EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB

983 N TEXAS STREET, EMORY, TX 75440 (903) 473-3752
Government - Hospital district 68 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
56/100
#228 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: August 2025

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

Overview

Emory Health and Rehab in Emory, Texas, has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and in the middle of the pack among facilities. It ranks #228 out of 1,168 in Texas, placing it in the top half, and is the only option in Rains County. The facility is showing improvement, reducing issues from 11 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 52%, which is around the Texas average. However, it does have good RN coverage, exceeding that of 86% of Texas facilities, which is beneficial for resident care. On the downside, there have been critical safety issues, including a resident suffering a second-degree burn from hot coffee due to inadequate safety measures. Additionally, there were concerns regarding food safety practices in the kitchen, including staff not wearing hair restraints and improper food storage, which could expose residents to foodborne illnesses. While there are strengths, such as good RN coverage, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
C
56/100
In Texas
#228/1168
Top 19%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$11,148 in fines. Higher than 72% of Texas facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 52%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $11,148

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jul 2024 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative and consult the physician imme...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative and consult the physician immediately when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status that is, a deterioration of health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to consult Resident #30's physician and notify the resident representative when Resident #30 refused to have a CMP (complete metabolic panel lab draw to provide information about the body's chemical balance) and a HBA1C (glycated hemoglobin test that measure the average amount of blood sugar) lab drawn on 05/09/24, 05/10/24, and 05/13/24. This failure could place residents' representative/physician at risk of not being aware of any changes in their conditions and could result in delay in treatment and decline in residents' health and well-being. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 06/28/2024 indicated, Resident #30 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included vascular dementia with other behavioral disturbance (a condition in which a person loses the ability to think, remember, learn and make decisions and solve problems), deep vein thrombosis (blood clot), hypertension (high blood pressure), and chronic pain. Record review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #30 was understood and was able to understand others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #30 had a BIMS score of 11, which indicated his cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #30 required partial/moderate assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. Record review of the physician orders dated July 2024, indicated Resident #30 had an order with a start date of 02/07/2024 for a CMP, HGBA1C every 3 months. Record review of the care plan dated 02/14/2024 indicated, Resident #30 had a history of stroke with interventions to give meds as ordered and monitor labs and report abnormal values to physician. Record review of Resident #30's medical record indicated no lab results for the May 2024 - July 2024. Record review of Resident #30's progress notes did not indicate Resident #30 had refused any labs from May 2024 - July 2024. The progress notes did not indicate Resident #30's representative or physician had been notified of Resident #30's lab refusals. During an interview on 07/09/2024 at 01:59 PM, the ADON said the facility failed to notify the family member and the physician of Resident #30's refusal of lab draws on 05/09/2024, 05/10/2024, and 05/13/2024 because she had not received any notification from the lab until today (07/09/2024) when surveyor inquired. The ADON said the resident's family and physician should have been notified of Resident #30's refusal to prevent any issues, delays in treatments and serve as coordination of care. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:24 PM, the DON said Resident #30's family and physician should have been notified regarding Resident #30's refusal of the lab draws when it happened. The DON said the family members and physician of Resident #30 should have been notified of the lab draw refusal because it was a change in condition, and they should have been made aware of new areas of concerns, orders, etc. The DON said it was the responsibility of the charge nurse to notify the family of any changes in condition of the residents. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:42 PM, the Administrator said she expected the residents' representatives and the physician to be notified of any changes in the resident's care. The Administrator said she expected the staff to document the notification of the family and the physician. The Administrator said Resident #30's family and physician should have been notified of the lab draw refusal because the residents' family could have communicated to Resident #30 and explained the needs of the lab draws being completed. The Administrator said the charge nurse was responsible for notifying the resident's representative and physician. Record review of the facility's policy Change in Resident's Condition or Status revised May 2017 indicated . Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her attending physician, and representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and or status .1. F. refusal of treatment or medication two or more consecutive times .Notify resident's responsible party . 3. Document in the medical chart who was notified and when.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and re...

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 ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 3 of 31 residents (Resident #17, and Resident #14 and Resident #1) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17's care plan indicated he smoked. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14's care plan indicated he wandered. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of the face sheet dated 06/28/2024 indicated, Resident #17 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat particles in the blood), history of stroke, benign prostatic hyperplasia (prostate gland enlargement resulting in difficulty with urination) and acquired absence of limb. Record review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated, Resident #17 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #17 had a BIMS of 10 and was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #17 was independent with toileting, supervision and touching assistance for lower body dressing, and putting on and taking off footwear, set up/clean-up assistance with bathing and with upper body dressing. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #17 used a wheelchair. Record review of the care plan dated on 03/16/2023 did not indicate Resident #17 used tobacco or smoked cigarettes. Record review of the Smoking Risk Assessment completed on 06/12/2024 indicated Resident #17 used cigarettes and was a safe smoker. During and observation and interview on 07/08/2024 at 11:18 AM., Resident #17 was smoking a cigarette during the scheduled smoke break. Resident #17 said he had smoked cigarettes for as long as he could recall. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 10:40 AM, the ADON said she was responsible for updating the care plans. The ADON said Resident #17's care plan should have reflected and included that he smoked. The ADON said it was important for his care plan to include that he smoked to make sure he was safe to smoke, and everyone knew that he smoked. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 11:02 AM, the DON said the ADON was responsible for updating the care plans. The DON said Resident #17's care plan should have reflected and included that he smoked. The DON said Resident #17's care plan should have included that he smoked. The DON said she did not know why it was not in his care plan. The DON said it was important to include in the care plan that Resident #17 so that staff knew if he was eligible to smoke or if he failed the smoking assessment or if he needed a assistance with smoking. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:42 PM, the Administrator said she expected the ADON to update and implement the care plans of the residents quarterly and yearly. The Administrator said Resident #17's should have had a care plan for smoking. The Administrator stated it was important for the care plan to be accurate to ensure all residents were provided with continuity of care. 2. Record review of the face sheet dated 06/28/2024 indicated, Resident #14 was an [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow making it difficult to breath), hypertension (high blood pressure), hypokalemia ((low potassium level in the blood). Record review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated, Resident #14 was usually understood by others and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #14 had a BIMS of 99 and was unable to complete the assessment. The MDS indicated Resident #14 was dependent with toileting, lower body dressing, and putting on and taking off footwear, bathing, and with upper body dressing. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #14 used a wheelchair. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 09/14/2023 indicated Resident #14 had no care plan for wandering. During an observation on 07/07/2024 at 08:20 AM., Resident #14 was observed wandering into another resident's room and drinking from a cup on the bedside table. During an observation on 07/07/2024 at 10:11 AM., Resident #14 was observed wandering on hall 1 and exit seeking. During an observation on 07/07/2024 at 11:18 AM., Resident #14 was observed wandering in the front lobby and exit seeking. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 10:40 AM, the ADON said she was responsible for updating the care plans. The ADON said Resident #14 wandered. The ADON said Resident #14's care plan should have reflected and included that he wandered and required redirection. The ADON said it was important for his care plan to include that he wandered to make sure he was safe. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 11:02 AM, the DON said the ADON was responsible for updating the care plans. The DON said Resident #14 should have been care planned for wandering and wandering not being care planned place the residents at risk for getting out and getting lost and with them going in other residents' rooms the other residents could get upset. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:42 PM, the Administrator said she expected the ADON to update and implement the care plans of the residents quarterly and yearly. The Administrator said Resident #14 should have had a care plan for wandering. The Administrator stated it was important for the care plan to be accurate to ensure all residents were provided with continuity of care as the care plan dictates the resident's care pathway. Record review of the comprehensive care plan last revised on 11/01/2023 indicated Resident #1 had no care plan for wound care to the left breast. Record review of Resident #1's order summary report with a date range of 11/01/2023 - 03/06/2024 indicated cleanse the non-pressure wound of the left breast with normal saline, pat dry, apply over the counter miconazole powder, cover with Calcium Alginate, and cover with border gauze every day, until healed every shift. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 11/01/2023 indicated left breast continues with a non-pressure wound related to cellulitis of the breast that has subsided. Wound measured as a cluster 9.5 x 6 x 0.3 cm with beefy red wound bed and a moderate amount of serious exudated . No improvements over the last 7 days. Continue calcium alginate and bordered gauze dressing daily. Record review of Resident #1's physician's wound evaluation management summary dated 11/08/2023 indicated non pressure wound of the left breast due to trauma/injury- full thickness. Wound size 10.5 x 5.5 x 0.2 cm, surface area of 57.76 cm, cluster wound open ulceration with moderate serous exudate. During an interview on 03/07/2024 at 01:00 PM, the MDS Coordinator stated she is responsible to update the care plans quarterly and yearly. The MDS Coordinator stated the ADONs, and DON were responsible for all other updates to the care plans. The MDS Coordinator stated it was important for the plan of care to accurately reflect the resident's needs for proper care. During an interview on 03/07/2024 at 01:32 PM, the DON stated the MDS Coordinator was responsible for ensuring everything for the resident's care was included in the care plans yearly and quarterly. The DON stated she was responsible for the updates for care plans. The DON stated Resident #1 should have had a care plan for wound care services being provided daily. The DON stated she did not know why it was not in the care plan. The DON stated it was important for Resident #1's wound care services to be included in her care plan because it is the map of providing care of the resident and resulted in continuity of care. Record review of the policy and procedure Comprehensive Assessment and the Care Delivery Process revised December 2016 indicated, a comprehensive, care planning and the care delivery process involve collecting and analyzing information, choosing and initiating interventions, and then monitoring result and adjusting interventions .person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet he resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, are provided by qualified persons, are culturally competent and trauma informed. 1. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident. 2. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. 8. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will: g. Incorporate identified problem areas, h. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems . Record review of the Care Plan and Care Area Assessments policy, revised on 05/06/2021, stated This identification and implementation of a plan of care will begin at admission with the initial care plan and be completed throughout assessment process for developing a comprehensive plan of care. The policy further indicated, Acute Care Plans o As acute problems or changes to intervention or goals are identified, an appropriate care plan will be developed or modified by a Nursing staff member. o CMMs are only responsible for care plans that relate to the MDS triggers at the time of assessment completion.
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 respiratory care was provided with professiona...

