EDINBURG NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER

5215 S SUGAR RD, EDINBURG, TX 78539 (956) 782-9666
Government - Hospital district 120 Beds WELLSENTIAL HEALTH Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
61/100
#227 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Edinburg Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #227 out of 1,168 facilities in Texas, placing it in the top half, and #8 out of 22 in Hidalgo County, meaning only seven other local options are rated higher. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from four in 2024 to five in 2025. Staffing is a weak point, rated only 1 out of 5 stars, although the turnover rate of 45% is slightly below the Texas average, suggesting some staff stability. While the center has a concerning level of RN coverage-lower than 89% of Texas facilities-there have been critical findings, including a failure to ensure a resident was adequately supervised while using a walker, and issues with food safety and medication administration that could potentially harm residents.

Trust Score
C+
61/100
In Texas
#227/1168
Top 19%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$7,452 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 45%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $7,452

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: WELLSENTIAL HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Apr 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

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 conduct an assessment of each resident's functional capacity for 1 (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct an assessment of each resident's functional capacity for 1 (Resident # 1) of 8 residents reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to complete the MDS discharge assessment for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving care and services to meet their needs. The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 04/02/25 reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), dementia (cognitive disorders characterized by progressive decline in memory, thinking, reasoning, and other mental abilities that interfere with daily life and activities), aphasia (neurological disorder that impairs the ability to comprehend or formulate language), epilepsy (neurological disorder characterized by recurrent, unprovoked seizures), myocardial infarction (commonly known as a heart attack where blood flow to the heart muscle was significantly reduces or blocked), and contracture (muscles, tendons, or ligaments become permanently shortened and tight, limiting range of motion in a joint or body part) of muscle. Record review of Resident #1's most recent MDS assessment dates on PCC revealed: No Discharge MDS was completed. Last MDS completed was Resident #1's annual MDS on 09/10/2024. Record review of Resident #1's most recent annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed: BIMS Summary Score was a 02, which indicated Resident #1's cognition was severely impaired. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes dated 10/24/2024 at 5:44 p.m. reflected, Resident will be leaving to ., report has been given to nurse ., medications and belonging have been transported with resident RP. During an interview on 4/2/25 at 11:20 am, MDS A said, anytime a resident was discharged there must be a DC MDS. She said a negative effect could be the resident still shows as active, but Resident #1 was already in another facility. She said she does not think it will affect the other facility because they provide clinical information during report, and the receiving facility can request any information they need. She was asked if this would affect billing for this facility and she said it would not. She said she oversees the short-term care residents and Resident #1 was in Long-Term care. She said MDS B oversaw LTC residents. During an interview on 4/2/25 at 11:30 am, MDS B said the DC MDS was not done. She said a DC MDS should have been done. She said not completing a DC MDS does not have a negative effect, because they send over resident records and the nurses give report. She said the receiving facility can request records. She said it does not affect billing because once Resident #1 was admitted to another facility, she automatically got dropped from the facility's billing and gets picked up by the receiving facility's billing. She said Resident #1 automatically got cancelled from the ADT at this facility on the exact discharge date . She said she does not believe the receiving facility requests the MDS. She said they must complete an entry and DC MDS on all residents. She said it was more as a record. She said she was sure there was a reason for it being required, she just could not recall why. During an interview on 4/2/25 at 1:30 pm, ADON C said he was not familiar with MDS, but he felt the facility provides the receiving facility all the information they need regarding a resident's current health and care required. He said if a DC MDS were not completed, he does not feel it would affect the resident's care. He said upon DC the floor nurse gets medications ready and goes over with family. They provide final assessment of resident prior to DC. He said they provided receiving facility resident's status, vitals, medication, any abnormalities, follow up appointments, and last BM. He said they also provided receiving facility information on any recent falls, any current therapies, and all the care the resident was receiving. During an interview on 4/2/25 at 2:00 pm DON said if MDS did not complete a DC MDS, that would not have any effect on the care a resident received from the receiving facility. She said she could not think of any negative effect in care a resident would have by not completing a DC MDS. During an interview on 4/2/25 at 2:37 pm Administrator said she knows some about MDS but not in depth. She said they should complete a DC MDS on all residents that have been discharged . She said she does not know exactly why a DC MDS was needed. She said she did not think it had a negative effect for the care Resident #1 received at the receiving facility, because she would have already been informed of it since it was a sister facility. Record review of CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual dated October 2025 reflected, CH2: Assessments for the RAI: RAI OBRA-required Assessment Summary (cont.) . Discharge Assessment - return not anticipated (Non-Comprehensive) . MDS Completion Date .No Later Than discharge date + 14 calendar days.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial need that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #87) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #87 to address identifiable triggers to his active diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (a disorder in which a person had difficulty after experienceing or witnessing a terrifying event). This failure could place residents at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and not having personalized plans developed to address their specific needs. The Findings include: Record review of Resident #87 ' s admission record, dated 04/02/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to facility on 03/07/25 with an original admit date of 01/13/25. His relevant diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder, age-related physical debility (a state of physical or mental weakness associated with advanced age), and depression (mental health condition characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, or loss of interest in activities once enjoyed). Record review of Resident #87 ' s quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected his BIMS score was 5, indicating his cognition was severely impaired. Further review reflected Resident #87 had an active diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. Record review of Resident #87 ' s quarterly care plan dated 03/30/25 reflected no problem, goal or interventions for his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. Record review of Resident #87 ' s medical diagnosis reflected a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder effective 03/07/25. In an observation on 03/30/25 at 2:20 p.m., Resident #87 was observed lying in bed awake with no signs of distress. He was not interviewable. In an interview on 04/01/25 at 2:56 p.m., MDS A said when Resident #87 was initially admitted he had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder from the VA. She said since his admission, Resident #87 had not displayed any symptoms/triggers of post-traumatic stress disorder. MDS A said Resident #87 ' s diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder was not considered active because he was not being treated for it. She said if a resident had a diagnosis and was not being treated it did not have to be care planned. She said if Resident #87 had received counseling or medication for post-traumatic stress disorder, she would have care planned it. In an interview on 04/01/25 at 3:06 p.m., the SW said when a new resident was admitted to the facility, she would conduct an initial social history that covered questions pertaining to post-traumatic stress disorder among other mental conditions. She said when Resident #87 was originally admitted on [DATE], she did not identify any triggers during his initial social history assessment. She said at that time; Resident #87 was still verbal and was able to hold a conversation. She said she asked him if he had any triggers related to post-traumatic stress disorder and he answered no. The SW said she had also spoken with family member and she had requested counseling, but Resident #87 refused. She family member had not mentioned any triggers. She said at that time all she could do was to monitor any behaviors of fears which he had not demonstrated so far. The SW said Resident #87 had recently had a mental and physical decline. She said she had not been informed by any staff of any behaviors that would have prompted her identity as triggers. She said at present time the family was considering placing Resident #87 in hospice due to his rapid health decline. In an interview on 04/02/25 at 8:18 a.m, LVN F, said Resident #87 was calm with no behaviors of post-traumatic stress disorder. She said Resident #87 was bed bound. She said she had not witnessed Resident #87 being easily startled, yelling or any behaviors that was indicative of post-traumatic stress disorder. She said if she were to have witnessed any behavior, she would report it to her ADON. Record review of Resident #87's electronic medical record (progress notes and change in condition) did not show evidence of any signs/triggers of post-traumatic stress disorder since admission. In an interview on 04/02/25 at 9:15 a.m., the DON said Resident #87 had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. She said since his admission, Resident #87 had not displayed any signs of post-traumatic stress disorder and was not being treated for it. She said she would have to ask MDS to see if his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder had to be care planned. Record review of the facility ' s Comprehensive Care Plans policy Implementedd on 10/24/22 reflected: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident ' s medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident ' s comprehensive assessment. 3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: g. individualized interventions for trauma survivors, that recognizes the interrelation between trauma and symptoms, as indicated. Trigger-specific interventions will be used to identify ways to decrease the resident ' s exposure to triggers which re-traumatize the resident, as well as identify ways to mitigate or decrease the effect of the trigger on the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47's oxygen was administered at 3 lpm instead of 5 lpm as ordered. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47 ' s oxygenator humidifier was not empty. These failures could place residents at risk of developing respiratory complications, having a decreased quality of care and expose residents to hazards such as explosions which could lead to physical harm. The findings included: Record review of Resident #47 ' s admission record, dated 03/30/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to facility on 02/24/25 with an original admit date of 10/08/20. Her relevant diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (improper gas exchange), dependence on supplemental oxygen (requiring a continuous or long-term supply of extra oxygen to maintain adequate blood oxygen levels) and acute respiratory distress (a chronic condition in which fluid collects in the lungs ' air sacs, depriving organs of oxygen). Record review of Resident #47 ' s quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated her cognition was intact. Further review reflected an active diagnosis of being dependent on supplemental oxygen. Record review of Resident #47 ' s quarterly care plan reflected she had a problem of COPD (date initiated 01/08/24) and her interventions in part were to have her oxygen settings at 3 lpm via nasal prongs (date initiated 01/08/24). Record review of Resident #47 ' s order summary reflected an order for oxygen at 3 lmp via nasal cannula effective 02/24/25 with no end date. In an observation on 03/30/25 at 11:35 a.m., Resident #47 was lying awake in bed with nasal cannula on. Her oxygenator was set at 5 lpm and the humidifier was empty. She did not display any signs or symptoms of respiratory distress. In an interview on 03/30/25 at 11:38 a.m., Resident #47 said she was on continuous oxygen therapy because she suffered from COPD. She said she was feeling good and was not having any respiratory problems. In an observation and interview on 03/30/25 at 11:45 a.m., LVN E was observed as she checked Resident #47 ' s oxygen setting and said the oxygenator was set at 5 lpm and the humidifier was empty. She was later observed as she checked Resident #47 ' s medical electronic record and said she had an oxygen order for 3 lpm. LVN E said her shift started at 6 am on 03/30/25 and she had already gone into Resident #47 ' s room twice, the first time to give her a nebulizer treatment and the other for medication administration. She said she failed to check her oxygen setting and humidifier. LVN E said the negative outcome for Resident #47 ' s humidifier being empty would be nasal dryness and her oxygen setting not being set as ordered could cause her to receive more oxygen to her brain. In an interview on 03/31/25 at 1:28 p.m., the DON said if a resident was on oxygen therapy, it was the nursing staff's responsibility to ensure their oxygen was set as ordered and the humidifier was not empty. She said nursing staff were continuously in-serviced on oxygen administration. The DON said the negative outcome to Resident #47 having the humidifier empty would be nasal dryness. She said there were no negative outcome to Resident #47 not having her oxygen setting as ordered because it was not higher than 10 lpm. The DON said the facility did not have a policy regarding oxygen administration.
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 for 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 for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitation in that: The facility failed to ensure the juice nozzle was clean. The facility failed to ensure food in the refrigerator was not expired. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illnesses. The findings included: During the initial observation of the kitchen on 03/30/25 at 10:30 a.m., revealed the juicer ' s nozzle dispenser had red and yellow slimy substance in the middle and a white slimy substance on the outer part. The vegetable refrigerator contained an uncovered clear plastic box with a label dated 02/25 that had 12 cucumbers that had brown, white, and black spots on them. Some of the cucumbers had soft spots that made it difficult to pick up. In an interview on 03/30/25 at 10:35 a.m., the DM said his staff had a hard time removing the juicer nozzle but ensured it was cleaned daily. He said he did not know what the slimy substances were. He said he kept a weekly cleaning schedule which included the juice machine. He said he would check the logs daily to ensure the cleaning had been done. The DM said he had not noticed the cucumbers in the vegetable refrigerator had brown, white, and black spots or being soft to the touch. He said he would discard the cucumbers immediately. He said the clear plastic box did not have a lid. The DM was not able to say what negative outcome to the residents for having the juicer ' s nozzle with slimy substances and cucumbers that were soft to the touch with colored spots. The DM said the facility did not have a policy addressinng cleaning kitchen appliances. Record review of the kitchen ' s weekly cleaning schedule from 03/17/25 to 03/29/25 reflected the juice machine and refrigerators had been cleaned. Record review of the Food Storage policy from the Nutrition & Foodservice Policies & Procedures Manual dated 2018 reflected: Policy: To ensure that all food served by the facility is of good quality and safe for consumption, all food will be stored according to the state, federal, and US Food Codes and HACCP guidelines. 2.Refrigerators: d. date, label and tightly seal all refrigerated foods using clean, nonabsorbent, covered containers that are approved for food storage.
Feb 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 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 resident rights, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet residents' physical, mental, and psychosocial needs, for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility did not care plan Resident #1's refusal of care to include shower refusals. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The deficient practice began on 11/25/2024 and ended on 12/18/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet dated 02/22/2025 documented a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of: heart failure, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (urinary bladder disfunction), delusional disorders, dementia (cognitive deficits), cellulitis (infection of the skin and the tissue beneath the skin), and dermatitis (inflammation of skin). Resident #1 was discharged [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Discharge Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had a brief interview of mental status score of 10 (moderate impaired cognition). Resident #1 was not coded for rejection of care. Resident #1 was additionally coded for needing substantial assistance for toileting, showering, dressing, and personal hygiene. Resident #1 was coded for needing substantial/maximal assistance for transferring from chair/bed-to-chair transfer and tub/shower transfer. Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan date initiated 04/26/2024 reflected no plan of care for the specific behavior of showering refusal nor ADLs (including repositioning) throughout the care plan. Record review of Resident #1's ADL Bathing log dated 11/1/2024-11/30/2024 revealed on 11/01/2024, 11/04/2024, 11/06/2024, 11/08/2024, 11/11/2024, 11/13/2024, 11/15/2024, 11/18/2024, 11/20/2024, and 11/27/2024 Resident #1 refused bathing. The bathing log indicated Resident #1 refused showers throughout the month of November 2024. Record review of Resident #1's ADL Bathing log dated 11/1/2024-11/30/2024 revealed NA (not applicable) marked on 11/02/2024, 11/05/2024, 11/07/2024, 11/09/2024, 11/12/2024, 11/14/2024, 11/16/2024, 11/19/2024, 11/21/2024, 11/22/2024, 11/23/2024, 11/25/2024, 11/26/2024, 11/28/2024, 11/29/2024, and 11/30/2024. The bathing log indicated Resident #1did not shower throughout the month of November 2024. Record review of Resident #1's ADL Bathing log dated 12/1/2024-12/18/2024 revealed on 12/04/2024, 12/06/2024, 12/09/2024, 12/11/2024, 12/13/2024, and 12/18/2024 Resident #1refused bathing. The bathing log indicated Resident #1refused showers throughout the month of December 2024. Record review of Resident #1's ADL Bathing log dated 12/1/2024-12/18/2024 revealed NA (not applicable) marked on 12/02/2024, 12/03/2024, 12/07/2024, 12/10/2024, 12/12/2024, 12/14/2024, 12/16/2024, and 12/17/2024. The bathing log indicated Resident #1 did not shower throughout the month of December 2024. During an interview on 02/22/2025 at 10:38AM with the Treatment Nurse (TN) stated she does recall Resident #1 and stated Resident #1 would refuse care regularly. The TN stated Resident #1 would refuse bathing. TN stated several times she was notified by different aides that Resident #1 would refuse showering, and she herself would attempt to advocate for Resident #1 to be showered. However, TN stated Resident #1 would often decline. The TN stated multiple times a day she, as well as the clinical staff would advocate for Resident #1 to shower with the clinical staffs' assistance, but Resident #1 would refuse. TN stated she was involved with the IDT care planning process, and maintained her focus on nutrition and movement, and continued to state the CMS nurse would primarily edit care plans. The TN stated nurses have access to care planning, but the CMS nurse was the primary person who edits the care plan for each resident. The TN stated she believed that the behavior of refusing showers would be care planned to ensure residents are getting the appropriate care, and additionally, that staff know what care is necessitated for each resident. The TN stated Resident #1 was redirectable intermittently, but often, Resident#1 was non-complaint with showering and repositioning. During an interview on 02/22/2025 at 11:06AM the CMS nurse stated her scope of practice encompasses quarterly assessments of each resident, care planning for long term care, and reviews care plans quarterly. The CMS nurse stated care plans would include specific behaviors, including resident refusals. The CMS nurse stated she always includes family during the care plan process. The CMS nurse stated the expectation of the facility is if a resident refuses care (including showering) the aides will notify the nurses, then the nurses will attempt to persuade the resident to accept the care, and if the nurse is unsuccessful, they will attempt additional times while simultaneously notifying the RP each time of the refusal. The CMS nurse stated nurses should be documenting the shower refusal within the progress notes. The CMS nurse stated while reviewing Resident #1's progress notes, within the electronic health record, she stated she saw one note on 11/25/2024 regarding Resident #1 refused shower. The CMS nurse continued to state she did not see any additional note of Resident #1 refusing shower. The CMS nurse stated she involved Resident #1's RP within the care planning process and notified him about the Resident #1 refusing showers and care (ADLs), and that the RP wanted, since Resident #1 has dementia, to force showers for Resident #1, but reiterated to the RP the resident has a right to refuse showers. The CMS nurse stated they could encourage showers but could not forcefully make Resident #1 shower/bathe. The CMS nurse stated that she is the primary person responsible for care plan addendums. The CMS nurse stated care plans are important, as they are an individualized plan of care, which would include behaviors of refusal of care (showering/bathing) and what specific interventions are warranted for each concern. The CMS nurse stated while reviewing November 2024 and December 2024's bathing log for Resident #1, that her interpretation of the log indicated Resident #1 either refused or was not applicable for showers for both months. The CMS nurse stated that the refusal of care including showers would be something that they would care plan. The CMS nurse stated while reviewing Resident #1's care plan, the behavior of refusal for ADLs and/or showers were not specifically care planned. The CMS nurse stated she was not sure why the refusal behavior for showering and ADLs were not care planned but should have been. The CMS nurse stated she missed it while referencing adding Resident #1's refusal behavior to his care plan. The CMS nurse stated she would have incorporated interventions for Resident #1's refusal behavior, such as administer medications, get psychosocial aspect, counseling services, or psych services, involve family members, redirect, and attempt on multiple times to advocate for resident to accept care. The CMS nurse stated by not updating Resident #1's care plan, Resident #1's well-being could have potentially been negatively compromised. The CMS nurse stated the facility administration would commence an impromptu in-service regarding documentation and care planning to all clinical staff to ensure this event does not get repeated. The CMS nurse stated the new process for residents that refuse ADLs would include, clinical staff will report the refusal to the managerial staff including the Assistant Director of Nurses and the Director of Nurses daily (past 24hour review), during the managerial staff's morning rounds. The CMS stated the managerial staff would then review the refusals during their morning daily IDT meetings and will additionally follow-up the afternoon on the same day. During an interview on 02/22/2025 at 5:56PM the DON stated Resident #1's RP would directly voice concerns to her but did not recall him voicing any concerns regarding repositioning. The DON stated Resident #1's family voiced that Resident was not cognitively aware and needed to be forced to be shower. The DON stated they would try to persuade Resident #1 to accept care (ADLs, repositioning, and showers), with different approaches, but Resident #1 would refuse. The DON stated Resident #1's refusal behaviors should have been care planned but was not. The DON stated care plans are important and Resident #1's behaviors should have been care planned to promote patient centered interventions, to ensure the well-being of Resident #1. The DON stated by not care planning Resident #1's refusing behavior, the well-being of Resident #1 could have been impacted negatively. The DON stated the facility managerial staff are amid conducting an impromptu in-service regarding documentation and care planning with ADONs, and CMS nurse. The DON stated the focus of the in-service would be to educate the managerial staff that if there are identified refusal behaviors (during the managerial staff morning nursing rounds), these concerns will be reviewed during the IDT daily morning meeting. The DON stated additionally, during the morning IDT meetings the care plans will be edited promptly and will be followed up on during their evening meeting to review if the interventions were successful. The DON stated the new implemented process was still a work in process. Record review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plans Policy and Procedure date implemented 10/24/22 documented, 3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. b. Any services that would otherwise be furnished but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of his or her right to refuse treatment.
