did to her could have been abuse. Resident # 3 stated it started out as joking, and she would never have called CNA A her friend. Resident # 3 said CNA A took the snide comments to a whole different level. Resident #3 said CNA A was rough when she provided care to her. Resident#3 said would tell CNA A she was rough and hurting her. She said CNA A knew she was hurting her and did not care. Resident# 3 said on one occasion when she complained to aide about her being rough, CNA A told her, Well you are not light. Resident # 3 asked her to get some help if she was too heavy and the aide refused. Resident #3 said she had a stroke on her right side, and it hurt when she was moved around roughly. Resident#3 said some of the things the aide said were hurtful and hurt her feelings. cane said when CNA A provided care to her, the aide knew she was rough, and hurt her but did not care. Resident#3 said complained after she could not take anymore. Resident #3 said CNA A was not allowed back in her room and did not speak to her in the hallway. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 12:55 p. m. Resident #2 said CNA A had been unkind to her on several occasions. When she finally told the staff, she felt threatened when the aide came in the room. She said she might have confused the events some, but the aide was mean, and she did not want her in her room. She said she heard they terminated her because she was mistreated another resident. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:10 p.m., Resident #1 said she remembered CNA A quite well. She had been rude and mean to her. She had requested she not be allowed in her room. She said on several occasions when she was in the shower room getting assistance with a shower. She said CNA A would come in and take a seat and try to intimidate her. She said CNA A would talk, and all kinds of filthy language would come out of her mouth. She asked her to leave the shower room on at least two occasions because she did not feel comfortable with her there. She said on several occasions she would come into her room and move her walker around in the room or come in to care for the roommate and use filthy language. She had complained back in September, and she was finally let go. Resident #1 said she felt the aide was trying to intimidate her because she had complained of her attitude and treatment towards her in the past. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 2:25 p.m., the Administrator he was not aware of any furniture being moved in Resident #1's room. He said there was a dresser she complained had been moved and he moved it back. It was only moved a few inches. He was not aware of any allegation that CNA A had been in Resident #1's room. He said he thought he had statements from staff regarding the issues with CNA A but could not find any. He said he did conduct in services after each episode of possible abuse. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 3:00 p.m., the DON said she did not remember Resident #1 saying anything about her things being moved around in her room. During a telephone interview on 12/18/23 at 3:38 p, CNA B (former shower aide) said CNA A did come in a few times when she was giving Resident #1 a shower. She said she had only come in to get a basin of warm water or something like that. She did not remember her cursing but she did remember Resident #1 asking CNA A to leave the shower room and she left. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 11:20 a.m. , the Administrator said they had a QA meeting scheduled for tomorrow, 12/28/23. He said they had not QA the event between Resident #4 and LVN D after reviewing his QA book. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 12:30 p.m. the Administrator said he said something about Abuse and Neglect during every in service. He did not have any additional content for the for the 6/9/23 after the incident with Resident #4. The administrator there was no in-service regarding Resident Behaviors or deescalating agitation or aggressive situations. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 1:55 p.m. Administrator said CNA A was guilty of using foul language in the shower room. He said CNA A admitted to using foul language in the shower room. The Administrator said CNA A never admitted to giving care to Resident #1 or doing anything with #1. He said CNA A was not allowed to give care to Resident #1. He said they had written on the grievance form she was guilty but not of all of the allegations made. He said they did not interview other staff or get statements about the incident, so they could not verify that Resident #1's allegations were true or not. They were aware CNA A continued to receive complaints about her behaviors and they could not allow her to continue to work for the facility. He said they had not taken statements from the aide or the aides that may have witnesses the behaviors. The Administrator said what was he supposed to do with the LVN D. He said if he sent the nurse home, they would have only had one nurse in the building that night. The Administrator said at that time if they called the former DON, she would not have answered the phone and she sure would not have come to the facility to fill for the LVN. He said he was between a rock and a hard place. If he sent the nurse home, he would not have had sufficient nursing coverage for the facility, what was he supposed to do? During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:07 p.m., CNA A said Resident #1 asked her to leave the shower room a couple of times when she was getting a shower. CNA A said she had gone to the shower room to get hot water. CNA A said she may have said a curse word or two while in the shower, she was not sure. She said she may have delivered a breakfast tray to Resident #1 if she was passing trays and had one for her roommate. She said she was not told to not go in Resident #1's Room, she was told not to provide care to Resident #1. She said Resident #1 had a roommate and she provided care to her. CNA A said Resident #1 may have heard her cursing. CNA A said the Kiosk that they used to input resident care information was right outside of Resident #1's room and she often cursed while using it. CNA A said she was told not to go into Resident #3's room, and she had not been back in her room. She said Resident #3 was upset and it could have been something that she said. CNA said Resident #3 took what she said out of context. The aide said when she provided care to Resident #3 who was a two person assist, there was always at least one other person in the room with her. CNA A said she never provided care to Resident #3 without assistance. She said she told Resident #3 told her there was something wrong with her breast, it smelled. She said she even went to get the nurse ( can not remember who) to look at it. She said the nurse came in and told Resident #3 something was wrong or needed to take the bra off and it had a smell to it. CNA A said CNA O was the aide that was with her that day. CNA A said she may let a [NAME] word slip sometimes when she walked out of a room. She said the Administrator told her was not obligated to tell her why they terminated her. She said she had in services on abuse and knew what abuse was. CNA A said if cursing close to a resident was abuse, then Yes she did abuse residents. CNA A said she knew they wrote several things up on her about residents complaining. She said the Administrator told her that if he turned the write ups into the state his job would be on the line. CNA A said she had about 3 residents that complained about her on that hall and did not want her providing care to them but the facility never moved me from that hall. CNA A said when complaints started coming in the Administrator and DON brought her in to talk about the same things that happen back in July. She said she no longer worked at the facility and these things all happened a long time ago. CNA A wanted to know why the incidents with Resident #1 and Resident # 3 were being questioned about today. She said the Administrator told her they were not called into the State. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:12 p.m., Administrator said told CNA A on the incident in July if they continued to get complaints on her she would be terminated. The Administrator said CNA A had a very foul mouth he said he had heard her curing and had reprimanded her on several occasions to stop curing in the facility. He said Resident #1 was very dedicated to her religion and CNA A cursing would have been very offensive to Resident #1. He said CNA A knew that and that is probably why she cursed outside the resident's door or whenever Resident #1 could hear her. He said CNA B and CNA O were CNA A's friends and they would not say anything bad about CNA A. He said CNA O was terminated and she and CNA A work at the same place. The Administrator said when they worked at this facility they would team up and work with new aides, most of which would quit. He said it was not good for the business at all. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 2:31 p.m., the ADON said she had worked at the facility for 15 years. She said she took the position of ADON about June 2023. She said CNA A seemed to be very kind and caring to the residents in front of administrative staff. However, CNA A came across rough and plan speaking. The ADON said sometimes it appeared that CNA A was playing or joking. The ADON said CNA A told her Resident #3's breast smelled told to come down and because the breast smelled like death. She said Resident #3 did not want to get people in trouble and was kind of laughing at the time. The ADON said Resident #3's breast did smell and had dried blood and the nurses should have been washing a surgical wound. She said she knew they called CNA A in to talk to her after the two complaints were voiced by Resident #1 and Resident #3. She said she did not know where it went from there. The ADON said with the complaint on 9/5/23 they pulled CNA A in the office and told her had too many complaints on her and we needed to let her go. The ADON said she had heard CNA A curse on the hallway. The ADON said after reviewing the schedule and the time sheets. The only thing she could tell was the incidents with Residents #1 and #3 did not happen on 7/3/23. She said she did not work that day and neither did CNA A. she said she could not figure out when the incident happened, but it was before 7/3/23. Record review of the facilities, abuse and neglect protocol with no date indicated abuse is defined as the willful inflection of injury, unreasonable, confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain of mental anguish. Abuse also included the derivation by an individual, included caregiver, goods and services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The policy statement, a resident, have a right to be free from abuse, neglect. This includes but not limited to freedom from corporal, punishment, involuntary, seclusion, verbal, mental, physical abuse, the development, an implementation, and policy development, and implement policies and procedures in preventing abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of resident to identifying all possible incidence of abuse to protect resident during abuse investigations. Establish and implement a QAIP review and analysis abuse and implement changes to prevent future currencies of abuse . Each interview will be conducted separately in a private location. Witness reports will be obtained in writing either witness will write his or her statement, sign, and date. Or the investigator may obtain a statement read it back to the member and have him sign and date it. Reporting an alleged violation of abuse or neglect will be reported immediately, but not later than: Two hours if the alleged volition involves abuse or has resulted in serious bodily injury or 24 hours if the alleged violations involved abuse and had not resulted in serious bodily injury. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. The facility Administrator, and ADON were notified. The Administrator was provided with the IJ template on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. The Plan of Removal for: [Tag F-610: The employee responsible for abuse to Resident 1 and 3 has been terminated on 9/8/2023. The shift key employee responsible for abuse on resident 4 has been red flagged and is no longer able to pick up shifts or return to this facility effective 5/28/2023. Administrator and DON followed up with residents after incidents to ensure no psychological impact was made. An immediate in-service has been started for all staff with the subject of De-escalating Resident Behaviors. Conduct a safe survey with all current interviewable residents. (See attachment 1 below). This will establish residents, individuals, or clients are no longer at a high risk of serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. o Surveys will be completed by 12:00pm 12/28/2023. o Surveys will be completed by the following department heads: Social Services BOM Dietary Supervisor MDS Coordinator Director of Rehabilitation ADON o Non-interviewable residents will have skin assessment completed once a week, for 3 months to be reviewed monthly in QA. Documented daily rounds to determine if non-interviewable residents are free from abuse to be completely 3 times a week for 3 months and reviewed in monthly QA. Create a new policy for Abuse which will include the following: o Definitions o Screening o Training o Prevention o Identification o Investigation o Protection o Reporting The new Policy was completed by Administrator. Policy was completed 12/28/2023 at 10:00am N[TRUNCATED]
Nov 2022 14 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure notice was provided to residents, as soon as was possible, wh...