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 respiratory care was provided with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for respiratory care and services. The facility failed to properly store Resident #7's nebulizer (a drug delivery device used to administer medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs) mask while not in use. This failure could place residents who require respiratory care at risk for respiratory infections and exacerbation of respiratory distress. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #7's order summary report, dated for the month of July 2024, indicated Resident #7 was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), chronic pulmonary edema (excessive fluid in the lungs), essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and atrial fibrillation (irregular, often rapid heart rate). Record review of Resident #61's order summary report, dated for the month of July 2024, indicated Resident #7 received albuterol 0.083% 1 via nebulizer every 4 hours as needed for wheezing and change Nebulizer tubing weekly. Record review of Resident #7's admission MDS assessment, dated 06/04/2024, indicated Resident #7 understood others and made herself understood. The assessment indicated Resident #7 was moderately cognitive impaired with a BIMS score of 9. The assessment indicated Resident #71 did not reject care necessary to achieve the resident's goals for health or well-being. The MDS indicated Resident #7 required partial/moderate assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. Record review of Resident #7's care plan, with a revision date of 08/04/2022, indicated Resident #7 had an impaired respiratory status related to chronic pulmonary edema The care plan interventions included provide nebulizer therapy as ordered. During an observation and interview on 07/07/2024 at 10:05 a.m., Resident #7 was sitting in her bed. Resident #7 said she had not received a nebulizer treatment that she could recall. The nebulizer mask was laying on the table at bedside uncovered. During an observation on 07/08/2024 at 11:30 AM., Resident #7 was sitting in chair. The nebulizer mask was laying on the table at bedside uncovered. During an observation on 07/09/2024 at 3:43 PM., Resident #7 was asleep in bed. The nebulizer mask was laying on the table at bedside uncovered. During an observation, interview, and record review on 07/10/2024 at 2:06 PM., LVN D stated she was Resident #7's 6a-6p charge nurse, LVN A stated Resident #7 had an order for PRN nebulizer treatments. LVN D observed with the surveyor Resident #7's nebulizer mask on the bedside table not covered. LVN D stated Resident #7's nebulizer mask should be covered when not in use. LVN D stated she had not administered Resident #7 a breathing treatment this week on her shift . LVN D stated all nursing staff were responsible for ensuring infection control was provided for each resident. LVN D stated these failures could potentially put residents at risk for respiratory infection. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:24 PM, the DON said she expected Resident #7's nebulizer mask be stored in a bag when not in use. The DON stated the 10 PM to 6 AM charge nurses were responsible for changing out nebulizer mask and oxygen tubing every Wednesday night. The DON stated the charge nurses were responsible for monitoring to ensure respiratory equipment was returned to designed bag after each use. The DON stated, she was responsible for monitoring the charge nurses. The DON stated these failures could potentially cause a decrease in respiratory status. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:42 PM, the Administrator said she expected nebulizers stored in bags when not in use, tubing to be changed and dated per orders and filters to be placed on O2 concentrators. The Administrator stated this was monitored by the DON. The Administrator stated these failures put residents at risk for respiratory infection due to particles that could accumulate on the mask. Record review of the facility's Administering Medications through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer policy, revised October 2010, indicated, .29. When equipment is completely dry, store in a plastic bag with the resident's name and the date on it .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure correct installation, use and maintenance of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure correct installation, use and maintenance of bedrails for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #21) reviewed for bedrails. 1.The facility failed to assess Resident #s 21 for the risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation. 2. The facility failed to document the attempt of alternatives to meet Resident #21's needs. These failures could place residents at risk for entrapment with serious injury and even death. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 5/17/2024 indicated Resident #21 was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of end stage dementia. Record review of the Consolidated Physician's orders dated July 2024 indicated Resident #21 was not ordered a bedrail device. Record review of the Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #21 was rarely understood, and rarely understands others. The MDS indicated Resident #21's BIMS score was not determined due to his inability to understand. Section GG-Functional Abilities and Goals indicated Resident #21 was dependent on staff for rolling left and right, sit to lying, lying to sitting, sit to stand, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, and tub/shower transfers. The MDS in section P-Restraints indicated Resident #21 a bedrail restraint was not used. Record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan dated 3/20/2024 and updated on 6/25/2024 indicated Resident #21 required assistance with his ADLs. The care plan indicated Resident #21 required substantial assistance with sitting to lying, lying to sitting, sit to stand, chair to bed, and bed mobility. The interventions included Resident #21 would receive assistance with transfers, turning and repositioning, peri-care, daily hygiene, and meals. The comprehensive care plan indicated Resident #21 was transferred using a mechanical device. The goal of the care plan was Resident #21 would be out of the bed daily. The care plan interventions included staff to get resident #21 up out of bed daily and use two staff with the mechanical lift. The comprehensive care plan failed to address the use of a bedrail. Record review of a Side Rail assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #21 had a top left side rail available for use. The Side Rail Assessment indicated the side rail was used at all times. The Side Rail Assessment was not answered in the section does the side rail impede the resident's freedom. The Side Rail Assessment indicated the reason for the side rail use was the resident and responsible party requested. The Side Rail Assessment indicated clinical standards recommended side rails as an enabler. The Side Rail Assessment indicated the reason for the recommendation was to assist with transfers and bed mobility. The Side Rail Assessment in the section of medical symptom being treated was left blank. The Side Rail Assessment failed to indicate alternative measures implemented or considered prior to use of the side rail . The Side Rail Assessment was dated and signed by the ADON on 6/19/2024. During an observation on 7/07/2024 at 8:29 a.m., Resident #21 was lying on his left side in his bed facing the wall. Resident #21's bed had a half rail to the right side of his bed. Resident #21 was not able to be interviewed. During an observation on 7/08/2024 at 8:21 a.m., Resident #21 was lying in his bed facing the right side of his bed toward the half bed rail. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 9:29 a.m., CNA E said Resident #21 had stopped over the last month using his bedrail for bed mobility or transfers. CNA E said Resident #21 was much weaker and could not use his bed rail. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 1:35 p.m., LVN D said Resident #21 was unable to use a bed rail for bed mobility or transfers. LVN D said she expected the side rail assessment to accurately reflect the use of the side rail. LVN D said there was a risk Resident #21 could get injured from the use of a side rail since his inability to use the side rail over the last month. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:26 p.m., the ADON said Resident #21 had a recent decline over the last month and had become unable to use his side rail for bed mobility and transfers. The ADON said she had not performed another assessment since Resident #21's decline in condition for the use of the side rail but should have. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:42 p.m., the DON said Resident #21 used the side rail at one time for transfers and bed mobility but currently he was unable to use the side rail. The DON said the side rail assessment should be completed with the care plan. The DON said nursing was responsible for updating the assessment to accurately reflect the use of a side rail as an enabler. The DON said Resident #21 could be injured without an accurate assessment of the use of side rail. The DON said nurse managers were responsible for ensuring the side rail assessment was completed and completed accurately. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 3:35 p.m., the Administrator said she expected the side rail assessment to be updated with changes in condition, as a part of the care planning process. The Administrator said nursing was responsible for updating the side rail assessment. The Administrator said the side rail should be removed from Resident #21's bed to prevent any injuries. Record review of a Bed Safety policy dated December 2007 indicated the facility shall strive to provide a safe sleeping environment for the resident .2. To try to prevent deaths/injuries from the beds and related equipment (including the frame, mattress, side rails, headboard, foot board, and bed accessories), the facility shall promote the following approaches: .e. Identify additional safety measures for residents who have been identified as having a higher than usual risk for injury including entrapment (altered mental status, and restlessness). 5. If side rails are used, there shall be an interdisciplinary assessment of the resident, consultation with the attending physician, and input form the resident and/or legal representative. 8. Side rails may be used If assessment and consultation with the attending physician has determined that they are needed to help manage a medical symptom or condition or to help the resident reposition or move in bed and transfer, and no other reasonable alternative can be identified. 9. Before using the side rails for any reason, the staff shall inform he resident and family about the benefits and potential hazards associated with side rails.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0808 (Tag F0808)

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 received therapeutic diets that were ...

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 received therapeutic diets that were prescibed by the attending physician for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #28) reviewed for therapeutic diets. The facility did not ensure Resident #28 was given double protein portion as ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents at risk for poor intake, weight loss, unmet nutritional needs, and a loss of dignity. Findings Included: Record review of the face sheet, dated 05/17/2024, indicated Resident #28 was an [AGE] year-old male, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar) Record review of the physician orders dated 02/07/2024, indicated Resident #28 had an order, which started on 02/07/2024, extra portions of meat with meals. Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 02/20/2024, indicated Resident #28 usually made himself understood and rarely/never understood others. Resident #28 had short term/long term memory problems. Resident #28 had severely impaired decision-making skills. Resident #28 had no behaviors or refusal of care. Resident #28 did not have weight loss. Resident #28 was on a mechanically altered diet. Record review of the comprehensive care plan, dated 04/23/2024, indicated Resident #28 was on a pureed diet. The interventions included: serve diet as ordered and offer substituted if less than 50% was eaten, monitor intake, and supervision with meals. During an observation and record review on 07/07/2024 at 12:55 p.m., Resident #28 lunch meal ticket stated, extra meat portions. Resident #28 received a single serving of the entrée which was steak fingers. During an interview on 07/07/2024 at 12:57 p.m., the Dietary Manager was asked by the surveyor if Resident #28 entree was considered double. The Dietary Manager stated no and went back to the kitchen to request for another serving of protein. During an attempted interview on 07/07/2024 at 1:02 p.m. with Resident #28, indicated she was non-interview able. During an interview on 07/07/2024 at 1:10 p.m., RN A stated nurses were responsible for checking trays prior to giving them out to residents. RN A stated Resident #28 should have gotten double protein serving. RN A stated, it was her mistake that Resident #28 did not receive double protein serving. RN A stated this failure could put Resident #28 at risk for further weight loss. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 1:24 p.m., [NAME] C stated Resident #28 should have gotten two servings of steak fingers instead of one. [NAME] C stated she was nervous because the surveyor was present. [NAME] C stated it was the Dietary Manager and nursing staff responsibility to ensure the trays were correct before serving a resident. [NAME] C stated this failure could potentially put Resident #28 at risk for weight loss. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 1:46 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated Resident #28 should have gotten two servings of steak fingers. The Dietary Manager stated he expected physician orders to be followed. The Dietary Manager stated the cook, himself and the nursing staff were responsible for checking the trays prior to the residents served. The Dietary Manager stated ultimately the nursing department were responsible for ensuring the trays were correct before serving a resident. The Dietary Manager stated he was responsible for overseeing and monitoring by checking the trays in the dining and residents' room at least five days a week. The Dietary Manager stated if he caught a tray incorrect before leaving the kitchen, he would have the staff to redo the tray or noticed an issue while making rounds he will have the cook to redo the tray. The Dietary Manager stated staff were verbally in-serviced immediately. The Dietary Manager stated this failure could put residents at risk for weight loss. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 3:21 p.m., the Administrator stated she expected food trays to be checked and residents to receive the correct diet. The Administrator stated it was important for residents to receive the correct diet order to prevent weight loss. The Administrator stated the dietary was responsible for monitoring and overseeing. Record review of the facility's policy titled Food and Nutrition Services revised 10/2017 indicated each resident is provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident .7. Food and nutrition services staff will inspect food trays to ensure that the correct meal is provided to each resident .a. if an incorrect meal is provided to a resident . nursing staff will report it to the Food Service Manager so that a new food tray can be issued .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician, and others participating in the provision of care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 21) reviewed for hospice services. The facility failed to obtain Resident #21's most recent updated hospice plan of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #21's hospice plan of care accurately reflect his medication regimen. This deficient practice could place residents who receive hospice services at-risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to a lack of documentation, coordination of care and communication of resident needs. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 5/17/2024 indicated Resident #21 was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of end stage dementia. Record review of the Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #21 was rarely understood, and rarely understands others. The MDS indicated Resident #21's BIMS score was not determined due to his inability to understand. Section O-Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs was marked indicating Resident #21 received hospice care. Record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan dated 3/20/2024 and updated on 6/25/2024 indicated Resident #21 had been diagnosed with an end stage disease and had elected to have hospice services. The goal of the care plan indicated the facility would in accordance with the palliative care, implement measures to diminish the effects to the extent possible. The interventions of the care plan included to notify hospice of any significant changes in condition. Record review of the Hospice Comprehensive Assessment and Plan of Care Updated Report dated and printed on 5/13/2024 at 2:37 p.m., was the last Hospice Comprehensive Assessment and Plan of Care form in Resident #21's hospice medical record binder. The Hospice Comprehensive Assessment and Plan of Care indicated Resident #21 was started on hospice services on 3/11/2024 the diagnosis of senile degeneration of the brain (dementia). The Plan of Care indicated Resident #21's medication regimen included acetaminophen, bisacodyl suppository, hydrocodone, hyoscyamine, lorazepam, milk of magnesia, morphine, omeprazole, tamsulosin, and trazodone. The IDT Assessment and Plan of Care failed to reveal Resident #21's medication regimen included Zoloft, Alfuzosin, Zaditor, Robitussin, Zyrtec, Zofran, and Phenergan. Record review of the Consolidated Physician's Orders dated July 2024 indicated Resident #21 was ordered these medications but not indicated on the hospice plan of care: Zoloft 25 milligrams daily; Alfuzosin ER 10 milligrams twice daily; Zaditor eye drops one drop both eyes twice daily; Robitussin DM 2 teaspoons every 4 hours as needed for cough; Zyrtec 10 milligrams daily as needed for allergies; Zofran 4 milligrams one tablet every 4 hours as needed for nausea/vomiting; and Phenergan 25 milligrams one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for nausea/vomiting. During an interview on 7/08/2024 at 10:56 a.m., the hospice nurse said Resident #21's hospice binder should have been updated with the current plan of care to ensure the continuity of care and the coordination of care with the facility and Resident #21. The hospice nurse indicated she was responsible for ensuring Resident #21's care was coordinated with the facility and the binder should be updated with the most recent plan of care coordination. During a telephone interview on 7/10/2024 at 10:34 a.m., the hospice program manager said she expected Resident #21's hospice binder to be current with the most recent hospice plan of care. The hospice program manager said the medication regimens should match and accurately reflect the medications Resident #21 received. The hospice program manager said when the Plans of Care were not readily available and were not accurately reflective of Resident #21's care there could be a risk of the care coordination. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 1:35 p.m., LVN D said she was the nurse for Resident #21, and she expected the hospice records to be updated timely, and accurately. LVN D said when the hospice plan of care was not updated timely and accurately Resident #21 could receive care not desired or not according to his plan of care. LVN D said the hospice provider was responsible for ensuring the delivery of the hospice plan of care to ensure continuity of care. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:30 p.m., the ADON said she expected the hospice plan of care to be current and available. The ADON said she expected the medication regimen and the care plans to match and coordinate the care Resident #21 desired. The ADON said she had not been monitoring the timely coordination of care with Resident #21's hospice provider. The ADON said the nursing staff were responsible for ensuring the continuity of care. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:46 p.m., the DON said she expected the hospice plan of care to be provided to the facility timely and accurately to reflect and coordinate the care Resident #21 desired. The DON said she had not been monitoring the coordination of the care with Resident #21's hospice provider but would now implement monitoring. The DON said the nursing staff was responsible for the coordination of care with the hospice provider. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 3:43 p.m., the Administrator said she expected the hospice provider to provide the coordination of care with the nursing staff for Resident #21. The Administrator said the coordination of care was important to ensure the continuity of care for Resident #21. The Administrator said nurse managers were responsible for ensuring the coordination of care. Record review of the Palliative Care Program policy dated 2001 indicated the 1. Palliative care was to provide to all resident with persistent or recurring health conditions that adversely affect daily functions or reduce life expectancy 2. The palliative care plan was based on a comprehensive interdisciplinary assessment of the resident and family. 3. The palliative plan of care is based on the expressed values, goals, and needs of the resident and family. 9. Community resources are identified and utilized to ensure continuity of care throughout the illness trajectory. This includes establishing ongoing collaborative relationships with hospice and acute care providers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