Jan 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care for 2 (Resident #416 and Resident #414) out of 6 residents reviewed for care plans in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #416 and #414 had a baseline care plan created within 48 hours after admission with goals and interventions. This deficient practice affects residents who are new admissions or readmissions and could result in decreased quality of care. The findings included: 1)Record review of Resident #416's electronic face sheet dated 01/15/2024, reflected she was an [AGE] year old female, initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted from the hospital on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (decreased perfusion of oxygen to the tissues), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), heart disease, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #416's admission MDS assessment 12/28/2023 reflected she scored a 09 out of 15 on her BIMS which indicated she had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #416's baseline care plan dated 06/02/2023, revealed her baseline care plan had no interventions for the following: FOCUS: SKIN INTEGRITY: The resident is at risk for impaired skin integrity related to: Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 GOALS: o The resident will remain free from alterations in skin integrity (i.e., pressure ulcers .) by/through next review data. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 o The resident will understand the risks associated with my choice to not adhere to the IDT recommendations to prevent skin breakdown and maintain skin integrity regarding (specify) by/through next review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: No interventions listed. FOCUS: The resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 GOALS: o The resident will improve current level of function in (SPECIFY ADLs) through the review date. Resident will be able to: (SPECIFY) Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: No interventions listed. FOCUS: o The resident is (SPECIFY High, Moderate, Low) risk for falls r/t Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 GOALS: o The resident will be free of falls through the review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: No interventions listed. FOCUS: The resident has potential/actual impairment to skin integrity of the (SPECIFY location) r/t Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 GOALS: o The resident will be free from injury (SPECIFY) to (SPECIFY location) through the review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 o The resident's will have no complications r/t (SPECIFY skin injury type) of the (SPECIFY location) through the review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: No interventions listed. FOCUS: o The resident has (SPECIFY: URGE, STRESS, FUNCTIONAL, MIXED) bladder incontinence r/t Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 GOALS: o The resident will decrease frequency of urinary incontinence from (SPECIFY) to (SPECIFY) times per week through the next review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 o The resident will remain free from skin breakdown due to incontinence and brief use through the review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: No interventions listed. FOCUS: o The resident has oxygen therapy r/t Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 GOAL: o The resident will have no s/sx of poor oxygen absorption through the review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: No interventions listed. Observation on 01/14/24 at 03:46 p.m. Resident #416 was lying in bed with the head of bed inclined. Resident had an IV site in right forearm with antibiotics running. Oxygen was running at 2 Lpm via nasal cannula. 2) Record review of Resident #414's electronic face sheet dated 01/15/2024, reflected she was a [AGE] year old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], from the hospital. Her diagnoses included: Legal blindness, type 1 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition in which the pancreas produces little or no insulin), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body either does not produce enough insulin, or it resists insulin), hypertension (high blood pressure), heart failure, end stage renal disease (when your kidneys can no longer support your body's needs), kidney dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys stop working properly). Record review of Resident #414's admission MDS 12/30/2023, was not completed. Record review of Resident #414's baseline care plan dated 01/01/2024, revealed: FOCUS: o The resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: The resident is (SPECIFY High, Moderate, Low) risk for falls r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: o The resident is on antibiotic therapy (SPECIFY medication) r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: o The resident is on IV Medications (SPECIFY medications) r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: o The resident has (SPECIFY acute/chronic) pain r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: o The resident needs dialysis (SPECIFY type hemo/peritoneal) r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: The resident has (SPECIFY: URGE, STRESS, FUNCTIONAL, MIXED) bladder incontinence r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: o The resident has (SPECIFY: Condom/Intermittent/Indwelling Suprapubic) Catheter: Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOAL: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. FOCUS: o The resident has impaired visual function r/t Date Initiated: 12/30/2023 GOALS: None listed. INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: None listed. In an interview on 01/17/24 at 03:22 p.m., MDS/RN G stated the nurse who does the admission was the one who does the baseline care plan at the time of admission. The nurse who does the admission, gets the baseline care plan information from the admission evaluation. MDS/RN G stated MDS has 14 days to complete the comprehensive care plan. MDS/RN G stated focus, goals, and interventions/tasks should all be completed for the baseline care plan. MDS/RN G stated they all meet in the mornings and go over all new admissions to ensure care plans and documentation is complete. MDS/RN G could not say what the negative effect could be for the baseline care plan not being complete. Attempted telephone interview on 01/18/24 at 11:32 a.m., LVN H, the admitting nurse for Resident #416, and responsible for entering the baseline care plan for resident. No answer. Voicemail left. In an interview on 01/18/24 at 11:34 a.m., ADON C stated the admitting nurse was the one responsible for putting in the baseline care plan. ADON C stated management, MDS, and ADONs make sure the baseline care plan has been completed. ADON C stated as soon as the admission comes in, they make sure all the forms have been completed. ADON C stated they also go over the new admissions during their daily meetings. Attempted telephone interview on 01/18/24 at 11:44 a.m., with LVN I, the admitting nurse for Resident #414, admitted on [DATE], and responsible for entering the baseline care plan for resident. No answer. Voicemail left. In an interview on 01/18/24 at 12:01 p.m., the DON stated the admitting nurse was responsible for putting in and completing the baseline care plan. The DON stated at the morning meeting, they go over all new admissions to make sure all forms are filled out and completed (including the baseline care plan). Record review of the facility policy and procedure titled Baseline Care Plans reviewed/revised 10/05/23, revealed: Policy The facility will develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1.The baseline care plan will: a.Be developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission. 2. The admitting nurse, or supervising nurse on duty, shall gather information from the admission physical assessment, hospital transfer information, physician orders, and discussion with the resident and resident representative, if applicable. a. Once gathered, initial goals shall be established that reflect the resident's stated goals and objectives. b. Interventions shall be initiated that address the resident's current needs. 3. A supervising nurse shall verify within 48 hours that a baseline care plan has been developed.
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** F656 Care Plan Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** F656 Care Plan Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet resident's mental and psychosocial needs, for one (Resident #54) of six residents reviewed for care plans in that: The facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that addressed Resident #54's behavior of going out on pass without signing out. This failure could place residents in the facility at risk of not receiving the necessary care and services to maintain their health and safety. The findings included: Record review of Resident #54's admission record dated 01/17/24 documented a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Hydrocephalus (a buildup of fluid in the cavities deep within the brain), Type 2 diabetes mellitus with severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy with macular edema, right eye (medical condition in which damage occurs to the retina due to diabetes mellitus. It is a leading cause of blindness.), age related debility, and atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris (buildup of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the walls of the arteries called plaque and causes narrowing of the blood vessels and sometimes causes chest pain or angina). Record review of Resident #54's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated: -had adequate hearing and clear speech -was able to understand others, -was understood by others, -had moderate cognitive impairment, -did not have behaviors, -required supervision such as verbal cues or steadying assistance for his ADLs. Further review revealed Resident #54's comprehensive care plan dated 09/30/19 indicated Resident #54 has a behavior problem of hoarding, does not allow staff to clean his room, drawers, or tabletop, does not allow staff to remove household chemicals does not allow staff to wash his clothes. Interventions included explain all procedures to resident and allow the resident to adjust to adjust to changes, explain/reinforce why behavior is inappropriate, intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others and document behavior and potential causes. Further review revealed Resident #54's care plan did not include a care plan to address his behavior of leaving the facility without signing out. Record review of Nurse's Progress Note dated 08/04/23 at 21:21 (9:21 PM) revealed Resident #54 had gone out on pass and did not sign out. Note created by LVN F. Observation on 01/15/24 at 9:50 AM RM during initial pool revealed Resident #54 was not in his room. In an interview on 01/15/24 at 10:00 AM CNA E said Resident #54 was out on pass. CNA E said he saw Resident go out toward the lobby. CNA E said Resident goes out on Pass often but would not sign out. In an interview on 01/17/24 at 11:04 AM Resident #54 said he had been going out every day for a week. Resident #54 said he and his friend go out and do errands. Resident #54 said he does not drive because his truck was not working, and he needs to fix it. Resident #54 said he signs the log when he goes out on Pass now. Resident #54 said he was not feeling good and did not want to answer any more questions. In an interview on 01/17/24 at 11:37 AM LVN F said Resident #54 would go out on pass but did not always sign out. Resident #54 did go out on pass on 08/04/23 and did not sign out. LVN F said it is important to develop a care plan so that staff can track the changes in a resident's behaviors, so they can provide the help the resident needs. In an interview on 01/17/24 2:14 PM The Administrator said Resident #54 has a history of not signing out, but the staff know when he goes out. Resident #54 has vehicles here at the facility. The Administrator said Resident #54 will tell staff that he was able to make his own decisions and knew his rights. The Administrator said she did not report the incident on 08/04/23 because staff knew Resident #54 had gone out on Pass. Administrator said, Yes, Resident did not sign out, but the staff knew he had gone out. The Administrator said Resident #54 was non-compliant with everything, he would not allow us to go into his room to clean it. In an interview on 01/17/24 at 3:22 PM RN/MDS G said she was the MDS Case Manager for the facility. RN/MDS G said if Resident #54 had left the facility frequently without notifying staff, then it should have been care planned. RN/MDS G said for her to develop a care plan she needed documentation from whoever provided his care so they could care plan the issue. RN/MDS G said if she had documentation that Resident #54 had his vehicles at the facility and that he was driving and leaving the facility without signing out, then yes it should have been care planned. RN/MDS G said she searched the care plan history to check if she had care planned Resident #54 having his vehicles at the facility and that he was driving but RN/MDS G said she had not seen anything in her notes. The RN/MDS said she would have completed a care plan for that behavior if she had any documentation and had known of Resident #54's behavior. In an interview on 1/18/24 at 8:58 AM The DON said Resident #54 would go out on pass very often but does not go out much now. The facility implemented a policy that residents need to sign the Release of Responsibility for Leave of Absence form when they go outside or out on pass. The facility educated residents of the need to sign out when they are going outside or out on pass. The residents were told about the importance of signing the form. The DON said she does not know why they did not care plan Residents #54's behavior of not signing out when going out on pass. The DON said the care plan was important because it showed the care the resident needed and it informed staff what the resident's likes and dislikes were and let staff know if they had certain behaviors. DON said the if a care plan is not complete or fully accurate the care plan would not provide staff correct information on how to care for the resident. The DON said, Resident #54's care plan for the most part did talk about his behavior of refusing medications, refusing care and being inappropriate toward females. Record review of facility's policy on Comprehensive Care Plans dated 10/24/22 revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident's rights, that include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment.Other factors identified by the interdisciplinary team, or in accordance with the resident's preferences, will also be addressed in the plan of care. The facility's rationale for deciding whether to proceed with care planning will be evidenced in the clinical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on 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 of enteral feedings for 1 (Resident #87) of 3 residents reviewed for enteral nutrition, in that: The facility failed to appropriately label the formula bag with the time and the date the formula was started and initials of the nurse who hung the feeding for Resident #87. This deficient practice could affect residents receiving enteral nutrition and place them at risk of health complications and decline in health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #87 ' s electronic face sheet dated 01/15/2024 revealed the resident was [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and original admission date 02/20/2023. Her diagnosis included Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications, Major Depressive Disorder, Essential Hypertension (high blood pressure), Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction affecting right dominant side, End Stage Renal Disease (kidney failure), Scoliosis, and Osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease). Record review of Resident #87 ' s quarterly MDS assessment, dated 12/8/2023 a BIMS score of 14, indicating Resident #87 was cognitively intact. Resident #87 ' s nutritional approach was feeding tube and mechanically altered diet. Record review of Resident #87 ' s comprehensive person-centered care plan, date initiated 06/16/2023 reflected Focus Resident #87 requires tube feeding related to diagnosis Dysphagia. Intervention Resident #87 is dependent with tube feeding and water flushes. See MD orders for current feeding orders. Record review of Resident #87 ' s Physician Order Summary of all orders, dated 01/10/2024 revealed Enteral Feed Order every shift Jevity 1.5 at 40ml/hr x 22h =1320kcal, 669ml of water via G-tube stationary pump. Observation on 01/14/2024 at 10:13am of Resident #87, asleep lying in bed with head of the bed elevated. Call light within reach. Observed the feeding pump, next to Resident #87 ' s bed, running at 40mls/hr, 816 mls fed, and flush 100mls every 6 hours. A bag of water was hanging on one side of the pole labeled and a formula bottle was hanging on the other side. The formula bottle was not labeled. It was completely blank. The formula bottle had no time, no date, no rate, and no nurse initials. Observation and Interview on 01/14/2024 at 10:15am with LVN A, stated she was Resident #87 ' s nurse. LVN A stated she got report this morning upon shift change when she got here this morning, but she did not go into Resident #87 ' s room to check feeding pump. She stated she usually does check the resident ' s feeding pumps. LVN A was unaware Resident #87 formula bottle was not labeled. LVN A then walked to Resident #87 ' s room and verified that formula bottle label was blank. LVN A stated she was supposed to be checking the formula bottle expiration date, that the residents name matches, and that the feeding rate was correct. She stated that the formula bottle label was to be dated so that they know when to change the formula. LVN A stated that the negative outcome of Resident #87 ' s formula bottle not being labeled was that the formula can coagulate and that it ' s not right to not have a date and time on the formula label. LVN A stated that an ADON comes in on Monday through Friday and checks labels on feeding pumps and oxygen tubing in the facility. There was a weekend supervisor that does this as well. She stated the weekend supervisor today was RN B. Interview on 01/14/2024 at 10:20am with RN B, stated she was the weekend supervisor and got here early, around 7am today, to do room rounds. She stated she attended to another resident and did not have a chance this morning to do her rounds. RN B stated her room rounds consist of making sure everything was labeled, up to date, and that the foley catheters are covered. RN B stated she did not go into Resident #87 ' s room to check her feeding pump because she has not rounded today. She stated the negative outcome of not labeling the feeding formula is that Resident #87 can get sick if it was an old formula that she was receiving. Interview on 01/14/204 at 10:30am with ADON C, stated that the floor nurses are the ones who are supposed to be checking their assigned resident feeding pumps when they come in. They should be checking for formula rate, date, and name. The formula rate has to match what ' s on the pump. He stated the formula was good for 24 hours once it has been opened. ADON C stated in service for medication administration was done maybe a couple weeks ago. Interview on 01/14/2024 at 10:38am with ADON D, stated that rounding was part of the routine that the ADONs and weekend supervisors do every morning as well as the floor nurses. He stated that it was important to label the formula so that the nurses know the rate, what type of formula the resident is on and their down time. Interview on 01/14/2024 at 11:15am with Resident #87, she was awake at this time, stated she has no issues with care that she receives at the facility. She stated she does not remember when they hung the formula bottle. She has had no issues with feeding. She stated she has no complaints or concerns at this time. Enteral Feeding Administration Facility Policy not available.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on 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 with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #416) reviewed for respiratory care in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #416 had an oxygen sign posted outside her bedroom. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for inadequate care. The findings included: Record review of Resident #416's electronic face sheet dated 01/15/2024, reflected she was an [AGE] year old female, initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted from the hospital on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (decreased perfusion of oxygen to the tissues), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), heart disease, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #416's admission MDS assessment 12/28/2023 reflected she scored a 09 out of 15 on her BIMS which indicated she had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #416's baseline care plan dated 06/02/2023, revealed: FOCUS: The resident has oxygen therapy r/t Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 GOAL: The resident will have no s/sx of poor oxygen absorption through the review date. Date Initiated: 01/12/2024 Target Date: 04/04/2024 INTERVENTIONS/TASKS: No interventions listed. Record review of Resident #416's physician order for 01/12/24 revealed the following: -Oxygen at 2 Lpm via nasal cannula as needed for hypoxia Observation on 01/14/24 at 03:46 p.m., revealed no Oxygen in Use signage on door. Resident #416 was lying in bed with the head of her bed inclined. O2 running at 2 Lpm via nasal cannula. Attempted telephone interview on 01/18/24 at 11:32 a.m., LVN H, the admitting nurse for Resident #416, admitted on [DATE], and responsible for placing Oxygen in Use signage on door during admission of resident. No answer. Voicemail left. In an interview on 01/18/24 at 11:34 a.m., ADON C stated it was the responsibility of the admitting nurse to put signage on the doors whether it be contact precautions, isolation or O2 in use. ADON C stated all staff and the Infection Control Preventionist are to check to ensure that signage is on the doors on admission. In an interview on 01/18/24 at 12:01 p.m., the DON stated it was the admitting nurse's or the nurse who took the order, who was responsible for putting signage on the doors (Precautions, Oxygen in Use, etc.). The DON stated there are morning rounds and the manager assigned (Guardian Angels) to each resident and they are assigned to checking for signage if there is to be any. They have a check-off list that needs to be completed. The DON stated there was no policy on Oxygen in Use signage. In an interview on 01/18/24 at 12:35 p.m., the administrator stated there was no policy on Oxygen in Use signage.