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 notice was provided to residents, as soon as was possible, where changes in coverage were made to items and services by Medicare and/or by the Medicaid State plan, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #11) who were provided skilled Medicare services, were discharged from services, and remained in the facility. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 was given a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) when discharged from skilled services at the facility prior to covered days being exhausted. This failure could place residents at risk of not being aware of changes to provided services. The findings were: Record review of Resident #11's face sheet, dated 11/28/2022, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply, diabetes (a disease in which the body's ability to produce or respond to the hormone insulin is impaired), and need for assistance with personal care . Record review of Resident #11's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #11 was usually understood and sometimes understands others. Resident #11 had a BIMS of 09, which indicated moderate impaired cognition. Resident #11 required supervision to extensive assistance with ADLs. Record review for Resident #11 revealed the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) had been initiated on 6/16/2022 with the effective end date of coverage being 06/20/2022, this document was signed by Resident #11, however it was revealed a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) was not completed which would have informed Resident #11 of the option to continue services at the risk of out-of-pocket cost. During an interview on 11/29/2022 at 9:45 a.m., the MDS Coordinator said she had never issued ABN letters to any residents. She said she was under the impression ABN letters were for notification when a resident would no longer receive skilled care. She said Resident #11 was no longer receiving skilled care because she had met her goals with therapy. She said she was under the impression a NOMNC letter was the notification that Part A was ending, and the skilled care was ending for Resident #11 . During an interview on 11/29/2022 at 11:00 a.m., the Administrator said the facility did not have a policy concerning notification of ending Part A Benefits or ABN/NOMNC letters . During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 12:04 p.m., the DON said she had nothing to do with issuing ABN letters. She said this was the MDS Coordinator's responsibility. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 3:09 p.m., the Administrator said it is the responsibility of the MDS Coordinator to issue ABN letters to residents. He said he would have expected Resident #11 to have been notified by ABN letter that her part A benefits were ending . Record review of CMS guidelines Beneficiary Notice Guidelines, approved by CMS-10124-DENC December 31, 2011, revealed Scenario Part A stay will end because: SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) determines the beneficiary no longer requires daily skilled services. Resident has days remaining in the benefit period. Resident will remain in the facility (custodial care) Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) CMS-10055 (2018) and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) CMS-10123 (12/31/11)) to be completed.
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 13 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to code Resident #4's use of oxygen on his MDS. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met. Findings include: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 11/28/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems) and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (don't have enough oxygen in your blood). Record review of the Resident #4's consolidated physician orders, dated 10/28/22-11/28/22, revealed oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula, twice daily (6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.) ordered 02/11/22. Record review of Resident #4's MAR, dated 11/05/22 -11/11/22, revealed oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula, twice daily (6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.) ordered 02/11/22 with oxygen saturation (is the amount of oxygen you have circulating in your blood) documented. Record review of the annual MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #4 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #4 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene, toilet use and bathing. The MDS did not document the use of oxygen while a resident. Record review of Resident #4's care plan, dated 11/16/22, revealed use of oxygen as needed for COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and history of COVID Pneumonia (is a lung infection caused by SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It causes fluid and inflammation in your lungs). Interventions included administer oxygen as ordered and ensure supply was always available. During an observation on 11/28/22 at 10:29 a.m., Resident #4 was laying in his bed with a nasal cannula on his face. The oxygen concentrator flow meter read 2.5 liters with a water filled reservoir. During an observation on 11/29/22 at 11:26 a.m., Resident #4 was laying in his bed with a nasal cannula on his face. The oxygen concentrator flow meter read 2.5 liters with a water filled reservoir. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 11:48 a.m., the MDS Coordinator said she was responsible for the accuracy of MDS's. She said she looked at progress notes and MAR's to gather information to complete the MDS. She said she looked 7 days prior to the completion of the MDS. She said she looked at Resident #4 progress notes and did not see documentation of oxygen use. She said she thought she looked at the MAR but after reviewing it again, she missed the oxygen saturation documented on the MAR. She said an inaccurate assessment could affect the resident care and services provided by the facility. She said inaccurate MDS information could be transferred to the resident's care plan, causing an inaccurate care plan. During an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/2022 at 1:03 p.m., the Administrator said a policy for accuracy of assessment was not available. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:10 p.m., the DON said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for the accuracy of MDS's. She said she expected the coordinator to review all documents to obtain her assessment for the MDS. She said the MDS assessed important aspects of the resident and presented a medical picture of the resident. She said an inaccurate assessment could cause inaccurate care or services provided to the resident. She said it was important to maintain or improve a resident's quality of life and care.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid in subpart C, to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort and coordination which included incorporating the recommendations from a PASARR (level II determination and the PASARR evaluation report into a resident assessment, care planning, and transitions of care for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for PASARR services. 1. The facility failed to implement any services recommended from the PASARR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021. 2. The facility failed to hold an annual Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting with the local mental health authority for Resident #11. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving specialized PASARR services which would enhance their highest level of functioning and could contribute to residents' decline in physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #11' s face sheet, dated 11/28/2022, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female and was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) , other recurrent depressive disorders (periods of depression), and bipolar disorder , current manic severe with psychotic features (a disorder characterized by periods of depression and periods of depression and periods of abnormally elevated mood associated with psychosis.) Record Review of Resident #11's MDS , dated 09/06/2022, indicated Resident #11 was usually understood and sometimes understands. Resident #11 had a BIMS of 09, which indicated moderate impaired cognition. Resident #11 required supervision to extensive assistance with ADLs. Record review of Resident #11's care plan, dated 09/14/2022, did not indicate Resident #11 received PASARR services for PASARR positive diagnosis of mental illness. Record review of a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Evaluation Summary report concerning Resident #11, dated 9/1/2022, indicated, Section IV, Recommended MI (mental illness) Specialized Services .Individual Skills Training Record review of Resident #11's PASARR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021, indicated the evaluator was the PASARR Manager. The evaluation indicated Resident #11 met the PASARR definition of mental illness. The evaluation indicated specialized services determination/recommendations of self-monitoring of medications, self-monitoring of nutritional services, and individual skills training. Record review of Resident #11's electronic medical record did not indicate the resident received any of the recommended services or any form of counseling for her mental illness. There was no indication of Resident #11 refusing any services or counseling. Record review of an Informational Note concerning Resident #11, dated 12/21/2021, and was provided by the PASARR Manager, with the mental health local authority indicated, .spoke with [Resident #11's] RN who reports that she has a medication provider prescriber for her medications .she has access to counseling through Deer Oaks Notes from the IDT meeting held in September 2021 were requested from the PASARR Manager with the local mental health authority and were not received prior to exit. During an interview on 11/29/2022 at 2:15 p.m., the MDS Coordinator said Resident #11 was PASARR positive. She said there was no documentation of any of the recommendations made on the PASARR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021, being implemented into the care of Resident #11. She said there had not been an IDT (Interdisciplinary team) meeting since 9/2021. She said she had no idea if any of the services (Individual skills training, self-monitoring of medications, self-monitoring of nutritional status) were being provided because she had not heard from the PASARR Manager since 9/2021. She said the PASARR Manager was responsible for implementing any recommendations made during the PASARR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 9:44 a.m., the MDS Coordinator said herself and therapy were the only ones involved in quarterly PASARR IDT meetings. She said if it was an annual meeting an RN attended, and this was usually the DON. She said IDT meetings were supposed to be held quarterly. She said the reason Resident #11 had not had a meeting in over a year was because the PASARR Manager with the local mental health authority had not set up a meeting. She said she had reached out to the PASARR Manager and had not had a response from her. She said she had not reached out to anyone else to try to set up a meeting. She said it was not her job to implement any services recommended during a PASARR IDT meeting. She said they had two contacts with the local mental health authority and as far as she knew it was their job to implement the services recommended. She said Resident #11 had been evaluated by the PASARR Manager. She said recommended services not being implemented could cause a resident to not receive the care they needed. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 10:40 a.m., the PASARR Manager, with the local mental health authority, said the last IDT meeting for Resident #11 was held in September 2021 and there had not been a meeting since. She said Resident #11 was due for her annual meeting at this time. She said recommended services were implemented with routine case management. She said the case manager would come out once a month to re-evaluate the resident and make sure her needs were being met. She said if the needs were being met the case manager would not visit again after 90 days. She said there were notes from 12/2021 where a case manager contacted the facility. She said a nurse 's note said the resident had access to Deer Oaks for counseling. She said the last time a case manager contacted the resident was in February 2022 and they felt all of her needs were being met. She said individual skills training was not the same thing as occupational therapy. She said the individual skills training and other recommendations were not agreed upon at the IDT meeting in September 2021. She said counseling for the resident's mental illness was not recommended during the PASARR Evaluation because she was under the impression, she was receiving counseling through the facility. She said the last contact with the resident was February 2022 and there were no issues and the resident told them she was receiving counseling at the facility. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 12:04 p.m., the DON said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for making sure PASARR recommended services were implemented. She said there were annual and quarterly IDT meetings. She said she would have expected there to have been IDT meetings since September 2021 for Resident #11. She said the local authority, therapy, a family member and the MDS Coordinator attended the quarterly and annual IDT meetings. The DON said she attended all annual meetings. She said she did not know why there had not been any IDT meetings over this last year. She said she thought Resident #11 was receiving counseling. After checking documentation, she said Resident #11 had not received any counseling services. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 2:52 p.m., a Licensed Psychologist with Deer Oaks said she was called on 11/20/2022 to see Resident #11 and she was able to come to the facility to evaluate the resident. She said she was told the resident refused to be evaluated after she was released from a behavioral facility in December 2020. She said she had never received a referral because the resident was not giving her consent. She said after the evaluation on 11/30/2022 she felt the resident was unable to give an informed consent because of her mental status. She said after the initial assessment she planned to see the resident for a session or two. She said she did normally see PASARR positive residents. She said anyone the facility felt needed to be seen, she would come to the facility and evaluate them a few times. She said this was the first time she saw the resident and could not say if she would have benefited from counseling over the last two years. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 3:09 p.m., the Administrator said the DON was responsible for making sure PASARR recommended services were implemented for PASARR positive residents. He said there should be monthly IDT PASARR meetings for each PASARR positive resident. He said he would have expected Resident #11 to have had an IDT meeting since the last one was in September 2021. During an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/2022 at 1:03 p.m., the Administrator said a policy for specialized PASARR services was available. Record review of the Detailed Item by Item Guide for Completing the Authorization Request for PASRR Nursing Facility Specialized Services (NFSS) Form, from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, dated April 30, 2021, revealed . The nursing facility has 20 business days from the date of the initial IDT or a specialized service review meeting to initiate all PASRR nursing facility specialized services (NFSS) for those with a positive PE for ID/DD recommended and agreed to at the meeting.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Lev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for PASRR Level I screenings. The facility failed to review Resident #22's PASRR level 1 assessment for accuracy. Resident #22 was diagnosed with Bipolar which was not indicated on his PASRR level 1. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed assessments (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care and specialized services to meet their needs. Findings include: Record review of Resident #22's face sheet, dated 11/28/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Bipolar (a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs) and hallucinations (a perception of having seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled something that wasn't actually there). Record review of Resident #22's prescription order, dated 10/24/22, revealed Quetiapine (is used to treat certain mental/mood conditions (such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, sudden episodes of mania or depression associated with bipolar disorder). Quetiapine is known as an anti-psychotic drug) tablet, 50 mg, 1 tablet, oral twice a day for bipolar disorder. Record review of the admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #22 was not currently considered by state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or related condition. The MDS did not indicated Resident #22 had serious mental illness, intellectual disability, or related conditions. The MDS revealed Resident #22 was understood and understood others. Resident #22 had a BIMS of 14, which indicated intact cognition. Resident #22 was independent for bed mobility and toilet use but required supervision for transfers, personal hygiene, and limited assistance for dressing, and extensive assistance for bathing. Resident #22 had hallucinations. Resident #22 had an active diagnosis of bipolar disorder and hallucinations. Record review of Resident #22's care plan, dated 11/09/22, revealed signs and symptoms of mood distress as evidence by verbalizing feeling down, depressed, or hopeless. Interventions included administer medications as ordered and obtain a psychological consult/psychosocial therapy as needed. Record review of Resident #22's care plan, dated 11/09/22, revealed at risk for adverse consequences related to receiving antipsychotic medication for diagnosis of bipolar disorder complains of hallucinations/delusions and hearing and talking voices in his head. Interventions included assess/record effectiveness of drug treatment, attempt to give lowest dose possible, assess if behavioral symptoms present a danger to himself and/or others. Record review Resident #22's PASRR Level I Screening, dated 10/24/22, completed by a local hospital revealed no evidence of mental illness, intellectual disability, or developmental disability. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 11:48 a.m., the MDS Coordinator said she was responsible for PASRR accuracy. She said Resident #22 did have bipolar disorder with hallucinations as an active diagnosis. She said the PASRR Level I Screening was completed by the receiving hospital. She said she was only required to uploaded it in the local authority system. She said it was not her responsibility to make sure if another entity filled out the PASRR correctly. She said she assumed the transferring entity filled the PASRR out correctly. She said Resident #22's bipolar disorder diagnosis was obtained after the age of [AGE] years old, so she did not think his diagnosis qualified as a mental illness of the PASRR. She said she could not remember specifically where she learned the 23-age requirement for mental illness qualification. She said Resident #22 PASRR Level I Screening not completed correctly could cause him to not receive services he needed and not having the local authority involved in his care. During an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/2022 at 1:03 p.m., the Administrator said a policy for PASARR services was not available. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:09 p.m., the ADM said nursing services was responsible for PASRR screening and implementation of recommended services. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:10 p.m., the DON said the MDS Coordinator handled PASRR accuracy. She said Resident #22 had bipolar disorder but was obtained after age of [AGE] years old, so she did not think his diagnosis qualified as a mental illness of the PASRR. She said she could not remember specifically where she learned the 23-age requirement for mental illness qualification. She said she was going to locate the information related to the age requirement for mental illness and PASRR. She said the facility submitted whatever the transferring entity completed. She said she did not expect the MDS Coordinator to make sure other entities PASRR screenings were correct because if they were incorrect, they could not change the answers. She said if Resident #22 did qualify for PASRR service, then he was not receiving the care and service he was entitled to.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for transfers. (Resident #12) The facility failed to ensure CNA C and CNA D transferred Resident #12 safely by not locking the wheels of the mechanical (Hoyer) lift while performing a wheelchair to bed transfer. The facility failed to ensure CNA D provided adequate supervision of Resident #12 during a Hoyer lift/transfer from wheelchair to bed as CNA C operated the Hoyer lift. This failure could place residents at risk for injury during mechanical lifts/transfers. Findings include: Record review of Resident #12's face sheet, dated 11/30/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses which included muscle weakness, history of stroke with right side paralysis (non-use) and contracture of right hand, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes (too much sugar in the blood), colostomy (artificial opening for bowel elimination), osteoporosis (bones become weak and brittle) with history of pathological fracture (bone fracture not caused by force or impact), polyosteoarthritis (pain of 5 or more joints), atrial fibrillation (irregular rapid heartrate that causes poor blood flow), cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), history of urinary tract infections, depression (mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest), and anxiety (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations). Record review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #12 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #12 was total dependent with transfers and required the assistance of two persons for transfers. She required extensive assistance of two persons for most other ADLs. Resident #12 was always incontinent (unable to control) of urine, and she had a colostomy for bowel elimination. Record review of Resident #12's care plan, dated of 8/31/ 22, revealed Resident #12's left breast was significantly larger than her right and caused her emotional distress; Resident #12 had limited range of motion to the right upper and lower extremities; Resident #12 required extensive assistance with most ADLs and required two person assist and use of Hoyer lift with transfers; Resident #12 had pain to her right side related to hemiparesis (partial paralysis) from a stroke; and Resident #12 was at risk for bleeding due to taking Eliquis (blood thinner). Record review of the order history report with a date range of 10/30/22-11/30/22, revealed Resident #12 was to take Eliquis 2.5 milligrams 1 tablet twice daily and aspirin 81 milligram 1 tablet daily (both used to thin the blood). During an observation on 11/28/22 at 3:10 PM, CNA C and CNA D performed a mechanical lift/transfer on Resident #12. Resident #12 was sitting in her wheelchair just inside the door of her room. CNA D pushed the mechanical lift up to and around the resident's wheelchair and did not lock the mechanical lift wheels prior or during the actual lift of the resident. CNA D and CNA C proceeded to attach blue loops of the lift pad, that were already under the resident in the wheelchair, to the hooks of the mechanical lift. CNA D then proceeded to crank the mechanical lift and raised the resident up over the top of the wheelchair with CNA C standing beside the resident. CNA D then pulled the mechanical lift backwards across the room in front of Resident #12's bed and turned and pushed the lift and resident over the bed. CNA C did not stay with the resident to safely guide the resident during transfer from the wheelchair to the bed. CNA C was by the room door while CNA D maneuvered the lift with the resident suspended in the air to the bed. Resident #12 was inappropriately placed in the lift pad and was folded tightly in the lift pad with her head pushed forward and her chin was on her chest. CNA C then came to the bedside and assisted CNA D with positioning the resident in the bed. CNA D then lowered the mechanical lift and resident to the bed. Both CNA D and CNA C removed the transfer lift pad from under the resident. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:29 PM with CNA D, she said she was employed at the facility for six years as a CNA. She said while performing a mechanical lift/transfer, you should position the lift and lock the wheels of the lift and the wheelchair prior to lifting the resident to prevent the lift or wheelchair from moving, slipping, or falling over with the resident. She said resident positioning in the lift pad depended on which color loop was used. She said she could have used the blue and green loops to position Resident #12 better in the lift pad. She said Resident #12 tried very hard not to holler out in pain during the lift/transfer, because the lift hurts the resident's left side. She said Resident #12 usually hollered with pain during her lift/transfers. She said mechanical lifts/transfers always required two persons and should never be done alone. She said the second person should stay with the resident during the transfer, help guide the resident and help position the resident to prevent accidents. She said the second person was also a second set of eyes to ensure everything was done correctly/safely. She said she should have waited for CNA C to come back to the resident's side before continuing to maneuver the mechanical lift across the room. She said the resident could have potentially fell and there was no one else to help in an emergency if they were not close to the resident. She said she knew the proper way to perform a mechanical lift/transfer, but she was nervous. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:48 PM with CNA C, she said she worked at the facility for six years. She said while performing a mechanical lift/transfer, you should push the Hoyer lift to the resident and apply brakes on both the Hoyer lift and the resident's wheelchair. She said the lift pad was placed on under the resident and the loops of the lift pad hooked to the Hoyer lift. She said then the Hoyer lift would be pushed over to the bed and resident positioned properly in the bed and then lowered onto the bed. She said there had to be two persons to do a Hoyer lift. She said the second person was to supervise and assist with positioning the resident. She said it was very hot in Resident #12's room and she had sweat running down her face and had to step away from the resident during the lift/transfer to wipe her face and change gloves. She said the resident could fall and she could lose her license if the Hoyer lift was not done properly. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 4:35 PM with Resident #12, she said the mechanical lift/transfer was a typical lift/transfer process when she was transferred from her wheelchair back to bed. She said she felt the lift was okay. She said her left side of her body was very tender from her stroke and it hurts her some during the lift/transfer process. She said the lift pad was tight on her during the lift/transfer. She said she did not have anything bad to say about the care she received at the facility. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 11:39 PM with the DON, she said CNA D reported to her on 11/28/22 that she knew better and should have locked the mechanical lift. She said all CNA staff were in-serviced in August 2022 on proper mechanical (Hoyer) lifts/transfers. She said the second CNA should always stay with the resident during the transfer to make sure nothing happens, such as a fall, the Hoyer tip over, and to guide the resident safely. She said a resident could be injured during an unsafe mechanical (Hoyer) lift/transfer. She said she already had a plan to observe mechanical transfers for safety and she would work with the CNAs to determine what needs to happen to ensure Resident #12 was transferred comfortably and safely. She said the resident could need a different size transfer pad and/or she may need to educate the CNAs on proper use of the color coding of the lift pad loops for positioning during transfers. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:30 PM with the Administrator, he said he would expect the CNAs to perform mechanical lifts/transfers safely for the safety of the residents. Record review of Performance Evaluations for CNA revealed CNA C showed satisfactory competency of Hoyer transfer on 3/30/22. Record review of Performance Evaluations for CNA revealed CNA D showed satisfactory competency of Hoyer transfer on 11/15/22. Record review of an in-service titled Transfer Training, dated 8/24/22, revealed . Hoyer lift . Safety!! . Locks and position of patient . during transfer make sure to help guide and steady patient Record review of the facility's, undated, policy titled Mechanical Lift revealed . it is the policy of this facility to move a resident by a mechanical means as needed . moving resident from chair to bed . place foot of lift under chair and attach sling to lift . raise lift until resident's buttocks clear chair . slowly move resident away from chair toward bed . second person should guide sling . lower sling while second person guides resident to position on bed . unhook sling from lift . move lift away from resident and bed . remove sling and position resident
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0742 (Tag F0742)

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 a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder...