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 promote antibiotic stewardship by ensuring the appropriate use of 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 promote antibiotic stewardship by ensuring the appropriate use of antibiotic therapy and providing written rationale, by the provider, when an antibiotic was used despite criteria, to determine the appropriate the use of an antibiotic for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for antibiotic use. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had documented appropriate lab work and diagnoses to support the use of prescribed antibiotics. This failure could place residents receiving antibiotics at risk for unnecessary antibiotic use, inappropriate antibiotic use, and increased antibiotic-resistant infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 06/28/2024, indicated Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old female, readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included multiple sclerosis (chronic, progressive disease involving damage to the sheaths of nerves cells in the brain and spinal cord causing numbness, impairment of speech, and of muscular coordination, blurred vison and sever fatigue). Record review of Resident #1's annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 usually understood others, and usually sometimes made herself understood. Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 9, which indicated her cognition was moderately impaired. The assessment did not address Resident #1's current antibiotic use. Record review of Resident #1's care plan, reviewed on 02/21/2024, indicated Resident #1 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The care plan interventions included, monitor for s/sx incontinent, provide peri care as indicated and report to physician or representative any complications. Record review of a progress note dated 06/05/2024 completed by the Medical Director indicated Resident #1 c/o burning with urination while making rounds. Record review of a progress note dated 06/05/2024 completed by LVN D indicated a new order was received from the Medical Director for Macrobid (antibiotic) 100 mg po twice a day x 7 days for UTI. Record review of the MAR dated 06/01/2024-06/30/2024, revealed Resident #1 received Macrobid on 06/05/2024, 06/06/2024, 06/07/2024, 06/08/2024, 06/09/2024, 06/10/2024 and 06/11/2024. Record review of a progress note dated 07/05/2024 completed by ADON indicated a new order was received from the Medical Director for Augmentin 875 mg po twice a day x 7 days for UTI. Record review of the MAR dated 07/01/2024-07/31/2024, revealed Resident #1 received Augmentin on 07/05/2024, 07/06/2024, 07/07/2024, 07/08/2024, and 07/09/2024. An attempted telephone interview on 07/09/2024 at 11:28 AM with the Medical Director, was unsuccessful. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:08 p.m., the ADON stated her, and the DON were the Infection Control Preventionist for the facility. The ADON stated the process for antibiotic stewardship included the nurse that received the order must complete an infection report and initiate the antibiotic. The ADON stated her, or the DON would review the infection report and complete a facility map and color coordinating infection categories. The ADON stated there was no tool to determine whether an infection met criteria for starting an antibiotic. The ADON stated Resident #1 was given an antibiotic on 07/05/2024 due to increase anxiety and different behaviors. The ADON stated a urine specimen was not collected on 06/05/2024 or 07/05/2024. The ADON stated it was important to ensure residents meet the criteria so the resident would not get resistant to antibiotics. The ADON stated this failure put residents at risk for a multi drug resistant organism. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:33 p.m., the DON stated her and the ADON were the Infection Control Preventionist. The DON stated ultimately, she was responsible for tracking and trending infections. The DON stated by monitored by reviewing the infection report and nurses notes daily. The DON stated if a lab or x -ray was done she would also review them. The DON stated there was no tool to determine whether an infection met criteria for starting an antibiotic. The DON stated a urine specimen/culture was not collected for Resident #1 on 06/05/2024 nor 07/05/2024. The DON stated it was important to ensure residents meet the criteria so they would not become resistant to antibiotic or put them at risk for multi drug resistant. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 3:21 p.m., the Administrator stated the Infection Control Preventionist was responsible for monitoring and overseeing the infection control program. The Administrator stated this failure could potentially put residents at risk for a multi drug resistant organism. Record review of the facility's policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program, dated 11/2017, indicated, the facility has a formal antibiotic stewardship program to optimize the treatment of infections, reduce the risk of adverse events including the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms and employs a facility-wide system to monitor the appropriate use of antibiotics .2. A set of commitments and actions designed to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated with antibiotic use. This can be accomplished through improving antibiotic prescribing, administration and management practices, thus reducing inappropriate use to ensure that residents recue the right antibiotic for the right indication dose and duration .
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