Nov 2023 7 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Record review of Resident #11's admission record dated 10/25/23 documented a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Record review of Resident #11's admission record dated 10/25/23 documented a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/20/23. The form further documented Resident #11 with diagnoses including, unspecified dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interfere with daily functioning), muscle wasting and atrophy (a decrease of muscle mass and strength), age-related physical debility (group of symptoms related to age that cause frailty), lack of coordination (group of symptoms that cause impaired direction) , and unspecified hearing loss (inability to hear). Resident #11 was not identified as her own responsible party. Record review of Resident #11's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) revealed a BIMS score of 99 indicating severe cognitive impairment. It further documented Resident #11 required a walker for mobility and required supervision when walking up to 10 feet. The MDS documented, Resident #11 did not use a wander/elopement alarm. Furthermore, the form documented a 0 when asked Has the resident wandered?, indicating the behavior had not been exhibited. Record review of Resident #11's comprehensive care plan documented Resident #11 was an elopement risk/wanderer related to attempts to leave facility unattended with an initiated date of 09/19/23. Resident #11's care plan stated The resident's safety will be maintained through the review date and the resident will not leave the facility unattended through the review date with a revision date of 09/26/23. Interventions included, 09/19/23 elope from facility, door codes changed, 1:1 monitoring, moved to room closer to nurse station, wander guard, alarms checked and functional, critical behavior monitoring, will be transferred to secured unit upon bed availability .complete wandering evaluation tool .identify pattern of wandering . All with initiation date of 09/19/23. Record review of Resident #11 physician order revealed an order to verify function of wander guard daily and wander guard in place .verify placement every shift for elopement with a start date of 09/20/23 and that was discontinued with no end date noted. Record review of Resident #11 September 2023 licensed nurse administration record dated 10/26/23 revealed order had been completed and documented for every shift on 09/20/23 as ordered. Record review of Resident #11 Wandering Evaluation completed upon admission on [DATE] at 08:23 a.m., documented a summary of finding score of four (4) indicating resident was a low risk for wandering. Resident #11 was not a wandering risk at that time. Record review of Resident #11 wandering re-evaluation completed on 09/19/23 at 10:30 a.m. documented a summary of findings score of five (5) indicating resident was a low risk for wandering. Furthermore, document recorded Resident #11 was a wandering risk and interventions and care plans had been re-evaluated Record review of Resident #11 progress notes with an effective date 09/19/23 at 12:24 p.m. and written by Staff M revealed a CNA last saw Resident #11 at approximately 09:00 a.m. Record review of Resident #11's progress notes signed and dated 09/19/23 at 12:50 p.m. by Staff J quoted in part, family in to see Resident #11 at 10:30 a.m., Staff E assisted family with locating resident. Resident #11 not found in facility. Facility conducted 100% of room search in the facility. Resident was last seen in facility by Staff L at around 09:00 a.m. Staff began to search for Resident #11inside and outside facility, restaurants, gas stations, stores, and surrounding neighborhoods; however Resident #11 was not located anywhere. Local police department notified at approximately 11:00 a.m. DON spoke to Officer regarding details describing Resident #11's last whereabouts and clothing worn. At approximately 11:30 a.m., Resident #11 was located by local police department walking on a street. Resident #11 was brought back to facility. Physician and family were made aware. Record review of Resident #11 Change of condition communication form dated 09/23 at 12:47 p.m. revealed the change in conditions, symptoms or signs to report: Pt (patient) had incident of elopement .this started on 09/19/23 . Nurse suggestion .Transfer to the hospital. Record review of Resident #11's weekly skin evaluation signed and dated 09/19/23 at 12:59 p.m. revealed resident did not have any abnormal skin areas i.e., bruises, skin tears, pressure ulcers, non-pressure wounds etc. Record review of Resident #11's pain evaluation signed and dated 09/19/23 at 12:59 p.m. revealed resident had no pain upon return to facility on 09/19/23. Record review of Resident #11 progress notes with an effective date of 09/19/23 at 13:20 p.m. and written by Staff J quoted in part, Resident was returned to facility by PD at approximately 1200 p.m. Resident is alert and oriented x 2. Patient denies pain at this time. Head to toe assessment conducted, no bumps or lesions noted to head .doctor, new order received: transfer resident to DHR ER for evaluate and treat. FM A in facility and aware and in agreement. Record review of Resident #11 progress notes with an effective date of 09/19/23 at 13:35 p.m. and written by Staff J, quoted in part, EMS in facility to transport resident to ER, family at bedside. Resident is calm and cooperative. Resident exited the facility at approximately 1330. Report called in by Staff E to ER staff. Record review of Resident #11 progress notes with an effective date of 09/19/23 at 20:42 p.m., quoted in part, Resident arrived from [hospital] awake, alert and VWNL (vital signs within normal limits) denies any pain or discomfort N/O (new orders) Keflex (antibiotic) 500 (milligram) capsule give 1 cap (capsule) QID (four times a day) x 5 (times five) days. Order carried out. Initial dose given no adverse reactions noted. Record review of Resident #11 progress notes with an effective date of 09/19/23 at 06:03 a.m., quoted in part, Resident slept well during the night continues. 1:1. Record review of Resident #11 progress notes with an effective date of 09/20/23 at 10:46 a.m., quoted in part, Resident in room talking on the phone with a family member. 1:1 aide at bedside. Patient calm and cooperative. Wander guard in place to left wrist. Will continue to monitor. Record review of TULIP (HHSC online incident reporting application on 10/24/23 at 09:00 a.m. revealed the facility made a self-reported incident on 09/19/23 at 10:30 a.m. regarding Resident #11's elopement. Record review of the facility map and evacuation routes, revealed a total of nine (9) exits were identified as exit doors. Initial rounds were conducted on 10/24/23 beginning at 11:00 a.m. throughout the facility. The facility was well lit, temperature was comfortable, and staff were seen appropriately interacting and assisting residents in their rooms and in the hallways. The facility was clean, well-lit, the ambient was comfortable with comfortable temperature and noise level. Resident rooms were clean, orderly, without any noted hazards or clutter. There were no sounds of yelling, screaming, or moaning. Residents in bed had their call lights within their reach. Call lights were observed activated and timely answered. Nurses were administering care and medications in a timely manner. Water and belongings were observed at the bedside of the residents and within their reach. No resident was observed to display any disrupting or aggressive behaviors. No injuries or bruising was noted on any resident that would raise suspicion of abuse or neglect. There were no active cases of COVID-19 positive residents in the building. Visitors were observed entering and exiting through the main entrance after being allowed entrance. Residents in designated smoking area being observed monitored. Other exit doors locked and secured with codes and screech alarm. Observation on 10/24/23 at 11:00 a.m. of the surrounding streets revealed a highly trafficked four lane road with a center lane and a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. In a telephone interview with FM A on 10/26/23 at 08:10 a.m. revealed she and an unnamed family member came to visit Resident #11 on 09/19/23. FM A stated she arrived at the facility at 09:55 a.m. and went straight to Resident #11's room. FM A stated after she did not find Resident #11 in her room, she decided to look in the room she was previously assigned to because she had been moved the day before. FM A stated again she could not find Resident #11. FM A stated she then decided to look in other areas of the facility including the activities area, designated smoking area, therapy, and the lounge. FM A stated that once she eliminated the areas where she believed Resident #11 could be, she then asked the staff for the whereabouts of Resident #11. FM A stated a staff member stated she was in the shower. FM A stated she decided to wait until Resident #11 came out from the shower, but after 20 minutes had gone by and Resident #11 did not come out from the shower, she inquired again to staff about the whereabouts of Resident #11. FM A stated staff then became involved in searching for Resident #11 all around the facility and police were called to assist in the search. FM A stated Resident #11 was found approximately two (2) hours after she initially arrived at the facility. FM A stated Resident #11 was brought back to the facility and then transferred to the emergency room for further evaluation. FM A stated Resident #11 mentioned she was upset about the room change the previous night, not being able to sleep and walking out the front door because she wanted to leave. FM A stated after she came back to the facility from the hospital, staff informed her Resident #11 would be transferred to a different nursing facility for safety. In an interview on 10/26/23 at 11:15 am, with CNA L stated exit doors were secured with codes and alarms. CNA L stated residents and visitors did not have codes to the exit doors. CNA L stated the facility did have a designated smoking area where residents are able to go outside supervised. CNA L stated she last saw Resident #11 in her room after breakfast. CNA L stated Resident #11 went to restroom in her room and after briefly sitting on her bed she laid down. CNA L stated Resident #11 had mentioned to her that she had not slept the night before. CNA L stated Resident #11 was last seen at approximately 09:30 a.m. that morning wearing a pink sweater, brown blouse, and beige pants CNA L stated she did not see Resident #11 anymore and did not know her whereabouts until family came to ask for her at approximately 09:45 a.m. CNA L stated all staff went to look in every room, outside, rehab, activities room, parking area, and in the surrounding areas. Staff L stated she did not know what time, the location, who found Resident #11 and how she was brought back to the facility. In an interview on 10/26/23 at 11:25 a.m., CNA J stated exit doors were secured with alarms that could be turned off by punching in a code. CNA J stated residents were allowed to go outside of the facility supervised to designated areas such as the smoking area. CNA J stated she was assigned to work shower duties the day Resident #11 was missing. CNA J stated Resident #11 had not showered and that Resident #11 had just been transferred from hall 200 to room [ROOM NUMBER]-A in hall 300. CNA J stated she was on break when FM A arrived at facility and search for Resident #11 was initiated. CN J stated residents were accounted for when doing walking rounds in the morning, as they are passing breakfast trays, when they round every two (2) hours. CNA J stated she does not know where Resident #11 was found or when. Staff J stated Resident #11 was brought back to the facility by police, she was taken to the hospital and when she came back she was put on 1:1 observation. In an interview on 10/26/23 at 11:35 a.m. with LVN K stated he worked on hall 300 for approximately twelve (12) years as a floor nurse. LVN K stated he was not working the day of the incident; however, exit doors are secured by a code and an alarm with a 15 second delayed egress and a stop alarm (screech annunciator). LVN K stated that residents must ask staff for assistance to go outside in the assigned patio area. In an interview on 10/26/23 at 12:10 p.m. with LVN E stated she had worked at facility for approximately three (3) yeaars as a floor nurse. LVN E stated exit doors are secured with a code and an alarm with a 10 second delay and stop alarm. LVN E stated residents were not allowed to go outside unsupervised unless with staff or family member and depending on the resident's independent need. LVN E stated her shift on 09/19/23 started at 02:30 a.m. to assist a co-worker and was assigned to hall 300 including, Resident #11. LVN E stated Resident #11 was moved from 200 to hall 300 the day before. LVN E stated Resident #11 was not completely comfortable in her room and that Resident #11 spend her time at the nurse's station. LVN E stated Resident #11 was a smoker and had wanted to go outside. Staff E stated Resident #11 needed to wait for someone to assist her. LVN E stated her shift changed at 06:00 a.m. and her assignment changed to a different hall including the resident she was taking care of. LVN E stated she observed Resident #11 sitting at the nurse's station at approximately 08:40 a.m. LVN E stated Resident E went to her room to change her shirt because it was stained and returned to the bistro area around 08:50 a.m. wearing a blue shirt. LVN E stated family came to visit Resident #11 close to 10:00 a.m. LVN E stated she was approached by her supervisor and was asked the whereabouts of Resident #11. LVN E stated she assisted in searching for Resident #11 in the activities area, bistro, and smoking area. LVN E stated she knew Resident #11 was missing when Resident #11 could not be located in those areas. LVN E stated after code elopement was announced, she and other staff were assigned to look in all halls, restrooms, closets, locked and unlocked doors, in halls, outside parking lots, staff searched in each direction of the facility, drove in the surrounding areas of the facility. LVN E stated family and staff called Resident #11's cell phone multiple times and went unanswered or went to voicemail. LVN E stated Resident was found at approximately 11:30 a.m. on [NAME] Rd. in Edinburg and brought back to the facility by police. LVN E stated she performed a head-to-toe assessment immediately. LVN E mentioned no injuries were noted. LVN E stated Resident #11 was sent to hospital for further evaluation and treatment, an incident report was made, and in-service of staff was performed. In an interview on 10/26/23 at 04:45 p.m., LVN D mentioned she has been employed at the facility for seventeen (17) years. LVN D stated she makes sure all residents are accounted for in the facility by performing a walking round on the hall she is assigned and count the residents to assure they are in the facility. LVN D stated staff should round on residents every two (2) hours or more often if needed. LVN D stated exit doors have a code. LVN D also mentioned residents should not know the code, and that if administration finds out residents know the codes, administration will change the codes frequently. She stated the exit codes were changed within the last week. In an interview on 10/27/23 at 08:45 a.m., BOM U stated she had been employed at facility for approximately twenty-four (24) years. BOM U stated she was assigned to the reception area and her responsibilities included allowing entry and exit to visitors, staff and/or residents to the facility. BOM U stated visitors no longer have to sign in or out. BOM U stated visitors nor residents have entrance or exit codes. BOM U stated some residents were able to obtain codes because they watched staff punch the codes on the access keypad of the exit doors as they exited or entered the facility. BOM U stated exit doors have a code that must be punched in a keypad in order for the door to unlock and allow the person to enter or exit. BOM U stated emergency exit doors have a push bar that is equipped with a 15 second delayed egress and a stop alarm (screech annunciator). BOM U stated she accounts for residents by obtaining a printed report from admissions department. She stated she looked at the schedule to make sure all residents are in the facility and checks with the nurses if they are not. BOM U stated if she found a missing resident she would inform admissions and checked to see if the resident was at the facility. BOM U stated she has access to the computer where she could see resident pictures to identify the residents. BOM U stated the facility discouraged staff from sharing codes with other employees, staff, and visitors. In an interview on 10/27/23 at 11:05 a.m., Resident #12 stated staff treated him well. Resident #12 stated he was happy with the services he was receiving at facility. Resident #12 denied pain or discomfort. Resident #12 stated staff brought him his medication on time. Resident #12 stated the doors have alarms and he cannot go out the exit doors. Resident #12 stated he needed to ask staff for assistance to go outside. In an interview on 10/27/23 at 11:15 a.m.Resident #13 stated staff treated her well. Resident #13 stated she was happy with the services provided by the facility. Resident #13 stated she was comfortable and denied pain. Resident #13 stated staff brought her medication on time. Resident #13 stated she knows how to make complaints and to who in the facility to make them to. Resident #13 stated she is mostly in bed and does not usually go outside. In an interview on 10/27/23 at 11:30 a.m., Resident #14 stated he was happy with the services he was receiving at the facility. Resident #14 stated he did not feel threatened and had not been hurt by staff. Resident #14 denied pain and stated he was comfortable. Resident #14 stated he went outside with the assistance of staff and did not know the codes to the doors. In a telephone interview on 10/27/23 at 02:00 p.m., ADON C stated he had been employed with the facility for approximately 2 years. Staff C stated he accounted for residents by rounding in the morning. ADON C stated if a resident was out on pass, on an appointment or not in his/her room he would communicate with other staff to find out the whereabouts of the resident. ADON C stated medical records took a picture of the resident and uploaded it into the resident profile. ADON C stated everyone who had access to resident records had access to view the resident profile and was able to identify residents. ADON C stated the front door was always locked and staff did not allow residents to go through the front door unsupervised. ADON C stated only employees know the codes in order to deactivate the alarms to the doors. ADON C stated doors are secured by a magnet punch code to be unlocked and codes are not shared with visitors and residents. ADON C stated only management had access to door codes. ADON C mentioned employees, nurses and charge nurses do not have access to door codes. ADON C stated staff would notify management when door is opened without an alarm going off. ADON C stated there is one code for all staff members. ADON C stated if a resident is missing he would notify the charge nurse immediately and ask other staff including CNA and LVN about the whereabouts of the resident. ADON C stated that the process is usually immediately, but following the identification of a missing resident, the charge nurse and management team including the DON and the administrator would be notified. ADON C stated an onsite search would be conducted for the resident. ADON C stated an emergency code purple to all staff would be announced to indicate a missing resident. ADON C stated staff would search every door, closet, room, parking area would be searched, and the police would be called. ADON C stated this process usually is less than ten (10) minutes because all staff is assigned to a hall and the facility would know immediately whether the resident was within the facility. ADON C stated facility would then designate a staff member as the point of contact who would communicate to others of all updates. ADON C stated that meanwhile, the remaining facility staff would continue with the search on the outside of the facility. ADON C stated after code purple was initiated, the police department was called immediately, the family of the resident would be updated, and the physician would be notified within one (1) hour. ADON C stated that once the resident was found, code purple would be called off, a head-to-toe assessment would be performed, the physician and family would be updated. ADON C mentioned code purple or elopement incidents are self-reported incidents. He stated the facility would perform an in-service for the staff on elopement and the exit door codes would be changed. ADON C stated that facility staff performed an elopement risk assessment on admission to assess residents for risk of eloping. He stated that those residents who were high risk of elopement are moved closer to the nurse's station and the staff would maintain a closer observation to those residents. ADON C stated the facility was not a lockdown facility meaning the facility did not have a secure memory care unit. ADON C stated staff increased rounding on residents with high-risk elopement risk. He stated he had not observed cameras on the inside of the facility premises and only had observed a few on the outside. ADON C stated facility offers in-services weekly on different topics including abuse, neglect, and exploitation. In an interview on 10/27/23 at 02:00 p.m., DON stated she had worked at the facility for four (4 years) and was responsible for in-servicing staff, oversight of floor staff and reporting to the administrator. DON stated certified nurse assistants (CNAs) round every two (2) to three (3) hours and as needed. She stated nurse's round at the beginning of their shift, during medication pass and at the end of their shift. DON stated that information is passed on report when a resident is out on pass and that a resident must be signed out if they do go on pass. DON stated if a resident is missing staff must go room to room, in the activity's areas, or in rehab to ensure residents are not in the facility. DON stated the resident roster is compared to each hallway to make sure all residents are accounted for. Staff A stated that if a resident is identified as missing, a code is announced to alert all staff of the missing resident. DON continued by stating that staff then are assigned to search in all areas of the facility. DON stated if the resident is not located within the facility, staff are assigned to go out of the premises in teams to search for the resident within a 3-mile radius in all directions. DON stated the police department, family and physician is then notified of the resident's elopement. DON stated that no more than 10 minutes of identifying a missing resident is a code for elopement activated and police are notified. DON stated facility exit doors are secured by alarms that must be deactivated with a code that was entered on a punch keypad. DON stated those codes are not shared with residents or visitors. DON stated the facility has identified residents who figure the codes out by observing staff members while entering the code on the keypad. DON stated that the facility prevents residents from accessing the codes by frequently changing the codes, changing them once the code has been breached or as often as needed. DON stated the facility prevents residents from entering/leaving the facility by assigning two receptionists between the hours of 08:00 a.m. and 08:00 p.m. DON stated after these hours, visitors must ring the doorbell, so the door is opened by a staff member at the nurse's station. DON stated the receptionists have access to the resident pictures that are on the resident profile and receptionists can identify residents who attempt to exit the front door unsupervised. DON stated Resident #11's family members arrived to visit with Resident on 09/19/23 and at approximately 10:30 a.m. approached LVN E to assist in locating resident within the facility. Staff A stated family and LVN E were not able to locate Resident #11 after searching on the premises themselves and delayed informing other staff of the resident's status because Resident #11 had not ever voiced desires to go home and had never had exit seeking behaviors. DON stated FM A and Staff E notified other staff members of the management at approximately 10:45. DON stated the facility activated the code for elopement at approximately 11:00 a.m. when police were notified. DON stated Resident #11 was located by local police department at 11:30 a.m., approximately two (2) miles from the facility. DON stated Resident #11 walked to a nearby hospital where she asked a woman (unknown name) for a ride to a local restaurant. DON stated Resident #11 stayed to have a drink at the restaurant and then walked home. DON stated Resident #11 knows the address to her apartment. DON stated Resident #11 was found walking with herself using her walker on [NAME] Road in the direction of her apartment. DON stated local police department brought Resident #11 back to the facility. DON stated staff performed a head-to-toe assessment, food and water was offered, and the physician was notified. DON stated Resident #11 was interviewed, and it was revealed she left through the front exit. DON stated she was unaware if Resident #11 piggybacked (walked out) with a group of other visitors or if Resident #11 held the door for 15 seconds so the alarm would not sound. DON stated that the facility was in-servicing staff and performing routine mock drills in order to better prepare staff and prevent a future elopement. DON stated the facility was also changing exit door codes frequently and incoming residents were screened to make sure their needs could be properly addressed. DON stated incoming residents with high score risk elopement risks would be placed on 1:1 until the facility was able to transfer them to a facility that could accommodate their needs. In an interview on 10/30/23 at 09:55 a.m., Resident #15 in room stated she was happy with the services received at the facility. Resident #15 stated she does not feel threatened and was not hurt by facility