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 a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, received appropriate treatment and services to correct the assessed problem or to attain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being, for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for behavioral health services. 1. The facility failed to follow up on Resident #11's recommended counseling after discharge from the local mental hospital. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 received mental health treatment for her PASSR positive due to mental illness. 3. The facility failed to develop and implement interventions to address Resident #11 moderate depression. These failures could place residents at risk for emotional trauma, untreated depression, and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #11's face sheet, dated 11/28/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included pseudobulbar affect (inappropriate involuntary laughing and crying due to a nervous system disorder), bipolar disorder (extreme mood swings that include emotional highs (mania or hypomania) and lows [depression]), current episode manic severe with psychotic features, and recurrent depressive disorder (depressed mood or loss of interest in activities). Record review of Resident #11's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #11 was married. Resident #11 was admitted from a psychiatric hospital. Last reentry to the facility was on 04/18/22. Resident #11 was sometimes understood and usually understood others. Resident #11 had BIMS of 09, which indicated mild cognitive impairment. Resident #11 required limited assistance for transfer, and walk in room, extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene but total dependence for bathing. Resident #11 displayed periods of inattention and disorganized thought. Resident #11 had a mood total severity score (the score is useful for knowing when to request additional assessment by providers or mental health specialists for underlying depression) of 14 out 27. Resident #11 had symptoms of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); feeling tired or having little energy with a frequency of 2-6 days (several days); poor appetite or overeating with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); feel bad about yourself-or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); trouble concentrating with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); thoughts that you would be better off dead, or hurting yourself in some way with a frequency of 12-14 days (nearly every day). Resident #11 received antidepressants. Record review of Resident #11's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #11 was admitted from a psychiatric hospital. Last reentry to the facility was on 04/18/22. Resident #11 was sometimes understood and usually understood others. Resident #11 had a BIMS of 09, which indicated mild cognitive impairment. Resident #11 required supervision for toilet use and walk in room. Limited assistance for transfer, extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene but total dependence for bathing. Resident #11 displayed periods of inattention and disorganized thought. Resident #11 had a mood total severity score (the score is useful for knowing when to request additional assessment by providers or mental health specialists for underlying depression) of 14 out 27. Resident #11 had symptoms of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); feeling tired or having little energy with a frequency of 2-6 days (several days); poor appetite or overeating with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); feel bad about yourself-or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); trouble concentrating with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed with a frequency of 7-12 days (half or more of the days); thoughts that you would be better off dead, or hurting yourself in some way with a frequency of 12-14 days (nearly every day). Resident #11 received antidepressants. Record review of Resident #11's care plan, with problem start date of 02/13/20, revealed trauma informed care plan with trauma indicators and can become physically aggressive with staff and other residents at times. Interventions included redirected to quiet/calm place and maintain a calm environment and approach. The care plan with last care conference of 09/14/22 did not address Resident #11's moderate depression with prescribed medications and bipolar disorder with prescribed medication. Record review of Resident #11's care plan, dated 09/14/2022, did not indicate Resident #11 received PASARR services for PASARR positive diagnosis of mental illness. Record review of the progress note written by the social service worker dated 06/08/22 revealed .alert and able to communicate her needs .BIMS determined by staff .her PHQ9 score was 3 which indicated mild symptoms of depression .she receives Prozac for depression .indicators of past trauma . Record review of the progress note written by the social service worker dated 09/07/22 revealed .alert and able to communicate her needs .BIMS 9 which indicates moderate impairment . her PHQ9 score was 14 which indicated moderate symptoms of depression . she receives Prozac for depression . indicators of past trauma .she is PASRR positive . Record review of Resident #11's progress notes dated 03/03/22-11/25/22 did not indicate any form of counseling for her mental illness. There was no indication of Resident #11 refusing any services or counseling. Record review of the psychiatric physician progress notes dated 11/26/20 revealed admission date 11/25/20 .chief complaint behaviors .grabbed resident arm stated 'I will break it' .refused redirection .grabbing CAN arm and twisting it . Record review of the psychiatric physician progress notes dated 12/04/20 revealed criteria for continued stay .medical evaluation, psychopharmological evaluation and adjustment, evaluation of psychiatric status, positive for new medication prescribed .discharged date 12/09/20. The progress notes did not mention counseling service recommended post discharge. Record review of a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Evaluation Summary report concerning Resident #11, dated 9/1/2021, indicated, Section IV, Recommended MI (mental illness) Specialized Services .Individual Skills Training Record review of Resident #11's PASARR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021, indicated the evaluator was the PASARR Manager. The evaluation indicated Resident #11 met the PASARR definition of mental illness. The evaluation indicated specialized services determination/recommendations of self-monitoring of medications, self-monitoring of nutritional services, and individual skills training. Record review of an Informational Note concerning Resident #11, dated 12/21/2021, and was provided by the PASARR Manager, with the mental health local authority indicated, .spoke with [Resident #11's] RN who reports that she has a medication provider prescriber for her medications .she has access to counseling through Deer Oaks Notes from the IDT meeting held in September 2021 were requested from the PASARR Manager with the local mental health authority and were not received prior to exit. During an observation and interview on 11/28/22 at 11:52 a.m., Resident #11 was sitting in the main area of the secured unit. Resident #11 stated she was married to Resident #13, but he was not on the secure unit. She said she wanted to be in the same room with him and it made her sad to not be with him. She said she only got to visit him during activities. She said she took medication for depression but was not receiving counseling because the facility did not have a social worker. During an interview on 11/29/2022 at 2:15 p.m., the MDS Coordinator said Resident #11 was PASARR positive. She said there was no documentation of any of the recommendations made on the PASARR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021, being implemented into the care of Resident #11. She said there had not been an IDT (Interdisciplinary team) meeting since 9/2021. She said the PASARR Manager was responsible for implementing any recommendations made during the PASARR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021. She said Resident #11's mental illness should be addressed in the care plan and reflect medication changes and dose reductions. She said her care plan not addressing her depression was an oversight. She said a resident not having a complete care plan could cause the resident to not receive the care they needed. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:39 p.m., Resident #11 said she was tired and sad. She said she talked to the social service worker, but it did not help. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 9:04 a.m., LVN G said she worked at the facility for 14 years. She said Resident #11 left the secure unit for activities to be with her husband and he went back on the secure unit for activities. She said they were allowed to visit each other daily. She said Resident #11 seemed happier when she could visit her husband. She said Resident #11 had a history of depression. She said the doctor recently decreased one of her anti-depressant medications. She said Resident #11 needed to be looked at or seen by the counseling service. She said she did not know why she was not routinely seen by the counseling service but at one time Resident #11 could not voice her feelings. She said no one notified her, her nurse, about her emotional changes. She said Resident #11 was slow to get up last week. She said the facility provided adequate training of mental health and felt staff could recognize signs and symptoms of depression. She said Resident #11 had never mentioned her broken, missing teeth made her sad or hurt. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 9:46 a.m., the Social Service Worker said she also was responsible for medical records, the activity director, transportation supervisor, and made appointments. She said a referral for counseling service was sent if a staff member noticed mental or behavioral changes in a resident. She said based on Resident #11's last assessment, she was great. She said Resident #11 refused mental health services but did not document her refusals. She said some of Resident #11 sadness and depression would be alleviated if she was with her husband. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 10:40 a.m., the PASARR Manager, with the local mental health authority, said the last IDT meeting for Resident #11 was held in September 2021 and there had not been a meeting since. She said Resident #11 was due for her annual meeting at this time. She said there were notes from 12/2021 where a case manager contacted the facility. A nurse said the resident had access to a local counseling service for counseling. She said the last time a case manager contacted the resident was in February 2022 and they felt all her needs were being met. She said counseling for the resident's mental illness was not recommended during the PASARR Evaluation because she was under the impression, she was receiving counseling through the facility. She said the last contact with the resident was February 2022 and there were no issues and the resident told them she was receiving counseling at the facility. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 11:07 a.m., CNA H said she worked at the facility for 28 years and mostly on the secured unit. She said Resident #11 had not been acting sad lately. She said Resident #11 did get sad when she wanted to see her husband and was always happy when they were together. She said they visited each other daily during activities. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 1:30 p.m., the DON said she thought Resident #11 received counseling services. The DON checked some documentations and said Resident #11 had not received counseling services. She said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for making sure PASARR recommended services were implemented. The DON said all triggered areas should be care planned so the care plan reflected the individual needs of the residents. She said the care plan guided the resident's total care. The DON said it was expected the MDS nurse completed full comprehensive care plans when she completed and annual assessment. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 1:40 p.m., the ADM said the facility did not have a policy to address behavioral/mental health. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 2:52 p.m., the Licensed Psychologist said she was called today to see Resident #11. She said Resident #11 refused to be evaluated after she was released from a local behavioral hospital in12/20. She said she never received the recommended referral in 2020 because Resident #11 did not give her consent. She said after the evaluation on 11/30/2022 she felt the resident was unable to give an informed consent. She said after her initial assessment, she would have a session or two with Resident #11. She said Resident #11 told her she wanted to go home but did not want to harm herself in anyway. She said she did normally see PASARR positive residents. She said anyone the facility felt needed to be seen, she would evaluate the resident. She said best case scenario, Resident #11 would have been periodically asked if she wanted counseling services since she refused in 2020. She said because this was her first evaluation of Resident #11, she could not say if counseling would have benefitted her over the last 2 years. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:10 p.m., the DON said during Resident #11 PASSR IDT meeting, mental health services was not addressed. She said normally during the meeting it was decided, facility or local authority, who would provide the mental health service. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:40 p.m., the ADM said all staff should be monitoring the residents for abnormal behaviors which could indicated mental health issues. He said he expected the resident to receive the mental health care and services they needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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, based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, residents who had not used psychotropic drugs were not given these drugs unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #21) reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility failed to have an appropriate diagnosis or indication of use for Resident #21's Risperdal Consta injection (antipsychotic) and Zyprexa (antipsychotic). This failure could place residents at risk of receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications with possible medication side effects, adverse consequences, decreased quality of life and dependence on unnecessary medications. Findings include: Record review of Resident #21's face sheet, dated 11/29/2022, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease (a disease of the brain causing dementia, mood swings, loss of motivation, self-neglect, and behavioral issues), generalized anxiety disorder, and other recurrent depressive disorders (periods of depression). Record review of physician's orders dated 11/29/2022, for Resident #21 indicated an order, dated 2/10/2021, for Risperdal Consta suspension, extended release; 12.5 milligrams/ 2 milliliters; intramuscular injection to be given once a day every 14 days. There was an order, dated 5/16/2022, for Zyprexa tablet; 2.5 milligrams; 1 tab; oral; at bedtime. Record review of the MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #21 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #21 had a BIMS score of 9, which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. T Resident #21 did not have behaviors of hallucinations (seeing, hearing, touching something not really there), delusions (alter reality of what was real), rejection of care, or wandering. Resident #21 required supervision with ADLs. Resident #21 did not have a diagnosis of Huntington's Disease (a disease affecting the brain by breaking down the nerve cells in the brain), Tourette's Disease (a disease characterized by multiple motor tics and at least one phonic tic), or Schizophrenia. Record review of Resident #21's care plan, dated 9/21/2022, indicated Resident #21 was at risk for adverse consequences related to receiving antipsychotic medication for treatment of psychosis. Record review of a medication administration record dated 10/1/2022 - 11/29/2022, indicated Resident #21 was administered Risperdal Consta injection, 12.5 milligrams/2 milliliters on 10/05/2022, 10/19/2022, 11/02/2022 and 11/16/2022. Resident #21 was administered a Zyprexa 2.5 milligram tablet every day at bedtime. During an interview on 11/29/2022 at 4:30 p.m., the ADON said Resident #21 was admitted from a behavioral hospital with prescriptions for Risperadol and Zyprexa. She said when the Risperadol and Zyprexa were started for Resident #21 she had a new onset of hallucinations and paranoia. She said Resident #21 was very anxious and got upset. She said the plan was to decrease the dose and hopefully take her off the medications all together. She said the resident had greatly improved since the medications were first ordered. She said the physician had reduced the doses several times but had chosen to keep the resident on the medications. She said the resident was currently having some anxiety due to some family issues and she was given medications for the anxiety. She said she was no longer hallucinating or suffering from paranoia. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 12:15 p.m., the Attending Physician said he did not order psychotropic medications for people that had dementia diagnosis unless their behaviors warranted something stronger than an antidepressant. He said he tried almost all the recommendations the pharmacy made. He stated appropriate diagnoses for antipsychotics were Huntington's, Tourette's, delusional disorder, and schizophrenia/bipolar disorder. He stated he was aware of the side effects these medications had on the elderly and tried to refrain from using them unnecessarily. He stated antipsychotics caused a decreased appetite, increased risk of falling and even death. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 12:04 p.m., the DON said Schizophrenia, Tourette's Disease, and Huntington's Disease were all appropriate diagnosis for antipsychotics. She said Resident #21 had none of these diagnoses. She said GDRs (gradual dose reductions) were being done because she did not have any of those diagnoses. She said in 2020 Resident #21 was hallucinating, refused medications and would not eat. She said it was like Resident #21 was going crazy. She said Resident #21 had not recently hallucinated, that she was aware of. She said the resident did fixate on family issues. She said she asked the attending physician to remove at least one of the medications. She said the doctor said he wanted to do a slow reduction because he did not want her to revert to her behaviors in 2020. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:09 p.m., the Administrator said he did not know the correct diagnoses indicated for anti-psychotic medications. He said he was unaware Resident #21 was ordered antipsychotics without a proper diagnosis. He said he was surprised because the DON usually took care of issues with residents on antipsychotics. Record review of the facility's, undated, Psychotropic Medication Policy and Procedure facility policy indicated, .It is the policy of this facility to use psychotic medications appropriately working with the interdisciplinary team to ensure appropriate use, evaluation, and monitoring .the facility will make every effort to comply with state and federal regulations related to the use of psychopharmacological medications in the long term care facility to include regular review for continued need, appropriate dosage, side effects, risk and/or benefits Record review of the facility's, undated, CMS Allowed Diagnoses for Antipsychotic Medications by the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services indicated, Long-term Chronic Conditions Schizophrenia, Tourette's disorder, Huntington's disease, delusional disorder, Bipolar disorder, and severe depression refractory to other therapies with psychotic features .Short-term Acute Conditions, Psychosis in the absence of dementia, medical illness with psychotic symptoms and/or treatment related to psychosis or mania
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent. There were 2 errors out of 37 opportunities, resulting in a 5.41 percent medication error rate for 2 of 9 residents reviewed for medication error. (Resident #10, Resident #22) The facility failed to ensure Resident #10 received correct dosage of ferrous sulfate (iron) medication. The facility failed to ensure Resident #22 received correct dosage of Vitamin D medication. These failures could place residents at risk for inaccurate drug administration. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 11/30/22 revealed Resident #10 was a [AGE] year-old male, and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including iron deficiency anemia (not enough iron in the body), hypertension (high blood pressure), history of a heart attack, diabetes (too much sugar in the blood), Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (irregular, rapid heart rate that causes poor blood flow), difficulty speaking, has a gastrostomy tube (a tube passed through the abdominal wall into the stomach to receive nutrition, also known as a feeding tube), dementia (impairment of a least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgement), Alzheimer's (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), and prostate cancer. Record review of an annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #10 was unable to perform the BIMS. Resident #10 was total dependent and required the assistance of one to two persons for all ADLs. Resident #10 had a gastrostomy tube. Record review of the physician order history report with a date range of 10/30/22-11/30/22 revealed Resident #10 was to receive 5 mL (milliliters) of ferrous sulfate (medication also known as iron, used to treat iron deficiency) 300 mg/5 mL daily in the morning with a start date of 2/06/22. Record review of Resident #10's care plan dated 6/21/22 revealed the resident had a history of anemia and was at risk for increased weakness and fatigue. His interventions included giving medications per the orders and monitoring for side effects. During an observation on 11/29/22 at 8:52 AM observed LVN A administer 5 mL of ferrous sulfate (iron) 220 mg/5 mL to Resident #10 through his gastrostomy tube. During an observation and interview on 11/29/22 at 11:30 AM with LVN A, she pulled the bottle of ferrous sulfate (iron) labeled 220 mg/5 mL and said she had given Resident #10 five (5) mL of iron from that bottle. Surveyor asked LVN A to review the order for the medication and she opened the physician order on her computer. She said the order read for 300 mg/5 mL. She said she did not notice the difference in the dosage on the order versus what was on the bottle. She said Resident #10 was getting less iron than what the physician had ordered. She said the bottle was getting close to being empty and it was the only liquid iron they had available in the facility. She said she would contact the physician to clarify the order. 2. Record review of the face sheet dated 11/30/22 revealed Resident #22 was a [AGE] year-old male, and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Vitamin D deficiency (not enough Vitamin D in the body), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), history of a stroke (damage to the brain from an interruption of its blood supply), hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (constriction of the airways, difficulty and/or discomfort breathing), encephalopathy (disease in which the functioning of the brain was affected by some agent or condition), bipolar (excessive mood swings), and weakness. Record review of an admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #22 was understood and understood others. Resident #22.had a BIMS of 14, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Resident #22 was independent and required supervision to limited assistance of one person for most ADLs. Record review of Resident #22's order history report dated 10/30/22-11/30/22 revealed cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3) 5000 units 2 capsules daily with a start date of 10/31/22. During an observation on 11/29/22 at 9:09 AM, CMA B administered Resident #22 Vitamin D3 5000 units 1 tab. During an observation and interview on 11/29/22 at 11:45 AM, CMA B said he thought the order said 1 tablet of Vitamin D3. He reviewed the order and said he should have given 2 tablets of Vitamin D3 5000 units to Resident #22. He said he would give the second tablet at that time. He said he thought the MAR said one tablet, but he was human. He said when administering medicatioins, he should check the order, the medication, and the resident three times to ensure the correct medication was given to the correct resident. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 11:39 AM, the DON said LVN A had reported the medication error on Resident 10's iron dosage on 11/29/22 and they had already called the physician and received a clarification order to change the dosage to what was available, which was 220 mg/5 mL . She said she had researched the chart to figure out the root cause of the iron medication error and she determined the nurse that entered the original order had chosen the incorrect dosage on the electronic drop-down box when he was admitted . She said the nurses should have already discovered the discrepancy and questioned the dosage order and the iron bottle dosage that was available. She said giving the wrong dosage of medication could have been a serious issue if the resident was receiving the wrong dose of certain medications, such as a heart medication. She said Resident #10 had severe anemia and had even had to have blood transfusions in the past. She said if the resident was not receiving the correct dosage of iron, it could lead to increased fatigue, shortness of breath, increased anxiety (feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease), irregular heart rate, and could increase risk for falls. She said if a resident does not receive enough Vitamin D3, it could affect the resident's skin, mood, bone health, and their nutritional status. She said the facility used Vitamin D3 as part of their pressure ulcer/skin breakdown prevention. She said Resident #22 had a Vitamin D deficiency. She said Resident #22 could have increased fatigue, increased risk for infection, and changes in mood if he did not receive correct dosage of Vitamin D3. She said she had already devised a plan to review all orders, especially the over-the-counter medications, to ensure the correct medications were available and she would re-educate staff on proper medication administration. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:30 PM., the Administrator said he would expect the medication error rate to be less than 5% for the safety of the residents. Record review of the facility Administering Medication policy not dated revealed . medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed . only person licensed or permitted by this state to prepare, administer and document the administration of medications may do so . the DON will supervise and direct all nursing personnel who administer medications . medications must be administered in accordance with the orders . the individual administering the medication checks the label THREE (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication .
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 treat each resident with respect, dignity and care for...