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 a safe, clean, and comfortable homelike envir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable homelike environment for 4 of 4 resident's (Resident #'s 4, 17, 25, and 34) reviewed for a homelike environment. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25's wall behind her bed was free from deep gouges into the sheetrock measuring 4 inch wide and 2 feet long. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17's and Resident #34's bed linens were changed. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34 had hot water available in the bathroom. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34 had a toilet seat that was free from peeling paint. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34's toilet was flushing properly. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's hot water in the bathroom sink was not running continuously, and Resident #4 had cold water available. These failures could place residents at risk for an uncomfortable, unhomelike environment, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 5/17/2024 indicated Resident #25 was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes and high blood pressure. Record review of the Annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #25 was usually understood, and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #25's decision making capacities were severely impaired, and she had a memory problem. The MDS failed to indicate Resident #25's BIMS score. During an observation on 7/07/2024 at 8:57 a.m., Resident #25 was lying in her bed awake, she was facing the wall. Resident #25's wall directly behind her bed had deep gouges down to the sheetrock measuring 3 inches wide and 2 feet in length behind her bed. Resident #25 was unable to be interviewed regarding the wall damage due to her cognitive state. During an observation and interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:29 p.m., the maintenance supervisor said when he observed the deep gouges in Resident #25's wall said he had not focused on resident rooms for maintenance problems, but relied on the nursing staff to inform him of the repair needs in specific resident rooms. The maintenance supervisor said not having a homelike environment could be a dignity issue. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:44 p.m., the DON said resident rooms should be repaired, and maintained repaired. The DON said this was the resident's rooms and should be nice and homelike. The DON said the maintenance supervisor was responsible for repair of resident rooms. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 3:41 p.m., the Administrator said she expected the maintenance supervisor to make rounds in the resident rooms monitoring for repairs, she expected empty rooms to be repaired prior to another resident occupying the rooms, and she expected all other staff to use the maintenance repair book to log needed repairs when they were found. The Administrator said she had made rounds in the facility but had not seen the gouges in Resident #25's wall. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 06/28/2024 indicated, Resident #17 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat particles in the blood), history of stroke, benign prostatic hyperplasia (prostate gland enlargement resulting in difficulty with urination) and acquired absence of limb. Record review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated, Resident #17 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #17 had a BIMS of 10 and was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #17 was independent with toileting, supervision and required touching assistance for lower body dressing, and putting on and taking off footwear. Resident #17 required set up/clean-up assistance with bathing and with upper body dressing. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #1 used a wheelchair. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 05/19/2023 indicated, Resident #17 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit. The care plan indicated interventions included Resident #17 required assistance with showering, dress according to climate, assist with daily hygiene, provide peri care as indicated. During an observation and interview on 07/07/2024 at 10:30 AM, Resident #17 said the linens on his bed had not been changed in two weeks. The linens had dirty yellow and orange stains on them, and the pillowcase was light brownish tinged. There were two large pinkish stains on the bottom half of the top linen. There was a musty odor in the room. Resident #17 said he should not have to ask the CNAs to change his linens they should be doing this as scheduled. During an observation on 07/08/2024 at 11:14 AM, Resident's #17 linens had dirty yellow and orange stains on them, and the pillowcase was light brownish tinged. There were two large pinkish stains on the bottom half of the top linen. There was a musty odor in the room. During an observation on 07/09/2024 at 01:30 PM, Resident's #17 linens had dirty yellow and orange stains on them, and the pillowcase was light brownish tinged. There were two large pinkish stains on the bottom half of the top linen. There was a musty odor in the room. 3. Record review of the face sheet dated 06/28/2024 indicated, Resident #34 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute kidney failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), deep vein embolism (blood clot), diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood. Record review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated, Resident #34 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #34 had a BIMS of 12 and was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #34 was independent with toileting, upper and lower body dressing, and putting on and taking off footwear, and he required set up/clean-up assistance with bathing. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #34 used a wheelchair. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 11/16/23 indicated, Resident #34 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit. The care plan indicated interventions included Resident #34 required assistance with showering, dress according to climate, assist with daily hygiene, provide peri care as indicated. During an observation and interview on 07/07/2024 at 10:40 AM, Resident #34 said his bed linens had not been changed in two weeks. Resident #34's linens had dirty brownish stains on the top portion, and the pillowcase had a light browning tinge to it. There was a strong urine smell in Resident #34's bathroom. There was dark yellow/orange colored water in the toilet. Resident #34's toilet seat lid had multiple areas that were peeling and multiple chipped paint areas which revealed the brown wood underneath it. Resident #34 said the toilet was hard to flush. He said he had to hold the handle down a long time to make it flush. Resident #34 said it always smelled like urine in his bathroom. An observation was made, and there was no hot water in Resident #34's bathroom sink (temperature of Resident #34's hot water was tested at 72 degrees), the sink would not drain the water timely, and the toilet was not flushing properly (urine remained in the toilet after flushed). Resident #34 said the toilet had not flushed and the sink had not drained for several months. Resident #34 said he told the Administrator a month or so ago about the clogged sink, not having hot water, and the bed linens not being changed. Resident #34 said the maintenance man had come in a few times and worked on the sink, but the water never got hot, the sink never drained right, and the toilet never flushed all the way. Resident #34 said the facility was his home, but it did not feel like a home when they did not have clean beds or a working bathroom. During an observation and interview on 07/08/2024 at 11:26 AM, Resident #34 said the bed linens did not get changed last night after he got a shower. Resident #34's sheets had dirty brownish stains on the top portion, and the pillowcase had a light browning tinge to it. Resident #34's toilet had light yellow water in the toilet bowl with a urine smell. There was no hot water in Resident # 34's bathroom sink. There was 1-2 inches of standing water in Resident #34's sink. During an observation on 07/09/2024 at 01:32 PM, Resident #34's sheets had dirty brownish stains on the top portion, and the pillowcase had a light browning tinge to it. There was no hot water in Resident # 34's bathroom sink. The sink would not drain the water timely and water was staying in the sink about 2 inches up. During an observation and interview on 07/09/2024 at 02:08 PM, the Maintenance Supervisor said he had not noticed the peeling and chipped paint on the toilet seat because the toilet lid was always closed when he was in Resident #34's bathroom. The Maintenance Supervisor stated he had unclogged Resident #34's sink before, but he was not aware of Resident #34 not having hot water. The Maintenance Supervisor took the temperature of Resident #34's bathroom sink water and it was 72 degrees Fahrenheit. The Maintenance Supervisor said the water temperature should be between 98-110 degrees Fahrenheit within 3 seconds. The Maintenance Supervisor said Resident #17 and Resident #34 should have a sink with hot water, a toilet that flushed, and a sink that would drain timely. The Maintenance Supervisor said it was important for the residents to have hot water for proper handwashing and to decrease the chances of spreading contaminants. The Maintenance Supervisor said the residents should have a working bathroom so that it feels like their own home. 4. Record review of the face sheet dated 06/28/2024 indicated, Resident #4 was an [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia ( a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), atrial fibrillation(an irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow), congestive heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump as well as it should), hyperlipidemia (abnormally high concentration of fats in the blood). Record review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated, Resident #4 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #4 had a BIMS of 12 and was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #4 was independent with toileting, upper and lower body dressing, putting on and taking off footwear, and with bathing. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #4 did not use a wheelchair. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 11/22/23 indicated, Resident #4 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit. The care plan indicated interventions included Resident #4 required assistance with showering, dress according to climate, assist with daily hygiene, provide peri care as indicated. During an interview and observation on 07/07/2024 at 09:42 AM, Resident #4 said the hot water in his bathroom ran continuously. Resident #4 said he told the Maintenance Supervisor in May of 2024 about the running water. Resident #4 said he had complained about the running water in the Resident Council Meeting during the month of May 2024. Resident #4 said the Maintenance Supervisor told him he was busy painting the outside of the building but would fix the faucet once he finished painting. Resident #4 said it was aggravating that the water ran all the time because he worried about it since it was such a heavy stream of water flowing. An observation was made of the water faucet in Resident #4's bathroom running warm water at a continuous flow. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 02:02 PM, CNA F said she was not he assigned CNA for resident #4. However, she said the CNAs were responsible for giving the residents their showers and for ensuring the bed linens were changed after showers/baths. CNA F said there was a shower schedule posted at the nurse's station to let the CNAs know who needed a shower on what day and shift and that included linen changes. CNA F said it was important for residents to receive their showers and have clean bedding to maintain the resident's cleanliness. CNA F said if a resident refused, or linens were not changed for a resident she reported to her charge nurse. CNA F said it was the charge nurse's responsibility to follow up on refusals or if linens were not changed after it was communicated to them by the CNAs. During an attempted phone interview on 07/10/2024 at 09:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 01:40 PM, Aide L. assigned to resident #4, was unable to be reached. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 02:14 PM, LVN D said the CNA should report when a resident's linens were not changed to the charge nurse. LVN D said it was the charge nurse's responsibility to follow up on refusals or linens that were not changed after communicated by the CNAs. LVN D said the charge nurse should verify the shower sheets daily to ensure all showers were documented by the CNAs. LVN D said she expected the residents to receive their scheduled showers and linen changes to prevent infections, maintain skin integrity, and maintain hygiene. LVN D said there was a shower schedule and required linen changes posted at the nurse's station to let the CNAs know who needed a shower/linen change on what day and shift . LVN D said no staff reported a refusal of showering/bathing or linen changes to her. LVN D said ultimately if showers and bathing were not completed, she notified the ADON or DON. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:24 PM, the DON said it was the CNAs responsibility to give the residents their showers and change the residents' linens at the time of their showers. The DON said there was a shower list that identified what resident received a shower/linen change on which day and shift. The DON said the CNAs performed showers and linen changes on the residents, but any of the nursing staff could and should perform showers and linen changes when needed. The DON said she expected the CNAs to communicate with the charge nurses daily to ensure the residents' needs were met. The DON expected the shower sheets to be completed by the CNAs daily, and for them to turn the shower sheets into the shower logbook daily. The DON said she expected the charge nurses to verify the showers/linen changes were completed by the CNAs daily by checking the shower logbook. The DON said if a resident refused, she expected staff to try again a couple times or send a different staff member to ask the resident. The DON said if a resident continued to refuse, she expected staff to report the refusal to the family and document the refusal. The DON said she was responsible for monitoring that the residents were bathed/showered, and that linens were changed appropriately according to the resident's plan of care. The DON said she expected the Maintenance Supervisor to inspect and fix the resident's rooms to promote a homelike environment. The DON said the importance of the residents receiving their scheduled showers and linen changes was to maintain dignity, hygiene, skin integrity, skin inspections and prevent skin infections. During an interview 07/10/2024 at 02:42 PM, the Administrator said she expected baths/showers/linen changes as scheduled or as requested by the resident. The Administrator said clinical staff were responsible for making sure the baths/showers/linen changes were provided for the residents. The Administrator said if the residents refused ADL care, the staff educated the residents. The Administrator said if a resident refused, she expected staff to try again a couple of times or send a different staff member to ask the resident. The Administrator said if a resident continued to refuse, she expected staff to report the refusal to the family and document the refusal. The Administrator said it was important for the residents to receive baths/showers/linen changes for hygiene purposes, to make the residents feel good, for infection control, and for their dignity. The Administrator said she expected the Maintenance Supervisor to maintain the building with working faucets and toilets and have access to hot and cold water at all times. The Administrator said it was the responsibility of all staff to take notice and report when there was a resident's room that required attention, so the resident had a homelike environment that promoted dignity and a healthy wellbeing. Record review of the Resident Council Meeting dated 05/24/2024 indicated a complaint of Resident #4's concerns regarding the leaking bathroom faucet. Record review of the Maintenance Logbook for 2024 did not indicate any repairs were needed for Resident #4's, Resident #17's, Resident #34's rooms. Record review of facility policy and procedure titled, Homelike Environment revised on February 2021, indicated . Residents are provided with a safe, clean comfortable and homelike environment and encouraged to use their personal belongings to the extent possible .a. clean, sanitary and orderly environment; .e. clean bed and bath linens that are in good condition .
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #'s 140 and 17) reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #140's face was free from facial hair. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17 received routine scheduled showers. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving services/care and a decreased quality of life. 1) Record review of a face sheet dated 6/10/2024 indicated Resident #140 was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of profound intellectual disabilities (the inability to live alone, and care for themselves). Record review of the admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #140 was rarely/never understood, and rarely/never understood others. The MDS indicated the BIMS assessment was not conducted. The MDS indicated Resident #140 had severely impaired daily decision-making cognitive skills. The MDS indicated Resident #140 had not displayed any rejection of care in Section E-Behavior. The MDS indicated Resident #140 was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. Record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan dated 6/19/2024 indicated Resident #140 required assistance with ADL's. The care plan goal was Resident #140 would maintain a sense of dignity by being clean, dry, odor free, well groomed, and dressed appropriately. The intervention of the care plan for Resident #140 was to assist with daily hygiene needs. Record review of the Daily CNA Shower Report Sheet for Monday-Wednesday-Friday indicated Resident #140 was to be routinely showered, shaved, provided hair and nail care. The Daily CNA Shower Report Sheet indicated: 6/12/2024: shower was provided, shaving, hair, and nails not completed. 6/14/2024: no shower sheet was provided. 6/17/2024: shower was provided, shaving, hair, and nails not completed. 6/19/2024: shower was provided, shaving, hair, and nails not completed. 6/21/2024: shower was provided, shaving, hair, and nails not completed. 6/24/2024: shower was provided, shaving, hair, and nails not completed. 6/26/2024: shower was provided, shaving, hair, and nails not completed. 6/28/2024: no shower sheet was provided. 7/03/2024: shower was provided, shaving, hair, and nails not completed. 7/05/2024: no shower sheet was provided. 7/08/2024: Shower, hair and nails was completed but not shaved . Record review of the CNA Flowsheet dated June 2024 indicated in the section of Shower on scheduled days there were no documented times Resident #140 was showered. The section of daily nail care indicated Resident #140 received nail care on June 10th, 11th, and 13th for the month of June. The CNA Flowsheet failed to have an entry for shaving. Record review of the ADL sheets dated July 2024 indicated Resident #140's shaving daily as needed was blank for July 1-7. The ADL sheets indicated Resident #140 received a shower on 7/02/2024. During an observation on 7/07/2024 at 9:31 a.m., Resident #140 was sitting in her reclining chair. She openeds her eyes when you touched her but she did has not have a verbal response. Resident #140 had facial hair ¼ inches long to her upper lip and her chin area. During an observation on 7/07/2024 at 1:10 p.m., Resident #140 continues to have facial hair ¼ inches long to her upper lip and her chin. Resident #140 appeared s to have dandruff (flaking white scalp material) to her scalp. During an observation on 7/08/2024 at 8:34 a.m., Resident #140 continues to have facial hair ¼ inches long to her upper lip and chin. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 1:21 p.m., CNA E said she provided care to Resident #140. CNA E said she was responsible for shaving residents of undesired facial hair. CNA E said the facial hair should be removed on shower days especially but any other day as well. CNA E said she thought a woman having facial hair was a preference . CNA E said she would not want to have facial hair, appearing to be a mustache. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 1:35 p.m., LVN D said she expected residents to be free from undesired facial hair. LVN D said Resident #140 was showered by her on 7/08/2024 but she failed to shave Resident #140. LVN D said she would not want to have facial hair and having facial hair would not make her feel like a woman. LVN D said the CNAs were responsible for the ADLs and the nurses were responsible for monitoring. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:26 p.m., the ADON said the CNAs were responsible for the provision of ADLs including shaving. The ADON said the nurses were responsible for monitoring the provision of ADLs. The ADON said facial hair should be removed if not desired. The ADON said Resident #140 should have been shaved to remove the facial hair. The ADON said not maintaining ADLs could be a dignity issue. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:42 p.m., the DON said she expected the residents male or female to have undesired facial hair removed. The DON said the nursing staff were responsible for ensuring the ADLs were completed according to the schedule. The DON said she believed the system for the provision of ADLs was being monitored . The DON said not having facial hair removed when desired could be a dignity issue. The DON said monitored the bath sheets and made walking rounds to monitor ADLs. During an interview on 7/10/2024 at 3:33 p.m., the Administrator said the nursing staff should clarify with Resident #140's family member their desired outcomes as it related to shaving of facial hair. The Administrator said not shaving undesired facial hair could be a dignity issue. 2. Record review of the face sheet dated 06/28/2024 indicated, Resident #17 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat particles in the blood), history of stroke, benign prostatic hyperplasia (prostate gland enlargement resulting in difficulty with urination) and acquired absence of limb. Record review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated, Resident #17 was understood by others and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #17 had a BIMS of 10 and was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #17 was independent with toileting, supervision and touching assistance for lower body dressing, and putting on and taking off footwear, set up/clean-up assistance with bathing and with upper body dressing. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #17 used a wheelchair. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 05/19/2023 indicated, Resident #17 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit. The care plan indicated interventions included Resident #17 required showering, dress according to climate, assist with daily hygiene, provide peri care as indicated. Record Review of the Daily CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) Shower Report Sheet dated 06/01/2024 indicated Resident #17 was scheduled for showers 3 times weekly. Record review of the Daily CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) Shower Report Sheets dated 06/01/24, 06/04/2024, 06/11/2024, 06/15/2024, 06/18/2024, 06/20/24, 06/27/2024, 07/06/2024 indicated Resident #17 had not received a shower. Record review of the nursing notes dated 06/01/2024 through 07/06/2024 showed no refusals of showering/bathing. During an interview and observation on 07/07/2024 at 10:30 AM, Resident #17 said he had not received a shower in two weeks. Resident #17 said that he was supposed to receive a shower three times weekly on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Resident #17 said he had not refused to shower, but a shower had not been offered. Resident #17 said he could not recall the exact date of his last shower, but it was at least two weeks. Resident #17 said he should not need to ask for help with a shower because the staff was aware of the shower schedule. Resident #17 said it was degrading and he felt disrespected when his shower was not offered. Resident #17 was observed with oily hair and a strong musty odor lingered in the room. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 02:02 PM, CNA F said the CNAs were responsible for giving the residents their showers. CNA F said there was a shower schedule posted at the nurse's station to let the CNAs know who needed a shower on what day and shift. CNA F said it was important for residents to receive their showers so staff could observe their skin and to maintain the resident's cleanliness. CNA F said if a Resident refused, or a shower/bath was not given to a resident she reported to her charge nurse. CNA F said it was the charge nurse's responsibility to follow up on refusals or baths that were not completed after communicated by the CNAs. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 02:14 PM, LVN D said the CNA should report when a resident was not showered/bathed to the charge nurse. LVN D said it was the charge nurse's responsibility to follow up on refusals or baths not completed after communicated by the CNAs. LVN D said she expected the residents to receive their scheduled showers to prevent infections, maintain skin integrity, and maintain hygiene. LVN D said there was a shower schedule posted at the nurse's station to let the CNAs know who needed a shower on what day and shift. LVN D said no staff reported a refusal of showering/bathing to her. LVN D said ultimately if showers and bathing were un-resolved, she notified the ADON or DON. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:24 PM, the DON said it was the CNAs responsibility to give the residents their showers. The DON said there was a shower list that identified what resident received a shower on which day and shift. The DON said the CNAs performed showers on the residents, but any of the nursing staff could and should perform showers when needed. During an interview on The DON said she expected the CNAs to communicate with the charge nurses daily to ensure resident's needs met. The DON expected the shower sheets to be completed by the CNAs and turned into the shower logbook daily. The DON said she expected the charge nurses to verify the showers given by the CNAs daily by checking the shower logbook. The DON said if a resident refused, she expected staff to try again a couple times or send a different staff member to ask the resident. The DON said if a resident continued to refuse, she expected staff to report the refusal to the family and document the refusal. The DON said she was responsible to ensure the oversight of resident 's bathed and showered appropriately according to the resident's Plan of Care. The DON said the importance of the residents receiving their scheduled showers was to maintain dignity, hygiene, skin integrity, skin inspections and prevent skin infections. During an interview 07/10/2024 at 02:42 PM, the Administrator said she expected baths/showers as scheduled or as requested by the resident. The Administrator said clinical staff were responsible for making sure the baths/showers were provided for the residents. The Administrator said if the residents refused ADL care, the staff educated the residents. The Administrator said if a resident refused, she expected staff to try again a couple times or send a different staff member to ask the resident. The DON said if a resident continued to refuse, she expected staff to report the refusal to the family and document the refusal. The Administrator said it was important for the residents to receive baths/showers for hygiene purposes and to make the residents feel good, infection control and dignity. Record review of the Shaving the Resident policy and procedure dated February 2018 indicated the purpose of the procedure was to promote cleanliness and to provide skin care. Preparations: 1. Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. Documentation: 1. The date and time that the procedure was performed 5. If the resident refused thee treatment, the reasons why and the interventions taken. Reporting: 1. Notify the supervisor if the resident refuses the procedure. Record review of facility policy and procedure titled, Bath, Shower/Tub with a revised date of February 2018 indicated, The purposes for this procedure are to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin .Documentation - 1. The date and time the shower/tub bath was performed .Documentation - of the resident refused the shower/tub bath, reason .Reporting - notify the supervisor if the resident refuses the shower/tub bath
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 7 staff (Laundry Aides G, H, and K) reviewed for infection control practices on 2 of 4 halls ( halls 1 and 2). The facility failed to ensure that Laundry Aides G , H, and K covered the laundry cart while delivering the resident's clothing. This failure could place residents and staff at risk for cross-contamination and the spread of infection. Findings included: During an observation on 07/07/2024 at 8:17 AM., Laundry Aide K was observed in hall 2 pushing an uncovered laundry cart with clean clothes exposed. During an observation on 07/08/20244 at 9:20 AM., Laundry Aide K was observed in hall 1 pushing an uncovered laundry cart with clean clothes exposed. During an observation on 07/09/2024 at 10:00 AM, Laundry Aide H was observed in hall 2 pushing an uncovered laundry cart with clean clothes exposed. During an interview on 07/09/2024 at 4:07 PM, Laundry Aide G said the laundry cart should remain covered while transporting the residents' clean linens from the outside laundry facility to the inside of the facility. Laundry Aide G said the laundry cart could be uncovered while inside the facility delivering to residents. Laundry Aide G said the purpose of the covered laundry cart was to prevent contaminants from getting on the residents' clothing and linens. Laundry Aide G said she was educated at hire and in-serviced a month or so ago regarding transporting laundry. Laundry Aide G said soiled laundry should always be covered and clean laundry did not have to be covered inside the facility. During an attempted phone interview on 07/10/202 at 01:00 PM, Laundry Aide K was unable to be reached. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:10 PM, Laundry Aide H said until the in-service on today's date (07/10/24), he thought the laundry cart should remain covered while transporting the residents' clean linens from the outside laundry facility to the inside of the facility and did not have to remain covered while delivering inside the building. Laundry Aide H said he was told on today's date that the laundry cart should remain covered at all times to prevent cross contamination by sneezing or residents touching the clothing while delivered to the residents. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 1:34 PM, the Maintenance Supervisor said he was responsible for the laundry staff. The Maintenance Supervisor said he had educated the laundry aides and expected the staff to keep the clean laundry covered while it was transported from the laundry building outside. The Maintenance Supervisor said the laundry cart with clean clothing should be covered while clothing was delivered to the residents to prevent cross contamination. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 2:42 PM, the Administrator said she expected the Maintenance Supervisor to provide oversight and education to the laundry staff on proper transport of clean and soiled linen. The Administrator said she was responsible to ensure the Maintenance Supervisor was doing his responsibilities. The Administrator said she expected the staff to keep the clean laundry covered while it was transported from the laundry building outside. The Administrator said she expected the staff to cover the laundry cart of clean clothing while clothing was delivered to the residents to prevent cross contamination. Record Review of in-service titled Infection Control and Laundry Services dated May 2024 indicated Laundry Aides G, H, and K had been in serviced. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control Policy and Procedure Manual, revised in October 2018, indicated, . Laundry and bedding shall be handled, transported and processed according to best practices for infection prevention and control Items being transported should remain covered .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only k...