staff. Resident #15 stated she did not always like the food; however, she knew how to file a complaint to the Administrator regarding her concerns. Resident #15 stated staff brought her medication on time. Resident #15 stated she did not know the codes to the exit doors, staff did want to share the codes with her, and that the doors had alarms. Resident #15 stated staff assist her if needing to go outside. In an interview on 10/30/23 at 10:05 am, Administrator stated she had been employed by the facility for two (2) years and was responsible for the administrative duties of the facility. Stated she was also responsible for performing in-services on staff as well as DON and ADON C. Administrator stated topics of in-services provided to staff resident supervision, Stated best practice is for CNAs and nurses to round the assigned hallways when they start their shift, every two (2) hours and as needed. Nurses round when they start their shift, every two (2) hours and as needed on their assigned hallways. Administrator stated residents are accounted for in the facility by staff communicating during report and walking rounds. Stated exit doors are secured by maglocks (magnetic lock which is a locking mechanism that uses an electromagnetic field controlled by an electrical system that can be configured with a switch, keycard reader or biometric scanner) and a code that releases the maglock. Administrator stated the exit doors are also secured with a fifteen (15) second delayed egress and a stop alarm (screech annunciator). Stated exit door codes are changed monthly or as needed and are not shared with visitors or residents. Administrator stated the facility prevented visitors and residents from accessing the codes by offering in-services to staff on not sharing codes. Stated residents have accessed the codes before by watching staff members input the code as they are entering or exiting the facility. Administrator stated facility changed exit door codes as soon as facility identified a code had been breached and resident or visitor had learned or accessed a code. Stated facility had no working cameras at the exit doors. Administrator stated on 09/19/23 Resident #11's family member came to visit her. Stated floor staff notified her that Resident #11 was missing. Administrator stated the facility initiated their code purple (elopement protocol) immediately and followed their procedures. Adiminstrator stated they assigned a point of contact and assigned teams to search within the facility and outside of the facility. Stated that staff searched a radius of 1 mile in each direction of the facility. Staff B stated the police and physician were notified. Stated Resident #11 had been previously assessed and was not an exit seeker and never verbalized or gave any indication of wanting to leave. Administrator stated Resident #11 was found by local police department and returned to the facility unharmed. Stated a head-to-toe, pain, and skin assessment was performed upon Resident #11's return. Administrator stated family was at the facility, but physician was informed. Stated upon Resident #11's return, staff were in-serviced on elopement, a head count was performed on all residents, a secured clear box was placed over alarm over front door to prevent people from unplugging the maglock and deactivating it. Administrator stated facility prevented a reoccurrence of this incident by performing mock drills, changing exit door codes frequently, maintaining communication with staff regarding whereabouts of residents, and in-servicing staff on elopement. Interview on 11/01/2023 at 2:00 p.m., The Administrator said they change the code monthly or as needed. She said if they find out the codes have been compromised, they will change it immediately. Record review of maintenance logbook documentation stating Year 2023 Codes doors marked each exit tested for months April through October. Record review of facility in-service training report revealed facility had a training with staff including nursing staff, social worker, administrative/office, food service and maintenance personnel over Elopement and Wandering Residents on 09/19/23. Record review of facility in-service training report revealed facility had a training with staff including nursing staff, social worker, administrative/office, food service and maintenance personnel over Abuse and Neglect/Resident Supervision, Answer Call lights in a timely manner on 09/19/23 with the following evaluations, comments, suggestions: Elopement process: follow proper protocol for elopement events: Meet nurses' station, search all areas of facility, search all areas outside, search does not end until patient is found, ensure codes are changed, monitor as needed for safety of residents. Record review of facility in-service training report revealed facility had an elopement mock drill with staff including nursing staff, social worker, administrative/office, food service and maintenance personnel on 09/22/23 with the following contents or summary of training session: follow proper elopement protocols, exit door codes changed monthly or as needed, supervise residents that exhibit exit seeking behaviors, monitor for exit seeking behaviors/contact family if behaviors are exhibited. Record review of facility in-service training report revealed facility had an elopement mock drill with staff including nursing staff, social worker, administrative/office, food service and maintenance personnel on 09/25/23 with the following contents or summary of training session: follow proper elopement protocol, codes for exit doors will be changed monthly [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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on Observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 1 of 1 (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on Observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 1 of 1 (Resident #30 reviewed for the environment in that: The facility did not secure a bottle of liquid disinfectant; R #30 was found with liquid disinfectant in his possession and near his mouth. This failure could place residents at risk of living in an unsafe, unsanitary, and uncomfortable environment The findings included: Record review of R #30 's file reflected [AGE] year-old male with original admission date of 01/17/19 and last admission date of 03/28/23. His diagnosis included: Displaced fracture of fifth cervical vertebra, muscle wasting and atrophy, unsteadiness of feet, lack of coordination, Major depressive disorder, Parkinson's Disease, Dysphagia, and acute pain due to trauma. Record review of R #30's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected BIMS was not conducted as R #30 was rarely/never understood. Functional status indicated R #30's ADL of eating (how resident eats and drinks) required extensive assistance for ADL self-performance and limited assistance for ADL support. R #30 uses a wheelchair. Functional Abilities and Goals indicated substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for picking up an object (the ability to bend/stoop from a standing position to pick up a small object, such as a spoon, from the floor). Record review of R #30's Care Plan dated 07/27/23 reflected on 06/19/23 R #30 had a possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant. R #30 will be free of complications from possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant through review period. Date initiated: 06/20/23. Interventions: contacted poison control center on 06/19/23, informed staff to keep hazardous chemicals away from resident's reach, MD and RP notified, and provided oral care. Record review of the incident report dated 06/19/23 at 11:59 AM reflected incident location: therapy room. Incident description: LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVN S immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. R #30 was not taken to the hospital. No injuries observed at time of incident or post incident. Pre-disposing environmental factors: none. Pre-disposing physiological factors: confused, incontinent, gait imbalance, impaired memory, and weakness. Other info: liquid disinfectant within R #30's reach. Notified RP on 06/19/23 at 11:35 AM. Notified MD on 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM. Record review of progress notes for R #30 reflected - On 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM documented by, LVN S. LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVN S immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. On 06/19/23 at 11:45 AM, documented by, LVN S. LVN S called poison control center and explained the situation of liquid disinfectant and the immediate treatment that was rendered. As per poison control center, liquid disinfectant is non-corrosive once it is diluted. R #30 was asymptomatic of burning sensation of throat, esophagus, and mouth. There did not appear to be significant problems or reaction to product. Orders given- monitor for changes, mental changes, burning of mouth, and esophagus for 24 hours. If vomiting occurs, send to ER. Give 8 ounces of water every hour for 4 hours. On 06/19/23 at 12:55 PM, documented by, LVN S. R #30 was awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. Ate 100% of lunch. R #30 denied any burning of throat, esophagus, or mouth. No nausea or vomiting. No diarrhea or upset stomach. Normal behavior. On 06/19/23-06/23/23 progress notes reflected R #30 continued to be monitored. No signs or symptoms noted. R #30 ate without issue, and no abnormalities noted. Observation on 10/30/23 at 11:40 AM noted the liquid and wipe disinfectants in the therapy department in a cabinet by the sink against the wall on the right side of the room. The cabinet did not have a lock but was closed shut. In an interview with LVN S on 10/30/23 at 11:50 AM. LVN S said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30. LVN S said she vaguely remembered the incident. LVN S said she was called to the therapy department because R #30 had possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. LVN S said she did not recall who notified her, but it was a therapy staff. LVN S said she went to the therapy department where R #30 was located. LVN S said she assessed R #30 and immediately smelled R #30's breath. LVN S said she smelled the disinfectant and R #30's breath and mouth did not smell like the disinfectant. LVN S said she called notified the doctor. LVN S said the doctor instructed LVN S to call poison control and to do oral care for R #30. LVN S said she called poison control and called the manufacturer for the disinfectant. LVN S said poison control instructed LVN S to monitor R #30 for any signs or symptoms of ingestion. LVN S said poison control said if R #30 demonstrated any nausea, vomiting or any symptoms, then to transport him to the hospital. LVN S said R #30 was not sent out to the hospital. LVN S said the manufacturer instructed LVN S to monitor R #30 and to make sure R #30 was eating good. LVN S said she also checked R #30's mouth and R #30 did not have any redness or irritation. LVN S said she checked R #30's vitals and vital signs were normal. LVN S said she continued to monitor R #30. LVN S said R #30 ate well, had no signs of pain, and did not exhibit other symptoms such as redness to his throat or eyes. LVN S said that was the first time something like this had happened during the time she had worked. LVN S said R #30 was not known to get things like the disinfectant or attempt to grab things. LVN S said R #30 could not speak but he was able to communicate his basic needs. LVN S said the therapy staff informed LVN S that R #30 had the bottle in his hand. LVN S said she did not recall if the therapy staff said R #30 had sprayed the bottle or not, but LVN S said she did not believe R #30 sprayed it. LVN S said she remember the label on the disinfectant bottle said something like to call the company which LVN S did. LVN S said the manufacturer said if R #30 had ingested the disinfectant it would not hurt him because the liquid was diluted, but the manufacturer did instruct LVN S to monitor for symptoms such as burning of the throat, mouth, and esophagus. LVN S said the disinfectants were usually kept under lock and key, at least in the halls and rooms. LVN S said R #30 was in the therapy department. LVN S said was not sure how the disinfectant was kept safe in that department. LVN S said the doctor gave the orders to monitor for signs and symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, or burning sensation, call poison control, and provide oral care, which LVN S did. LVN S said R #30 did not show any signs or symptoms of ingesting the disinfectant, R #30 was interacting, in good spirits, eating well, and there were no reports of symptoms. LVN S said she followed what poison control, and the manufacturer instructed her to do. LVN S said she also notified the DON, the doctor, and RP. LVN S said she followed the protocol for the incident once she was notified. In an interview with DOR on 10/30/23 at 11:55 AM. DOR said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30 and recalled the incident. DOR said the therapists follow the infection control protocol after each resident. DOR said they wipe down the equipment or area used and spray it with disinfectant. DOR said she remembered working with R #30 to see if he could drink from a straw. DOR said she was going to check if R #30 could use a straw easier if it was shorter, so she went to her office to get scissors to cut the straw. DOR said her office was a few feet away from the table where R #30 was sitting. DOR said there were two tables in the main area of the therapy department and the tables were side by side. DOR said R #30 was sitting on one table and the bottle of disinfectant was on the other table. DOR said she was not sure how R #30 was able to reach the disinfectant. DOR said she went to her office for a second, then went back to R #30, and R #30 had the bottle in his hand and close to his mouth. DOR said she could not recall if the nozzle was facing R #30 or if the nozzle was open or closed. DOR said she could not recall if there was any residual liquid on the nozzle. DOR said she was not sure what happened or if R #30 had ingested any of the liquid, so DOR called the nurse right away to have the nurse check R #30. DOR said she did not know if R #30 ingested the liquid or not, but DOR did not want to run the risk of not getting R #30 checked in case. DOR said she did not recall which nurse responded, but the nurse went to the therapy department. DOR said the nurse assessed R #30 and notified the doctor. DOR said the doctor's orders were to monitor R #30 to see if there were signs or symptoms of R #30 ingesting the disinfectant such as redness, burning of the mouth, or vomiting. DOR said DOR and the nurse had R #30 try to squeeze the disinfectant spray bottle to see if R #30 had the strength to squeeze it but could not get R #30 to do it. DOR said R #30 did have Parkinson's and did not have the ability to follow through with command. DOR said the nurse checked R #30's mouth. DOR said the disinfectant had a strong scent, and the nurse indicated R #30's mouth did not smell like the disinfectant. DOR said DOR had not used the disinfectant yet. DOR said she assumed one of the other therapists had used it or left it on the table and forgot to put it away. DOR said the bottle was not even close to R #30, but it was on a table nearby him. DOR said she did not know if R #30 reached for the bottle and how R #30 was able to get the bottle. DOR said R #30 did have the ability to pick up the bottle. DOR said the bottle was not full, so it was not very heavy, but depending on the day sometimes R #30 was able to do more than other days. DOR said on this day, R #30 was able to pick up the bottle as DOR witnessed R #30 holding the bottle in his hand. DOR said an incident like this had never happened before. DOR said she did not know what to do, so DOR's immediate reaction was to notify the nurse. DOR said the therapy department was in-serviced to always put the disinfectants back in their place. DOR said she did not recall the exact time, but this happened early in the morning on 06/19/23. DOR said she did not remember who was working or if anyone saw R #30 get the bottle. DOR said R #30 was only receiving speech therapy. DOR said she had not encountered this behavior with R #30 where he would grab things. DOR said when it comes to eating, R #30 could grab onto the cup and the spoon. DOR said R #30 knew what food was or what he could eat. DOR said this caught her off guard. DOR said the nurse did not note any injury to R #30 from what the nurse told her. DOR said the nurse was going to continue monitoring R #30. DOR said the disinfectant used to be kept under lock and key in DOR's office, but the key was lost. DOR said the disinfectant was kept in a cabinet under the sink where the therapists could get it. DOR said the disinfectants were kept safely in that cabinet, away from the residents' reach. DOR said that day, someone left the bottle on the table, but they should have put it back in the cabinet after using it. In an interview with DON on 10/30/23 at 1:00 PM. DON said she was aware that there was an incident on 06/19/23 where R #30 possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. DON said the incident happened in the therapy department. DON said the therapist notified the nurse, and the nurse assessed R #30 and notified the doctor and RP. DON said the nurse, LVN S, called poison control. DON said DOR immediately removed R #30 from that area and removed any chemical from within the residents' reach. DON said LVN S spoke to poison control who instructed LVN S to monitor for sore throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. DON said R #30 did not exhibit any symptoms. DON said LVN S smelled R #30's breath and smelled the disinfectant to see if it smelled the same and it did not. DON said DOR stated someone had just finished disinfecting the area. DON said DOR stated the bottle was close to where R #30 was. DON said DOR quickly went to her office, and when DOR returned to the area, DOR saw R #30 had the bottle's nozzle close to R #30's mouth. DON said DOR was not sure if R #30 sprayed the bottle or if R #30 was about to spray it and DOR caught it on time. DON said DOR notified LVN S either way, and LVN S assessed R #30. DON said LVN S assessed R #30's oral mucosa (mouth) and noted no signs of ingestion. DON said R #30 denied any pain. DON said R #30 did not show symptoms such as vomiting or trying to spit out any kind of liquid or substance. DON said LVN S rinsed R #30's mouth and provided oral care in case R #30 did spray the disinfectant. DON said if the therapy department staff had just used the disinfectant, the staff should have put it away. DON said she was unsure of who left the bottle on the table, but it was the staff's responsibility to ensure it was not within reach. DON said the disinfectant should not have been within reach and the disinfectant should have been under lock and key or at least in a safe location. DON said in the housekeeping carts, the disinfectants were locked. DON said she was unsure if there was a policy regarding how to store disinfectants or if the policy indicated the disinfectants had to be under lock and key. DON said for safety purposes, the disinfectants and other chemicals should be kept away from residents in a safe place. DON said residents should not be able to get their hands on those liquids. DON said there was an incident report for this. DON said the incident report indicated therapy staff but did not specify who exactly left the bottle on the table. DON said therapy staff did do an in-service on not leaving behind any products within the residents' reach. DON said when LVN S assessed R #30 there were on abnormalities. DON said R #30 was able to eat without complications. DON said R #30 was able to swallow water. DON said the doctor said if the facility identified any abnormalities to call the doctor back, but there were no changes. DON said R #30's mouth was not bleeding, red, and did not exhibit any changes. DON said there was no need to send R #30 to the hospital. DON said there was no nausea or vomiting. DON said R #30 was not known to have behaviors of ingesting such liquids or other inedible items. DON said R #30 was not known to grab things randomly. DON said R #30 was not on any special supervision. DON said R #30 tried to speak but stuttered because of his Parkinson's, so he would get frustrated and stop speaking. DON said it was hard to know exactly how much R #30 understood. DON said R #30 could nod his head yes or no, but it was more to communicate his basic needs. DON said R #30 would likely not be able recall if asked about this incident. DON said an incident like this had not happened before as far as a resident possibly ingesting chemicals or cleaners. DON said the staff responded appropriately as far as getting the nurse to assess, obtaining, and carrying out doctor's orders, calling poison control, and monitoring R #30. DON said staff failed to remove the bottle from within R #30's reach. DON said the only time the disinfectants or chemicals should have not been in a safe location, was if they were being used. DON said R #30 was not injured from this incident. DON said R #30 could have possibly been injured. DON said R #30 could have had vomiting, irritation to the throat, developed sores in his mouth, and could have suffered other possible side effects that the poison control representative told them to monitor for such as a burning sensation to the mouth, throat, and esophagus. DON said the incident could have also resulted in a serious injury to R #30. DON said nobody witnessed R #30 actually spray the bottle or ingest the disinfectant, but the possibility still existed. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 2:10 PM. Administrator said on 06/19/23 R #30 grabbed a spray bottle for a liquid disinfectant and had it close to R #30's mouth. Administrator said DOR caught it right away, but because it was close to R #30's mouth, DOR notified the nurse and followed the protocol. Administrator said Administrator thought she did submit a self-report for that incident. Administrator said if R #30 had in fact ingested the liquid disinfectant, then it would have been a reportable incident because it was a substance that could be harmful. Administrator said the facility was not sure if R #30 ingested the disinfectant, but the facility staffed the incident with corporate/upper management team. Administrator said LVN S had called poison control, called the doctor, and called the family. Administrator said LVN S followed what poison control said to do and followed the doctor's orders. Administrator said R #30 was not injured and continued to not have any negative side effects. Administrator said Administrator did not recall who left the bottle on the table or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. Administrator said there was an incident report completed for that as it was considered an incident. Administrator said the therapy department was not supposed to have anything within reach of the residents. Administrator said the disinfectants and chemicals should be at least in a cabinet, preferably under lock and key. Administrator said she was unsure if there was a policy regarding where to store such disinfectants. Administrator said an unknown therapy staff left the bottle of disinfectant on the table. Administrator said the staff did not have it behind a closed door or cabinet. Administrator said the disinfectant should have been placed inside a closed unit or at least behind a cabinet. Administrator said the disinfectant bottle should not have been on the table. Administrator said the facility did not know who left it out. Administrator said the incident report did not have any interviews with staff to figure out who left the bottle out or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. Administrator said the progress notes noted the staff called poison control and followed the doctor's orders, and how the staff monitored R #30 for any changes. Administrator said Administrator could not recall if any staff were in-serviced for this incident. Administrator said R #30 did not exhibit any signs or symptoms that R #30 did ingest the disinfectant. Administrator said R #30 could have been harmed if he did ingest the disinfectant. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 3:45 PM. Administrator said the incident was not a reportable because there were no negative outcomes to R #30. Administrator said the facility continued to monitor R #30 for days and there were no injuries. Administrator said the incident report and progress notes noted the investigation and actions taken by the facility upon discovering the incident. Record review of the in-service record dated 06/20/23 for Topic: properly securing cleaning agents. Summary of training session: will supervise residents during therapy sessions, will keep cleaning agents out of residents' reach, when not in use (cleaning agents) will be properly stored, and in the event of exposure, staff will appropriately notify (nursing staff, RP, MD, etc.) DOR completed the in-service. Sign-in sheet indicated five therapy staff were in-serviced. Record Review of the facility's General Housekeeping Policies (undated) reflected: All bleaches, detergents, disinfectants, insecticides and other potentially hazardous substances are labeled and kept in a safe place accessible only to employees
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