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 treat each resident with respect, dignity and care for resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 2 of 13 residents (Resident #23 and Resident #4) reviewed for resident rights. 1. The facility failed to treat Residents #23 with respect and dignity when two staff members walked into the room during peri care without knocking prior to entering. 2. The facility failed to maintain Resident #4's dignity when CNA F contradicted his request for assistance with ADLs. These failures could place residents at risk for a diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #23's face sheet, dated 11/28/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions.), Tourette's syndrome (a nervous system disorder involving repetitive movements or unwanted sounds.) and anxiety (a mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities) Record review of the significant change MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #23 rarely to never understood and rarely to never understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #23 had a BIMS of 00, which indicated severe cognitive impairment and the resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene, toilet use, and bathing. During an observation and interview on 11/30/2022 at 8:30 a.m., CNA O and CNA E provided peri care for Resident #23. During peri care CNA N entered the room and swung the door all the way open without knocking. CNA O stated, please knock before entering we are doing peri care. CNA N promptly left the room and shut the door. A few minutes later the MDS Coordinator entered the room with another resident without knocking while peri care was being performed on Resident #23. CNA O stated, show some respect and knock on the door before entering a resident's room during peri care, please. CNA O stated all CNAs and nurses knew to knock on the door for dignity and respect. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 9:00 a.m., CNA N stated she did not make it a habit of not knocking on the door when she entered the resident's rooms. CNA N stated she knew to knock because this was the home of the residents. CNA N stated she was trained to knock on the door to provide respect for the residents. CNA N stated she just was not thinking when she entered the room without knocking. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 9:20 a.m., the MDS Coordinator stated she was busy talking to a resident and opened the door to the room without knocking to let Resident #23's roommate into the room. The MDS Coordinator stated it was important to knock before entering to not infringe on the residents right to privacy. The MDS Coordinator stated she knew to knock and normally did knock before entering the resident's room. The MDS Coordinator stated Resident #23 was not oriented and more than likely did not know someone was in the room. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 1:15 p.m., the DON stated it was not acceptable to not knock on the door of any resident before entering. The DON stated any reasonable person would not agree to people entering their homes without knocking. The DON stated the staff had already been in serviced about the incident of not knocking that occurred this morning. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 4:15 p.m., the Administrator stated the facility was the resident's home and all the doors should be knocked on prior to entering. The Administrator stated it was the resident's right to have privacy and the CNAs were trained in orientation to knock before entering the room. The Administrator stated it could make a resident anxious and make them feel unsafe if they did not feel their privacy was respected. 2. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 11/28/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included need for assistance with personal care, muscle weakness (a lack of strength in the muscles) and depressive disorder (a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). Record review of the annual MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #4 was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #4 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated intact cognition and the resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene, toilet use and bathing. Record review of Resident #4's care plan, dated 11/16/22, revealed potential for decline in ADL function related to refusal in get out of bed and minimal movements. Interventions included bed mobility assist x 1-2 (uses trapeze bar to assist with mobility), personal hygiene assist x1, toilet assist x 1-2 and maintain dignity and provide privacy while providing care. Record review of Resident #4's complainant statement, dated 11/01/22, revealed I needed my bed changed. I asked [CNA E] to change me, and she had [CNA F] come to assist her. [CNA F] stated, 'We [CNA F and CNA E] aren't going to change you, you were just changed.' I said if you aren't going to do it then let CNA E .I feel like my right and body were violated. Record review of CNA E's witness statement, dated 11/01/22, revealed [Resident #4] wanted his sheets and shirt changed. I asked [CNA F] to help me change him. She stated she just changed him like 30 minutes ago. [CNA F] told me that the sheets didn't need to be changed but [Resident #4] said that they did. [Resident #4] started cussing at her [CNA F] about this . Record review of CNA F's witness statement, dated 11/01/22, revealed . [CNA E] asked me to help her change [Resident #4]. I had just changed him less than 30 minutes prior to this request . During an interview on 11/28/22 at 10:29 a.m., Resident #4 said earlier this month (November) an incident happened with CNA's E and F and he was upset about how he was treated. He said he asked CNA E to change his sheet and when she went to get CNA F, she told him he did not need to be changed. He said being contradicted made him mad because he was in his right mind. He said some of the CNAs do not treat the residents with dignity and respect. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 11:53 a.m., CNA E said she was a witness to the incident between Resident #4 and CNA F. She said she asked CNA F for assistance and in front of Resident #4, told him he did not need to be changed. She said the incident became tense after CNA F contradiction. She said Resident #4 got upset and frustrated with CNA F. She said it was Resident #4's right to be changed and his sheets did need to be changed. She said CNA F should not have contradicted Resident #4. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:30 p.m., CNA F said she was involved in the incident with Resident #4. She said she should not have contradicted Resident #4 request to be changed. She said in doing so she probably hurt his dignity. She said hurting his dignity caused him to become angry and escalated the situation. She said contradicting Resident #4 asking for assistance could cause him to not ask for help when he should and could cause injuries. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:10 p.m., the DON said she expected the nursing staff to check residents when they asked to be changed. She said she expected the nursing staff to not tell the residents they did not need to be changed. She said contradicting the resident could make the resident feel unimportant and probably hurt Resident #4's dignity. She said hurting Resident #4's dignity could cause depression which could lead to malnutrition, loss of sleep and decreased desire in wanting to do things. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:40 p.m., the ADM said he did not approve of staff telling residents they did not need to be changed when the resident asked for assistance. He said he talked to CNA F about her inappropriate comment. He said her comment was a breach of Resident #4's dignity. She said hurting his dignity could have made Resident #4 question if his cognition was impaired or inaccurate. Record review of the facility's, undated, policy titled Quality of Life-Dignity revealed .Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality .Resident shall be groomed as they wish to be groomed Residents' private space and property shall be respected at all times. Staff will knock and request permission before entering residents' rooms.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving of mistreatment, neglect, 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 ensure all alleged violations involving of mistreatment, neglect, abuse, or misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the allegation was made to other officials (including to the State Agency) for 3 of 13 residents (Resident #2, Resident#13, and Resident #21) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report alleged violations to State Agency reported from Resident #2, Resident #13, and Resident #21 during a safe survey. This failure could place residents at risk for continued alleged violations, diminished quality of life and harm. Findings included: Record review of the facility's, undated, Abuse Investigation and Reporting policy revealed all reports of resident abuse, neglect .shall be promptly reported to local, state, and federal agencies and thoroughly investigated by facility management .role of the administrator .if an incident or suspected incident of resident abuse, mistreatment, neglect .the Administrator will assign the investigation to an appropriate individual .the administrator will endure that any further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment is prevented .the individual conducting the investigation will, as a minimum .review the completed documentation forms, review the resident's medical record to determine events leading up to the incident, interview the person reporting the incident, interview any witness to the incident, interview the resident as medically appropriate 1. Record review Resident #2's face sheet, dated 11/8/22, revealed Resident #2 was [AGE] year old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body that can affect the arms, legs, and facial muscles), dementia (is a general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), and muscle weakness. Record review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #2 was understood and understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #2 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated intact cognition and required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene but total dependence for transfers. Record review of Resident #2's care plan, dated 10/12/22, revealed the resident required extensive assistance of total dependence related to hemiplegia with most ADLs. Interventions included maintain dignity and provide privacy while providing care. 2. Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated 11/30/22, revealed Resident #13 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included multiple sclerosis (is a disease that impacts the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves, which make up the central nervous system and controls everything we do) and recurrent depressive disorder (depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life). Record review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #13 was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #13 had BIMS of 06, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #13 required limited assistance for transfers, extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene but total dependence for bathing. Record review of Resident #13's care plan, dated 10/12/22, revealed need for assistance with ADLs related to multiple sclerosis as evidence by weakness and debility (physical weakness, especially as a result of illness). Interventions included maintain dignity and provide privacy while providing care. 3. Record review of Resident #21's face sheet, dated 11/29/22, revealed Resident #21 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #21 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease (is a type of dementia that affects memory, thinking and behavior), depressive disorder (is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and primary osteoarthritis (breakdown of cartilage in the joint. As the cartilage wears down, the bone ends may thicken and form bony growths [spurs]). Record review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #21 was understood and understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #21 had a BIMS of 09, which indicated mild cognitive impairment and only required supervision for bathing and walking in room and corridor. Record review of Resident #21's care plan, dated 09/21/22, revealed a diagnosis of unspecified recurrent depressive disorder. Interventions included encourage to verbalize feelings, concerns, fears, etc. Clarify misconceptions. Record review of an undated resident Safe Survey Questionnaire completed by the ADM revealed the following: *1. Does staff treat the resident with dignity and respect? If no, tell me some examples. A question mark was placed for Resident #2 and yes was answered for Resident #13 and Resident #21. *2. Have you ever seen another staff member treat a resident roughly? If yes, Who, When and What happened? Resident #2 and Resident #13 answered yes. Resident #2 said she reported it and Resident #13 said he had not reported it to somebody. *3. Have you ever seen a staff member yell or be rude to a resident? If yes, Who, When and What happened? Resident #2 and Resident #13 answered yes. Resident #2 said she reported it and Resident #13 said he had not reported it to somebody. Record review of an undated, Resident list associated with Safe Survey revealed the following: 1. Does staff treat the resident with dignity and respect? If no, tell me some examples. [Resident #2] said sometimes but not always . 2. Have you ever seen another staff member treat a resident roughly? If yes, Who, When and What happened? [Resident#2] said sometimes staff are too rough with her, saying she's too fat . 3. Have you ever seen a staff member yell or be rude to a resident? If yes, Who, When and What happened? [Resident#2] said to herself and others (i.e. Staff member yelled at a resident in the dining room, she told the old ADM's husband, who also was an ADM .) 2. Have you ever seen another staff member treat a resident roughly? If yes, Who, When and What happened? [Resident #13] said has been treated verbally roughly by a CNA on night shift . 4. Does staff treat the resident with dignity and respect? If no, tell me some examples. [Resident #21] said CNA J was very ugly to her one day in the shower but hasn't been that way since the one time. During an interview on 11/28/22 at 1:00 p.m., the ADM said he performed the safe survey after Resident #4 reported CNA F being rough. He said during the safe survey Resident #2, Resident #13 and Resident #21 did make allegations against staff members and CNA J. He said he did not investigate the allegation because the allegations were not part of Resident #4's incident. He said after the safe survey, he had an informal customer service conservation with all the staff. He said he did not directly coach or question CNA J about Resident #21's allegation because he was afraid CNA J could treat her differently. He said he did not ask Resident #21 if she minded him directly mentioning her allegation when he spoke with CNA J. He said he did not feel CNAs constantly spoke or made Resident #2 feel bad or fat. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:10 p.m., the DON said safe survey were performed to make sure other residents were not experiencing the same problems but not reporting it. She said if allegations were reported during a safe survey, the allegation needed to be investigated and possible reported to the state. She said it was called a safe survey to ensure the safety of the residents. She said the ADM or designee investigated allegations of abuse and all staff are required to report abuse to the abuse coordinator. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:40 p.m., the ADM said if a resident told him about any of the mentioned allegation from Resident #2, Resident 13, and Resident #21, he would call the alleged perpetrator and start the investigation process. He said depending on the alleged allegation, he would do the investigation then decide if the incident needed to be reported to the State. He said sometimes the boundaries between resident and staff got blurred and crossed, primarily verbally due to familiarity. He said he probably should have investigated and possible reported all the allegations mentioned on the safe survey. He said he was the abuse coordinator, so it was his responsibility to investigate, and report alleged allegations. He said investigating and reporting alleged allegations created a safe environment and prevented the allegation from continuing.