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 safety in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Food items were labeled and dated. 2. Hair restraints worn. 3. The microwave was clean and free of food debris. 4. The toaster was clean and free of food debris. 5. Expired food item was discarded. 6. Refrigerator/Freezer log was kept up to date. 7. Personal drinks were kept out of facility refrigerator. These failures could place residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: During an observation and interview on 07/07/2024 at 8:00 a.m., [NAME] C was in the kitchen without wearing a hair restraint. [NAME] C stated the one she had on her head had ripped. [NAME] C stated she was going to get another one but got sidetracked. [NAME] C stated it was important to wear a hairnet while in the kitchen to prevent food contamination. During the initial tour observation and interview with the [NAME] C on 07/07/2024 between 8:21 a.m. and 8:50 a.m., the following was revealed: 1. Plastic storage bag that was identified by the Dietary Aide B as sliced turkey ham undated and unlabeled. 2. Plastic bottle labeled Ice Pop Prime Hydration drink noted in refrigerator. [NAME] C stated the drink belonged to her. [NAME] C stated she put the drink in the fridge to get cold. 3. Large serving pan labeled chicken dated 07/03/2024. [NAME] C stated the chicken should be discarded after 4 days. 4. [NAME] storage bin that was identified by Dietary Aide B as onions undated and unlabeled. 5. Toaster with food particles noted. 6. Microwave with several brown substance noted. 7. Refrigerator/Freezer temperature log was missing temperatures on 07/05/2024, 07/06/2024, 07/07/2024. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 1:16 p.m., Dietary Aide B stated all kitchen staff were responsible for labeling and dating food products. Dietary Aide B stated the cook was responsible for discarding the chicken after 3 days, cleaning the toaster/microwave and logging the temperature on every shift. Dietary Aide B stated personal drinks should go in the breakroom fridge. Dietary Aide B stated these failures could put residents at risk for food borne illness and contamination. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 1:24 p.m., [NAME] C stated whoever took the food products out the original package should have labeled and dated the item. [NAME] C stated she thought food should be discarded after 4 days until the Dietary Manager in-serviced her. [NAME] C stated the cooks were responsible for cleaning the toaster and microwave daily and as needed. [NAME] C stated the cooks were responsible for logging the refrigerator/freezer temperature right after breakfast. [NAME] C stated she should have put her personal drink in the back closet or in the staff breakroom. [NAME] C stated these failures could cause foodborne illness and contamination. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 1:46 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated cleanliness was important in the kitchen, so her staff are not spreading germs or contaminating anything. The Dietary Manager stated she was responsible for making sure the kitchen was cleaned appropriately. The Dietary Manager stated all food should be labeled with date received and the date it was opened. The Dietary Manager stated personal drinks should be kept in the staff refrigerator. The Dietary Manager stated that chicken that was in the serving pan should have been discarded after 3 days. The Dietary Manager stated cooks were responsible for cleaning the toaster and microwave daily and as needed. The Dietary Manager stated the refrigerator/freezer log should have been completed as soon as the cook got there in the morning and at the end of night shift. The Dietary Manager stated hairnets should be worn while in the kitchen. The Dietary Manager stated he was responsible for monitoring and overseeing by daily walk throughs and when there was an issue staff were verbally in serviced immediately. The Dietary Manager stated if the issues continued to happen a full in serviced was done by conducting a meeting with all kitchen staff. The Dietary Manager stated these failures could potentially put residents at risk for cross contamination, foreign debris getting into food and food borne illness. During an interview on 07/10/2024 at 3:21 p.m., the Administrator stated she expected the kitchen to be clean and staff preventing cross contamination. The Administrator stated she expected all food to be labeled and dated. The Administrator stated she expected food to be discarded after day 3, microwave/toaster cleaned after each use and hairnets always worn. The Administrator stated the refrigerator/freezer log should be completed first thing in the morning and at the end of night shift. The Administrator stated she did walk throughs Monday-Friday and if she noticed an issue, it was addressed immediately. The Administrator stated the Dietary Manager was responsible for overseeing and monitoring. The Administrator stated it was important to ensure these things listed above were complying to ensure the health and safety of the residents. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Sanitization, revised 10/2008 indicated, .the food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner . 11. For fixed equipment or utensils that do not fit in the dishwashing machine, washing shall consist of the following steps: a. equipment will be disassembled as necessary to allow access of the detergent/solution to all parts; b. removeable components will be scraped to remove food particles accumulation and washed according to manual or dishwashing procedures . Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Thaw Frozen Leftovers Safely, indicated, . this policy outlines the safe methods for thawing frozen leftovers to ensure food safety and prevent foodborne illness 1. Refrigerator Thawing . thawed food should be used within 3 days . Record review of the facility's policy titled, Food Receiving and Storage, revised 07/2014 indicated, . food shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices .7. Dry foods that are stored in bins will be removed from original packaging, labeled and dated .8. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated . Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Hair Restraint in Food Services, indicated, .the purpose of this policy to establish guidelines for employees to follow when it comes to hair restraint in food service kitchens. Hair restraint is an essential component of maintaining a safe and sanitary environment in a food service kitchen and is necessary to prevent contamination of food 1. All employees working in the kitchen or food preparation areas must always wear a hair restraint Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Refrigerator and Freezer Log Maintenance indicated, . to ensure the safety and quality of food storage, this policy outlines the importance and procedures for maintaining a refrigerator and freezer log twice a day. Regular monitoring and documentation of temperatures are crucial in preventing food spoilage and ensuring compliance with food safety standards .maintaining a refrigerator and freezer log twice a day is mandatory in our establishment .5. Log Review . Logs will be reviewed daily by the kitchen supervisor to ensure compliance and to address any issues promptly
May 2023 12 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment that was free of accident hazar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment that was free of accident hazards for 2 of 14 residents (Resident #17 and Resident #184) reviewed for accidents hazards from hot coffee. The facility failed to ensure safety measures were in place after Resident #184 received a second-degree burn (burns that involve the epidermis and part of the lower layer of skin, the dermis. The burn site looks red, blistered, and may be swollen and painful) from hot coffee that required treatment. The facility failed to ensure safety measures were in place to prevent Resident #17 from obtaining an injury from hot coffee. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 05/09/23. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 11:14 a.m., While the IJ was removed on 05/10/23 at 4:14 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of actual harm due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These failures could place residents at risk for serious burns, infection and even death. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident 184's face sheet dated 12/02/20 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including transverse radius fracture (wrist break), cerebrovascular accident (stroke - when blood flow to the brain is blocked), Dementia (impaired ability to remember), and depression (feeling sad). Record review of Resident #184's significant change in status MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #184 was severely impaired (BIMS score was 02). The MDS indicated Resident 184 required total assist with transfers, dressing, bathing, extensive assist with bed mobility and supervision with eating. The MDS indicated Resident #184 had other skin problems requiring treatment. Record review of Resident #184's physician order summary report dated for the month of November 2022 did not indicate a treatment order for right upper leg. Record review of Resident #184's comprehensive care plan dated 12/01/22 indicated she was at risk for skin breakdown as evidenced by incontinence, impaired bed mobility and cognitive impairment. The interventions were to assist with repositioning as needed, give medication as ordered, assess skin weekly and report any changes to the physician. Record review of an incident report dated 11/19/22 at 7:00 a.m., indicated Resident #184 obtained three reddened areas to right upper leg from coffee spill. Area #1 measured approximately 3cmx2cm, area #2 measured approximately 5cmX1cm, and area #3 measured approximately 8cmX2cm. Resident #184 did complain of pain and received Morphine (pain medication) 0.25ml for pain. Resident #184 received a new order to apply Silvadene cream (medication to help heal burns) to affected areas twice daily for seven days. The incident report indicated the DON was notified on 11/19/23 at 8:10 a.m. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:09 p.m., LVN B said she was the nurse who assessed Resident #184 after staff reported she had spilled coffee on herself. LVN B said Resident #184 originally had three reddened areas but after reassessing after breakfast she developed a blister to area #3. LVN B said she notified the physician and received new treatment orders. LVN B said she did not know this was a reportable incident, but she reported the incident to the DON on 11/19/22. During an interview and observation on 05/07/23 at 9:40 a.m., observed two coffee pots sitting on side table assessable to residents, visitors, and staff. Dishwasher BB tested temperature on both coffee pots. The first coffee pot temperature was 147-degree Fahrenheit and second coffee pot temperature was 140-degree Fahrenheit. Dishwasher BB said she did not test the temperature of the coffee before pouring into the coffee pots. During an observation and interview on 05/08/23 at 1:41 p.m., observed two coffee pots sitting on side table assessable to residents, visitors, and staff. Dishwasher CC tested temperature on both coffee pots. The first coffee pot temperature was 149- degree Fahrenheit and second coffee pot temperature was 142-degree. Dishwasher CC said she had never tested the temperature of the coffee. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 1:42 p.m., the dietary manager said coffee pots were assessable to everyone on the side table. He said the coffee temperature was not checked prior to leaving the kitchen. The dietary manager said he was aware a resident received a coffee burn sometime last year but could not remember who. He said he was unaware of Resident #17's hot coffee spill on 05/05/23. He said they did not implement any changes in the kitchen after the Resident #184 received burns from the hot coffee. The dietary manager said he was not aware the coffee should have been checked prior to leaving the kitchen. The dietary manager said he tested the coffee periodically but did not have a log. The dietary manager said he would start a temperature log for the coffee. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 4:22 p.m., the DON said she was aware Resident #184 obtained a coffee burn but did not realize it needed to be reported to HHS. The DON said she thought if they knew what happen it was not reportable. The DON said they put a plan in place for Resident #184 which included supervision for meals and a two handled cup for safety after the coffee spill. The DON said they did not do any in-services or implement a plan for other residents who might be at risk of coffee burns because she had implemented a plan for Resident #184 and did not think about any other residents who might had been at risk. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 4:28 p.m., the ADON said she was aware Resident #184 received a coffee burn the following Monday, 11/21/22 after the incident occurred. The ADON said she was not aware this type of incident needed to be reported since they were aware of how the incident occurred. The ADON said she did not look at any other residents who could have been at risk because they implemented a plan for Resident #189 During an interview on 05/08/23 at 4:39 p.m., the Administrator said initially she was not aware Resident #184 had a burn from the coffee. The Administrator said at some point later she became aware Resident #184 had a burn. She said she did not report to HHS because they had implemented a plan to protect Resident #184 from further burns and when they tested the coffee shortly after Resident #184 spilled the coffee on herself, the temperature was within their policy range of 133-degree Fahrenheit. The ADM said she did not think about the risk of other residents after she learned about Resident #184 because it was an isolated event and they had implemented a plan for Resident #184. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 10:39 a.m., the facility physician said Resident #184 had a second degree burn from the spilled hot coffee. 2. Record review of Resident 17's face sheet dated 03/20/20 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychotic disorders (severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions), peripheral vascular disease {PVD} (problem with poor blood flow), arthritis (swelling and tenderness of joints), and Parkinson (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, and difficulty with balance and coordination). Record review of Resident #17's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #17 was moderately impaired (BIMS score was 08). The MDS indicated Resident 17 required limited assistance with personal hygiene, dressing and supervision with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and eating. The MDS indicated Resident #17 was continent of bowel and bladder. Record review of Resident #17's comprehensive care plan dated 02/16/23 indicated he had cognitive impairment as evidenced by memory problems and impaired ability to make daily decisions. The interventions were to explain all procedures, allow time for task, and reorient as needed. Resident #17 was on a regular diet and needed supervision for eating. The interventions were to assist with setup, explain to Resident #17 where his food was using the clock method due to his blindness. Record review of Resident #17's incident report dated 05/05/23 at 8:15 p.m., revealed Resident #17 spilled his coffee on his left thigh and obtained a 3-inch X 1-inch reddened area to his left thigh area. During an observation on 05/09/23 at 7:21 a.m., several residents in dining room for breakfast and observed Resident #12 spilling coffee on his shirt while drinking. Resident #12 noted with tremors and had to have his other hand to help with mobility while drinking coffee. During an observation and interview on 05/09/23 at 08:25 a.m., Resident #17 was sitting up in a wheelchair in his room. Resident #17's left upper leg assessed with no injuries noted. Resident #17 said his left leg/thigh was fine. Resident #17 did not recall what happened 05/05/23 on the evening of the coffee spill. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:16 p.m., CNA F said she was the aide who took Resident #17 the coffee. CNA F said Resident #17 was sitting in his wheelchair when she brought in the coffee. CNA F said she was supposed to tell Resident #17 where his coffee was located because he was blind CNA F said before she could tell Resident #17 where his coffee was located on the table, he knocked it over spilling it on himself and the floor. CNA F said Resident #17 was wearing grey sweatpants when the coffee spilled. CNA F said she assisted Resident #17 to change his clothes, but she did not see any marks because he covered himself up. CNA F said she notified the nurse and then left the room. During an interview on 05/09/23 at 8:34 a.m., LVN E said she was the nurse on duty when Resident #17 spilled coffee on himself. LVN E said she assessed his left leg and noted a small, reddened area to his left inner thigh. LVN E said she did not think much about the reddened area because it was small, and Resident #17 said it was fine and he did not complain of pain. LVN E said she made a note about the coffee spill in the physicians' book at the nurse's station. LVN E said the physician would check the book on his next rounds. LVN E said she did not report Resident #17's reddened area to the physician because he did not have any visual openings to his skin; he had no pain, and it was a minor change. LVN E said it was important to notify the physicians of changes, but she did not feel this was anything major, so she did not notify the doctor. LVN E said she did not report the coffee spill on 05/05/23 to the DON or administrator because it was a redden area, it was not serious, and she knew what happened. LVN E said she did not realize the redden area from the coffee spill was considered a first-degree burn. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 10:39 a.m., the facility physician said Resident #17 had a first degree burn from spilled hot coffee. Record review of Resident #17's nurses note charted by LVNE dated 05/05/23 at 9:00 p.m., revealed Resident #17 spilled coffee on his left thigh. Denied pain. Red area 3-inchX1-inch noted to front of left thigh. Record review of Resident #17's nurses note dated 05/05/23 at 9:00 p.m., did not indicate any notification to physician, nurse managers or administrator. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:36 p.m., the ADON said she was not aware of hot coffee spilling on Resident #17's left thigh until Monday 05/08/23. The ADON said she was not aware this type of incident needed to be reported to HHS since they were aware of how the incidents occurred. The ADON said she now knows this was a reportable event. The ADON said because they initiated the hot liquid safety assessment on 05/09/23 she did identify some residents who would benefit from some added safety such as: assist with hot liquids, drink hot liquids only at the table or drink hot liquids in a cup with a lid. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:53 p.m., the DON said when any abnormal incidents occur such as a burn the nurses were supposed to call her or the administrator. The DON said she was not aware of Resident #17's coffee burn on 05/05/23 but identified it on 05/08/23. The DON said she did not know it needed to be reported to HHS. The DON said she after reading the reporting letter she was aware of the criteria of what to report to HHS. The DON said failure to investigate incidents properly could delay safety for others. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 3:26 p.m., the administrator said she became aware on 5/8/23 of Resident #17's coffee burn that occurred on 05/05/23. The administrator said she was not aware why staff had not reported the incident on 05/05/23. The administrator said she was the abuse coordinator and should have been notified when Resident #17 obtained the coffee burn. The administrator said she reread the guidelines for reporting to HHS on 05/09/23 and realized she should have reported Resident #184's and Resident #17's coffee burn within 2 hours after learning about them both. Record review of the facility policy titled, Accidents, Incidents, investigating and reporting, dated July 2017, indicated All incidents or accidents involving residents .occurring on our premises shall be investigated and reported to the administrator. The nurse supervisor or charge nurse shall promptly initiate and document investigations of the or accident. The nurse supervisor or charge nurse shall complete a report of incident/accident form and submit the original to the director of nurse's services within 24 hours of the incident or accident. The director of nurse's shall ensure the administrator receives a copy of the report of incident/ accidents for each occurrence. Record review of the facility policy titled, Abuse prevention, dated May 2017, indicated The facility will assure that all residents are free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, neglect, and misappropriation of property. #4 E all injuries to a resident will have an incident report completed. Injuries of unknown origin will be investigated. Administrator and director of nursing will determine what injuries are to be reported to HHS per regulation. #7 the administrator will report all abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property allegations to HHS per regulation. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation on 05/09/23 at 10:33 a.m. The Administrator was notified. The Administrator was provided with the IJ template on 05/09/23 at 11:04 a.m. and requested a Plan of Removal (POR). The Plan of Removal (POR) was accepted on 05/10/23 at 2:14 p.m. and indicated the following: Immediate action: Implement measures to prevent other coffee spills with burns. Immediate removal of coffee from dining room coffee will be kept in the kitchen completed 5/9/23 at 10:45 AM. Coffee temperature immediately lowered to 110 degrees by adding ice. Coffee temperature will be maintained in a thermos. All hot liquids will be served at a safe temperature from our kitchen, per our policy for the safety of all residents. Completed 5/9/23 at 10:45 AM. Kitchen staff will check temperature of all hot/warm liquids before it leaves the kitchen. Resident #17 was screened by physical therapy and a recommendation of a cup with lid, screen completed 5/9/23 at 11:00 AM. In service all staff on setting up meals/drinks for all residents started on 5/9/23 by DON. (All staff to have in service completed prior to working next scheduled shift) currently 33 out of 39 staff members have been in-serviced. To be completed by 5/9/23. All staff in-serviced on safety procedures for serving hot liquids/coffee completed 5/9/23 by DON. (All staff to have in service completed prior to working next scheduled shift) currently 33 out of 39 staff members have been in-serviced. To be completed by 5/9/23. Added in-service on safety procedures for serving hot liquids to hire pack for all new employees to complete prior to working. Completed by business office 5/9/23. Hot liquid assessments to be done today for all residents 5/9/23. Completed on 5/9/23. Hot liquid assessments to be completed quarterly and on all admission done by a licensed nurse. Monitor temperature of hot liquid served to resident. All hot liquids will have temperature checked in kitchen prior to being served. Completed by kitchen staff. All kitchen staff will be in-serviced on new hot/warm beverage requirement. Completed 5/9/23 at 11:00 AM. Identify at risk residents: 15 residents at risk, all residents accessed for hot liquid safety done by nurse management 5/9/23. -amended 5/10/2023 coffee temperature per facility hot beverage policy. In-services: Coffee/hot liquid safety Safety procedures for serving hot liquids/coffee Assisting the impaired with in room meals Assistance with meals/snacks Monitoring: Interviews on 05/10/23 from 1:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. revealed the following: Interviews with 2 RNs: DON and RN L (6am-6pm); 1 LVN PRN nurses, (6a-2p),1 LVN B(6a-2p), 2 nurses (2a-10p), LVN B and LVN E (2p-10p), LVN K and LVN G (10p-6a), 3 CNA's (6a-2p) CNA N, CNA P and CNA Q,3 CNA's (2p-10p) CNA O CNA R and CNA F and 2 (10-6p) CNA AA and CNA S, 1 laundry T, 3 Housekeepers (8a-4p) Housekeeper U, housekeeper V and housekeeper W, 4 dietary (1p-7p) Dietary X Dietary Y, Dietary Z and cook D, Dietary Manager, Activity Director, ADON, and Adm in-serviced on hot liquid process. All coffee will come from the kitchen. Kitchen staff must test coffee temperature before serving to the residents. All hot liquids must be below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Residents who need lids will be provided a cup with a lid. Record review of the facility policy titled, Hot beverage, dated 05/09/23, indicated Our long-term nursing care facility is committed to providing a safe and comfortable environment for all our residents, including their enjoyment of hot beverages such as coffee and tea. In accordance with state regulations, we have established the following policy regarding the temperature of hot beverages served in our facility. #1 hot beverages served will be cooled to a temperature below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. #2 residents that have been assessed to need hot beverages with a lid will receive their beverages in one. It will be delivered on their tray. #3 the temperature of hot beverages must be checked using a calibrated thermometer to ensure compliance with company policy before being served. #4 the kitchen staff will log the temperature of hot beverages on a hot temperature log once the beverage it is below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. #5 all hot beverages will go out on trays from the kitchen. #6 hot beverages that are not 140 or below must be cooled to 140 degrees Fahrenheit before being served to the resident. #7 all staff members involved in preparing and serving hot beverages must receive training on the proper temperature requirement for coffee and the importance of maintaining these standards. #9 residents who request hot beverages must be served promptly, but only with hot beverages that meet the temperature requirements outlined in this policy. On 05/10/2023 at 4:14 p.m. the Administrator was informed the IJ was removed; however, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of actual harm that was not immediate jeopardy with a scope identified as pattern due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 17) reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to notify the physician for Resident #17 after LVN E assessed redness on his left inner thigh from spilled hot coffee. This failure could place residents at risk of their physicians not being aware of the resident conditions and delay treatments for the residents' conditions. Findings included: Record review of Resident 17's face sheet dated 03/20/20 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychotic disorders (severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions), peripheral vascular disease {PVD} (problem with poor blood flow), arthritis (swelling and tenderness of joints), and Parkinson (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, and difficulty with balance and coordination). Record review of Resident #17's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #17cognition was moderately impaired (BIMS score was 08). The MDS indicated Resident 17 required limited assistance with personal hygiene, dressing and supervision with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and eating. The MDS indicated Resident #17 was continent of bowel and bladder. Record review of Resident #17's comprehensive care plan dated 02/16/23 indicated he had cognitive impairment as evidenced by memory problems and impaired ability to make daily decisions. The interventions was to explain all procedures, allow time for task, and reorient as needed. Record review of the physicians' book revealed a note dated 05-05 with no year or time. Resident #17 spilled hot coffee on his left thigh, area red. Record review of nurse note dated 05/05/23 at 9:00p.m., revealed, Resident #17 spilled coffee on his left thigh. Denies pain. Red area 3 X 1 inch noted to front of thigh. Record review of nurses noted dated 05/05/23 at 9:00p.m., did not indicate the physician had been notified. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:16 p.m., CNA F said she was the aide who took Resident #17 the coffee. CNA F said Resident #17 was sitting in his wheelchair when she brought in the coffee. CNA F said before she could tell Resident #17 where his coffee was located on the table, he knocked it over spilling it on himself and the floor. CNA F said Resident #17 was wearing grey sweatpants when the coffee spilled. CNA F said she assisted Resident #17 to change his clothes but she did not see any marks because he covered himself up. CNA F said she notified the nurse and then left the room. During an interview on 05/09/23 at 8:34 a.m., LVN E said she was the nurse on duty when Resident #17 spilled coffee on himself. LVN E said she assessed his left leg and noted a small, reddened area to his left inner thigh. LVN E said she did not think much about the reddened area because it was small and Resident #17 said it was fine and he did not complain of pain. LVN E said she made a note about the coffee spill in the physicians' book at the nurse's station. LVN E said the physician would check the book on his next rounds. LVN E said she did not report Resident #17's reddened area to the physician because his skin was not opened; he had no pain and it was a minor change. LVN E said it was important to notify the physicians of changes, but she did not feel this was anything major, so she did not notify the doctor. LVN E said she did not report the coffee spill on 05/05/23 to the DON or administrator because it was a redden area, it was not serious and she knew what happened. LVN E said she did not realize the redden area from the coffee spill was considered a first-degree burn (affects the epidermis, or outer layer of skin). During an observation and interview on 05/09/23 at 08:25 a.m., Resident #17 was sitting up in a wheelchair in his room. Resident #17 said his left leg/thigh was fine. Resident #17 did not recall what happened 05/05/23 on the evening of the coffee spill. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:36 p.m., the ADON said the physician should have been notified of the redness to Resident #17's leg from the coffee spill. The ADON said she expected the nurses to pick up the phone and notify the physician of any changes. She said it was important to notify the physician of any resident's changes so they would be aware and in case they wanted to order something new or stop something. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:53 p.m., the DON said she expected nurses to notify the physician of all changes whether minor or major. The DON said the charge nurses were responsible to notify the physician of any changes and her and the ADON were to follow up. The DON said without notification, the physician would not know if a resident had a change. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 3:26 p.m., the Administrator said she expected nursing staff to notify the physicians of any changes to the residents. The Administrator said administration nurses were to follow up on notifications. The Administrator said failure to notify the physician could impede the resident's care. Record review of facility policy change of condition, observing, reporting and recording dated May 2017 indicated, It is the policy of this home to inform the resident, the resident's physician and if indicated the residents responsible party of the following: #1 an accident or incident involving the resident which results in injury as it has the potential for requiring physician intervention. #2 a significant change in the residence physical, mental, or psychosocial status, such as a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status, and life-threatening conditions or clinical complication. #4 A need to alter treatment significantly.
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-center...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 14 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident #30) The facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #30's right wrist and hand contractures. This failure could place the residents at increased risk of not having their individual needs met and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 12/30/2022, indicated Resident #30 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified fracture of upper end of right humerus (break in the lower end of the upper arm), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), and unspecified atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heart rate). Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #30 usually made self-understood and sometimes understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #30 had a BIMS score of 11, indicating her cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #30 required supervision for bed mobility, transfer, toilet use, and eating, limited assistance for dressing, walking, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #30 had a range of motion limitation in the upper extremity on one side. Record review of the Comprehensive Plan of Care and the Interdisciplinary Care Plan both dated 01/19/2023, indicated Resident #30 did not have a plan of care for her right hand and wrist contractures. Record review of Resident #30's physician's order dated 3/1/23, indicated OT (occupational therapy) consult diagnosis right wrist drop due to post-surgical please evaluate for splint and assist patient with splint application. Record review Resident #30's physician's order dated 04/12/23, indicated to discontinue carrot splint to right hand and continue previous hand splint to right hand as needed due to resident takes off per self. During an observation on 05/07/23 at 10:05 AM, Resident #30's right hand was with a downward contracture of her wrist. Resident #30's fingers were contracted to her palm with minimal movement. Resident #30 did not have a splint in place to her right hand. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 1:36 PM, LVN B said the care plans were updated by the ADON. LVN B said Resident #30's right wrist drop (contracture) should have been care planned so Resident #30 could maintain some movement to her right hand. LVN B said the care plan would therefore indicate the interventions being provided. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 01:55 PM, the ADON said she was responsible of updating the care plan. The ADON said she updated the care plan as soon as she received an order or when she completed an MDS. The ADON said Resident #30's right wrist drop (contracture) should have been care planned and was somehow missed. The ADON said by not having it care planned the staff would be not know that Resident #30 had limited movement to her right hand. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 02:29, the DON said the ADON was responsible for updating the care plans. The DON said Resident #30's limited range of motion to right hand should have been care planned because she had a physical limitation and could not use her right hand. The DON said by Resident #30 not having her right wrist drop (contracture) care planned could cause staff to be unaware of her limitation to her right hand. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 3:02 PM, the Administrator said she expected the care plans to be person centered and more detailed. The Administrator said the ADON was responsible of updating the care plans. The Administrator said by not care planning Resident #30's right wrist drop (contracture), new staff would be unaware of Resident #30's limitation to right hand. Record review of the facility's policy last revised December 2016, titled, Care plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, indicated, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident .
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received necess...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident #20) LVN A failed to change his gloves while providing wound care for Resident #20. This failure could place residents at risk of complications which include worsening of existing wounds, development of new wounds, and infection. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 04/29/2022, indicated Resident #20 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified sequalae of cerebral infarction (stroke), essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure), and type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar). Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #20 usually made self-understood and sometimes understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #20 had a BIMS score of 5, indicating his cognition was severely impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use, and total dependence with dressing, personal hygiene, and bathing. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #20 did not have any unhealed pressure ulcers. Record review of the Comprehensive Plan of Care dated 05/10/2022, indicated Resident #20 had a Stage 2 (skin breakdown resulting in an opened wound) pressure ulcer and an approach to give medications as ordered, monitor labs, and report abnormal symptoms to the medical director. Record review of Resident #20's physician's order dated 05/08/23, indicated she had an order to apply Aquaphor to two stage 2 areas to buttocks every shift until resolved and to clean areas with normal saline before applying Aquaphor. During an observation and interview on 05/09/23 at 3:18 PM, LVN A entered Resident #20's room to provide treatment to her coccyx wounds. During the procedure LVN A failed to change his gloves after cleaning Resident #20's wound and before applying the Aquaphor ointment. LVN A said he was responsible for providing wound care as ordered and per policy. LVN A said he should have changed his gloves after cleaning Resident #20's wounds but did not. LVN A said failure to change his gloves placed Resident #20 at risk for infection. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 11:16 AM, the ADON said they could not find LVN A's wound care competency skill evaluation. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 1:55 PM, the ADON said she expected LVN A to change his gloves after cleaning Resident #20's wounds. The ADON said when going from dirty to clean gloves should be changed and hand hygiene performed. The ADON said if they were not changed the resident was at risk for cross contamination. The ADON said LVN A was responsible for ensuring he performed proper wound care. The ADON said wound care competency skill evaluations were done annually. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:29 PM, the DON said she expected gloves to be changed when going from dirty to clean areas. The DON said she expected wound care to be done per policy and procedure and for the infection control guidelines to be followed. The DON said LVN A was responsible for ensuring he followed infection control policy and procedure. The DON said LVN A not changing his gloves after cleaning Resident #20's wound placed her at risk for infection. The DON said she had not completed the wound care evaluations for the nurses. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 3:02 PM, the Administrator said she expected wound care to be done appropriately and expected LVN A to have changed his gloves after cleaning Resident #20's wounds. The Administrator said LVN A not changing his gloves placed Resident #20 at risk for infection. The Administrator said wound care competency evaluations should be completed upon hire and annually. The Administrator said the DON and ADON were responsible for ensuring those evaluations were completed. The Administrator said LVN A was responsible for ensuring he followed infection control policy and procedure. Record review of the facility's policy last revised October 2018, titled, Standard Precautions, indicated, . 2. a. Gloves (clean, non-sterile) are worn when in contact with bloody, body fluids, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, and other potentially infected material . e. Gloves are changed as necessary, during the care of a resident to prevent cross-contamination from one body site to another (when moving from a dirty site to a clean one .).
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 residents requiring respiratory care were...