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 implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent 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 implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect for 1 of 1 resident (R #30) reviewed for incident reporting. The facility failed implement their policy and did not report an allegation of neglect for R #30 for an incident on 06/19/23. This failure could place residents at risk of abuse, neglect, and not having incidents reported appropriately. The findings included: Record review of the Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy (implemented 08/15/22) Reporting/Response: The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violation to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g. law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or b. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. Record review of R #30 's file reflected [AGE] year-old male with original admission date of 01/17/19 and last admission date of 03/28/23. His diagnosis included: Displaced fracture of fifth cervical vertebra, muscle wasting and atrophy, unsteadiness of feet, lack of coordination, Major depressive disorder, Parkinson's Disease, Dysphagia, and acute pain due to trauma. Record review of R #30's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected BIMS was not conducted as R #30 was rarely/never understood. Functional status indicated R #30's ADL of eating (how resident eats and drinks) required extensive assistance for ADL self-performance and limited assistance for ADL support. R #30 uses a wheelchair. Functional Abilities and Goals indicated substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for picking up an object (the ability to bend/stoop from a standing position to pick up a small object, such as a spoon, from the floor). Record review of R #30's Care Plan dated 07/27/23 reflected on 06/19/23 R #30 had a possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant. R #30 will be free of complications from possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant through review period. Date initiated: 06/20/23. Interventions: contacted poison control center on 06/19/23, informed staff to keep hazardous chemicals away from resident's reach, MD and RP notified, and provided oral care. In an interview with LVN S on 10/30/23 at 11:50 AM. LVN S said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30. LVN S said she was called to the therapy department because R #30 had possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. LVN S said she went to the therapy department where R #30 was located. LVN S said she assessed R #30 and did not note any abnormalities. LVN S said the doctor gave the orders to monitor for signs and symptoms, such as vomiting, nausea, or burning sensation, call poison control, and provide oral care, which LVN S did. LVN S said R #30 did not show any signs or symptoms of ingesting the disinfectant, R #30 was interacting, in good spirits, eating well, and there were no reports of symptoms. LVN S said she followed what poison control, and the manufacturer instructed her to do. In an interview with DOR on 10/30/23 at 11:55 AM. DOR said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30 and recalled the incident. DOR said she went to her office for a second, then went back to R #30, and R #30 had the bottle in his hand and close to his mouth. DOR said she could not recall if the nozzle was facing R #30 or if the nozzle was open or closed. DOR said she could not recall if there was any residual liquid on the nozzle. DOR said she was not sure what happened or if R #30 had ingested any of the liquid, so DOR called the nurse right away to have the nurse check R #30. DOR said the nurse assessed R #30 and notified the doctor. DOR said the doctor's orders were to monitor R #30 to see if there were signs or symptoms of R #30 ingesting the disinfectant such as redness, burning of the mouth, or vomiting. DOR said she assumed one of the other therapists had used the disinfectant or left it on the table and forgot to put it away. DOR said the bottle was not even close to R #30, but it was on a table nearby him. DOR said she did not know if R #30 reached for the bottle and how R #30 was able to get the bottle. DOR said R #30 did have the ability to pick up the bottle. DOR said the bottle was not full, so it was not very heavy. DOR said she did not recall the exact time, but this happened early in the morning on 06/19/23. DOR said she did not remember who was working or if anyone saw R #30 get the bottle. DOR said the disinfectants were kept safely in a cabinet, away from the residents' reach. DOR said that day, someone left the bottle on the table, but they should have put it back in the cabinet after using it. In an interview with DON on 10/30/23 at 1:00 PM. DON said she was aware that there was an incident on 06/19/23 where R #30 possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. DON said the staff responded appropriately as far as getting the nurse to assess, obtaining, and carrying out doctor's orders, calling poison control, and monitoring R #30. DON said staff failed to remove the bottle from within R #30's reach. DON said the only time the disinfectants or chemicals should have not been in a safe location, was if they were being used. DON said R #30 was not injured from this incident. DON said R #30 could have possibly been injured. DON said R #30 could have had vomiting, irritation to the throat, developed sores in his mouth, and could have suffered other possible side effects that the poison control representative told them to monitor for such as a burning sensation to the mouth, throat, and esophagus. DON said the incident could have also resulted in a serious injury to R #30. DON said nobody witnessed R #30 actually spray the bottle or ingest the disinfectant, but the possibility still existed. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 2:10 PM. Administrator said on 06/19/23 R #30 grabbed a spray bottle for a liquid disinfectant and had it close to R #30's mouth. Administrator said DOR caught it right away, but because it was close to R #30's mouth, DOR notified the nurse and followed the protocol. Administrator said Administrator thought she did submit a self-report for that incident to the state survey agency. Administrator said if R #30 had in fact ingested the liquid disinfectant, then it would have been a reportable incident because it was a substance that could be harmful. Administrator said the facility was not sure if R #30 ingested the disinfectant, but the facility staffed the incident with corporate/upper management team. Administrator said LVN S had called poison control, called the doctor, and called the family. Administrator said LVN S followed what poison control said to do and followed the doctor's orders. Administrator said R #30 was not injured and continued to not have any negative side effects. Administrator said she did not recall who left the bottle on the table or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. Administrator said there was an incident report completed for that as it was considered an incident. Administrator said the therapy department was not supposed to have anything within reach of the residents. Administrator said the disinfectants and chemicals should have been at least in a cabinet, preferably under lock and key. Administrator said Administrator was unsure if there was a policy regarding where to store such disinfectants. Administrator said an unknown therapy staff left the bottle of disinfectant on the table. Administrator said the staff did not have it behind a closed door or cabinet. Administrator said the disinfectant bottle should not have been on the table. Administrator said the facility did not know who left it out. Administrator said the incident report did not have any interviews with staff to figure out who left the bottle out or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. Administrator said the progress notes noted the staff called poison control and followed the doctor's orders, and how the staff monitored R #30 for any changes. Administrator said Administrator could not recall if any staff were in-serviced for this incident. Administrator said R #30 did not exhibit any signs or symptoms that R #30 did ingest the disinfectant. Administrator said R #30 could have been harmed if he did ingest the disinfectant. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 3:45 PM. Administrator said the incident was not a reportable because there were no negative outcomes to R #30. Administrator said the facility continued to monitor R #30 for days and there were no injuries. Administrator said the incident report and progress notes noted the investigation and actions taken by the facility upon discovering the incident. Record review of the incident report dated 06/19/23 at 11:59 AM reflected incident location: therapy room. Incident description: LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVN S immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. R #30 was not taken to the hospital. No injuries observed at time of incident or post incident. Pre-disposing environmental factors: none. Pre-disposing physiological factors: confused, incontinent, gait imbalance, impaired memory, and weakness. Other info: liquid disinfectant within R #30's reach. Notified RP on 06/19/23 at 11:35 AM. Notified MD on 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM. Record review of progress notes for R #30 reflected - On 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM documented by, LVN S. LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVN S immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. On 06/19/23 at 11:45 AM, documented by, LVN S. LVN S called poison control center and explained the situation of liquid disinfectant and the immediate treatment that was rendered. As per poison control center, liquid disinfectant is non-corrosive once it is diluted. R #30 was asymptomatic of burning sensation of throat, esophagus, and mouth. There did not appear to be significant problems or reaction to product. Orders given- monitor for changes, mental changes, burning of mouth, and esophagus for 24 hours. If vomiting occurs, send to ER. Give 8 ounces of water every hour for 4 hours. On 06/19/23 at 12:55 PM, documented by, LVN S. R #30 was awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. Ate 100% of lunch. R #30 denied any burning of throat, esophagus, or mouth. No nausea or vomiting. No diarrhea or upset stomach. Normal behavior. On 06/19/23-06/23/23 progress notes reflected R #30 continued to be monitored. No signs or symptoms noted. R #30 ate without issue, and no abnormalities noted.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mis...