CONCERN (E)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment had evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated for 3 of 13 residents (Residents #2, #13 and #21) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to investigate alleged violations reported from Resident #2, Resident #13 and Resident #21 during a safe survey. This failure could place residents at risk for continued alleged violations, diminished quality of life and harm. Findings include: 1. Record review Resident #2's face sheet, dated 11/8/22, revealed Resident #2 was [AGE] year old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body that can affect the arms, legs, and facial muscles), dementia (is a general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), and muscle weakness. Record review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #2 was understood and understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #2 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated intact cognition and required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene but total dependence for transfers. Record review of Resident #2's care plan, dated 10/12/22, revealed the resident required extensive assistance of total dependence related to hemiplegia with most ADLs. Interventions included maintain dignity and provide privacy while providing care. 2. Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated 11/30/22, revealed Resident #13 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included multiple sclerosis (is a disease that impacts the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves, which make up the central nervous system and controls everything we do) and recurrent depressive disorder (depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life). Record review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #13 was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #13 had BIMS of 06, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #13 required limited assistance for transfers, extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene but total dependence for bathing. Record review of Resident #13's care plan, dated 10/12/22, revealed need for assistance with ADLs related to multiple sclerosis as evidence by weakness and debility (physical weakness, especially as a result of illness). Interventions included maintain dignity and provide privacy while providing care. 3. Record review of Resident #21's face sheet, dated 11/29/22, revealed Resident #21 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #21 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease (is a type of dementia that affects memory, thinking and behavior), depressive disorder (is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and primary osteoarthritis (breakdown of cartilage in the joint. As the cartilage wears down, the bone ends may thicken and form bony growths [spurs]). Record review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #21 was understood and understood others. The MDS revealed Resident #21 had a BIMS of 09, which indicated mild cognitive impairment and only required supervision for bathing and walking in room and corridor. Record review of Resident #21's care plan, dated 09/21/22, revealed a diagnosis of unspecified recurrent depressive disorder. Interventions included encourage to verbalize feelings, concerns, fears, etc. Clarify misconceptions. Record review of an undated resident Safe Survey Questionnaire completed by the ADM revealed the following: *1. Does staff treat the resident with dignity and respect? If no, tell me some examples. A question mark was placed for Resident #2 and yes was answered for Resident #13 and Resident #21. *2. Have you ever seen another staff member treat a resident roughly? If yes, Who, When and What happened? Resident #2 and Resident #13 answered yes. Resident #2 said she reported it and Resident #13 said he had not reported it to somebody. *3. Have you ever seen a staff member yell or be rude to a resident? If yes, Who, When and What happened? Resident #2 and Resident #13 answered yes. Resident #2 said she reported it and Resident #13 said he had not reported it to somebody. Record review of an undated, Resident list associated with Safe Survey revealed the following: 1. Does staff treat the resident with dignity and respect? If no, tell me some examples. [Resident #2] said sometimes but not always . 2. Have you ever seen another staff member treat a resident roughly? If yes, Who, When and What happened? [Resident#2] said sometimes staff are too rough with her, saying she's too fat . 3. Have you ever seen a staff member yell or be rude to a resident? If yes, Who, When and What happened? [Resident#2] said to herself and others (i.e. Staff member yelled at a resident in the dining room, she told the old ADM's husband, who also was an ADM .) 2. Have you ever seen another staff member treat a resident roughly? If yes, Who, When and What happened? [Resident #13] said has been treated verbally roughly by a CNA on night shift . 4. Does staff treat the resident with dignity and respect? If no, tell me some examples. [Resident #21] said CNA J was very ugly to her one day in the shower but hasn't been that way since the one time. During an interview on 11/28/22 at 1:00 p.m., the ADM said he performed the safe survey after Resident #4 reported CNA F being rough. He said during the safe survey Resident #2, Resident #13 and Resident #21 did make allegations against staff members and CNA J. He said he did not investigate the allegation because the allegations were not part of Resident #4's incident. He said after the safe survey, he had an informal customer service conservation with all the staff. He said he did not directly coach or question CNA J about Resident #21's allegation because he was afraid CNA J could treat her differently. He said he did not ask Resident #21 if she minded him directly mentioning her allegation when he spoke with CNA J. He said he did not feel CNAs constantly spoke or made Resident #2 feel bad or fat. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:10 p.m., the DON said safe survey were performed to make sure other residents were not experiencing the same problems but not reporting it. She said if allegations were reported during a safe survey, the allegation needed to be investigated and possible reported to the state. She said it was called a safe survey to ensure the safety of the residents. She said the ADM or designee investigated allegations of abuse and all staff are required to report abuse to the abuse coordinator. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:40 p.m., the ADM said if a resident told him about any of the mentioned allegation from Resident #2, Resident 13, and Resident #21, he would call the alleged perpetrator and start the investigation process. He said depending on the alleged allegation, he would do the investigation then decide if the incident needed to be reported to the State. He said sometimes the boundaries between resident and staff got blurred and crossed, primarily verbally due to familiarity. He said he probably should have investigated all the allegations mentioned on the safe survey. He said he was the abuse coordinator, so it was his responsibility to investigate alleged allegations. He said investigating alleged allegations created a safe environment and prevented the allegation from continuing. Record review of the facility's, undated, Abuse Investigation and Reporting policy revealed all reports of resident abuse, neglect .shall be promptly reported to local, state, and federal agencies and thoroughly investigated by facility management .role of the administrator .if an incident or suspected incident of resident abuse, mistreatment, neglect .the Administrator will assign the investigation to an appropriate individual .the administrator will endure that any further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment is prevented .the individual conducting the investigation will, as a minimum .review the completed documentation forms, review the resident's medical record to determine events leading up to the incident, interview the person reporting the incident, interview any witness to the incident, interview the resident as medically appropriate
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 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, mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 12 residents (Residents #27, #5 and #11) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. 1. The facility failed to develop and implement care plans for Resident #27 for the triggered care area of psychotropic medications and current antipsychotic usage. 2. The facility failed to develop a care plan to address Resident # 5's hospice services. 3. The facility failed to develop a care plan to address Resident #11's PASSR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) services. These failures could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met, a decreased quality of life, and cause residents not to receive needed services. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #27's face sheet, dated November 2022, indicated Resident #27 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), delusional disorder (a belief or altered reality that is persistently held despite evidence or agreement to the contrary, generally in reference to a mental disorder), and anxiety (a mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). Record review of Resident #27's annual MDS assessment, dated 09/01/2022, indicated Resident #27 had a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) score of 03, which indicated a severe cognitive impairment. Resident #27 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #27 required supervision assistance with bed mobility, ambulation, transfer and toileting. The MDS indicated 7 days of antipsychotic medication usage. Record review of the CAAs (Care Area Assessment), dated 09/01/2022, indicated Resident #27 triggered for the care areas of psychotropic medication usage. The care area assessment for psychotropic medication use indicated a care plan would be created for the psychotropic medication usage. Record review of Resident # 27's physician orders indicated an order for Seroquel 100 mg once daily at bedtime was ordered on 03/21/2021. Record review of Resident #27's medication administration record for September, October and November 2022 indicated Seroquel 100 mg was administered nightly for September, October, and November of 2022. Interview with LVN G on 11/30/2022 at 10:00 a.m. revealed Resident #27 had a delusional disorder and took Seroquel for several years. LVN G stated it was the responsibility of the MDS nurse to care plan all medications. LVN G stated care plans were created so the staff knew how to take care of the residents and their individual needs. Interview with the MDS Coordinator on 11/30/2022 at 10:30 a.m. revealed Resident #27 had daily antipsychotic use and psychotropic medications triggered on the annual MDS dated [DATE]. The MDS Coordinator stated the care plan should have been updated with the 09/01/2022 assessment to reflect the usage of psychotropic medications. The MDS Coordinator stated the resident would not suffer an adverse effect from the Seroquel not being care planned. The MDS Coordinator stated she must have overlooked the triggered care area. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 1:35 p.m., the DON stated she was unaware the triggered psychotropic medication for Resident #27 was not care planned. The DON stated all triggered areas should be care planned so the care plan reflected the individual needs of the residents. The DON stated no negative outcome would come to the resident by not having an accurate care plan. The DON stated it was the responsibility of the MDS Coordinator to ensure all care plans were accurate. The DON stated no one checked the care plans behind the MDS nurse. The DON stated it was expected the MDS nurse completed full comprehensive care plans when she completed and annual assessment. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 2:21 p.m., the Administrator stated he expected the MDS to create a full comprehensive care plan and keep it revised and updated. The Administrator stated the care plan was important because it was the instruction manual for the care of each resident. 2. Record review of Resident #5's face sheet, dated 11/29/2022, revealed an 82-year- old female and was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, and history of brain cancer. The face sheet indicated Resident #5 was under the care of Hospice effective 10/4/2022. Record review of the consolidated physician orders, dated 11/29/2022, did not indicate an order for Resident #5 to be admitted to hospice care. Record review of Resident #5's MDS , dated 6/14/2022, indicated Resident #5 was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) was not conducted due to Resident #5 being rarely never understood. The MDS indicated Resident #5 began receiving hospice care while a resident at the facility. Record review of Resident #5's care plan, dated 10/19/2022, did not indicate Resident #5 was receiving hospice care or services . 3. Record Review of Resident #11's face sheet, dated 11/28/2022, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) and other recurrent depressive disorders (periods of depression), and bipolar disorder, current manic severe with psychotic features (a disorder characterized by periods of depression and periods of depression and periods of abnormally elevated mood associated with psychosis.) Record Review of Resident #11's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #11 was usually understood and sometimes understands others. Resident #11 had a BIMS of 09, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Resident #11 required supervision to extensive assistance with ADLs. Record review of Resident #11's care plan, dated 09/14/2022, did not indicate Resident #11 received PASRR services for a PASRR positive diagnosis of mental illness. Record review of a PASRR Level 1 Screening indicated Resident #11 was positive for mental illness. Record review of a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Evaluation Summary report concerning Resident #11 and was dated 9/1/2022 indicated, Section IV, Recommended MI (mental illness) Specialized Services .Individual Skills Training . Record review of Resident #11's PASSR Evaluation, dated 9/1/2021, indicated Resident #11 met the PASRR definition of mental illness. The evaluation indicated specialized services determination/recommendations of self-monitoring of medications, self-monitoring of nutritional services, and individual skills training. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 9:44 a.m., the MDS Coordinator said she was responsible for creating and updating care plans for residents. She said if there was a change with a resident such as a fall or in the orders it was discussed in the morning meetings and then she updated each care plan. She said she would have expected all PASSR positive residents to be care planned for being PASSAR positive. She said Resident #11 not being care planned for being PASSR positive and the services recommended by the local authority was an oversight on her part. She said any resident who received Hospice services should have been care planned for receiving Hospice services. She said residents being placed on Hospice was a topic discussed during morning meetings. She said Resident #5 was admitted to Hospice on 10/11/2022 . She said Resident #5 not being care planned was an oversight on her part and should have been caught during the resident's care plan meeting on 11/19/2022. She said a resident not having a complete care plan could cause the resident to not receive the care they needed. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 12:04 p.m., the DON said they did care plans as a team and the MDS Coordinator was responsible for updating care plans. She said the week Resident #5 was placed on Hospice, herself and the MDS Coordinator missed the care plan meeting. She said hospice services being care planned for Resident #5 was just missed. She said she was not sure why Resident #11 being PASSR positive was not care planned. She said she expected both services to have been care planned for each resident. She said the care plan guided the resident's total care. She said PASSR and Hospice services not being care planned could cause the resident's needs to not be met. She said depression was an issue with Hospice residents. She said hospice needed to be care planned because the resident could be declining. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 3:09 p.m., the Administrator said they had care plan meetings every Wednesday. He said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for updating care plans. He said he expected Resident #5 to have a care plan concerning her hospice services and he expected Resident #11 being PASSR positive to have been care planned. He said without a correct care plan, the resident might not receive appropriate care. Record review of the facility's, undated, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered policy indicated, .A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial, and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident .The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will .describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being .describe services that would otherwise be provided for the above