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 residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Residents #24). The facility failed to ensure Resident #24 had an oxygen concentrator filter in place. This failure could place residents who require respiratory care at risk for respiratory infections and exacerbation of respiratory disease. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #24's face sheet dated 01/10/23 indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses Alzheimer's Disease (a neurodegenerative disease that slowly and progressively worsens), fracture of right hip, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a progressive lung disease with log-term respiratory symptoms and airflow limitations), high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Record review of Resident #24's most recent quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had a BIMS score of 9 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #24 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion in her wheelchair, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. The MDS in section O did not indicate resident had oxygen. Record review of the care plan revised on 04/13/23 indicated Resident #24 had a condition called Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and she was at risk for symptoms such as cough, mucous, shortness of breath, and/or wheezing. Interventions included Resident #24 was to be administered oxygen therapy as needed. The care plan interventions also included, monitor for respiratory symptoms, and notify physician of unrelieved symptoms. Record review of Resident #24's Physician orders dated May 2023 indicated she had an order: May have O2 (Oxygen) at 2-4liters/minute via nasal cannula to keep saturations above 90% or shortness of breath with a start date of 01/19/23. During an observation and interview on 05/07/23 at 09:42AM, an oxygen concentrator was to the right side of Resident 24's bed. There was no filter in the oxygen concentrator filter slot. Resident #24 had oxygen on via nasal canula and it connected to the concentrator. The concentrator was set at 3 liters/minute. Resident #24 said she was not aware of the staff changing her filter. During an observation on 05/08/23 at 09:13AM, Resident #24 was in her bed. She wore her nasal cannula, and it was connected to the oxygen concentrator to the right of her bed. The oxygen was set at 3L/min. There was no filter in the oxygen concentrator. During an observation on 05/09/23 at 10:15AM, Resident #24 was in her bed. She wore her nasal cannula, and it was connected to the oxygen concentrator to the right of her bed. The oxygen was set at 3L/min. There was no filter in the oxygen concentrator. During an observation and interview on 05/10/23 at 01:50PM, Resident #24's oxygen concentrator sat to the right side of her bed. There was no filter in the oxygen concentrator. LVN B said there should always be a filter in Resident #24's oxygen concentrator and was not sure how it was missing. LVN B said filters on the oxygen concentrators were important because they filtered dust and debris and bacteria away from the resident. LVN B said the 10-6 nurses were responsible to ensure oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned and replaced weekly on Wednesday nights. LVN B said if she would have noticed there was no oxygen filter in place in Resident #24's oxygen concentrator she would have replaced it. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 02:23PM, the DON said it was the night shift's nurse responsibility to ensure oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned and replaced weekly (every Wednesday night). The DON said she expected all nurses to ensure the filters were in place and to replace filters if they noticed one was missing from a concentrator. The DON said there was not currently a system in place, other than the scheduled Wednesday night care related to oxygen filters. The DON explained the medication administration record or treatment administration record did not have a sign off area. The DON said it was important for oxygen filters to be in place/clean in the concentrators because the lack of the filter or a filter covered in dust could increase residents' risk for respiratory infections and respiratory complications. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 02:51PM, the administrator said she expected residents' oxygen concentrator filters to be clean and in place. The administrator said the 10-6 shift charge nurses were responsible for changing the filters and tubing out weekly, but she expected all staff to be observant of the concentrators during rounds on the halls. The administrator said it was important for the filters to clean and in place to prevent residents from having breathing, or lung problems. The facility policy Oxygen Administration dated October 2010 did not include information about the oxygen concentrator filter.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medications were not given unless ...