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 all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency, within two hours if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, for 1 of 1 resident (R #30) reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to report allegations of resident neglect for R #30 for an incident on 06/19/23 to the State Survey Agency within the allotted time frame. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential abuse due to unreported allegations of abuse and neglect. The findings included: Record review of R #30 's file reflected [AGE] year-old male with original admission date of 01/17/19 and last admission date of 03/28/23. His diagnosis included: Displaced fracture of fifth cervical vertebra, muscle wasting and atrophy, unsteadiness of feet, lack of coordination, Major depressive disorder, Parkinson's Disease, Dysphagia, and acute pain due to trauma. Record review of R #30's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected BIMS was not conducted as R #30 was rarely/never understood. Functional status indicated R #30's ADL of eating (how resident eats and drinks) required extensive assistance for ADL self-performance and limited assistance for ADL support. R #30 uses a wheelchair. Functional Abilities and Goals indicated substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for picking up an object (the ability to bend/stoop from a standing position to pick up a small object, such as a spoon, from the floor). Record review of R #30's Care Plan dated 07/27/23 reflected on 06/19/23 R #30 had a possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant. R #30 will be free of complications from possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant through review period. Date initiated: 06/20/23. Target date: 06/19/23 . Interventions: contacted poison control center on 06/19/23, informed staff to keep hazardous chemicals away from resident's reach, MD and RP notified, and provided oral care. Record review of the incident report dated 06/19/23 at 11:59 AM reflected incident location: therapy room. Incident description: LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVN S immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. R #30 was not taken to the hospital. No injuries observed at time of incident or post incident. Pre-disposing environmental factors: none. Pre-disposing physiological factors: confused, incontinent, gait imbalance, impaired memory, and weakness. Other info: liquid disinfectant within R #30's reach. Notified RP on 06/19/23 at 11:35 AM. Notified MD on 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM. Record review of progress notes for R #30 reflected - On 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM documented by, LVN S. LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVN S immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. On 06/19/23 at 11:45 AM, documented by, LVN S. LVN S called poison control center and explained the situation of liquid disinfectant and the immediate treatment that was rendered. As per poison control center, liquid disinfectant is non-corrosive once it is diluted. R #30 was asymptomatic of burning sensation of throat, esophagus, and mouth. There did not appear to be significant problems or reaction to product. Orders given- monitor for changes, mental changes, burning of mouth, and esophagus for 24 hours. If vomiting occurs, send to ER. Give 8 ounces of water every hour for 4 hours. On 06/19/23 at 12:55 PM, documented by, LVN S. R #30 was awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. Ate 100% of lunch. R #30 denied any burning of throat, esophagus, or mouth. No nausea or vomiting. No diarrhea or upset stomach. Normal behavior. On 06/19/23-06/23/23 progress notes reflected R #30 continued to be monitored. No signs or symptoms noted. R #30 ate without issue, and no abnormalities noted. In an interview with LVN S on 10/30/23 at 11:50 AM. LVN S said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30. LVN S said she was called to the therapy department because R #30 had possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. LVN S said she went to the therapy department where R #30 was located. LVN S said she assessed R #30 and did not note any abnormalities. LVN S said the doctor gave the orders to monitor for signs and symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, or burning sensation, call poison control, and provide oral care, which LVN S did. LVN S said R #30 did not show any signs or symptoms of ingesting the disinfectant, R #30 was interacting, in good spirits, eating well, and there were no reports of symptoms. LVN S said she followed what poison control, and the manufacturer instructed her to do. In an interview with DOR on 10/30/23 at 11:55 AM. DOR said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30 and recalled the incident. DOR said she went to her office for a second, then went back to R #30, and R #30 had the bottle in his hand and close to his mouth. DOR said she could not recall if the nozzle was facing R #30 or if the nozzle was open or closed. DOR said she could not recall if there was any residual liquid on the nozzle. DOR said she was not sure what happened or if R #30 had ingested any of the liquid, so DOR called the nurse right away to have the nurse check R #30. DOR said the nurse assessed R #30 and notified the doctor. DOR said the doctor's orders were to monitor R #30 to see if there were signs or symptoms of R #30 ingesting the disinfectant such as redness, burning of the mouth, or vomiting. DOR said she assumed one of the other therapists had used the disinfectant or left it on the table and forgot to put it away. DOR said the bottle was not even close to R #30, but it was on a table nearby him. DOR said she did not know if R #30 reached for the bottle and how R #30 was able to get the bottle. DOR said R #30 did have the ability to pick up the bottle. DOR said the bottle was not full, so it was not very heavy. DOR said she did not recall the exact time, but this happened early in the morning on 06/19/23. DOR said she did not remember who was working or if anyone saw R #30 get the bottle. DOR said the disinfectants were kept safely in a cabinet, away from the residents' reach. DOR said that day, someone left the bottle on the table, but they should have put it back in the cabinet after using it. In an interview with DON on 10/30/23 at 1:00 PM. DON said she was aware that there was an incident on 06/19/23 where R #30 possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. DON said the staff responded appropriately as far as getting the nurse to assess, obtaining, and carrying out doctor's orders, calling poison control, and monitoring R #30. DON said staff failed to remove the bottle from within R #30's reach. DON said the only time the disinfectants or chemicals should have not been in a safe location, was if they were being used. DON said R #30 was not injured from this incident. DON said R #30 could have possibly been injured. DON said R #30 could have had vomiting, irritation to the throat, developed sores in his mouth, and could have suffered other possible side effects that the poison control representative told them to monitor for such as a burning sensation to the mouth, throat, and esophagus. DON said the incident could have also resulted in a serious injury to R #30. DON said nobody witnessed R #30 actually spray the bottle or ingest the disinfectant, but the possibility still existed. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 2:10 PM. Administrator said on 06/19/23 R #30 grabbed a spray bottle for a liquid disinfectant and had it close to R #30's mouth. Administrator said DOR caught it right away, but because it was close to R #30's mouth, DOR notified the nurse and followed the protocol. Administrator said she thought she did submit a self-report for that incident to the state survey agency. Administrator said if R #30 had in fact ingested the liquid disinfectant, then it would have been a reportable incident because it was a substance that could be harmful. Administrator said the facility was not sure if R #30 ingested the disinfectant, but the facility staffed the incident with corporate/upper management team. Administrator said LVN S had called poison control, called the doctor, and called the family. Administrator said LVN S followed what poison control said to do and followed the doctor's orders. Administrator said R #30 was not injured and continued to not have any negative side effects. Administrator said Administrator did not recall who left the bottle on the table or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. Administrator said there was an incident report completed for that as it was considered an incident. Administrator said the therapy department was not supposed to have anything within reach of the residents. Administrator said the disinfectants and chemicals should have been at least in a cabinet, preferably under lock and key. Administrator said she was unsure if there was a policy regarding where to store such disinfectants. Administrator said an unknown therapy staff left the bottle of disinfectant on the table. Administrator said the staff did not have it behind a closed door or cabinet. Administrator said the disinfectant bottle should not have been on the table. Administrator said the facility did not know who left it out. Administrator said the incident report did not have any interviews with staff to figure out who left the bottle out or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. Administrator said the progress notes noted the staff called poison control and followed the doctor's orders, and how the staff monitored R #30 for any changes. Administrator said she could not recall if any staff were in-serviced for this incident. Administrator said R #30 did not exhibit any signs or symptoms that R #30 did ingest the disinfectant. Administrator said R #30 could have been harmed if he did ingest the disinfectant. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 3:45 PM. Administrator said the incident was not a reportable because there were no negative outcomes to R #30. Administrator said the facility continued to monitor R #30 for days and there were no injuries. Administrator said the incident report and progress notes noted the investigation and actions taken by the facility upon discovering the incident. Record review of the Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy (implemented 08/15/22) Reporting/Response: The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violation to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g. law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or b. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 1 resident (R #30) reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged violation of neglect when R #30 was found with a bottle of liquid disinfectant in his possession near his mouth. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential neglect due to uninvestigated allegations of abuse and neglect. The findings included: Record review of R #30 's file reflected [AGE] year-old male with original admission date of 01/17/19 and last admission date of 03/28/23. His diagnosis included: Displaced fracture of fifth cervical vertebra, muscle wasting and atrophy, unsteadiness of feet, lack of coordination, Major depressive disorder, Parkinson's Disease, Dysphagia, and acute pain due to trauma. Record review of R #30's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected BIMS was not conducted as R #30 was rarely/never understood. Functional status indicated R #30's ADL of eating (how resident eats and drinks) required extensive assistance for ADL self-performance and limited assistance for ADL support. R #30 uses a wheelchair. Functional Abilities and Goals indicated substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for picking up an object (the ability to bend/stoop from a standing position to pick up a small object, such as a spoon, from the floor). Record review of R #30's Care Plan dated 07/27/23 reflected on 06/19/23 R #30 had a possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant. R #30 will be free of complications from possible ingestion of liquid disinfectant through review period. Date initiated: 06/20/23. Interventions: contacted poison control center on 06/19/23, informed staff to keep hazardous chemicals away from resident's reach, MD and RP notified, and provided oral care. Record review of progress notes for R #30 reflected - On 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM documented by, LVN S. LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVN S immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. On 06/19/23 at 11:45 AM, documented by, LVN S. LVN S called poison control center and explained the situation of liquid disinfectant and the immediate treatment that was rendered. As per poison control center, liquid disinfectant is non-corrosive once it is diluted. R #30 was asymptomatic of burning sensation of throat, esophagus, and mouth. There did not appear to be significant problems or reaction to product. Orders given- monitor for changes, mental changes, burning of mouth, and esophagus for 24 hours. If vomiting occurs, send to ER. Give 8 ounces of water every hour for 4 hours. On 06/19/23 at 12:55 PM, documented by, LVN S. R #30 was awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. Ate 100% of lunch. R #30 denied any burning of throat, esophagus, or mouth. No nausea or vomiting. No diarrhea or upset stomach. Normal behavior. On 06/19/23-06/23/23 progress notes reflected R #30 continued to be monitored. No signs or symptoms noted. R #30 ate without issue, and no abnormalities noted. Record review of the incident report dated 06/19/23 at 11:59 AM reflected incident location: therapy room. Incident description: LVN S was called to the therapy area because R #30 may have consumed liquid disinfectant. Therapy staff said that R #30 had the spray bottle nozzle at his mouth but was not sure if he consumed any. Upon entering the therapy area, R #30 was found sitting in his wheelchair awake, alert, and oriented as usual and calm. LVNS immediately smelled his breath and did not notice any unusual smell. LVN S smelled the liquid disinfectant and R #30's breath had no comparison. R #30 denied consuming any liquid disinfectant. R #30's mouth was rinsed, and oral care was given. R #30 denied any mouth, throat, or esophageal burning sensation. R #30 and staff denied any dry heaves, vomiting, or spitting out liquid disinfectant. RP and NP were notified. Orders received from NP: oral care and call poison control center. R #30 was not taken to the hospital. No injuries observed at time of incident or post incident. Pre-disposing environmental factors: none. Pre-disposing physiological factors: confused, incontinent, gait imbalance, impaired memory, and weakness. Other info: liquid disinfectant within R #30's reach. Notified RP on 06/19/23 at 11:35 AM. Notified MD on 06/19/23 at 11:40 AM. In an interview with LVN S on 10/30/23 at 11:50 AM. LVN S said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30. LVN S said she was called to the therapy department because R #30 had possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. LVN S said she went to the therapy department where R #30 was located. LVN S said she assessed R #30 and did not note any abnormalities. LVN S said the doctor gave the orders to monitor for signs and symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, or burning sensation, call poison control, and provide oral care, which LVN S did. LVN S said R #30 did not show any signs or symptoms of ingesting the disinfectant, R #30 was interacting, in good spirits, eating well, and there were no reports of symptoms. LVN S said she followed what poison control, and the manufacturer instructed her to do. In an interview with DOR on 10/30/23 at 11:55 AM. DOR said she worked on 06/19/23 with R #30 and recalled the incident. DOR said she went to her office for a second, then went back to R #30, and R #30 had the bottle in his hand and close to his mouth. DOR said she could not recall if the nozzle was facing R #30 or if the nozzle was open or closed. DOR said she could not recall if there was any residual liquid on the nozzle. DOR said she was not sure what happened or if R #30 had ingested any of the liquid, so DOR called the nurse right away to have the nurse check R #30. DOR said the nurse assessed R #30 and notified the doctor. DOR said the doctor's orders were to monitor R #30 to see if there were signs or symptoms of R #30 ingesting the disinfectant such as redness, burning of the mouth, or vomiting. DOR said she assumed one of the other therapists had used the disinfectant or left it on the table and forgot to put it away. DOR said the bottle was not even close to R #30, but it was on a table nearby him. DOR said she did not know if R #30 reached for the bottle and how R #30 was able to get the bottle. DOR said R #30 did have the ability to pick up the bottle. DOR said the bottle was not full, so it was not very heavy. DOR said she did not recall the exact time, but this happened early in the morning on 06/19/23. DOR said she did not remember who was working or if anyone saw R #30 get the bottle. DOR said the disinfectants were kept safely in a cabinet, away from the residents' reach. DOR said that day, someone left the bottle on the table, but they should have put it back in the cabinet after using it. In an interview with DON on 10/30/23 at 1:00 PM. DON said she was aware that there was an incident on 06/19/23 where R #30 possibly ingested a liquid disinfectant. DON said the staff responded appropriately as far as getting the nurse to assess, obtaining, and carrying out doctor's orders, calling poison control, and monitoring R #30. DON said staff failed to remove the bottle from within R #30's reach. DON said the only time the disinfectants or chemicals should have not been in a safe location, was if they were being used. DON said R #30 was not injured from this incident. DON said R #30 could have possibly been injured. DON said R #30 could have had vomiting, irritation to the throat, developed sores in his mouth, and could have suffered other possible side effects that the poison control representative told them to monitor for such as a burning sensation to the mouth, throat, and esophagus. DON said the incident could have also resulted in a serious injury to R #30. DON said nobody witnessed R #30 actually spray the bottle or ingest the disinfectant, but the possibility still existed. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 2:10 PM. Administrator said on 06/19/23 R #30 grabbed a spray bottle for a liquid disinfectant and had it close to R #30's mouth. Administrator said Administrator did not recall who left the bottle on the table or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. Administrator said there was an incident report completed for that as it was considered an incident. Administrator said the therapy department was not supposed to have anything within reach of the residents. Administrator said the disinfectants and chemicals should have been at least in a cabinet, preferably under lock and key. Administrator said Administrator was unsure if there was a policy regarding where to store such disinfectants. Administrator said an unknown therapy staff left the bottle of disinfectant on the table. Administrator said the staff did not have it behind a closed door or cabinet. Administrator said the disinfectant bottle should not have been on the table. Administrator said the facility did not know who left it out. Administrator said the incident report did not have any interviews with staff to figure out who left the bottle out or how R #30 was able to obtain the bottle. In an interview with Administrator on 10/30/23 at 3:45 PM. Administrator said the incident report and progress notes noted the investigation and actions taken by the facility upon discovering the incident. Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy (implemented 08/15/22) Investigation of Alleged Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation A. An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation occur. B. Written procedures for investigations include: 3. Investigating different types of alleged violations. 4. Identifying and interviewing all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegations. 5. Focusing the investigation on determining if abuse, neglect, exploitation, and/or mistreatment has occurred, the extent, and cause. 6. Providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation.
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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their established smoking policy for 4 of 4 smoking area (Resident # 5, Resident #6, Resident #9 and Resident #10) resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their established smoking policy for 4 of 4 smoking area (Resident # 5, Resident #6, Resident #9 and Resident #10) residents reviewed for smoking. The facility did not follow their policy regarding residents that smoke must be always supervised. Residents R#5, R#6, R#9, R#10 were observed smoking outside without staff supervision. This failure could place residents at risk for smoking-related injuries and fires in the facility. Findings included: During an observation of the smoking area on 10/24/2023 at 2:50 p.m., four residents were observed smoking unsupervised. The door that leads outside to the smoking area had a pin pad and required a code to open. When residents wanted to come back in, they must ring the doorbell and staff will open the door. Interview on 10/24/2023 at 2:52 p.m., the DON identified those four residents as Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7, and Resident #8. The DON said they should have been supervised and was not sure why they were not. The DON said Staff E was scheduled to supervise the residents during smoking breaks on 10/24/2023. Interview on 10/24/2023 at 3:11 p.m., Staff E said she was in charge of supervising the residents out in the smoking area on 10/24/2023. She said escorted Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7, and Resident #8 out to the smoking area at about 1:30 p.m. While she was outside with them, Staff C called her to go back inside to assist a resident at 2:00 p.m. She said after she assisted the resident, she stayed inside. She said she checked on all four residents multiple times by observing them through a window next to the exit door but did not go back outside with them. Staff E said when she was about to go outside with the residents, she saw the DON and surveyor outside the residents, so she decided to go back to the nurse's station. Interview on 10/25/2023 at 11:18 a.m., Resident #5, said he was an occasional smoker. He said there have been times in which they are not supervised. He said staff will let them out and they must ring the bell when they are ready to come back in. Interview on 10/25/2023 at 11:25 a.m., Resident #6, said was a smoker. He said there have been times in which they are not supervised. He said staff will let them out and they must ring the bell when they are ready to come back in. Interview on 10/25/2023 at 11:35 a.m., Resident #9, said he smoked several times a day. He said he watched staff enter the code and memorized it. He said once he memorized the code, he goes outside to smoke without notifying staff. He said there have been times in which they are not supervised. He said staff will let them out and they must ring the bell when they are ready to come back in. Interview on 10/25/2023 at 11:45 a.m., Resident #10 said she was an occasional smoker. She said there have been times in which they are not supervised. He said staff will let them out and they must ring the bell when they are ready to come back in. Record review of facility's smoking schedule reflected, residents are allowed to smoke at 9:00 am, 11:00 am, 1:30 pm, 3:30 pm, and 6:30 pm. Policy had no date. Record review of facility's smokers list reflected 7 residents who smoke. Record review of facility's smoking/tobacco policy (no date) reflected: Policy Statement: The facility respects the resident's right to smoke. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: All tobacco products will be kept by the facility staff. This includes, but is not limited to, smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, matches, lighters, and all other types of smoking paraphernalia. All residents will be allowed to smoke, with supervision, in the designated areas and times as stated in the Smoking/Tobacco Acknowledgment. Smoking blankets, portable fire extinguisher and state approved ashtrays will be available in the designated areas.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures 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 provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that ensure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of 4 of 4 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4) residents reviewed for pharmacy services. Staff D and Staff E failed to accurately document on eMAR they administered Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4's scheduled medications: Resident #1: Systane, Atorvastatin Calcium, Erythromycin ointment, GenTeal ointment, Trazodone, Doxycycline, Hydralazine, Meclizine, Mexitrol, Keppra, MiraLAX, and Thiamine. Resident #2: Carvedilol, Levetiracetam, Metformin, Artificial Tears, and Ticagrelor. Resident #3: Divalproex Sodium, Mirtazapine, Trazodone, and Zoloft. Resident #4: Pravastatin, Trazodone, Eliquis, Lactulose, and Keppra These failures placed residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic benefits of the prescribed medications and side effects from missed doses. Findings included: 1. Interview on 10/26/2023 at 11:21 a.m., Resident #1 said he did not get his eye drops and other medications on time or not get them at all. Resident #1 said his only concern he had was the administration of his medication. Record review of Resident #1's face Sheet, dated 10/30/23, reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to facility on 09/13/2022. His diagnosis included nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, dysphagia, dysarthria, spondylosis, filamentary keratitis (right eye), superficial keratitis (right eye), retention of urine, seizures and chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure. Record review of Resident #1's Physician's orders reflected: Systane Hydration PF Ophthalmic Solution 0.4-0.3 % instill 1 drop in both eyes four times a day for dryness, Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for hyperlipidemia, Erythromycin Ophthalmic ointment 5 mg/gm instill 1 application in both eyes at bedtime for Filamentary Keratitis GenTeal Tears Solution 0.1-0.2-0.3% (Artificial Tear Solution) Instill 1 drop in right eye every 12 hours for dry eyes (indefinite) Trazodone HCI Tablet 100 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression, Doxycycline Hyclate Oral Tablet 100 mg give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for pneumonia/copd exacerbation for 7 days, Hydralazine HCI Oral tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for HTN may hold if BP <110/60, Meclizine HCI Oral Tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for vertigo, Mexitrol ointment 3.5-10000-0.1 (Neomycin-Polymyxin-Dexameth) instill 1 application in both eyes four times a day for keratitis, Levetiracetam (Keppra) 100 mg/ml SOLN give 2.5 ml by mouth two times a day for seizure disorder, MiraLAX Powder 17 gm/scoop give 17 grams by mouth two times a day for constipation mix with 8 oz of water, and Thiamine HC Tablet 100 mg give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for supplement. Record review of Resident #1's eMAR for the month of February 2023 revealed: Systane Hydration was not signed off on 02/10/2023 at 1:00 p.m. Record review of Resident #1's eMAR for the month of September 2023 revealed: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet was not signed off on 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/21, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 9:00 p.m. Doxycycline Hyclate was not signed off on 09/15 at 5:00 p.m. Erythromycin Ointment was not signed off on 09/25 and 09/27 at 9:00 p.m. GenTeal Tears was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/21, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Hydralazine HCI was not signed off on 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Keppra Solution was not signed off on 09/12 and 09/15 at 5:00 p.m. Meclizine HCI was not signed off on 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Mexitrol Ointment was not signed off on 09/25 and 09/27 at 5:00 p.m. MiraLAX powder was not signed off on 09/12 and 09/15 at 5:00 p.m. Systane Hydration was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/21, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Thiamine HCI was not signed off on 09/12 at 5:00 p.m. Trazodone HCI was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/21, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Record review of Resident #1's eMAR for the month of October 2023 revealed: Atorvastatin Calcium was not signed off on 10/23 at 9:00 p.m. Erythromycin Ointment was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. GenTeal Tears was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. Systane Hydration was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. Trazodone HCI was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. 2. Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 11/01/2023 reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male with the diagnosis of anoxic brain damage, encephalopathy, STEMI myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, persistent vegetative state, and ventricular tachycardia. Observation on 10/26/2023 at 2:00 11:45 a.m., Resident #2 was observed lying in bed asleep. He was receiving IV fluids, G-Tube and non-interviewable. Record review of Resident #2's Physician's order reflected: Carvedilol tablet 3.125 mg give 1 tablet via F-Tube two times a day for HTN-hold if spd < 100or dpb <60 Metformin HCI Tablet 500 mg give 1 tablet via PEG-Tube two times a day for DM Levetiracetam Solution 100 mg/ml (Keppra) give 5 ml enterally every 12 hours for seizures Artificial Tears Ophthalmic Solution (artificial tear solution) instill 1 drop in both eyes three times a day for dry eyes Ticagrelor Tablet 90 mg (blood thinner) give one tablet enterally two times a day related to ST Elevation (STEMI) Myocardial Infarction Record review of Resident #2's eMAR for the month of September 2023 reflected: Artificial Tears was not signed off on 09/14 at 9:00 p.m. Carvedilol Tablet was not signed off on 09/14 at 9:00 p.m. Levetiracetam Solution (Keppra) was not signed off on 09/14 at 9:00 p.m. Metformin was not signed off on 09/14 at 9:00 p.m. Ticagrelor was not signed off on 09/14 at 9:00 p.m. Record review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 11/01/2023 reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to facility on 02/11/2022 with a diagnosis of dementia, age-related physical debility, epilepsy, hypertension, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and insomnia. 3. Observation of Resident #3 on 10/27/2023 at 8:00 a.m., she was lying in bed and was non-verbal. Record review of Resident #3's Physician's order reflected: Divalproex Sodium Tablet delayed release 500 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Labile Mood Disorder Mirtazapine Oral Tablet 7.5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for poor appetite Trazodone HCI oral tablet 100 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for insomnia/depression Zoloft tablet 50 mg (sertraline HCI) give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression Record review of Resident #3's eMAR for the month of September 2023 reflected: Divalproex Sodium was not signed off on 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Mirtazapine Oral tablet was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, and 09/23 at 8:00 p.m. Trazodone was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Zoloft tablet was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Record review of Resident #3's eMAR for the month of October 2023 reflected: Divalproex Sodium was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. Mirtazapine was not signed off on 10/23 at 9:00 p.m. Trazodone was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. Zoloft was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. 4. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 11/01/2023 reflected she was [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to facility on 04/14/2023 with diagnosis of cerebral palsy, restlessness and agitation, acute pain due to trauma, major depressive disorder (recurrent, moderate), Type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. Observation on 10/27/2023 at 8:45 a.m., Resident was observed on her wheel-chair self-propelling down her hall. She was able to speak but was non-interviewable. Record review of Resident #4's Physician's order reflected: Eliquis Oral Tablet 5 mg (apixaban) give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for DVT prevention Keppra Oral Solution 100 mg/ml (Levetiracetam) give 2.5 ml by mouth three times a day for Labile Moods Lactulose Oral Solution 20 gm/30 ml give 30 ml by mouth two times a day for constipation Pravastatin Sodium Oral Tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for hyperlipidemia Trazodone HC Oral Tablet 50 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for insomnia/depression Record review of Resident #4's eMAR for the month of September 2023 reflected: Eliquis was not signed off on 09/20 at 4:00 p.m. Keppra was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/21, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Lactulose was not signed off on 09/15 and 09/20 at 5:00 p.m. Pravastatin was not signed off on 09/12, 09/13, 09/14, 09/15, 09/18, 09/20, 09/21, 09/23, 09/25, and 09/27 at 8:00 p.m. Record review of Resident #4's eMAR for the month of October 2023 reflected: Keppra was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. Pravastatin Sodium was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. Trazodone HCI was not signed off on 10/23 at 8:00 p.m. Interview on 10/26/2023 at 2:00 p.m., the DON said she and the facility's 2 ADON's conducted daily audits of resident's record which includes eMAR's during their morning meetings. Each morning the system shows a dashboard alerting them if there were any signature missing on the MAR, skilled MAR, treatment MAR. The DON said she was not aware of any blanks on Resident #1, #2, #3 and #4's eMAR. The DON she said would provide the names of the staff members who failed to sign off on the medications for Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4 for the months of February 2023, September 2023, and October 2023. She said she would have to check with the nursing staff to see why those medications were not signed off. She said per facility's policy LVN's, and Med Aides must sign off all medications. She said there are codes staff should use for when a resident refuses, is out of facility, or medication is not available but said the eMAR must never be left blank. Interview on 10/27/2023 at 8:00 a.m., Resident #1 said since state was at the facility, he is getting his medication on time. Interview on 10/27/2023 at 8:30 a.m., the DON said she had narrowed it down to Staff D and Staff E who had failed to sign off medications for Resident #1, #2, #3, and #4. All four residents were in the same hall and said the problem seemed to be during the evening shift (02:00-10:00 pm). Interview on 10/27/2023 at 1:45 p.m., Staff D said administered all the pills to Resident #1 on 10/23/2023 but had forgotten to administer his eye drops. She said on 10/23/2023 she had gone into Resident #1's room to give him a nebulizer treatment, which he refused, and he had requested his medications. She said she knew he had eye drops scheduled but forgot to administer them because Resident #1 did not remind her. Staff D also revealed she had forgotten to sign off the 3 pills she had administered on the eMAR. Staff D said by forgetting to sign off a resident's eMAR the resident is at risk of receiving a [NAME] dose and forgetting to administer any medication the resident treatment would be delayed. Interview on 10/31/2023 at 10:00 a.m., Staff E said her regular shift is 2:00-10:00 p.m. She said had not realized she had forgotten to sign off medications on eMAR until the DON told her on 10/26/23. She said she could not say why she had forgotten to sign off medications she administered for Resident #1, #2, #3, and #4. She said she might have gotten distracted in assisting other residents but said there was no excuse. She said, I cannot come out with something specific as to why I forgot to sign the eMAR. Interview on 10/31/2023 at 10:30 a.m. Staff C said he is part of the team that conducted morning audits. He said the team is made up the facility's DON, and 2 ADON's. He said he occasionally assisted with Med Pass, and knew the LVN's, and Med Aides get interruptions. He said walking out of a resident's room they get confronted by other residents, family members or accidents happen (falls), and they get distracted and forget to sign the eMAR. Staff C said during their morning meetings their systems gives out alerts if any signatures are missing on the eMAR, Skilled Mar, and treatment MAR. Staff C said If they discover an eMAR was not signed, they call the staff member that was assigned to that hall/time and verify the medication was administered. They always take their word and at that time either Staff C or the staff member signed the eMAR. Staff C said he did not have an answer as to why he did not catch the blanks on Resident #1, #2, #3, and #4's eMAR. He said by not signing the eMAR a resident is at risk of receiving a double dose. He said ADON's/DON conducted quarterly trainings to licensed staff and one of the topics was medication administration which included 1. Medications to be administered on a timely manner as scheduled, 2. MAR will be signed by person administering medications after med. Pass, 3. Charge Nurse and Med Aides are to follow the 5 rights: right patient, right medication, right time, right dose, and right route. He said LVN's and Med Aides are trained 4 times a year on Med Administration. Interview on 10/31/2023 at 2:00 p.m., the Administrator said she did not know why Staff D and Staff E had not signed off the Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4's eMAR. She said she did not have a reason as to why her DON and ADON's did not capture the missing signatures. Interview on 10/31/2023 at 2:40 p.m., the facility's Pharmacist went over all medications not signed off on Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4's eMAR and stated: Resident #1: Missed doses of Systane and GenTeal, negative effect could have been eye dryness/irritation. Missed doses of Erythromycin Ophthalmic, would not have caused any negative effects because he had been on it indefinite and was being used as a prophylaxis (maintenance). Missed dose of Doxycycline, 1 missed dose would not have a negative effect. Missed doses of Meclizine negative effect could have been he might have experienced dizziness. Missed doses of Hydralazine negative effects would be determined if the resident's blood pressure were elevated the next morning. Staff A checked eMAR and blood pressure was within range the next morning, therefore no negative effect. Missed doses of Mexitrol, she said there were no negative effect since it had been only 2 doses missed. Missed doses of Keppra, no negative effect since only 2 doses were missed and he had been on it indefinite. She said it would not have caused any seizure activity because he still had it in his system. Missed doses of MiraLAX might have caused constipation. Missed doses of Thiamine would not have caused a negative effect since it was being used as a supplement. Resident #2: Missed doses Carvedilol, no negative effect since resident had been on this medication for over 1 year and blood pressure was within normal range the next morning. Missed dose of Levetiracetam (Keppra), no negative effect since resident had been on this medication since he was admitted and has not had any seizure activity since he was admitted . Missed dose of Artificial Tears, the only negative effect could be dryness and irritation to both eyes. Missed dose of Ticagrelor, no negative affect since resident had been on this medication is being used as a prophylaxis. Resident #3: Missed dose of Zoloft, no negative affect since it was just one dose Missed dose of Divalproex, negative effects could bring back her symptoms of depression. Missed dose of Mirtazapine, no negative effect as this medication was being used to stimulate her appetite. DON verified her weight was stable. Missed dose of Trazadone, the only negative effect could be not being able to sleep at night. Resident #4: Missed dose of Pravastatin, labs would have to be run to see if any negative effect occurred. Staff A looked back at her lab results (cholesterol) history and had been within normal range. Missed doe of Eliquis, no negative effect since it was only one dose. Missed dose of Trazodone/Keppra possible negative effect could be not being able to sleep at night and/or behavior problems. Missed dose Lactulose possible negative affect could be constipation. Interview on 11/01/2023 at 11:00 a.m., the DON said every morning the system showed a dashboard alerting if there were any signature missing on the eMAR, Skill MAR, or Treatment MAR. She said she and the 2 ADON's reviewed the alerts for the day before. She said did not remember if they had been alerted on the missing signatures for Resident #1, #2, #3, and #4 eMAR. She said, we missed it, there's really no explanation. The DON if staff forget to sign off any medication on their eMAR the resident was at risk of getting a double dose. Interview on 11/02/2023 at 9:17 a.m. Nurse Practitioner for Resident #1 went over all medications not signed off on Resident #1's eMAR and stated: Resident #1: Missed doses of Systane and GenTeal, negative effect could have been eye dryness/irritation. Missed doses of Erythromycin Ophthalmic, would not have caused eye redness. Missed dose of Doxycycline, 1 missed dose would not have a negative effect. Missed doses of Meclizine negative effect could have been he might have experienced dizziness. Missed doses of Hydralazine a negative could have been elevated blood pressure. Blood pressure readings for the morning after were normal, so there was no negative effect. Missed doses of Mexitrol, no negative effect since it was only 2 missed doses Missed doses of Keppra, no negative effect since only 2 doses missed and he had not had any seizure activity since he was admitted to facility. Missed doses of MiraLAX might have caused constipation. Missed doses of Thiamine would not have caused a negative effect since it was being used as a supplement. Interview on 11/02/2023 at 3:45 p.m., Nurse Practitioner went over Resident #3 and Resident #4's medications not signed off on their eMAR and stated: Resident #3: Missed doses of Divalproex, Trazodone, Mirtazapine and Zoloft were being used for psychiatric purposes and a negative effect would have been feeling moody and behavior problems. She said because she has a diagnosis of dementia those symptoms would not have been apparent therefore, no negative affect. Resident #4: Missed doses of Pravastatin, no negative side effects. Missed dose of Eliquis, no negative side effect since it was only 1 missed dose. Missed doses Trazodone might have caused sleeping problems. Missed doses of Lactulose might have caused constipation. Missed doses of Keppra might have caused behavior problems since it was being used for psychiatric purposes. Record review of facility's Medication Administration policy implemented on 10/24/2022 reflected: Policy: Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 17. Sign MAR after administered. For those medications requiring vital signs, record the vital signs onto the MAR. 20. Correct any discrepancies and report to nurse manager.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 5 Residents (Resident #3) reviewed for medical records accuracy, in that: Resident #3's bathing tasks dating back to 05/04/23 revealed incomplete and inaccurate documentation of services provided to Resident #3's. This deficient practice could affect residents whose records are maintained by the facility and could place them at risk for errors in care, and treatment. The findings were: Record review of Resident #3's face sheet, dated 06/05/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Quadriplegia, unspecified (Loss of control/movement of both arms and legs), multiple sclerosis (Immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves), retention of urine (when your bladder does not completely empty), unspecified , trigeminal neuralgia (chronic pain involving sudden and sever facial pain), contracture of right hand (shortening of hardening of muscles, tendons and tissue, can lead to deformity and rigidity of joints), contracture of left hand (shortening or hardening of muscles, tendons and tissue, can lead to deformity and rigidity of joints) Record review of Resident #3's annual MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. There was no documentation of resident's shower schedule available. During an interview with CNA A on 06/05/23 at 1:20pm she stated residents shower schedules are determined by what side of the hall and room they are one. Stating Resident #3's shower schedule fell on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday from 6AM-2PM. During an interview with CNA B on 06/05/23 at 1:35pm she stated based on what side of the hall and bed Resident #3 was placed on meant that her shower schedule was on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday mornings from 6AM-2PM. CNA B stated residents are scheduled for showers based on what side of the hall they are on. During an interview with the DON on 06/05/23 at 2:45pm stated Resident #3's shower schedule was Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Record review of Resident #3's bathing tasks dating back 30 days to 05/04/23 revealed no documentation other than not applicable checked off on Saturday 05/06/23 and Saturday 05/13/23 by CNA C. Record review of facility document titled, DAILY POSITION SHEET - NURSING for 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 revealed CNA A and CNA B were both scheduled to work on Resident #3's hall, hall 100 on Saturday 05/06/23 and Saturday 05/13/23 from 6AM-2PM. CNA B was scheduled to give showers on 05/06/23 from 6AM-2PM and CNA A was scheduled to give showers on 05/13/23 from 6AM-2PM. CNA C was scheduled to work on Resident #3's hall, hall 100 on Saturday 05/06/23 and Saturday 05/13/23 from 2PM-10PM. CNA C was scheduled to give showers on both 05/06/23 and 05/13/23. During an interview and observation with CNA A on 06/05/23 at 1:20pm she stated Resident #3's shower schedule was Tuesday, Thursdays and Saturdays from 6AM-2PM. CNA A confirmed she worked and was responsible for offering, providing and documenting Resident #3's shower on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23. CNA A stated she will provide the showers and CNA B will complete the documentation. CNA A was asked if that is how it should be done and she stated that it was not and that it was not the way she was trained. CNA A stated a blank on a resident's task section meant it is not getting documented. CNA A stated she was unable to recall if she provided Resident #3 a shower or if Resident #3 refused a shower on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23. CNA A reviewed Resident #3's shower task for 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 and confirmed blanks on both days. CNA A did not know why Residents #3's shower task was not documented and stated it should had been documented. CNA A stated a couple of weeks ago she had been in serviced and trained over documentation by a nurse who worked within their company. CNA A stated the training was provided because it was identified that documentation was not being completed correctly. CNA A stated she did not know the facility procedures for monitoring the records to ensure accurate documentation. CNA A stated incorrect documentation like this could negatively impact a residents because although the care was provided, on the computer it would look as if it was not. During an interview and observation with CNA B on 06/05/23 at 1:35pm she stated Resident #3's shower schedule was Tuesday, Thursdays and Saturdays from 6AM-2PM. CNA B confirmed she worked and was responsible for providing and documenting Resident #3's shower on 05/06/23 and stated CNA A was responsible on 05/13/23. CNA B stated Resident #3 was showered on 05/06/23 by her and by CNA A on 05/13/23, stating Resident #3 did not refuse her shower on those dates. CNA B stated a resident's shower task section should have something documented. CNA B reviewed Resident #3's shower task for 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 and confirmed blanks on both days, stating, they probably forgot to document. When asked why Residents #3's shower task was not documented CNA B stated, sometimes I'll do half and the other girl will do the other half of documentation. When asked if this is how she was trained, CNA B stated, we work the floor how we can. CNA B stated a resident's shower tasks should be documented whether it was provided, refused, or resident was not available. CNA B stated Resident #3 did receive a shower on 05/06/23 stating she recalled providing her a shower and stated on 05/13/23 Resident #3 also received a shower stating she recalled assisting with transferring Resident #3 in and out of shower bed. CNA B stated she was trained last month over documentation of services/treatments provided. CNA B stated the MDS nurses (LVN D and RN E) are responsible for providing staff with training. CNA B stated facility procedures for monitoring the records to ensure accurate documentation included nurses and other staff who oversee the CNAs notifying them when documentation is not done. CNA B stated not appropriately documenting can negatively impact a resident's care because if she does not complete the documentation its as if she did not get the job done. During an interview with CNA C on 06/05/23 at 2:09pm she stated she was unsure what days Resident #3 was scheduled for a shower but stated she knew it was during the 6AM-2PM shift. CNA C confirmed she selected not applicable on Resident #3's shower task on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 stating she did not work the morning shift when Resident #3 was scheduled for a shower. CNA C stated she worked the 2pm-10pm shift on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23. CNA C stated she would mark not applicable for any resident who is not scheduled for showers during her shift. During an interview with the DON on 06/05/23 at 2:45 PM, the DON stated Resident #3's shower schedule was Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The DON stated on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 the CNAs who worked that shift were responsible for providing and documentation of showers. The DON stated a blank identified on a resident's task section meant it was not documented. The DON reviewed Resident #3's showering tasks and confirmed there were blanks on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 and stated staff should be documenting residents' showers, whether they were provided, refused or not available. The DON stated after talking to staff members CNA A and CNA B she gathered that Resident #3 was showered on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 but that neither CNA A or CNA B documented Resident #3's shower due to thinking the other had already documented it. The DON stated she provided an in service to the staff over importance of documentation. The DON was asked if she was aware that staff had not been documenting accurately and stated staff had previously been trained 2 weeks ago over documentation of services/treatment provided and stated they had implemented a plan of correction because of new staff. The DON stated they had identified discrepancies with documentation. The DON stated MDS nurses, (LVN D and RN E) and the ADONs, (LVN F and LVN G) were responsible for providing training. The DON stated to ensure accurate documentation the charge nurses on the floor were checking documentation at the end of each shift for completion. The DON stated documentation would now be checked by, MDS nurses, (LVN D and RN E) and the ADONs, (LVN F and LVN G) and herself. The DON stated incorrect documentation could negatively affect residents because it reflected that the care was not provided even when it was. During an interview and observation with the Administrator on 06/05/23 at 4:19pm she stated she was not sure what Resident #3's shower schedule was but thought it was Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. After reviewing the facility document titled, DAILY POSITION SHEET - NURSING she stated CNA A and CNA B were responsible for documentation of Resident #3 showers on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23. The Administrator reviewed Resident #3's showering tasks for 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 and confirmed there were blanks for both dates. The Administrator stated a blank meant that there's no documentation at all. The Administrator stated staff should always be documenting, whether a resident refused or were not available. The Administrator was not sure why Resident #3's showering tasks were not documented for on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23. The Administrator stated based on her conversation with staff Resident #3 was showered on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 but staff did not document it. The Administrator stated she was not aware of staff not accurately documenting Resident #3's showers. The Administrator stated there was a corporate staff member who provided staff with in services over documentation and the correct and accurate way to document about 2 weeks ago. The Administrator stated MDS (LVN D and RN E) will provide staff training as needed. The Administrator stated to monitor the records for accurate documentation the charge nurses had been checking to make sure nurse aide documented by the end of the shift. The Administrator stated, it had not been very successful, stating the responsibilities had been given to the ADONs (LVN F and LVN G). The Administrator stated incorrect documentation such as this would not significantly effect on the resident but could defect the facility as far as reimbursement. During an interview with Resident #3 on 06/05/23 at 5:55pm she stated she was showered on 05/06/23 and 05/13/23 but was unable to recall who showered her. Record review of the facility's policy titled documentation in Medical Record with an implemented date of 10/24/22 with section titled Policy explanation and Compliance Guidelines stated, 1. Licensed staff and interdisciplinary team members shall document all assessments, observations, and services provided in the residents' medical record in accordance with state law and facility policy. And b. Documentation shall be accurate, relevant and complete, contained sufficient details about the residents' care and/or responses to care.
Oct 2022 3 deficiencies
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 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 that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for two residents (Resident #13 and Resident #76) of six residents reviewed for care plans. 1) The facility failed to develop a care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes to address Resident #13's use of helmet as an intervention for history of falls. 2) The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes to address Resident #76's tracheostomy status (opening surgically created through the neck into the trachea to allow direct access to the breathing tube.) This failure could affect residents in the facility by placing in them at risk for not being provided necessary care and services, and not having plans developed to address their needs. The findings included: 1)Record review of the admission record dated for Resident #13 indicated Resident #13 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident #13 was a [AGE] year old male with diagnosis that included parkinson's disease (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements), post-traumatic stress disorder (mental condition that is triggered by a terrifying event), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (urinary bladder problems due disease or injury to the central nervous system), unsteadiness on feet, muscle wasting and atrophy, lack of coordination and laceration without foreign body of nose and injury of head and intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar region (breakdown of one or more discs.) Record review of quarterly MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #13 indicated; -cognitive status was moderately impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required. -required extensive assistance by two persons for dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. -required extensive assistance by one person for bed mobility and transfers. -had impairment on one side in upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) and lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot). -had two falls with no injury since admission or re-entry. -had one fall with injury (except major). Record review of the comprehensive care plans dated 09/13/22 for Resident #13 indicated -had an unwitnessed fall on 09/11/22 with a laceration to forehead, date initiated 09/13/22. Interventions included neuro checks, therapy screen, date initiated 109/14/22. Record review of the care plans for Resident #13 did not include a care plan to address the use of a helmet as an intervention for falls. Observation during initial tour on 10/03/22 at 2:11 pm revealed Resident #13 in his room, sitting in his wheelchair by his bed. Resident #13 was observed wearing a helmet on his head. Resident #13 had a healed visible one-inch scar in the middle of his forehead. Resident #13 appeared calm, well-groomed and in no distress. Resident #13 responded to surveyor greeting he was doing ok and mumbled words that were not understood. Observation on 10/04/22 at 9:30 am revealed Resident #13 sitting in his wheelchair in the hallway, wearing a helmet on his head. Resident #13 verbalized some comments that were not understood. Resident #13 appeared calm, clean and in no distress. Interview on 10/04/22 at 4:10 pm with ADON D revealed Resident #13 had a fall on 09/11/22 in which he sustained a laceration to this forehead. Resident #13 was sent to the hospital. Resident #13 had several falls in the past and as an intervention, a helmet was placed on the resident to prevent further injuries to his head. After returning from the hospital, Resident #13 came back from the hospital on [DATE], his head had swelling, and the helmet did not fit over his head until recently. ADON D said he was responsible to develop the acute care plans for the use of the helmet and he had not developed a care plan to address the care needed for the use of a helmet on Resident #13 or in his comprehensive care plans. ADON D said a care plan needed to be developed to address the use of a helmet on Resident #13 to instruct the staff on the placement of the helmet. Interview on 10/05/22 at 8:52 am with CNA E revealed they tried to monitor Resident #13 more often to help prevent falls. Staff was instructed to place the helmet on the resident when he was out of his bed to help prevent injuries on his head if he fell. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:00 am with CNA F revealed they placed the helmet on Resident #13 to help prevent injuries if he fell. Sometimes Resident #13 would refuse to wear the helmet. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:06 am with LVN G revealed Resident #13 had fallen in September 2022 and had sustained a laceration to his forehead. After this last fall, a helmet was used as an intervention to help prevent injuries to his head if he fell again. A care plan helped staff be informed of what kind of care had been developed for Resident #13. LVN G said she was not aware the use of a helmet as an intervention had not been care planned. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:24 am with LVN/MDS H revealed a helmet for Resident #13 was used as an intervention and should have been developed as an acute care plan by ADON D. ADON D did not develop an acute care plan for the use of the helmet used on Resident #13. LVN/MDS H said the comprehensive care plans for Resident #13 did not include a care plan to address the use of a helmet for Resident #13 as an intervention. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:48 am with the DON revealed the helmet used on Resident #13 was used as an intervention to prevent injuries and should have been care planned to inform the staff of goals and interventions. 2) 1.Record review of the admission record dated 10/05/22 for Resident #76 indicated Resident #76 was admitted to facility on 08/27/22, was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnosis that included injury at level of cervical spinal cord (injuries that cause inability to breathe on one's own), diabetes, dysphagia (inability to swallow), hemiplegia (paralysis on side of body), hypoxemia (below normal level of oxygen), tracheostomy status (opening in windpipe that provides an air passage to help breathe), and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (unable to control urination.) Record review of the admission MDS record dated 09/02/22 for Resident #76 indicated. -cognitive status was independent (decisions consistent/reasonable). -required extensive assistance from two persons for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. -had an indwelling catheter. -active diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. -received nutrition via peg tube. -received special treatment of tracheostomy care. Record review of the physician orders dated 10/05/22 for Resident #76 indicated orders for -change disposable trach 6shiley (flexible tubes), inner cannula every day, shift, start date; 08/27/22. -change trach collar and tubing with oxygen condensation trap as needed, start date; 08/27/22. -change trach collar and tubing with oxygen condensation trap every night shift, every seven days, start date, 08/27/22. -suction trach as needed for excessive secretions, start date, 08/29/22. -check foley catheter for diagnosis of neurogenic bladder every shift for placement, may use leg strap to secure foley in place, start date 10/04/22. -enteral feed order, every two hours, flush tube with 250ml of water every 6 hours, start date, 08/31/22. Record review of the comprehensive care plans for Resident #76 last revised on 08/29/22 indicated care plans did not include a care plan that addressed Resident #76's care for tracheostomy status and treatment. Interview on 10/04/22 at 9:03 am with CNA A revealed Resident #76 used her touch pad call light to ask for help and could not use her left hand because her left side was paralyzed. CNA A said the charge nurses would provide the care and treatments for the resident tracheostomy status. Interview on 10/05/22 at 10:56 am with ADON B revealed he could not see a comprehensive care plan that addressed Resident #76's tracheostomy status in her clinical records. Interview on 10/05/22 at 11:03 with RN/MDS C revealed she was responsible to develop care plans for Resident #76. RN/MDS C said she had overlooked developing a care plan that addressed Resident #76's tracheostomy status. Interview on 10/05/22 at 1:06 pm with ADON A revealed said the care plan is developed to set goals and implement interventions to provide the proper and necessary care to residents. The comprehensive care plans are used to in-service the staff on the goals and interventions of the care plans. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:48 am with the DON revealed the purpose of a care plan was to inform staff what goals and interventions were developed to provide care to the resident. When a care plan for a focus care area is not developed, staff would not know how to provide proper care to the resident. Record review of forms titled In-Service Training Report dated 08/29/22 and 09/17/22 indicated staff were in-serviced on Tracheostomy Care, notifying the charge nurse. Record review of the facility policy titled Care Plan, Goal and Objectives dated December 2017 indicated Care plans, shall incorporate goals and objectives that lead to the resident's highest obtainable level of independence.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent a resident who is fed by enteral means recei...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent a resident who is fed by enteral means receives the appropriate treatment and services to restore, if possible, oral eating skills and to prevent complications of enteral feeding including but not limited to aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, or metabolic abnormalities for one (Resident #34) of one resident observed for feeding tube medication administration in that: LVN I did not check for residual (the amount of fluid/contents that are in the stomach) of Resident #34's PEG-tube (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy which a flexible feeding tube is placed through the abdominal wall and into the stomach) prior to administering medications. This deficient practice could affect residents with enteral tubes and could result in aspiration pneumonia or vomiting. The findings were: Review of Resident #34's electronic face sheet ,dated 10/04/22, revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), aphasia (difficulty communicating related to stroke), dementia (a loss of thinking ability, memory attention, logical reasoning and other mental abilities), and gastronomy status (the surgical formation of an opening through the abdominal wall into the stomach). Review of Resident #34's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/24/22, revealed he was severely cognitively impaired, he was totally dependent with two-person assistance for bed mobility, transferring, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and was totally dependent on one-person assistance for eating, and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #34's physician order, dated 8/13/21, revealed Enteral Feed Order every shift Check for residual. If residual is greater than 100cc - hold feeding for one hour and recheck. if residual continues to be greater than 100cc - call Md. Observation of medication pass on 10/04/22 at 08:15 a.m., of LVN I administering medications via PEG tube to Resident #34, revealed LVN I did not check for residual before administering medications via PEG-tube. In an interview on 10/04/22 at 08:21 a.m., LVN I stated she should have checked for residual before giving medications via PEG-Tube. LVN stated that the resident could have been overloaded if there were too much in his stomach. In an interview on 10/04/22 at 08:25 a.m., DON stated nurses are to check for residual before giving medications via PEG-Tube. DON stated the resident could aspirate if residual were not checked before medication administration. DON stated they did not have a policy for checking residual for tube placement. In an interview on 10/04/22 at 09:37 a.m., ADON J stated, Residual is to be checked before PEG-Tube medications are given. Sometimes if there is a lot of residual, the doctor is notified to see if meds are to be given. A lot of residual means the resident is full and they could aspirate.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Minor procedural issue · 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 services were provided as outlined by the compr...