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 3 of 13 residents (Residents #4, #15 and #30) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4, Resident #15 and Resident 30's oxygen concentrator filters were free of gray particles. This failure could place residents at risk of respiratory infections. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 11/28/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems) and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (don't have enough oxygen in your blood). Record review of Resident #4's consolidated physician orders, dated 10/28/22-11/28/22, revealed change oxygen set up and clean concentrator filter weekly on Sunday, once a day, 06:15 p.m.-06:16 a.m. ordered on 02/09/22. Record review of Resident #4's MAR, dated 11/17/22-11/30/22, revealed change oxygen set up and clean concentrator filter weekly on Sunday, once a day with start date of 02/09/22. The MAR was documented on 11/27/22 (Sunday) by LVN M as completed. Record review of Resident #4's annual MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #4 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #4 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated intact cognition. Resident #4 required extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene, toilet use and bathing. The MDS did not document use of oxygen while resident . Record review of Resident #4's care plan, dated 11/16/22, revealed use of oxygen as needed for COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and history of COVID Pneumonia (is a lung infection caused by SARS CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19. It causes fluid and inflammation in your lungs). Interventions included administer oxygen as ordered and ensure supply was always available. During an observation on 11/28/22 at 10:29 a.m., Resident #4 was laying in his bed with a nasal cannula on his face . The oxygen concentrator flow meter read 2.5 liters with a water filled reservoir and two black filters with a moderated amount of gray particles . During an observation on 11/29/22 at 11:26 a.m., Resident #4 was laying in his bed with a nasal cannula on his face . The oxygen concentrator flow meter read 2.5 liters with a water filled reservoir and two black filters with moderated amount of gray particles. During an interview and observation on 11/30/22 at 9:04 a.m., LVN G said the oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned Sunday on the night shift. She said the filters should not have gray particles. LVN G removed both filters from Resident #4's oxygen concentrator and verbally agreed a moderate number of gray particles was noted. LVN G said she would clean the filters herself . 2. Record review of Resident #15's face sheet, dated 11/30/22, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included heart failure (the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems). Record review of Resident #15's consolidated physician orders, dated 10/30/22-11/30/22, revealed change oxygen set up and clean concentrator filter weekly on Sunday, once a day, 06:15 p.m.-06:16 a.m. ordered on 10/14/22. Record review of Resident #15's MAR, dated 11/17/22-11/30/22, revealed change oxygen set up and clean concentrator filter weekly on Sunday, once a day with start date of 10/14/22. The MAR was documented on 11/27/22 (Sunday) by LVN M as completed. Record review of the admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #15 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #15 had a BIMS of 09, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #15 required supervision for ADLs. Resident #15 received oxygen therapy while a resident. Record review of Resident #15's care plan, dated 11/02/22, did not document a care area for oxygen therapy. During an interview and observation on 11/28/22 at 11:34 a.m., Resident #15 was sitting on the side of her bed with a nasal cannula on her face . The oxygen concentrator had a white filter with gray particles. She said she could not remember the last time a nurse cleaned the filter, but she used to clean the filter at home once a week . During an attempted interview on 11/28/2022 at 4:30 p.m., a call was placed to LVN M. There was no answer and the voice mail box was full. 3. Record review of Resident #30's face sheet, dated 11/30/2022, revealed an 85-year- old female and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #30 had diagnoses which included age related cognitive decline, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease), and kidney failure. Record review of Resident #30's physician's orders, dated 11/30/2022, revealed an open order, dated 12/19/2021, for oxygen at 3 L (liters) via nasal cannula PRN (as needed). There was an order, dated 11/7/2021, for change O2 (oxygen) setup and clean concentrator filter weekly on Sunday. Record review of Resident #30's care plan, dated 10/5/2022, indicated Resident #30 used oxygen therapy at times for a diagnosis of COPD (chronic obstruction pulmonary disease) and emphysema (both are lung diseases). There was an intervention to administer oxygen as ordered. Record review of the MDS , dated 9/30/2022, indicated Resident #30 was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #30 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 8 which indicated Resident #30 was moderately cognitively impaired. Record review of a Medication Administration Record dated 11/1/2022 - 11/29/2022, for Resident #30 indicated an order to change O2 setup and clean concentrator filter weekly on Sunday. The MAR indicated this was last performed on 11/27/2022 . During an observation on 11/28/2022 at 10:34 a.m. revealed an oxygen concentrator beside the bed of Resident #30. There was a nasal cannula attached to the concentrator. The filter on the back of the concentrator was covered with gray fuzzy particles. During an observation on 11/29/22 at 9:12 a.m., revealed Resident #30 was resting in bed. An oxygen concentrator was running at the resident's bedside. The filter on the back of the concentrator was covered with gray fuzzy particles . During an observation on 11/30/22 at 8:20 am., revealed an oxygen concentrator beside the bed of Resident #30. The filter on the back of the concentrator was covered in gray fuzzy particles. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 8:32 a.m., LVN G said oxygen tubing was changed every Sunday night on the graveyard shift. She said filters should have been cleaned when the tubing was changed. She said this was documented on the MAR. She said dirty filters could lead to infection. During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 12:04 p.m. The DON said oxygen concentrator filters should be cleaned when the tubing was changed, and this was done on Sunday night shift . During an interview on 11/30/2022 at 3:09 p.m., the Administrator said the nursing team was responsible for cleaning dirty oxygen concentrator filters. He said he would have expected the filter to be cleaned when the oxygen tubing was changed . Record review of the facility's, undated, Oxygen Administration policy revealed no documentation that indicated how often oxygen concentrator filters should be changed.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 refri...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 refrigerator, 1 of 2 freezers (Main area), in the facility's only kitchen, observed reviewed for kitchen sanitation and storage. The facility failed to label and date all food items stored in the refrigerator and freezer. The facility failed to date all food items stored in the pantry. The facility failed to ensure lids on food storage containers were not cracked. The facility failed to maintain a clean drink dispenser. The facility failed to maintain clean storage containers for utensils. The facility failed to ensure the microwave was without dried yellow substance. The facility failed to discard pans with carbon build up. The facility failed to ensure the prep sink was in proper working order. These failures could place residents at risk of food-borne illness. Findings included: During an observation of the main freezer in the kitchen area on 11/28/22 beginning at 9:05 a.m., revealed the following items: *1 unopened bag of frozen vegetables with no received date; *1 cup of frozen sherbet with no label or date; *1 box of unknown food item with no label or date; *4 logs of unknown meat with no label or date; *2 packages of unknown meat with no label or date; and *1 box of opened frozen rolls with no date. During an observation of the refrigerator in the kitchen area on 11/28/22 at 9:12 a.m., revealed 1 opened box of bacon with no date. During an observation of the drink dispenser machine in the kitchen area on 11/28/22 at 9:15 a.m. revealed small amount of brown fuzzy particle on the inside edge of the area that holds the juice cartridges. Below the drink dispenser, a medium sized plastic container with three drawers holding utensils, had dried splatters of red and brown substance. During an observation of the dry storeroom on 11/28/22 beginning at 9:18 a.m., revealed the following: *2 large pots with carbon build up on the bottom; *2 muffin pans with carbon build up on the sides and bottom; *1 blue lid with a crack on the container with rice; *2 unopened boxes of cereal bars with no received date; *1 box with 3 packages of cereal with not received date; *4 unopened bags of potato chips with no received date; *1 unopened box of crackers with no received date; *4 unopened bags of dark brown sugar with no received date; and *1 bag of pasta with no date. During an observation of the main kitchen area on 11/28/22 beginning 9:25 a.m., revealed the following: *dried yellow substance in the microwave on the turning table; *5 flat cooking pans with carbon build up on the sides and bottom; and * bucket under prep sick sink filled with water. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 12:38 p.m., [NAME] K said her duties included cooking, preparing puree and mechanical soft diets, doing internal temperatures on food items, labeling/dating food items, and cleaning. She said it was all the kitchen staff's responsibility to label and date food items in the refrigerator, freezer, and dry storeroom. She said it helped you know what goes first and prevented residents from getting sick which could cause hospitalization or death. She said the dietary aides were responsible for the drink dispenser. She said there should not be brown fuzzy material in the holding area or stains on the utensil storage container. She said this could produce bacteria and get residents sick which could cause hospitalization or death. She said the cooks were responsible for the removal of carbon buildup on pots and pans. She said carbon buildup caused fires and could burn down the facility and leave residents with no home. She said everyone was responsible for ensuring food storage containers did not have cracked lids. She said the cracked lid introduced moisture, bugs, and bacteria which could make residents sick and alter the taste of the food causing weight loss. She said the cooks were responsible for cleaning the microwave. She said the microwave should be cleaned daily and as needed. She said an unclean microwave could grow bacteria. She said the prep sink had been leaking for a while. She said the maintenance man was aware it needed to be fixed. She said everyone should be emptying the water out of the bucket catching the leaking water. She said the leaking sink and bucket underneath with standing water was fall hazard and could air borne bacteria. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 12:45 p.m., Kitchen aide L said she had worked at the facility since November 2021. She said her duties included cleaning, washing dishes, performing, and logging temperatures for the dishwasher, preparing drinks and desserts, making sanitation water for buckets, label and date food items, and rotating can goods. She said kitchen aides were responsible for the labeling and dating of dry goods. She said labeling and dating helped staff know when things expired so residents would not get food poison. She said food poisoning could cause residents hospitalization. She said the kitchen aides were responsible for the cleanliness of the drink dispenser. She said the dispenser should be wiped down daily but believed it was three times a week on the schedule. She said the bacteria could get into the resident's drinks causing sickness. She said the cleanliness of the utensil storage container was the responsibility of the evening kitchen aide. She said it was important to place cleaned utensils in a clean storage container to prevent cross contamination. She said she did not know about the cracked lid on the rice container in the dry storeroom. She said it was the kitchen aide's responsibility to make sure lids were secured on containers. She said outside chemicals could get in the rice and make resident sick. She said the prep sink had been broken for at least 6 months. She said the standing water could become contaminated and produce mold spores making everyone sick. She said the bucket of water was a fall hazard too. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 1:00 p.m., the Dietary Manager said the refrigerator and freezer label/dating was the cook's responsibility and dry storage was the dishwashers. He said this ensured expired food was not served, making residents sick. He said the drink dispenser was the kitchen aide's responsibility. He said the nozzles were scheduled to be cleaned every 2 weeks, but the rest of the machine was supposed to be cleaned daily. He said this prevented cross contamination because dirty equipment introduced pathogens in the drinks. He said this could make residents sick causing adverse health issues or aggravating current health issues. He said the utensil storage container was a place to put clean dishes and should prevent cross contamination or introducing old stuff in new foods. He said carbon buildup on pots and pans was a fire hazard and should be cleaned off once a month. He said it was his responsibility because the chemicals the facility used were corrosive. He said the cleanliness of the microwave was the cook's responsibility. He said cleaning the microwave prevented cross contamination and introducing old stuff with new foods. He said the leaking prep sink with the bucket underneath catching water could have bacteria growth, attract pest, and fall hazard. He said it was his responsibility to tell the maintenance man to fix it and he did. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 4:40 p.m., the ADM said he expected the kitchen staff to label and date food items. He said kitchen sanitation should be performed daily for infection control. He said carbon buildup on pots and pans did not look good and did not want it to get in the food served to the residents. He said he did not know about the prep sink being broken. He said the dietary manager should be ensuring labeling, dating, and kitchen sanitation. He said the dietary manager should have notified him the sink was broken. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 5:00 p.m., the maintenance man said he did not know the prep sink in the kitchen was broken. He said staff normally verbally told him maintenance issues. He said he did not recall the dietary manager telling him about a broken sink. Record review of an employee in-service/educational attendance record dated 09/10/22 revealed topics discussed .dietary department mail, taking items out of boxes, storage, and tray tickets .signed by 4 dietary staff and Dietary Manager Record review of an employee in-service/educational attendance record dated 10/10/22 revealed topics discussed .spoke with staff about minor issues and new attempt to put 200 and 300 hall trays on same cart .encouraged to do good .spoke about writing on chalkboard .spoke on cleaning habits Record review of a facility preventing foodborne illness dated 07/14 revealed .food will be stored, prepared, handled and served so that the risk of foodborne illness is minimized .critical factors implicated in foodborne illness are .contaminated equipment .unsafe food sources .all food service equipment and utensils will be sanitized according to current guidelines .
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 44% turnover. Below Texas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 5 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $347,670 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 58 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $347,670 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Texas, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield Staffed?

CMS rates CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield?

State health inspectors documented 58 deficiencies at CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD during 2022 to 2025. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 52 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 Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield?

CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD 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 CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 106 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 55% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in DAINGERFIELD, Texas.

How Does Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield Stick Around?

CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield Ever Fined?

CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD has been fined $347,670 across 5 penalty actions. This is 9.5x the Texas average of $36,556. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Capstone Healthcare Of Daingerfield on Any Federal Watch List?

CAPSTONE HEALTHCARE OF DAINGERFIELD 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.