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 psychotropic medications were not given unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident #26) The facility failed to have an appropriate diagnosis or adequate indication for the use of Resident #26's Seroquel (antipsychotic medication used to treat certain mental/mood disorders such as schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder). This failure could place residents at risk of receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications with possible medication side effects, adverse consequences, decreased quality of life and dependence on unnecessary medications. Findings include: Record review of Resident #26's face sheet dated 03/02/2023 indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of senile degeneration of the brain (mental loss related to aging, dementia), edema (swelling related to fluid retention), hypertension (high blood pressure), and atrial fibrillation (increased and irregular heart rate). Record review of Resident #26's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #26 did not have a BIMS assessment because he was rarely/never understood related to severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident #26 had a 0 score which indicated he had no signs and symptoms of depression or mood disorder. The MDS indicated Resident #26 had behaviors of wandering daily. The MDS indicated Resident #26 required supervision for transfers, bed mobility, walking, and eating, and limited assistance of one person for dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident #26 had 7 days of antipsychotic medications given over the 7-day look back period and on a routine basis. Record review of Resident #26's comprehensive care plan dated 03/09/23 indicated he had a diagnosis of depression and was at risk for an altered mood. The care plan indicated an intervention for Resident #26 was to take his medication, Seroquel 25mg tablet daily. Record review of Resident #26's physician orders dated April 2023 indicated Resident #26 had an order for Seroquel (Quetiapine) 25mg tablet by mouth twice daily for the diagnosis senile degeneration of the brain that started on 03/01/23. Record review of the Consent for Antipsychotic and Neuroleptic Medication Treatment dated 03/01/23 indicated that Resident #26 was taking Seroquel 25mg tablet 1 by mouth twice daily for Alzheimer's Disease and dementia with behavior disturbances and depression. During an observation on 05/07/23 at 10:33AM Resident #26 was sitting in his recliner sleeping with visible unlabored respirations. Resident had his call light within reach, walker and water. He had no extrapyramidal symptoms noted. During an observation on 05/10/23 at 1:35PM Resident #26 was walking with his walker, with an unsteady gait and posture, in the front lobby talking with another male resident. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 11:08AM the medical director said dementia with agitation was a standard use with the antipsychotic medication Seroquel. He said other interventions should have been placed for Resident #26 prior to using it. The medical director said Resident #26 admitted with the medication and the family was resistant to allowing him to discontinue or reduce the Seroquel dosage. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 02:00PM, LVN A said the medication Seroquel was an antipsychotic and it was not supposed to be used for residents with Alzheimer's Disease or dementia. He said he was accustomed to other medications being used such as Namenda or Aricept. LVN A said he was not aware of Resident #26 having a psychosis diagnosis so he could understand why Seroquel would be considered an unnecessary medication. LVN A said the potential outcome of giving Resident #26 a medication with no relevant indication or diagnosis could cause increase in falls or other adverse side effects of the medication. He said they completed behavior monitoring every shift. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 02:20PM, the DON said Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, nor depression were acceptable diagnosis for residents to take Seroquel. She said Resident #26 had the medication on his orders upon admit. She said she was responsible for talking with the medical director to ensure residents had appropriate diagnosis for medications but overall, the medical director would have to change any diagnosis. The DON said she had talked to the medical director about Resident #26's medication list when he had admitted so that he would review them and provide other alternatives, but the medications were never changed. The DON said the pharmacy consultant had also reviewed the medications and no changes were suggested. The DON said the failure of prescribing Seroquel without having an acceptable diagnosis could have caused Resident #26 to have a decline as well as extrapyramidal symptoms or increased confusion. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 02:55PM, the Administrator said Resident #26 should not have been taking Seroquel for Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, or depression. She said overall the medical director and the DON are responsible for ensuring residents have appropriate diagnosis for medications. She said the failure of not having a proper diagnosis for the antipsychotic medication could cause Resident #26 to have a decline as well as other issues with his care. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 03:15PM the pharmacy consultant said he was unsure about Resident #26's medication without having his file. He said Resident #26 could possibly have an order for Seroquel for adjunct therapy or if resident had failures with other medication trials. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 03:49PM Resident #26's responsible party said she was open to changes with Resident #26 and medications. She said she lived out of town and did not attend care plans, but the facility would call her. She said Resident #26 was prescribed the Seroquel by his neurologist and had been taking the medication for a long time. She was unsure of the date. Record review of the facility policy for Antipsychotic Medication Use revised December 2016 indicated Policy Statement Antipsychotic medications may be considered for residents with dementia but only after medical, physical, functional, psychological, emotional psychiatric, social, and environmental causes of behavioral symptoms have been addressed. Antipsychotic medications will be prescribed at the lowest possible dosage for the shortest period of time and are subject to gradual dose reduction and re-review. Policy and Interpretation and Implementation 1. Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated effective. 2. The attending Physician and other staff with gather and document information to clarify a resident's conditions for which they are indicated and effective . 6. Diagnosis of a specific condition for which antipsychotic medications are necessary to treat will be based on a comprehensive assessment of the resident. 7. Antipsychotic medications shall generally be used only for the following condition/diagnoses as documented in the record, consistent with the definition(s) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (current or subsequent editions): a. Schizophrenia; b. Schizo-affective disorder; c. Schizophreniform disorder; d. Delusional disorder; e. Mood disorders (e.g., bipolar disorder, depression with psychotic features, and treatment refractory major depression); f. Psychosis in absence of dementia; . 11. Antipsychotic medications will not be used if only symptoms are one or more of the following: a. Wandering; b. Poor self-care; c. Restlessness; d. Impaired memory; e. Mild anxiety; f. Insomnia;
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

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 laboratory services were obtained to meet the needs of 1 of ...

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 laboratory services were obtained to meet the needs of 1 of 14 residents reviewed for laboratory services (Residents #25). The facility failed to obtain ordered CBC and BMP levels for Resident #25. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving timely diagnoses, treatment, and services to meet their needs. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #25's face sheet dated 10/11/22, indicated a [AGE] year old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anemia (a condition in which the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells), congestive heart failure (condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), cerebral infarction (also known as a stroke, refers to damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). Record review of Resident #25's comprehensive care plan dated 10/20/22, indicated he had a history of congestive heart failure and was at risk for shortness of breath, chest pain, increased swelling, and blood pressure. The care plan interventions included to give medications as ordered, monitor labs, and report any abnormal labs to the medical director. Record review of Resident #25's MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated he was usually understood and usually understood others. Resident #25's had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 10, indicating he had moderately impaired cognition. Resident #25 required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, and eating. Record review of Resident #25's physician orders for the month of April 2023, indicated he had an order for CBC and BMP every 2 weeks. Record review of Resident #25's medical record indicated CBC results obtained on 04/06/23 and BMP results obtained on 04/05/23.There were no results found for Resident's #25's CBC or BMP for the week of 04/19/23 or the week of 05/03/23. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 1:49 PM, the DON said Resident #25's CBC and BMP had not been collected since 04/06/23. The DON said the lab order must have fallen off the system for the lab to collect. The DON said the lab did not send any notification the order was about to expire and needed to be reinstated. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 11:05 AM, the Medical Director said he expected the lab to be drawn as ordered. The Medical Director said failure to do so could place the resident at risk for not having the proper follow up on specific medical problems. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 1:36 PM, LVN B said when she received a lab order she would write the order and then call the ADON or DON. LVN B said the DON and ADON were the only ones with access to place the lab order in the system for the lab company to obtain. LVN B said she had not seen any notification on lab orders that were about to expire. LVN B said it was important for labs to be drawn as ordered as resident could be anemic and require changes in medication. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 01:55 PM, the ADON said she expected labs to be drawn as ordered. The ADON said the DON and herself were responsible for ensuring the routine labs were placed in the system. The DON said they do not print a lab requisition. The DON said the order was electronically sent to the lab once transcribed. The ADON said lab orders received on the weekend or after hours, the nurse was required to call her so she could therefore place the order in the lab system. The ADON said by not obtaining the labs as ordered placed residents at risk for their health status to decline. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:29 PM, the DON said she expected labs to be obtained as ordered. The DON said they do not have a lab monitoring system in place. The DON said it was her responsibility to ensure the labs were being drawn and the orders were up to date. The DON said the ADON and herself placed the lab orders in the system. The DON said the nurses do not have access to the lab system at this time. The DON said after hours, or weekend lab orders were called to the ADON and she placed the orders through her phone. The DON said the lab company obtained the labs according to what was ordered. The DON said Resident #25 had a history of gastrointestinal bleed and anemia, failure to obtain his labs placed him at risk for his hemoglobin (is the protein contained in red blood cells that is responsible for delivery of oxygen to the tissues) and hematocrit (the percentage by volume of red cells in your blood) to drop and staff to be unaware. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 3:02 PM, the Administrator said she expected labs to be drawn as ordered. The Administrator said Resident #25 was anemic and it was important for his labs to be drawn as ordered to monitor his blood levels. Record review of the facility's policy last revised November 2018, titled, Lab and Diagnostic Test Results- Clinical Protocol, indicated, Assessment and Recognition 1. The physician will identify, and order diagnostic and lab testing based on the resident's diagnostic and monitoring needs. 2. The staff will process the test requisitions and arrange for tests .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