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 services were provided as outlined by the comprehensive care plan to meet professional standards of quality for two (Residents #13 and Resident #82) of 10 residents reviewed for standards of care in that: 1) The facility failed to consult with Resident #13's physician to retrieve an order for the monitoring, care, and maintenance of a soft padded helmet as an intervention to address Resident #13's falls. 2)The facility failed to ensure Resident #82 had physician's orders for the use of a helmet to protect his head from injury in the event of a fall. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for falls of not receiving the appropriate care and services to meet their needs. The findings were: 1) Record review of the admission record dated 10/05/22 for Resident #13 indicated Resident #13 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident #13 was a [AGE] year old male with diagnosis that included parkinson's disease (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements), post-traumatic stress disorder (mental condition that is triggered by a terrifying event), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (urinary bladder problems due disease or injury to the central nervous system), unsteadiness on feet, muscle wasting and atrophy, lack of coordination and laceration without foreign body of nose and injury of head and intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar region (breakdown of one or more discs.) Record review of quarterly MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #13 indicated; -cognitive status was moderately impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required. -required extensive assistance by two persons for dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. -required extensive assistance by one person for bed mobility and transfers. -had impairment on one side in upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) and lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot). -had two falls with no injury since admission or re-entry. -had one fall with injury (except major). Record review of the physician orders dated 10/05/22 indicated no orders for use of a soft padded helmet for Resident #13. Record review of the comprehensive care plans dated 09/13/22 for Resident #13 indicated -had an unwitnessed fall on 09/11/22 with a laceration to forehead, date initiated 09/13/22. Interventions included neuro checks, therapy screen, date initiated 109/14/22. Record review of the care plans for Resident #13 did not include a care plan to address the use of a helmet as an intervention for falls. Observation during initial tour on 10/03/22 at 2:11 pm revealed Resident #13 in his room, sitting in his wheelchair by his bed. Resident #13 was observed wearing a helmet on his head. Resident #13 had a healed visible one-inch scar in the middle of his forehead. Resident #13 appeared calm, well-groomed and in no distress. Resident #13 responded to surveyor greeting he was doing ok and mumbled words that were not understood. Observation on 10/04/22 at 9:30 am revealed Resident #13 sitting in his wheelchair in the hallway, wearing a helmet on his head. Resident #13 verbalized some comments that were not understood. Resident #13 appeared calm, clean and in no distress. Interview on 10/04/22 at 4:10 pm with ADON D revealed Resident #13 had a fall on 09/11/22 in which he sustained a laceration to this forehead. Resident #13 was sent to the hospital. Resident #13 had several falls in the past and as an intervention, a helmet was placed on the resident to prevent further injuries to his head. After returning from the hospital, Resident #13 came back from the hospital on [DATE], his head had swelling, and the helmet did not fit over his head until recently. ADON D said he was responsible to develop the acute care plans for the use of the helmet and he had not developed a care plan to address the care needed for the use of a helmet on Resident #13 or in his comprehensive care plans. ADON D said a care plan needed to be developed to address the use of a helmet on Resident #13 to instruct the staff on the placement of the helmet. Interview on 10/05/22 at 8:52 am with CNA E revealed they tried to monitor Resident #13 more often to help prevent falls. Staff was instructed to place the helmet on the resident when he was out of his bed to help prevent injuries on his head if he fell. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:00 am with CNA F revealed they placed the helmet on Resident #13 to help prevent injuries if he fell. Sometimes Resident #13 would refuse to wear the helmet. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:06 am with LVN G charge nurse for Resident #13 revealed Resident #13 had fallen in September 2022 and had sustained a laceration to his forehead. After this last fall, a helmet was used as an intervention to help prevent injuries to his head if he fell again. A care plan helped staff be informed of what kind of care had been developed for Resident #13. LVN G said she was not aware the use of a helmet as an intervention had not been care planned. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:24 am with LVN/MDS H revealed a helmet for Resident #13 was used as an intervention to prevent head injuries and should have been developed as an acute care plan by ADON D. Interview on 10/05/22 at 9:48 am with the DON revealed the helmet used on Resident #13 was used as an intervention to prevent injuries and should have been care planned to inform the staff of goals and interventions. 2) Record review of Resident #82's admission Record revealed Resident #82 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness of unspecified duration, Essential (Primary) Hypertension, Hypothyroidism, Vascular Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Delusional Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder. Record review of Resident #82's Physician's Orders did not include orders for the use of the helmet. Record review of facility's Incident/Accident Reports for June 2022 through October 2022 revealed Resident #82 had seven falls. Record review of Resident #82's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed: -had unclear speech, -was usually understood by others, -usually understood others, -was moderately cognitively impaired, -required limited assistance for transfers, locomotion, and toileting, ad -required extensive assistance for dressing, personal hygiene, and bed mobility. Record review of Resident #82's care plan dated 04/02/21 revealed the following: Problem: The resident is high risk for falls r/t (related to) history of falls. Intervention: -Anticipate and meet resident needs. -Be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. -Resident to wear helmet at all times when up to wheelchair and as tolerated. Observation on 10/03/22 at 11:48 a.m. revealed Resident #82 was not in his room during initial pool. Resident was observed wheeling himself up the hall. Resident was wearing a hard helmet on his head. A female CNA asked resident if he wanted to go to his room and resident agreed. The CNA assisted resident to his room, closed the door and then came out a few minutes later. Resident was lying in bed fully clothed with his shoes on and taking a nap. Observation on 0/04/22 at 9:17 a.m. revealed Resident #82 was lying in bed on his back fully covered. Resident was yelling Afuera! Salte, Afuera! No one was in the room with Resident #82. Resident #82 was in a low bed, bed against the wall, and a mat on the floor. Resident had a helmet on the nightstand. In an interview on 10/04/22 at 9:22 a.m., LVN I said Resident #82 was alert and oriented times two and would get up on his own. Resident #82 had several falls and had a history of seizures. Resident #82 would be cranky at times but was not aggressive. Resident #82 did not use the call light even though the CNAs would leave the call light within reach. They had the bed against the wall and a mat on the floor. Resident #82 was reminded to ask for assistance, but he would not ask. The staff would go in the room and find him coming out of the bathroom. In an interview on 10/04/22 at 09:28 a.m. Resident #82 said he remembered the fall on 09/13/22. Resident said he became dizzy and lost his balance. Resident said he did not have a fracture just some cuts on his face. Resident said he would wear the helmet when he was up out of bed. Resident #82 was difficult to understand because he did not speak clearly. In an interview on 10/04/22 at 9:47 a.m., CNA E said Resident #82 had had several falls. Resident #82 would get up on his own. Resident would use the helmet to prevent head injuries due to multiple falls. Resident #82 would go to the bathroom on his own, but staff would keep an eye on him, so they will go in to observe him in the bathroom to prevent falls. Resident used the wheelchair to get around, but he would get up go to the bathroom on his own. CNA E said she normally did not work on this hall but was filling in. In an interview on 10/04/22 at 2:12 p.m., CNA H said she worked with the maintenance department part time. CNA H said on 09/13/22 at around 1:00 p.m. she and a co-worker were in the last room on the 200 hundred hall providing care. They heard a noise, went out into the hall, and saw Resident #82 on the floor in front of the bathroom. CNA H called another CNA, and the charge nurse. Resident #82 told them he had gone to the bathroom and was walking out of the bathroom when he fell. The nurse assessed Resident #82, and he was able to answer them, so they assisted resident to the bed. CNA H said Resident #82 had bleeding on his face. Resident #82 tried to do things on his own because he believed he could be independent. Resident #82 will get up on his own without calling for assistance. In an interview on 10/05/2 at 2 10:18 a.m., LVN/MDS J said residents that were high risk for falls were screened for therapy. Depending on the fall, if they fell from the bed they will do a low bed, mat on the fall. If they fell from the w/c they will get a wheelchair that reclines. Resident #82 was given a helmet to prevent injuries to his head because he had a previous fall that caused injury to his head. The helmet does not need to have physician's orders because it is an intervention. In an interview on 10/06/22 09:23 AM, the DON said there were no set time that Resident #82 would experience the falls. Resident would not turn on his call light. Resident's daughter would come daily to visit with Resident and would spend most of the day with him. Resident would attend most activities. Resident #82 wore the helmet and would put it on himself, though, there were days when he refused to wear it and staff would have to encourage him to wear it. The DON said they did not need orders for the helmet because it was an intervention. The DON said they did not have a policy for physician's orders.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 61/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Edinburg's CMS Rating?

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

How is Edinburg Staffed?

CMS rates EDINBURG NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Edinburg?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at EDINBURG NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 18 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Edinburg?

EDINBURG NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by WELLSENTIAL HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in EDINBURG, Texas.

How Does Edinburg Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, EDINBURG NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Edinburg?

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

Is Edinburg Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Edinburg Stick Around?

EDINBURG NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 Edinburg Ever Fined?

EDINBURG NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $7,452 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Texas average of $33,153. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Edinburg on Any Federal Watch List?

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