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 notify residents and/or the residents' Responsible Party (RP) or fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify residents and/or the residents' Responsible Party (RP) or families by 5:00 p.m. the following day, after 2 of 2 residents (Resident #'s 14 and 84) test positive for Covid-19. The facility failed to inform residents and/or the residents' RPs/family of Resident #'s 14 and 84's confirmed infections of Covid-19 by the 5:00 p.m. on 12/08/2022 and 03/02/2023. This failure could place residents, families, and responsible parties at risk of not being kept informed on the Covid-19 status in the facility. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #84 face sheet dated 12/08/2022 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of heart disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath. Record review of a nurse note dated 12/07/2022 at 8:00 a.m., LVN A wrote Resident #84 was sent to the local emergency room with shortness of breath, decreased mental status, and a cough. Record review of a self-report 12/08/2022 indicated Resident #84 tested positive at the local hospital emergency room for Covid-19 infection. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 03/07/2023 indicated Resident #14 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of urinary tract infection, diabetes, and dementia (memory loss). Record review of a SARS COV2 (the virus causing Covid 19) lab results dated 02/28/2023 indicated Resident #14 was positive for the respiratory virus Covid-19. 3.Record review of Resident 17's face sheet dated 03/20/20 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychotic disorders (severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions), peripheral vascular disease {PVD} (problem with poor blood flow), arthritis (swelling and tenderness of joints), and Parkinson (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, and difficulty with balance and coordination). Record review of Resident #17's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he was usually understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #17's cognition was moderately impaired (BIMS score was 08). The MDS indicated Resident 17 required limited assistance with personal hygiene, dressing and supervision with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and eating. The MDS indicated Resident #17 was continent of bowel and bladder. Record review of Resident #17's nursing notes for 12/08/2022 and 2/28/2023 did not reveal Resident #17 nor his family was notified of the facility's Covid-19 outbreak. During an interview on 05/08/2023 at 2:04 p.m., the ADON said the notification consists of calling the family/RP of the resident with confirmed Covid-19 and calling the roommate of the resident with confirmed Covid-19. The ADON said then a note was posted on the front door notifying all other family members as they enter to visit. During an interview on 05/10/2023 at 2:18 p.m., the DON said she usually used a resident roster calling the RP/family then checking them off. The DON said she did not chart the calls in the resident's medical record. The DON said she was responsible for ensuring the residents and their RP/family were aware of Covid-19 infections in the facility. The DON said she did not notify the family members. During an interview on 05/10/2023 at 2:30 p.m., the Administrator said she expected the DON to notify the RP/family of the Covid-19 infections since she was the infection preventionist. The Administrator said the RP/family should know so they could decide for themselves if visiting was an option. Record review of a Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19)-Education and Training dated July 2020 indicated residents, visitors, family, and staff are provided educational material and updated information on Covid -19, including signs and symptoms, infection prevention and control, and testing. 4. New suspected or confirmed Covid-19 infections and deaths in the facility are reported to residents and their representatives and families within 24 hours, with a cumulative number reported at least weekly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, administering, and securing of medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, administering, and securing of medications for 1 of 1 nurse's cart and 1 of 2 medication carts (#2 medication cart) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure the nurse's cart was locked when left unattended in the hallway. The facility failed to ensure all medications on the nurses' cart and the #2 medication cart were labeled when opened. These failures could place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion and at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medication. Findings Included: 1. During an observation and interview on 05/09/23 at 09:28 AM, the nurse's cart was on the 100 hall and was unlocked. There was no staff present. LVN B came out of a resident's room, and she said she was the one responsible for leaving the cart unlocked. LVN B said it was her responsibility to lock the cart when left unattended. LVN B said by leaving the cart unlocked and unattended, residents could open the cart and take medications. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 1:55 p.m., the ADON said she expected all carts to be locked when left unattended. The ADON said by not locking the cart, residents could be at risk for getting into the cart and obtaining anything they want or overdosing on medications. The ADON said the person who had the keys for the cart was responsible for ensuring the cart remained locked when unattended. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:29 PM, the DON said she expected the carts to be always locked unless the nurse was getting something from it. The DON said the nurse who had the keys was responsible for ensuring the cart remained locked when leaving unattended. The DON said leaving the cart unlocked the resident was at risk for getting into the cart and taking medications they were not supposed to. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 3:02 PM, the Administrator said she expected the carts to be locked when not in use. The Administrator said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the cart stays locked when not in use. The Administrator said by leaving the cart unlocked, the residents were at risk of getting ahold of something unsafe for them to have. 2. During an observation and interview on 05/07/23 at 11:27 a.m., nurses' cart #1 revealed Resident #7's Lispro insulin was not dated when opened. LVN A said the insulin bottle should have been dated when it was opened. LVN A said he administered Resident #7 12 units of Lispro for her 6:30 a.m. medication pass on 05/07/23. LVN A said he did not notice the bottle was not dated during his 6:30 a.m. morning medication pass. LVN A said all medication should be dated when open. LVN A said without knowing when the insulin was opened it could cause residents to not receive effective medication. During an observation and interview on 05/08/23 at 10:10 a.m., medication cart #2 revealed Fluticasone Propionate 50mg (nasal spray) filled on 3/27/23 with no date when opened for Resident #24, Fluticasone Propionate (nasal spray) 50mg filled 2/1/23 with no date when opened for Resident #8, Debrox ear drops with no date when opened for Resident #27 and quadrivalent influenza (flu) vaccine in fridge with no date when opened. LVN B said she was not aware these medications did not have an opened date on them. LVN B said the nurse or medication aide who opened the medication should have dated them. LVN B said the night nurses usually checked for expired medication on the medication carts and or medication room but it was all nurse's responsibility. LVN B indicated expired medications given to a resident could affect the efficacy of the medication. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 2:08 p.m., the ADON said she expected all medication to be dated when opened. The ADON said the nurse who opens the medication were responsible for dating it. The ADON said by not dating the insulin or other medications when opened the staff will be unaware of when the medication expires. The ADON said residents were at risk for the medications not to work properly. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 4:22 p.m., the DON said she expected all medication to be dated when opened. The DON said the person who first opened the medication was responsible for dating it. The DON said the carts were to be checked daily by the night nurses, but it was her responsibility to oversee the process. The DON said the residents were at risk for ineffective medications. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 3:26 p.m., the Administrator said she expected all medication to be dated when opened and by not doing so, the staff would be unaware of when it expired. The Administrator said the carts were checked by the nurses and the nurse managers were to follow up. The Administrator said failure to date medication could lead to ineffective medication being received. Record review of the facility's policy titled Administering Medications revised April 2019, indicated, .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .12. The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label is checked prior to administering. When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened is recorded on the container. Record review of the facility's policy last revised April 2019, titled, Storage of Medications, indicated, The facility stores all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner . 8. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes containing drugs and biologicals are locked when not in use. 9. Unlocked medication carts are not left unattended .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared and served in a manner that prevented foodborne illness for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food prepara...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared and served in a manner that prevented foodborne illness for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food preparation and serving. The facility did not ensure hair restraints were worn appropriately by Dietary [NAME] C and [NAME] D while they prepared and served residents' food. This failure could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. Findings included: During an observation on 05/07/23 at 11:49 a.m., [NAME] C was not wearing a hair restraint appropriately while serving the lunch meal. [NAME] C's hair was visible outside of the hairnet at the ears and neck. During an observation on 05/08/23 at 11:23 a.m., [NAME] D was not wearing a hair restraint appropriately while preparing the lunch meal. [NAME] D's hair was visible outside of the hairnet at the base of her neck. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 1:45 p.m., [NAME] D said she wore a hair restraint to cover her hair and to prevent hair from falling into the food. [NAME] D touched her hair by the base of her neck and verbalized her hair was not appropriately in the hair restraint. [NAME] D said she had a lot of hair, and it was hard to keep all her hair in the hair restraint. [NAME] D said not having all her hair in the hair restraint could potentially cause food borne illness/contamination. During an interview on 05/08/23 at 1:48 p.m., the dietary manager said he saw [NAME] C and [NAME] D with partial hair out of their hair restraints. The Dietary Manager stated he was the overseer of the kitchen and he did daily spot checks and addressed any issues as needed. The dietary manager said he would do an in-service on the importance of wearing hair restraints and how to properly wear a hair restraint. The dietary manager said it was important to wear hair restraints to prevent hair from contaminating the food. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 11:30a.m., [NAME] C said the hair restraint should cover her whole head. [NAME] C was unable to say why her hair restraint was not covering her whole head. She said the dietary manager had talked with her on 05/09/23 and explained the importance of always keeping her hair in the hair restraint while in the kitchen. [NAME] C said there was a possibility for hair to get into the resident's food if all hair was not completely covered. Record review of in-service dated 05/09/23 revealed, [NAME] C and [NAME] D signed the in-service on hair restraints. Record review of policy hair restraint in food service kitchen indicated, The purpose of this policy was to establish guidelines for employees to follow when it comes to hair restraint in food service kitchens. Hair restraint was an essential component of maintaining a safe and sanitary environment in a food service kitchen and is necessary to prevent contamination of food. The policy applies to all employees who work in the kitchen or food preparation areas of the facility including cooks and dishwasher. #1 all employees working in the kitchen or food preparation areas must always wear a hair restraint. #2 hair restraints must be clean and in good condition. Hair restraints that are dirty torn or frail must be replaced immediately. #3 hair restraints must completely cover all hair on the head, including bangs and sideburns. #8 employees who fail to comply with a hair restraint policy may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an encoded, accurate, and complete MDS discharge assessment ...

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 an encoded, accurate, and complete MDS discharge assessment was electronically completed and transmitted to the CMS System within 14 days after completion for 1 of 2 resident (Resident #3) reviewed for discharge MDS assessments. The facility did not ensure Resident #3's discharge MDS assessment was completed and transmitted within 14 days of completion. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having records completed and submitted in a timely manner as required. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated [DATE] indicated, Resident #3 was initially admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of memory loss and high blood pressure. Record review of a discharge note dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 expired in the facility. During interview with the ADON/MDS coordinator on [DATE] at 3:30 p.m., she said while reviewing the electronic medical record for Resident #3's MDS submissions the discharge MDS dated [DATE] was completed but was not transmitted. The ADON/MDS coordinator said she was unaware she failed to transmit Resident #3's discharge MDS. The ADON said she missed transmitting the discharge MDS for Resident #3 by mistake. The ADON/MDS coordinator said she was responsible for ensuring the MDS was transmitted correctly and timely. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:18 p.m., the DON said the ADON/MDS coordinator was responsible for submitting the MDS' timely and accurately. The DON said the ADON/MDS coordinator used a calendar to monitor the submissions. The DON said she was not auditing the MDS process. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:30 p.m., the Administrator said she expected the MDS' to be submitted timely and accurately. The Administrator said the ADON/MDS coordinator was responsible for ensuring timely submissions of the MDS data. The Administrator said the comptroller monitors the MDS process and advises them how to proceed. The Administrator said transmitting the MDS' late could affect entity payments on behalf of Resident #3. Record review of an Electronic Transmission of the MDS policy dated [DATE] indicated, all MDS assessments and discharge and reentry records are completed and electronically encoded into our facility's MDS information system and transmitted to CMS' QIES Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system in accordance with current OBRA regulations governing the transmission of MDS data. Record review of the MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes policy dated [DATE] indicated, our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. 1. The Assessment Coordinator or designee is responsible for ensuring that resident assessments are submitted to CMS' QIES Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system in accordance with current federal and state guidelines.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, b...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specification established by CMS for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for administration (Fiscal year 2023 for the first quarter October 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022). The facility failed to submit PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) staffing information to CMS for the 1st quarter of the fiscal year 2023. This failure could place residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met. Findings included: Review of the facility's undated staff roster indicated the following: 1 Administrator 3 RN's (included DON) 1 Maintenance person 1 Social Worker 1 Activity Director assistant 11 Licensed vocational nurses (included 1 ADON/MDS Coordinator) 12 CNAs/Medication aide 6 Housekeeping/Laundry Personnel 6 Dietary Personnel (included one Dietary Manager) Record review of the CMS 672 form dated and signed by the ADON on 05/07/2023 that was provided by the Administrator indicated a total of 31 residents in the facility. Record review of the CMS PBJ Staffing Data Report (payroll based staffing), CASPER Report (Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Report)1705 D FY Quarter 1 2023 (October 1- December 31), dated 03/22/2023, indicated the following entry: Failed to Submit Data for the Quarter Triggered .Triggered=No Data Submitted for the Quarter. During an interview on 05/10/2023 at 2:18 p.m., the DON said she was not familiar with the payroll-based journal. The DON said she was unable to find a policy. During an interview on 05/10/2023 at 2:30 p.m., the Administrator said she thought the Comptroller was entering the payroll-based journal data. The Administrator said she was not familiar with the payroll-based journal data.
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.
  • • 23 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $11,148 in fines. Above average for Texas. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 56/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Emory Health And Rehab's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB 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 Emory Health And Rehab Staffed?

CMS rates EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Texas average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Emory Health And Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB during 2023 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 20 with potential for harm, and 2 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 Emory Health And Rehab?

EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 68 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in EMORY, Texas.

How Does Emory Health And Rehab Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Emory Health And Rehab?

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 Emory Health And Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB 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 Emory Health And Rehab Stick Around?

EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 5 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Emory Health And Rehab Ever Fined?

EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB has been fined $11,148 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Texas average of $33,190. 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 Emory Health And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

EMORY HEALTH AND REHAB 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.